5 ms·
The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you. It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful countr
by HEmanZ 1y ago
The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you.
It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
- jraby3 1y agoThey have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran getting a bomb.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoDoesn’t Pakistan and NK do the same? They have bombs. Where is the promised armageddon?
- bamboozled 1y agoIsn’t the idea to have less NK and Pakistans though ?
- arbitrary_name 1y agoDoesn't this prove that nuclear weapons stop the NKs and Pakistans of the world from being bombed?
- bamboozled 1y agoI have no idea why that's relevant, the point is, it' good to have one less nuclear armed rogue state?
- kjkjadksj 1y agoThe only nation to use a nuke on another person is the US. Not these “rogue” states but the US.
- baxuz 1y agoIsrael has also threatened with nuclear weapons: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allowed-to-have-nukes https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
- yibg 1y agoNothing good comes from Iran getting a bomb for us, doesn't mean it's not good for the Iranian regime.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoI’m not sure that’s true. Israel has nukes, so if Iran has them too it help prevent large scale war due to MAD. Like India and Pakistan both have them is better than if only one of them had nukes.
- luckylion 1y ago"They only want the bomb to stop others from stopping them getting the bomb." > Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes.
- HEmanZ 1y agoIt might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes. The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.
- js4ever 1y agolets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently
- HEmanZ 1y agoIt’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome. I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome. How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
- js4ever 1y agoNuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong? I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran. Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?