7 ms·
The Iranian nuclear scientist in question was building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Iran is building an offensive nuclear weapon. In the U.S. our nuclear a
by joshuaheard 6y ago
The Iranian nuclear scientist in question was building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Iran is building an offensive nuclear weapon. In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/527724-iranian-scientist-linked-to-military-nuclear-program-assassinated-in https://thehill.com/policy/international/527724-iranian-scie...
- justicezyx 6y agoYou are saying Oppenheimer should have been killed?
- durovo 6y agoI personally don't think that he should have been killed. But GP might have been fine with it had the Japanese killed Oppenheimer?
- hnracer 6y agoNot a valid analogy. The allies were trying to beat a fascist autocracy that had just ravaged multiple countries and committed heinous war crimes with no indication of having a willingness to slow their pursuit. That's in no way comparable to the current situation of Iran building a nuke to deter or obliterate Israel.
- 737min 6y agoAre you aware of what Iran has been up to in the region? Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza..
- hnracer 6y agoYes and that's exactly my point... Iran building a nuke to counter Israel is not morally equivalent to the US building a nuke to counter the axis powers.
- justicezyx 6y agoAsk a Palestinian, their view will be different. If you believe that majority (just become more people are influenced through media with the same view as yours) can force a political view onto a minority, then I think we need a more serious talk on whether or not you might find a better life in China or Iran. I am serious here. Do not think I intend to mock you. Rule by majority is not what I approve for myself to live in US.
- justicezyx 6y agoWell, who did the things first to destabilize the region?
- csunbird 6y agoOh, come on, history is written by the victors. I am not saying that they have not did bad things, but if Germany had won, they would say the same about U.S., who, just as a reminder, dropped two nuclear bombs in civilian cities. Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means. Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2. Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same). The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not. If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.
- sir_bearington 6y agoSure Germany would have said they were the good guys. The difference is in what they did: seek out to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, Jews, and other groups they considered inferior. I get that it's important to see history from multiple points of view, but this idea that "Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means" is just unabashed moral relativism.
- whimsicalism 6y agoBut we didn't even need the nuclear bomb to beat the Germans.
- sir_bearington 6y agoTrue, but the nuclear bomb's original target was Germany and the parent comment was referring to Germany. Much of the same observations can be made about the Empire of Japan. I'm sure Imperial Japanese soldiers earnestly believed their subjugation of China and other mainland powers was just, but that doesn't alter it's depravity. There's value to be had in honestly recognizing that if I was born in Japan or Germany during the 1920s I'd probably have turned out just like the people I'm criticizing. But we also have to have conviction in what is good and what is evil.
- whimsicalism 6y agoKnowing what I know now, I absolutely think Oppenheimer should have been assassinated.
- nullifidian 6y ago>building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Israel already has a nuclear bomb that could be used to destroy Iran, though. >So, not morally equivalent. Are you implying that Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics?
- gadders 6y agoIran regularly says they want to destroy Israel. Israel has never said that they want to destroy Iran. I'm not sure whether Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics, but they're definitely fanatics.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago> Israel. Israel has never said that they want to destroy Iran. Israeli politicians have said enough very questionable statements to fill a book. But everybody sorts of understands them to be targeted at a domestic audience for pandering. Why is Iran supposedly different here?
- gadders 6y agoI'm talking about statements by the leaders - prime minister, president etc.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoThis is from the Israeli Minister of JUSTICE: https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all-palestinians-should-also-be-killed-says-israeli-politician https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all...
- gadders 6y agoMeh. She can't actually implement what she has claimed. This is Iran's LEADER: https://apnews.com/article/a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83 https://apnews.com/article/a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- milani 6y agoWho does decide what defensive and what not? The facts on the ground shows if any country is to be judged, it is US with all wars it began in the past century. I can't believe I'm reading this!!!
- touchngthevodka 6y agoIntent. Understanding of intent is incredibly important when analysing any conflict.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoAnd can you demonstrate that the intent of Iranian leaders was to commit mass suicide?
- milani 6y ago> Intent. Understanding of intent is incredibly important when analysing any conflict. Well, I think all reasonable minds see that the intent of the US is to stay as the world's power and it is a bad intent to have a nuclear weapon for!
- AsyncAwait 6y ago> The Iranian nuclear scientist in question was building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. You can't just say that without tons of credible evidence to back it up. Especially given Iran has no nuclear weapons while Israel does have them and refuses to sign any regulating treaty. > In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent. think you forgot the sarcasm tag. The U.S. is the ONLY country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons offensively. The Iranians have followed the nuclear deal, the U.S. has pulled out and violated the agreement. If anything, it is the U.S. that has shown itself as the irrational player here.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago> The Iranians have followed the nuclear deal What are you talking about? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-france-germany-formally-accuse-iran-of-breaking-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1ZD13A https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran... Additionally, Iran often has not allowed international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. This is required to audit that Iran is actually following the terms of the deal. That’s why America pulled out of the deal.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> What are you talking about? There is no deal if the signatories pull out. Prior to America pulling out, international inspectors were allowed access.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoYou have the timeline wrong. For example this is from August 2017: “ Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure” https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-201708... American withdrew from the deal in May 2018 because Iran would not allow independent auditors to inspect all known or suspected sites. See also this from 2015: “The Iranian Nuclear-Inspection Charade Iran is allowed ample time, up to 24 days, to hide or destroy evidence before inspectors are given access.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iranian-nuclear-inspection-charade-1437001048 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iranian-nuclear-inspection-... There were other instances going back to 2005.
- aszen 6y agoIs this a joke, US has already used Nuclear weapons offensively twice and has the most destructive offensive nuclear capability in the world.
- joshuaheard 6y agoNot a joke. America used Nukes against Japan after it attacked us. That is a defensive use.
- dbspin 6y agoThe United States is literally the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon offensively. Nations build nuclear weapons as a defence against invasion and regime change. Democratic or authoritarian, five eyes or 'axis of evil' the motivations are the same. M.A.D doesn't stop applying just because a nation is a theocracy.
- e12e 6y ago> In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. The US is the only country that has deployed nuclear weapons - and additionally have modern, adjustible-yeild tactical nukes. How is it "defensive"?
- whimsicalism 6y agoNationalism is where critical thinking goes to die.
- kriro 6y agoI mean I wouldn't be cool with someone assassinating Oppenheimer or any of the team that worked on the U.S. nuke which was clearly meant as an offensive weapon from the very beginning (even though I could sympathize if it was a Japanese time traveler). AFAIK the U.S. is still the only nation on earth to ever use this weapon of mass destruction. Claiming that the own nuclear arsenal is defensive while the empirical evidence suggests otherwise is a pretty strange notion. If the going gets tough, the U.S. is probably going to use nukes again. Hopefully it won't get that tough. I'm not even sure how you can use a nuke defensively. Kill them all first because they kill us...I guess it could be argued to be defensive technically.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago> "Iran is building an offensive nuclear weapon. In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon" You can argue that Iran is not trustworthy, or that it's proliferation, but the way you put it, it's pure hypocracy.
- captain_price7 6y agoEven if Iran did have nuclear weapons, does anyone honestly believe they would try to destroy Israel with it? I mean Israel not only have nuclear weapons, they are 10/11 th most advanced military in the entire world, with history of single-handedly defeating multiple neighbors combined. This is nothing but shallow rhetoric by Iranian politicians desperate to maintain an unpopular regime. A far, far more likely scenario is Israeli right-wing hawkish politicians starting a war with Iran in the name of "pre-emptive" strike.
- jonplackett 6y agoSo everyone else's nuclear bombs are for....?