Is this for real?

If this story is true, it will make the US the worst of hypocrites.

I’m not going to weigh in on what — if anything — to do about Iran and their suspected nuclear weapons program. However, it strikes me as quintessentially hypocritical to use tactical nuclear weapons on a country to stop their nuclear weapons energy program… right?

Advertisements

8 Responses to Is this for real?

  1. GMB says:

    Worrying about national hypocrisy or some such notion under the circumstances is frivolous and irrational don’t you think.

    There’s an enourmous number of lives on the line here. You have to prioritise a bit fella.

    What’s going on here? A sense of ‘fairness’. Oh ho ho. WE have nukes, So of course the Mullahs can have nukes too. That’s fair!

    Think individuals and not countries and you won’t make that mistake again.

  2. Here’s the thing. I don’t think Iran should have nukes. I think they’re possibly some of the worst people in the world to have them. If they get them, when it comes down to it I would have little problem with turning Iran into a sheet of glass with ICBMs.

    The question I raise here is, given that we don’t have proof of a nuclear weapons program, wouldn’t it be a bit hypocritical to destroy their facilities with tactical nukes, when conventional weapons would probably do the trick?

    As long as we’re trying to be diplomatic I think it’s hypocritical. Once the gloves come off, well, that’s a different story.

  3. notapundit says:

    Whether we use tactical nuclear weapons conventional weapons, smart weapons, a bomb is a bomb and complete destruction is the objective.

    The real question is: Should history unfold and we use a tactical nuke on Iran, do we wish to go down in history as the only nation to use a nuclear offensive weapon, three times, on two separate nations?

  4. “Should history unfold and we use a tactical nuke on Iran, do we wish to go down in history as the only nation to use a nuclear offensive weapon, three times, on two separate nations?”

    That’s a great question. I suspect, unfortunately, that this will have more to do with the poorly-pondered reactions of politicians than with any rational consideration of the issue.

  5. GMB says:

    “The question I raise here is, given that we don’t have proof of a nuclear weapons program, wouldn’t it be a bit hypocritical to destroy their facilities with tactical nukes, when conventional weapons would probably do the trick?”

    What. You don’t have PROOF. Right that’s it. You are a Popperian are you not? We never look for proof. We look for evidence. We build a case. To demand proof when what you want is evidence is a grave mistake.

    And they didn’t and they haven’t nuked anything yet. No need to start talking as if they have.

  6. If you want to mince words about it, yes, the evidence that I have seen is currently insufficient to convice me, though the trend is not a good one.

    Of course, it hasn’t happened yet, but as I say, if this article is true, and someone is planning to drop tactical nukes, how do you feel about that?

    I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong to do so, just that there’s an almost humorous hypocrisy in using nuclear weapons to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. I say almost because it’s kind of a grave subject.

  7. GMB says:

    Thats not mincing words. The substitution of “proof’ for evidence is a masterful way of denying reality. Since it predjudices one hypothesis over plenty of others that you ought to be running in parallel.

    If you had taken the approach of running several hypotheses in parallel then by now you would be in virtually no doubt that they were after nukes. Its only a failed way of doing things that has put you in this position. Since you are obviously predjudicing the idea that they might not be after them.

    “just that there’s an almost humorous hypocrisy in using nuclear weapons to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.”

    This is a frivolous point of view. Since the task is to avoid millions of people getting killed. They better be planning to drop nukes. Since if they aren’t how are they going to convince the Mullahs, and their technical people and their generals that if they themselves use these weapons there is no hope for them.

  8. “If you had taken the approach of running several hypotheses in parallel then by now you would be in virtually no doubt that they were after nukes.”

    I’ve not made an assertion either way, simply because in this case I don’t think I have the expertise or the invested time and research to make a claim about it. My claim was that I personally have neither sought nor seen enough evidence to convince me, however likely I think it may be. Aside from my charge of potential hypocrisy, this was started as more of an opinion thread than a fact thread.

    However, you said:
    “They better be planning to drop nukes. Since if they aren’t how are they going to convince the Mullahs, and their technical people and their generals that if they themselves use these weapons there is no hope for them.”

    This is a really good point. On the other hand, I fear that even that threat won’t be enough to deter them. Every time I see a picture of this guy it looks like he Knows He’s Following Allah’s Great Plan:

    – example here –

    but maybe that’s just me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: