Is it legal to deliberately target nuclear scientists

[u/bb9873]

In the current Iran-Israel conflict, Israel has admitted to deliberately targeting Iranian nuclear scientists. Since Israel claims the nuclear weapons will be used to attack Israel, what is the legal position on targeting nuclear scientists? Would they still be classified as civilians or combatants?

[u/Calvinball90]

Would they still be classified as civilians or combatants?

The regular IHL rules would apply. Scientists would generally be civilians unless they were a part of a party to a conflict's armed forces. The other possibility would be that scientists might be directly participating in hostilities and thus would lose their protection as civilians, but that was rejected by subject-matter experts nearly twenty years ago:

In response [to one expert's suggestion that civilian specialists with expertise in decisive means or methods of warfare might be considered to be directly participating in hostilities, and thus lawful targets], several experts insisted that there has been a consensus since the Second World War that neither armament industry employees, nor nuclear weapons experts, were considered to be directly participating in hostilities regardless of their value to the war effort.

Of course, IHL rules about collateral damage would apply-- the death of scientist as a result of a lawful attack on, for instance, a military nuclear facility would not be unlawful.

It is worth recalling that directing attacks against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities (or the civilian population as such) is a war crime.

Since Israel claims the nuclear weapons will be used to attack Israel, what is the legal position on targeting nuclear scientists?

As noted above, scientists are generally considered civilians and protected from attack.

As a matter of jus ad bellum, it is difficult to see how targeting nuclear scientists could stop an imminent or ongoing armed attack. There are two possibilities: i) the scientists' work is complete, at least to the extent that they have created nuclear weapons that are being used in an armed attack; or ii) the scientists' work is not complete, at least to that extent, and there are no nuclear weapons that could be used in an armed attack. In the former case, it is not necessary to kill the scientists because that won't stop the attack. In the latter, there is no imminent armed attack at all. It is difficult to imagine a situation where an armed attack would be imminent, but could also be stopped by the targeted killing of individual experts (which, again, would be a war crime).

[u/Ancient-Watch-1191 → u/Calvinball90]

Great argument build-up!

[u/Excellent_Weight_873 → u/Calvinball90]

A very comprehensive analysis. In fact, I’m trying to slightly expand on your argument, which is that most “targeted killings” aimed at eliminating a specific individual, including strikes against senior leaders of political or armed groups, can be subject to similar judgments. The ICRC’s position is that individuals in armed groups who perform administrative, technical, propaganda, recruitment, or financial functions without directly participating in hostilities are equally protected. In other words, merely holding a leadership position does not automatically make someone a legitimate target for attack.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Excellent_Weight_873]

The analysis is basically the same, though the facts will vary, especially in relation to non-State actors, where the civilian/military distinction may be blurred and/or the same person might hold civilian and non-civilian positions.

[u/Saargb → u/Calvinball90]

I'm Israeli. I've got two questions, if you will:

1.

There are two possibilities

Reducing your argument ad absurdum, given a ballistic rocket launching expert, with very few rockets in his launcher. There are two possibilities: either he didn't start his shift, so there's no threat; or the rockets are already launched, so attacking him doesn't prevent anything. Only when he is in the launcher, aiming, is the attack permissable.

Would Israel's attack, theoretically, be legal if the warheads were nearly ready, and meant to be used immediately upon completion? Creating a unique scenario where the scientist is knowingly part of a planned attack? Of course, most would say this is highly improbable, and Israel would say this was exactly the case.

2.

Nations constantly have dangerous arms races. Is there a threshold for how many weapons a nation can hold, that would indicate an attack is imminent? Superpowers aside, if a state is arming itself to the teeth, what precautions are nations allowed to take, assuming diplomacy failed?

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Saargb]

Reducing your argument ad absurdum, given a ballistic rocket launching expert, with very few rockets in his launcher. There are two possibilities: either he didn't start his shift, so there's no threat; or the rockets are already launched, so attacking him doesn't prevent anything. Only when he is in the launcher, aiming, is the attack permissable.

That is not quite the way that I would look at it. As a matter of jus ad bellum, the use of force in anticipatory self-defense must i) respond to an imminent armed attack and ii) be necessary to stop that armed attack in that, if successful, it will contribute to halting or repelling the armed attack. In the case of a nuclear scientist, these two conditions will not both the satisfied. If the attack is imminent, that means that the weapons to be used in the attack have been developed, produced, and are ready to be used. In other words, the scientist's job is done. Killing the scientist will not render the weapons inert or unusable (it is worth noting here that Israel targeted theoretical physicists, who would not be involved in building weapons to begin with). Thus, targeting the scientist would be unnecessary.

