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.
Unilateral force is justified to deter a nuclear Iran, because Iran's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and to destroy America. Iran has successfully test-fired missiles from ships. It appears that Iran's ambition is to fire a ship-based nuclear missile over the United States. A single nuclear explosion at high altitude would wipe out computers and electronics from New York to Chicago. Without considering the loss of life, a single nuclear explosion over the U.S. would be devastating for the world economy.
We have something called International Law. We have a responsibility as a moral and just nation to abide by it and to do the right thing. We disobeyed International Law and violated treaties when we entered Iraq and became, in the eyes of many parts of the world, a rogue nation. Because of this, our clout, our ability to be a role model to other nations, our ability to act as a peacemaker, our national security, and our financial solvency were all put in peril. We cannot afford to engage in another bad action. We cannot afford to risk losing the little improvement we have had in our world standing and financially, we cannot afford to engage in yet another needless and unjust war.
Nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy the planet and all its inhabitants. The US must find ways to ensure the safety of this chaotic world. In terms of weaponry, the best way is to prevent further nuclear threats. Accidents can happen or, even worse, the wrong entities could acquire them. Nuclear weapons are a threat used, or unused. As Scott Sagan writes in his book, “The Perils of Proliferation,” Some emergent nuclear powers lack the organizational and financial resources to produce even minimal mechanical safety devices and safe weapons design features. Although all countries may start with "crude nuclear arsenals”, the weapons of poorer states will likely be cruder, and will remain so for a longer period of time. Evidence for this prediction can be found in the case of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, as UN inspectors discovered soon after the 1991 Persian Gulf War: The inspectors found out one other thing about the Iraqi bomb [design]-it is highly unstable. The design calls for cramming so much weapon-grade uranium into the core, they say, that the bomb would inevitably be on the verge of going off even while sitting on the workbench.
Another threat that the spread of nuclear weapons and programs poses is that it increases the probability of a terrorist organization obtaining the means to create a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Not only do the poorer states with weapons have cruder nuclear arsenals but they also have cruder security. Russia and even some of the United States warheads are reported to have inadequate security and based on these facts and other intelligence its believed that the poorer nations like India, Pakistan, and Iran have even worse protection for there nuclear weapons and materials. Five American nuclear weapons designers from the Nuclear Control Institute stated that a sophisticated terrorist organization could create a fully functioning nuclear warhead if they stole plutonium or enriched uranium. Stopping these weapons and materials from being acquired by these irresponsible regimes not only saves more lives but it’s the responsible and moral thing to do for the United States and its military.
The United States, being a nation, is morally obligated to protect its citizens and ensure their well-being. WIth the threat of a nuclear capable Iran our citizens can't rest in peace knowing that a country with anti-american sentiments has the capability to destroy the world and all of its inhabitants.
The United States should have the right to act on the instinct that a nuclear capable Iran is a danger to American citizens without the approval of the rest of the world. The United Nations takes much to long to take action and many of their sanctions do nothing to deter dishonesty to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty which was which just so happened to be signed by Iran.
Contention 1: It is too much of a risk for us and other countries to not take advantage of strategic attacks on hot spots, than to do nothing and risk losing the world to one country. According to UNICEF, over 300,000 people died just this year in Syria over the unstable situations of their government. In the past four years, leaders and powers of the struggling middle eastern region have been sprung out of power, because the old, radical tyrannical system is being overrun by even more radical religious super-power. What this means towards nuclear proliferation is that while these people may not be killing each other with nuclear bombs, they are not as stable as a peaceful community such as Brittan and France. Not only has Iran been trying to enrich uranium at 20% or more for weapons use, they are using these "springing countries" to shield themselves of attention from the UN while they create plans for mischief. Do we really want these unstable countries to be in control a device capable of wiping out cities, when they cannot even have a stable government? This, as well as the fact that the majority of their population has the mindset that the west is the aggressor and the source of all the death according to Bloomburg.Com. This leads the affirmative to believe that the attack or removal of weapons/enriched uranium is justified because they pose a threat to everything on the planet earth.
