Posted by Red_Tarsius 4 hours ago
this should seriously stop. and i am very sad Europeans are spineless and following the US in another insane middle-east war. wasn't afghanistan and iraq enough?
It's like criticising an abused wife with no job no money and not many friends for not just leaving immediately, and the husband is rich, powerful and knows everyone
In contrast, look at the ignominious history in India (-n subcontinent) over the past millennia - whose moron elites are so deluded that they end up selling even more Anglo-American colonization in the name of decolonization.
Fascinating evolution of these two cousin nations.
At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?
The USSR also committed espionage to steal nuclear secrets from the US and we didn't bomb them either, so perhaps that is the secret? If you steal US nuclear secrets we "stand idly by" but if you develop the nukes on your own or by stealing someone else's secrets, then we go to war?
I'm really struggling to understand when someone getting nukes is reason to go to war against them, I don't see the other side making any rational arguments that don't boil down to "I don't like country X, and so want to see them weaker, but I do like country Y so I don't mind if they get stronger". But that's a very subjective judgment and should not drive national policy.
I don't think bombing a country should be the first course of action. Diplomatic action should leave no stone unturned. But if all of that fails, it is strategically advantageous and safer for the world to prevent countries from acquiring nukes by any means necessary.
If you set the example that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons is unbearable, countries will find better things to do, like enriching themselves in more productive ways.
You are conflating the Cuban Missile crisis of October 1962 -- which was the USSR placing nuclear weapons close to the US in Cuba in early 1962, in response to the US placing nuclear weapons close to the USSR in Turkey in 1961, and in your mind you have blended that crisis, which was a close call in which both sides ultimately agreed to withdraw their nukes, with the acquisition of nukes by the USSR 11 years earlier.
Yet when North Korea, India, China, Pakistan, South Africa, or Israel, got nukes this did not set off a crisis, it was the brinksmanship that set off a crisis.
Soon, both major powers in the gulf -- Iran and KSA will get nukes. Odds are this will happen within a decade. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
There are too many pressures forcing this to happen, not least of which is the clear understanding that these nations need to have nukes to prevent destruction by the other nuclear powers some of which are clearly hostile to them and bent on their destruction. It's why North Korea, which kept their nukes, is still around, but Libya, which gave up their nukes, has been dismembered. Just as a matter of self-defense and survival this is inevitable.
However what we can do is tone down the rhetoric of nuclear brinksmanship, threatening global war if a rival doesn't withdraw their nukes. That was the real lesson of the Cuban Missile crisis, which you have confused with Russia's 1949 achievement, or China's 1964 achievement.
Since no one is going to disarm their nukes, this is just something people have to live with. Threatening war over this issue is exactly what causes the risk of global catastrophe, not the spread of the technology, which is inevitable.
The USSR getting nukes in the first place lead to several incidents which were a judgment call away from armageddon. With the benefit of hindsight the correct call would have been to exhaust all options to prevent the soviets from acquiring nukes.
We just got lucky. Whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis, the soviet early warning system malfunction in Sept 83, or Able Archer 83 in November, there was a lot of dumb luck.
Proliferation will bring the end of humanity. There will be too many actors, too many variables. You can get lucky with 2 actors. You can’t keep getting lucky. The only option is to ensure you don’t have to be lucky.
And in any case, the genie is out of the bottle. There is not gonna be a situation in which a small group of nuclear powers endlessly bomb and attack other countries with impunity. The other nations will get nukes to defend themselves against the existing nuclear powers, it's just a matter of time.
North Korea and Pakistan has nukes.
Discussing what terrorism is, in this context, is rather complicated. Especially speaking as a Brit, and knowing rather a lot of other dates, such as 1917.
For example, the idea that bombing civilians is a war.
Do you know who doesn't get regime-changed? North Korea.
The US can deploy a carrier strike group faster than any nation can build a nuclear weapon. And after seeing the hellfire unleashed on Iran, it is clear that pursuing nuclear weapons may not be the answer it once appeared to be.
Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US - some of the richest countries on Earth mind you - haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.
> Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US
I haven't seen that expression at all, ever. No one was called those state vasal states a year ago. And now, as fascists are in American government, it is becoming routine amount right wing. The logic seems to be that any former ally that does not start war with USA is a vassal or something.
> haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.
French recently announced change of doctrine, they will expand nuclear arsenal.
The alternative is trying to fight that, and if you're picking a fight with the strongest player, you're playing to lose.
Now it's threatening to invade NATO allies, and other allies are deploying troops to deter that; Which makes perfect sense because you cannot appease authoritarians.
The US is in fairly rapid, self inflicted, decline at this point.
My sense is this is an inflection point, and it may take decades to play out. At that point, the world will have irreversibly changed.
This is what an empire, that is competently run, should do. The US is not an empire, and it is not competently run. It has no attributes in common with empires of history. It does not occupy foreign lands, it does not extract taxes, it does not (directly) control foreign governments. If anything, in this case, the US is under the control of a foreign government.
> At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?
It was not nearly this point. This was a point where USA, Israel and Saudi perceived Iran as weak and easier target. That is why the war started.
They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.
The bigger problem is - current war won't prevent them from obtaining it. It may delay the date, but also will make them work smarter, hide things better and give them much more resolve. I can see ie putin helping them get through some technological or material hurdles, that would help him greatly in their war in ukraine.
But I do feel obligated to interrogate the idea that the US is responsible for this escalation. Iran is seeking to expand its power and influence in the region, and employs violent means upon people - even its own people - to achieve these goals. The regime is, fundamentally, amoral.
The US gets to decide if it wants to put a stop to that. But left alone, the world gets more dangerous the stronger the Iranian regime becomes. The same cannot be said about the United States. The period of history belonging to the unipolar US liberal order was probably the most prosperous and peaceful time in history.
After you've misled the world into supporting the USA in Iraq:
"WHERE IS THE PROOF?"
This time, you didn't even try to submit proof. The "feeling" of your delusional president should be enough.
Or not even that, since the reasoning changes daily.
Try harder.
The Pentagon agrees that Iran is not officially pursuing nuclear weapons. However, there are CIA reports that indicated there may have been covert operations taking place that were exploring cruder nuclear weapons. I imagine that was the basis for the US bombing of Iran in 2025.
1. Hezbollah (Lebanon)
2. Hamas (Gaza Strip)
3. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza Strip/West Bank)
4. The Houthis / Ansar Allah (Yemen)
5. Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraq)
6. Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (Iraq)
7. Harakat al-Nujaba (Iraq)
8. Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (Iraq)
9. Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya (Iraq)
10. Kata'ib al-Imam Ali (Iraq)
11. Badr Organization (Iraq)
12. Liwa Fatemiyoun (Syria/Afghanistan)
13. Liwa Zaynabiyoun (Syria/Pakistan)
14. Al-Ashtar Brigades (Bahrain)
15. Saraya al-Mukhtar (Bahrain)
16. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (West Bank)
17. Popular Resistance Committees (Gaza Strip)
18. Lions' Den (West Bank)
19. Hezbollah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Arabia)
20. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - Quds Force (Regional/Iran)