6 ms·
They are out in the open enriching uranium to 84% with a breakout time to a weapon measured in weeks now, how many reasons do you need really?
by recuter 4y ago
They are out in the open enriching uranium to 84% with a breakout time to a weapon measured in weeks now, how many reasons do you need really?
- VulgarExigency 4y agoBy your logic, shouldn't countries that already have a nuclear arsenal be bombed first?
- throwaway4good 4y agoMaybe they wouldn’t have done it had the US not bailed out on the Iran nuclear deal.
- dismalpedigree 4y agoYou of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely ignore the deal anyway?
- misja111 4y agoOdd that this is downvoted. The comment is true: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-i...
- recuter 4y agoThese discussions are astroturfed.
- uoaei 4y agoFrom my experience, there's quite a heavy level of organic criticism for how Iran has been treated in general. We can trust you're a "real person" just as much as you, us. Diverting critiques on the basis of "astroturfing" is so HRC '16.
- recuter 4y agoPoor Ayatollahs. They surely deserve to be treated better. :( And yet regardless of how poorly it was treated or "what is fair", which is all the whining is ever about, nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. This is a dangerous game, regardless of your politics. Astroturfing does not necessarily imply bots, comrade.
- unmole 4y ago> why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.
- recuter 4y agoIran itself is an aggressive and expanding regional power. What is to deter Iran itself from invading others? Oh that's right, more nuclear weapons. So next Saudi Arabia will absolutely scramble to get one. 'etc.
- u801e 4y ago> nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs. So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
- recuter 4y ago> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen. Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East. In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
- Convolutional 4y agoThat link mentions something not mentioned here - that the Iranians were sent their own money.
- jhp123 4y agothe comment also mentions that the Iranians ignored the deal, which is false https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-d...
- Convolutional 4y agoThe reader might question why the poster neglected to mention to them, that the $400 million transferred was Iranian money.
- recuter 4y agoMaybe. Most probably they would have cheated. It is moot either way. There is no such thing as "fair" in geopolitics. I don't see how a sane person thinks Iran getting the bomb is a good development or viable.
- throwaway4good 4y agoI agree in the sense that it comes down to a decision the US has to make on whether to invade Iran or not. Just like with Iraq; wmd’s, weapons inspectors etc. are ultimately just a side show.
- recuter 4y agoNope, unlike Iraq and wmd's you have confirmation from multiple third parties and countries. IAEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...), France, Germany, UK, all are sounding the alarm.
- unmole 4y ago> confirmation from multiple third parties and countries So, exactly the same as Iraq?
- recuter 4y agoNope, not remotely the same as Iraq. I like how some whataboutists here are arguing that Iran was treated poorly and therefore "deserves a nuclear weapon" and at the same time that it is all a conspiracy and they aren't developing one - despite overwhelming evidence from none US sources.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- psychphysic 4y agoCrazy that many of the same people condemning Russia invading Ukraine for "security". Would want to invade countries on the other side of the globe for "security". Super powers gonna super power and the rest of have to pretend to care.
- swarnie 4y agoSo? Its a perfectly rational course of action, no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded and subjugated. If i ran a country building or acquiring a nuke would be top of my "To-do" list.
- pelasaco 4y agonormally who complains about it lives in a country where They are out in the open enriching uranium to 84% with lock and loaded nuclear weapons already.
- stonepresto 4y agoThe fewer theocratic dictatorships with nukes the better. Its not that "Iran" as a construct having nukes is bad, its that the decisions to launch them lie with a few religious zealots who are known to not make good moral or ethical decisions.
- Silverback_VII 4y agoAre the atheistic western elites any better? WW3 seems to be kind of a possibility now. Pushing Russia into a corner was not a smart move. Especially for Germany.
- beepbooptheory 4y agoDo you honestly think, say, the United States is any better equipped to make "good" decisions? Kinda hard to make that case with nukes specifically at least... It's zealotry all the way down, whether you explicitly name your god or not. The only irrational thing here is to claim moral superiority based off something as superficial as a particular religion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- swarnie 4y agoIMO everyone has nukes or no one does. Will China/Russia/USA give up theirs or do they see them as essential for "national security"? And if they are essential then what moral authority do they have to deny security to others?
- smileysteve 4y agoGiven Russia invading Ukraine after Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons; what sane nation would feel sovereign without nuclear weapons.
- TylerLives 4y agoThey never had the launch codes.
- Convolutional 4y agoThe US nuclear industry used to run magazine ads in US magazines in the 1970s celebrating that Iran was building nuclear power plants - https://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shah_shills_for_nuclear_power.jpg https://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/200... . Some Americans don't like the influence of Iran's mullahs, but the UK and US supported the mullahs and Shah in 1953 when the secular prime Minister Mossadegh wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. The US backed the Shah and mullahs and SAVAK's brutal campaign against Iran's secular left into the 1970s. Then Iranians turned against the Shah and US imperial influence and here we are.
- sleepyhead 4y agoHey warmonger. So which nation should bomb USA which has tons of nukes? What kind of sick reasoning is that? Iran, unlike nations like Israel, has inspections of their nuclear energy facilities by the IEAE.
- recuter 4y agoIt is the IAEA that caught them red handed cheating and confirmed they are at 84% already. The head of the IEAE is over there right now: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iaea+iran&iar=news&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iaea+iran&iar=news&ia=news
- sleepyhead 4y agoCheating what exactly? The US withdrew from the deal. And why do you think there is a difference between Iran having nuclear weapons and US or Israel having it? And do you not see the difference between cooperating with IAEA and not allowing them any access?
- aidenn0 4y agoLooking at how we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear powers, you'd have to be a complete idiot to abandon a nuclear program close to producing a weapon in exchange for avoiding a few years of sanctions from a small fraction of your potential trading partners.