7 ms·
That's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamro
by matheusmoreira 7mo ago
That's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity.
The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them. It's impossible to predict how traumatizing it would be for them if that belief is proven wrong. They could absolutely reach for nuclear weapons if that threshold is reached.
- bambax 7mo ago> the world is divided into haves and have-nots Yes and the most important lesson of recent history is for have-nots to become haves ASAP.
- chii 7mo agoand that is why as one of the haves (by virtue of you being on this website), it is important to prevent any have-nots from getting nukes.
- conception 7mo agoIf only we had non-violent means to do this! Man, what a revolution could be had if we explored those possibilities!
- cornholio 7mo agoYes, we tried that with the JCPOA but Trump blew that up because it was signed by Obama. Now the Iran theocracy saw full well that nukes are the only way they can stay alive. What exactly is the leverage against it?
- SmirkingRevenge 7mo agoBasically, I think the most optimistic possible outcome from of this is returning to something like the nuclear deal, but with way better terms for Iran. This was all so completely stupid
- ceejayoz 7mo agoIt was Obama's deal, so it had to go. Nothing mattered more than that to this admin.
- cornholio 7mo agoI don't see any realistic path for this fuck up to be unfucked. Aggressive foreign policy is seldom reversible, there is no way to get back to the previous save game. The fundamental issue in dealing with Iranians was that they were strongly ideological and not very realpolitk - this is exactly what drove them into a conflict with US in the first place, a series of ruinous foreign policy moves - the hostages crisis, the Beirut bombing, proxy wars - that served no strategic long term purpose for Iran other than signaling ideological commitment within the regime. So whatever you negotiated with Iran, you could only extract at gunpoint threatening their destruction (which even they understand is bad for their ideological goals), and you could never fully trust them to see their own-self interest and follow through. Their nuclear program was, in this context, more of a bargaining chip than an ideological regime goal, a way to put something on the table while maintaining their ideologically-mandated tools for power projection in the region, missiles and drones programs, various proxy fronts etc. This was a state of affairs that Israel was strongly opposed to, so they applied lobby pressure to kill the deal. Well, having now actually attempted to destroy the regime and failed, whatever leverage you had for a non-nuclear Iran is gone. You have demonstrated to the Islamic republic that the only way to continue to exist is to obtain nuclear weapons, that no negotiated compromise can exist. You have also replaced the older, conservative, nuclear skeptic Ayatollah with his son, who's entire family was hit: father, wife, teenage son, sister and her toddler son and husband were all killed. Does he sound like a man who accepted to succeed his father's because he wants to correct the late Khamenei's mistakes and make a bid for peace? The refreshed Islamic republic might sign various treaties or truces and accept nuclear deals, but they will surely break them because obtaining nukes has become existential. My expectation is that, if the regime does not collapse, either as a result of a ground invasion, internal uprising, or some combination (civil war etc.), then they will get nuclear weapons in the next decade. They are too easy to procure and the regime has now too little to lose.
- mikrotikker 7mo agoLast thing we need is an apocalyptic death cult having access to nukes.
- iso1631 7mo agoWhy would you assume anyone on this website is from or lives in a country which has nukes?
- kelipso 7mo agoThis is an english speaking tech forum, so it’s safe to assume most people here live in a country that has nukes like the US, UK, India, probably decent number of people who came from China and Russia too.
- fastasucan 7mo agoIf thats important its counter intuitive to show that agreements about not getting any nuklear arms is worth nothing, and wont stop you getting invaded.
- numeric83 7mo agoThe War of 1812 says "hello"
- matheusmoreira 7mo agoIt was fought on US soil but did they really get invaded in that war? They declared war on Great Britain. They even invaded Canada themselves. It just doesn't seem to match the conflicts the USA brings upon other nations.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- npongratz 7mo agoIt might be mere semantics, but the 1814 burning of Washington has been depicted as an invasion. https://archive.org/details/burningofwashing00pitc https://archive.org/details/burningofwashing00pitc
- dragonwriter 7mo agoYes, they got invaded. Just because it happened after they invaded someone else doesn't make it any less an invasion.
- freedomben 7mo agoThat was my first thought too, but I think it's overly pedantic. If we're reaching all the way back to 1812 then I think parents point is true in spirit if not letter
- psychoslave 7mo agoWhat was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apart, on practical level that’s typical asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.
- mortarion 7mo ago9/11 was not a military action against the USA, and the invocation of article 5 by the USA was illegimate.
- freedomben 7mo ago> 9/11 was not a military action against the USA that's a surprising thing to hear. where do you draw the line between terrorism and war? I see a distinction without much of a difference.
