3 ms·

Just to set the story straight: - Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason. And from a functioning dictatorship it

Just to set the story straight: - Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason. And from a functioning dictatorship it is a failed state. - Syria was invaded by Turkey/US right after the civil war started. In the world we all live in you need to have powerful deterrents so that the US/France/UK/NATO will not dare to bomb you for whatever reason they feel "justified" to do. In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.

looofooo0 1y ago
Forget Ryssian involvment in Syria and Libiya!
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  I did not forget that. But the Russians banked on the opportunity after the fact. They did not bombed them because they did not like their leaders just because.
scotty79 1y ago
> other countries can mind their own business Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you. People thought nuclear weapons are a defensive deterrent but what war in Ukraine showed us they are actually offensive weapons that deter anyone from defending to strongly when you attack them with your conventional forces. Both russia and USA used their nuclear weapons in that manner for the last few decades. It's time to call the thing that quacks what it is, a duck.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  > Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you. You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Who decides that? You? Me? A random guy on the street? A random bureaucrat from a random country? There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. And somehow I don't think a random guy in Africa or the Middle East is so sure about it that it risks launching nukes at its neighbor(s).
  - scotty79 1y ago
    > You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Of course. How is that controversial? > Who decides that? You? Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes. > There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.
    - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
      > Of course. How is that controversial? Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup? > Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes. Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast. > Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example? Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.
      - scotty79 1y ago
        > Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup? Democracies tend to be more resilient against rule by aggressive idiots. So being a democracy should be lowest common denominator. > Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast. I have no idea why are you talking about it like it's hypothetical. Iran did whatever it could to get its hands on nukes as fast as it could since Trump destroyed the agreement that Obama signed with Iran. And it resulted with their top leaders getting assassinated and their nuclear attempts destroyed. So was that really something they should have been doing?
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
> In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business. The problem is that countries tend to assume that the neighbors are also their business.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  Well, if every of your neighbors would have a big bad bomb, you will more inclined to mind your business. But if only you have a big bad bomb, then most likely you will have opinions about what your neighbors should do.
_old_dude_ 1y ago
> Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_the_2007_French_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  The old mantra of bombing for peace and having sex for virginity, no?

looofooo0 1y ago

Forget Ryssian involvment in Syria and Libiya!

ExoticPearTree 1y ago
I did not forget that. But the Russians banked on the opportunity after the fact. They did not bombed them because they did not like their leaders just because.

scotty79 1y ago

> other countries can mind their own business Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you. People thought nuclear weapons are a defensive deterrent but what war in Ukraine showed us they are actually offensive weapons that deter anyone from defending to strongly when you attack them with your conventional forces. Both russia and USA used their nuclear weapons in that manner for the last few decades. It's time to call the thing that quacks what it is, a duck.

ExoticPearTree 1y ago
> Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you. You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Who decides that? You? Me? A random guy on the street? A random bureaucrat from a random country? There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. And somehow I don't think a random guy in Africa or the Middle East is so sure about it that it risks launching nukes at its neighbor(s).
- scotty79 1y ago
  > You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Of course. How is that controversial? > Who decides that? You? Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes. > There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.
  - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
    > Of course. How is that controversial? Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup? > Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes. Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast. > Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example? Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      > Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup? Democracies tend to be more resilient against rule by aggressive idiots. So being a democracy should be lowest common denominator. > Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast. I have no idea why are you talking about it like it's hypothetical. Iran did whatever it could to get its hands on nukes as fast as it could since Trump destroyed the agreement that Obama signed with Iran. And it resulted with their top leaders getting assassinated and their nuclear attempts destroyed. So was that really something they should have been doing?

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

> In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business. The problem is that countries tend to assume that the neighbors are also their business.

ExoticPearTree 1y ago
Well, if every of your neighbors would have a big bad bomb, you will more inclined to mind your business. But if only you have a big bad bomb, then most likely you will have opinions about what your neighbors should do.

_old_dude_ 1y ago

> Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_the_2007_French_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...

ExoticPearTree 1y ago
The old mantra of bombing for peace and having sex for virginity, no?