Destroying Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

[thomass]

This is the type of evil mentality that we are dealing with when it comes to Isalmic Fundamentalist (read terrorists). The Iranian leadership falls into this category. Who do you trust with nuclear weapons? The U.S. or a mentality that would sanction the type of attack described above?

Hello OldRedleg,

I’m glad you’re still monitoring this thread. I have enjoyed your posts and your points.

My honest answer to the question in this post is, I don’t “trust” any government or individual with the responsibilities of possessing nuclear weapons. Perhaps that answer comes as no surprise and maybe it does. Unfortunately, my faith in ANY government or individual to live-up to the responsibilities of possessing destructive power is severely shaken- not just because of current wars, but more from a study of history.

But, to return to the topic of this thread I am very interested to hear your responses to the following. Again, I believe you’ve made it clear that you would agree that a pre-emptive strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran is justified both from the perspective of preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon AND in that such an attack would fall under the auspices of the Church’s “just war” teaching? If I’ve not stated that accurately, please correct me.

I believe a recent poster cited some of the text of the Church’s teaching on the matter and for my purposes (because I don’t have my catechism with me, although I have read this section thoroughly) I trust nothing was quoted out of context. Three of the lines are relavent to the questions I’ve asked in this thread,

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be innefective or impractical

and

there must be serious prostpects for success

and

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

It is my assertion that, AT THE CURRENT TIME, none of these conditions are met. As I have argued previously, I believe that the current belicose attitude of the Iranian leadership is a result, in part, from the change in the regional ballance of power brought about when we removed the Iraqi regime- not a nice bunch of guys but a check to Iran’s desire for regional dominance. My point or question is this-- if we helped create the current situation, what refuge do we have with the Church’s “just war” doctrine?

Furthermore, I am not alone in my assertion that the potential danger of Iran lies in the leadership and NOT IN THE PEOPLE. It is often reported that the people of Iran are not, even now, hostile to the United States. To the extent that this is true, does it not offer viable opportunities for avenues OTHER than military attacks? If so, do we have refuge in the Just War doctrine? Finally, for now, if the reports of a radical leadership, but less radical population are accurate and our attack made the general population more radical would not our attack produce a graver evil than the possession of a nuclear weapon? Seriously, if our attack made definitive enemies out of possible freinds, is this a graver evil that the possession of technology?

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[OldRedleg]

In response to Thomass:

You said:

I don’t “trust” any government or individual with the responsibilities of possessing nuclear weapons.

I say: I have empathy for your position. But the reality is that we live in a world where governments do have nuclear weapons. I would rather put my trust in a stable democratic government’s ability to control and make decision about the use of those weapons than a theocracy like Iran. While we can all wish and pray that the world would disarm I fear that war, and weapons of war, will always be with us.

I believe you’ve made it clear that you would agree that a pre-emptive strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran is justified both from the perspective of preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon AND in that such an attack would fall under the auspices of the Church’s “just war” teaching? If I’ve not stated that accurately, please correct me.

You’ve captured my position correctly. I also agree with you that the conditions of “Just War” have not yet been met when it come to the use of military power against Iran on this issue.

Clearly, we have to exhaust all other realistic methods of pursuading the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons program. I have no doubt of our serious prostpects for success in destroying their nuclear weapons program by force if it come to that. Finally, the use of arms will not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated…which is a nuclear armed Iran.

the potential danger of Iran lies in the leadership and NOT IN THE PEOPLE.

We are once again in agreement here. In my experience and world travels the problem is rarely the common people who just want to work and raise their families. Although there are even exceptions to this rule when it comes to multi-generational ethnic hatred and it’s effects.

The Iranian government is the problem. Not their people. For years now there have been news reports that the Iranian people, the middle class in particular, have not been pleased with the Ayatollahs and Shia law. Freedom and democracy is a powerful beacon to those who live under oppression. However, it is the Iranian government that is calling the shots on this…not their people. Regretfully, innocent people often have to suffer the consequences of their government’s decisions. (By the way, I don’t expect military action against Iran’s nuclear program to have much of any significant direct impact on the Iranian people).

if our attack made definitive enemies out of possible freinds, is this a graver evil that the possession of technology?

A graver evil than Iran with nuclear weapons? Absolutely not.

My position is that Iran wants nuclear weapons because they actually plan to use them. They don’t want them as a deterrence. While the U.S. is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in time of war, we maintain them now as a tool of deterrence against their future use by other nations.

Iran wants nuclear weapons so that it can level the playing field with Isreal and seek it’s ultimate destruction. It also makes puts them in an outstanding position to control the world’s oil reserves that flow out of the Persian Gulf. Their desire has nothing to do with deterrence.

Pax

 

[thomass]

OldRedleg,

Thanks for your response. It would seem we’re the only two still here. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Finally, the use of arms will not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated…which is a nuclear armed Iran.

I guess we part ways at this point.

Regretfully, innocent people often have to suffer the consequences of their government’s decisions. (By the way, I don’t expect military action against Iran’s nuclear program to have much of any significant direct impact on the Iranian people).

True, True. People often suffer because of the decsions made by their leaders. But we’re not talking about decisons made by the Iranian Gov’t. We’re talking about a possible decision by OUR Government to attack another country. If we were to attack their nuclear facilities they would not be suffering because their Gov’t. made decisions, but because we would be saying we were justified in doing so. But more importantly, what exactly do you mean by “any significant direct impact”? It is my understanding that the facilities are deep under ground, scattered throughout the country and concentrated around big population centers. Even if that is completely wrong, some janitor or maintenance guy is going to die when he goes to work that day and I would call that significant and direct.

