6 ms·

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

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.

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.