5 ms·
What, precisely, was Stuxnet a proportional response to?
by pphysch 4y ago
What, precisely, was Stuxnet a proportional response to?
- helloooooooo 4y agoThere were 3 options GWB had. Either A) allow Israel to strike Iran directly using kinetic means. B) prevent Israel from doing so and likely give Iran the capability to arm weapons with nuclear warheads. C) an option C. Stuxnet. Which option in your opinion is most proportionate and least damaging? Either A) or B) would upset power balances in the Middle East leading to war between nations.
- _jal 4y ago> C) an option C. In other words, "We need to do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 4y agoIran's sponsorship of terrorism, illegal attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and openly stated genocidal intentions towards Israel.
- x86x87 4y agoNot saying you're wrong, but all this is optics and there is quite a bit of brainwashing at work no matter where you live. What is an illegal attempt to do something? Who decides what is legal?
- kurthr 4y agoCake or Death? Hmmm.... does the death come with chocolate on the side? Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... any more than arming crips and bloods in South Central. Unless you believe that earlier nuclear annihilation is preferable for humanity, it is objectively bad. One might as well argue that importing cocaine to create the crack epidemic and fund the Contras was morally neutral.
- pphysch 4y ago> Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington. This conflict has nothing to do with "happiness, fairness, or understanding" and everything to do with Washington's and Tel Aviv's power over the region.
- philwelch 4y ago> The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington. The idea that Israel is a "dictatorial state" has no relation to reality.
- pphysch 4y agoIt certainly is from the perspective of Syrians and Palestinians living within Israel's claimed borders. What democratic rights do they have?
- nradov 4y agoIran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons were illegal as a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As per the terms of the treaty, the UN Security Council decides what is legal. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/jan/22/iran-and-npt https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/jan/22/iran-and-npt
- random314 4y agoNPT was signed by the Shah of Iran. The NPT states that only 5 superpowers can have nuclear weapons, and also Israel - as it is outside it!
- nradov 4y agoIt doesn't matter which government was in power in Iran when they signed the NPT. They remain legally bound to it until they formally withdraw. The NPT doesn't state anything about Israel. You should read the actual treaty instead of posting misinformation. Israel isn't a signatory and is thus not prohibited from developing nuclear weapons.
- random314 4y agoYou are quoting a text, and I am providing the context. You can try and strip away the context and focus on the text. But that doesn't change the inherent dubiousness of the NPT. Slavery was legal in the USA in 1850. Apartheid was the law in 1980 South Africa. That doesn't make it right. Why would other countries sign the NPT that locks up nuclear power with the 5 superpowers. Because they would be punished if they didn't. Why didn't Israel need to sign it? Because Israel would face zero punishment for not signing. Israel is actually more free than the 5 super powers to pursue any and every kind of nuclear strategy. Their status is actually higher than all of the 5 super powers! You can argue that Israel is not even mentioned in the NPT. But that's the magic. And Iran was getting punished by the US after the Shah was deposed. Why should Iran adhere to the NPT in such circumstances? Note that Obama got Iran to agree to curtail their nuclear program by promising to stop punishing them. Just because you have a text and signatures, does not mean that there was no immoral, bullying and coercion involved. As an aside, what are the legal implications of USA organizing a coup to depose elected prime minister Mossadegh of iran? Eisenhower organized riots that got 300 people killed in the process. Any legal implications, as per any international treaty? The US puppet Shah then signed the NPT. Sounds about as perfectly legal and proper as it can possibly be.
- wbsss4412 4y agoThe US/Israel are guilty of all three of those things (to my knowledge, Iran hasn’t actually stated genocidal intent towards Israel, only that they support destruction of the state of Israel, which is often conflated as such)
- philwelch 4y agoI'm sure the regime that supports Hezbollah and hosts international Holocaust denial conferences has a nuanced and sophisticated position on the extermination of Jewish people and is fully deserving of all the charity you are extending to them.
- wbsss4412 4y agoI’m not saying that Iran is beyond criticism, it certainly deserves quite a bit, but as an American, yes, we do need to have nuanced and sophisticated discussions about this topic. Sorry to rain on your jingoism parade.
- philwelch 4y ago> we do need to have nuanced and sophisticated discussions about this topic "The US and Israel are no different from Iran" and other unsubstantiated claims of moral equivalency are neither nuanced or sophisticated.
- wbsss4412 4y agoYou’re making the false equivalence here. I never made the assertion that they were no different, only that they have done the same things that you were accusing Iran of, which is correct.
- philwelch 4y agoI'd love to know under what theory of international law do you think it was illegal for the US to develop nuclear weapons in the 1940's. Or how on earth the US and Israel have openly stated genocidal intentions towards Israel.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoStuxnet is a terrible example to use here. A worm that causes no collateral damage unless you're running a nuclear enrichment program with hardware identical to Iran's is the platonic ideal of precision. Even if you did happen to be running nuclear enrichment facilities, it didn't stop them, merely increased equipment failure rates just enough that the diplomats had enough time to work out accords.
- pphysch 4y agoThis doesn't answer the question. Can you point to e.g. the instance of Iran sabotaging sensitive infrastructure in USA that warranted the "response" of Stuxnet?