new | show | ask | jobs Github

1234letshaveatw 6 hours ago

because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?

▲

D-Coder 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because NOT enriching uranium worked so badly for Gaddafi.

▲

ripvanwinkle 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

because it worked out for North Korea

▲

bawolff 5 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 5 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 4 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 4 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 6 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 5 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 5 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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine.