3 ms·
Sarcasm. Iran are, amazingly for such a small economy, a massive polluter and they would rather drop dead then stop selling oil (fighter jets don't pay for them
by hogFeast 6y ago
Sarcasm. Iran are, amazingly for such a small economy, a massive polluter and they would rather drop dead then stop selling oil (fighter jets don't pay for themselves, the military owns most of their economy).
My point is: the nuclear industry exists to make weapons. That is it. It is baffling that other nations pretend otherwise (for example, the EU seems quite happy to pretend that Iran's massive interest in nuclear technology is for civilian purposes...unf, countries in the EU have a long record of supplying countries in the region with "civilian" technology that was later used to murder people).
- vbezhenar 6y agoThat might be true for Iran. But I don't see it as an issue, because obviously Iran wants to do so to protect them from foreign invasion, just like North Korea managed to get in position where nobody would want to risk invading them. It's not an ideal situation where one should get deadliest weapon ever to bring peace to the country, but at least it seems to work.
- hogFeast 6y agoThat would be a correct theory if you assumed that Iran is a rational actor. There is no evidence this is the case. I would actually argue that NK is a fairly rational actor, if a slightly volatile one. Their "enemy" is Emmanuel Goldstein, they understand the US won't invade them but it is useful for them to pretend they will. If Iran got a nuclear weapon, they would use it. No questions, they used chemical weapons before, they have gassed and bombed civilians, they don't care anymore (btw, the theory you are proposing was suggested before...Boris Johnson suggested it, he proposed giving a nuclear weapon to Iran, I studied IR, I am aware of the theory...it only works when a country has an incentive to not use nuclear weapons).