Remix.run Logo
Ozzie_osman 15 hours ago

I imagine every reasonably-sized country looking at this and thinking: "well, we'd be idiots not to have nuclear weapons by any means necessary."

This will be one of the single-most proliferation-inducing events in history, maybe save Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

energy123 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The opposite. They're thinking "if we try to do this, we will die, because their intelligence knows where we are at all times".

This war is quite paradigm shifting in multiple ways, and I'm hopeful it serves as a strong deterrent. No longer will soldiers be the first to die. The leadership is now first to die, and within a week. That significantly alters the incentives for pursuing war. This was never the case until today.

riffraff 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Knowing "where you are" is irrelevant. Iraq was invaded under the pretense of having weapons of mass destruction, so the rational thing to do is having them anyway, cause the US can bomb you anytime if you don't. Meanwhile, North Korea is 100% fine.

energy123 13 hours ago | parent [-]

The rational thing is to be killed in an airstrike when you are 10% into your nuclear program? I don't understand the justification for this opinion.

seanmcdirmid 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just wait for China to get rich enough to counter American military dominance, and then ally with them for protection. Iran is already half way to becoming a Chinese vassal state, either it falls apart or becomes one completely after this.

seydor 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

a rogue nuke can "accidentally slip in" from another evil country. a few more nukes and you're now un-nukeable.

deterrence works. we should admit it

_heimdall 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the ultimate gamble here. On one path, those considering a nuke could be deterred after realizing the Trump administration is willing to use that as a reason to attack. On the other path, countries could either decide the risk of attack is necessary or estimate the risk of future administrations acting similarly as low enough to go for the bomb.

kilroy123 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair. I think what happened in Ukraine did far more to cause nations to think like this.

The US convinced Ukraine to give up its nukes and return them to Russia. Russia was supposed to never attack in exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Russia isn't attacking, it's reclaiming it's rightful territory.

According to Putin...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-21/putin-says-whole-of-u...

/s in case it's not obvious.

Putin is a sociopath, which equips him with all the necessary tools to charm the easily flattered.

selivanovp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

bad_username 12 hours ago | parent [-]

What actually happened was Ukrainians rebelling against a Putin's puppet. I know because I was there rebelling and absolutely nobody "staged" me.

selivanovp 12 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

TheAlchemist 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep, that's how it ends. I expect, there will be many many countries with nukes in 2030. Even a country like Poland, which is part of Nato, announced that it will seek to acquire nuclear weapons in the future.

thoughtstheseus 14 hours ago | parent [-]

South Korea looks like they are pursing nukes already.

muzani 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We started thinking that after seeing Palestine get bombed and US vetoing every attempt at aid. We used to be a neutral country since independence, but Ukraine and Gaza proved that the world will just stand aside and watch the neutral countries get exterminated by nuclear nations.

BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Strangely (maybe), the US seems to be vassal to Israel.

The extent to which condemning something approaching genocide is accused of being an anti-semitic position is... telling.

Not to say that there aren't ridiculous levels of complexity to the whole situation, but the pendulum is being held very far to one side by the king.

dundarious 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you put a few too many negatives in that first sentence, and are missing a clause. As-is, you're just imagining them not thinking something.

Ozzie_osman 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks. I was missing another negative but I opted to just take them all out.

viccis 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Russia-Ukraine war already did that. Ukraine let us talk them into giving up their nukes, and see what happened.

Iran having nukes would mean peace in the Middle East.

PeterHolzwarth 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran having nukes (and recall that in the broader middle east, Iran is largely considered a dangerous enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran. Iran having nukes is a very bad idea - that's why the west , and even countries beyond, have been working for decades to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

viccis an hour ago | parent [-]

That would be fine too. The Soviets stealing our nuclear information was the biggest pro-peace act of the 20th century.

FuckButtons 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any self respecting dictator could see the writing on the wall after Gadaffi, or for that matter, Sadam. A domestic nuclear program though is still not a simple proposition.

I_am_tiberius 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea is now doubling its efforts and even offering Russia additional resources to help it acquire nuclear capabilities.

shepherdjerred 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Doesn't NK already have nukes?

kelipso 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More means better deterrence I guess. Didn’t China decide to build a shitton more to match the US numbers recently?

I_am_tiberius 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're right. Didn't know!

FergusArgyll 8 hours ago | parent [-]

This is the kind of high information commenters we have on HN when it comes to non CS related issues

PeterHolzwarth 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

North Korea has nukes, which has seriously changed the calculus in the region. Worse is that they are a vassal state of China.

IceHegel 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is obviously correct. Nuclear weapons = sovereignty. UN recognition is a piece of paper.

9 countries exist. So much for self-determination.

seydor 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wouldn't be surprised to see an end to non-proliferation treaty and large nuclear alliances.

jimbob45 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You say that but Iran couldn’t even escalate their rhetoric post-strike because “Every American is now a legitimate target” is now a tired refrain rather than a feared declaration.

The lesson here is not to make idle threats against half of the world that you don’t honestly mean.

firesteelrain 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran can’t project power. Other than employing their terrorist proxies - they are in a no win situation.

Russia and China can’t project power either. Only few countries can and the US is the best at it.

partiallypro 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

History disagrees with you, and Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. They were even providing Russia with arms for their invasion of Ukraine. Let's not equate them with many others, such as Poland, etc. Iran absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances to have a nuclear weapon. If they were as close as what intelligence seems to indicate (though I know that's hard to believe after the Iraq war, but we aren't in a ground war so the burden of proof is understandably less) then I frankly don't think it would have mattered if it were Kamala, Biden, or Trump in office. The facilities were getting bombed.

The scenario was already war gamed during the Biden administration, it was already a possible outcome. The G7 already backed this idea that Iran can't have this before, and they'll do it again. The US doesn't stand alone on this, Saudi Arabia and basically everyone in the region and world doesn't want Iran having a nuke sans Russia/China. I'm not even sure if Russia/China really want it either. It's just common sense.

PeterHolzwarth 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is absolutely the case. We've been collectively fighting to stop Iran from getting nukes for decades. In much of the middle east, Iran is considered a serious enemy. Iran getting nuclear weapons would mean the rest of the middle east would instantly feel compelled to get their own.

14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
khazhoux 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't follow your logic.

You're saying that there exists some country capable of a nuclear weapons program (an exceedingly difficult thing), that for some reason has not actually built one, and now that they see Iran pummeled for trying to build theirs... is now incentivized to finally go for it??

dingaling 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Turkey, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Finland and even Switzerland* are all assessed as having the capability but having refrained for political reasons.

* the Swiss nuclear weapons programme ran for over four decades during the Cold War

PeterHolzwarth 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The issue is that a nuclear armed Iran (and remember that Iran is largely detested in the middle east, and is broadly considered to be a destabilizing enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east feeling compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs. No one wants an nuclear armed Iran.