|
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 |
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.
The math is never easy on these things because it is all based on what ifs. Which is why there is often not agreement and "economic warfare" is always the first course of action. I think many world leaders struggle making the call and no one seems decisive. We have a different view on who is what level of bad, but not so much on what is bad so my calculation and yours even though we might agree on a lot is going to be different. It is also one of the arguments that we all basically lose if we find out which makes the stakes much higher.
Generally I'm in the non nuclear weapon anywhere camp. I do acknowledge that there is less war with them, but it seems to have just created proxy wars everywhere instead of just the major powers squaring off. As bad as it sounds, I'd much rather see Israel and Iran fight it out then Iran arm a little proxy army in Gaza and have Israel bomb the shit out of them. The no violence option just does not seem currently possible for humanity.
Knowing how close the USSR and USA were to nuclear war a couple times, plus accidents, I'd just rather less (no) have. But it is not like I do not see the other side of the argument.
|
On June 20 2025 01:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 00:27 Billyboy 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? 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: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.
By your same logic Iran has pushed Israel to attack it before it gets a nuke. They have consistently and loudly spoke about destroying Israel, their foreign policy is based on it, and they have actually attacked them.
Iran like Russia could just stay in their boarders and make bank off of oil. No is talking about invading the UAE or a bunch of other places. Iran could have also prevented this any number of times over the past months, years, decades.
It is fine to know their perspective, but you have to take into account all their perspectives.
And no USSR was closest to using a nuke since WW2, they were one brave guy saying no away from it.
|
On June 20 2025 01:24 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 01:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2025 00:27 Billyboy 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? 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: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. By your same logic Iran has pushed Israel to attack it before it gets a nuke. They have consistently and loudly spoke about destroying Israel, their foreign policy is based on it, and they have actually attacked them. Iran like Russia could just stay in their boarders and make bank off of oil. No is talking about invading the UAE or a bunch of other places. Iran could have also prevented this any number of times over the past months, years, decades. It is fine to know their perspective, but you have to take into account all their perspectives. And no USSR was closest to using a nuke since WW2, they were one brave guy saying no away from it. And yes the same can be said for Iran funding terrorism against Israel (i'd want to say since ww2 but there have been some rather close calls during the cold war I covered those.
I do not trust Israel that there was no time and they had to attack now to stop Iran rather then there being time for a diplomatic solution.
|
On June 20 2025 01:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 01:24 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2025 01:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2025 00:27 Billyboy 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? 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: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. By your same logic Iran has pushed Israel to attack it before it gets a nuke. They have consistently and loudly spoke about destroying Israel, their foreign policy is based on it, and they have actually attacked them. Iran like Russia could just stay in their boarders and make bank off of oil. No is talking about invading the UAE or a bunch of other places. Iran could have also prevented this any number of times over the past months, years, decades. It is fine to know their perspective, but you have to take into account all their perspectives. And no USSR was closest to using a nuke since WW2, they were one brave guy saying no away from it. Show nested quote +(i'd want to say since ww2 but there have been some rather close calls during the cold war I covered those. I do not trust Israel that there was no time and they had to attack now to stop Iran rather then there being time for a diplomatic solution.
To your first sentence... ????
Great. And that is a unanswerable question. All we know for sure is Iran was trying to get a nuke, and they were weeks to a under a year away. We also know the intelligence community is 0 for 1 on knowing when and how close a country is too a nuke. And we know Iran has a long history of saying one thing doing another, lying, and hiding what they were doing.
So great that you at no risk knows in your heart that Iran was not that close, whatever level you think would be close enough. But I'm sure there are lots of people who know in their heart that Israel would not attack Iran unless Iran got a nuke. But for some reason they still were trying their darndest to get one. Why you can understand the one logic and not the other that is basically the same is beyond me.
What I think is actually happening is that you just agree with ones logic and not the other. Which I find strange because for every reason you have to distrust Israel you have at least equal but mostly more reason to distrust Iran.
|
I imagine the people thinking Israel would never attack Iran unless they absolutely had to also don't think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Their opinion holds very little weight to me.
|
There is a big discrepancy between what is believed to be true. When Israel talks about Gaza and Iran's nuclear program, they are speaking the truth. When Iran is talking about destroying Israel, they are speaking the truth. But when Israel is speaking about genociding Palestinians, they are not speaking truthfully. Getting caught in blatant lies will not lower trust. With Trump and Co., the perspective is heavily dependent on the person. Sometimes it is just fancy rhetoric for the supporters, and what is said to other audiences is actually the truth. This makes things very frustrating, as analysis of any speech depends so heavily on the pre-existing views.
|
All we know for sure is Iran was trying to get a nuke, and they were weeks to a under a year away.
