The notion of pre-emptive strike is very problematic due to our past experiences of military strikes which proves that insinuates its inefficiency. For instance, the Iraq assumed connotation that Iraq has NBC weapon which seems to be untrue. It is imperative to give diplomacy a change in regards to various past experiences of attacks.That is, even though some attacks may have been operationally successful in the sense of destroying specific targets, the spread of NBC weapons was not significantly delayed by the attack because, even in the absence of the attack, the target state was not close to acquiring NBC weapons. In short, the costs of preventive attacks were borne without reaping the benefits of reducing NBC threats.
Another fundamental problem underlying these episodes is poor intelligence about the status of a target state’s NBC programs. Collecting quality intelligence about other states’ NBC programs is extremely difficult, since such states obviously place very high priority on keeping the existence and progress of these programs secret. Indeed, beyond the examples mentioned above, the United States has an underwhelming track record in assessing the NBC programs of other states, sometimes underestimating and sometimes overestimating a state’s progress towards acquiring NBC weapons; therefore, I fail to see what moral effect it can have if Israel attacks Iran. The UN nuclear watchdog chief has warned that any military strike on Iran could turn the Middle East into a “ball of fire,” according to New York daily news.
I agree with the UN watchdog because what is happening in the middle east regarding the Arab spring, the international community has not be able to control; therefore, the world does not need another 'fire ball.' like what president Obama said 'there is a room for diplomacy' so Israel must excise patient because the international community will never allow another Holocaust in middle east.
No comments:
Post a Comment