4 ms·

Besides the point and whataboutism, but I'm not advocating that Israel should have nuclear weapons. They do, and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it at

by ericmay 27d ago

Besides the point and whataboutism, but I'm not advocating that Israel should have nuclear weapons. They do, and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it at this point. Same with North Korea. I'm opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and just because one country has one doesn't mean other countries should go and get them too.

nemomarx 27d ago
Maybe we should have brokered some kinda deal with Iran to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon then, huh. At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it. Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state.
- ericmay 27d ago
  > Maybe we should have brokered some kinda deal with Iran to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon then, huh. Maybe we should have brokered some kind of deal with Russia to prevent them from invading Ukraine. Do you trust American intelligence 100% to verify Iran is not building a nuclear bomb? And if they weren't, why also were they funding these militant groups? What's the point? It's Neo-colonialism in the Middle East. > At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it. The leadership wasn't really rational in your western sense. I'm not sure where you are coming up with that. If they were rational they wouldn't be murdering their own civilians, chanting death to Israel and death to America as a national past time (no sane nation does this, or if you want to argue they do then don't get mad when Americans are burning the Koran or whatever) and funding militants. You're trying to argue from a place that assumes your values about economics and prosperity and global human rights with an entity that does not care about those values. If they were rational as you'd like them to be they'd just not do any of the things they've been doing. Why does Iran have to get special treatment to not build a nuclear weapon? Have you thought about that? Why do we have to pay them off? Why are they special snowflakes who get to hold the world hostage less they build nuclear bombs to threaten others? > Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state. That's the fault of the rest of the world then for failing to come together to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  - nemomarx 27d ago
    Burning the Koran is protected free speech, just as burning a flag is, or the Bible, or whatever else you'd like. The point is we had a deal, and Iran kept their enrichment below weapons development levels for all of that time. Even a few years after the deal was broken by Trump, apparently. We could have kept that status quo going and not dealt with tolls in the strait and expensive military operations, and it would have been better for everyone involved. But now I don't see a path back to that, and no one is interested enough to stop the proliferation or put enough resources into it to "win". Blame whoever you like I guess, but I'm blaming Trump for tearing things up and kicking off this recent war.
    - ericmay 27d ago
      Anchoring on this deal is a waste of time. We shouldn't have had to have a deal in the first place. They could just join other responsible countries like, idk, Vietnam, Brazil, and hmmm who else, Switzerland! in not pursuing nuclear weapons. > We could have kept that status quo going Like the last time the Houthis disrupted shipping? Or when Iran launched and supported attacks on Israel, plus continued disruption in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq? (Yemen too but mentioned via Houthis). Idk if that's a tolerable situation.
      - nemomarx 27d ago
        I don't recall the houthis disrupting shipping before 2018. The status quo under before that point was fine for the global economy and for the US. If it wasn't fine for Israel, that's a problem for their own military to deal with, ideally without US backing that drags other countries into the issue. Good luck with non proliferation but I think the very obvious "we can attack and invade countries without nukes but can't do that to countries with nukes" lesson is being demonstrated to everyone, so countries that don't want to be invaded will be trying to get them now. Anyone near Russia for sure, possibly even Switzerland eventually.
        ericmay 27d ago
        > Good luck with non proliferation Hey I mean this is your problem too, wherever you are from. You seem a little nonchalant about nuclear proliferation which most consider to be a rather serious matter because of the potential for real nuclear war or nuclear attacks.
pphysch 27d ago
Iran clearly has the capability to flatten every major hospital and university and desalination plant in Israel, like Israel has done in Gaza, but they don't. It's also clear that Iran having nukes would be a strategic deterrent to Israel's ultraviolent territorial expansionism.
- ericmay 27d ago
  > Iran clearly has the capability to flatten every major hospital and university and desalination plant in Israel, like Israel has done in Gaza, but they don't. I'm not supportive of Israel having nuclear weapons, but Iran won't do something like this because the Israelis might nuke them. That doesn't excuse Iran also building nuclear weapons. Neither should have them, in my view. Iran also supports the militants that continue to create conflict in Palestine. It's not one-sided and any vague assertion that there's only one bad actor here is illegitimate.
  - simiones 27d ago
    The conflict in Palestine is created entirely by Israel. The militants are just the people who refuse to lay down and take it. This has become more and more obvious - if not through the genocide in Gaza, then through the rapid illegal colonization happening at an accelerated place in the West Bank.
    - ericmay 27d ago
      It's not entirely created by Israel, and most of the militants are just lunatics who are thankfully killed. But that doesn't excuse Iranian funding of other militant groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iraq. Nor does it excuse Iran's material support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nor does that justify Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon.
  - mrguyorama 27d ago
    Why did Iran willingly disassemble their other WMD programs, like bioweapons and chemical weapons, if they are irrationally bound to destroying Israel? Chemical weapons are perfectly effective for that desire and dramatically easier to build and deploy than nuclear weapons. So if you expect Iran to just explode Israel ASAP, why are they holding back right now with their weapons not targeting civilian infrastructure? Why did they stop pursuing cheap WMDs that don't need complicated enrichment? Note that Iran is objectively not pursuing a nuke as fast as possible. They've had sufficient enriched uranium for a long time to be able to actually start building and testing physics packages and even get their first detonation test, but they instead have just been building a stockpile. >I'm not supportive of Israel having nuclear weapons Okay, then by your arguments about Iran, we should be invading Israel right? Like right now! They cannot be allowed to have nukes! What about North Korea? It sure is funny how all the hand wringing about them getting nuclear weapons got quiet after they built a nuke and didn't use it

by ericmay 27d ago

nemomarx 27d ago

Maybe we should have brokered some kinda deal with Iran to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon then, huh. At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it. Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state.

