3 ms·

History proves without a doubt that having a nuclear arsenal is by far the most stabilizing event than can happen. No one goes up against someone with nukes wit

by Daho0n 6y ago

History proves without a doubt that having a nuclear arsenal is by far the most stabilizing event than can happen. No one goes up against someone with nukes without holding back. Israel opened Pandora's box when they got their own nukes. So if Iran's attempt is the most destabilizing event today it's clear what caused it. The correct response would be to force Israel to back down and have their sites monitored and only then is it possible to talk to Iran without talking down to them as if they are children. But I'm sure the US would rather give nukes to one of the worst countries in area than go against Israeli wishes.

hajile 6y ago
Israel had nuclear weapons back in 1966. They could have used them when attacked during the 6-day war (a war they almost lost). They could have used them during the following three year war of attrition. They could have used them when attacked during the Yom-Kippur War. The fact that they did not and have never used them as a negotiation tactic since acquiring them shows that Israeli nukes aren't destabilizing the region. Israel hasn't started up wars with its neighbors since its creation (we'll set aside terrorists in Palestine for another conversation sufficing to say that's definitely not a war). Iran has gone to war with almost everyone around at some point during that same 75 year period of time with a total body count in the millions. Finally, nukes only make sense for stability if you take religion off the table. Iranian leaders have called repeatedly, publicly, and recently for the annihilation of Israel. Don't forget that it was prophesied that things on this earth won't wrap up until there's a massive war in which the Jews are exterminated. This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  You are missing the point. That Israel have nukes are holding others back, not Israel. I haven't said anything about Israel going to war. Many countries will think "If our biggest enemy has nukes we better get them ourself" which is one of the reasons that Iran wants nukes: To hold off Israel. It's pretty clear that you have feelings invested in this and are picking sides which is understandable with the history of Iran and Israel but it doesn't change the facts that having nukes is most often a stabilizing event in a region (while the process up until they acquire them likely isn't) and if Iran trying to get nukes is a destabilizing event then the cause of this instability is not only that Iran wants nukes but also that others already have them and they now want them too which causes extreme tension especially in the country that already have them. This is the pattern we normally see. >This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States. Yes and again we know from history how this will likely play out. We actually have a very good example of what happens in a very unstable proxy situation when one side decides to add nuclear weapons into the mix: Korea. The armistice clearly stated No Nukes and since one side added nuclear weapons (the US broke the armistice by importing nuclear weapons into South Korea) we have seen the pariah (NK) doing exactly what Iran is doing: doing everything it can to get weapons that can stop the perceived enemy from being able to destroy them and yelling about destruction of the big enemy (which is mainly targeted at their own population). So if history teaches us anything it is IMO that Iran will either get nuclear weapons and it will cause stability OR it will not and instability will never stop growing until full on war breaks out at which point Iran as we know it will either be destroyed or the cycle will reset.
  - hajile 6y ago
    Your argument is wrong on the merits alone. If Communists in the US hadn’t stolen designs for the USSR, then proliferation could have been slowed or possibly prevented. Nukes on both sides led to a decades long Cold War that cost real lives and by all rights should have gone hot several times. UK or French nukes didn’t stabilize Europe nor make the USSR (or any other country I’m aware of) less likely to attack them. Pakistan and India continue to wage a Cold War hoping that the fundamentalists in Pakistan don’t gain too much power. The situation is just as unstable as before. Nukes in the PRK haven’t made the situation more stable. All peace deals were unrelated. In truth, the real threat has always been the hundreds of guns pointed at Seoul. They’ve actually destabilized relations with countries like Japan which has slowly moved toward arming again. That leaves just PRC. You could make the case that it stabilized the fighting between India and China to some degree, but fighting and border disputes still continues to cause suffering and death. It certainly hasn’t done a thing to lessen tensions with the rest of the South Pacific or the US where tensions simply continue to climb. Can you point to any places where the nine nuclear countries have stabilized regions because of nukes?

by Daho0n 6y ago

hajile 6y ago

Israel had nuclear weapons back in 1966. They could have used them when attacked during the 6-day war (a war they almost lost). They could have used them during the following three year war of attrition. They could have used them when attacked during the Yom-Kippur War. The fact that they did not and have never used them as a negotiation tactic since acquiring them shows that Israeli nukes aren't destabilizing the region. Israel hasn't started up wars with its neighbors since its creation (we'll set aside terrorists in Palestine for another conversation sufficing to say that's definitely not a war). Iran has gone to war with almost everyone around at some point during that same 75 year period of time with a total body count in the millions. Finally, nukes only make sense for stability if you take religion off the table. Iranian leaders have called repeatedly, publicly, and recently for the annihilation of Israel. Don't forget that it was prophesied that things on this earth won't wrap up until there's a massive war in which the Jews are exterminated. This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States.

Daho0n 6y ago
You are missing the point. That Israel have nukes are holding others back, not Israel. I haven't said anything about Israel going to war. Many countries will think "If our biggest enemy has nukes we better get them ourself" which is one of the reasons that Iran wants nukes: To hold off Israel. It's pretty clear that you have feelings invested in this and are picking sides which is understandable with the history of Iran and Israel but it doesn't change the facts that having nukes is most often a stabilizing event in a region (while the process up until they acquire them likely isn't) and if Iran trying to get nukes is a destabilizing event then the cause of this instability is not only that Iran wants nukes but also that others already have them and they now want them too which causes extreme tension especially in the country that already have them. This is the pattern we normally see. >This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States. Yes and again we know from history how this will likely play out. We actually have a very good example of what happens in a very unstable proxy situation when one side decides to add nuclear weapons into the mix: Korea. The armistice clearly stated No Nukes and since one side added nuclear weapons (the US broke the armistice by importing nuclear weapons into South Korea) we have seen the pariah (NK) doing exactly what Iran is doing: doing everything it can to get weapons that can stop the perceived enemy from being able to destroy them and yelling about destruction of the big enemy (which is mainly targeted at their own population). So if history teaches us anything it is IMO that Iran will either get nuclear weapons and it will cause stability OR it will not and instability will never stop growing until full on war breaks out at which point Iran as we know it will either be destroyed or the cycle will reset.
- hajile 6y ago
  Your argument is wrong on the merits alone. If Communists in the US hadn’t stolen designs for the USSR, then proliferation could have been slowed or possibly prevented. Nukes on both sides led to a decades long Cold War that cost real lives and by all rights should have gone hot several times. UK or French nukes didn’t stabilize Europe nor make the USSR (or any other country I’m aware of) less likely to attack them. Pakistan and India continue to wage a Cold War hoping that the fundamentalists in Pakistan don’t gain too much power. The situation is just as unstable as before. Nukes in the PRK haven’t made the situation more stable. All peace deals were unrelated. In truth, the real threat has always been the hundreds of guns pointed at Seoul. They’ve actually destabilized relations with countries like Japan which has slowly moved toward arming again. That leaves just PRC. You could make the case that it stabilized the fighting between India and China to some degree, but fighting and border disputes still continues to cause suffering and death. It certainly hasn’t done a thing to lessen tensions with the rest of the South Pacific or the US where tensions simply continue to climb. Can you point to any places where the nine nuclear countries have stabilized regions because of nukes?