6 ms·
Iran quickens path towards the atomic bomb
- thriftwy 3y ago? I was quite certain they have one after all these years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bsaul 3y agoI wonder, seing the example of north korea and more recently russia, why don't everyone consider this a top worldwide priority. For some reason, only israel and the US ( and some arab countries) are worried. But once iran has the nuclear bomb, you can expect their nasty influence on the region to increase ten fold. I don't understand how someone would take any chance to live in a world where a terrorist nation run by religious fanatics have the nuclear bomb.
- sp527 3y ago> I don't understand how someone would take any chance to live in a world where a terrorist nation run by religious fanatics have the nuclear bomb. Are you unaware of Pakistan?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zodiakzz 3y agoPakistani military command is secular and always will be.
- CamperBob2 3y agoWhat guarantee do we have that it "always will be?"
- mrkeen 3y agoNukes thus far have only been used by secular on secular.
- dclowd9901 3y agoIs the US really considered a secular nation? I mean _actually_ secular?
- dragonwriter 3y agoLeaving that aside, Japan was not (even in the formal, substantively debatable, sense that the US was and is) a secular regime. State Shintō was an integral part of the system.
- sp527 3y agoWhich is why the United States trusted them to extract and hand over Bin Laden from within their own borders. Oh wait...
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoRespectfully speaking, that sounds an awful lot like someone's last words in the accident investigation, right before "always" suddenly isn't. The truth is, in a lot of ways, those bombs are Pakistan's bombs, but they're also China's bombs, balancing out the Israel-India axis.
- Ajay-p 3y agoOsama Bin Laden lived one mile from the Pakistani military academy, and appears to have been supported by the ISI, their intelligence service. It's a tremendous assumption of faith that Pakistani nuclear warheads are somehow safe.
- runarberg 3y agoObservation: Pakistan is the only Muslim majority nation to own nuclear weapons. They currently own around 170 of them, (IMO they should absolutely dismantle them and join both the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and the prohibition treaty). Iran is a member of the NPT has zero nuclear weapons, and have shown them selves to be cooperative in non-proliferation efforts (until the Iran nuclear deal was cancelled by Trump). Israel has around the same number of nuclear weapons as Pakistan, is not a majority Muslim nation but is very antagonistic towards majority Muslim nation. Israel is not a member of the NPT, and has been extremely uncooperative in non-proliferation efforts. Israel has engaged in terrorist activities in the past, their government includes many religious fanatics (like Itamar Ben-Gvir), and are currently being accused of engaging in an ongoing genocide. My observation is that you aren’t afraid of a terrorist nation run by religious fanatics getting a nuclear bomb, but rather of Muslim majority nation having them.
- Ajay-p 3y agoThat you know of. Israel has never confirmed its nuclear weapons. I think it's more likely than not that other Arab nations have tactical nuclear weapons. For that matter, I bet Japan has them. If the conflict between Iran and Israel goes nuclear I could see Taiwan also developing their own. The proliferation is only restricted by time, money, and expertise.
- runarberg 3y agoThe thing about nuclear deterrence is that it only works if you announce that you have nuclear weapons, so we know pretty well who has them and about how much, not only via the NPT but also by simple game theory. Israel is probably the only nation that has nuclear bombs without confirming because it is the only nation who’s officials regularly threaten their use without officially declaring their existence. NPT countries such as Iran can also acquire nuclear weapons without braking the treaty via Nuclear Weapons sharing[1]. This is how Germany, Turkey, and Belarus have nuclear weapons. If Japan or Taiwan wanted nuclear deterrence that is a route available to them (maybe that is even one of the goals of the potential Pacific Partnership military alliance; This is how Taiwan had these horrible weapons in the 1970s). It is probably harder for Iran though as they lack nuclear capable allies, but for e.g. Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, they could probably keep some USA weapons in at one of the many USA military bases (though I doubt Iraq would actually want that). But you are wrong to omit politics as a barrier for proliferation. The NPT is strong, it has and most countries either comply with it, resign from it (North Korea) or don’t sign it. If Taiwan wanted to develop their own nuclear weapons they would need to resign from the NPT and potentially make any military aid from the USA infinitely harder in the process. I think their best strategy is to do enough nuclear research and have enough nuclear infrastructure so they are on the threshold of being nuclear capable without ever stepping over it (I think this is actually their strategy; as is Iran’s) that way they get the benefits of the NPT while still offering some nuclear deterrence, as in “we can develop them quickly if the need arises”. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
- bsaul 3y agopakistan regional influence is absolutely nothing compared to iran. They have border issues with india but that's pretty much it. Iran, without nukes, is already destabilizing at least 4 countries ( yemen, lebanon, syria, iraq, and that's without counting israel). Imagining what it could do if its territory became a safe haven all of the sudden is simply terrifying.