If the shoe were on the other foot and some country bombed Death Valley without killing a single American, we’d be lining up at the recruiting office. Kill a few thousand Americans on American soil and, well, the world knows what we’ll do. Why would common Iranians not respond the same way, thus becoming our enemies instead of possible freinds?

Iran wants nuclear weapons so that it can level the playing field with Isreal and seek it’s ultimate destruction. It also makes puts them in an outstanding position to control the world’s oil reserves that flow out of the Persian Gulf. Their desire has nothing to do with deterrence.

Notwithstanding your Government service, this is speculation bordering on opinion. While the current regime has certainly stumbled and bumbled from time to time, they are not fools. *Possessing *nuclear weapons gives instant access to a very select club. Using them would produce very different results. Listen, I don’t want Iran or any other country to develop nuclear technology, but the fact that the leadears of the world, and the U.S. in particular have failed at containing the spread of the technology, does not endow us with the right to go around pre-emptively attacking countries. I’m sorry, but your argument has not met the criteria for a “just war” that were cited earlier.

Peace

 

[bobzills]

Unfortunately, there really is no way to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel is know to have them, so other countries in the mideast will reason this way: If Israel has nuclear weapons, shouldn’t my country also be permitted to defend itslef. Already, we are reading in the news concerning the sale of nuclear materials on the black market. And it is known that a scientist in Pakistan was selling blueprints for centrifuges. So there is no stopping this. And everyone suspects that Osama is hiding out in Pakistan. Now Pakistan is a poor country, and what’s more it is unstable. So what is to prevent an insider from divulging these nuclear secrets to Osama?
And what a terrible weapon this nuclear weapon is. There will be firestorms, horrible tortures and flames, huge explosions, people nearby will be either killed instantly or they and their families will suffer horrible damage to their limbs and skin tissue, if there will be anything left. And then what? An enormous radiation cloud will be dispersed in the air and the radiation will last for years and years eating into every form of life. So it is an evil weapon and the USA with 5% of the world’s population possesses 50% of these horrible bombs and chemical and biological weapons. What gives the USA the moral authority to amass these horrific weapons of mass destruction where no one on earth can escape the devastation? It is not a matter of a war between armies as before. It is a matter of enormous evil a huge radioactive firestorm killing millions of innocent people for nothing.
Please support peace. Support PaxChristi.
paxchristi.net/
paxchristi.com/
paxchristiusa.org/

 

[christcnection1]

Big news from a U.S. intelligence report. I hope and pray they are right. It will be interesting to see how the White House responds to this.

cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

 

[thomass]

I must admit I am surprised that the recent release of the Administration’s NIE report, and subsequent response from here and abroad has not yet rekindled interest in this thread.

While the report seems quite complex and I hope to be able to understand it and its conclusions better, there is much to discuss.
President Bush, in his press conference yesterday acknowledges that no actual weapons program exists but chooses to focus on the enrichment of Uranium by the Iranians. He took credit for Iran’s 2003 halt of the weapons program saying that his “policiy is obviously working (paraphrased)” and uses that as justification for no changes in his administration’s policy toward Iran.

Credit for the changes in Iranian policy are probably more effectively laid at the feet of European diplomats who’ve continued their dialogue with the Iranian regime, than with the President’s policy which, as the NIE report indicates, was not in place until AFTER Iran had already made its weapons policy changes.

I was unable listen to the entirety of the press conference but one thing has been nagging me. A reporter asked Pres. Bush when any of this information was available to him. Part of his response acknowledged that the Director of the CIA informed him of “new information” in August, but that he was not informed of details. I listened to his entire response to this question and I don’t believe there was follow up. Ok, so I’m trying to imagine myself as Pres. and a chief intell officer is giving me a heads up on some stuff coming down the pike regarding my policy toward Iran. I could understand that he’s not able, yet, to give me details, but I’m sure I’d pin him to the wall regarding just which direction his intel is heading, right??? And when I pin him to the wall, he’s going to have to say, well it’s looking different than what we said before.

(In fact, the NIE confirms what the International Atomic Energy Agency, and others in the international community were saying about Iran four years ago.)

Ok, so one of my chief intell guys has just given me some useful info which when it is released, AT THE VERY LEAST is going to LOOK like it contradicts what I’ve been saying about Iran for the past couple of years. What do I do now? I decide I’m going to go out and use rhetoric depicting Iran as possibly starting “WWlll” by pursuing nuclear weapons.

I do not presume that I have the last word on understanding this very complex international situation. Unfortunately, nothing my President says or does regarding this question is comprehensible to me at all. Here’s one thing that seems entirely plausible to me. The military and Intelligence community had and or have plausible reason to believe that some factions of Iran’s military were interfering and even attacking us in Iraq-- a situation which simply must be addressed aggressively and with-out delay. Our President and his advisors decide that public opinion regarding that situation will not reach the level necessary for them to take steps to halt that interference, so they add the nuclear (or should I say, “nukular”) threat to their rhetoric to ensure opinion goes their way. I am willing to hear other opinions as to why, once again, when faced with considerable information to the contrary the Administration chooses to pursue the tac which I’ll call the “look they’ve got Weapons of Mass Desctruction, the whole world knows it, let’s bomb them,” strategy.

In an earlier post I said,

More and more we say we are a christian nation and yet, in my opinion in our fear of the world we are more and more ready to kill. This administration used our fear to convince us to kill in Iraq. And we have not learned our lesson if we’re ready to believe, again, that our only resort in preventing Iran from making a bomb, is to kill some more.