A question for thinking people?

Question

iran, syria and even pakistan has nuclear weapons that they will surely use to attack the non muslims if not stopped. Diplomacy has failed, and so has sanctions to stop these lunatics. apart from hitting those nuclear sites , i wonder what other options the west and israel are left with?
what do you think?

Answer 1

Huh, you call yourself a thinking person?

Answer 2

1) As others have pointed out, Iran, Syria and "even" Pakistan don't all have nuclear weapons. Actually, of those the only one that really has nukes is Pakistan. Iran is widely believed to be trying to DEVELOP them (but is still at least 5-10 years away). And to the best of my knowledge there have been no reports that Syria even has any program to get them. Of course, one also has to worry about some rogue nation sharing their acquired nuclear technolgy with other rogue nations. In that regard, North Korea is actually the one with the worst track record.
2) Diplomacy HAS failed to halt Iran's efforts... so far. That doesn't mean that path should be completely abandoned, particularly when you consider that there are so few attractive alternatives. It will probably require BOTH carrots and sticks.
3) If you're suggesting preemptively hitting those sites, what are you going to hit them with? Our own nukes? Most of the known Iranian R&D sites are widely scattered and buried deep underground and so would be very hard for us to destroy without troops on the ground. And without IAEC inspectors on the ground we can't be sure there aren't some sites we don't even know about. Also, what do you think will happen to the world economy when in response Iran steps up their existing support of terrorists groups around the world, shuts off its oil spigots and starts lobbing missiles at oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
4) Ultimately, I'm afraid the best we can do in situations like these is slow the progress and that the spread of nuclear weapons are inevitable. When that happens, the only option that countries like Israel have left is MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran might succeed in its stated goal of wiping Israel off the face of the map, but Israel has its own nukes and a second-strike capability. They just recently upgraded their navy with 6 nuclear capable submarines from Germany. MAD is also a lousy last resort but it manageed to keep the US and the USSR from destroying each other for over 40 years.

Answer 3

While we know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran and Syria currently don't, though that is changing. The problem is that any sort of a pre-emptive strike from the USA or other Western powers would not go over well with the likes of China and Russia, as they have vested interests in these areas. As far as I'm concerned, the World is currently sitting on a powder keg and radical Islam is the fuse. Nuclear war is inevitable and the Middle East will be where it starts.

Answer 4

MAD would be the only deterrent at this point. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Unfortunately, the USA has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons during the course of a war. Now that Pandora's box is opened there is essentially no going back. Though all of those countries are filled with religous zealots, I do think there is at least enough sense to know that no one wants to be completely annihilated. To die for one's religous beliefs is one thing, but based on the premise that you are defending your religon. To assure complete destruction of the Middle East is something I think they don't even want.

Consider this, North Korea has nukes. They are creating a stir over long-range missle tests. But this is not in the news quite as much as Iran. Why? Simple, because in Iran there still is a chance of stopping them from being part of the MAD scenario. With Korea you now have an "equal" and must be handled with kid gloves.

Answer 5

No religion should ever be allowed to have their own state, let alone nuclear weapons. I'm afraid that Humanity has passed the point where they can maintain a grasp on technology that would allow their ethics to keep pace. Delusional superstition (religion) is not a good repository for the technology of mass death. Over the centuries, your planet was a curious place to visit once or twice and was not considered very interesting . Sure, your wars showed us how undeveloped you are as a species and your infantile,(in cosmic terms) dependence on god concepts does not bode well for you. We are now showing an interest in you because it is not often that we get to observe a species commit suicide. You are so close to maturing as a sentient species and it will be a shame to see you kill yourselves. There are just not enough of you becoming rational enough to force the issue. You let the least among you determine your fate, so be it.

Answer 6

Dunno. Bush and the neoconservative PNAC plan (actively create democracies in the middle east) w/ the Iraq effort has failed, given the fact that the middle east has gone towards more extremism. Many say the implementation itself was the problem - Bush's decision to essentially go it alone and the decision to dismiss understanding the dynamics of the region. Bush does realize this somewhat and is changing his rhetoric. Unfortunately, he's done more damage than we can ever know (he wasn't ill-intentioned; he thought he was right but he was grossly incompetent). I think the best thing to do is to try something really different - do what other countries have done and take away the power of the dictators in the region by including all these groups in formal talks and consideration. It's basic psychology and we can have an influence on the moderates to where support for the extremists will wane.

Answer 7

First point I have to correct you on, is that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. That's what all the fuss is about currently-the fact they WANT them!

As for the West and israel, huh. I'm sorry to have to admit being a Westerner due to the atrocities we have committed on other countries because we thought they were "inferior"...

You need re-educating. How would YOU like it if someone came along, stole your land and started killing your family members, including your children? Would you simply sit back and let it happen, or would you use WHATEVER MEANS AVAILIABLE TO YOU to fight back...?

Yeah, thought you would. Israel can take a flying jump for their hitleresque tactics. Shame on them, shame on the West and shame on you.

Answer 8

I think iran feels the same way about us, we are the only ones who have shown we will blow anyone to kingdom come. What diplomacy, telling them "no you can't have nuclear weapons." thats not diplomacy, all we do is threaten and wonder why people hate us. We are preemptively attacking people, why are we supprised they want to arm themselves? we have shown that we will attack any country who's polotics we don't agree with. I don't trust our leadrs to have the bomb but they do, and i feel it puts us in danger because they are completly inept. they use the military to bully instead of protect, and that always turns out bad.
You ever notice how americans are always ready to go to war. that sbecause they GO to war, its not happening in our country. Its a game to us and we cheer for the home team, the people who cheer the hardest would never expect to have to fight. In other countries they are less likey to use war as a first option because the have had it in their backyards. they know what it is like to see people dieing in the streets.america has never been invaded we think war is going overseas and blowing up poor people. war is a game to us. look at people going "bring on ww3", no intelligent person would welcome that much death and destruction.

Answer 9

This is the religion and spirituality section. Here, questions like "Would it be moral for these countries to use nuclear weapons on their enemies?" are appropriate. Your question is about diplomacy and interactions between countries, clearly somehing that belongs in the politics section.

As for your question, we should get out of Iraq quickly to stop making enemies there. Then, we should try build a relationship with these countries so they won't want to attack us. (I am aware of how flawed my idea is.)

Answer 10

Er, where are you getting your information? Iran? Syria?
Do you know something that the U.S. State Department doesn't?

Launching a military strike on the basis of misinformation is a very bad thing, as I'd have thought would have been all too clear to everyone by now.

Answer 11

Unfortunately I believe were were down to M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction. (Apt acronym) It is the only defense strategy with a track record. I felt more comfortable with this when we were dealing with the Soviet Union and not religious zealots with an Axe to grind. We have to try negotiation but they (whoever) have to know that if they go nuclear they will cease to exist. This pretty much sucks but I can't come up with anything else.