Friday, February 23, 2007


Further sanctions are to be put on Iran in an attempt to force suspension of their nuclear program. The U.N. has decided that this is a necessary action after an investigation by the security council. the new sanctions include more people and companies on the list, additional prohibited items, economic measures and a the nuclear embargo expanded to an arms embargo.

Iran says that its nuclear development plan is a peaceful one. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. There is nothing peaceful about nuclear weapons. if one's intentions were in fact peace then why would developing weapons be one of your policies?Certainly, a little concern is natural. What are their intentions with the weapons? Why are they so adamant about developing them? But, the larger question is should the U.N. interfere?

The U.N. has issued sanctions but there is really no way to enforce them. it has already been suggested that Russia and China both will not honor the sanctions. These measures seem more like a formality to make people feel more secure than an actual solution.

If we consider the dilemma in terms of liberty. The researcher/developers seem to be participating willfully and aware of the risks of radiation. Developing and possessing nuclear weapons does not harm anyone. This is an extreme case of the drunk driver, the actions are not hurting anyone, if we are respecters of liberty we cannot interfere unless harm is caused. We do not take measures to prevent harm. Although it is difficult for me personally it seems that it is their right to develop and have the weapons. in this extreme case i would feel better if the harm was prevented rather than acted on when the harm occurred. It also seems rather hypocritical, I am under no illusions that the U.S. and other major countries has no nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. How can we restrict the rights of others that we ourselves have?

1 comment:

Larry Eubanks said...

"How can we restrict the rights of others that we ourselves have?"

I'm not sure if we want to apply the idea of individual liberty to the issues you raise in the fashion you have chosen. Maybe, maybe not.

It would ask you to consider that the issues involve the actions of a government (Iran) and the reactions of other governments (e.g. United States). Generally I think of government as having power, not rights. The issue may or may not be well cast as a clash of individual rights.

I also wonder if you would like to use a different analogy than that of drinking and driving? I'm think that I have a gun and you have a gun. As long as neither you nor I threaten the other with the gun, then you and I simply have a couple of goods or tools (maybe for shooting rabbits).

But, what if I walk up to you with my gun, point it at you, and make no statement at all. Will you wait to hear the gun shot before shooting me with your gun? Perhaps the issues you raise should be cast in terms of self-defense?

In the case of Iran and nuclear weapons, I'm sure this government could have such weapons and not use them. On the other hand, the President of the government has publicly threatened to use them once they get them. The President has threatened to use them to wipe another country off the face of the earth. How do we apply the idea of legitimate force in self-defense when such public threats are made?