4 ms·

Attacks against a sovereign nation's scientists and facilities are rogue acts illegal per international law. There are no two ways about it.

leephillips 5y ago
If the choice is between obeying international law and making damn sure that Iran doesn’t get the bomb—I don’t see that as a choice at all.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That kind of thinking is exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons so bad they're willing to sacrifice their economy for a chance at having them. Why would they want to rely on a structure of treaties and international laws for their own protection when the justification for violating those laws and treaties can be as simple as "it seemed like it was worth it?"
  - leephillips 5y ago
    International law is a nice idea, but it only applies to countries that agree it applies to them. The only thing I want Iran to rely on is the certain knowledge that they will be prevented, by literally any means necessary, from developing nuclear weapons. EDIT: I guess there are those who disapprove of Stuxnet because it probably violated some laws. I think it was awesome.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      There's definitely no chance of a country agreeing to follow international law or even norms when the other signatories would take "any means necessary" to achieve their policy goals WRT them. The problem with your plan, even from an amoral realpolitik perspective, is that the Iranian program cannot be prevented forever with 100% certainty. There's a possible future world where they end up with nuclear weapons after 30 years of assassinations, and that's the world where they'd be the most likely to make use of them. There are a lot of ways it could happen - maybe they build two plants and the west only gets one of them, maybe North Korea makes a donation to the cause. Maybe they set up a bunch of innocent scientists in the secret but not secret nuclear theory department and let their enemies waste time clandestinely assassinating their theory group while they manufacture the real weapon based on plans obtained elsewhere. When you're killing civilians, you're in a state of war, and although being in a state of war has had very indirect consequences for the US over the past 50 years, that's not guaranteed to go on forever.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        We are not talking about negotiable issues like access to shipping lanes. We are talking about preventing nuclear holocaust. Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation. I believe them. This is the opposite of amoral, it elevates moral imperatives over formalities. “Any means necessary” is not confined to assassinating individuals. We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel.
        whatshisface 5y ago
        >A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has about 80M innocent civilians living there. Even if you think of the leadership as holding them hostage (not too far from the truth for many countries...), that's a lot of hostages to sacrifice.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Most of whom would be annihilated if Iran got into a nuclear exchange with Israel or another country. And I said nothing about “sacrificing” the population, just crippling the technology. Stuxnet had, I think, one casualty, but severely set back their nuclear program. You’re making a lot of assumptions, not to mention repeatedly editing your comments. Thanks for offering your opinions, but, for these reasons, I don’t think this conversation is going to be productive.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation Do you realize that stating we must use "any means necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb is expressing the desire to obliterate a sovereign nation? What means are acceptable for preventing your possible aggression? >We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. So you're fine killing however many millions of Iranians to prevent them from having the potential to kill a large number of people.
    - Leparamour 5y ago
      How do you feel about Israeli scientists being assassinated? Fair game, too?
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Depends on which ones. If you mean that guy who was reviewer #2, go at it.
        Leparamour 5y ago
        What about Israeli citizens developing offensive cyberwarfare capabilities?
- sofixa 5y ago
  Why is that logic applied for Iran but wasn't for Israel? Who gets to decide which country is "cool" to have with illegal nukes and why?
  - poisonarena 5y ago
    Because Israels government doesn't have any interest in using nuclear weapons on Iran, or the population there. Iran's government states time after time they want to wipe Israel off the map. Whether they would actually do it, I don't know, but it is part of their politics, like other issues are in the USA. Also because Saudi Arabia and Israel, nor any of the other countries we are allied to want them to have nuclear capabilities.
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    At one point the US encouraged Iraq under Saddam to develop nuclear weapons and sent him top advisors, while they were at war with Iran. Thats a huge threat to Iran!
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Thankfully Israel (illegally) put a stop to that. The Gulf Wars would have been fun with a nuclear-powered Iraq ( even though one can make the case that Iraq with nukes would never end up in the situation that forced them into the first Gulf War).
      - Synaesthesia 5y ago
        The Gulf wars were forced by the USA, there were diplomatic options available, that were rejected out of hand and suppressed in the media. But yes highly irresponsible stuff, trying to give Saddam nuclear weapons, taking him off the terror list ... We're pretty much in the nuclear nightmare scenario right now, with everybody's hands poised over the trigger.
        leephillips 5y ago
        And yet Jimmy Carter is still considered a moral paragon. One million dead.
throwawaysleep 5y ago
Attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are approved under throwawaysleep's law. Both laws are of about the same significance.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  > Both laws are of about the same significance. No they aren't in any conceivable universe. I know US or other powerful countries can be and often are bullies to the weaker if its convenient for them, but even strong countries need good friends. And that's one hell of a stupid short-sighted way to lose them, sometimes for good.

