Is Iran entitled to weapons to defend itself?

[msc545]

Is it, or would it be your choice to just leave them defenseless because you don't like their religion, the pricing of their oil, or both?

[SolitarySolace]

Iran, like every sovereign country, has a right to defend itself. My position is not that Iran should be left defenseless because of its religion, oil, or anything else.

But the right to self-defense is not an unlimited entitlement to every weapon imaginable. I do not believe Iran should ever possess a nuclear weapon. Preventing the Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear weapons is entirely compatible with recognizing Iran’s right to maintain legitimate conventional defenses.

I apply the same basic principle consistently. Israel has a right to defend itself. The United States has a right to defend itself. Iran has a right to defend itself. None of those countries, however, gets an unlimited right to attack other nations, threaten international shipping, or call every aggressive military action “self-defense.”

Iran is also a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which creates international obligations concerning nuclear weapons and safeguards. So opposing an Iranian nuclear bomb is not equivalent to demanding that Iran have no military defense whatsoever.

The real question is not “Should Iran be defenseless?” It is what constitutes legitimate defensive capability and where legitimate defense becomes an offensive threat to other nations.

My position is straightforward: Iran should be capable of defending Iranian territory, Israel should be capable of defending Israeli territory, and the United States should be capable of defending American territory and interests. But Iran should never have nuclear weapons, and recognizing its right to conventional self-defense does not require accepting that.

[msc545]

So far the only countries that have attacked other countries and also have nuclear weapons are the United States and Israel.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545, That is completely factually incorrect. The US and Israel are nowhere near the only nuclear-armed nations to have launched attacks on other countries. Russia has a massive nuclear stockpile and invaded Ukraine and Georgia. China has nukes and invaded Vietnam in 1979. Pakistan is a nuclear power and initiated the Kargil War against India in 1999. The UK and France have both launched multiple foreign military campaigns while maintaining their arsenals.
The historical record shows that nuclear states across the spectrum—not just the US and Israel—have engaged in offensive military operations. Nuclear weapons are a dangerous escalator regardless of who holds them, which is exactly why stopping their proliferation matters.

[msc545]

You are right. I was thinking of Western countries, I think, when I wrote this, and yet I stand corrected.

[msc545]

So give him that logic. Why should the United States be entitled to have nuclear weapons? I notice you include American territory which is understandable, but you also included" American interests" and that is different than the way you described the rights of other countries. Why is that? Does that mean that the US somehow for some reason is entitled to broader interests in this regard than any other country? If so, why?

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 I don’t think the United States has some unique moral “entitlement” to nuclear weapons that no other country possesses. My position is based on the existing nonproliferation system and on deterrence, not on the idea that America has inherently superior rights.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States is one of the states formally recognized as a nuclear-weapon state, while non-nuclear parties agree not to acquire nuclear weapons. The treaty was deliberately structured to prevent additional countries from joining the nuclear club while also committing the nuclear states to pursue disarmament negotiations.

[SolitarySolace]

So when I oppose Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, I’m not saying Iran has no right to defend itself. Iran absolutely has a right to defend itself with lawful conventional military capabilities. I’m saying that recognizing a country’s right of self-defense does not mean supporting unlimited nuclear proliferation.

As for my reference to “American interests,” no, I do not mean America has rights that other countries lack. Countries can have legitimate security interests beyond their literal borders—alliances, deployed forces, citizens abroad, shipping routes, treaty commitments, and so forth. In America’s case, our nuclear deterrent also forms part of the defense architecture protecting NATO allies; NATO explicitly describes U. S. strategic nuclear forces as underpinning its extended deterrence.

Other countries can have legitimate interests abroad too. That does not mean any country gets a blank check to attack another country merely by declaring something an “interest.”

And there is another reason I resist the logic of “America has nukes, therefore Iran should get them too”: taken consistently, that argument leads toward more nuclear-armed states, not fewer. I would rather move toward effective arms control and eventual reductions while preventing additional proliferation than conclude that every country facing a security threat should build nuclear weapons.

So my position is consistent: Iran has a right to defend itself. It does not follow that Iran therefore needs, or should acquire, nuclear weapons. The same distinction between self-defense and nuclear proliferation applies more broadly.

[msc545]

Yes, I understand this, and you're not wrong, but I think the thing that the nonproliferation treaty has not taken into account is the notion that some countries (particularly resource-rich countries, but arguably any country) have the right to acquire, or should have the right to acquire, nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against states with nuclear weapons that intend to attack them. A primary example of this would be North Korea. The United States kept threatening North Korea until North Korea proved that it had developed nuclear weapons, at which point it has been conspicuously left alone by the United States and everybody else. Trump no longer threatens North Korea and no longer insults its leader. If having nuclear weapons, or pretending you have nuclear weapons and being convincing enough about it is enough to keep you from getting attacked, it's probably worth it.

