While I’d like to see the Iranian people not be subject to Israeli ‘acceptable civilian deaths’ calculus and have their country cucked like Syria/Lybia, I’m also not hype on their government leaders getting that same MAD protection as well, because they absolutely don’t deserve it
The only government evil enough to actually use a nuke has been USA. And the only government evil enough to do it again is USA (or maybe their close friend isntrael) Everyone else just sees them as a deterrent
Why not? Based on Iran’s history, I think it’s highly improbably they would use nukes offensively. They have every reason to want to develop a nuke. It’s likely that they even have the capacity to make one. Even then, they’ve refused to. All evidence points to the fact that they genuinely want peace. All of their responses to either American or Israeli attacks have been very limited. Even their allies all seem primarily interested in self defense.
While the government may not be to your liking, having nukes is not going to prevent organic resistance. In fact, having a real deterrent against foreign military intervention ensures that the people of Iran can focus on fighting for their personal freedoms and not their very lives. In the past there have been real protest movements in favor of social reform. Now though? Iranians are demonstrating in defiance of Israel and in support of the Iranian state.
To be clear, I’m not exactly a fan of nuclear proliferation. However, in a world where the only country to ever use nukes as a weapon and their genocidal proxy are aiming to obliterate your country, having a nuclear deterrent makes everyone safer.
As you’ve said, they’ve had a track record of power competition and want their sphere of influence in the region, but repeatedly have shown refrain towards other nations during times of escalation.
Iran had (/has?) a chemical weapons program after the Iran-Iraq war, and guess what? There never was a VX nerve gas attack on Tel Aviv. I’m not remotely concerned with them using a nuke offensively, because they’ve exercised restraint repeatedly when they did have other weapons of mass destruction. And they’ve proven they have the capability to get past Israel and allied missile defense, so it’s not a capability gap either
All this hand wringing over “they cannot have a bomb under any circumstances” is unspoken MAD calculus - because then Israel would be on a level playing field as far as ultimate escalation and regime security, and that’d be intolerable for Bibi/the US’s/Gulf State plans for the region.
Iran “seems to want peace” because they throw weapons and money at terrorist organisations to do their dirty work instead. They are not, and have never been interested in peace, they just don’t like having their name associated with the actions, so they hire outside help to murder people instead. With the amount of support through money, weapons and supplies Iran has given the Houthis and Hamas, do you really want them to have access to nuclear weapons?
I don’t want anyone to have access to nuclear weapons, since you asked.
But the reality is that some countries, including Israel and the United States, already have them. These two countries are currently engaged in military and terroristic activity in multiple international venues. So if that’s the rules that the big boys are playing with, and then someone else comes along and considers whether they might want to join the party too, your question is I think irresponsible. What you should have been asking is, what is likely to keep the Iranian people safer, nukes or no nukes?
In Palestine and Israel and Iran, it’s fine to look at the governments and say how bad they are, and you may well be right, or maybe not, I don’t know. But we can look at the people whose lives are being destroyed or permanently ended and wish that those numbers went down. If the administrations are full of evil jerks and they stay in power but the death count drops, that’s still a good thing.
Only retaliation option Iran has against US proxies Israel, Saudi Arabia is either proxy war or nuclear arms. If development of nuclear weapon reduces proxy war then that is a good option.
You seem to make the cardinal mistake to mix foreign politics of countries with moral judgements. That’s not how you will ever be able to understand politics.
I feel with the clear and present danger of being attacked nuclearly by 2 of the most heavily nuclear armed nation USA and Israel, if any country does deserve nuclear arms if only as a deterrent, is Iran.
While I’d like to see the Iranian people not be subject to Israeli ‘acceptable civilian deaths’ calculus and have their country cucked like Syria/Lybia, I’m also not hype on their government leaders getting that same MAD protection as well, because they absolutely don’t deserve it
You don’t build nukes to use them
You build nukes so you don’t get nuked
Depending on who “you” is that, you’re mostly right
The only government evil enough to actually use a nuke has been USA. And the only government evil enough to do it again is USA (or maybe their close friend isntrael) Everyone else just sees them as a deterrent
Stop pretending iran is less rational than the protocols larpers.
