Is a nuclear Iran intolerable thus justifying military action to prevent? |
I agree, because nuclear weaponry is too dangerous a thing for them to wield.
Nuclear technology is the most dangerous thing created by mankind. In the hands of the wrong people, it can have some bad consequences. If Iran is not responsible enough, and discloses what's happening with its nuclear program, military action is justified.
Posted by: RobustScot82A nuclear Iran is intolerable because they are just not trustworthy.
I feel that it is easy to justify military action to prevent a nuclear Iran because we really could not trust them if they did have nuclear weapons. I know that there could be some good people, but overall that part of the world just could not be trusted to hold on to something that devastating.
Posted by: eyeslikethatIran has proven they are unpredictable when it comes to nuclear weapons and power.
When it comes to nuclear power or weapons of any kind, there needs to be "clear" justification of its purpose, use and intent-- unfortunately, Iran has proven to be "unpredictable" when it comes to its religious purposes, reasons for war, and intentions for nuclear power, therefore, monitoring of their actions (in my opinion) is justifiable - as the U. S. (and other countries), cannot (and will not) repeat 9/11, or continue living in fear.
Posted by: QuibarceA nuclear Iran justifies military intervention become it is very politically unstable.
A nuclear Iran is intolerable to the international community and does warrant military intervention because it poses a serious threat to the peace of the entire world. An Iran with nuclear capabilities would unsettle peace in the region and create a domino effect of nations scurrying to protect themselves from an irrational regime with ill-intent.
Posted by: ThegaXenA nuclear Iran is intolerable and preventative military action should be used if necessary because Iran is a definite enemy of the United States.
Iran has a fairly stable economy, an ideology that is at odds with most of the free-world, and sadly, a distaste for the United States and other progressive societies. If Iran were to gain nuclear power they would have the power to press their way of life on those around them who were not keen on their way of life. However, they would meet resistance and a nuclear fall-out may occur. The only way to prevent that nuclear fallout would be to use force in a preventative way and head off their attainment of nuclear weaponry.
Posted by: T3ddDemonOf course
As long as they dont threaten other counties, to protect themselves they can use nuclea weapons
Posted by: Prez-ObamaThe government of Iran is based too much on hatred and control to allow them to have nuclear weapons.
Assuming that 'a nuclear Iran' means weaponry, then the sheer volatile nature of the leadership would not allow this to be a possibility. Military action would be necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The government sanctioned level of hate and their ability to rewrite history to support their ideologies is a strong reason as to why their ability to have nuclear weapons should be prevented, including using military actions to do so.
Posted by: 5h4n3GotYou can't let someone who belongs in an insane asylum walk around carrying a gun!
Unfortunately the current leadership in Iran is populated by a man who is an enemy to the world. Sadly, he is either so self deceived that he doesn't see it, or he is crazy. Either way I'm not interested in allowing someone who should be sedated to hold the keys to a terrible deadly weapon. A weapon that could not only hurt others, but his own people as well!
Posted by: MariaRI agree that Iran having any nuclear capabilities should be addressed with military force to stop them ,because they are in a strategic Middle Eastern location, with many surrounding enemies.
Iran having the capability to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed to flourish. Iran has many neighboring countries that would easily become targets for their short and long range nuclear weapons, providing more of a balance of terror than any type of positive aspect to that region. This, in turn, would cause many countries, including superpower nations, such as the United States, Russia and China to take sides, potentially against each other. Iran having access to nuclear weapons would put our world one step closer to World War III and, quite possibly, Armageddon.
Posted by: RacialMorris27Absolutely justifiable to do anything to keep Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Israel and the United States are at the forefront of this possible military effort to keep Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons. The fact is, Arab nations in the region should be the ones taking on this subject. If they are unwilling to do something about Iran, Israel and the U.S. should stop at nothing to eliminate this threat to World security.
Posted by: 5h035BowA nuclear Iran is intolerable and therefore justifies military action to prevent it once diplomatic routes are exhausted.
A nuclear Iran is intolerable and therefore justifies military action to prevent it once diplomatic routes are exhausted. The United Nations has mandated that Iran stop research into nuclear arms and open its doors for inspection and we should first continue to press for diplomatic resolution of this issue. Once this has been exhausted, it is up to the UN, not the United States, to react with a military threat.
