4 ms·

History really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal. Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to

by tw04 8mo ago

History really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal. Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to eventually be at risk of the US attacking you, you better be nuclear armed.

1234letshaveatw 8mo ago
because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?
- ripvanwinkle 8mo ago
  because it worked out for North Korea
  - adventured 8mo ago
    Nobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were. The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad. The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them? So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated. That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bomb-pakistan https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bo...
    - bayarearefugee 7mo ago
      > That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. That isn't a MAD situation. Pakistan has nukes but they can't launch them on the US.
    - lukan 7mo ago
      "The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad." Have you checked, how many outside interventions both countries had and still have? Labelling this as "internal" is pretty missleading. If both dictators would have had nuclear weapons ready to launch, no foreign bomber would have dared going in against the regime.
  - bawolff 7mo ago
    Largely because they didn't actually need it. Their conventional artillary pointed at south korea was already (and still is) more of a deterrnt than the nuke is.
- FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
  Doesn't mean the direction wasn't correct. Take any American, and treat them the way Americans treat others, and they would be forming terrorist cells (gorilla war), building nukes, basically every single thing they could to fight back. To never surrender. Remember Red Dawn? That would be an American Response, to what America is doing. That is it basically. If shoe was on other foot, Americans would never surrender. So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly?
  - adventured 8mo ago
    > So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly? We're not. That's why we're bombing the regime and associated military targets. Iran was never expected to give up quietly.
    - FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
      Think you are missing the point. They aren't going to just give up after a few weeks of bombing. Will need boots on the ground versus a resistance/multiple sides of a civil war, and now we have another 20 year war. People don't just shrug and go "all shucks, yuck yuck, guess you got us, i'll roll over"
- D-Coder 8mo ago
  Because NOT enriching uranium worked so badly for Gaddafi.
- keybored 7mo ago
  Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine.
tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
Of course they cooled Iran kept enriching uranium and the rest of the world agreed to ignore it.

by tw04 8mo ago

1234letshaveatw 8mo ago

because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?

ripvanwinkle 8mo ago
because it worked out for North Korea
- adventured 8mo ago
  Nobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were. The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad. The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them? So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated. That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bomb-pakistan https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bo...
  - bayarearefugee 7mo ago
    > That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. That isn't a MAD situation. Pakistan has nukes but they can't launch them on the US.
  - lukan 7mo ago
    "The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad." Have you checked, how many outside interventions both countries had and still have? Labelling this as "internal" is pretty missleading. If both dictators would have had nuclear weapons ready to launch, no foreign bomber would have dared going in against the regime.
- bawolff 7mo ago
  Largely because they didn't actually need it. Their conventional artillary pointed at south korea was already (and still is) more of a deterrnt than the nuke is.
FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
Doesn't mean the direction wasn't correct. Take any American, and treat them the way Americans treat others, and they would be forming terrorist cells (gorilla war), building nukes, basically every single thing they could to fight back. To never surrender. Remember Red Dawn? That would be an American Response, to what America is doing. That is it basically. If shoe was on other foot, Americans would never surrender. So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly?
- adventured 8mo ago
  > So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly? We're not. That's why we're bombing the regime and associated military targets. Iran was never expected to give up quietly.
  - FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
    Think you are missing the point. They aren't going to just give up after a few weeks of bombing. Will need boots on the ground versus a resistance/multiple sides of a civil war, and now we have another 20 year war. People don't just shrug and go "all shucks, yuck yuck, guess you got us, i'll roll over"
D-Coder 8mo ago
Because NOT enriching uranium worked so badly for Gaddafi.
keybored 7mo ago
Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine.

tick_tock_tick 8mo ago

Of course they cooled Iran kept enriching uranium and the rest of the world agreed to ignore it.