Its been, what, 70 years since the last time the protocol larpers dropped a nuke in anger, with thousands of warheads?
You think the Iranian government would wait that long if they had a handful of em?
Yeah, they’re less rational. They’re less trustworthy. And given how untrustworthy even the best governments are, that’s saying something
I don’t think the protocols of the elders of zion larp group had them. Afaik the only people to do it in anger were the americans.
Not the most stable bunch, but disarming them would take a while.
Why not? Based on Iran’s history, I think it’s highly improbably they would use nukes offensively. They have every reason to want to develop a nuke. It’s likely that they even have the capacity to make one. Even then, they’ve refused to. All evidence points to the fact that they genuinely want peace. All of their responses to either American or Israeli attacks have been very limited. Even their allies all seem primarily interested in self defense.
While the government may not be to your liking, having nukes is not going to prevent organic resistance. In fact, having a real deterrent against foreign military intervention ensures that the people of Iran can focus on fighting for their personal freedoms and not their very lives. In the past there have been real protest movements in favor of social reform. Now though? Iranians are demonstrating in defiance of Israel and in support of the Iranian state.
To be clear, I’m not exactly a fan of nuclear proliferation. However, in a world where the only country to ever use nukes as a weapon and their genocidal proxy are aiming to obliterate your country, having a nuclear deterrent makes everyone safer.
As you’ve said, they’ve had a track record of power competition and want their sphere of influence in the region, but repeatedly have shown refrain towards other nations during times of escalation.
Iran had (/has?) a chemical weapons program after the Iran-Iraq war, and guess what? There never was a VX nerve gas attack on Tel Aviv. I’m not remotely concerned with them using a nuke offensively, because they’ve exercised restraint repeatedly when they did have other weapons of mass destruction. And they’ve proven they have the capability to get past Israel and allied missile defense, so it’s not a capability gap either
All this hand wringing over “they cannot have a bomb under any circumstances” is unspoken MAD calculus - because then Israel would be on a level playing field as far as ultimate escalation and regime security, and that’d be intolerable for Bibi/the US’s/Gulf State plans for the region.
Iran “seems to want peace” because they throw weapons and money at terrorist organisations to do their dirty work instead. They are not, and have never been interested in peace, they just don’t like having their name associated with the actions, so they hire outside help to murder people instead. With the amount of support through money, weapons and supplies Iran has given the Houthis and Hamas, do you really want them to have access to nuclear weapons?
Damn. Thats crazy. What uniquely islamic atrocity is this? Imagine if a country with nuclear weapons ever did that!
That would be so fucking crazy And unprecedented.
I don’t want anyone to have access to nuclear weapons, since you asked.
But the reality is that some countries, including Israel and the United States, already have them. These two countries are currently engaged in military and terroristic activity in multiple international venues. So if that’s the rules that the big boys are playing with, and then someone else comes along and considers whether they might want to join the party too, your question is I think irresponsible. What you should have been asking is, what is likely to keep the Iranian people safer, nukes or no nukes?
In Palestine and Israel and Iran, it’s fine to look at the governments and say how bad they are, and you may well be right, or maybe not, I don’t know. But we can look at the people whose lives are being destroyed or permanently ended and wish that those numbers went down. If the administrations are full of evil jerks and they stay in power but the death count drops, that’s still a good thing.
Only retaliation option Iran has against US proxies Israel, Saudi Arabia is either proxy war or nuclear arms. If development of nuclear weapon reduces proxy war then that is a good option.
You seem to make the cardinal mistake to mix foreign politics of countries with moral judgements. That’s not how you will ever be able to understand politics.
The only fuvkers i want to have it less are the protocols larpers.
I feel with the clear and present danger of being attacked nuclearly by 2 of the most heavily nuclear armed nation USA and Israel, if any country does deserve nuclear arms if only as a deterrent, is Iran.