- amingilani 3y agoThere are already nuclear armed “terrorist nations”. Notwithstanding that “terrorist” is subjective and loaded term.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoYep, and a lot of countries around iran were attacked by them, are being attacked by them, or have army bases there build by those countries who don't want to leave :)
- quickslowdown 3y ago"Terrorist" is a subjective term...? If you're using threats, violence, & fear to push an ideology, you're a terrorist. Seems pretty cut & dry to me.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y agoYou just described every superpower, global and regional. Or do you have a very narrow internal definition of what "ideology" means? Maybe that's the subjective part.
- quickslowdown 3y agoOk fine, governments are terrorists
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y agoCheck out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#By_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#By_c... You're going to have to come up with an incredibly convoluted definition of terrorism in order to have it include only people, groups or countries you dislike, but not include people, groups and countries that you do like. And if you do that, then it goes back to the comment by the person you replied to that said that "terrorist" is a subjective term. If you apply consistent rules and definitions, then most governments in the world will be found to be conducting terrorist activities, and mutual accusations of it lose any meaning.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoBecause Iran needs the bomb to protect themselves from... well, Israel and US. Look at other coutries around around them, most of them were either attacked, bombed, are now being attacked or bombed, or are already occupied and have military bases built by other nuclear-having countries. Some of them have to even travel across half a planet to build bases there.
- throwaway678892 3y ago[dead]
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoUkraine is especially curious example. They used have nukes, but gave them up for a piece of paper, where one of the signatory attacked them and the other took months to start acting. Iran would need to be insane to give up their nuclear program and we could actually see Eastern European countries coming together to build their own nukes if USA will continue to be unreliable ally. Sanctions be damned.
- paulmd 3y agoChange in political control is a possibility in any democracy. AfD could hypothetically take power in Germany at some point - at least enough to stall things out “until the situation is clear”/“until Ukraine handles their Nazi problem” etc, and then they’re suddenly “not a reliable ally” either. Like I understand what you’re saying, but you’re also asking for basically a dictatorship in practice. Political winds can always change, and that’s something that cannot and should not be entirely forestalled. (Although for example drug laws kinda do this - the us is beholden to international law on scheduling etc - we just don’t do that for military situations to the same extent as we use it for jailing minorities. But nato-style alliances with trigger conditions etc are a rarity, and ultimately still subject to the parties having to actually take action. If a nato trigger event has taken place, and everyone simply ignores it… what then? If trump says Slovenia are low-energy losers who incited the conflict themselves, therefore nato doesn’t apply (which is iirc more or less his stance on Ukraine during this conflict)… what do you propose doing about it? Code is not law, ethereum smart contracts can’t drop bombs.) The rise of Russian-aligned parties and neofascist groups within western culture is the problem. And while there’s some root causes, like letting party-controlled media sources spread actual libel and falsehoods, once the neofascist party is getting 30%, or once trump takes the presidency, it’s too late, now they get the color of state power and state legitimacy, even as they dismantle the next election etc. The real problem is that Russia and china are using western liberal values against us. Only westerners are concerned about protecting the speech of Nazis, or the right of Fox News to broadcast lies that the election was stolen, etc. China and Russia don’t have to care. And the fact that we have to work our politics within this framework that coddles vicious and violent movements and rhetoric is an angle that they can exploit to disrupt us. Like yes, if you allow china to have their fair say in media, and allow them to purchase a major media outlet to spread that perspective, you’re going to get china-backed media causing disruption to domestic US politics. It’s just more controversial to say it with political parties than with tiktok, but, Fox News and newsmax really ought to go too, for all the same reasons. And as long as you can come up with a veneer of American control the problem will remain.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoThey already have chemical and bio weapons. Might as well throw another log on the pile.
- yongjik 3y agoNot sure about that. North Korea still remains an international pariah, nuke or not, and Russia isn't doing too well in Ukraine either. Of course Japan periodically complains of NK threat, but considering how much the Japanese right wing wants to arm the country again, NK is just being a very convenient excuse for them. Ironically, one major consequence of North Korean nukes is that there's now zero chance America will unilaterally decide to "liberate" the country, Iraq style. Being South Korean, I'm okay with that.
- tharmas 3y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago> R U sure Russia’s war in Ukraine isn’t going so well? Yes. > I think u should widen ur sources. What makes you think it is going “so well”?
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoUkraine is running out of people, and both us+eu can't even produce enough simple shells for the war, not to mention stuff like patriot missles. Even the western media moved from "putin has two days of missles left" to "ukraine is losing". (eg https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338 )
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoAnd Russians are attacking in golf carts, bikes and modified Ural trucks instead of tanks, BTRs and BMPs. Both sides are in pretty desperate state.
- tharmas 3y agoThank you. It's nice to see there are other people who are not misinformed by western propaganda on the Ukraine war.