leephillips 5y ago

If the choice is between obeying international law and making damn sure that Iran doesn’t get the bomb—I don’t see that as a choice at all.

whatshisface 5y ago
That kind of thinking is exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons so bad they're willing to sacrifice their economy for a chance at having them. Why would they want to rely on a structure of treaties and international laws for their own protection when the justification for violating those laws and treaties can be as simple as "it seemed like it was worth it?"
- leephillips 5y ago
  International law is a nice idea, but it only applies to countries that agree it applies to them. The only thing I want Iran to rely on is the certain knowledge that they will be prevented, by literally any means necessary, from developing nuclear weapons. EDIT: I guess there are those who disapprove of Stuxnet because it probably violated some laws. I think it was awesome.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    There's definitely no chance of a country agreeing to follow international law or even norms when the other signatories would take "any means necessary" to achieve their policy goals WRT them. The problem with your plan, even from an amoral realpolitik perspective, is that the Iranian program cannot be prevented forever with 100% certainty. There's a possible future world where they end up with nuclear weapons after 30 years of assassinations, and that's the world where they'd be the most likely to make use of them. There are a lot of ways it could happen - maybe they build two plants and the west only gets one of them, maybe North Korea makes a donation to the cause. Maybe they set up a bunch of innocent scientists in the secret but not secret nuclear theory department and let their enemies waste time clandestinely assassinating their theory group while they manufacture the real weapon based on plans obtained elsewhere. When you're killing civilians, you're in a state of war, and although being in a state of war has had very indirect consequences for the US over the past 50 years, that's not guaranteed to go on forever.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      We are not talking about negotiable issues like access to shipping lanes. We are talking about preventing nuclear holocaust. Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation. I believe them. This is the opposite of amoral, it elevates moral imperatives over formalities. “Any means necessary” is not confined to assassinating individuals. We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        >A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has about 80M innocent civilians living there. Even if you think of the leadership as holding them hostage (not too far from the truth for many countries...), that's a lot of hostages to sacrifice.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Most of whom would be annihilated if Iran got into a nuclear exchange with Israel or another country. And I said nothing about “sacrificing” the population, just crippling the technology. Stuxnet had, I think, one casualty, but severely set back their nuclear program. You’re making a lot of assumptions, not to mention repeatedly editing your comments. Thanks for offering your opinions, but, for these reasons, I don’t think this conversation is going to be productive.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation Do you realize that stating we must use "any means necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb is expressing the desire to obliterate a sovereign nation? What means are acceptable for preventing your possible aggression? >We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. So you're fine killing however many millions of Iranians to prevent them from having the potential to kill a large number of people.
  - Leparamour 5y ago
    How do you feel about Israeli scientists being assassinated? Fair game, too?
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Depends on which ones. If you mean that guy who was reviewer #2, go at it.
      - Leparamour 5y ago
        What about Israeli citizens developing offensive cyberwarfare capabilities?
sofixa 5y ago
Why is that logic applied for Iran but wasn't for Israel? Who gets to decide which country is "cool" to have with illegal nukes and why?
- poisonarena 5y ago
  Because Israels government doesn't have any interest in using nuclear weapons on Iran, or the population there. Iran's government states time after time they want to wipe Israel off the map. Whether they would actually do it, I don't know, but it is part of their politics, like other issues are in the USA. Also because Saudi Arabia and Israel, nor any of the other countries we are allied to want them to have nuclear capabilities.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  At one point the US encouraged Iraq under Saddam to develop nuclear weapons and sent him top advisors, while they were at war with Iran. Thats a huge threat to Iran!
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Thankfully Israel (illegally) put a stop to that. The Gulf Wars would have been fun with a nuclear-powered Iraq ( even though one can make the case that Iraq with nukes would never end up in the situation that forced them into the first Gulf War).
    - Synaesthesia 5y ago
      The Gulf wars were forced by the USA, there were diplomatic options available, that were rejected out of hand and suppressed in the media. But yes highly irresponsible stuff, trying to give Saddam nuclear weapons, taking him off the terror list ... We're pretty much in the nuclear nightmare scenario right now, with everybody's hands poised over the trigger.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        And yet Jimmy Carter is still considered a moral paragon. One million dead.

throwawaysleep 5y ago

Attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are approved under throwawaysleep's law. Both laws are of about the same significance.

saiya-jin 5y ago
> Both laws are of about the same significance. No they aren't in any conceivable universe. I know US or other powerful countries can be and often are bullies to the weaker if its convenient for them, but even strong countries need good friends. And that's one hell of a stupid short-sighted way to lose them, sometimes for good.