So with do you or do you not think a preemptive NUCLEAR attack on Iran is warrented?

Should have read: So with what you know… do you, or do you not, think a preemptive NUCLEAR attack on Iran is warrented?

Eric said: “First there is evidence not just rumor about Iran trying to develop nukes.”

Is there this ‘evidence’ Eric? Would you please provide a link to a government agency, ANY government agency, to verify this?

“They may not be but they decided to go about their “energyâ€? production in a way that deliberatly leaves open the possibility of nuclear weapon production.”

AND?

“There is no proof but there is lots of evidence Iran made sure of that.”

So with do you or do you not think a preemptive NUCLEAR attack on Iran is warrented?

Based on nothing but rumors that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons – not even that they have any, or are anywhere near having any, but just the possibility that Iran is enriching uranium?

OK, I won’t bother with the moral/ethical arguments against. It’s like the torture debate: people who support nuking another country have already decided they don’t care about that.

So, as with the torture debate, let’s try utilitarian argument.

First, does Israel know exactly where those alleged nuclear weapon development sites are? Because “pinpoint” nukes will only be effective if they do. As a cautionary note, I refer interested parties to last summer’s war in Lebanon as a sign that Israeli intelligence isn’t quite up to its vaunted reputation. As further cautionary notes, that’s in contrast to the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear weapon development facility, when Israel did know exactly what to hit, and didn’t use nukes.

Also, as with calls for the US to bomb Iran, the people calling for Israel to nuke Iran have this really insane notion that there won’t be serious consequences, or that if there are, only Israel will suffer them. The first notion is laughably stupid, esp. since the Arab world already thinks the US is making war on Islam AND already thinks Israel is nothing more than a US catspaw. There is no way Israel could nuke Iran and not have the entire Arab world blame the US. As to the second notion: isn’t it a trifle disingenuous to say Israel “must” nuke Iran for its own protection and then say, if there are any consequences, it won’t have anything to do with the US and too bad for Israel?

Finally, people who think nuking Iran is a good idea are also the people who think we’re in a global war with Islam. We’re not. But nuking Iran is a great way to ensure that we wind up in one. Any guess what Pakistan might do in that situation?

Also, I’ve got news for y’all: being the country that encouraged/connived with another one to nuke a nation that hasn’t invaded anyone, that no one was at war with, that has not been proven to have nukes, and that hasn’t violated any treaties it’s signed… might not bring the rest of the world in on our side.

Michael van der Galien said: “Besides… it’s – again – not going to happen people. At least, it seems very, very unlikely to me.”

You’re right Michael, I hope.

However, seeing comments from moderate bloggers that seem to give justify (some even seeming to promote) a premptive nuclear strike on a soverign nation based on nothing more than rumor and fear should make us all sit up and look at what we’re saying and doing. We’re the adults… Right?

This is just saber ratlling, if Israel does this all Moderate Arab states would have to worry about an Islamic rebellion.

People will get angry, but that will be about it.

Are you nuts? If the first use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki is an unprovoked attack by Israel against a Muslim nation they’d prove to the Muslim world that Israel with WMD’s cannot be accepted. Every neighbor of Israel would start developing these weapons. OBL will have won the propaganda war and recruiting for Al Qaeda will skyrocket. And of course, they’d have legitimized the use of nuclear weapons, either by proving that they’re just a bigger bomb or that massive attacks are acceptible.

it will be very specific. It will not destroy Iran, nor will it cause lots of people to be infected by radiation.

There’s no guarantee that Israel has “precision” nukes. No guarantee that they’ll be able to dig them deep enough into the ground that most of the radiation won’t escape. And of course, no evidence that the Israeli government would care if it did. If they’ve really gotten to the point where they’d cavalierly use weapons that they’ve denied having for decades we’re in serious trouble. Using the fear of these same weapons as a justification would be quite ironic.

On the other hand… Israel is completely right of course.

I get tired of the Israel is completely right argument. I seem to remember you making the same case for their attacks on Beirut. That bungle ended up as a major victory for Hezbollah and Israel achieved none of its goals in that fiasco.

Nuking Iran would drag the U.S. into a fight with Iran and our soldiers in Iraq would be taking shots from all sides, instead of just from the Sunnis. Any nation that drags us into their wars is no ally.

Maybe then the other countries in the area wouldn’t be quite as worried about matching their advisories ‘tit for tat’.

First and foremost – one must consider the source of this story. The Sunday Times journalist in question Uzi Mahnaimi, is a controversial figure, who co-authored a book with Bassam Abu Sharif, former senior adviser to Yasser Arafat and PLO press officer.

While some may believe he has actual military sources in Israel who use him to leak stories that won’t make it past censors, others think he is used by foreign agents to push stories that embarrass Israel. Still others go farther, calling him unprintable names and charging that that despite the fact he works for a mainstream British newspaper, his sources makes Jamil Hussein look like the White House press secretary.

That being said, it doesn’t seem very likely to me. I think that IF Israel strikes, it will NOT use nuclear mini weapons. Probably just conventional weapons.

On the other hand… Israel is completely right of course. Iran with WMD’s cannot be accepted. This means that Israel has to be absolutely sure that the nuclear sites will be destroyed.

2 – a preemptive strike which did NOT neutralize their sites would be HORRIFIC. ONLY a successful strike would have ANY positives. and the ONLY way to guarantee a successful strike is to use several small tactical nukes.

i think this would be the right thing to do. i think FDR and truman would do it if they were potus now.

neither bush or olmert has shown me that they “got” one tenth the cujones of fdr on his worst day.

more people died in the conventional fire-bombings in japan than the nukes. and it took two to get them to surrender. the first did NOT do it. and the nukes saved more lives than they took. an invasion would have killed more “japs.” MY POINT: we shouldn’t be shy of using nukes. we never forswore first use during the cold war.

we mustn’t forswear first use now.

THANKS FOR THE LINK!

all the best!

peace thru unconditional victory!