Trump fawns over Kim so hard I wouldn’t be surprised if he just provides nukes to NK if Kim asks him nicely.
Well no shit. Countries with nukes aren’t likely to be invaded or bombed. I bet Ukraine is kicking themselves for getting rid of the ones they had. I wouldn’t be surprised if this kick-starts a new wave of nuclear proliferation, and I can’t say I’d blame those countries.
No shit. Trump pulled us out of the mutually-beneficial nuclear deal that Iran had been abiding by simply it was brokered by democrats. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for security guarantees from us, the UK and Russia… We all see how well that worked out.
I think it’ll strengthen everyone’s nuclear resolve. Strategic ambiguity (with the common knowledge that you are a nuclear state, like Israel) is pretty much the only option now.
Iran was playing the game of “we aren’t a nuclear power, but we COULD be” wasn’t enough. Everyone sees that now. The only real deterrent is a literal nuke, now.
It was attempted many times by South Korea, by the US, and by others to get North Korea to trash their nuclear program. It didn’t work.
The world learned if a country isn’t giving up their nuclear program, even with large incentives to do so, one cannot just hope things change in the future. That baseless hope is how we got a nuclear armed North Korea. The world learned, and a different strategy is being taken with Iran.
deleted by creator
even with large incentives to do so,
What large incentives? Obviously talking about Iran here.
Nuclear energy program assistance.
Got a link?
What resolve? They already have nukes, they show no signs of wanting to use them, and consistently want to be left alone to do their thing.
I hate when all the news bring up a completely unrelated country all of a sudden. Makes me think this WWIII thing is going to happen and is being pushed for.
consistently want to be left alone to do their thing
They consistently want to extract economic and food assistance from other countries via threatening all kinds of shit. But otherwise, yes.
My guess would be greater quantity and better delivery systems.
They should manufacture and sell nukes to Iran. Seriously.
Yes, let’s give nukes to a theocratic regime bent on destorying the west. That will own the libs.
Why the hell would you want Iran to have nukes? Just because Israel and/or US bad, doesn’t mean Iran is good. Far, far from it.
Because it would be a meaningful check against Israel and the US which are relentlessly belligerent and the source of most of the violence in the region.
No it wouldn’t, Iran would use them immediately to destroy Israel and let themselves be destroyed in retaliation.
That’s 100% what would happen. There is no possible deviance, the second Iran gets the bomb, it will use it.
Iran isn’t good, but the kind of bad it does isn’t the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn’t be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
Assad gazed Syrian rebels, so I don’t think the Guardians of the Revolution wouldn’t nuke a rebelled city. That would stop the revolt instantly.
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn’t because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn’t use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn’t nuked South Korea. There’s a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it’s countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
Not against q regional adversary. But against their own population, they would.
Oh that’s what you meant. In that case I see what you mean, but I’m not convinced. First, doing such a thing would destroy their own seat of power, as most revolts tend to start in the capital or reach it pretty quickly. Second, it would immediately spark a coup, civil war or intensify the revolution, for the same reason Assad’s gassing didn’t stop the Syrian revolution. The level of destruction a nuke can cause can be more or less replicated using conventional means, using a nuke means dealing with nuclear fallout which even the most maniacal governments wouldn’t put themselves through and using drastic violence tends to push people towards militancy rather than compliance. Third, it’d destroy their international legitimacy, give Western countries an excuse for drastic intervention and discourage their allies from helping them defend against such an intervention. Iran’s government is certainly evil, but they’re rationally evil, and nuking one’s own people is very much not rational.