Can you source this, the last time this claim was made and I was given a source it didnt actually say this
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
I don’t trust Israel further than I could throw it these days. I don’t particularly distrust them with a nuclear arsenal though.
Iran, same boat.
I’m not sure there’s a state on Earth crazy enough to use some offensively. I could perhaps see a deployment of a small tactical nuke to wipe out an advancing army, deployed defensively or something.
But that wouldn’t really be crazy to do. Do we end up in a MAD scenario off that? I’m not sure we would, circumstance depending.
Assuming ChatGPT isn’t fucking me around, the smallest tactical nuclear weapons, if dropped in the centre of Belfast (for me familiarisation), wouldn’t do nearly as much damage as I’d have assumed. Maybe if someone used one in a ‘barbarians at the walls scenario’, it doesn’t escalate?
Anyway, without wanting to spiral into a separate MAD topic…
For me it’s less a concern about Iran having a nuke, or using it. Or their right to have one or whatever. Or Iran not being upstanding citizens or whatever.
My reservations are more based upon the circumstances surrounding it.
The diplomatic road was bearing some fruit, Trump torpedoed it in his wisdom. Israel have a pretty golden opportunity to strike at a consistently aggressive enemy.
Incidentally, heard in a bar chat with a mate, so could be bollocks, but apparently some of those strikes in Syria, the Lebanon were in part to clear air defences and carve more efficient pathways and were subsequently used in this Iranian offensive. So it’s not a wholly isolated conflict.
Whatever balance of power we had in the region before, does look completely shattered.
This may be a good thing, it may not. But it is quite the sea change.
Iran are shitbags like don’t get me wrong there, but the prospect of an Israel with the kind of upper hand it has now, and a US that is basically unwilling, or alternatively unable to rein it in much, I think is a legitimate concern as well.
|
On June 20 2025 02:34 WombaT wrote:
Incidentally, heard in a bar chat with a mate, so could be bollocks, but apparently some of those strikes in Syria, the Lebanon were in part to clear air defences and carve more efficient pathways and were subsequently used in this Iranian offensive. So it’s not a wholly isolated conflict.
.
I saw this shortly mentioned in a Finnish interview of a professor specialised in the region, and at least NYT mentions it affecting the decision. The professor is quoted as saying, "The new Syrian government has not tried to attack Israel. Nevertheless, Israel is seizing its territory and bombing military targets in Syria so that the country will have no theoretical ability to challenge Israel in the future. "Israel wants complete freedom of action in the Middle East. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would limit Israel's political and military operations in the region.", and “Israel aims to become the Middle East’s regional hegemon, ruling by force”. With this kind of perspective, it is hard to see how Israel's goals are not much further-reaching than just preventing nukes.
|
On June 20 2025 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:
I imagine the people thinking Israel would never attack Iran unless they absolutely had to also don't think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Their opinion holds very little weight to me.
Oh sad news, back to the lame one liners.
If it is actually fascism and genocide that you hate so much, I have bad news for you. Iran is at least as bad in all counts in many worse. Feel free to list all the things you hate about Fascism and then see where Iran scores, feel free to do Israel as well. When your done with that come back with some intelligent informed post, preferably one that does not infantize Iran and gives them some agency, since they do have that. Dealing with you feelings over facts people is so difficult because the instant there is reason brought into it and you would actually have to put some effort into diving deep into why you feel that Israel is absolutely the big evil bad out for death of all, you stop and just lash out emotionally. And it is really tiring to deal with.
On June 20 2025 03:08 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 02:34 WombaT wrote:
Incidentally, heard in a bar chat with a mate, so could be bollocks, but apparently some of those strikes in Syria, the Lebanon were in part to clear air defences and carve more efficient pathways and were subsequently used in this Iranian offensive. So it’s not a wholly isolated conflict.
. I saw this shortly mentioned in a Finnish interview of a professor specialised in the region, and at least NYT mentions it affecting the decision. The professor is quoted as saying, "The new Syrian government has not tried to attack Israel. Nevertheless, Israel is seizing its territory and bombing military targets in Syria so that the country will have no theoretical ability to challenge Israel in the future. "Israel wants complete freedom of action in the Middle East. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would limit Israel's political and military operations in the region.", and “Israel aims to become the Middle East’s regional hegemon, ruling by force”. With this kind of perspective, it is hard to see how Israel's goals are not much further-reaching than just preventing nukes.
The only land that Israel took is an unpopulated mountain that allows their radar to see incoming rockets much sooner as well as stop much of the illegal arms trafficking through Syria into Hezbollah. Since they took it they took no more land even though they could have easily took huge swaths easily. They did continue to attack site in Syria, those were Iranian and as some one else mentioned the goal was to weaken Iran, likely for this strike. There others have been for their words to protect the Druze minority. That very well could not the authentic reason, but I'm sure the Druze people do not care that much about their reasons for stopping their slaughter. Most of the fighting in Syria has stopped other than the occasional outburst between the Kurds and Turks. I have not seen a bunch from Israel but I don't check the live map everyday. You can scroll a long ways back if you are interested.
