Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>4. There is no distinction, in my mind, between "trying to develop nuclear weapons" and "successfully developing nuclear weapons". There is no distinction, in my mind, between 60% enrichment and 90% enrichment, or whatever. Non-nuclear countries should attempt no stage of development, at all, and if they do, should see their efforts stopped by any means necessary. Very hypothetically: If a non-nuclear nation lays a single brick to build a structure destined to aid in nuclear weapons development, I would support destroying that brick; there is no stage too early to intervene. Obviously this is hypothetical and there are realistic feasibility concerns with that, but when speaking morally/ethically.

I see this as an unacceptable position. Sweden will probably develop nuclear weapons, either on its own or with EU partners. I would prefer this effort to not be resisted.

Poland probably will as well. So position 4 is I think insane.

Instead, Iran should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons because they are crazy, and should only be prevented from doing so because they are crazy. There are some current nuclear weapons states that should have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons, but that is tolerable.

Furthermore, I think position 1 is also false, since I believe that nuclear weapons actually provide deterrence and prevent conventional war.

If the Iranians weren't crazy it would be good that they had nukes, and it would stabilize the entire Middle East, reducing the belligerence of other entities.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: