Real talk.
-
Real talk.
Is Iran having a nuclear weapon worse then Trump having acces to a nuclear weapon.
Of course i wish these weapons just weren’t but we seem perfectly capable of not using them and comitting succesfull horrors and genocide anyway.
We have come close before but even the bad guys seem aware that these are only usefull in irony as a deterent against ones total destruction.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and there's no evidence to suggest they're trying to make nuclear weapons, never was. We've been fearmongering about this since the early 90's at least, it's been 3 decades now, if they wanted nukes they'd have them by now.
-
Nucleair
Angry upvote
-
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and there's no evidence to suggest they're trying to make nuclear weapons, never was. We've been fearmongering about this since the early 90's at least, it's been 3 decades now, if they wanted nukes they'd have them by now.
One can argue the reason Iran does not have nukes yet is because of our intervention. Either at the negotiation table or through straight up sabotage.
-
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and there's no evidence to suggest they're trying to make nuclear weapons, never was. We've been fearmongering about this since the early 90's at least, it's been 3 decades now, if they wanted nukes they'd have them by now.
That's not true, they got the same centrifuges as NK which they (and LIbya) bought from Pakistan lol.
Although it also took NK an additional 15-20 years to actually make a usable bomb, so maybe having your nuclear scientists and enrichment plants destroyed every year doesn't really speed up the process.
Either that or Pakistan sold them duds lol
-
Real talk.
Is Iran having a nuclear weapon worse then Trump having acces to a nuclear weapon.
Of course i wish these weapons just weren’t but we seem perfectly capable of not using them and comitting succesfull horrors and genocide anyway.
We have come close before but even the bad guys seem aware that these are only usefull in irony as a deterent against ones total destruction.
I know your question is retorical, but i think your point holds a dangerous truth: if other countries deserve access to nuclear weapons, the world likely ends up getting more nuclear weapons. Since there hasn't ever been anything so deterring as nuclear weapons, that might get us closer to world peace. But it might also not.
-
One can argue the reason Iran does not have nukes yet is because of our intervention. Either at the negotiation table or through straight up sabotage.
Ala Suxtnet.
-
I know your question is retorical, but i think your point holds a dangerous truth: if other countries deserve access to nuclear weapons, the world likely ends up getting more nuclear weapons. Since there hasn't ever been anything so deterring as nuclear weapons, that might get us closer to world peace. But it might also not.
We have to accept that even the most responsible country with nuclear weapons might elect a complete idiot some day. Twice, even.
-
One can argue the reason Iran does not have nukes yet is because of our intervention. Either at the negotiation table or through straight up sabotage.
One can argue all sorts of shit, doesn't make it remotely accurate
-
That's not true, they got the same centrifuges as NK which they (and LIbya) bought from Pakistan lol.
Although it also took NK an additional 15-20 years to actually make a usable bomb, so maybe having your nuclear scientists and enrichment plants destroyed every year doesn't really speed up the process.
Either that or Pakistan sold them duds lol
According to who exactly?
-
Real talk.
Is Iran having a nuclear weapon worse then Trump having acces to a nuclear weapon.
Of course i wish these weapons just weren’t but we seem perfectly capable of not using them and comitting succesfull horrors and genocide anyway.
We have come close before but even the bad guys seem aware that these are only usefull in irony as a deterent against ones total destruction.
Is Iran having a nuclear weapon worse then Trump having acces to a nuclear weapon.
that's a dumb questions and I'm gonna be blunt about it
it is clear that the US will not use nukes on a country because of MAD - mutually assured destruction, if they also have nukes then both sides will suffer vast loses, making nukes an unthinkable option. However the extent that MAD would affect Iran's decision making remains unknown, because using suicide bombers isn't a new idea for them.
-
I know your question is retorical, but i think your point holds a dangerous truth: if other countries deserve access to nuclear weapons, the world likely ends up getting more nuclear weapons. Since there hasn't ever been anything so deterring as nuclear weapons, that might get us closer to world peace. But it might also not.
nuclear powers can still have wars between them
think India vs Pakistan
-
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and there's no evidence to suggest they're trying to make nuclear weapons, never was. We've been fearmongering about this since the early 90's at least, it's been 3 decades now, if they wanted nukes they'd have them by now.
average .ml take
IrAn DoEsNt EvEn WaNt NuKeS
