Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1BannedAgain t1_j9oeqiu wrote

Reply to comment by 3dio in Iran acknowledges accusation it enriched uranium to 84% by bildo72

Hahahha. Iran wouldn’t be the first religious state, the first terrorist state, or the first religious-terrorist state, to develop and maintain nuclear weapons.

But please, carry on with the bigoted hypocrisy

−1

3dio t1_j9ofjnb wrote

Sure. Yea it's a great idea for IR regime to have nuclear military capabilities and anyone who thinks it's a bad idea is bigoted

1

1BannedAgain t1_j9p4uqj wrote

First, a treaty is only good until a counterparty pulls out, of said treaty. Perhaps message DJT on TruthSocial and ask why he unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Why shouldn't Iran be able to defend itself against a foreign invader? Having a nuclear weapon has been demonstrated on the world stage to be a quality deterrent to foreign invasion- just ask North Korea.

You might also ask Ukraine about nuclear deterrence. They gave up their weapons after the fall of the USSR, and signed a treaty with the successor to the USSR. The successor to the USSR pulled out of the treaty decades later. Ukraine has since been invaded by the successor to the USSR.

Which nuclear capable states have been invaded by a foreign state since 1946?

1

takeitineasy t1_j9qdejm wrote

You know how many countries there are without nukes that aren't getting invaded? Lots. No one wants to invade iran, the US could have done it decades ago during the revolution, but they didn't. But yea, let's also let Niue have nukes, so that Niue doesn't get invaded by Tonga.

0

1BannedAgain t1_j9qfdsv wrote

Revisionist history! The US propped up the Shah of Iran. Go back and read about the revolution as it’s clear to me there’s much you are ignorant about.

Radicalization of Iran was caused directly by the USA— in a similar way that the USA was responsible for Osama bin Laden

2

takeitineasy t1_j9qcujp wrote

And your solution is to let everyone have nukes. At least that's what your comment implies.

0

1BannedAgain t1_j9qev7c wrote

And the opposite implication is to go to war, to prevent war.

Imagine being Iran for a moment. Iran requires nuclear power as they became a net-energy-importer about a decade ago. They signed onto an international treaty, only for a US President to unilaterally withdraw from said treaty.

So now Iran has 2 options: acquire nuclear weapons to deter foreign invasion & war, or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons for that act to cause a foreign invasion.

Iran is sure to be invaded by a foreign state should they not acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea and Ukraine are the best precedents

Nuclear weapons will proliferate as the plans have existed in publicly accessible locations for well over 50 years

2

ViceroyClementine t1_j9ootvv wrote

They shouldn’t because the west said so and will bomb them into oblivion if they do.

−1

1BannedAgain t1_j9p5p9r wrote

Is that how international law, international relations, or how a civilized society handles anything?

The USA has a bigger stick, so don’t pick up a counter stick?

Your comment sounds like weak sauce for the weak-minded

2

ViceroyClementine t1_j9peh3v wrote

Have you seen the past 70 years of international law, international relations or how civilized society handles literally everything?

Why would Israel / the west allow a nation who has sworn the destruction of another to gain nuclear weapons capability? Especially when it is within their means to deny them?

Iran can attempt to pick up whatever stick it wants- and Israel / the west can deploy theirs whenever they choose as well.

Is it fair? That’s the wrong question to ask. The actual question that should be asked is - what will they do with it if they get it? What are the consequences of a nuclear Iran? We share this world, and like it or not big sticks matter, as do the opinions and interests of our neighbours.

1

1BannedAgain t1_j9pfucb wrote

> Especially when it is within their means to deny them?

Written like it’s a bureaucratic application review that will simply be stamped with “denied”

I’m not sure why you brought Israel up

3

ViceroyClementine t1_j9pjayp wrote

Because Iran has sworn to destroy them.

You can describe the process as emotionally as you want, Israel and the west are key stakeholders - with the means to deny, prevent, and obliterate whatever they choose.

Nuclear weapons are not a rite of passage - they are a means to both defend a country and provide cover for aggression. The latter is the concern.

1