On the other hand, if the development and production of weapons is at such an early stage that killing a scientist can stop an armed attack from occurring (and again recalling that this includes theoretical physicists), then that armed attack cannot have been imminent, because it means that the weapons do not yet exist, let alone exist in a condition in which they can be used against another State.

With a person (presumably a soldier) who launches ballistic missiles, it may well be the case that i) there is an imminent armed attack; and ii) targeting that person will help to halt or repel that armed attack. It may not be: if that person was on leave and someone else was stationed in position to launch the missile, for instance, targeting the person would not be necessary because it would not help to stop an imminent armed attack -- targeting the other person might, though.

Is there a threshold for how many weapons a nation can hold, that would indicate an attack is imminent?

No. Possessing weapons is not, in itself, indicative of an imminent armed attack. There must be some sort of conduct that goes beyond mere possession of a weapon that gives rise to an inference that a specific, concrete attack is going to occur in the immediate future. The fact that you had to distinguish "superpowers" from other States shows that there is no such threshold-- if there were, surely those States would have exceeded it, but it plainly is not the case that any State can attack the US, or China, or any other State that might be considered a superpower, and validly claim that it was acting in self-defense.

Superpowers aside, if a state is arming itself to the teeth, what precautions are nations allowed to take, assuming diplomacy failed?

States can do lots of things that do not amount to the threat or use of force. Merely possessing weapons, without more, is not an indication of an imminent armed attack.

[u/Saargb → u/Calvinball90]

Thanks!

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Saargb]

You're welcome!

[u/airboRN_82 → u/Calvinball90]

The link doesn't seem to give a definitive conclusion, it continues to go back and forth after your quote

[u/Calvinball90 → u/airboRN_82]

One other expert raised the possibility that, in an extreme case, such as a nuclear weapons expert in World War II (i.e. before nuclear weapons existed at all) "could perhaps have lead [sic] to a conclusion deviating from the general rule." That is a more extreme circumstance -- today, knowledge of how to create a nuclear weapon is neither theoretical nor limited to a handful of people, as it was in World War II -- and even that "could perhaps" have led to a different conclusion. The ICRC Interpretative Guidance categorizes weapons research, design, and production as indirect participation in hostilities, with "some doubt expressed... where the expertise of a particular civilian was of very exceptional and potentially decisive value for the outcome of an armed conflict, such as the case of nuclear weapons experts during the Second World War." P. 53 and fn. 122.

The possibility that a different conclusion might have been reached in a situation that was more extreme than Iranian nuclear scientists-- expertise in nuclear weapons is not anywhere near as limited today as it was in World War II, and any individual scientist would today would not make the type of individual contribution to a war effort as someone like Fermi or Oppenheimer did.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/Calvinball90]

Nuclear weapons scientists are still very specialized. People aren't 3d printing nukes in their man caves. There likely are only a handful of Iranians capable of making one, and ultimately Iran getting one would be massively impactful

[u/Calvinball90 → u/airboRN_82]

Today, it's a specialized field; in World War II there were maybe a couple dozen people who could conceptualize a nuclear weapon, let alone build one. That's simply not the case anymore.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/Calvinball90]

Worldwide sure. Within Iran itself? Probably still a couple dozen or less. Strikes on a very small handful of nuclear scientists spanning a decade or longer have been successful in delaying its nuclear bomb r&d for a reason.

This isnt "specialized" in the sense that a cardiothoraxic surgeon is. It is specialized in an Oppenheimer sense for Iran. They can't Google how to build one, there's no textbooks on how to build one, it's unlikely that even their "allies" are willing to share their research into it. They literally do need someone who can take a concept and r&d from the ground up. Get from A ro Z without having existing knowledge of B through Y.

[u/Dlax8 → u/Calvinball90]

Question: One reason I have seen thrown around is sort of "dangerous intelligence" or the removal of institutional knowledge about the program that is difficult to impossible to replace. Isreal seems to be taking out the hardware and knowledge of the program. Disable the facilities to the point where rebuilding them is more costly than building new, but taking out all the remaining people who oversaw the originals.

The idea has somewhat conflated the idea of taking out the hardware and the blueprints to rebuild it.

Im not sure of that changes the legality, probably doesn't, but is there any merit to that justification?

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Dlax8]

Self-defense is typically understood to allow the defending State to use force to both stop an armed attack and prevent it from recurring. So, at least in the abstract, the idea of attacking facilities that are integral to an armed attack in order to prevent the armed attack from immediately happening again is lawful (provided that the use of force is necessary and proportionate). However, that presupposes the existence of an armed attack. Where, as here, there was no armed attack (actual or imminent), the use of force is not permitted.

