There are many nations I personally would not like to see have nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, whether or not the U.S. or U.N. favors a particular nation, are all nations sovereign or not?
Let's see ... Israel is the only nation I can recall that attacked another nation's ability to make nuclear weapons when it bombed the Iraqi reactor.
That attack was quite amazing. No war. Just unilateral denuking of one nation by another nation.
Any other examples?
Can't think of any.
Nobody bombed Pakistan's nuclear bomb making facility (whatever or wherever that is).
Nobody bombed India's.
Nobody bombed China's.
Or Russia's.
Or Israel's if it has any, or a couple other nations that might have nukes.
If they decided that developing nuclear weapons would be in their absolute best national interests, would it be okay for nations such as Canada or Belgium or Thailand or Turkey to develop nuclear weapons? If they did, would world consensus be to bomb their nuclear production facilities?
Libya suddenly has about-faced and supposedly dropped out of nuclear arms contention.
The U.S. has been trying to negotiate North Korea out of making nukes but they may already have them.
The U.S. doesn't want Iran to get nukes but they insist on their right to make them if they want to.
So just because the U.S. or even the U.N. does not want a nation to have nukes, is there some inherent right to attack that capability even BEFORE the sovereign nation develops nukes that it may assert are only to DETER other nations from using nukes against it?
The U.S., first to develop and use nuclear weapons, historically has said it keeps nukes to preserve the peace and deter nuclear attack on it and its allies.
Other nuclear powers have claimed the same motivation.
Deterrence is the traditional justification for having nuclear weapons.
The present nuclear nonproliferation consensus is basically we (the nuclear club) got ours and you (the non nuclear nations) can't have any. It's for your own good -- trust us.
Preemptive (or sneak or surprise) attack is another case entirely.
It's like Momma or Daddy taking dangerous things away from their children ... or adults taking big weapons away from their enemies.
Quite an insulting and infuriating thing to receive if you are a sovereign nation.
Wouldn't it be loverly if every nation would accept the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and its status quo. But for those nations that don't, preemptive denuking is legally and morally questionable, dangerous, arrogant, provoking, presumptuous, and likely to cause either (1) at minimum sulking and hatred of the attacker or (2) enough anger to oppose the attacker by any and all means indefinitely.
It's war without the messy followup ... until the nuclear wannabe eventually extracts some form of revenge.
Whatever made Libya change its mind, let's hope it reaches North Korea and Iran too.
In international relations, behind the smiles the maxim often is something like Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Even then, the world will never be safe until all nations and all their people feel secure and respected.
So, Gunthr, you started this thread and reaped all these opinions. You tell us: Does the world have the right to deny Iran nuclear capability?
