5 ms·

There is an important distinction between attacking civilian-critical services like healthcare systems and pipelines, and attacking a single nuclear WEAPONS man

There is an important distinction between attacking civilian-critical services like healthcare systems and pipelines, and attacking a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran.

sschueller 5y ago
Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians [1]? "Trust us we are the good guys" doesn't cut it for the US anymore when international deals get broken when a new administration comes in. [2] We should be going towards a global disarmament which everyone could agree on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Does Iran have a good track record for human rights protection? No it is a religious dictatorship that has vowed many times to wipe a nearby country of people different than them off the map.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    Again the US may be a democracy but has repeatedly threatened other nations. [1] The US also is not shy in admitting it has a kill list [2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UhQ-gqVkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UhQ-gqVkg [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
  - xtian 5y ago
    Was the US overthrowing Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 about human rights then? He was introducing progressive reforms in Iran.
    - viro 5y ago
      > progressive reforms You mean nationalize other peoples property then try to starve capitalism of resources. As a liberal I always find it funny when leftists have this magical ability to just forget WHY the States had the containment policy. So yea it was about the human right of private property.
      - xtian 5y ago
        Oh ok so how was the human right of private property respected when the US annexed Hawaii?
        viro 5y ago
        Um what system of government did they have before? I guess we have beef against most forms of Monarchies. And before you mention it was a constitutional monarchy that was done by the Bayonet Constitution.... read that history that was basically us. not as bad as the constitution of 1894 tho... that was rather direct.
        xtian 5y ago
        Ok got it. So "respecting human rights" means the US should get to decide the form of government and economy of everyone else in the world (which through total happenstance always ends up benefiting the US). At least you admit it. Now don't complain when the consequences of that stance fully manifest over the next couple of decades.
        viro 5y ago
        Every non-democracy or republic is oppressing its people in some way shape or form. So yea that is respecting human rights.
        xtian 5y ago
        A Chase survey from January of this year found that 40% of Americans don’t have enough cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency. The NHIS estimated that from 2017-2019 anywhere from 8,500 to 25,000 non-elderly adults died in the US from lack of healthcare coverage. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 25% of US adults said they or a family member had delayed treatment for a serious medical condition during the past year because of financial concerns. As of 2018 there were roughly 550,000 homeless people in the US on any given night. The US has around 25% of the world’s prison population with 698 people incarcerated per 100,000. But we have freedom and human rights!
  - 1over137 5y ago
    You mean like how the US president threatened "fire and fury like the world has never seen" against a country of people different than them?
    - relaunched 5y ago
      I am deeply ashamed by some of the things that that President said, especially with regards to internationally policy. Can't we just agree that he no longer speaks for the US, and as such, neither do his Twitter rants?
      - KSteffensen 5y ago
        Sure, as long as we also agree that he (or someone in the same ballpark) will not get re-elected in 4 years time.
        thekingofravens 5y ago
        He won't. The political party that elected him is split now. Half of them want him back, but half want to move on, so he is gonna just lose again.
        cudgy 5y ago
