Europe and Iranian Nukes

Iran will have nuclear weapons. It's only a matter of time. Why? Well, from their perspective, they have every rational reason to develop them. To their north, they have Russia and it's nukes. To their west, they have Israel and it's nukes. To their east, they have India and Pakistan with their nukes.

The thing, though, is that the Bush administration has said that Iran having nuclear weapons is "unacceptable". This rhetoric may paint the US into a corner with few options.

The Europeans are doing a bang-up job as well. Their approach seems to be predicated on the belief that by tweaking the details of some sort of arrangement that they'll prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. If you believe in arms control, I have some ocean-front property in Hawaii to sell you.

Mark: I don't really care how rational the Iranians' reasons are. I think it's important to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear capability, and I'd be willing to use military force to do so.

MW: I'm NOT saying I think Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing... or something I would particularly like.

I'm saying that we're fools if we think that they're not going to have them eventually.

I'm also saying that mounting an offensive in Iran would be substantially more difficult than our engagement in Iraq... especially when we're still heavily involved in Iraq. We've got enough on our plate with Iraq... a country of 25 million. Iran is a country of 60 million. We'd have a much harder time than our relative walk-in-the-park to Baghdad.

In retrospect, it would've been nice to avoid our big committment in Iraq so we'd have more options on the table for Iran.

Mark: If it had been an otherwise even choice between Iraq and Iran, I would have wanted to invade Iran as well. Alas. As it is, I'm tentatively willing to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from getting any.

MW: I'm not sure how well that would work. If we're going to eliminate their nuclear weapons programs, I'd much rather we surgically destroy the development facilities with non-nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons create too much collateral damage as well as unnecessary risks to innocent civilians.

Mark: Yes, but better there than here.

MW: Iranian civilians dying from either the immediate or delayed effects of nuclear weapons is better than American civilians dying from the same? I disagree.

Innocent civilians are innocent civilians.. regardless of which country or part of the world they're in.

It would also be the second time in the history of the world that nuclear weapons were used. The first was to end a costly war. Does Iran having nuclear weapons measure up to the circumstances of WW2?

If non-nuclear weapons, in a surgical strike, are as effective in eliminating their nuclear weapon development programs... which I believe they are... then there's no real purpose to using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon capability. I suppose there is a profound irony there, though.. but irony itself is not a reason to do something.

Mark: Yes, Iranian innocents dying is better than American innocents dying, particularly if any of those Americans would be people I know.

WW2 wasn't the gold standard of nuclear weapon use that everything else has to measure up to.

If there's no need to use nukes to destroy Iran's capability, then that's great. If there's no other realistic option, though, then I say nuke 'em.

MW: "Yes, Iranian innocents dying is better than American innocents dying"

To you, perhaps... but not to me. As far as double-standards go, that one you've got there is pretty bad.

Do I grieve if someone I know dies? Absolutely. Do I grieve when someone from another country dies? Not really. The thing, though, is that I don't think knowing someone makes their death any worse than someone else's. I can't be as personally affected by the death of a stranger, but that doesn't make that stranger's death any better than the death of someone I know.

Mark: "Do I grieve if someone I know dies? Absolutely. Do I grieve when someone from another country dies? Not really. The thing, though, is that I don't think knowing someone makes their death any worse than someone else's. I can't be as personally affected by the death of a stranger, but that doesn't make that stranger's death any better than the death of someone I know."

Even if you think that the public in Iran bears zero responsibility for tolerating its terrorist regime, it's still better for them to die than for us to die. That's the whole point of "us" and "them". That's why we have families, cities, countries, and so forth... it's the whole basis for civilization! Why buy stock in a company that's not going to put your interests ahead of some other unaffiliated person?

If the choice comes down to us getting nuked or them getting nuked, it's obvious that we're justified in nuking them and saving ourselves. Self-defense is possibly the most fundamental right, the right to value your own life and the lives of your group more than the lives of other people. It's transparently simple.

Is the death of a stranger "better" in some abstract objective sense? I dunno. But it's sure as heck better from my perspective.

MW: "Even if you think that the public in Iran bears zero responsibility for tolerating its terrorist regime"

I don't think that at all. I think the Iranian people need to take their country into their hands. Ideally, they'd overthrow the terrorist regime currently running their country. We should get them to do this on their own... which is also what we should've done in Iraq.

As I've said before, Iraq was a mistake, in my opinion, because we did the Iraqi's job for them and then expected them to value their new-found freedom. You don't get someone to value something by getting it for them. You teach them to value it and acquire it for themselves.

We have an opportunity to do this in Iran.