5 ms·

moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from ga

moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.

_heimdall 1y ago
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government. The Iranian government has frequently reference a goal of destroying Israel, a sovereign nation, and referred to the US in very disparaging (and biblical) terms. That doesn't justify direct attack, but it also isn't diplomatic.
- azinman2 1y ago
  Disparaging? They literally chant death to America. Is that not also calling for its destruction?
  - lunarboy 1y ago
    I'm sure the decades of CIA meddling in the Middle East and endless wars had no effect on raising generations of US hatred. To hit someone, then call them dangerous when they say "I hate you" is real hero stuff
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      Neither of you are wrong. There are genuine reasons for hatred of the West in the Middle East, AND the Islamists are doing their best to whip up that hatred even more and weaponize it. That said, "organic" hatred towards the US is much more common in the Arab world than in Iran. Smarter people who live under totalitarian regimes tend to become distrustful of the message that the regime goons are relentlessly pushing, and if that message is "Death to America", the underground reaction will be "America must be cool if the idiots up there hate it so much". I saw the same with my own eyes in late-stage Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Regime propaganda is one thing, its effect on the people another. It usually works much less than expected.
    - maximus-decimus 1y ago
      Okay so assuming the U.S. is 100% responsible for Iran wishing death on them, what do you think the U.S. should do? Let Iran make a nuclear weapon and nuke the U.S.? Or are you arguing Iran is harmless despite openly wishing death on the U.S.?
      - mjburgess 1y ago
        > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-arabia-agree-restore-ties-china-talks https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-ara... What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts. The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. Every relevant country has at least second strike capabilities against Iran, so it would be suicidal in the extreme -- it's also highly likely that the handful of nukes they'd have would be mostly intercepted. They haven't even developed second strike themselves, so they'd almost certainly lose any nuclear capacity on first attempted use. Iran's capacity for nuclear agression with nukes, is tiny. Iran having a nuclear weapon would be one of the most stabilising outcomes in the middle east, as it would prevent israel (which is the most violent, destablising state in the region) from acting with impunity. This is why israel has, for 30 years, been complaining that iran is "months away" from a bomb, and why for 20 years its being trying to precipitate a war to drag the US into. Iran having a nuclear weapon is the best possible outcome for global security, precisely because its the only configuration of events which prevents israel from waging wars of aggression on its neighbors (syria, iran, et al.).
        Gareth321 1y ago
        > What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts. So... nothing? > The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. When a country repeatedly calls for the genocide of nations and peoples, over decades and various leaders, and funds dozens of terrorist groups which carry out unspeakable acts of depravity and violence against said peoples, why on Earth would you think they don't mean it? Why would having more destructive power suddenly make them less violent? Your logic doesn't follow at all. It's clear you have little understanding of the various ways in which Iran has waged war on its neighbours over decades. Them having a nuke would merely enable them to become far more bold in their covert and overt attempts to cleans the world of their enemies.
  - mft_ 1y ago
    Who is “they”? A representative subset of the overall population, or a group of extremists, possibly performing for the cameras? Iran was once an open and liberal country; the current government is generally very unpopular. Just as Netanyahu‘s actions do not represent all Israelis, so the Iranian government does not represent all Iranians.
    - azinman2 1y ago
      They is the gov, along with some portion of the population.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        That's a pretty broad net though. Is it the whole government you are talking about, or only certain positions? And what is the actual percentage of the population you're implicating here? 5% vs 50% could make a huge difference.
  - buyucu 1y ago
    Can you blame them. CIA overthrew the only democratic government they ever had, and replaced it with a dictator.
  - netsharc 1y ago
    Result 3 of 9 for "Death to America". Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
- LAC-Tech 1y ago
  I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government. That's completely unfair to Iran. They had IAEA inspectors in their country and they were negotiating with the US (a nation who has put crippling sanctions on them). Then a country that doesn't have IAEA inspectors bombed them, killing the people that very people who were negotiating with the US. Their message since than has been reasonable; "we won't negotiate while Israel is attacking us". How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? They can't just roll over and take it, or they'll be finished.