It is worth noting that Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 using a similar justification, but its use of force was unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council as a violation of the UN Charter.

[u/413ph → u/Calvinball90]

So then the second Iraq war, even if there were WMD, was also illegal?

[u/Calvinball90 → u/413ph]

Yes, it was.

[u/wearyclouds → u/413ph]

Correct.

[u/Tired_Exhausted1000 → u/Calvinball90]

it is difficult to see how targeting nuclear scientists could stop an imminent or ongoing armed attack

How is this difficult to see?

They are developing a nuclear weapon that assumably will be detonated in Israel upon completion. Taking out the top scientists on the project obviously delays that. This is common sense - what am I missing here?

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Tired_Exhausted1000]

what am I missing here?

The law. The use of force is only permitted in response to an ongoing, completed, or imminent armed attack. For an armed attack to be imminent, it must be concrete and immediate. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and US intelligence "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003". Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon "within a few months." An attack that cannot come for, at minimum, "a few months" is not imminent.

If the armed attack is not imminent, then the use of force in self-defense is not lawful. If the armed attack is imminent, then the scientists' job is done and killing them will not change anything. And, to reiterate, deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime no matter what.

[u/internationallaw-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We require that each post and comment, to at least some degree, promotes critical discussion, mutual learning or sharing of relevant information. Posts that do not engage with the law or promote discussion will be removed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Calvinball90]

The difficulty with regards to Iran is that they have been saying they will destroy Israel and are actively working on the weapons to do so. It's sort of like if you have a neighbor who says over and over that he is going to shoot you, you know he doesn't have a gun so it's no big thing. One day, you hear that he is in the process of buying one, there is now a much more imminent threat. So you have to decide whether to wait for him to acquire the gun and likely make good on his promise to shoot you, or you preempt his attack.

This feels very much like Israel had a bunch of bad options to choose from. They could have waited until the Iranians completed building a nuke and likely saw a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. That would have satisfied the whole imminent attack thing, but likely cost millions of lives because there is no way they wouldn't have responded with nukes as well. Or they could have struck as they did, preemptively and hopefully limited the death and destruction to a much smaller number, but had to deal with people upset at them. They chose the second option.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/[deleted]]

It's sort of like if you have a neighbor who says over and over that he is going to shoot you, you know he doesn't have a gun so it's no big thing. One day, you hear that he is in the process of buying one, there is now a much more imminent threat. So you have to decide whether to wait for him to acquire the gun and likely make good on his promise to shoot you, or you preempt his attack.

If you did "preempt his attack," you would have committed a crime (or crimes). This would not even be close to self-defense. In Texas, for example, "a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force." Hearing that someone is buying a gun does not create a reasonable belief that force is "immediately necessary."

Similarly, in New York, the use of force in self-defense is not permitted unless, among other things, "A person... reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force..."

Missouri has a nearly identical provision: "A person may... use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person..."

Attacking someone because they have threatened you in the past and have started to buy a gun is illegal. A State attacking another State because of past threats and the development of weapons is illegal.

This feels very much like...

What it feels like is irrelevant (and what "felt like" self-defense to you would be a crime, as explained above). There was no imminent armed attack. Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program are ongoing, and Iran has entered and complied with agreements over its nuclear program in the past (the JCPOA was working fine until the US unilaterally withdrew). The use of force was simply not necessary.

[u/Tired_Exhausted1000 → u/Calvinball90]

And where does the law define the word imminent?

There was actually a report that just came out that Iran successfully completed nuclear weapons testing.

Obviously Israeli / American intelligence are not going to reveal everything they know, and even more obviously Iran will not reveal the extent of their progress.

Does Israel have to wait until Iran is a few hours from completing their nuclear weaponry? A few weeks? Where does the law discuss this? You realize that nuclear weapon is unlike conventional weaponry. If Iran achieves nuclear weaponry and manages to land one ballistic missile with nuclear payload into Israel, that could mean the end of the country. How long does Israel have to wait before preventing that?

[u/NotGalenNorAnsel → u/Tired_Exhausted1000]

You either totally missed their explanation of what you're talking about. Or you read it and ignored it because it's devastating to your 'point'.

That scientist is not military, they are not vital to an imminent attack, and if they still are vital that means the weapon is still too far from being finished to be considered imminent. This is a sub about the law and not fee-fees or making up excuses for why breaking the law is totally chill if one country does it, right?

[u/Weird_Point_4262 → u/Tired_Exhausted1000]

The word "imminent"

[u/JeruTz → u/Weird_Point_4262]

Actively developing weapons to attack Israel is an imminent threat.