[msc545]

I deliberately emphasize the fact that you don't actually have to possess nuclear weapons in order to benefit from the insurance policy that they provide. You just have to have the ability to convince other countries that you have nuclear weapons, and that appears to be sufficient.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 I understand the deterrence argument you’re making, and I agree that nuclear weapons can alter another country’s risk calculation. North Korea itself has long viewed its nuclear program as providing regime security, so I’m not denying the strategic logic behind nuclear deterrence.

But I think that actually demonstrates why the nonproliferation problem is so difficult rather than why every threatened country should acquire nuclear weapons.

The NPT is built around the opposite principle: non-nuclear states that are parties agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon states accept obligations connected to nonproliferation and disarmament. The basic goal is to prevent the logic of “my adversary has nukes, therefore I need nukes too” from spreading indefinitely.

[SolitarySolace]

North Korea also doesn’t prove that nuclear weapons make a country simply “left alone.” It has faced decades of sanctions, intense military deterrence, diplomatic pressure, and repeated crises. Trump himself was publicly threatening North Korea with “fire and fury” in 2017, well after North Korea had already demonstrated a nuclear capability.

Where I do agree with you is that nuclear deterrence creates a very real incentive problem: countries may look at North Korea and conclude that nuclear weapons make direct military attack less likely. That is precisely why security guarantees, alliances, diplomacy, conventional deterrence, and credible nonproliferation agreements matter. Otherwise every vulnerable state eventually reaches the same conclusion.

And on the bluffing point, I’d be even more cautious. Convincing an adversary that you possess nuclear weapons could theoretically deter an attack, but it could also trigger preventive strikes, arms races, or dangerous miscalculation. Nuclear ambiguity is not a free insurance policy.

So I think we’re identifying the same strategic incentive but drawing different conclusions from it. You see that incentive as an argument for allowing threatened states to obtain—or convincingly pretend to possess—nuclear weapons. I see it as the reason the international community has to make non-nuclear security credible enough that countries do not feel compelled to go nuclear in the first place.

[Miristheiss]

They are free to do what they want and since they sponsor terrorism and have been a threat for 50 years others are free to attack their nuclear ambitions.

[msc545]

Yeah, that's the popular right-wing explanation for why it's okay to do what's being done to Iran right now. You can't prove any of it. I haven't seen that they've sponsored terrorism, and I haven't seen that they've been a threat to anybody else, except possibly your paranoia fantasies. Why is it that you people think you can keep lying like this and that others will believe you? Only people that believe your crap are the same people that promulgate the lies that you keep telling.

[lilBigPotato]

Leaving a country with 0 defense capabilities isn't realistic, especially in a region like that.

[Kelly6]

@msc545 yes it is.

[Kelly6]

@msc545 thanks for mho

[Sevenpointfive]

when are they going to release the hostages so this can end?

[msc545]

There are no hostages.

[888theGreat]

and protect their resources

[Sevenpointfive]

there never were any hostages lol.

[Sevenpointfive]

@888theGreat i'm not sure they even need weapons to do it. i'm proud of them

[msc545]

If the United States didn't care so much about money and Trump wasn't obsessed with lining his own pockets, then the strategy of blocking the Strait of Hormuz probably wouldn't have worked. As it happens, it has worked. It will continue to work.

[Sevenpointfive]

he's going to flee to putin on that jet. mark my words. he won't be safe in argentina or israel. i'd be curious as to what the russian people think of him. i sure hope he likes the cold. but america will be getting their money back at least from his family.

[888theGreat]

Yes , all countries should be able to defend themselves.

[Staximus]

The can have their weapons but the executing of protestors and the country basically being held hostage by an extremest regime is not cool

[msc545]

So does that mean that the US is not entitled to execute people that they consider to be "illegal immigrants", and being held hostage by Trump is not cool?

[Staximus]

How many illegal immigrants have been executed?

[msc545]

I think it's up to about 20 or 30 now. All executed by ICE agents for no particularly good reason.

[msc545]

Also the 120 or 150 fisherman on boats in the Caribbean that Trump decided to execute quite illegally and for no particular reason.

[IknowthatIdontKnow09]

Every country is entitled to defend its territory against any attack

[Xoirwinkan]

Of course it is, but if it threatens international shipping, that's a problem.

[msc545]

International shipping was just fine until Trump decided it wasn't.