|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland25470 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 05:38 Vivax wrote:
Stopping nuclear proliferation should be a no-brainer. I don‘t know if a bunch of nuclear scientists had to die for that but it‘s sort of reasonable to assume the attacking party was sure it would be necessary ? They incur a risk for what they do.
That‘s how much I can know from the reported.
Israel would have good reasons if the news are true because as it is in Ukraine, international aid isn‘t easily possible against an aggressor with icbms. The core problem with stopping nuclear proliferation is that we gave such good reasons to get nukes to basically everyone. The Ukraine war shows that you are not save without being protected by some sort of nuke, and North Korea shows that if you have a nuke, people are a lot more willing to accept whatever bullshit you are doing. If you are a dictatorship, don't want the US to invade you, or if you are neighbouring a dictatorship and are not in Nato, getting a nuke sounds like a very, very good idea. We could have prevented that. But we didn't. So now getting a nuke is kinda risky, but also basically the only way to have long-term sovereignity.
Pretty much. We could have gone with many other options, in some multifaceted way but did not, so we’re kinda stuck.
How do you compete with the US military machine? I mean, you just don’t. I mean obviously not in a ‘US versus the world’ scenario like some Americans think they could win, but versus one singular nation.
As technology advances, so too grow the gaps at the bleeding edges of what military hardware can do, and what those who have it can do versus those who don’t.
With a sufficiently large gap, well, your opponent basically can’t do shit. To the extent you can win a conflict while conceivably never putting any boots on the ground at all.
It just serves to remove one further barrier to intervention, a sizeable cost in the lives of your countrymen and women to do so. Never especially popular at the best of times, especially worth considering if you’re in power in liberal democracies.
If you have a sufficiently high tech gap, it also invalidates a lot of things that used to be rather important in warfare to one degree or another. Population size, and thus numbers of military personnel, logistic chains, supplying over geographical obstacles.
Now, you could probably donate a bunch of bleeding edge hardware to like, Monaco and it could wreak havoc
These are somewhat new developments, relatively speaking. And they just don’t seem something you can feasibly close and be protected if you’re a developed, but small nation, or less developed but large.
Shit WombaT analogy incoming as per! If the military superiority of a top-tier player like the US going against some middling nation is akin to a giant maxed death push moving towards you, while you’re like 100 supply down. Getting nukes is you warping in DTs only to discover they’ve no detection. Game ends in a draw with floating buildings abound.
Does it feel glorious dirty, you’d love to rather not make a DT Hail Mary play in an ideal world? Sure, but if it’s legit the only possible play you can possibly make outside of just saying GG when you see the push, you gotta take it.
Everyone needs DTs on the board, lurking menacingly in mineral lines while perpetually sheathing their vorpal blades (or whatever they’re called), or a teammate doing that to be safe, for now.
I guess the next stage is going to be, ‘what happens when someone develops detection?’
Doesn’t feel to me imminent, but certainly doesn’t feel like it’s completely impossible. The Iron Dome is already approaching the realms of what I’d have considered sci fi as a kid. That on crack, with genuine (non-Jewish) space lasers for your ICBMs and I think it’s conceivable someone will take the M out of MAD one day. What then does that look like? Especially as whoever does hypothetically pull that off will also in all likelihood have a conventional military force that could smack all comers if nukes are off the table.
Nice positive thought to end the post haha
|
Northern Ireland25470 Posts
On June 19 2025 09:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 08:50 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 08:02 Razyda wrote:On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it? I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags. I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. "I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags." what they had in common with Iran and various other countries though, was the fact that there was dude with better army, who decided to impose his values on the other country. "I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. " - you cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders. "Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. " 1 - Iraq and Afghanistan 2 - Former Warsaw Pact "What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. " What Mohdoo is proposing is basically bomb the shit out of them and leave it at that.
Most of what you’re saying appears to actually be in agreement with what I previously said. So I dunno if I was just unclear previously. To clarify:
If you’re Israel, or the US or some outside observer with clout and skin in the game, regarding Iran. What are your aims?
1. Neutering it as a military threat.
2. Enabling some kind of regime or political change that, even if it had the military power to do so, it wouldn’t desire to be a hostile actor.
Mohdoo has mentioned both these things in some form in his prior postings. (1) is completely doable, arguably totally justifiable.
(2) is just not going to work through, outside of my crude ‘you have two options’ formula. You either grind Iran into a fine paste, or you leave things to shift internally, while at times exerting certain pressure sure.