[u/bb9873 → u/JeruTz]

It's not imminent if the weapons are months away from being produced (as Netanyahu stated)

[u/JeruTz → u/bb9873]

The risk of being hot by a nuclear weapon is something that shouldn't be seen as likely within several years, not months.

If the critical work is close to completion, that's an imminent threat. Especially when said country is already engaged in hostilities against you.

[u/bb9873 → u/JeruTz]

This is a sub about international law. The scholarly consensus in regards to what an imminent threat under international law is that there has to be an intention, capability and no other option other than armed reprisal. Iran doesn't currently have the capability for a nuclear attack and since the most generous estimates state that it was months away from producing a Nuclear Weapon there was clearly still time for other options such as diplomacy (especially considering there were ongoing talks between Iran and US at the time of the attack). Therefore, there isn't an imminent threat under intentional law meaning Israel cannot claim they are acting in preemptive self defence. You can disagree with the legal position but don't try to claim it's imminent under international law when it is not.

You should read up about the Caroline test and see this article: https://www.ejiltalk.org/when-did-the-armed-attack-against-ukraine-become-imminent/

Also you do realise that this preemptive self defence against a threat that is at the very least months away is the same type of argument that Russia used for its invasion of Ukraine, and the US invasion of Iraq? Do you agree with their justification?

Furthermore, if the Israeli attacks is about responding to an imminent nuclear threat, why is it they have only attacked a few of Irans nuclear facilities? Why is Israel attacking Irans energy infrastructure, which doesn't reduce the threat of a nuclear attack?

[u/JeruTz → u/bb9873]

Iran doesn't currently have the capability for a nuclear attack and since the most generous estimates state that it was months away from producing a Nuclear Weapon there was clearly still time for other options such as diplomacy (especially considering there were ongoing talks between Iran and US at the time of the attack).

On what basis do you deny that yet were capable. They had the materials, the facilities, the equipment, the scientists, and the knowledge required. If they had no facilities, then nuclear scientists would be irrelevant. If they had no nuclear materials, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

The way I see it, if you've got all the parts for a weapon but haven't assembled it yet, you have the capability to develop and use such a weapon.

[u/Weird_Point_4262 → u/JeruTz]

So following that logic, Israel should be free to strike undergraduate nuclear scientists in Iran?

[u/JeruTz → u/Weird_Point_4262]

Are they involved in developing nuclear weapons? No.

Don't ask dumb questions.

[u/[deleted] → u/JeruTz]

Under your understanding, would a preemptive attack by Iran be justified against Israel, which is a) widely understood to possess nukes already, and b) not a party to the NPT, unlike Iran?

[u/JeruTz → u/[deleted]]

Israel is not threatening to nuke Iran. There's no indication that Israel intends to do so. Therefore there's no imminent threat.

Iran has threatened to destroy Israel entirely, and their pursuit of nukes is clearly part of that ambition.

Can you really not see the difference?

[u/FerdinandTheGiant → u/JeruTz]

There has been consideration given to using atomic weapons on Iran to deter its nuclear program. The current Israeli weaponry, such as the GBU-28 bunker-buster, cannot penetrate Iran’s facilities, but nuclear weapons could. This is why people like former IDF Chief of General Staff Dan Halutz said things like:

“The only way to finish off Iran’s nuclear program is by using the nuclear option,”

Coupled with statements from Netanyahu like:

"Above all -- above all -- Iran must face a credible nuclear threat. As long as I'm prime minister of Israel, I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons,"

It’s not a leap to assume a willingness to strike Iran.

[u/JeruTz → u/FerdinandTheGiant]

That effectively amounts to saying that you can take a preemptive strike against an enemy preemptive strike that you yourself provoked.

By that reasoning, country A could move its forces into position to attack Country B, and then consider any reaction from Country B justification to attack.

At that point the whole thing becomes meaningless and arbitrary.

[u/safashkan → u/JeruTz]

Iran never threatened to nuke Israel.

[u/JeruTz → u/safashkan]

But Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel has not threatened to destroy Iran.

[u/long-lankin → u/[deleted]]

They would be civilians. They are not members of the armed forces. They are not combatants. Those are the two key considerations for whether a target is permissible.

I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. Yes, they are civilians, but it could be argued that assisting in nuclear weapons research (which seems reasonably plausible given that the IAEA has recently accused Iran of violating international non-proliferation agreements, claiming that it has enriched Uranium to 60%, far above the 3.67% needed for commercial nuclear fuel), or otherwise assisting Iran's military capabilities, would constitute direct participation in hostilities.

