G7 leaders: ‘Iran can never have a nuclear weapon’
-
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.
India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.
-
Religious zealots can't be allowed to have nukes. You have to at least masquerade as a well-adjusted nation while you develop the nukes and slowly massage your zealots into positions of power over a few decades. Those are the rules.
The country founded on the idea that "God promised us this land" already has nukes.
-
The west didn't abandon the idea of controlling Iran again for it's oils and for Israel to have free reign in controlling all Palestine and keep expending it's illegal settlements. I am all for a regime change but without foreign intervention for geopolitics reasons .
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Again, you're doing something called US defaultism. The west is not in agreement about Palestine for example. Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening. Neither did other parts of the west planned to control Iran's oil. I'll have to remind you that the initial topic/argument was why Iran/West are on bad terms, not Iran and US.
For me, a European, my hate towards them comes from their continious support towards Russia who's invading checks notes Europe.
-
MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.
India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven't fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
-
The country founded on the idea that "God promised us this land" already has nukes.
God can't seem to get much done without the US Military
-
Israel is the criminal and everyone knows it.
Israel will face the long-term consequences of its reckless behavior. Just not today.
A disturbingly large group think that history started on October 7 2023 and prior to that it was all sunshine and rainbows in the region.
Those people didn't hear about 70ish years of Israeli bullshit on the nightly news so as far as they're concerned it didn't happen.
-
Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.
The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel's right to defend itself.
"Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon," declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.
They pledged to "remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability."
Well Pakistan will give them one if needed so they kind of already have one. Maybe stop pushing them to use it on Israel.
-
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
You're kinda making the point for them
-
Nobody should have nukes, you fucking hypocrites..
Except France and the UK of course.
-
You're kinda making the point for them
wrote on last edited by [email protected]But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"
Some are ready to watch the world burn
-
Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. They were invaded.
Iraq gave up their WMD program after the first Gulf War. They were invaded again.
Iran definitely had a nuclear program, but doesn't appear to be pursuing it anymore. They're getting attacked and quite possibly will get invaded.
South Africa had a nuclear program and gave it up. Left alone.
The Great Powers, particularly the United States but also Russia, have shown that your country should just keep going once you start. Chances are, you'll get invaded, anyway.
This is not the way towards anti-proliferation.
Sweden stopped its nuclear program.
But joined NATO which (in theory) is like having nukes.
-
But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"
Some are ready to watch the world burn
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Who decides which country is "crazy"?!
-
Iran pushes forth October 7 to reignite tensions, training Hamas operatives & such.
I love unfounded conspiracy theories
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Now that isn't a reply I expected considering how well established this particular narrative is in the mainstream.
But here you go, a well sourced academic article on the topic:
-
Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?
The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.
I personally don't want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.
I don't understand how people in the west can believe that.
Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I've talked to did, so ... kinda as it should be.
-
Who decides which country is "crazy"?!
Religion mostly
-
The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.
I personally don't want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.
I don't understand how people in the west can believe that.
Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I've talked to did, so ... kinda as it should be.
Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you're making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.
-
Who decides which country is "crazy"?!
The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.
Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.
Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.
Russians are to blame for their government's actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That's justified by "killing Russia's economy for the war", except Russia's war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia's war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by "punishing Russians and making them change the regime", which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not "punished" this way, they are also the exact group that should be "punished" for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don't have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.
Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin's and Yeltsin's regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.
And it's the same everywhere, if there's an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it's sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It's one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the "neo" prefix.
That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It's a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.
Say, Iran's regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran's appearance of democracy is above what it's "allowed" is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.
... I'd rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey's leadership have to say on what's civilized and what's not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia's ... eh, I've met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.
-
Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you're making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.
School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.
-
What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?
Act like the USA?
-
Again, you're doing something called US defaultism. The west is not in agreement about Palestine for example. Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening. Neither did other parts of the west planned to control Iran's oil. I'll have to remind you that the initial topic/argument was why Iran/West are on bad terms, not Iran and US.
For me, a European, my hate towards them comes from their continious support towards Russia who's invading checks notes Europe.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.
Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening.
Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we're commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what's happening?
As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I'd much rather them be aligned with us but I can't blame them when they've been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.
Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.
Now you may think it's too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you're calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes...