There isn’t an option 3, which is relatively bloodlessly forcing a regime change and hoping that works in your favour.
You actually summed it up very fucking well when you said:
You cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders.
Mohdoo is often on the money, but when he isn’t it’s because he doesn’t factor in things like pride, like spite. We’re a great spectrum of things as a species, from the beautiful to the heinous. But we’re certainly a prideful and spiteful one, even when it’s not really in our best interests to be.
There is basically one scenario where you could do this successfully. A nation is oppressed, but the real underlying sentiment across the population is like 40%ish down with the regime and its values, and like 60%, not just against the regime, but all are yearning for kind of the same thing.
This is not the case in Iran, it certainly wasn’t in Iraq. Nation-building in Iraq could absolutely have worked if that nation had a big majority yearning for liberal democracy or w/e, but were just subjugated by Hussein and the Baathist apparatus. Take away Hussein and boom, job’s done.
Obviously was not the case.
And Iraq had things in its favour that a potential Iranian deposing of leadership doesn’t have. Sure the US and its allies were plenty hated, it’s not on the same scale as Iranian hostility to Israel.
|
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I'd argue the real threat is the victim complex of Netanyahu and his entourage.
|
On June 19 2025 02:40 Silvanel wrote:
The downside is US has bases much closer to Iran than Israel is. And Iran has A LOT of short range drones and missiles which they could aim at them. Also, they have local sympathetic militias at their disposal. US directly striking Iran might provoke a response which could claim the lives of US soldiers.
I guess Israelis are fine with that risk. Probably some US citizens also, but families of soldiers stationed in those bases might not be thrilled by the idea.
On the other hand: Commander in Chief gets another parade with "heroes" that freed iran and died for it.
|
On June 19 2025 16:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I don't think its ignoring it to simply avoid drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from it.
The way the global politics of nuclear weaponry developed after WW2 simply means that to launch a nuke is to guarantee your own destruction, in pretty much every case.
|
On June 19 2025 16:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 16:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I don't think its ignoring it to simply avoid drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from it. The way the global politics of nuclear weaponry developed after WW2 simply means that to launch a nuke is to guarantee your own destruction, in pretty much every case.
Yes, perhaps that is the reason. The same applies to Iran's leaders, and nothing indicates that they're willing to destroy their own country by starting a nuclear war. They may be religious fanatics, but they're also thinking strategically. Destroying one or even a few Israeli cities in exchange for total eradication of Iran contradicts every single type of reason. Moderate agnostics aren't the only ones who see/understand the pointlessness of such a provocation, because if anything it would advance Israel's potential to expand (from Iran's point of view) rather than destroy it. It's not the same thing as suicide bombing, because that doesn't lead to the eradication of a Muslim nation.
|
If the only concern is actually that the country will get nuclear weapons to protect itself from being invaded, bombed ash, collapsed, or forced to become subordinate to a nuclear state, then can the attempt to get nuclear weapons be considered wrong at all? Are countries not allowed to protect themselves? Are they not allowed to decide what the threats to their security are? The current situation is showing that the threat from Israel and the USA to Iran is very real. Should we accept attacking other countries to prevent them from getting protection? If we accept that reasoning, Russia's invasion seems much more reasonable.
If we do not actually believe that someone is trying to get a nuclear weapon to use it offensively against their enemies, the stated values and principles start to seem very empty yet again.
|
What is Iran going to do, launch a nuclear missle because Israel doesn't leave them alone and then introduce MAD anyway?
I'm still wondering about that. It feels very... antagonistic to humanity as a whole all this nuclear proliferation stuff. If we can't get this sorted, we're doomed. Stupid humans.
|
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it.
|
On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. + Show Spoiler + The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that.
Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed.
I believe the more common description for someone with your perspective is "chickenhawk".
On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
This is closer than I expected. I'm curious if anyone has changed their mind since responding?
|
On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it.
Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran?
|
On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. North Korea treats its own people worse and they aren't throwing around nukes.
|
On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran?
It's the Leadership of iran constantly telling the world that they totally would nuke israel if they could, even unprovoked by a war or attack, if israel doesn't dissolve itself, their mission statement is to destroy it.
So I guess their FAFO is in the FO phase.
Using more acronyms.. it also seems like TACO holds true for everything since diaper bombs don't translate well to bunker breaking bombs.