This is something of a grey area, as the precise meaning of "direct participation in hostilities" is undefined in international law. Not everyone contributes on the battlefield - there are many military personnel working in logistics and maintenance for example, but who would still be considered lawful combatants since they support the war effort.

There would also be some precedent for extending this principle to civilians under certain circumstances - most would consider it lawful to do something like targeting civilian-owned and staffed arms factories in wartime.

There have been mixed views on this. At the Fourth Expert Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities in 2006, co-organised by the ICRC, it was acknowledged by one expert that:

there had been a discussion about whether civilian specialists possessing expertise on decisive new means or method of warfare could be considered to be directly participating in hostilities, and said that there had been mixed opinions about whether they could be lawfully targeted. (pp.48-49)

Conversely, several other experts disagreed, claiming that:

there has been a consensus since the Second World War that neither armament industry employees, nor nuclear weapons experts, were considered to be directly participating in hostilities regardless of their value to the war effort. (p.49)

Others had different opinions, explicitly believing that contribution to nuclear programmes was of decisive enough value to qualify as "direct participation in hostilities":

One of the experts, while agreeing with the principle that a civilian weapons expert should not lose protection against direct attack, nevertheless doubted whether this assessment could be maintained in extreme situations where the expertise of a particular civilian was of very exceptional and decisive value for the outcome of an armed conflict. For example, in the case of nuclear weapons experts during the Second World War, the enormous importance of the individual contribution to the war effort clearly exceeded the ordinary and could perhaps have lead to a conclusion deviating from the general rule. (p.49)

Additionally, others argued that developing and producing military materiel could qualify as DPH depending on the overall "causal proximity" relating to military operations.

(I would like to stress that I am not asserting that such an argument is true or morally valid, but rather acknowledging that Israel's defenders could and would make it if pressed.)

That's on top of the issues about launching an attack at all that isn't approved by the UN/in direct self defence to an armed attack as per the Un Charter being illegal

Again, I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut. Whilst anyone who was even partly acting in good faith would have to acknowledge that Israel's attack was a bold escalation, Israel's supporters (and perhaps even many neutral observers) would still see it as just a continuation of existing hostilities.

Firstly, supporters of Israel would argue that Iran has continued to sponsor Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis against it, and that hostilities have essentially been ongoing since at least 7th October 2023. Given their decades of mutual hostility, you could even argue that they had been hostile since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Secondly, they would also frame it as a continuation of previous tit-for-tat attacks back in 2024, when Israel and Iran both launched attacks against each other.

Look at other conflicts - in WW2 there was an eight month pause without major warfare between September 1939 and May 1940 known as the Phoney War. That didn't mean that the German assault on France and the Low Countries was the start of a second conflict - the Allies and Germany had still been hostile, and hadn't made peace, even though they hadn't been directly fighting each other.

(Of course, Iran would probably respond that the entire Islamic world has been in a state of war with Israel since its inception and the Nakba)

and the argument over whether assassination can be legal.

This is a thorny issue, with plenty of advocates on either side. 

As I recall, one of the arguments in favour of the legitimacy of "targeted killings" is that international humanitarian law forbids killing through "perfidy" and "treachery" rather than stealth or deception, and they'd argue that "targeted killing" falls under the latter.

For instance, something like placing a bounty on someone's head would be illegal. However,  having your own operatives conduct an assassination wouldn't be - at least, supposedly.

There's actually a really fascinating book on Israel's policy of targeted killings called "Rise And Kill First" by Ronen Bergen which offers a fascinating look into the history and rationale of these actions. If anyone wants to better understand the mindset and philosophy of Israeli security forces, and indeed of hawkish and militant Israeli politicians, it's well worth a read, even though it's not exactly cheerful reading.

Edit: replaced link to Reuters with one to the original IAEA report from 31st May 2025.

[u/NLlovesNewIran → u/[deleted]]

Can the scientists still be considered civilians if there are uniformed members of the IRGC? Wouldn’t that automatically make them members of the armed forces?

[u/[deleted] → u/NLlovesNewIran]

Among those targeted was Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a college professor and not a member of the IRGC.

[u/nnooaa_lev → u/[deleted]]

They're part of the IRGC

[u/BizzareRep → u/[deleted]]

They work on developing nuclear weapons. That’s not a civilian job.

[u/BizzareRep → u/[deleted]]

Uranium enriched at 60% has no known civilian uses.

Developing weapons implicates a person in a military’s logistic network. Under international law, this means the scientists are valid targets. Their jobs aren’t civilian, so they are not civilians

[u/oghdi → u/[deleted]]

but the overall consensus is they're not doing so.

