EPT
On November 06 2026 14:04 oBlade wrote:
You can consider that, but nobody said that. The reason nobody said it is it makes no sense. You're the one who said Iran wouldn't get a nuclear weapon because they haven't yet. Which would apply to any state that got nuclear weapons, before they got nuclear weapons. Kwark Bush in 1991: Pakistan aren't going to get nuclear weapons because they haven't yet. Not a problem. Kwark Clinton in 1999: The DPRK aren't going to get nuclear weapons because they haven't yet. Nothing to worry about. You are now responding with "So you think there's an equal chance of Iran and of Poland and New Zealand and Chile developing nuclear weapons just because they haven't built a weapon yet? That's not an argument." Correct, it's not an argument, and nobody made it.
We have other issues with China and Russia and can't rely on them and use up all our foreign policy resources just on Iran. The US is strong but its diplomatic capital and leverage are still finite. The first JCPOA restrictions would already have sunset this year, 2026. Do you think Putin would have been up for renegotiating? We are trying to isolate and slow China and beat them in other areas. We can't afford to put all that on hold just to get them to not buy some oil from some deranged Islamists. The world doesn't revolve around Iran. The second restrictions would have sunset in 2031 and then it's oops we need another temporary way to maybe limit something. We don't strike Poland and New Zealand and Chile even though we don't have nuclear deals with them. Is this because we unfairly hate Iran and are irrational hypocrites? Or do Poland and New Zealand and Chile just not have any nuclear weapons ambitions or programs, and don't practice nuclear hedging unlike Iran.
And yet it hasn't even invaded Iran and didn't attack in 2018 when it left JCPOA. Back to the concern trolling from before, you know how many Iranian civilians and children sanctions and embargos kill?
The argument that you need a nuclear weapon to deter someone from preventing you from getting a nuclear weapon is circular.
You can consider that, but nobody said that. The reason nobody said it is it makes no sense. You're the one who said Iran wouldn't get a nuclear weapon because they haven't yet. Which would apply to any state that got nuclear weapons, before they got nuclear weapons. Kwark Bush in 1991: Pakistan aren't going to get nuclear weapons because they haven't yet. Not a problem. Kwark Clinton in 1999: The DPRK aren't going to get nuclear weapons because they haven't yet. Nothing to worry about. You are now responding with "So you think there's an equal chance of Iran and of Poland and New Zealand and Chile developing nuclear weapons just because they haven't built a weapon yet? That's not an argument." Correct, it's not an argument, and nobody made it.
We have other issues with China and Russia and can't rely on them and use up all our foreign policy resources just on Iran. The US is strong but its diplomatic capital and leverage are still finite. The first JCPOA restrictions would already have sunset this year, 2026. Do you think Putin would have been up for renegotiating? We are trying to isolate and slow China and beat them in other areas. We can't afford to put all that on hold just to get them to not buy some oil from some deranged Islamists. The world doesn't revolve around Iran. The second restrictions would have sunset in 2031 and then it's oops we need another temporary way to maybe limit something. We don't strike Poland and New Zealand and Chile even though we don't have nuclear deals with them. Is this because we unfairly hate Iran and are irrational hypocrites? Or do Poland and New Zealand and Chile just not have any nuclear weapons ambitions or programs, and don't practice nuclear hedging unlike Iran.
And yet it hasn't even invaded Iran and didn't attack in 2018 when it left JCPOA. Back to the concern trolling from before, you know how many Iranian civilians and children sanctions and embargos kill?
The argument that you need a nuclear weapon to deter someone from preventing you from getting a nuclear weapon is circular.
Fine, fine, they’re attacking the country formerly known as Iran. Sorry, I forgot that you didn’t believe in Iran anymore. You’re so nitpicky today.
