3 ms·
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doub
by tdeck 1y ago
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".
What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.
- lwansbrough 1y agoThe people who decide if it's okay are the ones with nuclear weapons. They are the ones who built and enforce the framework for determining what "okay" even means. That's why nuclear weapon acquisition is so powerful. And why it's so fiercely protected. The framework to deal with non-proliferation depends on the states involved voluntarily participating in the framework. Iran was not doing so. There are numerous countries that enjoy paranuclear status who have had no problem not lying to the IAEA. You cannot place blame for this outcome on anyone other than Iran, they made the move entirely of their own volition. Once you open the door for consequence, you don't get to choose how it is handed out.
- nradov 1y agoYou completely missed the point. Whether certain actions are "OK" are not is utterly irrelevant in geopolitical affairs. Sovereign states will always act in their (perceived) best interest regardless of legalisms or moral codes. Justifications are then manufactured for public consumption. Ultima ratio regum. As for international frameworks, how should the Non-Proliferation Treaty be enforced? If a country violates it then what should the consequences be? https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/