4 ms·

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 achi

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.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I doubt the parent commenter is really all that bloodthirsty, instead they are likely imagining Iran as a country in the abstract sense, without inhabitants.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Saying such things without imaging how it would affect the inhabitants is bloodthirsty even if unintentional. These kinds of actions have consequences for the population.
  - poisonarena 5y ago
    I think parent commenter didn't imply what you are saying he did. He meant surgical strikes on sites and continued assassinations to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Yes. I don’t think a reasonable interpretation of my comment is that I’m in favor of slaughtering the population.
      - checkyoursudo 5y ago
        What exactly do you propose as a reasonable interpretation of "literally any means necessary"? Not literally? Not any?
- unity1001 5y ago
  If 'expressing desire to obliterate a sovereign nation' is basis for anything, then US should have been sanctioned a few times over. Because it does not only talk about doing such stuff, it does that stuff.
sorokod 5y ago
>There's definitely no chance... Shure there is, countries follow their national interest.
unity1001 5y ago
> Iranian program cannot be prevented forever with 100% certainty Beyond that - all it takes for Russia or China to provide Iran with nuclear weapons would be Israel or US pushing it too far. Actually, that may already be something past the point - at this point an attack against Iran will be interpreted as an attack or prelude to attack against Russia or China.

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.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I doubt the parent commenter is really all that bloodthirsty, instead they are likely imagining Iran as a country in the abstract sense, without inhabitants.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Saying such things without imaging how it would affect the inhabitants is bloodthirsty even if unintentional. These kinds of actions have consequences for the population.
- poisonarena 5y ago
  I think parent commenter didn't imply what you are saying he did. He meant surgical strikes on sites and continued assassinations to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Yes. I don’t think a reasonable interpretation of my comment is that I’m in favor of slaughtering the population.
    - checkyoursudo 5y ago
      What exactly do you propose as a reasonable interpretation of "literally any means necessary"? Not literally? Not any?
unity1001 5y ago
If 'expressing desire to obliterate a sovereign nation' is basis for anything, then US should have been sanctioned a few times over. Because it does not only talk about doing such stuff, it does that stuff.

sorokod 5y ago

>There's definitely no chance... Shure there is, countries follow their national interest.

unity1001 5y ago

> Iranian program cannot be prevented forever with 100% certainty Beyond that - all it takes for Russia or China to provide Iran with nuclear weapons would be Israel or US pushing it too far. Actually, that may already be something past the point - at this point an attack against Iran will be interpreted as an attack or prelude to attack against Russia or China.