- chii 7mo agoit's indeed a distinction without a real difference, but terrorism is specifically targeted at civilians to produce some political outcome. It's wild to suggest that terrorism against the US should not be responded with by military action - it's only the degree and targets that should be under debate.
- squidbeak 7mo ago[Replied to wrong message - oops]
- hermannj314 7mo agoThe difference between war and terrorism is what language you use to say "God wills it" If you say "Deus Vult", you are a war hero. If you say "Inshallah", you are a radical terrorist. The rules are quite simple.
- andruby 7mo agoProbably not a perfect line, but one way to differ both is wether the action was done by a Country (Nation) vs a "militant" group.
- bcjdjsndon 7mo agoThere are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. That country is deluded and everyone falls off eventually and trump may have actually accelerated the country out of it's golden age
- ap99 7mo ago[flagged]
- bnj 7mo agoI don’t feel well educated in modern military actions- are you saying that civilian gun owners in America would contribute meaningfully to the national defense (maybe because of things like civil resistance in other modern conflicts?), or am I misunderstanding? Do you have any suggestions for how I could start to broach the topic? It’s so broad and fast-moving that it’s hard to know where to start.
- edgyquant 7mo agoYes absolutely they would and insurgencies are not the same thing as two nations fighting each other. America has twice as many gun owners as there are people in Afghanistan, a large chunk of them have combat experience.
- FpUser 7mo agoAnd nearly every soldier playing government side would very likely have relatives on the other side. Most likely great demotivator
- heavyset_go 7mo agoCivil wars happen all of the time. Not only is propaganda effective, but militaries have ways to mitigate this, like moving soldiers far away from home to fight in places they don't have familial/cultural/economic/etc ties, which also makes it more likely that the propaganda will work.
- srean 7mo agoAll the more reasons for Iran to drop their self imposed fatwa on nuclear weapons and get a few, to put an end to interference. Iran has been on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction, that is, chemical weapons, by way of US sponsored Saddam Hussein and lost close to half a million of their people. Yet they never for once retaliated with such weapons which to them is against their Islam. Those half a million dead are part of a still unhealed wound and that is felt and remembered in every city and town in Iran.
- senordevnyc 7mo agoAnyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity. Ukraine begs to differ.
- polski-g 7mo agoThe US has allegedly said they will retaliate with nuclear strikes on Russia if Russia uses nuclear strikes on Ukraine.
- dlisboa 7mo agoThat'll never happen.
- squidbeak 7mo agoBarring an attack on the US itself, the US under the current regime will never attack Russia. Whatever the kompromat happens to be, the President is completely bound by it.
- landl0rd 7mo agoThe "kompromat" is the world's largest nuclear arsenal, some five thousand and change warheads, along with a delivery system that includes an HGV MIRV payload that can deliver a multi-megaton warhead at ~mach 20-something.
- CamperBob2 7mo agoAs if all their rusty crap still works. Their video recordings of Trump doing God-only-knows-what, on the other hand, appear to be working great. Ditto, the unreleased files hacked from the Republican National Committee's email server in 2016.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago> As if all their rusty crap still works. It doesn't all have to work. Like a beheaded snake, you can still get bit.
- ekianjo 7mo ago> never something others bring to them Ever heard of the independence war?
- mindslight 7mo ago> It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them Spot on. As an American who is quite critical of the imperialist dynamic, I still catch myself thinking this way. Like "what if Iran actually attacks something around me?" But it's war, shouldn't one expect that an enemy might attack at any point?! Except, we just don't think of war as something that might have direct repercussions for us personally, which is why most of us vote for chucklefuck leaders who start them so readily.
- fastasucan 7mo agoThis is interesting. Even though its many years ago most of Europe have a big open wound from WWII. That might be a missing ingredient for the american people to be less trigger happy when it comes to bombing other countries. The act of bombing a school full of children would have turned everything on its head in my country.
- mindslight 7mo agoYour "big open wound" is my country's stepping into what was still mostly an elective war, saving the day, coming out as the head of a global economic empire, and being lauded for all of it - including well after the war itself for being the alternative to the more direct-subjugation-based empire of the USSR. I'm not saying this to brag or something, but to drive home how radically different the perspectives are. Even our stories that are fundamentally tragedies (eg Saving Private Ryan) are still tales of distant heroic sacrifice, rather than the nihilistic smothering of helpless humans that war actually is. And to that above-it-all entitlement, we've mixed a cocktail of religious fundamentalism to help with the rationalization. Vietnam was seemingly the only time since that there has been serious society-wide anti-war sentiment, and that's because people were being forcibly conscripted against their individual will. They fixed that by (effectively) removing the draft, while the economic treadmill was turned up such that more people "volunteered".
- SergeAx 7mo agoJust like Ukraine is being steamrolled by Russia, right?