Our own national interest and the power to back it up with force. And before you take grave offense at that, I'll point out that your platitude--while sounding very high-minded--is a recipe for disaster if the "sovereign country" is hostile to you and the "technology" is weapons of mass destruction.
Today Iran started producing highly enriched uranium. In response, the Defense Secretary urged the UN to create a strongly worded resolution, expressing disapproval--and to spend weeks, not months on it: In an unrelated story Iran's head nutjob, Mahmoud Ahmdedijibjab won a tour of Willy Wonka's factory:
In this case, I'd have to agree with the usual sentiment about Fox being sensationalist, morons, or both. And you're running with it. 20% is MEU, not HEU, totally unsuitable for bomb-making. To build a bomb, you need 90+% U-235.
So if we started work on a new weapon tomorrow and the rest of the world decided they didn't like it, they'd have a legitimate reason to invade us? Apparently sovereignty is determinable by a popularity contest .
Perhaps it is our disregard for their sovereignty that fuels their hostility in the first place. Let's unpack "hostile." Has Iran committed any openly belligerent acts towards its neighbors or anyone else? Yes, its president talks big about ending Israel. Yes, perhaps they fund terrorist cells, yada, yada, yada. Our own CIA pulls all kinds of underhanded shenanigans worldwide. So what.
Not popularity. Necessity. A nation MUST act to protect itself or its vital national interests. Only a fool would respect the sovereignty of a country determined to do his harm. Even sovereignty has limits in the face of reality. Now, whether a nuclear Iran is or isn't a threat to us or our interests is a matter of interpretation. But I take them at their word.
We have only asked them to live up to agreements they themselves willingly entered into. Unless you want to dredge up events from decades ago, there is no rightful justification for their hostility now. Supported the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq? Isn't a head of a would-be nuclear state talking genocide overwhelmingly sufficient? How about: world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? We all do what we perceive is in our interests. If Iran's interests are to pursue nuclear weapons and promote terrorism, I'm afraid our interests are ultimately going to be Iranian regime change. Or we will face a serious change of the power situation in the Middle East, something that--while not so damaging to us directly--could be devastating to our trading partners (Europe, China) who get so much oil from the region.
Only a fool would see it so one-sidedly. The better question is, are we a threat to Iran? I've seen so much chest-pounding and "if we weren't in Iraq we'd go stomp their ass" to think that we are. By your own logic, isn't developing nuclear weapons acting to protect itself and its vital national interests?
Reality is one-sided. There's what people want to do, and there's what they MUST do. And well we should be if they're to continue to develop nuclear weapons. Unless Iran acts in some way to destabilize the Middle East, they risk no attack from us. Developing nuclear weapons is, in effect, saying to us: we intend to cause trouble in the region and we don't want to face Western reprisals.
I find your statement fallacious at best. Should every man be arrested who is in possession of a gun? Clearly because he has a gun he intends to cause trouble and put a stop to those who would bring him to justice.
Perhaps one day Lefties will stop making excuses for the worst murdering terrorist dictatorial scumbags that exist.
To accurately use your analogy the question should be if a man with a gun is in a store trying to buy several assault rifles and cases of ammo all the while announcing he will exterminate numerous people and give weapons and ammo to known murderers should he be arrested or allowed to buy the assault rifle and ammo.
You're the President of a small country, Nickistan, right next door to another country, Belicosia, with whom your relationship has been uneasy. Your Minister of Defense comes into your office and says "Mr. President, Belicosia is moving ten divisions of their troops up to our borders. We have intelligence reports that they have a massive column of tanks rolling up the highway to our border crossing. We've also heard they are arming and fueling their bomber forces." Being the high-minded guy you are, you call up Chancellor Pugg of Belicosia on your office phone. "Say, Chancellor, I couldn't help but notice the massive build-up of your forces along our common border. That really looks threatening and people here are a little on edge. Care to let us in on the gag?" "Mr. President," the Chancellor responds, "We have tolerated your intervention in our affairs long enough. The time has come to reclaim the old territorial boundaries of Belicosia. We will crush the bones of any Nickistani who gets in our way." He then hangs up. What do you do? (A) Chalk it up to "chest-thumping" and "rhetoric." (B) Laugh, and remark what a great sense of humor the Belicosians have. (C) Tell your Minister to give you a ring if they violate Nickistan's soverignty. (D) Order your army to the border, launch aircraft to pre-emptively attack the troops and the tank columns before they cross into Nickistan, and alert air defenses to be ready for Belicosian bombers.
E) Move army to the border, alert air defenses to be ready for bombers, set explosive charges on my side of the highway at the border crossing. But strike first? No.
So do I. People just don't understand. Fuck they refuse to understand. All it takes is one good sized nuke over the middle of the country at roughly 180 to 200 miles up in the sky for well over 75 to 80% of the country to die within a year. (Canada, Northern Mexico and some of the Caribbean would be affected as well.) No electricity = no food, no water, no transportation, no medicine, mass disease, mass starvation and mass death The fact that we could wipe out the offender in response would have no meaning. Cities would be wastelands. New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami.....etc etc.... Damn I don't even want to think of the carnage....
Also agreed to this. We should have offered technical help on how to build them and make them safe from sabotage. We did it with the Russians. Next on the list the letter: "Welcome to the club. Use them and we glass you. Have a nice day. Signed POTUS."
I honestly don't see the UK or France nuking Iran if for some reason it nuked another country other then one of those two. Same with America depending on who sits in the White House. You call Boston being destroyed a nightmare? We'd then have to listen to him whining again. Can't we just blame his country and invade it and shoot him in the process?
Yes. Stop living in a fantasy land. The world doesn't work like what you think it works like. If group A says to group B stop doing "that" then group B can say ok or it can say lets fight. It all comes down to the winner. If we win then history shows they didn't have a legit reason and if they win then of course history shows they had a legit reason.
Anyway this is going to make a great campaign commercial. We can see a repeat of the 3am morning call except this time the answer is "who care" and then showing that nut bag in Iran setting off a nuke.
No, but if their tanks are on the highway and they decide to push into my country they're in for a nasty surprise. And who strikes first doesn't determine the outcome. I could cite list upon list of countries who didn't strike first and were the victors.
The Supreme Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejaad are over there going: Our plans against zee joooes can continue.