Sub-Contention 1: It is also wise to explain that according to RT.Com/news, Iran has not doubled but tripled their amount of nuclear centrifuges in the past two years, exactly 500-600 of them brand new. This not only shows that even the smallest and most war torn countries in the world can create nuclear weapons, but also the fact that there is an internal link to nuclear proliferation inside an unstable area. It would be a tactical error not to take advantage of this while the countries are not formed together.
The UN charter asserts that we are legally justified to use military force if any of the following conditions are met;
A- A state has acquired the material to attack the United States
B- The Nuclear Proliferating State is a state sponsor of terrorism
C- If the Nuclear Proliferation results in larger harmful offset
D- If the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has caused any casualties
We would lose more lives than wed saved if we did NOT go in to stop the creation of nuclear weapons because of the hair trigger fire we would put all the countries in the region around Iran because they had nukes we just simply take that chance plus even if a respectable country unlike Iran were to have nuclear weapons they could very well be stolen despite the best interests of that country
If the enemys are going to take the time to construct nuclear weapons i think that it is fair for us as americans to assume that they have positive intentions of using said weapons on the people o the united states. Besides if they are allowed to take this progression any farther yet again we could only assume that they are going to use these weapons on us or Americas allies at some point.
If Iran gains nuclear weapon potential, it could, and probably would, launch nukes at a the us, or, more likely, launch nukes at Israel. This could cause a nuclear disaster or even nuclear war. The U.S. Is also justified to use unilateral force under the UN charter article 51, or self defense.
Iran is a dangerous place, not the people but those who lead the country at this time. If we simply allowed every wacko who happens to be in charge of a certain country to build nuclear weapons it would be like allowing local ruffians to have weapons and no one else. Everyone would be frightened by those with the guns, and nobody would feel like they could do anything to stop them. If those with the power to stop it come and stop it, then the threat is gone and others can live peacefully.
Iran has a pattern of denying that anything is going on with their development of nuclear energy and then letting the world know that there is another facility in Iran that is developing nuclear fuel that could be used in developing a nuclear weapon. The leadership of Iran has threatened Israel many times and vows to wipe the state of Israel off the map. Israel will probably use a surprise attack to try to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and Israel has a right to defend itself from an enemy that has vowed to destroy it.
Lateral force is justified to deter Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Iran will use the nuclear bomb if they are not stopped. Not only is it the responsibility of the United States to stop Iran, but other countries as well. If they are not stopped there is not doubt in my mind that we as a world will be plunged into WWIII. The government of Iran as no respect for human life, especially the Jews. What a shame that the leader of Iran says that the holocaust never happened. Iran must be stopped before it is to late.
One must consider the possibility that this action would prevent loss of life. It is a hawk-ish position to go ahead and say that we need to intervene and use force to prevent "a nuclear Iran." This may very well be the case. Anyway, we should be vigilant and explore all avenues of action. Unpopular as it may be, it may be necessary, but it is difficult to justify without the support of other nations in a similar context, be they allied or not.
For the last few decades, the UN (United Nations) has been trying to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear weapons program. They have put sanction after sanction against Iran, and yet its economy has not crumbled. Iran's government is stronger than anyone thought it would be. The Congressional Research Service explained that even though there has been multiple parties that have tried to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, each mission was a failure, be it the United States, the UN, Russia, everything failed because Iran is still going full-force. I have hope for the new president, who promised to ease sanctions on Iran, but there threat of nuclear war is still too prominent. Someone will launch a bomb at America, America will retaliate, then each country's allies will also join in, causing World War III. And this nuclear WWIII will devastate the world and kill thousands, if not millions. America is not the only country that has to make this move, it can be Britain or Germany or Israel, but we must all look at the very real possibility of Iran using their nuclear weapons that they are close to completing against the country they have hated for years: America.
Nuclear weapons have a widespread, destructive effect. It can instantly turn a full-functioning city into dust. This is the result of 50-150 million degrees of temperature that emanate from the heart of the nuclear weapon. The humans can either have their tissue instantly vaporized, or die because of the oxygen sucked out of the atmosphere. Nuclear weapons also have a problem of radioactivity. According to the World Nuclear Association, after one nuclear accident or bombing, cities can not be repopulated after twenty years. If terrorists were to strike this city right now, we would all have to evacuate and leave our homes. Nuclear proliferation can also cause many cancers in the body for people in the vicinity of it. Finally, if nuclear particles spread, the world’s radioactive levels will increase. When this happens, people near 1700 miles of the nuclear attacks will have shorter lives. The government should have the power to use military force to stop nuclear proliferation, so that the potential threat of millions of deaths is abolished.
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.
Unilateral force should never be used. It is contrary to the wishes of the rest of the world and takes us out of the sphere of cooperating countries. This should not be used for any reason. Our action in Iraq was basically unilateral. The countries who joined us did not do so willingly, they were coerced into joining by bribery or threats if they didn't. Look what happened. If we do it again, we are risking another failure.
The use of unilateral force is not justified to deter a nuclear Iran because such an act could be conceived as an act of war that would be unsettling to the global community and could damage the reputation of the country using force. In the case of a nuclear Iran, action should be agreed upon by multiple parties as force is something that would impact neighboring countries.
Iran is developing nuclear arms because they feel threatened. If they are attacked, with the purpose of wiping out their nuclear capability or for any other reason, they will feel justified in developing nuclear arms. It doesn't make any sense to start a war to prevent a war. Many wars are started because one country feels threatened.
While the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is of grave concern to the U.S. and most other nations of the world, the U.S. cannot afford to undertake another unilateral war in the Middle East. And make no mistake, any use of force against Iran would result in a full-scale war in the region. The only answer is to use diplomacy to the maximum extent possible, and only as a last resort, in full coordination with the U.N. Security Council and our NATO allies, should military options be considered.
The opposition believes that military force to prevent nuclear proliferation is like going to war to prevent war. Military force to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation can only be justified if all the nations somehow decided on complete nuclear disarmament. Otherwise, using military force, specially 'unilateral" force to prevent proliferation shows the world-dominating attitude of the United States that had previously led to the Iraq war. Clearly, the Iraq war resulted in more causalities than the ones that could have resulted in a nuclear attack from their side, which was unlikely. I strongly oppose the use of unilateral military force to prevent nuclear proliferation, even as a last resort.
The use of Unilateral Military Force is completely UN-justified in order to prevent Nuclear Proliferation. It is much less necessary in order to deter nuclear Iran. It will cost the global economy billions in both GDP, economy and lives. If the U.S.A has any sense of morality at all- then the use of Unilateral military force will be stopped dead in it's tracks! Now, to answer the question, "Would the U.S.A be justified in using Unilateral Military force to deter a nuclear Iran?" NO! The answer is no because it would cost the World and major political and military super powers a loss of lives and a major deficit in it's economy. The U.S.A needs to stay out of others business and stop policing every single thing that happens!
USA don't have any duty to stop foreign countries nuclear proliferation; USA have more important things to solve, such as national debts, government shutdown, and gun control. Unilateral military action to stop nuclear proliferation is too expensive, and USA currently have about seventeen- trillion dollar national debts. Our economy is more important than being world police.
Unilateral military force will result in more loss of human lives than it will save! To take unilateral military force to it's max, or even to use it at all will jeopardize the United States' integrity at risk. It would also give another reason for hardheaded republicans to blame our government for the Conservative's failures. Republicans don't know what they are talking about ever so why should we listen to them at all? Unilateral military force is not necessary to prevent Nuclear action or proliferation...
