.jpg)
NO
There are compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as (an) international outlaw(s).
YES
Louis Rene Beres, professor of political science in the USFurther diplomacy has no chance of stopping Iran's nuclear programme. Neither will UN sanctions have any effect. Unless there is a timely defensive first strike at pertinent elements of Iran's expanding nuclear infrastructures, it will acquire nuclear weapons. The consequences would be intolerable and unprecedented.A nuclear Iran would not resemble any other nuclear power. There could be no stable "balance of terror" involving that Islamic republic. Unlike nuclear threats of the Cold War, which were governed by mutual assumptions of rationality and mutual assured destruction, a world with a nuclear-armed Iran could explode at any moment. Although it might still seem
reasonable to suggest a postponement of pre-emption until Iran were more openly nuclear, the collateral costs of any such delay could be unendurable. Ideally, a diplomatic settlement with Iran could be taken seriously. But in the real world, we must compare the price of prompt pre-emptive action against Iran with the costs of both inaction and delayed military action. To be sure, all available options are apt to be injurious.
This article is just a question that was asked by a blogger wanting to know if the US dosomething about Irans nuclear program. It has both sides of the arguement discussing the pros and cons of attacking Iran.
GRADE THIS POST
click here to read full article
There are compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as (an) international outlaw(s).
YES
Louis Rene Beres, professor of political science in the USFurther diplomacy has no chance of stopping Iran's nuclear programme. Neither will UN sanctions have any effect. Unless there is a timely defensive first strike at pertinent elements of Iran's expanding nuclear infrastructures, it will acquire nuclear weapons. The consequences would be intolerable and unprecedented.A nuclear Iran would not resemble any other nuclear power. There could be no stable "balance of terror" involving that Islamic republic. Unlike nuclear threats of the Cold War, which were governed by mutual assumptions of rationality and mutual assured destruction, a world with a nuclear-armed Iran could explode at any moment. Although it might still seem
reasonable to suggest a postponement of pre-emption until Iran were more openly nuclear, the collateral costs of any such delay could be unendurable. Ideally, a diplomatic settlement with Iran could be taken seriously. But in the real world, we must compare the price of prompt pre-emptive action against Iran with the costs of both inaction and delayed military action. To be sure, all available options are apt to be injurious.
This article is just a question that was asked by a blogger wanting to know if the US dosomething about Irans nuclear program. It has both sides of the arguement discussing the pros and cons of attacking Iran.
GRADE THIS POST
click here to read full article
No comments:
Post a Comment