My guess is that they aren't sure about GBU 57 being able to break the facility, and Trump doesn't want big beautifull bomb to be a bummer for him.
|
On June 19 2025 23:47 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran? It's the Leadership of iran constantly telling the world that they totally would nuke israel if they could, even unprovoked by a war or attack, if israel doesn't dissolve itself, their mission statement is to destroy it. So I guess their FAFO is in the FO phase. Using more acronyms.. it also seems like TACO holds true for everything since diaper bombs don't translate well to bunker breaking bombs. My guess is that they aren't sure about GBU 57 being able to break the facility, and Trump doesn't want big beautifull bomb to be a bummer for him.
I guess I just dont actually believe weirdos when they bluster about how they totally would destroy their enemies even at the expense of their own lives and comfort.
|
On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran?
I do think that is part of it, but far from all. Russia has shown that another way to use a nuke is allow you to dictate terms of expansionist behavior. Russia can bomb the shit out of hospitals, day cares, capture children, do whatever war crimes they want and the whole world is even worried about what help to give Ukraine let alone attack Russia because of Nukes. It is a complete myth that these are only used for defense. Iran has multiple proxy armies that they keep at arms length for deniability to do the shitty things they do not want to catch blame for. Who says they don't give a small nuke to Houthi's to attack whoever, or Hamas to attack Israel. And what chance does the actual Lebanese army have against a nuclear armed Hezbollah. Do you think Khamenei is unwilling to use a tactical nuke against a rebel army of his own people? I'm sure Assad would have and maybe he gets one if he pays Iran enough. Then there is the whole issue around just safety protocol and the environment. Making these bombs is not a clean process, we really think Iran is going to do great things with the waste? Are they going to to maintain the safety stuff or will corruption get in the way? Huge risks.
The end of the day the calculation is, is the world a safer or more dangerous place with Iran getting nukes. I think to basically everyone who is not down the rabbit hole of Israel trying to take over the world. Or bad murica the worst thinks that they are not. This is a weapon that can actually end the world. I don't trust responsible people with it.
On June 19 2025 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. North Korea treats its own people worse and they aren't throwing around nukes.
What is your overall point here? That every country no matter how terrible they are should have a nuke because the self interest of the dictator is the bestest and most important?
I'm guessing all the people in NK hoping for a regime change, all the SK, Japanese and so on are super happy that no accidents (we know of) and no bukes have been launched yet. But I also guarantee they preferred it before.
Like do you really think everyone should have a nuke, or is this just another shitty, low effort, attempt at a gotcha?
|
On June 19 2025 23:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 23:47 KT_Elwood wrote:On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran? It's the Leadership of iran constantly telling the world that they totally would nuke israel if they could, even unprovoked by a war or attack, if israel doesn't dissolve itself, their mission statement is to destroy it. So I guess their FAFO is in the FO phase. Using more acronyms.. it also seems like TACO holds true for everything since diaper bombs don't translate well to bunker breaking bombs. My guess is that they aren't sure about GBU 57 being able to break the facility, and Trump doesn't want big beautifull bomb to be a bummer for him. I guess I just dont actually believe weirdos when they bluster about how they totally would destroy their enemies even at the expense of their own lives and comfort.
15 years between "Mein Kampf", written by a little, not even mediocre man, failed artist and failed ursurpist was released and Auschwitz being build.
Just because you know they are stupid and incapeable, doesn't mean they are harmless, or deserve any kind of holding back.
It's the paradox thing with the Jan6 "Protestors" Look how stupid they are, they wouldn't have achieved anything so let them just storm the buildung and kill 1 or 2 officers along the way".
|
I do think that is part of it, but far from all. Russia has shown that another way to use a nuke is allow you to dictate terms of expansionist behavior. Russia can bomb the shit out of hospitals, day cares, capture children, do whatever war crimes they want and the whole world is even worried about what help to give Ukraine let alone attack Russia because of Nukes. It is a complete myth that these are only used for defense.
While this is absolutely true, I also dont find this super compelling because we let Israel run around with nukes doing exactly this sort of shit.
This issue doesnt feel like it has any particular moral grounding, its just geopolitical power plays, which would at least be a more honest framing of it. People dont want other people to have power because we have a world where a certain level of power means youre basically invulnerable from expansionist psychopaths, and expansionist psychopath seems to be a real useful thing to be these days.
I dont really believe Iran would behave any differently from any other country with a nuclear weapon, and so I dont really see any of your houthis-with-nukes or hamas-with-nukes or whatever as based in reality. So I guess as someone who does see America as often very bad, and does thing Israel is a genocidal fascist apartheid state, that Im not sure if the world is actually made better or worse by Iran having nukes. Im not sure if nukes make the world better or worse to begin with, but I will generally object to the idea that anyone bombing Iran right now because they think it'll make the world safer, they're doing it because they dont want another nuclear power in the middle east because it would be disadvantageous to them.