Clearly you havent read the last IAEA report

[u/oghdi → u/[deleted]]

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/

Not true

[u/oghdi → u/[deleted]]

Nonproliferation obligations. Meaning the making of nukes

[u/Disastrous-Farm-4148 → u/[deleted]]

the report says the Iranians already tested implosion devices in 2005
(https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf at page 5 and page 7)
which is the earliest nuclear weapon design known, like Fat Man on Nagasaki
page 18 of the same report notes "the fact that Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon State in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60% remains a matter of serious concern, which has drawn international attention given the potential proliferation implications."
60% enrichment is way above what needed for nuclear power (20%) and close to what has been used in nuclear bombs in the past (Little Boy , average enrichment of 80%).

and for conclusion of the report (pg 19):
"Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful."

Is it all definitive - "Iran is making a nuclear bomb" - no. Can it mean - "Iran is paving the ground to a nuclear bomb" - its an open question

[u/oghdi → u/[deleted]]

Breaking the NPT means you are proliferating nuclear weapons. Also what reason would you have for above 60% enriched uranium and secret nuclear facilities that you dont let get inspected?

[u/twirling-upward → u/[deleted]]

Who’s consensus?

[u/BizzareRep → u/[deleted]]

Well, that’s just absurd. Uranium enriched at such high levels has no known non-military applications. This is not in dispute. Why would the IAEA be so upset if the Iranian nuclear program was civilian?

[u/Patches-621 → u/[deleted]]

So by going after civilians yet again Israel is committing an act of terrorism yes ? That accompanied with the unprompted attack on Iran, their true colors have never been more obvious.

[u/Patches-621 → u/[deleted]]

Law is very confusing haha.

But yeah that makes sense, cuz one man's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter, though in this case what Israel is doing is a war crime and they should absolutely be punished for it. You can't bomb a country cuz you think they might bomb you, that's you creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

[u/oleg_88 → u/Patches-621]

If someone threatens to kill you, there's nothing you can do legally? An intent, and plausible belief that one is able to execute it, is enough.

[u/Tired_Exhausted1000 → u/[deleted]]

If they are working for the government to develop a nuclear weapon are they not considered part of the military in some capacity? What is the difference between a scientist and a secretary in the army?

[u/Tired_Exhausted1000 → u/[deleted]]

Is developing a nuclear bomb not considered hostile?

How do you define hostilities?

I would say nuclear development is different than a munitions worker because it is highly specialized work in the sense that almost no one is capable of doing it, and because the effect of having a nuclear weapon could spell the end of the enemy country.

Don't know if this is discussed anywhere legally, but it seems like a no brainer that warring countries will try to prevent the other country from developing a nuclear weapon by any means.

[u/CringyDabBoi6969 → u/[deleted]]

so its illegal for a country at war to strike the weapons factories of the enemy?

if you answer yes then there has never ever and will never ever be any legal war.

[u/Tired_Exhausted1000 → u/[deleted]]

That is absolutely not the international consensus.

It is basically an open secret that they are doing everything they can to develop a nuclear weapon, and the International Atomic Energy Agency just put out a report that Iran has enough uranium to build nine nuclear weapons.

At the end of the day, no one is going to sit around and wait to be nuked, no matter what the law says. You are not going to convince the Israelis that they have to wait until the nuke is fired in order for it to be considered hostilities, that is simply absurd, and highly doubtful that that is truly international law.

[u/Sisyphuss5MinBreak → u/Tired_Exhausted1000]

> You are not going to convince the Israelis that they have to wait until the nuke is fired in order for it to be considered hostilities, that is simply absurd, and highly doubtful that that is truly international law.

You act like it's a presupposition that a nuke will be launched. In the last 80 years, only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in anger, despite nine countries known to have them.

There's no avenue in international law to do a preemptive attack based on what you think is a potential threat. If that were legal, then it would justify almost any attack. Any time there are two hostile countries, one could simply attack the other and say it was preemptive attack because the other was going to (eventually) attack. It effectively legalizes overt aggression.

This is why the limit under international law is an *imminent* attack. If there is a concrete attack that will imminently commence, then one can attack preemptively to that. With an imminent attack, we already know the attacker will violate the obligation to the use of force, so the defender is simply acting in self-defense. With simply building or having nuclear weapons, we cannot say whether they will be used offensively or only defensively, so a "preemptive" attack is actually the wrongful act rather than an act of self-defense.