        What about the half of Democrats that realize Biden deliberately stubbed his own toe on critical campaign promises to help working poor Americans? Will they fall in line one more time as the progressive candidate (ala Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020) gets railroaded by the Democratic party machine one more time?
        relaunched 5y ago
        Half of them believe he's actually still President and he'll be using a secret army to re-install himself when the time is right.
      - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
        Also we voted him out via democracy, the system worked. Iran's people have no such luxury. The stories my Persian friends' parents tell of life before and after 1979 are heartbreaking.
- danielheath 5y ago
  > Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians? Well, I for one am not about to cross the people who use nukes on civilians.
- nipponese 5y ago
  Proliferation prevention is applied fairly to all non-nuclear states. However, especially reckless ones get the stick, and those actions are usually multilateral. For example, the “Iran Deal”.
- greesil 5y ago
  What does this have to do with nuclear weapons?
- nradov 5y ago
  The US isn't making the call in this case. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is thus prohibited from having nuclear weapons. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
- steve76 5y ago
  1. The USA is subject and restrained by laws. Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Europe, Africa, South America gets to do whatever they want. The concept of laws date back to Hammurabi, the start of civilization itself. The purpose of laws is to limit the violence, not create it. The feral and primitive world see things like a jet plane or a locomotive and it blows their mind, and now they think they're above the laws, that they can do anything. The USA made those nice things because of good basics, things like self-evidence, inalienable rights, pluralism, and most of all, willing to walk away. Everyone else has mob rule and bullying. Stubborn animals. Stay away from them. Don't let them come here. Don't deal with animals. 2. The USA invented nuclear technology. They're theirs, along with everything else in modernity. Give them back. Sounds bad, huh? Well, that's how the rest of the world treats their stuff. Too bad they only have places no one wants to go, and willing to do things no one else wants to do like live in big cloud of poisoned garbage. 3. The USA wants to demilitarize. Not willing, or do it in part of some elaborate century long delusional childish trick to be a giant jerk, telling everyone else what to do. First chance they get the USA is packing up, going home and living quiet happy lives where they don't bother anyone else and make things even nicer. Anyone else willing to do that? 4. If you are American, especially a white American male, your only place in the world is travelling to be some hostage to some other group of barbaric animals for some rich jerk at home. Those rich jerks more and more are betraying their own people, turning coward and traitor while their offshore partners take a giant genetic dump in my lungs. Pretty soon, the USA is not going to do it, I'M GOING TO DO IT. And it's going to be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times worst than if you just worked with the nice people who are there already.
jjcc 5y ago
>a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran If "mass disinformation campaigns" were very successful, then: 1."WEAPONS manufacturing plant" could be actually a "civilian-critical nuclear power plant related services" 2.You would never find statement 1 is unprovable. In stead you would insist that statement 1 must be false as the consequence of disinformation. It seems that hacking of any "civilian-critical" services , whether in US or Russia, is less critical than the hacking of people's mind (especially of smart developers/hackers) who would support and thus actively involve in hacking "evil" entities, along with other activities causing conflicts. I believe HNers minds are less likely to be hacked then those of other communities. (Technology topics are almost never be hacked. I'm talking about politics discussion which is more fascinating to watch how hacked HNer's minds interacting with each other.) My belief could be wrong because "Mind's I" could be hacked and it's unprovable.

