Dissent Magazine Subscribe to Dissent





print  |  email

Michael W. Doyle Responds

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is desirable. But is it vitally necessary or just desirable? Is it doable, and, if so, at what cost? Answers to those questions will explain why I think we should try to prevent, but settle for deterring.

Prevention is not a radical policy. It is fully legal when authorized by the UN Security Council under Article 39 of the Charter, which calls upon the Council to determine “threats” to international peace and decide what to do about them. The Council imposed preventive sanctions on South Africa in 1977 to punish apartheid and prevent a regional race war. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October 1962, the United States unilaterally—illegally but arguably justifiably—imposed a blockade to prevent the Soviet Union from making Cuba into a missile base threatening the United States. Responsible governments regularly face the choice of whether to try to deter a potential foe or to act first—that is, preventively—to save themselves from a blo...

» Want to continue? Login below:


Subscriber Login



Subscribers get your account.

Subscribe Now

Access to this article is only offered to print subscribers. Subscribe now to read this article—and get immediate access to our archive—for the price of $20.


top  |  print  |  email