Posted by: SilverMathiMilitary action to prevent I ran from nuclear power is acceptable.
I do agree that nuclear power would be good for Iran, however their government has proven to be a threat to other countries to the extent that they should not be allowed to have nuclear abilities. The threat to other countries that could be harmed by the Iranian government if they had nuclear weapons far outweighs the need for nuclear power. It has been proven too many times before that the Iranian government (not the people) cannot be trusted with nuclear abilities and this, in my opinion, does justify military action to prevent.
Posted by: w00tboycomic
Hypocrisy at its best.
The ideas that Iran is a threat to peace is completely bogus.
The Israelis have regularly meddled in Iranian affairs, and they HAVE nuclear weapons.
If anything, a nuclear Iran would STABILIZE the region, considering the presence of a hostile state (Israel) in the region. Note, I am opposed to nuclear weapons and believe that ALL countries should abandon them.Posted by: AnonymousIran having nuclear weapons is not justification to use military action to prevent it because it only will make the situation worse.
Iran having nuclear weapons is not justification to use military action to prevent it because it only will make the situation worse. The knowledge of how to do it will not disappear. If they are determined, they will continue to try and will be so angry by the military action they'd be more inclined to actually use them instead of just making them as a show.
Posted by: H0bi3InvaderIran has the right to nuclear power and nuclear weapons, just as the Super Powers do.
Iran has the right to nuclear power, which a good way of producing energy sustainably. The problem is not nuclear power but their lack of openness. They also have a right to nuclear weapons just as any other country does. Saying they don't have that right is like the bullying beating up another kid with a ball bat and telling that kid he doesn't have the right to bring a ball bat with him too.
Posted by: Nik0InteriorIf we have nuclear abilities, then why shouldn't other countries? Why do we get to pick who deserves to have nuclear weapons and who doesn't.
A nuclear Iran is no more dangerous - or just as dangerous - as a nuclear Israel. Why does the US pick and choose who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't. All of them should be banned, but they aren't, so it should be up to the country whether or not they have them. North Korea does have them, and they are not at all cooperating members of the world, yet we don't deny them. It makes no sense.
Posted by: 54IInfernoMilitary action to disrupt Iran's nuclear program has intolerable side effects.
History shows that hostile efforts to prevent development of nuclear weapons in a country are likely to succeed only if full-scale invasion of the country is carried out. In the case of Iran, such action likely would result in long-term instability in the Middle East, great disruption of oil production, and a tremendous escalation of violence against Israel and the U.S. While it is easy to agree that a nuclear Iran is intolerable, we have learned to tolerate nuclear weapons in other countries (Pakistan, North Korea) where such weapons are equally intolerable. The solution has been to bring those countries to an understanding that to use or even to threaten to use such weapons is intolerable.
Posted by: LuciaLI do not think it's ethical to attack a country, simply because they develop nuclear technology, and aren't allies with the U.S.
If we use military action against another country every time they do something we don't like, we might as well re-institute the draft, because we are going to need more soldiers. We will become the bullies of Earth. I do not think it's right to attack a country, simply because they have nuclear technology, even if it makes us uncomfortable. We had to know that it was only a matter of time before most countries had the technology. Did we attack every country when they began manufacturing tanks, airplanes, or long range missiles? They are all destructive. The U.S. needs to try and use diplomacy to stay friendly with countries, like Iran, and it needs to keep its troops out of these countries.
Posted by: VagueWiley89larson
Ehud Barak and Livni have said several times that Iran not use nuclear weapons against israel. this is all a matter of prestige, israel wants to remain the only major power in the ME, but does it justify the hundreds of thousands of dead,and nuclear radiation for the region on behalf of Israel's nuclear monopoly? Obviously the answer is not !!!!!!!!
Posted by: AnonymousIran's regime is awful, but not suicidal, and military action would do more harm than good for Iranians and the West alike.
