But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
3 Likes
South Africa hasn't had nukes in three decades.
1 Like
Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
3 Likes
HillboFrateTrane -But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
Iran’s unstable leadership aside, you think a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a good idea?
pfsjkd -HillboFrateTrane -But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
Iran’s unstable leadership aside, you think a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a good idea?
As long as the attacks stayed in that region. All evidence of abrahamic culture erased so the world can move on.
3 Likes
HillboFrateTrane -pfsjkd -HillboFrateTrane -But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
Iran’s unstable leadership aside, you think a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a good idea?
As long as the attacks stayed in that region. All evidence of abrahamic culture erased so the world can move on.
Please tell me you’re not that stupid. We’re talking *nukes*. It’s impossible for fallout from any attacks to stay in that region. You think the UK is gonna go unscathed??
This is also ignoring the fact that Iran or others may want to nuke The Great Satan. It’s lunacy to believe that a nuke arms race in the ME would not eventually have devastating effects on us, either directly or indirectly.
3 Likes
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
WAS.
MAD works. The only reason the big 5 don't want too many more.joining is not for fear of nuclear holocaust it's for fear of people doing a NK or Iran and aging fuck you to the current powers.
The MAP mutually assured prosperity plan of the Chinese is going to supplant and aucced in its place. People don't need big sticks to fend you off if you pay for their shit, rather than take it at the point of your own big stick.
pfsjkd -HillboFrateTrane -pfsjkd -HillboFrateTrane -But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
Iran’s unstable leadership aside, you think a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a good idea?
As long as the attacks stayed in that region. All evidence of abrahamic culture erased so the world can move on.
Please tell me you’re not that stupid. We’re talking *nukes*. It’s impossible for fallout from any attacks to stay in that region. You think the UK is gonna go unscathed??
This is also ignoring the fact that Iran or others may want to nuke The Great Satan. It’s lunacy to believe that a nuke arms race in the ME would not eventually have devastating effects on us, either directly or indirectly.
Jts lunacy to think they'd do anything other han say fuck off we do what we want.
Ghengiseanie -Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
WAS.
MAD works. The only reason the big 5 don't want too many more.joining is not for fear of nuclear holocaust it's for fear of people doing a NK or Iran and aging fuck you to the current powers.
The MAP mutually assured prosperity plan of the Chinese is going to supplant and aucced in its place. People don't need big sticks to fend you off if you pay for their shit, rather than take it at the point of your own big stick.
MAD worked in the cold war context because both USSR and US had large enough arsenals that MAD was a near certainty. If you have 20 or 30 nuclear powers some of which only have a few bombs it’s different.
Everyone has a right to own everything.
No one has the right to tell an individual what he can or can’t own.
No one has the right to tell a nation what they can or can’t own.
1 Like
Nukes keep the world honest
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
Yup. The golden rule:
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Ghengiseanie -Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
WAS.
MAD works. The only reason the big 5 don't want too many more.joining is not for fear of nuclear holocaust it's for fear of people doing a NK or Iran and aging fuck you to the current powers.
The MAP mutually assured prosperity plan of the Chinese is going to supplant and aucced in its place. People don't need big sticks to fend you off if you pay for their shit, rather than take it at the point of your own big stick.
MAD is all well and good when you’re talking about mature and rational governments who aren’t run by lunatics that believe in a death cult... However, Iran isn’t what most would call rational.
Bottom line is the more countries that have nukes the more likely someone eventually uses one. And unlike WWII when we were the only country to have one, greater proliferation also means a higher likelihood of retaliation by either the attacked country or its allies.
OP mentions Pakistan and India but no one was happy or ok with them developing nukes either. But if I remember correctly both caught the world by surprise.
Because Israel and SA are superior in every conceivable way to Iran?
Pakistan and India should not have nukes.
amadeus -Ghengiseanie -Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
WAS.
MAD works. The only reason the big 5 don't want too many more.joining is not for fear of nuclear holocaust it's for fear of people doing a NK or Iran and aging fuck you to the current powers.
The MAP mutually assured prosperity plan of the Chinese is going to supplant and aucced in its place. People don't need big sticks to fend you off if you pay for their shit, rather than take it at the point of your own big stick.
MAD is all well and good when you’re talking about mature and rational governments who aren’t run by lunatics that believe in a death cult... However, Iran isn’t what most would call rational.
Bottom line is the more countries that have nukes the more likely someone eventually uses one. And unlike WWII when we were the only country to have one, greater proliferation also means a higher likelihood of retaliation by either the attacked country or its allies.
OP mentions Pakistan and India but no one was happy or ok with them developing nukes either. But if I remember correctly both caught the world by surprise.
Ridculous colonial claptrap, teh ‘savages’ cant be trusted with fire eh?
WEll Pakistan and India have had nukes a couple of decades now, and havent nuked each other despite alot of animosity. (or China for that matter).
What nukes have done is created a stability and deescalated tensions hugely.
Soul Gravy - Because Israel and SA are superior in every conceivable way to Iran?Pakistan and India should not have nukes.
.
Ghengiseanie -amadeus -Ghengiseanie -Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -Not that simple.
I, for one, consider the Atoms for Peace propaganda one of the most strategically brilliant things the U.S. has ever done.
We slaughtered people in the six figure range > pushed for international peace and safe, constructive use of nuclear technology (we built the first reactors in Iran!), and managed to increase our own nuclear capability > become the dominant superpower in the world and put ourselves in a position where we had the perceived moral authority and leadership to pull it all off.
The U.S. was running laps around motherfuckers in geopolitics and international affairs for a solid chunk of the 20th century.
WAS.
MAD works. The only reason the big 5 don't want too many more.joining is not for fear of nuclear holocaust it's for fear of people doing a NK or Iran and aging fuck you to the current powers.
The MAP mutually assured prosperity plan of the Chinese is going to supplant and aucced in its place. People don't need big sticks to fend you off if you pay for their shit, rather than take it at the point of your own big stick.
MAD is all well and good when you’re talking about mature and rational governments who aren’t run by lunatics that believe in a death cult... However, Iran isn’t what most would call rational.
Bottom line is the more countries that have nukes the more likely someone eventually uses one. And unlike WWII when we were the only country to have one, greater proliferation also means a higher likelihood of retaliation by either the attacked country or its allies.
OP mentions Pakistan and India but no one was happy or ok with them developing nukes either. But if I remember correctly both caught the world by surprise.
Ridculous colonial claptrap, teh ‘savages’ cant be trusted with fire eh?
WEll Pakistan and India have had nukes a couple of decades now, and havent nuked each other despite alot of animosity. (or China for that matter).
What nukes have done is created a stability and deescalated tensions hugely.
India and pakistan came close in early 90s.
HillboFrateTrane -But Iran isn’t? They’re a major nation surrounded by nuclear armed countries. Why do we get to dictate what weapons they can and can’t have when all of our shitholer buddies get to do whatever they want, and in Israel’s case, largely on our dime. They could nuke Iran at any moment, why isn’t Iran entitled to defend themselves? If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world.
"If anything, nuclear war in that region would be a net benefit for the rest of the world."
You must not understand what nuclear war would mean for the rest of the world. This is a very silly thing to believe.
1 Like
I don’t care about nukes but tell me why these countries are entitles to OUR MONEY???
1 Like