  - crubier 1y ago
    > How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? I don't know maybe just start by not swearing that your neighbor must be destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      india/pakistan whitter on about it all the time. As did the french/english. But, if you were near to a country that was busily invading neighbours, run by religious zealots, a huge military had a history of using allies to attack you and is obviously illegally playing with nuclear bombs what would you do? The problem is, that describes both iran and israel.
    - LAC-Tech 1y ago
      How's your Persian? "Marg Bar <noun" appears to a ritualistic phrase, meaning 'down with': https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-those-iranians-who-say-death-to-america-mean-by-it https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-t... Here they are saying "Death to Khamenei" over power outages: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-article/death-to-khamenei-after-protests-iran-president-apologizes-over-power-blackouts/0000017f-efed-dc28-a17f-ffff86dd0000 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-... Here's a story of a taxi driver saying "Death to traffic": https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-traffic/ https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-tr... It's also worth pointing out that wanting Israel (the state) destroyed is not the same thing as wanting everyone who lives there to die. I'm glad the Third Reich was destroyed, I'm also glad the German people survived it.
- karmakurtisaani 1y ago
  Iran has actually been quite willing to negotiate. It has not withdrawn from the talks, it was the US that did it the last time under Trump. Are you aware that Iran approved of US invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War? It even allowed the use of it's air space. Are you aware that Iran was the only country excluded from the Madrid peace talks of 1991 between Israel and Palestine? To counter this exclusion, Iran strengthened it's ties with Hamas and Hizbollah. Iran is not some insane theocracy seeking of everyone's destruction. The regime is bad for the people, but self-interested just as any other, and benefits very little from full exclusion.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    I didn't say Iran has been unwilling to negotiate or that they haven't been diplomatic at all. The prior comment I was replying to implied that the Iranians couldn't have been more diplomatic than they already have been. That's simply untrue and ignores much of the rhetoric coming out from the Iranian government related to Israel and the US. More importantly, it ignores Iran's involvement with a handful of non-state militant groups in the region.
- buyucu 1y ago
  The rhetoric coming from Iran is very mild compared to the ulta-religious venom coming from Tel Aviv.
rocqua 1y ago
That is a massive oversimplification of the diplomatic failures on many sides here. You could just as easily say that doing regime change in a country will make them hate you, or that backing out of deals will make things worse, or that Israel can shape US policy at their own whims. Yes, Iran had a stupid nuclear strategy. But that is only a minor part of this story.
dartharva 1y ago
Wasn't so with India. Their first experimental test detonation was in 1974 (Smiling Buddha) in which they used nuclear material that US and Canada themselves supplied under "Atoms for Peace", but it wasn't until 24 years later in 1998 (Operation Shakti) that the country managed to test enough to call itself a nuclear state. They did all this while they were in consistent active conflict with large and powerful neighbors on three sides, along with explicit hostility from the US.
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
I was surprised to read that in Europe, the closest country to have nuclear weapons are the Netherlands (if they wanted to) https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473 https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473
- tasoeur 1y ago
  Do you mean as a new development? Because France (and the UK) already had them for a while. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...
  - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
    Yes, new development. When Trump dumped his support for NATO in Europe, everyone was looking at France to shield them and deter attacks. I was wondering if other EU countries were reasonably close to building a bomb and I found this question.
- thenthenthen 1y ago
  The Netherlands has US nukes: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel Apparently also Belgium , Italy, Turkey, Germany have the same type.
  - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
    Yes, but these are US nukes, under complete US control. US decides when and where to use them. In other words, these countries are launch sites for the US army. What I had in mind are nukes under the jurisdiction of a country (such as France or UK in Europe)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.

