10 ms·

> unauthorized It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else

> unauthorized It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know. In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.

tptacek 1y ago
Correct. That is how sovereign states relate to each other, though.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless. Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned. This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws. You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
  - edanm 1y ago
    > I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years. So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
    - rich_sasha 1y ago
      But it's not their terror web that is being attacked. Hezbollah and the Houti are fine, today anyway. I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
      - greedo 1y ago
        Hezbollah has been completely neutered by Israel.
        ElectricalUnion 1y ago
        Funny thing, they used to say that about Hamaz before 7 October 2023.
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening.
      - runlaszlorun 1y ago
        No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a competitor?
        austin-cheney 1y ago
        Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
  - belorn 1y ago
    This strongly reminds me how naval warfare had period where participants was supposed to act according to certain fair rules. First they would fly the right color, then they would request the attacked ship to surrender, then they would attack if the other party declined surrender, and then they would pick up any surviving sailors that ended up in the water. World war 2 (and to a degree, world war 1) kind of ruined all that.
  - frereubu 1y ago
    > Iraq invation was pushed through the UN. Well, sort of. They tried, but when the UN gave an answer that the US and UK didn't like, they went ahead anyway. > You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. I'm not quite cynical enough to wholly agree with that, but given enough motivation and power the façade does crack pretty easily.
    - andrepd 1y ago
      There was at least a façade. That's the thing: today you don't even need to pretend to care.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    The head of the UN, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. [1] The US tried to pass a resolution legalizing the invasion of Iraq through the UN, but it failed. The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. But it was used as a pretext for hostile actions with relatively gullible populations. Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most. If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      >The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisler/dp/0802145299/ https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisle... The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point. In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect. To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.
reissbaker 1y ago
Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.
- octo888 1y ago
  Isr ael is literally involved with bombing Iran right now and this is a post about it. How could you expect them not to be mentioned?
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  I'm not saying I have beef with it. I would be happier with a world where fewer countries, including Iran and Israel, have nukes. I'm saying legality of nukes seems 100% derived from a calculus of power, not first principles - that includes US, UK, Russia, China, everyone. If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
  - SllX 1y ago
    There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible. Like seriously, the ideal number of nuclear warheads in the world is 0, but that is not the world we were born into. So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
    - mdhb 1y ago
      The irony of this entire situation is that it actually all but guarantees large scale nuclear proliferation. It’s not that people were just too dumb or too scared to do something about it.
      - reissbaker 1y ago
JohnBooty 1y ago
I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."
- seydor 1y ago
  recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe. Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. It's "make nukes first, ask questions later"
  - viraptor 1y ago
    NK isn't attacked, because SK cities are in range for conventional rockets. I'm not sure how much the nuclear capabilities add to that.
    - rich_sasha 1y ago
      I think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes. Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
      - aaronbrethorst 1y ago
        Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
motorest 1y ago
> It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? 1. Check this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... 2. Cross out the countries which are attacked for having nuclear weapons. Here's your definition of approved nukes.
- amelius 1y ago
  I suppose what "approved" means is in the eye of the beholder.
jonyt 1y ago
Iran is a signatory of the NPT so - not approved.
- floatrock 1y ago
  > signatory of the NPT >> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. you're both correct. Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents? When the west has had such overthrows, we've tended to declare the acts of the previous administration null-and-void https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944 Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
cm2187 1y ago
It's not about "authorized" or "unauthorized". If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. The problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes. There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.
- mvc 1y ago
  What marks a state out as being religiously extreme? Or sponsoring terror? Stuff like killing politicians of the opposing side? Pardoning insurrectionists on your side? Sponsoring organisations that badger mothers in foreign nations as they attempt to get an abortion?
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Pretty sure it is the fundamentalist theocracy.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes. Yes, tell me more about the US please
  - drcongo 1y ago
    Ha, I read that sentence and thought "huh, but the US already has nukes". And Israel for that matter.
- tpm 1y ago
  > If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.
aiisjustanif 1y ago
Treaties between nations, Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would be in violation. [1] In general many sanctions around nukes are based on many many treaties and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs. [2] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
mikeen 1y ago
A bunch of countries joined the non-proliferation agreement, including ... Iran. Which makes those nukes illegal in the eye of Iranian own laws. Israel is not a singer of the treaty.
Amarok 1y ago
As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either. It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors. > It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities. Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.
atoav 1y ago
Well don't you know? In the worldview of certain people there are major powers and all other countries have to lick their boots or perish. Whether that major power is the US, China or Russia depends on the particulars, but a surprising amount of people hold that opinion, probably without even being aware of it. What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians? And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards. After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power. Who loses? Everybody.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 1y ago