I just dont see any real moral framing to this argument from either the US or Israel so I can only conclude that its geopolitical power related and Im frankly of the opinion that nuclear arms are of a level of impact that I cant really fully comprehend, so I can't really say I find myself able to strongly take a position of whether the world is better or worse if Iran has nukes.
15 years between "Mein Kampf", written by a little, not even mediocre man, failed artist and failed ursurpist was released and Auschwitz being build.
Nuclear arms are different. Hitler thought he could get away with the Holocaust because he lived in a time right before nuclear weaponry, we dont live in that time, MAD is commonly understood.
Just because you know they are stupid and incapeable, doesn't mean they are harmless, or deserve any kind of holding back.
I dont even know how to respond to this, if I take what I think this implies to its logical conclusion then surely the entirety of the world should be in the process of trying to forcibly disarm the US?
This is the problem with nukes, if theyre evil then everyone needs to disarm everyone else aggressively because you never know when some lunatic will gain control over a country with nuclear arms and go haywire, but you cant because they have nukes. Nukes are both unfathomably threatening and also offer unfathomable safety, they are the argument for and against themselves and it makes any moral argument with regards to them exceptionally thorny, Id argue impossibly thorny.
The middle east has been fucked up for a while, and not in small part by foreign actors who know they can do what they want in the region with nigh impunity, and how do you stop foreign powers from exercising their nuclear-backed power over you but to get nukes?
If people want to argue the US and Israel have to bomb Iran to shit to prevent them from nuclear armament I would at least like to not pretend like theres any serious moral basis to it beyond not wanting a threat to Israel and the US in the region, its not about people's lives, its about power.
|
Should the world try to remove the USA's nuclear arsenal in an effort to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Jan 6th protesters? What kind of cost would be acceptable to inflict on the residents of the USA in this attempt? Would it be okay to invalidate elections, organise a military coup, or maybe even deliver some democracy with preemptive strikes? Apparently, many consider revolutions too risky to consider in the USA, so these similarly risky options are probably a no-go. At this point, it seems too late for this.
|
On June 20 2025 00:27 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 23:17 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. Is the implication here that basically every leader of every country thinks that Iran wants to nuke Israel and whoever else regardless of the obvious annihilation it would bring upon the entirety of Iran? I do think that is part of it, but far from all. Russia has shown that another way to use a nuke is allow you to dictate terms of expansionist behavior. Russia can bomb the shit out of hospitals, day cares, capture children, do whatever war crimes they want and the whole world is even worried about what help to give Ukraine let alone attack Russia because of Nukes. It is a complete myth that these are only used for defense. Iran has multiple proxy armies that they keep at arms length for deniability to do the shitty things they do not want to catch blame for. Who says they don't give a small nuke to Houthi's to attack whoever, or Hamas to attack Israel. And what chance does the actual Lebanese army have against a nuclear armed Hezbollah. Do you think Khamenei is unwilling to use a tactical nuke against a rebel army of his own people? I'm sure Assad would have and maybe he gets one if he pays Iran enough. Then there is the whole issue around just safety protocol and the environment. Making these bombs is not a clean process, we really think Iran is going to do great things with the waste? Are they going to to maintain the safety stuff or will corruption get in the way? Huge risks. The end of the day the calculation is, is the world a safer or more dangerous place with Iran getting nukes. I think to basically everyone who is not down the rabbit hole of Israel trying to take over the world. Or bad murica the worst thinks that they are not. This is a weapon that can actually end the world. I don't trust responsible people with it. Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 19 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:
More nukes is worse. People acting like Iran is some rational actor who only wants a nuke for self defense should look into how that regime treats their own people and how expansionist they have been. Basically every leader of every country, even some of Iran's allies agree. The disagreement is on how to stop them from getting it. North Korea treats its own people worse and they aren't throwing around nukes. What is your overall point here? That every country no matter how terrible they are should have a nuke because the self interest of the dictator is the bestest and most important? I'm guessing all the people in NK hoping for a regime change, all the SK, Japanese and so on are super happy that no accidents (we know of) and no bukes have been launched yet. But I also guarantee they preferred it before. Like do you really think everyone should have a nuke, or is this just another shitty, low effort, attempt at a gotcha? More nukes is not good, more nukes obviously increases the odds that someone does use one at some point. We've gotten lucky sofar.
