| |
| ▲ | tw04 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | History really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal. Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to eventually be at risk of the US attacking you, you better be nuclear armed. | | |
| ▲ | tick_tock_tick 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course they cooled Iran kept enriching uranium and the rest of the world agreed to ignore it. | |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran? | | |
| ▲ | D-Coder 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because NOT enriching uranium worked so badly for Gaddafi. | |
| ▲ | ripvanwinkle 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | because it worked out for North Korea | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Largely because they didn't actually need it. Their conventional artillary pointed at south korea was already (and still is) more of a deterrnt than the nuke is. | |
| ▲ | adventured 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were. The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad. The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them? So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated. That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bo... | | |
| ▲ | lukan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad." Have you checked, how many outside interventions both countries had and still have? Labelling this as "internal" is pretty missleading. If both dictators would have had nuclear weapons ready to launch, no foreign bomber would have dared going in against the regime. | |
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. That isn't a MAD situation. Pakistan has nukes but they can't launch them on the US. |
|
| |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doesn't mean the direction wasn't correct. Take any American, and treat them the way Americans treat others, and they would be forming terrorist cells (gorilla war), building nukes, basically every single thing they could to fight back. To never surrender. Remember Red Dawn? That would be an American Response, to what America is doing. That is it basically. If shoe was on other foot, Americans would never surrender. So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly? | | |
| ▲ | adventured 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So, why are we expecting others to give up quietly? We're not. That's why we're bombing the regime and associated military targets. Iran was never expected to give up quietly. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Think you are missing the point. They aren't going to just give up after a few weeks of bombing. Will need boots on the ground versus a resistance/multiple sides of a civil war, and now we have another 20 year war. People don't just shrug and go "all shucks, yuck yuck, guess you got us, i'll roll over" |
|
| |
| ▲ | keybored 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gravisultra 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | History does not say otherwise. The US however has a history of attacking Iran, including murdering 190 people on a civilian flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 | | |
| ▲ | lejalv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not sure why this comment is downvoted: the facts are established, as is (among others) the Mosaddegh coup d'état co-organized by the US: > On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry.
(...)
> In August 2013, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. (...) was in charge of both the planning and the execution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Or the US backing of Saddam Hussein from 1982 onwards during the Iraq-Iran 8-year war of aggression, with “massive loans, political influence, and intelligence on Iranian deployments gathered by American spy satellites”. During this war, Iraq employed chemical weapons leading to 50.000 - 100.000 Irani deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War This (and other pieces of historical context) help very much understand the Iranian insistence on a ballistic missile program. | |
| ▲ | draygonia 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | *290 people. Mistook an Airbus A300 for an F-14. Maybe it's an easy mistake to make on radar back in the day? | | |
| ▲ | jkestner 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Back in the day, or even now. Kuwait’s US-supplied air defense shot down three US F15s this weekend. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaw12 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | History doesn't say anything, because there is no precedence Iran attacking the US assets first. | |
| ▲ | __alexs 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran has never carried out an attack against US military infrastructure that wasn't clearly retaliatory. Look it up. Every case of Iran attacking US infrastructure has been in direct retaliation to the US blowing up some Iranian stuff. Sure Iran has funded tons of proxy attacks by anonymous militias but these are generally not at the same kind of scale. |
|
