Should War be an option to prevent nuclear proliferation ?

[rpgamerd00d]

Poll question: Should War be an option to prevent nuclear proliferation ?

Should War be an option to prevent nuclear proliferation ?

Note: almost all Dem Presidential candidates believe so. Just FYI.

[demnan]

1. I'm remembering a sign I saw last week

"Fighting a war for peace is like fucking for virginity"

[rpgamerd00d]

2. ROFL, thats good!

Although, it would not be a war for peace, it would be a war to prevent nuclear weapons from proliferating.

[Jacobin]

3. beat me to it

lots of warmongers on DU lately when it comes to Iran, I've noticed.

I wonder why they think Iran would like to attack the US with a nuclear weapon thereby assuring their utter obliteration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I'll stick with Gandhi.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Radical Activist]

5. Is war more likely to prevent or cause nuclear attacks?

I would think the answer is obvious.

[Eugene]

6. Preventive war worked so well in Iraq, didn't it?

Arms control is done by inspection, not bombardment. War is a very crude and messy
way to achieve security. There are more efficient and less drastic ways to interdict
the movement of nuclear materials and other contraband.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

7. What is your solution to deal with dissidents?

Arms inspection works if the host state allows for the inspections, so how do you deal with a state that refuses inspections? According to the security dilemma war maybe crude and messy but it is in many ways sometimes inevitable. A variety of Liberal theorists have demonstrated instances otherwise but we've yet to find a way a universal and realistic solution to end armed conflict.

[Eugene]

8. There are less drastic options like sanctions, embargoes, and interdiction.

War is inevitable only when one side chooses to start shooting.
Until then, everybody has options. Proliferation and arms races
are security threats in the medium to long term. Tough and
smart political, economic, and diplomatic moves are effective
even with "crazy" regimes like Iran and North Korea.

North Korea has come back to the table with pressure from China.
Sanctions have Ahmadinejad fighting for his political life and
IAEA inspectors are on site at Natanz. The parties are dickering
over the details.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

11. agreed

War is inevitable only when one side chooses to start shooting.
Until then, everybody has options. Proliferation and arms races
are security threats in the medium to long term. Tough and
smart political, economic, and diplomatic moves are effective
even with "crazy" regimes like Iran and North Korea.

North Korea has come back to the table with pressure from China.
Sanctions have Ahmadinejad fighting for his political life and
IAEA inspectors are on site at Natanz. The parties are dickering
over the details.

True everybody has options, but arranging a diplomatic check mate as you describe is a very difficult process and can't neccesarily be counted on. Additionally you are making the assumption that each involved state is completely aware of the options they have. The way you describe multilateral diplomacy and cooperation as if it's a simple and obvious alternative which will result in a peaceful outcome. This is not a guarentee, the result can be war. The question is if war should be a tool used to prevent further horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. What I'm getting at is you can't rule war out as a possible solution. While I agree there ARE alternatives, they are not perfect, just as war is an imperfect solution. There are instances in which there may not be smart political, economic, and dipomatic moves to make, they might not simply exist in the circumstances.

Also can you please clarify your use of interdiction, there are two possible interpretations and I'm not sure which one you mean.

[Eugene]

13. War is not a solution. It is a dangerous and costly option of last resort.

Diplomacy or the "chess game" is not perfect. There are no guarantees and it is prudent
to be ready to fight when all else fails. But wars often turn out very differently
than their planners expect. The alternatives to war should not be dismissed prematurely.
The war in Iraq is a prime example.

Nuclear proliferation is an abstract threat. A rogue state or non-state actor may acquire
nuclear weapons in the future. Does a war, with a typical 5-figure body count and 6-figure
refugee count, cause more harm than the theoretical attack it is meant to prevent?

The Iraq War was justified at one time to prevent Saddam from transferring WMD's to
terrorists. (The Bush administration has offered two dozen other excuses over the years).
So far, the war has claimed 650,000+ dead, 500,000 displaced with another 1 million possible,
and security and political goals for America's "War on Terror" in tatters. It cannot be
overstated that no WMD's or active WMD programs were found in Iraq.

As for North Korea, experts estimate that a conventional war on the Korean Peninsula would
kill 1 million people for starters. Even a collapse of the North Korean regime can cause
refugee migrations that can destabilize neighboring countries.

Iran may develop a nuclear bomb in 5 to 10 years. With sanctions starting to bite, the
diplomatic option is far from exhausted. However, with the quagmire in Iraq, America's
military options are limited.

Finally to answer the interdiction question, UN sanctions allow U.S. and other warships
to board and inspect North Korean ships for contraband both coming in or going out.
China also inspects trucks crossing the North Korea border. Sanctions are not perfect,
but they are a place to start given the alternatives.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Nuclear proliferation was an option to prevent war for 50 years

according to the MAD principle.

Makes my brain hurt.

[Hawkowl]

10. Why go to War now?

After 60 years of living with our enemies having nuclear weapons, now we're going to attack them? What the fuck? Why change strategies now? This makes no sense and the people advocating this position such as shrub and Hilary are insane.

Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Israel has nukes. China has Nukes. Russia has nukes. The U.S. does and we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, EVERY one of Iran's neighbors has nukes. They are surrounded by nukes. So who gives a flying fuck if Iran gets nukes. They know if they use or even hint at using them they will be immediately and completely wiped off the face of the earth. This isn't the MAD principle it's the YAF (You are Fucked) principle.

[pampango]

12. If everyone had a nuclear weapon,

what a beautiful world this would be. :sarcasm: