6 ms·

Curious what the alternative is here? Let the U.S. do whatever? Genuinely curious.

by whoknowsidont 1y ago

UltraSane 1y ago
If you trust Iran with nuclear weapons you are not wise.
- sahila 1y ago
  Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - whoknowsidont 1y ago
      Do you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - ericmay 1y ago
    On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting. Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
    - whoknowsidont 1y ago
      > the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war. There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man. But hey, don't take my word for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... * https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912 https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
      - ericmay 1y ago
        I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
        whoknowsidont 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - kelnos 1y ago
      I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.) Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nemothekid 1y ago
  If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes. You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes. It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    "Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes." This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use. Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
- baobun 1y ago
  It's perfectly consistent to be against both Iran nuclear development and the US attack yesterday. One does not imply the other.

Curious what the alternative is here? Let the U.S. do whatever? Genuinely curious.

UltraSane 1y ago

If you trust Iran with nuclear weapons you are not wise.

sahila 1y ago
Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    Do you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      [flagged]
- ericmay 1y ago
  On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting. Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    > the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war. There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man. But hey, don't take my word for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... * https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912 https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
    - ericmay 1y ago
      I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
      - whoknowsidont 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - kelnos 1y ago
    I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.) Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nemothekid 1y ago
If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes. You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes. It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  "Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes." This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use. Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
baobun 1y ago
It's perfectly consistent to be against both Iran nuclear development and the US attack yesterday. One does not imply the other.