5 ms·

Poor 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 ev

Poor 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 ago
  Iran 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.
  - u801e 4y ago
    India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > 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. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. Pakistan’s program lead to (as well as their own bomb) proliferation through the AQ Khan network (to North Korea, as well as several states that never, at leadt yet, tested a weapon.) Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
  - u801e 4y ago
    > When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan). > Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Yet they haven't advertised it or tried to use them (if they ever had them) in any capacity. As for North Korea, while they do test missiles on occasion, they have not made use of any nuclear capability against another country. > Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative). Yet, all the focus is on Iran in terms of sanctions and fear/warmongering about them developing nuclear capability. Every single example in the past has shown that developing such capability has not resulted in any type of nuclear conflict.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region, to something like “well, neither they nor the states in the area of further proliferarion they contributed to have, to date, used nukes in anger, so it doesn't matter”. I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war to take proliferation concerns seriously is... not a great idea.

unmole 4y ago

> why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.

recuter 4y ago
Iran 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.
- u801e 4y ago
  India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > 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. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. Pakistan’s program lead to (as well as their own bomb) proliferation through the AQ Khan network (to North Korea, as well as several states that never, at leadt yet, tested a weapon.) Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
- u801e 4y ago
  > When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan). > Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Yet they haven't advertised it or tried to use them (if they ever had them) in any capacity. As for North Korea, while they do test missiles on occasion, they have not made use of any nuclear capability against another country. > Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative). Yet, all the focus is on Iran in terms of sanctions and fear/warmongering about them developing nuclear capability. Every single example in the past has shown that developing such capability has not resulted in any type of nuclear conflict.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region, to something like “well, neither they nor the states in the area of further proliferarion they contributed to have, to date, used nukes in anger, so it doesn't matter”. I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war to take proliferation concerns seriously is... not a great idea.