Not saying you are wrong, just adding context.
https://syria.liveuamap.com/
The last updates I found in my scrolling was over a week ago and looks sporadic after that. It looks like Syria and Israel are trying to come to some sort of peace, which is a good thing.
Syria on Thursday said the people detained by Israeli forces during an overnight raid in a southern Syrian town were civilians, rejecting Israel's claims that they were members of Hamas
A young Syrian man was killed and 7 others were arrested by the Israeli army in the town of Beit Jann. Israeli forces arrested 7 young man at dawn today while carrying out a campaign of raids and arrests in the town of Beit Jann. The young man, Muhammad Hamada, was killed after being shot by Israeli forces in the town of Beit Jann.
srael presented its "red lines" in Syria to Tom Barrack, the U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria. These include no Turkish bases in Syria, demilitarization of southern Syria, and no renewed presence of Iran or Hezbollah. Source: Axios
Axios, citing an Israeli official, reports that Netanyahu is interested in negotiating an updated security agreement with Syria as a prelude to a comprehensive peace agreement.
Edit: Trump says he will allow up to two weeks for diplomacy before deciding on Iran.
|
On June 20 2025 02:05 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +All we know for sure is Iran was trying to get a nuke, and they were weeks to a under a year away. Can you source this, the last time this claim was made and I was given a source it didnt actually say this
I think it from a combo rather than one source. You have the "breakout Time" being 1-2 weeks since 2022-2023ish and then you have this from IAEA.
“Certainly, it was not for tomorrow, maybe not a matter of years,” he said. “I don’t think it was a matter of years.”
And neither Kurilla, a military commander, nor Grossi, the boss of the UN’s nuclear regulator, have indicated how long they think it might take a country to actually build atomic weapons once they have a stockpile of weapons-grade uranium, even if that were Iran’s intention.
But everyone and there dog is steering clear from saying exactly how long they even think because they know it will make massive news. Also they were wrong in NK but do not want to be the justification for a war either. So I understand the hesitance.
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On June 20 2025 03:08 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 02:34 WombaT wrote:
Incidentally, heard in a bar chat with a mate, so could be bollocks, but apparently some of those strikes in Syria, the Lebanon were in part to clear air defences and carve more efficient pathways and were subsequently used in this Iranian offensive. So it’s not a wholly isolated conflict.
. I saw this shortly mentioned in a Finnish interview of a professor specialised in the region, and at least NYT mentions it affecting the decision. The professor is quoted as saying, "The new Syrian government has not tried to attack Israel. Nevertheless, Israel is seizing its territory and bombing military targets in Syria so that the country will have no theoretical ability to challenge Israel in the future. "Israel wants complete freedom of action in the Middle East. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would limit Israel's political and military operations in the region.", and “Israel aims to become the Middle East’s regional hegemon, ruling by force”. With this kind of perspective, it is hard to see how Israel's goals are not much further-reaching than just preventing nukes.
Seems a sensible reading of it. Cheers for the summary, my Finnish isn’t what it once was!
Israel’s already established normal, if frosty relations with some historic rivals in the region. It’s got enough teeth to seemingly smack down those with which it does not. It’s got a US administration that’s basically happy to give it carte blanche to do these things for the foreseeable.
Being in such an unassailable spot, seemingly should be something that causes some concern. If you can do what you want, when you want, you’re really only limited in action by what you want to do.
And what does Israel want to do in the medium-thru longer term? Well, I don’t know. It also may shift with political winds, and not be static.
It’s generally a bad thing to have some basically unchallenged power running around, I’m considering it more in the abstract than regarding Israel specifically. I mean look at the US on a more global scale. It may do good things, it may do bad but regardless of how it’s wielded, they’ve got a power that few can really shackle in any meaningful way.
|
United States42489 Posts
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.
But they literally do attack Israel already in a way that has absolutely led to the expense of their own lives and comfort. So why would you not believe it? It already happens.
|
On June 20 2025 09:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 23:52 Zambrah wrote: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. But they literally do attack Israel already in a way that has absolutely led to the expense of their own lives and comfort. So why would you not believe it? It already happens.
Because a nuclear weapon attack is different? By a lot?
|
United States15580 Posts
On June 20 2025 10:24 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 09:43 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2025 23:52 Zambrah wrote: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. But they literally do attack Israel already in a way that has absolutely led to the expense of their own lives and comfort. So why would you not believe it? It already happens. Because a nuclear weapon attack is different? By a lot?