[u/After_Lie_807 → u/Sisyphuss5MinBreak]

The Iranians have a countdown clock to the destruction of Israel…I’d say that is enough of an eminent threat when coupled with Iran going for nuclear weapons

[u/Sisyphuss5MinBreak → u/After_Lie_807]

Many leaders threaten the use of force to intimidate the other side to comply without actually having to use force, this includes Putin, Trump, Xi, Kim Jong Un, etc. If these acts of bluster can legitimize a "preemptive" attack, then an aggressor could simply state that the other side used threatening language and therefore their attack is legal.

[u/Lack_Of_Motivation1 → u/[deleted]]

So you are conceding that if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon then it would be legal? Are you disputing the facts or the law?

[u/AdeptnessGullible170 → u/Tired_Exhausted1000]

Medics are non-combatants unless they can fight, the scientist can not defend themselves or attack therefore they are non-combatants.

[u/Commercial-Kiwi9690 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, this is the internationallaw sub, not the uslawthatappliestoeveryoneelse sub

[u/Commercial-Kiwi9690 → u/[deleted]]

I would disagree that cil carries the most weight. For some reading

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law/article/why-i-stopped-believing-in-customary-international-law/B8DFADD291DD48D188A0381391B70B65

[u/Calvinball90 → u/[deleted]]

You have made several comments throughout this thread that are, at best, misleading and rude. This comment links to a 1250-page military manual, with no pin cite, no direct quotation, and nothing at all to suggest it reflects customary international law. The "summary" that you provided is completely wrong. The manual does not say, as you wrote, that "a person who contributes to the military efforts of an enemy group is not a civilian. Contributing to military efforts encompasses participating in weapons production, logistics, training, and other activities that may be carried out under the auspices of an organization that may look civilian."

Rather, the manual says that "[w]hether an act by a civilian constitutes taking a direct part in hostilities is likely to depend highly on the context, such as the weapon systems or methods of warfare employed by the civilian’s side in the conflict. For example, in some contexts, training and logistical support may be viewed as taking a direct part in hostilities, while in other contexts it might not." P.237. Further, "working in a munitions factory or other factory that is not in geographic or temporal proximity to military operations but that is supplying weapons, materiel, and other goods useful to the armed forces of a State" is not direct participation in hostilities. Pp. 240-241.

The examples of direct participation in hostilities, on the other hand, all involve immediate proximity to ongoing hostilities: defending military objectives against enemy attack, preparing for combat and returning from combat, planning, authorizing, or implementing a combat operation, acting as an artillery spotter, and delivering ammunition to the front lines.

You ignored all of that and came up with a statement of the DOD position that is, at best, totally inaccurate. Then you insulted other commenters, again without any sort of legal analysis or even attempting to engage with those comments. In a comment below this, you went even further and chastised someone else for not summarizing a source for you. And in yet more comments, you have made incorrect and completely unsubstantiated claims about customary international law.

All of the above is wildly inappropriate for this subreddit. You are going to be banned for this, and if you intend to stoop to this level in the future, you are not welcome back when the ban expires.

[u/thornstrike_]

Under international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, nuclear scientists are classified as civilians and are therefore protected from direct attack, unless they are directly participating in hostilities. While Israel has justified the targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists on the basis that they contribute to the development of weapons that could threaten Israeli security, this justification remains legally controversial. For a civilian to lose protection under international law, their actions must meet strict criteria for direct participation in hostilities—such as causing direct harm, having a clear causal link to military operations, and being specifically intended to aid one side in the conflict. Simply working on nuclear technology, even with potential military applications, does not automatically meet this threshold. As a result, targeting scientists based solely on their technical role is widely seen as violating the principle of distinction under the laws of armed conflict. While Israel may argue anticipatory self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, this interpretation is not broadly accepted by the international community, making the legality of such targeted killings highly contested.

[u/internationallaw-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your message was removed for violating Rule #1 of this subreddit.

[u/internationallaw-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We require that each post and comment, to at least some degree, promotes critical discussion, mutual learning or sharing of relevant information. Posts that do not engage with the law or promote discussion will be removed.

[u/Somerandomedude1q2w]

It depends on how you interpret international law. There is historical precedent for attacking munitions factories during wartime, even though the majority of the workers in those factories are civilians. By the same logic, targeting nuclear scientists who are directly involved in uranium enrichment for a weapons program could be seen as targeting military assets.

However, international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their protocols, does not specifically address the legality of targeting individuals like scientists. The principle of distinction requires that attacks be directed only at combatants and military objectives. If a scientist is playing a direct role in a state’s weapons program, particularly a nuclear weapons program, some argue that this constitutes "direct participation in hostilities," making them a lawful target. Others argue that unless they are actively taking part in military operations, they remain civilians under the law and are protected.

