5 ms·

> There are much better methods to prevent Iran from getting nukes. And what if those methods don't work? Obviously I would prefer all this to be resolved in

> There are much better methods to prevent Iran from getting nukes. And what if those methods don't work? Obviously I would prefer all this to be resolved in a diplomatic way a decade ago, but in some cases military action will be the only way beyond a certain point.

runarberg 1y ago
[flagged]
- amendegree 1y ago
  > “It worked kinda well” So comforting, even you, an avowed Zionist hater (in your own words), (and imo terrorist apologist) couldn’t lie enough to claim that they were actually effective. Would you get on a plane that “worked kinda well”. Would you trust a heart surgeon who said he was “kinda ok”. Iran has continuously called for the total destruction and death of all Jews and all of western civilization for the last 40+ years as a religious mandate demanded by their god, what makes you think they would ever stop pursuing that?
  - trustinmenowpls 1y ago
    honestly, I wouldn't engage with runarburg anymore, looking at his comments history, he's got some kinda unhealthy obsession with jews and israel. nearly all his submissions are anti-jewish iranian propoganda, he spends a lot of time spreading totally false nonsense about jews, you're not really gonna get anywhere with him.
- mupuff1234 1y ago
  And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either.
  - runarberg 1y ago
    This is a testable hypotheses. We can look at arms buildup in history. I predict that you are wrong. Conventional arms buildup tends to correlate with war. The more war there is, the more countries built up their arsenals. Further, I predict that there is a negative correlation with international treaties, and bilateral agreements and arms buildup. That is, the more nations cooperate, the more they negotiate and agree on stuff, the fewer arms they pursue and keep. I don‘t feel like doing the research to gather evidence for my hypothesis, but mine at least doesn’t fail the sniff test. Feel free to prove me wrong with data.
    - mupuff1234 1y ago
      History is full of nations and leaders that decided to go on conquest because of ego and hunger for power - that's your data. You know what correlates the most with peace and lack of arms races? Having a single superpower who everyone is afraid of. Deterrence is the reason why bad actors have kept relatively quiet, not diplomacy.
      - runarberg 1y ago
        That is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is about weapons buildup in relation to a) war, and b) treaties and agreements. And it is about trends and likelihoods, not absolutes. To restate my hypothesis. More of (a) = more weapons. More of (b) = fewer weapons. Sure we can look at Israel, a nation which has a part of tons of international treaties and agreements (albeit fewer then most other nations) and yet is one of the most antagonistic militarized nations in history. So we know there are exception. North Korea might be an example of a country that passes the sniff test of my second hypothesis. Outside of the most international treaties and agreements and also extremely militarized. But on the other hand, according to my first hypothesis, Israel does pass as an example that contributes to the passing of the sniff test. Israel is probably the country that has seen the most wars and conflicts since World War 2 (maybe USA and Russia/Soviet Union have seen more; I don‘t know), and in accordance to my hypothesis, it is also one of the most militarized nation in the world currently (including one of very few nuclear armed nations). EDIT: I was just reading an interview with Jim Walsh—a US based nuclear weapons expert, and he seems to agree with me and disagree with you: > “I think there’s strong scholarly evidence – and certainly, if you look at the politics of the moment – to believe that in this attack, Israel will get the exact opposite of what it wanted, which is Iran is going to decide to go for the bomb.” https://aje.io/auoxkc?update=3773054 https://aje.io/auoxkc?update=3773054 also: https://www.wuft.org/2025-06-13/what-israels-escalation-in-iran-means-for-the-region https://www.wuft.org/2025-06-13/what-israels-escalation-in-i...
- trustinmenowpls 1y ago
  It failed from day one. Iran ignored it and continued over enriching uranium. They built secret underground nuclear R&D centers and continued development of nuclear warheads. Israel has nothing to do with Iran's attempt at a nuclear holocaust, why are you even mentioning them?

runarberg 1y ago

[flagged]

amendegree 1y ago
> “It worked kinda well” So comforting, even you, an avowed Zionist hater (in your own words), (and imo terrorist apologist) couldn’t lie enough to claim that they were actually effective. Would you get on a plane that “worked kinda well”. Would you trust a heart surgeon who said he was “kinda ok”. Iran has continuously called for the total destruction and death of all Jews and all of western civilization for the last 40+ years as a religious mandate demanded by their god, what makes you think they would ever stop pursuing that?
- trustinmenowpls 1y ago
  honestly, I wouldn't engage with runarburg anymore, looking at his comments history, he's got some kinda unhealthy obsession with jews and israel. nearly all his submissions are anti-jewish iranian propoganda, he spends a lot of time spreading totally false nonsense about jews, you're not really gonna get anywhere with him.
mupuff1234 1y ago
And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either.
- runarberg 1y ago
  This is a testable hypotheses. We can look at arms buildup in history. I predict that you are wrong. Conventional arms buildup tends to correlate with war. The more war there is, the more countries built up their arsenals. Further, I predict that there is a negative correlation with international treaties, and bilateral agreements and arms buildup. That is, the more nations cooperate, the more they negotiate and agree on stuff, the fewer arms they pursue and keep. I don‘t feel like doing the research to gather evidence for my hypothesis, but mine at least doesn’t fail the sniff test. Feel free to prove me wrong with data.
  - mupuff1234 1y ago
    History is full of nations and leaders that decided to go on conquest because of ego and hunger for power - that's your data. You know what correlates the most with peace and lack of arms races? Having a single superpower who everyone is afraid of. Deterrence is the reason why bad actors have kept relatively quiet, not diplomacy.
    - runarberg 1y ago
      That is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is about weapons buildup in relation to a) war, and b) treaties and agreements. And it is about trends and likelihoods, not absolutes. To restate my hypothesis. More of (a) = more weapons. More of (b) = fewer weapons. Sure we can look at Israel, a nation which has a part of tons of international treaties and agreements (albeit fewer then most other nations) and yet is one of the most antagonistic militarized nations in history. So we know there are exception. North Korea might be an example of a country that passes the sniff test of my second hypothesis. Outside of the most international treaties and agreements and also extremely militarized. But on the other hand, according to my first hypothesis, Israel does pass as an example that contributes to the passing of the sniff test. Israel is probably the country that has seen the most wars and conflicts since World War 2 (maybe USA and Russia/Soviet Union have seen more; I don‘t know), and in accordance to my hypothesis, it is also one of the most militarized nation in the world currently (including one of very few nuclear armed nations). EDIT: I was just reading an interview with Jim Walsh—a US based nuclear weapons expert, and he seems to agree with me and disagree with you: > “I think there’s strong scholarly evidence – and certainly, if you look at the politics of the moment – to believe that in this attack, Israel will get the exact opposite of what it wanted, which is Iran is going to decide to go for the bomb.” https://aje.io/auoxkc?update=3773054 https://aje.io/auoxkc?update=3773054 also: https://www.wuft.org/2025-06-13/what-israels-escalation-in-iran-means-for-the-region https://www.wuft.org/2025-06-13/what-israels-escalation-in-i...
trustinmenowpls 1y ago
It failed from day one. Iran ignored it and continued over enriching uranium. They built secret underground nuclear R&D centers and continued development of nuclear warheads. Israel has nothing to do with Iran's attempt at a nuclear holocaust, why are you even mentioning them?