Correct. That is how sovereign states relate to each other, though.

rich_sasha 1y ago
Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless. Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned. This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws. You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
- edanm 1y ago
  > I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years. So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    But it's not their terror web that is being attacked. Hezbollah and the Houti are fine, today anyway. I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
    - greedo 1y ago
      Hezbollah has been completely neutered by Israel.
      - ElectricalUnion 1y ago
        Funny thing, they used to say that about Hamaz before 7 October 2023.
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening.
    - runlaszlorun 1y ago
      No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a competitor?
      - austin-cheney 1y ago
        Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
- belorn 1y ago
  This strongly reminds me how naval warfare had period where participants was supposed to act according to certain fair rules. First they would fly the right color, then they would request the attacked ship to surrender, then they would attack if the other party declined surrender, and then they would pick up any surviving sailors that ended up in the water. World war 2 (and to a degree, world war 1) kind of ruined all that.
- frereubu 1y ago
  > Iraq invation was pushed through the UN. Well, sort of. They tried, but when the UN gave an answer that the US and UK didn't like, they went ahead anyway. > You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. I'm not quite cynical enough to wholly agree with that, but given enough motivation and power the façade does crack pretty easily.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    There was at least a façade. That's the thing: today you don't even need to pretend to care.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The head of the UN, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. [1] The US tried to pass a resolution legalizing the invasion of Iraq through the UN, but it failed. The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. But it was used as a pretext for hostile actions with relatively gullible populations. Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most. If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    >The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisler/dp/0802145299/ https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisle... The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point. In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect. To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.

reissbaker 1y ago

Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.

octo888 1y ago
Isr ael is literally involved with bombing Iran right now and this is a post about it. How could you expect them not to be mentioned?
rich_sasha 1y ago
I'm not saying I have beef with it. I would be happier with a world where fewer countries, including Iran and Israel, have nukes. I'm saying legality of nukes seems 100% derived from a calculus of power, not first principles - that includes US, UK, Russia, China, everyone. If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
- SllX 1y ago
  There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible. Like seriously, the ideal number of nuclear warheads in the world is 0, but that is not the world we were born into. So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    The irony of this entire situation is that it actually all but guarantees large scale nuclear proliferation. It’s not that people were just too dumb or too scared to do something about it.
    - reissbaker 1y ago

JohnBooty 1y ago

I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."

seydor 1y ago
recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe. Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. It's "make nukes first, ask questions later"
- viraptor 1y ago
  NK isn't attacked, because SK cities are in range for conventional rockets. I'm not sure how much the nuclear capabilities add to that.
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    I think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes. Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
    - aaronbrethorst 1y ago
      Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon. I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.

motorest 1y ago

> It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? 1. Check this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we... 2. Cross out the countries which are attacked for having nuclear weapons. Here's your definition of approved nukes.

amelius 1y ago
I suppose what "approved" means is in the eye of the beholder.

jonyt 1y ago

Iran is a signatory of the NPT so - not approved.

floatrock 1y ago
> signatory of the NPT >> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. you're both correct. Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents? When the west has had such overthrows, we've tended to declare the acts of the previous administration null-and-void https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944 Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.

cm2187 1y ago

It's not about "authorized" or "unauthorized". If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. The problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes. There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.

mvc 1y ago
What marks a state out as being religiously extreme? Or sponsoring terror? Stuff like killing politicians of the opposing side? Pardoning insurrectionists on your side? Sponsoring organisations that badger mothers in foreign nations as they attempt to get an abortion?
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Pretty sure it is the fundamentalist theocracy.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes. Yes, tell me more about the US please
- drcongo 1y ago
  Ha, I read that sentence and thought "huh, but the US already has nukes". And Israel for that matter.
tpm 1y ago
> If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.

aiisjustanif 1y ago

Treaties between nations, Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would be in violation. [1] In general many sanctions around nukes are based on many many treaties and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs. [2] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament

mikeen 1y ago

A bunch of countries joined the non-proliferation agreement, including ... Iran. Which makes those nukes illegal in the eye of Iranian own laws. Israel is not a singer of the treaty.

Amarok 1y ago

As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either. It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors. > It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities. Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.

atoav 1y ago

Well don't you know? In the worldview of certain people there are major powers and all other countries have to lick their boots or perish. Whether that major power is the US, China or Russia depends on the particulars, but a surprising amount of people hold that opinion, probably without even being aware of it. What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians? And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards. After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power. Who loses? Everybody.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]