- seo-speedwagon 3y agoI don't understand how someone would take any chance to live in a world where a terrorist nation run by religious fanatics have the nuclear bomb. This is an extremely apt description of Israel and the US though? Nonproliferation is pretty much failed though. Iran complied with some of the most onerous and invasive inspections of its nuclear program for years, and the US still unilaterally withdrew from the agreements and demonized them. So what is the benefit of complying at all?
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoMight be controversial, but if saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, maybe the US and buddies would not attack them as they did, while lying about the weapons. Atomic bomb would give Iran an extra layer of protection from those few countries that can do whatever they want, start wars based on lies, steal oil, commit genocide and worse, and the "international community" turns a blind eye most of the time.
- iwontberude 3y agoIf Saddam had weapons of mass destruction it would’ve been because of a partnership with the US so it’s a moot point.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoSure, but a lot less iraqis would die, if saddam had a few nukes pointed at washington, ready to launch in case of a us invasion, and US decided to not risk it (or well,... risk it once and never again, and some other countries people would be alive instead of the next war there).
- kjkjadksj 3y agoWhat layer do nukes honestly give you that your chemical and bioweapons don’t? All are taboo to use. If shit hits the fan its far easier to gas and plague the country than to develop and successfully deploy nuclear weapons.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoI mean... soviets had both those too, and a few nukes on cuba caused such a crisis, that the sanctions are still in place there Luckily we have UN, which can vote against sanctions,... oh wait, they did that: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143112 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143112 > General Assembly votes overwhelmingly against US Cuba embargo > Those in favour: 187 > Those against: 2 (the US and Israel) > Abstentions: 1 (Ukraine) Guess what, sanctions are still in place :)
- 3y ago
- theyinwhy 3y agoWe had a deal with Iran until Trump butchered it to not give Obama the victory. Well done.
- throwaway678892 3y ago[dead]
- _xnmw 3y agoI wonder if the US has the appetite for an all-out war with Iran. Could jeopardize 1/3rd of the world's oil production and drive the price of everything to levels never seen before. Furthermore, it would mean fighting on multiple fronts, Israel, Ukraine, and possibly Taiwan. Seeing as the US is struggling to provide enough ammunition for Ukraine, it's hard to see how there'd be enough for multiple full-scale wars.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoNothing has happened after North Korea got a nuke, nothing will happen when Iran will get a nuke. Both powers knows very well that with a nuke, invasion by a superpower is unlikely. Without a nuke invasion by a superpower can actually happen - see Ukraine.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoIt had the appetite but not the pretext under the foolish warmongers GWB and Cheney. The US was rehearsing for exactly this with a high tempo of operations including naval air sorties in the area during their administration. Unfortunately, their other "mission accomplished" wars didn't go so well. Now, the US doesn't have them anymore and so this is extremely unlikely because Biden has zero interest in military adventurism.
- tharmas 3y agoClaiming that Iran is or will pursue Nuclear weapons is a perfect reason to get Joe Public to support Israel and USA to "take them out". As fanatical as the religious rulers are in Iran those leaders do have a theological problem with weapons of mass destruction ie nukes. Therefore they have chosen to perfect ballistic missiles. No way Russian and China want Iran to have nukes.
- runarberg 3y agoUnlike Israel, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Meaning that if Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons (which, to be honesty, they probably do) they have a long way to go, both politically and engineering wise. It also means there are many ways to prevent Iran ever getting one (the Iran nuclear deal was a good example until Trump cancelled it). Israel, however, is not a member of the Non-proliferation deal, and very likely are own a few nuclear weapons. If anyone is are afraid of Nuclear Weapons, they should not support Israel under any circumstances.
- throwaway678892 3y ago[dead]
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoI'm sorry to say such an adolescent thing here, but, "Duh?". For a delicate regime with many bordering enemies, and with an international nuclear policy in total shambles, it's the most sensible thing to do. By a country mile. If I was Grand Iranian Overlord, you can bet that every national effort would be, right now, to get a nuke as soon as humanly possible. The Shia/Persian state is a sad little mound in the middle of a Sunni and - before Gaza, anyway - Sunni/Israeli block. I imagine the primary reason for the October attacks was to drive a wedge into that developing relationship, knowing Likud would react very Old-Testament-y. People will make scary color coded maps with all the Iranian proxies, but proxies are just proxies, and some of those proxies - like in Syria - are as dangerous to Iranian policy as they might be to Iran's enemies. Ask America how relying on dangerous third parties went for it in South America - they might have established a firm anticommunist platform, but at the risk of destabilizing the whole continent.
- Ajay-p 3y agoIt feels inevitable that one day Iran or Israel will conduct a nuclear strike upon one, the other, or both. There is no deescalation and it seems like everyone in the middle is cheering them on, hoping they both eliminate one another. Iran does not seem to be content until Israel is removed from the face of the earth.