Iran cares about its viability, whatever its hateful, wacky figurehead president may say. It releases prisoners and otherwise levies for diplomatic leverage. Economic sanctions have had serious impact, and domestic dissent seriously shook the regime in 2009. The regime is power-hungry, corrupt, and cruel, but does not fit the caricature of religious fanaticism with respect to its military decisions. It more resembles a garden-variety dictatorship that wants to hold on to power and knows that hold is somewhat fragile. Meanwhile, military action would cement the impression of millions of people that the U.S., Israel, or whoever perpetrates an attack is hostile to Muslims as such, considering the military conflicts in which America and Israel have recently engaged. So such action would generate an enormous backlash, along with enormous death and devastation among millions of innocent Iranians. It would kill more U.S. or Israeli military personnel. It's a stupid, horrific idea.
Posted by: M4I4cFeIineMilitary action should not be taken against Iran for merely possessing nuclear weapons because the U.S. has them as well, and that would be a double standard.
The only way to justify an expectation for other countries to not have nuclear weapons is to not possess them yourself. Additionally, considering we are the only country to have used them against others, we would inherently be the highest threat. Either all countries should be allowed to possess them, or no one should. You can't expect anyone to do as you say and not as you do.
Posted by: daveyxhIt would Trigger a round of conflicts
This would trigger a round of conflicts leading to bloody war and intolerable death scale. Iran is making nuclear weapons just to deter Israel and to enhance it,s national security which is the inherent right of every state under international law. Any move to prevent Iran attaining it,s objectives will lead to series of conflicts and it may prove very deleterious to world peace, as Pakistan and other neighboring countries will back Iran due to Islamic Affinity and Geo political ties except India.
Posted by: Anonymousryan
of course no, iran is a country proud and certainly not rational! past and present history proves it!
Posted by: AnonymousIran should be as free to develop nuclear weapons as any other sovereign nation.
Every country has the legitimate right to self-defense. History has demonstrated that possession of nuclear weapons is the only guaranteed deterrent to large-scale military invasion from another country. So far, no country with nuclear weapons has ever been the victim of a full-scale invasion by another country. Iran has as much a right to self-defense as any country, particularly when so many current nuclear powers are guilty of military aggression and atrocities against non-nuclear powers.
Posted by: ThunderingDeon63iran shiran
i dont think there is any problem with creating nuclear weapons my name is sam johnson the third i play for the brookfield bobcats and i start at center i forget the snap count and get called for false start all the time my number is 55 and i like to play along side my right tackle named rodretard
Posted by: samjohnson3States must be allowed to maintain their sovereignty, pre-emptive war on such a scale is excessive.
In the community of Nations, each country has the right to determine its own internal policy, unless it is bound to the international community by some treaty or formal obligation. So, while an "nuclear Iran" is a security threat, whether or not the country acquires nuclear weapons is an internal affair. Consider: China wants to fight a war of attrition against one of its neighbors in 20 years. In order to accomplish this goal, it lifts its birth control policies. This course of action is clearly threatening, and yet the fact that it makes China more militarily mighty is not cause for pre-emptive war. Birth control policy is an internal matter, and while internal movings and shakings might threaten to upset the international order, they must nonetheless be tolerated so long as they remain internal.
Posted by: table8Military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would only further unsettle the Middle East and further the negative impression of the United States as an imperialistic force overseas.
Iran claims that they are developing nuclear technology in order to create alternative energy sources. Although some U.S. officials claim that the nuclear program is only a front for a weapons development program, the United States has already lost legitimacy in the international community by its false and unsubstantiated claims against Iraq. At that time, the international community called for further inspections before military action but the United States refused to comply. Now, it has been verified that the Bush Administration falsified intelligence in order to declare war. To do the same mistake in the neighboring country would further the impression, especially in Middle Eastern populations, that the US is an invading force seeking oil rather than democracy or control over nuclear profusion.
Posted by: P3nrIinA nuclear Iran would only be them imitating us. If we want them to disarm we also need to do the same, not nuke them before they nuke us.
Boiling Iran to glass will not make them peaceful. When will be ever learn that people learn what they see, not what we tell them to do? If we are going to live in the same world with Iran we are going to have to behave like some sort of human being, not something out of their nightmares. Or our nightmares.
Posted by: groovybox