Is it moral to destroy Iran's nukes?

Verity at Southern Appeal asks if it's moral to preemptively destroy another country's nuclear weapons:

Assuming it is immoral to preemptively go to war against another country, is it morally permissible to instead target that country's nuclear weapon/facilities.

So here are my thoughts:

(1) The nuclear weapons have to actually exist, unlike the phantom WMD that was in Iraq.

(2) Targeting the nuclear weapons probably means dropping bombs on them, and that's going to kill people. Is it wrong to kill people to destroy a weapon which will probably never be used?

(3) An attack on a foreign country may cause that country to retaliate and thus it's not necessarily possible to target nuclear facilities without causing widespread loss of life.

(4) Is it moral to consider the tradeoffs? If there is a 10% chance the nuclear bomb might be used and kill 100,000 people, there is a net savings of 10,000 lives if it's destroyed. If we need to kill 1,000 to save a statistical 10,000, it this a moral tradeoff?

(5) Are some lives more important than other lives? Is it justified to kill 10,000 Iranians to save the lives of 1,000 Americans?

Comments

[jalvascruggs]

I'd say there is never a moral case for preemptive or preventive attacks, of any sort. There is a certainty of harm being done weighed against a possibility of being harmed. The justifications rely on speculation. The speculation is left to people who have an interest in keeping important information concealed and, in many cases, an interest in lying.