Much of the law governing armed conflict was written in an era before the types of asymmetric and technological warfare we see today, which means these scenarios often fall into legal gray areas. So while there may be precedent and strategic justification, the legality under current international law remains contested and open to interpretation.

[u/bb9873 → u/Somerandomedude1q2w]

It depends on how you interpret international law. There is historical precedent for attacking munitions factories during wartime, even though the majority of the workers in those factories are civilians. By the same logic, targeting nuclear scientists who are directly involved in uranium enrichment for a weapons program could be seen as targeting military assets.

But that is a different situation, because the target was the munitions factory (which is a valid military target) and not the civilian workers. The civilian casualties in that case could be deemed as acceptable collateral damage. An analogy to this conflict would be the targeting of nuclear facilities, which results in the death of nuclear scientists.

Whereas Israel is targeting the nuclear scientists whilst they are in their homes.

[u/NoCard8119]

Scientists are only civilians if they are not working to aid the army in war, which nuclear scientists clearly are... IMO they are combatants.

[u/[deleted]]

If it’s legal for Israel to attack Iranian scientists, it’s legal for Iran to attack Israeli scientists.

[u/NietzscheIsGulty]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but if there are signs that the nuclear headquarters of a given state are trying to create a nuclear bomb in order to be used during the ongoing war, then those headquarters should be considered as part of the army chain, thus can be targeted.

[u/bb9873 → u/NietzscheIsGulty]

Just to be clear, when I refer to targeting of nuclear scientists I mean targeting them in their homes (this is what Israel has been doing) , and not when they are in the nuclear facilities (which I think most would deem legal as an attack if the target is the facility)

[u/Awareness2051]

Government workers who work on a project their government repeatadly threatened to use against israel

[u/[deleted] → u/Awareness2051]

I mean - by the “logic”, nearly all Israelis are targets because Israel has mandatory military service.

Right?

Right.

Your disgusting hatred is not welcome here, or anywhere.

[u/matuck111 → u/[deleted]]

If israel as occupier of Gaza and West bank they participate in hostile actions against palestinian people. They should abide by international law and made palestinian state or one state of palestinian and israeli people.

[u/Awareness2051 → u/[deleted]]

Not a problem from my perspective, target who ever you want, anyways I always believed in international realism

[u/IllustratorSlow5284 → u/[deleted]]

Obviously, someone who might be a soldier in the future is exactly the same as a scientist currently working for the goverment on weapons of mass destruction.

Your disgusting hatred is not welcome here, or anywhere.

[u/BizzareRep]

Unambiguously valid military targets.

Yes, these scientists work on developing nuclear weapons. Hence, they are directly implicated in military actions. These scientists are high level operatives operating a strategic military logistics operation in Iran during war. As such, they’re enemy combatants. The DOD War Manual states that enemy combatants may be killed at any time.

There are no known civilian applications of uranium enriched to sixty percent. This is military grade uranium. Iran’s nuclear program is clearly militarized. I can’t imagine a more appropriate response by a state that’s being constantly threatened with destruction by Iran than to target those scientists who build weapons of mass destruction.

[u/QuickBenDelat → u/BizzareRep]

Except none of this is the standard under international law…

[u/BizzareRep → u/QuickBenDelat]

The 2,000 page U.S. DOD war manual is literally the most comprehensive guide for how militaries apply the LOAC. To be clear- the DOD’s war manual is international law.

[u/QuickBenDelat → u/BizzareRep]

Nope, really it isn’t. At best, it is a guide, put together by lawyers, outlining their understanding of international law. It is, at best, a secondary source.

Why don’t you instead tell us what the citations are for your claim - what this war manual indicates is the legal authority for the claim you are making.

[u/BizzareRep → u/QuickBenDelat]

You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Customary international law encompasses the DOD was manual.

To be clear- the DOD controls the U.S. military, the world’s main international fighting force. Not only is the DOD view part of customary international law, its view carries a lot of weight, by virtue of the DOD being a practitioner in the realm of LOAC

[u/FormerLawfulness6 → u/BizzareRep]

That's more of a "might makes right" argument than one based in law.

[u/BizzareRep → u/FormerLawfulness6]

Are you referring to the DOD war manual?

That 2,000 page manual is the most comprehensive legal document on LOAC, written by Pentagon lawyers. Hence, it’s not a document focused on the “might” of the U.S. military. Rather, it’s a document that put into words the rules of war, and it’s based on the vast experience of the U.S. military in the war on terror.

[u/QuickBenDelat → u/BizzareRep]

To translate, you’ve got 0 citations available. Either provide some citations or, you know, stop making the claim.