7 ms·

There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power. We didn't start WWIII when Kruschev banged his shoe at the UN like a man

There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power. We didn't start WWIII when Kruschev banged his shoe at the UN like a maniac, it would also be a bad idea to do it over Iran's posturing. The US killed their national hero last year and we got a measured, proportionate response rather than lighting Iraq on fire. Trying to pre-emptively "bomb Iran into the stone age" would not only be barbaric, it would result in a hail of scuds hitting Tel Aviv. You don't want that.

jariel 6y ago
A 'hail of scuds' would be temporary and mild in comparison to a 'real' nuclear threat from Iran. Of course - nobody has any intention of actually dropping nukes on anyone. It's about power and leverage, and Iran's ability to project their dominance towards destabilizing and overthrowing House of Saud, and maybe disrupting/overthrowing Israel some day as well. Since House of Saud actually has nukes (they paid for Pakistani program so that 'in a time of need' nukes will magically appear in their arsenal) all of this is bad for everyone. In the 'balance of power' it actually makes a tiny bit of sense that 'small actor surrounded by 10 enemies', Israel, has 'secret nukes' because from a strategic perspective, it would be suicidal for them to use in anything other than an existential scenario of defence. If they were not building homes in Occupied Territories, I think more people would probably more readily acknowledge their defensive requirements. Also of course the fact that most people alive today don't have living memory of the many times Israel was invaded/fought wars with direct neighbours, many times bigger than it, and the outcomes were never going to be clear. It would be better for everyone if Iran just gave up it's nuclear ambitions - there is zero chance anyone is going to invade them, they could join the rest of the world and start using their Oil dollars to buy plastic junk from China and software from the US, and physical gear from Germany - just like the rest of us - their people can be much wealthier, and we could all get along.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I think granting a "right of return" based on what ethnic group you happen to be a part of is bullshit and out of step with the modern world. Definitely would improve their international stature if they stopped occupying, but they are still a state organized around an ethnic group.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    EDIT: Ignore this post. I misunderstood OP. The rest of this is just here to preserve what I originally wrote. --- Serious question: at what point is it no longer rational to return land wrongfully taken? To displace millions of people and remove their right to self-govern? Practically every nation in existence came to be by taking land from someone at some point. I agree that the "right of return" thing was BS. But it happened. I think the best course of action now is figure out how to move forward without wronging even more people.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Okay, but Israel still has a right of return. Should that right not be granted to displaced Palestinians? Laws making it more difficult for people of Arab descent to get citizenship were passed in 2003. This is not about long-ago occurences, this is about active steps Israel is taking now to maintain their status as an ethnostate.
      - CivBase 6y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood what you were referencing.
kziemio 6y ago
"There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power." Iran is an extremist theocratic dictatorship with a history of violence and threats. There's very little rational concern about the U.S. or the U.K or China using nuclear weapons against Iran. If nothing else, they've had decades to do so and have chosen not to. There is completely valid concern that Iran might use nuclear weapons against Israel or the U.S, in some future circumstance. At the very least, Iran might hold Israel hostage by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Dismissing this as an extremist, imperialist, or Zionist viewpoint just doesn't cut it. This would be a very reasonable viewpoint of for any rational disinterested observer. "We didn't start WWIII when Kruschev banged his shoe at the UN like a maniac" The U.S. had tons of evidence and intelligence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the USSR had zero interest in a full scale nuclear exchange. In fact, the U.S. employed the "Mad Man" strategy throughout the Cold War, which meant it was generally more belligerent about threatening nuclear war.
throwawayboise 6y ago
> There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power. Unlike other nuclear states, Iran is governed by religious zealots.
- craigsmansion 6y ago
  > Iran is governed by religious zealots. In that case their highest religious authority has issued a fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and since they're religious zealots they would honour that fatwa. So they're either very religious, and should pose no danger because of that, or they're not very religious, in which case they would pose no danger.
wefarrell 6y ago
First we feared the godless communists having the bomb because they were not held to a higher moral authority. Now we fear the theocratic muslims because their fanaticism is stronger than their sense of self preservation. It turns out this is all propaganda, no state is keen on destroying the world, and it's entirely rational for a country under constant threat like Iran (or Israel) to want nuclear weapons.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > it's entirely rational for a country under constant threat like Iran (or Israel) to want nuclear weapons. No, it's really not. It's akin to citizens wanting to walk around with ARs in case they need to defend themselves. No, worse, because at least an AR wont annihilate everyone around you after you're already dead. The value in having nuclear weapons is the threat that you could spitefully take your opponents out with you. The danger in having nuclear weapons is that some day it could actually happen. Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. It's an eventuality - one which we should be vigilantly protecting against.
  - mijamo 6y ago
    Libya wanted nukes. They were convinced not to. Now see where they are and compare with North Korea. This is why Iran wants nukes and it is very logical.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      I'm not convinced every country without nukes is destined to end up like Libya. World politics are a bit more complicated than that.

