A theocracy armed with the most destructive weapons to ever exist is far more dangerous than most people give it credit for. Be it a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish theocracy, a nation run solely by a religion and not a secular nation with enough checks and balances to ensure responsibility lends itself to some very bad situations with no possibility of a peaceful outcome.
I believe responsible nations like the U.K. and certain few others must have some nuclear arms simply to embody a sense of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) among other nations with Nuclear arms, but when a nation is ruled by the belief that the deaths of oneself in the act of cleansing "heathens" M.A.D. becomes worthless, as they'd believe their God would allow them into heaven at their death for their "holy sacrifice".
So in short, I believe Iran and other theocracies MUST be prevented from a rise to nuclear power by any means necessary. If that means unsavory methods, then the ends (preventing possible worldwide nuclear war and destruction) justify any means taken to those ends.
That's just my take on the dangers of theocracies armed with nukes, though.
To further clarify, I think allowing the Iranian government to gain nuclear weapons is just as dangerous for the average Iran citizen as it is for the citizens of nations Iran's government has a vested interest in attacking. If Iran would provoke or attack the wrong people, it could spell a not-so-gentle wave of hate for not only Iran (Be they government affiliate or citizen) but also every person who doesn't hail from Israel in the middle-east, and possibly a massive fallout on the entire Islam religion. I don't like the idea of innocents not affiliated or in support of their government being harmed because some can't see the difference between two radicals and moderates of a religion and simply lump them together because they have the same god.
I definitely don't want to see innocents harmed in any capacity, but with nuclear weapons there's no way to avoid massive non-combatant casualties. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities where civilians lived, with a minor military presence at best, and when the Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped, all manner of innocent people died. Police, children, elderly, women, men, people simply working or living their lives in peace, all snuffed out in the flash of splitting atoms. I don't ever want to see Nuclear weapons used against any nation, my own or any other, and I don't want political fallout to cause deaths just as the literal fallout would.
Political sanctions, trade embargoes, censure by the United Nations, and any other non-military methods are preferable, but if the Iranian government insists it wants to pursue acquiring nuclear weapons, then they've left no other choice but military intervention to prevent massive death and destruction on a global scale.
I'm myself against a war 100%, But the idiot regime gives no proper answer to the diplomatic ways, And it makes the situation 100 times harder.
As an Ex Soldier so am i Evanesense war is no good,But needed at certain times,and what you have said is 100% correct,IRAN will, not co-operate with Diplomacy full stop.
When IRAN openly says it wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth something is wrong in their teachings,for me personally we have been talking far too long and its time for the real ACTION and we will have to accept the consequences,rather that today than a NUKE on Israel in 2 years time,like i said before Bomb,Bomb,Bomb,nuff said.
I think there are better ways than war to resolve this conflict.
I also think it's very hypocritical when some of the nations opposing Iran have nuclear weapons themselves.
Do a deal with them - They stop their nuclear program, and everyone else do the same and dismantle their weapons.
Yea, I am dreaming... but its nice to imagine the world with common sense.
Agreed, at least on the "take a third option" bit, though for differing reasons.
Pragmatically, a ground war will cripple every power involved. Resource-wise, eh. Just about every first-world power can put a MOAB down an air vent and minimize collateral. Blowing a place to Hell and back will not detonate any nuclear threats they may actually already have, but...
It's a war that would tear everyone who went in for cleanup into broken shells of men. We're talking about people that have a few million children in their militia. Their militia that focuses on religious policing and enticing said kids to join with a delicacy-a-night as payment for "services" rendered.
God forbid a nuclear containment site actually get hit in a way that lets it seep into the surrounding area. I have a hunch they'd defend the spill iteslf just for the "the invaders are war criminals" angle they could play to their own people.
Great, trying to think of a reasonable solution gave me a Heinlein: "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
I do fail to see how universal disarmament would do a lick of good, however. I mean, think about it for a bit. If that big, Hulk-y hadn't shown up at the sandbox and stolen your pail when you were a kid, would you have stopped digging willingly? Or would you be admiring the Great Wall in person right now?