Iran is too radical and we should contain it. Unilateral force is the best way to go without any inferences and we have the funding for it. The threat is too big towards national security. It is to the point that they even might partner up with North Korea and China.
Yes, the use of unilateral force is justified to deter a nuclear Iran because if you have more countries involved in this it will be more effective in deterring this threat to the free world. More pressure on Iran from other countries would definitely help.
With the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, the fight against terrorism hit home in a profound and unmistakable manner. Americans should have no illusions that terrorists will always seek new and deadlier ways to inflict massive casualties. No weapon would achieve this end with greater devastation, death, and destruction than a nuclear warhead. As such, the potential of Iran possessing this weapon is completely unacceptable under any circumstance. Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism whose leader has sworn to eliminate the State of Israel from the map while denying the Holocaust, actively supports Hezbollah. Should this nation near completion of a nuclear device, after exhausting all diplomatic options, military action will be justified, even if it means unilateral force. Nuclear weapons cannot be possessed by those who would use them to threaten neighbor states or supply terrorist organizations with these weapons of mass destruction.
A nuclear war would lead to devastating consequences. Therefore as the strongest nation with the strongest army in the world it is our responsibility to fight against this threat. If we do not do so then nations such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan can cause serious damage to the world.
National and global destruction can occur, as it has in the past. For example, when the U.S. launched a nuclear bomb on Japan, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. Around 150,000 - 246,000 people died. Obviously, national security wasn't so good after this devastating bombing. Also, nations should be able to protect their citizens, act for their citizens, and act in favor of their citizens.
Iran disobeys the authority of the UN Security Council, and by that becomes a real threat. If sanctions don't deter Iran, ultimately, force is justified to enforce compliance. Otherwise, the international law is a joke, if not enforced. More of a joke are those people that invoke international law to say that force is not justified to enforce the same international laws that they supposedly defend. Force, if approved by the UN Security Council is legal and also justified. If done by Israel without due approval, it would still be justified as preemptive measure in the face of threats, in self--defense.
A nuclear Iran would engender widespread instability. Not only would the balance of power in the Middle East radically shift in favor of the Persians, but it would greatly endanger the existence of Israel. Countless times the Iranian government has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Nuclear proliferation has already spread to too many countries as it is. The last thing we need is another unstable country with a nuclear stockpile, much less one that openly supports terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Nuclear weapons are too powerful. War is often a total failure of ability for nations to solve their disputes in civil ways, within any kind of legal or social structure. So, conflicts often have no rules and are no holds barred events. But even so, the use of nuclear weapons is so horrific, and would invite so many repercussions, that they have only been detonated in combat twice in all of history. It's best for everyone that few or even no nations have them. And, to stop the number of nuclear states from mushrooming, any potential nuclear states should be stopped at all costs.
I feel that unilateral force would be justified because Iran is seen as a threat, to an extent. If we don't do anything to Iran and simply leave them alone, then they can use the resources that they already have to be more dangerous than ever. If we were to deter them, then we would slowly get closer to a world with balanced power.
I think that the United States should act unilaterally to attack Iran's sites where they are building nuclear weapons. I don't think any other countries will want to act militarily, so it is left up to the United States to do what needs to be done. I don't think that Obama has the guts to do it, though.
It is not the United States' job to determine what is right and what is wrong. Our views are not the worlds views. The United States put the Taliban out of power (with the help of others) because they were deciding what was right and what was wrong, and forcing other people to believe it. The same thing happened with the Soviet Union. Nuclear powers are dangerous, that is true. However, that does not make it right for them to go in and just take control. The United States is always telling other countries not to use unilateral forces, but they are complete hypocrites if they go In and use it.
If the US were to invade Iran, they might as well get help from as many countries as possible because the more the better right? Iran was in a bad state so people have to do something about it so the US needs to team with others to invade Iran
The use of unilateral force against Iran is the wrong way to deal with them. Anything done unilaterally is just plain wrong because it has the appearance of world domination and is exactly what Iran is fighting against. A much better solution would be to talk to them and give them incentives because they probably do want to engage with the world but feel that their choices are severely limited, especially when countries with nuclear weapons themselves are invading.
How do we know that if there's a plethora of nuclear enemies building up? Overall, there is not a single reason why any force against a country with any nuclear weapons should be unilateral, especially against a country with such high anti-American sentiment. If ANY force is justified, it ought to be a group effort.
If we use unilateral military force against Iran, it may anger them to "defend" and attack the United States with their arsenal of nuclear weapons or soldiers and missiles. This can lead to catastrophic events such as large scale wars to break out in the middle east and the pacific.
Winston Churchill stated “If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.” I believe he is saying that mankind will destroy itself sooner or later. In this quote he is talking about the nuclear arms race but say if we related the crises he faced in his time to if the U.S., for example, took action on Korea or Iran. Would that be just?! How can the only country to ever deploy a nuclear weapon have any moral or rational grounds for telling any country whether they can join the "nuclear club"?
The United States is committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States led the initial charge in Libya and has some engagement in Yemen and Somalia. Our armed forces are doing three and four or more tours of duty now. We cannot afford to spend the human resources and the monetary resources to mount another war. It is time for other countries who are concerned about a nuclear Iran to step forward.
Using unilateral force to deter any nation from nuclear capabilities will only underscore the tensions that already exist and provide propaganda to a hostile regime. If we have valid reasons to engage in military action, we should be able to convince allies to support the effort. Until then, inspectors and diplomacy is the way to go.
One of the purposes of the United Nations, of which the United States is a founding member, is to prevent the unilateral use of force against sovereign nations. Assuming that the proposed user of force referenced in the original question is the United States, it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to act against the original purpose of the United Nations that we helped to create.
Although the United States has been a victim of the worst terrorist attack in history that still does not give the US the ability to unilaterally announce and attack a nation that it considers being a substantial threat. This is a dangerous path to take. If other nations in the future such as Indonesia, Libya, Syria, or Venezuela were working on a nuclear weapons program then the precedent would be in place to attack all of them as well. This is not feasible for the United States and not a fair decision.