4 ms·

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...
    - mupuff1234 1y ago
      We know that experts are fairly bad at predictions. Plus we have the latest report from the UN that Iran has been breaching their nuclear agreements. Iran most likely won't be able to redevelop a nuclear program if the current one is destroyed (and Israel could easily destroy it again when/if they restart)
      - runarberg 1y ago
        Iran’s behavior is exactly in line with my hypothesis. They a) were involved in regional conflicts against Israel (including having bombs dropped on them from Israel), and b) had their treaties broken by the USA. Dropping the treaties and invading Iran does seem to correlate with weapons buildup.
        mupuff1234 1y ago
        But the weapons have already been built, so at this point its either you act first or just hope. And hope isn't much of a strategy. Obviously there is a huge risk here that if Israel fails then Iran will without a doubt push for a bomb.
        runarberg 1y ago
        You seem pretty sure about your beliefs about this, and I doubt there is anything I can say which will convince you otherwise. But when you put forth a testable hypotheses, and experts in the field seem to disagree with your conviction about the matter, perhaps it is time time maybe consider that maybe you are wrong and the experts are right. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/iran-to-double-down-on-nuclear-programme-after-israeli-strikes-analysts https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/iran-to-double-down...
        mupuff1234 1y ago
        Because it seems fairly obvious to me that if the current nuclear program is taken out the chances that they'll be able to redevelop it in the near to medium term future are extremely low. How exactly will they be able to do so? They won't be able to protect the sites from further attacks, not to mention losing a significant chunk of the expertise in form of personal along with the materials required. It's not some Lego set, rebuilding such a project is insanely complex and time consuming, chances of success are very low (assuming Russia, North Korea, etc, don't decide to just hand some over) Plus, even if they did develop a new program by the time it's done anti missile tech will most likely reach a new phase.
- amendegree 1y ago
  Your hypothesis definitely fails the sniff test. China, Iran, Russia, SA, Pakistan, India… the list goes on. All have many bilateral agreements and yet were or are building up their arms. Iran choose to insert itself where it didn’t belong and had no reason to be. If Iran (like 1930s Germany) had just focused on torturing its own people instead, none of this would’ve happened and Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and yes even palestine (without Iran’s interference would already be a state) would all be much nicer places right now. Instead it introduced regional instability with its ambitions of annihilating and subjugating Jews, to which you are lending your full throated support.
  - runarberg 1y ago
    Funny you should omit USA from this list, which is the worst offender (and also a very obvious example against my case). But my hypothesis is time relative, as countries participate in more treaties and agreements, the less they arm them selves. Note that USA has been a significantly worse participate in agreements and treaties as your average western nation, and is also the country which is increasing their arms spending at the greatest rate. Note Europe is also increasing their arms spending, which is why I provided the second hypotheses, that an increased war correlates with increased arms buildup. Europe has been seeing more wars lately, and they are in turn increasing their arms buildup. Finally, why is South Africa on that list? South Africa has consistently been reducing their arms spending by around 5-10% every year, for the last 5 years at least. And historically (during apartheid) it was one of the most militarized countries on earth. It was also famously not part of hardly any agreements or treaties (as it was sanctioned for their apartheid polices). After apartheid ended South Africa started participating in almost all the treaties and agreements which a modern democracy is expected to (going even further than most western countries). And even famously dismantled their nuclear weapons program. South Africa should be a most prominent example in favor of my hypothesis.
    - amendegree 1y ago
      Sure add US to the list, makes your case even worse. The US is party to many more trade and arms treaties than any other country on earth and has the largest stockpile of weapons. SA is Saudi Arabia. Regardless I've soundly disproven your theory that treaties lower weapon stockpiles, No one disagrees that war will cause people to increase the arms spending, that’s a given. But it’s also pretty clear that treaties do not necessarily lead to less arms spending. Especially when one of the parties to the treaty is a theocratic dictatorship who has called for the total annihilation and destruction of all western society. Even while Iran was technically agreeing to follow the treaty it was still funding hezb, hamas and propping up Syria, none of those things speak to a country that is interested in peaceful coexistence with it’s regional neighbors. Additionally, SA (Saudi Arabia) expressed strong interest in developing a nuclear program simply because of Iran’s. So allowing Iran to have any sort of nuclear program directly contributes to more nuclear proliferation.