But 'we' have also pushed Iran to feel like they need a nuke to protect themselves. From the invasion of Iraq to Bush's talk about 'the axis of evil' Iran was shown that the only way to avoid a similar fate was to possess a nuke.
Thankfully there was a step back and Obama got a deal to allow inspections and for Iran to stop development so tensions could cool down. And then Trump fucked it up by tearing up the treaty cause he is a baby who cannot accept other people have made actual accomplishments.
Iran's pursuit of a nuke is an entirely rational response to what 'we' in the West have done in the middle east. No I don't want Iran to have a nuke but this is the consequences of our own actions coming back around. And yes the same can be said for Iran funding terrorism against Israel, I just have 0 trust in Israel considering their actions in Gaza and Netanyahu's need to perpetuate wars to keep distracting from his internal problems.
No I don't think Iran would nuke Israel just because they can, public bluster is just that. And right now the US is just as guilty of it as Iran is, Trump threatens some country practically every week.
A man with nothing to lose should be feared, because he can push that button. But Iranian leadership have a lot to lose, same concept as North Korea. Another country we all wish didn't have a nuke but that does have one and its made for a shit situation but the world is still here.
|
On June 20 2025 00:46 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +I do think that is part of it, but far from all. Russia has shown that another way to use a nuke is allow you to dictate terms of expansionist behavior. Russia can bomb the shit out of hospitals, day cares, capture children, do whatever war crimes they want and the whole world is even worried about what help to give Ukraine let alone attack Russia because of Nukes. It is a complete myth that these are only used for defense. While this is absolutely true, I also dont find this super compelling because we let Israel run around with nukes doing exactly this sort of shit. This issue doesnt feel like it has any particular moral grounding, its just geopolitical power plays, which would at least be a more honest framing of it. People dont want other people to have power because we have a world where a certain level of power means youre basically invulnerable from expansionist psychopaths, and expansionist psychopath seems to be a real useful thing to be these days. I dont really believe Iran would behave any differently from any other country with a nuclear weapon, and so I dont really see any of your houthis-with-nukes or hamas-with-nukes or whatever as based in reality. So I guess as someone who does see America as often very bad, and does thing Israel is a genocidal fascist apartheid state, that Im not sure if the world is actually made better or worse by Iran having nukes. Im not sure if nukes make the world better or worse to begin with, but I will generally object to the idea that anyone bombing Iran right now because they think it'll make the world safer, they're doing it because they dont want another nuclear power in the middle east because it would be disadvantageous to them. I just dont see any real moral framing to this argument from either the US or Israel so I can only conclude that its geopolitical power related and Im frankly of the opinion that nuclear arms are of a level of impact that I cant really fully comprehend, so I can't really say I find myself able to strongly take a position of whether the world is better or worse if Iran has nukes. Show nested quote +15 years between "Mein Kampf", written by a little, not even mediocre man, failed artist and failed ursurpist was released and Auschwitz being build. Nuclear arms are different. Hitler thought he could get away with the Holocaust because he lived in a time right before nuclear weaponry, we dont live in that time, MAD is commonly understood. Show nested quote +Just because you know they are stupid and incapeable, doesn't mean they are harmless, or deserve any kind of holding back. I dont even know how to respond to this, if I take what I think this implies to its logical conclusion then surely the entirety of the world should be in the process of trying to forcibly disarm the US? This is the problem with nukes, if theyre evil then everyone needs to disarm everyone else aggressively because you never know when some lunatic will gain control over a country with nuclear arms and go haywire, but you cant because they have nukes. Nukes are both unfathomably threatening and also offer unfathomable safety, they are the argument for and against themselves and it makes any moral argument with regards to them exceptionally thorny, Id argue impossibly thorny. The middle east has been fucked up for a while, and not in small part by foreign actors who know they can do what they want in the region with nigh impunity, and how do you stop foreign powers from exercising their nuclear-backed power over you but to get nukes? If people want to argue the US and Israel have to bomb Iran to shit to prevent them from nuclear armament I would at least like to not pretend like theres any serious moral basis to it beyond not wanting a threat to Israel and the US in the region, its not about people's lives, its about power. The irony is indeed that the US is currently probably the closest we have come to the use of a nuclear weapon since the end of the cold war (i'd want to say since ww2 but there have been some rather close calls during the cold war), we know this because we know Trump has on multiple occasions asked why he can't use one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