In your eyes, what reason does Iran have to attack Israel? Personally I think Khameini knows how this story ends and he’s just expressing his resentment while trying to end up in more history books.
Tehran won’t ever have air defenses again either way. So there isn’t really a future where Iran can get back to business as usual without Israel’s consent.
|
On June 20 2025 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2025 10:24 Zambrah wrote:On June 20 2025 09:43 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2025 23:52 Zambrah wrote: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. But they literally do attack Israel already in a way that has absolutely led to the expense of their own lives and comfort. So why would you not believe it? It already happens. Because a nuclear weapon attack is different? By a lot? In your eyes, what reason does Iran have to attack Israel? Personally I think Khameini knows how this story ends and he’s just expressing his resentment while trying to end up in more history books. Tehran won’t ever have air defenses again either way. So there isn’t really a future where Iran can get back to business as usual without Israel’s consent.
Because Israel is aggressive and everyone in the middle east seems to mostly hate each other's guts?
I also find a future where Israel is the hegemonic power of the middle east a grim future given the way Israel has behaved itself wtih regards to the Palestinians.
|
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?
In the cold war dynamic.. no... with people like Trump, Miller, Hegseth, Noem in reach of the red button.. TOTALLY.
Trump even needs to have his military audiences "hand picked" - but I guess if there is reason to believe POTUS wants to go out with sending nukes to T'china.. the command- structure wouldn't hold back.
I had a paragraph about Jan6 in my original post you responded to, but deleted it.
The nazis in 1923 looked liked clowns, spearheading thei idea that they could overtake some place in Munich, to then topple the whole government. The world has given them a pass, because they just looked like clowns.
Just because the dumbfucks of Jan6 looked also like clowns, again they were given a generall pass, and Trump has given them a pardon.
And the finger waving lunatics in iran get a pass, because their military is shit.
Don't take chances next time.
If traitors don't accept an election result.. hang them for treason.
If Mullahs/Hamas/Hezbollah threaten israel again, get rid of them
|
United States42489 Posts
There’s absolutely a case for taking away America’s nukes on the grounds of extreme politics instability. Just not a method. But the argument “if they’re too dumb for nukes then surely the US is too” holds.
|
On June 20 2025 15:45 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +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?
In the cold war dynamic.. no... with people like Trump, Miller, Hegseth, Noem in reach of the red button.. TOTALLY. Trump even needs to have his military audiences "hand picked" - but I guess if there is reason to believe POTUS wants to go out with sending nukes to T'china.. the command- structure wouldn't hold back. I had a paragraph about Jan6 in my original post you responded to, but deleted it. The nazis in 1923 looked liked clowns, spearheading thei idea that they could overtake some place in Munich, to then topple the whole government. The world has given them a pass, because they just looked like clowns. Just because the dumbfucks of Jan6 looked also like clowns, again they were given a generall pass, and Trump has given them a pardon. And the finger waving lunatics in iran get a pass, because their military is shit. Don't take chances next time. If traitors don't accept an election result.. hang them for treason. If Mullahs/Hamas/Hezbollah threaten israel again, get rid of them
The problem isn't that Iran should or shouldn't have nukes. The problem is that Israel doesn't have the moral high ground and should therefore not be the ones to destroy Iran's nukes. They're an agitator in their own right and they're equally untrustworthy at this point. Anyone who disagrees hasn't been paying attention.
|
I believe that my thoughts on this conflict are known, but to summarize:
- I think the strikes by Israel are using the Nuclear proliferation argument based on very flimsy justifications that aren't consistent with USA and other intelligence agencies reports
- given that I believe that the main reason is Nethyanahu escalating in order to keep on a war footing
- I think this has proven to be more true then not with the recent developments since it's becoming clear that Israel (and it seems the USA) officials are now indicating this is a regime change operation
- I firmly believe that this is a huge mistake and just like Iraq it will have huge consequences no matter how it's done, Israel and USA don't really care because the consequences will "just" be way disproportional casualties for their military and (in case of Israel) civilian targets
- everyone around the region including Europe would suffer more, just like after Iraq and Libya the brunt of immigration crisis and inevitable radical terrorist actions that come out of desperation + need to take revenge would happen in Europe, so Israel and USA "choosing" that path for us, again, is extremely depressing
- I also want to note that Houtis, Hesbolah and Hamas weren't invented by Iran, all of them are complicated organizations with complicated origins that Iran funded and enabled to do heinous shit, but they do have agency and they are not Iran
What I would like to note is the absence of our resident Trump supporters, who don't seem to have anything to say on this, or on Trump's "exceptions" for immigration workers who work construction, agriculture etc.
I thought you guys were immigration absolutists, that these people are threatening the sovereignty of USA, but only the one in cities?
I also thought you guys are very anti war, how come you don't share these sentiments anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