There is an important distinction between attacking civilian-critical services like healthcare systems and pipelines, and attacking a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran.

sschueller 5y ago

Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians [1]? "Trust us we are the good guys" doesn't cut it for the US anymore when international deals get broken when a new administration comes in. [2] We should be going towards a global disarmament which everyone could agree on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Does Iran have a good track record for human rights protection? No it is a religious dictatorship that has vowed many times to wipe a nearby country of people different than them off the map.
- sschueller 5y ago
  Again the US may be a democracy but has repeatedly threatened other nations. [1] The US also is not shy in admitting it has a kill list [2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UhQ-gqVkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UhQ-gqVkg [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- xtian 5y ago
  Was the US overthrowing Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 about human rights then? He was introducing progressive reforms in Iran.
  - viro 5y ago
    > progressive reforms You mean nationalize other peoples property then try to starve capitalism of resources. As a liberal I always find it funny when leftists have this magical ability to just forget WHY the States had the containment policy. So yea it was about the human right of private property.
    - xtian 5y ago
      Oh ok so how was the human right of private property respected when the US annexed Hawaii?
      - viro 5y ago
        Um what system of government did they have before? I guess we have beef against most forms of Monarchies. And before you mention it was a constitutional monarchy that was done by the Bayonet Constitution.... read that history that was basically us. not as bad as the constitution of 1894 tho... that was rather direct.
        xtian 5y ago
        Ok got it. So "respecting human rights" means the US should get to decide the form of government and economy of everyone else in the world (which through total happenstance always ends up benefiting the US). At least you admit it. Now don't complain when the consequences of that stance fully manifest over the next couple of decades.
        viro 5y ago
        Every non-democracy or republic is oppressing its people in some way shape or form. So yea that is respecting human rights.
        xtian 5y ago
        A Chase survey from January of this year found that 40% of Americans don’t have enough cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency. The NHIS estimated that from 2017-2019 anywhere from 8,500 to 25,000 non-elderly adults died in the US from lack of healthcare coverage. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 25% of US adults said they or a family member had delayed treatment for a serious medical condition during the past year because of financial concerns. As of 2018 there were roughly 550,000 homeless people in the US on any given night. The US has around 25% of the world’s prison population with 698 people incarcerated per 100,000. But we have freedom and human rights!
- 1over137 5y ago
  You mean like how the US president threatened "fire and fury like the world has never seen" against a country of people different than them?
  - relaunched 5y ago
    I am deeply ashamed by some of the things that that President said, especially with regards to internationally policy. Can't we just agree that he no longer speaks for the US, and as such, neither do his Twitter rants?
    - KSteffensen 5y ago
      Sure, as long as we also agree that he (or someone in the same ballpark) will not get re-elected in 4 years time.
      - thekingofravens 5y ago
        He won't. The political party that elected him is split now. Half of them want him back, but half want to move on, so he is gonna just lose again.
        cudgy 5y ago
        What about the half of Democrats that realize Biden deliberately stubbed his own toe on critical campaign promises to help working poor Americans? Will they fall in line one more time as the progressive candidate (ala Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020) gets railroaded by the Democratic party machine one more time?
        relaunched 5y ago
        Half of them believe he's actually still President and he'll be using a secret army to re-install himself when the time is right.
    - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
      Also we voted him out via democracy, the system worked. Iran's people have no such luxury. The stories my Persian friends' parents tell of life before and after 1979 are heartbreaking.
danielheath 5y ago
> Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians? Well, I for one am not about to cross the people who use nukes on civilians.
nipponese 5y ago
Proliferation prevention is applied fairly to all non-nuclear states. However, especially reckless ones get the stick, and those actions are usually multilateral. For example, the “Iran Deal”.
greesil 5y ago
What does this have to do with nuclear weapons?
nradov 5y ago
The US isn't making the call in this case. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is thus prohibited from having nuclear weapons. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
steve76 5y ago
1. The USA is subject and restrained by laws. Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Europe, Africa, South America gets to do whatever they want. The concept of laws date back to Hammurabi, the start of civilization itself. The purpose of laws is to limit the violence, not create it. The feral and primitive world see things like a jet plane or a locomotive and it blows their mind, and now they think they're above the laws, that they can do anything. The USA made those nice things because of good basics, things like self-evidence, inalienable rights, pluralism, and most of all, willing to walk away. Everyone else has mob rule and bullying. Stubborn animals. Stay away from them. Don't let them come here. Don't deal with animals. 2. The USA invented nuclear technology. They're theirs, along with everything else in modernity. Give them back. Sounds bad, huh? Well, that's how the rest of the world treats their stuff. Too bad they only have places no one wants to go, and willing to do things no one else wants to do like live in big cloud of poisoned garbage. 3. The USA wants to demilitarize. Not willing, or do it in part of some elaborate century long delusional childish trick to be a giant jerk, telling everyone else what to do. First chance they get the USA is packing up, going home and living quiet happy lives where they don't bother anyone else and make things even nicer. Anyone else willing to do that? 4. If you are American, especially a white American male, your only place in the world is travelling to be some hostage to some other group of barbaric animals for some rich jerk at home. Those rich jerks more and more are betraying their own people, turning coward and traitor while their offshore partners take a giant genetic dump in my lungs. Pretty soon, the USA is not going to do it, I'M GOING TO DO IT. And it's going to be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times worst than if you just worked with the nice people who are there already.

jjcc 5y ago

>a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran If "mass disinformation campaigns" were very successful, then: 1."WEAPONS manufacturing plant" could be actually a "civilian-critical nuclear power plant related services" 2.You would never find statement 1 is unprovable. In stead you would insist that statement 1 must be false as the consequence of disinformation. It seems that hacking of any "civilian-critical" services , whether in US or Russia, is less critical than the hacking of people's mind (especially of smart developers/hackers) who would support and thus actively involve in hacking "evil" entities, along with other activities causing conflicts. I believe HNers minds are less likely to be hacked then those of other communities. (Technology topics are almost never be hacked. I'm talking about politics discussion which is more fascinating to watch how hacked HNer's minds interacting with each other.) My belief could be wrong because "Mind's I" could be hacked and it's unprovable.