_heimdall 1y ago

I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government. The Iranian government has frequently reference a goal of destroying Israel, a sovereign nation, and referred to the US in very disparaging (and biblical) terms. That doesn't justify direct attack, but it also isn't diplomatic.

azinman2 1y ago
Disparaging? They literally chant death to America. Is that not also calling for its destruction?
- lunarboy 1y ago
  I'm sure the decades of CIA meddling in the Middle East and endless wars had no effect on raising generations of US hatred. To hit someone, then call them dangerous when they say "I hate you" is real hero stuff
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    Neither of you are wrong. There are genuine reasons for hatred of the West in the Middle East, AND the Islamists are doing their best to whip up that hatred even more and weaponize it. That said, "organic" hatred towards the US is much more common in the Arab world than in Iran. Smarter people who live under totalitarian regimes tend to become distrustful of the message that the regime goons are relentlessly pushing, and if that message is "Death to America", the underground reaction will be "America must be cool if the idiots up there hate it so much". I saw the same with my own eyes in late-stage Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Regime propaganda is one thing, its effect on the people another. It usually works much less than expected.
  - maximus-decimus 1y ago
    Okay so assuming the U.S. is 100% responsible for Iran wishing death on them, what do you think the U.S. should do? Let Iran make a nuclear weapon and nuke the U.S.? Or are you arguing Iran is harmless despite openly wishing death on the U.S.?
    - mjburgess 1y ago
      > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-arabia-agree-restore-ties-china-talks https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-ara... What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts. The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. Every relevant country has at least second strike capabilities against Iran, so it would be suicidal in the extreme -- it's also highly likely that the handful of nukes they'd have would be mostly intercepted. They haven't even developed second strike themselves, so they'd almost certainly lose any nuclear capacity on first attempted use. Iran's capacity for nuclear agression with nukes, is tiny. Iran having a nuclear weapon would be one of the most stabilising outcomes in the middle east, as it would prevent israel (which is the most violent, destablising state in the region) from acting with impunity. This is why israel has, for 30 years, been complaining that iran is "months away" from a bomb, and why for 20 years its being trying to precipitate a war to drag the US into. Iran having a nuclear weapon is the best possible outcome for global security, precisely because its the only configuration of events which prevents israel from waging wars of aggression on its neighbors (syria, iran, et al.).
      - Gareth321 1y ago
        > What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts. So... nothing? > The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. When a country repeatedly calls for the genocide of nations and peoples, over decades and various leaders, and funds dozens of terrorist groups which carry out unspeakable acts of depravity and violence against said peoples, why on Earth would you think they don't mean it? Why would having more destructive power suddenly make them less violent? Your logic doesn't follow at all. It's clear you have little understanding of the various ways in which Iran has waged war on its neighbours over decades. Them having a nuke would merely enable them to become far more bold in their covert and overt attempts to cleans the world of their enemies.
- mft_ 1y ago
  Who is “they”? A representative subset of the overall population, or a group of extremists, possibly performing for the cameras? Iran was once an open and liberal country; the current government is generally very unpopular. Just as Netanyahu‘s actions do not represent all Israelis, so the Iranian government does not represent all Iranians.
  - azinman2 1y ago
    They is the gov, along with some portion of the population.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      That's a pretty broad net though. Is it the whole government you are talking about, or only certain positions? And what is the actual percentage of the population you're implicating here? 5% vs 50% could make a huge difference.
- buyucu 1y ago
  Can you blame them. CIA overthrew the only democratic government they ever had, and replaced it with a dictator.
- netsharc 1y ago
  Result 3 of 9 for "Death to America". Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
LAC-Tech 1y ago
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government. That's completely unfair to Iran. They had IAEA inspectors in their country and they were negotiating with the US (a nation who has put crippling sanctions on them). Then a country that doesn't have IAEA inspectors bombed them, killing the people that very people who were negotiating with the US. Their message since than has been reasonable; "we won't negotiate while Israel is attacking us". How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? They can't just roll over and take it, or they'll be finished.
- crubier 1y ago
  > How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? I don't know maybe just start by not swearing that your neighbor must be destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    india/pakistan whitter on about it all the time. As did the french/english. But, if you were near to a country that was busily invading neighbours, run by religious zealots, a huge military had a history of using allies to attack you and is obviously illegally playing with nuclear bombs what would you do? The problem is, that describes both iran and israel.
  - LAC-Tech 1y ago
    How's your Persian? "Marg Bar <noun" appears to a ritualistic phrase, meaning 'down with': https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-those-iranians-who-say-death-to-america-mean-by-it https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-t... Here they are saying "Death to Khamenei" over power outages: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-article/death-to-khamenei-after-protests-iran-president-apologizes-over-power-blackouts/0000017f-efed-dc28-a17f-ffff86dd0000 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-... Here's a story of a taxi driver saying "Death to traffic": https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-traffic/ https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-tr... It's also worth pointing out that wanting Israel (the state) destroyed is not the same thing as wanting everyone who lives there to die. I'm glad the Third Reich was destroyed, I'm also glad the German people survived it.
karmakurtisaani 1y ago
Iran has actually been quite willing to negotiate. It has not withdrawn from the talks, it was the US that did it the last time under Trump. Are you aware that Iran approved of US invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War? It even allowed the use of it's air space. Are you aware that Iran was the only country excluded from the Madrid peace talks of 1991 between Israel and Palestine? To counter this exclusion, Iran strengthened it's ties with Hamas and Hizbollah. Iran is not some insane theocracy seeking of everyone's destruction. The regime is bad for the people, but self-interested just as any other, and benefits very little from full exclusion.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I didn't say Iran has been unwilling to negotiate or that they haven't been diplomatic at all. The prior comment I was replying to implied that the Iranians couldn't have been more diplomatic than they already have been. That's simply untrue and ignores much of the rhetoric coming out from the Iranian government related to Israel and the US. More importantly, it ignores Iran's involvement with a handful of non-state militant groups in the region.
buyucu 1y ago
The rhetoric coming from Iran is very mild compared to the ulta-religious venom coming from Tel Aviv.

rocqua 1y ago

That is a massive oversimplification of the diplomatic failures on many sides here. You could just as easily say that doing regime change in a country will make them hate you, or that backing out of deals will make things worse, or that Israel can shape US policy at their own whims. Yes, Iran had a stupid nuclear strategy. But that is only a minor part of this story.

dartharva 1y ago

Wasn't so with India. Their first experimental test detonation was in 1974 (Smiling Buddha) in which they used nuclear material that US and Canada themselves supplied under "Atoms for Peace", but it wasn't until 24 years later in 1998 (Operation Shakti) that the country managed to test enough to call itself a nuclear state. They did all this while they were in consistent active conflict with large and powerful neighbors on three sides, along with explicit hostility from the US.

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

I was surprised to read that in Europe, the closest country to have nuclear weapons are the Netherlands (if they wanted to) https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473 https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473

tasoeur 1y ago
Do you mean as a new development? Because France (and the UK) already had them for a while. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...
- BrandoElFollito 1y ago
  Yes, new development. When Trump dumped his support for NATO in Europe, everyone was looking at France to shield them and deter attacks. I was wondering if other EU countries were reasonably close to building a bomb and I found this question.
thenthenthen 1y ago
The Netherlands has US nukes: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel Apparently also Belgium , Italy, Turkey, Germany have the same type.
- BrandoElFollito 1y ago
  Yes, but these are US nukes, under complete US control. US decides when and where to use them. In other words, these countries are launch sites for the US army. What I had in mind are nukes under the jurisdiction of a country (such as France or UK in Europe)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]