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...
  - mupuff1234 1y ago
    We know that experts are fairly bad at predictions. Plus we have the latest report from the UN that Iran has been breaching their nuclear agreements. Iran most likely won't be able to redevelop a nuclear program if the current one is destroyed (and Israel could easily destroy it again when/if they restart)
    - runarberg 1y ago
      Iran’s behavior is exactly in line with my hypothesis. They a) were involved in regional conflicts against Israel (including having bombs dropped on them from Israel), and b) had their treaties broken by the USA. Dropping the treaties and invading Iran does seem to correlate with weapons buildup.
      - mupuff1234 1y ago
        But the weapons have already been built, so at this point its either you act first or just hope. And hope isn't much of a strategy. Obviously there is a huge risk here that if Israel fails then Iran will without a doubt push for a bomb.
        runarberg 1y ago
        You seem pretty sure about your beliefs about this, and I doubt there is anything I can say which will convince you otherwise. But when you put forth a testable hypotheses, and experts in the field seem to disagree with your conviction about the matter, perhaps it is time time maybe consider that maybe you are wrong and the experts are right. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/iran-to-double-down-on-nuclear-programme-after-israeli-strikes-analysts https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/iran-to-double-down...
        mupuff1234 1y ago
        Because it seems fairly obvious to me that if the current nuclear program is taken out the chances that they'll be able to redevelop it in the near to medium term future are extremely low. How exactly will they be able to do so? They won't be able to protect the sites from further attacks, not to mention losing a significant chunk of the expertise in form of personal along with the materials required. It's not some Lego set, rebuilding such a project is insanely complex and time consuming, chances of success are very low (assuming Russia, North Korea, etc, don't decide to just hand some over) Plus, even if they did develop a new program by the time it's done anti missile tech will most likely reach a new phase.
amendegree 1y ago
Your hypothesis definitely fails the sniff test. China, Iran, Russia, SA, Pakistan, India… the list goes on. All have many bilateral agreements and yet were or are building up their arms. Iran choose to insert itself where it didn’t belong and had no reason to be. If Iran (like 1930s Germany) had just focused on torturing its own people instead, none of this would’ve happened and Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and yes even palestine (without Iran’s interference would already be a state) would all be much nicer places right now. Instead it introduced regional instability with its ambitions of annihilating and subjugating Jews, to which you are lending your full throated support.
- runarberg 1y ago
  Funny you should omit USA from this list, which is the worst offender (and also a very obvious example against my case). But my hypothesis is time relative, as countries participate in more treaties and agreements, the less they arm them selves. Note that USA has been a significantly worse participate in agreements and treaties as your average western nation, and is also the country which is increasing their arms spending at the greatest rate. Note Europe is also increasing their arms spending, which is why I provided the second hypotheses, that an increased war correlates with increased arms buildup. Europe has been seeing more wars lately, and they are in turn increasing their arms buildup. Finally, why is South Africa on that list? South Africa has consistently been reducing their arms spending by around 5-10% every year, for the last 5 years at least. And historically (during apartheid) it was one of the most militarized countries on earth. It was also famously not part of hardly any agreements or treaties (as it was sanctioned for their apartheid polices). After apartheid ended South Africa started participating in almost all the treaties and agreements which a modern democracy is expected to (going even further than most western countries). And even famously dismantled their nuclear weapons program. South Africa should be a most prominent example in favor of my hypothesis.
  - amendegree 1y ago
    Sure add US to the list, makes your case even worse. The US is party to many more trade and arms treaties than any other country on earth and has the largest stockpile of weapons. SA is Saudi Arabia. Regardless I've soundly disproven your theory that treaties lower weapon stockpiles, No one disagrees that war will cause people to increase the arms spending, that’s a given. But it’s also pretty clear that treaties do not necessarily lead to less arms spending. Especially when one of the parties to the treaty is a theocratic dictatorship who has called for the total annihilation and destruction of all western society. Even while Iran was technically agreeing to follow the treaty it was still funding hezb, hamas and propping up Syria, none of those things speak to a country that is interested in peaceful coexistence with it’s regional neighbors. Additionally, SA (Saudi Arabia) expressed strong interest in developing a nuclear program simply because of Iran’s. So allowing Iran to have any sort of nuclear program directly contributes to more nuclear proliferation.