We dont want our allies to feel like we aren't trusting them enough to help us with this. Also, we dont have to fight in the first place. There is not nuclear terror in the 1st place. We are just giving Iran a reason to attack us, if we attack them.
Yes, the US should help with stopping nuclear proliferation, especially from Iran, but with force? Although force is the most effective and fastest process, it is not the most reliable. Of course we would be helping tons of people but we need allies to do this. Of course we have many allies but none of them are with us at this point. However, Iran could perhaps easily get allies to attack against us. That would start even more of hectic chaos creating yet another (perhaps) nuclear war. Although it may be difficult, we should find better ways to stop this than rather harm ourselves and others.
The united states should not act alone, for when doing so, if anything were to go wrong we will be blamed. We also need solid proof of nuclear proliferation occurring and if we were to do it, multilateral military action would be best. We should not be the world's police.
It would be violating Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, in which the United States is bound to. The only time we could strike is WITH international support, and a "go" from the United Nation's Security Council. If these requirements are not met, then obviously using unilateral force is not justified, given that the definition of justified is being, "by a good or legitimate reason". Without approval of the Security Council and support from other nations it becomes illegitimate by our military and government not following a legit, agreed to document by the world community.
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"? iran is no exception; there are other countries unfriendly to the US who have nuclear weapons and some of those countries may be a threat to Iran itself. How would we feel in their position. We could have left Iran alone years ago and not be facing the consequences of our short-sighted policies now.
The use of unilateral force in any circumstances is unjustified, but especially in the case of Iran. There is no reason why the United States should think itself above the rest of the world and know what is best for the world in general. If any action is taken towards Iran it should be after careful deliberation by the United Nations and guided by a United Nations initiative.
A unilateral strike of the United States would alienate the US from its allies in Europe and world be a sign of arrogance. The Arab World (general population, not the leadership, probably), although leery of a nuclear Iran, would see this as a strike against Islam. A global diplomatic solution involving Europe, Russia and China should be achieved. If a strike is necessary, approval of these states should be obtained beforehand. None of this applies to Israel, since they would be under a direct threat and can act in self-defense.
Laws tend to follow rather than create social change. If we are seen as a community to emulate the population will make change from the bottom up. My family is from Hungary, a country very unlike many of the others in the former Soviet bloc, and a lot of that is because there were people in the free world sending goods and ideas back home -- the more we are a people that the common people can desire to be like the better. I've seen pictures of how Iran used to be, we are losing sympathy and support and unilateral action will only make people bitter against us.
How would other countries view this? Some may frown upon it; its a matter of homeland security. As long as one unfriendly country has nuclear weapons, their enemy will also. Not having nuclear weapons could leave one country vulnerable to attack. How would you feel if you where in Iran's position? Ask yourself that.
Let's take a look through history. When President George Bush invaded Iraq, he had help from the rest of the world. When W. Decided to re-invade Iraq on the grounds of nuclear proliferation, he was staunchly reprimanded by the United Nations, which ended up in a single American effort (not counting Bulgaria). As a result, we are dealing with the after effects of the second Iraq war today. IF we invade Iran much like the way we invaded Iraq, we will continue to disrupt our presence in the Middle East, let alone the world, and drain our failing economy even more.
The definition of unilateral implies that the United States is an all powerful entity responsible for policing the world and making sure that all the rules are followed. The word unilateral implies that we do not recognize the sovereignty of Iran and that we are denying their claim as a country. All that a "unilateral" approach is sure to do is cause Iran to become indignant, and in an effort to defend their right to being sovereign they are likely to respond with hostility of their own.
Hence "unilateral" military efforts are actually likely to cause nuclear proliferation.
Its so hypocritical of America to even ask for what they are asking for. We have nuclear weapons. What makes us any different than these other countries. We have even launched these weapons. What gives us the right to tell others that they can't when in all reality America has the same technology. The only difference being we have put it into play.