5 ms·
So who takes responsibility when one of these attacks results in a meltdown? And why does Iran not have the right to build their own atomic bomb when the US, R
by sschueller 6y ago
So who takes responsibility when one of these attacks results in a meltdown?
And why does Iran not have the right to build their own atomic bomb when the US, Russia or China have them and are building new ones?
We ALL should be reducing nuclear weapons including the US. But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently
Edit: Nice to see that my global nuclear disarmament comment is getting downvoted. /s
- mvzvm 6y agoIran is a theocracy that has stated multiple times a desire to "Wipe X off the face of the earth", where X is another country / race / religion.
- hoka-one-one 6y agoIs Israel that much different? It seems like if you're committed to empowering all BIPOC you would not restrict their access to the weaponry needed to defend their homelands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
- mvzvm 6y agoIsrael is not governed by religious law, and has full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ. Its basis for most policy is a blend of social democracy and neoliberalism. Its military is purely defensive. I cannot say any of those things about Iran in good faith. Also, the what-about-ism is not a great defense of anything geopolitical btw.
- hoka-one-one 6y agoWhat do you think would happen if the US and all of Europe completely pulled out of the Middle East? Would Israel stay the size it is now? If not, can you really say it's "purely defensive"?
- mvzvm 6y agoI am not sure what you are implying. Can you elaborate? Are you saying Israel would go attack its neighbors and seize land? From Egypt? Jordan? Lebanon? If so, that's an absurd proposition with absolutely no geopolitical data points to back it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hoka-one-one 6y agoI don't think it's too absurd to imply that a country would expand into weaker neighboring countries if it could. One example where the US has intervened is Egypt -- without the US the Sinai Peninsula would surely be part of Israel right now. So yes I'd say it would seize land from Egypt, as it already has.
- sharikous 6y agoIf the US and Europe pulled out of the Middle East it would be too chaotic to predict anything. It depends on the presence of other superpowers (Russia, China) and the pecking order that would be established between the regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Egypt + the Sunni world). Also, "pulling out" is too simplistic. There are not only troops on the ground, but also military bases, joint exercises, weapon sales, commercial ties, industrial ties, scientific collaborations, cultural influences, and so on and so forth. Short of disappearing from the globe the US cannot just 'pull out'
- scatters 6y agoNot governed by religious law? 9000 Israelis get married in neighbouring countries each year because their relationship wouldn't satisfy the Orthodox rabbis who run the show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel
- whimsicalism 6y agoAre ethnic minorities extended the "right of return" in Israel? Last I checked this was not the case.
- hoka-one-one 6y agoYes, if they convert to Judaism. Seems reasonable, Judaism doesn't ban any ethnic minorities.
- whimsicalism 6y agoSorry, what was this about "not being governed by religious law"? > full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ So not full rights for religious minorities. Moreover, conversion is quite difficult and the process is made much easier if you have a parent who is Jewish (which generally forms an ethnic group). Only recently were non-Orthodox conversions recognized for this purpose: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/middleeast/israel-jewish-converts-citizenship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/middleeast/israel-j... Also, if you are from Palestine or Iran, you are excluded from citizenship via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr... ie. specifically on the basis of your ethnicity &/or national origin. I find it hard to take seriously claims of equal & full rights for minorities when those rights require converting to a different religion or being of a different ethnicity in order to apply to you.
- hoka-one-one 6y agoIt's important for people to understand that Judaism is a minority religion that has been historically persecuted. There is nothing wrong with working to preserve the tradition and culture, and if it ends in a small amount of ethnic homogeneity then it has to be accepted as necessary, especially since "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity, so in the current historical context failing to preserve Judaism means failing to preserve Jews. Empowering BIPOC isn't about expecting all the same things. It's about giving BIPOC the resources they need for their ethnic and cultural self-determination.
- moyasari 6y agoPurely defensive? What a joke. The Zionist Apartheid state of Israel was literally formed by stealing the land of Palestine and murdering its population. So much for "self defense".
- pepperonipizza 6y agoIs this some kind of a bad joke? Because some countries have BIPOC if they want nukes to not hinder their empowerment nobody should intervene. If all the countries in MENA have nukes, this would be terrible for everybody, it would exponentially rise the risk of nuclear warheads being used.
- cwkoss 6y agoIs there an impartial standard that we could use in determining which countries we should allow to have nukes? Why should the US allow Israel to have nukes when we spend so much energy preventing Iran from doing the same?
- gghhzzgghhzz 6y agoOnly one of the countries out of Israel and Iran have nukes, a superpower as benefactor, and lobby continuously for an invasion by that benefactor, an invasion that would kill hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the sanctions that are reshaping an entire society.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Protostome 6y agoThere's no such a thing as "rights" in international affairs. International relationships are not managed by what's right or wrong, but according to countries' interests and needs. Now, under this paradigm, we as the free world have to ask ourselves - is it of our interest that Iran will gain access to nuclear weapons? The answer is absolutely no.
- dyingkneepad 6y agoWould you please elaborate why? It's not very clear to me.
- Protostome 6y agoI assume you are asking why Iran shouldn't have nuc. weapons. A detailed answered would require several pages, but in short - Iran and the west have opposing views and conflicting interests. The western interests would be put in compromise if Iran gains such a leverage. As a theocratic regime, Iran has been actively exporting it's shiite fundamentalist ideology by force (from Yemen to Lebanon and even some non-muslim countries in South America). It would be naive to think that Iran will stop there. For example, just imagine what would happen if a nuclear Iran invades Saudi Arabia and take over its oil fields. Or if a nuclear Iran decided to block the Suez canal, effectively cutting off all of Europe from China, India and Japan. They don't have to use nuclear weapons to inflict damage upon the west.
- Alupis 6y ago> But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently. I'd wager the US will dismantle it's nuclear weapons the day other nations stop seeking to produce nuclear weapons. ie, this will never happen. The US, China, Russia, India, UK, etc having nuclear weapons is a lot less of a threat to global security than a nation-state such as Iran, which vows to destroy it's surrounding nations every chance it gets. The history of humans has been rife with armed conflict. It's an anomaly that the last 70 years have not seen massive global armed conflict, particularly in the "digital age". Perhaps nations that have nuclear weapons, but don't desire to use them are the reason? Perhaps not... but what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons, and that's not ok by anyone.
- whimsicalism 6y agoIran is a large nation of millions of people with a relatively developed government (even if we don't like the way it is currently structured). I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation. Also, most modern statements by Iran focus on the "Zionist regime", not the literal killing of the residents of Israel. You can find similar rhetoric in the United States about the CCP. > what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons Is that certain? When have they said that?
- Alupis 6y agoYou cannot find similar rhetoric from the US vowing to destroy China. In fact, you'd find the exact opposite. Your other points rely on a rational actor... rational actors don't take freight ships hostage nor kidnap tourists.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> rational actors don't take freight ships hostage not kidnap tourists. Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel. Where has Iran said that they intend to use nuclear weapons?
- yabones 6y agoThis type of attack isn't likely to cause a 'meltdown', since the uranium is usually in a very hot vaporous form while being centrifuged. If the containers rupture, it will spread out and condensate in a thin layer that's not very likely to reach criticality. Nuclear reprocessing absolutely has dangers, but meltdowns aren't really the issue.