jariel 6y ago

A 'hail of scuds' would be temporary and mild in comparison to a 'real' nuclear threat from Iran. Of course - nobody has any intention of actually dropping nukes on anyone. It's about power and leverage, and Iran's ability to project their dominance towards destabilizing and overthrowing House of Saud, and maybe disrupting/overthrowing Israel some day as well. Since House of Saud actually has nukes (they paid for Pakistani program so that 'in a time of need' nukes will magically appear in their arsenal) all of this is bad for everyone. In the 'balance of power' it actually makes a tiny bit of sense that 'small actor surrounded by 10 enemies', Israel, has 'secret nukes' because from a strategic perspective, it would be suicidal for them to use in anything other than an existential scenario of defence. If they were not building homes in Occupied Territories, I think more people would probably more readily acknowledge their defensive requirements. Also of course the fact that most people alive today don't have living memory of the many times Israel was invaded/fought wars with direct neighbours, many times bigger than it, and the outcomes were never going to be clear. It would be better for everyone if Iran just gave up it's nuclear ambitions - there is zero chance anyone is going to invade them, they could join the rest of the world and start using their Oil dollars to buy plastic junk from China and software from the US, and physical gear from Germany - just like the rest of us - their people can be much wealthier, and we could all get along.

whimsicalism 6y ago
I think granting a "right of return" based on what ethnic group you happen to be a part of is bullshit and out of step with the modern world. Definitely would improve their international stature if they stopped occupying, but they are still a state organized around an ethnic group.
- CivBase 6y ago
  EDIT: Ignore this post. I misunderstood OP. The rest of this is just here to preserve what I originally wrote. --- Serious question: at what point is it no longer rational to return land wrongfully taken? To displace millions of people and remove their right to self-govern? Practically every nation in existence came to be by taking land from someone at some point. I agree that the "right of return" thing was BS. But it happened. I think the best course of action now is figure out how to move forward without wronging even more people.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Okay, but Israel still has a right of return. Should that right not be granted to displaced Palestinians? Laws making it more difficult for people of Arab descent to get citizenship were passed in 2003. This is not about long-ago occurences, this is about active steps Israel is taking now to maintain their status as an ethnostate.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      Sorry, I misunderstood what you were referencing.

kziemio 6y ago

"There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power." Iran is an extremist theocratic dictatorship with a history of violence and threats. There's very little rational concern about the U.S. or the U.K or China using nuclear weapons against Iran. If nothing else, they've had decades to do so and have chosen not to. There is completely valid concern that Iran might use nuclear weapons against Israel or the U.S, in some future circumstance. At the very least, Iran might hold Israel hostage by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Dismissing this as an extremist, imperialist, or Zionist viewpoint just doesn't cut it. This would be a very reasonable viewpoint of for any rational disinterested observer. "We didn't start WWIII when Kruschev banged his shoe at the UN like a maniac" The U.S. had tons of evidence and intelligence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the USSR had zero interest in a full scale nuclear exchange. In fact, the U.S. employed the "Mad Man" strategy throughout the Cold War, which meant it was generally more belligerent about threatening nuclear war.

throwawayboise 6y ago

> There's no indication that Iran is any less deterrable than every other nuclear power. Unlike other nuclear states, Iran is governed by religious zealots.

craigsmansion 6y ago
> Iran is governed by religious zealots. In that case their highest religious authority has issued a fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and since they're religious zealots they would honour that fatwa. So they're either very religious, and should pose no danger because of that, or they're not very religious, in which case they would pose no danger.

wefarrell 6y ago

First we feared the godless communists having the bomb because they were not held to a higher moral authority. Now we fear the theocratic muslims because their fanaticism is stronger than their sense of self preservation. It turns out this is all propaganda, no state is keen on destroying the world, and it's entirely rational for a country under constant threat like Iran (or Israel) to want nuclear weapons.

CivBase 6y ago
> it's entirely rational for a country under constant threat like Iran (or Israel) to want nuclear weapons. No, it's really not. It's akin to citizens wanting to walk around with ARs in case they need to defend themselves. No, worse, because at least an AR wont annihilate everyone around you after you're already dead. The value in having nuclear weapons is the threat that you could spitefully take your opponents out with you. The danger in having nuclear weapons is that some day it could actually happen. Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. It's an eventuality - one which we should be vigilantly protecting against.
- mijamo 6y ago
  Libya wanted nukes. They were convinced not to. Now see where they are and compare with North Korea. This is why Iran wants nukes and it is very logical.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I'm not convinced every country without nukes is destined to end up like Libya. World politics are a bit more complicated than that.