ericmay 27d ago
> Maybe we should have brokered some kinda deal with Iran to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon then, huh. Maybe we should have brokered some kind of deal with Russia to prevent them from invading Ukraine. Do you trust American intelligence 100% to verify Iran is not building a nuclear bomb? And if they weren't, why also were they funding these militant groups? What's the point? It's Neo-colonialism in the Middle East. > At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it. The leadership wasn't really rational in your western sense. I'm not sure where you are coming up with that. If they were rational they wouldn't be murdering their own civilians, chanting death to Israel and death to America as a national past time (no sane nation does this, or if you want to argue they do then don't get mad when Americans are burning the Koran or whatever) and funding militants. You're trying to argue from a place that assumes your values about economics and prosperity and global human rights with an entity that does not care about those values. If they were rational as you'd like them to be they'd just not do any of the things they've been doing. Why does Iran have to get special treatment to not build a nuclear weapon? Have you thought about that? Why do we have to pay them off? Why are they special snowflakes who get to hold the world hostage less they build nuclear bombs to threaten others? > Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state. That's the fault of the rest of the world then for failing to come together to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
- nemomarx 27d ago
  Burning the Koran is protected free speech, just as burning a flag is, or the Bible, or whatever else you'd like. The point is we had a deal, and Iran kept their enrichment below weapons development levels for all of that time. Even a few years after the deal was broken by Trump, apparently. We could have kept that status quo going and not dealt with tolls in the strait and expensive military operations, and it would have been better for everyone involved. But now I don't see a path back to that, and no one is interested enough to stop the proliferation or put enough resources into it to "win". Blame whoever you like I guess, but I'm blaming Trump for tearing things up and kicking off this recent war.
  - ericmay 27d ago
    Anchoring on this deal is a waste of time. We shouldn't have had to have a deal in the first place. They could just join other responsible countries like, idk, Vietnam, Brazil, and hmmm who else, Switzerland! in not pursuing nuclear weapons. > We could have kept that status quo going Like the last time the Houthis disrupted shipping? Or when Iran launched and supported attacks on Israel, plus continued disruption in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq? (Yemen too but mentioned via Houthis). Idk if that's a tolerable situation.
    - nemomarx 27d ago
      I don't recall the houthis disrupting shipping before 2018. The status quo under before that point was fine for the global economy and for the US. If it wasn't fine for Israel, that's a problem for their own military to deal with, ideally without US backing that drags other countries into the issue. Good luck with non proliferation but I think the very obvious "we can attack and invade countries without nukes but can't do that to countries with nukes" lesson is being demonstrated to everyone, so countries that don't want to be invaded will be trying to get them now. Anyone near Russia for sure, possibly even Switzerland eventually.
      - ericmay 27d ago
        > Good luck with non proliferation Hey I mean this is your problem too, wherever you are from. You seem a little nonchalant about nuclear proliferation which most consider to be a rather serious matter because of the potential for real nuclear war or nuclear attacks.

pphysch 27d ago

Iran clearly has the capability to flatten every major hospital and university and desalination plant in Israel, like Israel has done in Gaza, but they don't. It's also clear that Iran having nukes would be a strategic deterrent to Israel's ultraviolent territorial expansionism.

ericmay 27d ago
> Iran clearly has the capability to flatten every major hospital and university and desalination plant in Israel, like Israel has done in Gaza, but they don't. I'm not supportive of Israel having nuclear weapons, but Iran won't do something like this because the Israelis might nuke them. That doesn't excuse Iran also building nuclear weapons. Neither should have them, in my view. Iran also supports the militants that continue to create conflict in Palestine. It's not one-sided and any vague assertion that there's only one bad actor here is illegitimate.
- simiones 27d ago
  The conflict in Palestine is created entirely by Israel. The militants are just the people who refuse to lay down and take it. This has become more and more obvious - if not through the genocide in Gaza, then through the rapid illegal colonization happening at an accelerated place in the West Bank.
  - ericmay 27d ago
    It's not entirely created by Israel, and most of the militants are just lunatics who are thankfully killed. But that doesn't excuse Iranian funding of other militant groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iraq. Nor does it excuse Iran's material support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nor does that justify Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon.
- mrguyorama 27d ago
  Why did Iran willingly disassemble their other WMD programs, like bioweapons and chemical weapons, if they are irrationally bound to destroying Israel? Chemical weapons are perfectly effective for that desire and dramatically easier to build and deploy than nuclear weapons. So if you expect Iran to just explode Israel ASAP, why are they holding back right now with their weapons not targeting civilian infrastructure? Why did they stop pursuing cheap WMDs that don't need complicated enrichment? Note that Iran is objectively not pursuing a nuke as fast as possible. They've had sufficient enriched uranium for a long time to be able to actually start building and testing physics packages and even get their first detonation test, but they instead have just been building a stockpile. >I'm not supportive of Israel having nuclear weapons Okay, then by your arguments about Iran, we should be invading Israel right? Like right now! They cannot be allowed to have nukes! What about North Korea? It sure is funny how all the hand wringing about them getting nuclear weapons got quiet after they built a nuke and didn't use it