ListNook

UrbanistTroglodyte 3 days ago +655

International law? Oh yeah I remember that, good times.

655

Loose_Skill6641 3 days ago +216

it's funny when law breakers try to claim they can do X because of law, like laws apply sometimes and sometimes not if you want to do something just do it and be honest why don't try to hide behind "law" while you're breaking other laws

216

Sub-Mongoloid 3 days ago +8

It's almost like fascism creates ingroups that are protected by laws but not bound by them as well as outgroups who the law binds but does not protect.

8

AK_Panda 3 days ago +63

Not just fascism specifically, but any kind of authoritarianism.

63

UrbanistTroglodyte 3 days ago -10

Exactly. We didn't make all those international agreements and treaties for de-escalation and monitoring just so they could change their mind after the US pulled out, bombed them and occupied parts of their country.

-10

aukstais 3 days ago +35

The law is only enforced by power alone. Russia can invade a country, and if China were a leading military power in the world, Europe would be barred from sending weapons and aid. If the USA wouldn't have a fleet near Taiwan, it would already be seazed together with the Philippines. International law has 0 power, the same as the UN. It has to be backed by military power, or else it's just a piece of paper.

35

Fit-Magazine-6669 3 days ago +14

does International law allows murdering thousands of people who were merely protesting? or arming proxies to terrorize other states? no?

14

OtheDreamer 3 days ago +28

They’re correct that it’s non negotiable. Non negotiable that they will ever be allowed nukes.

28

itspronouncedbolonya 2 days ago +1

Do you? What do you remember?

1

UrbanistTroglodyte 2 days ago +1

What do I remember? Well a big one would have to be the 21st night of September.

1

sovietarmyfan 3 days ago +264

The right to protest is also in International law. The right to self-determination is in International law. Freedom of religion is in International law. Dictatorships like to cite International law when it suits them but they never follow 90% of the entire law.

264

Remote-Cause755 3 days ago +58

Right of passage is also an international law

58

theorizable 3 days ago +48

Using proxy militants to kill civilians in a state you don’t like is probably a big no no as well.

48

Efficient_Basis_2139 3 days ago +61

Ah right. What's their opinion on child soldiers and funding international terrorism?

61

DancingDonkeyHehe 3 days ago +453

Executing 30k+ of your citizens and hanging protesters is also not allowed under international law

453

No_Palpitation133 3 days ago +19

But they deserved it Listnook said

19

Choice_Past7399 3 days ago +208

They are pretty interested in enrichment, considering they claim no interest in weaponizing it. They are an oil producing country, that generates almost no nuclear power.

208

abellapa 3 days ago +28

They claim Yeah sure i believe the terrorists You dont need 60% enrich uranium for Anything else other than Nukes

28

VironicHero 3 days ago +72

The US and Russia have shown in the last decade that the only deterrent is nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up their nukes for security assurances from the US and Russia. How’s that going? Iran signed a deal to allow in foreign inspectors to its nuclear program and not enrich beyond a certain capacity that could lead from a civil nuclear program to a military program. Trump tore up that agreement in his first administration. Then invaded against the advice of like 40 years of US intel. Every country in the world is going to go after nukes now, because all it takes is Americans electing one unhinged game show host.

72

Ionic_liquids 3 days ago +22

The deterrent argument is what makes North Korea such a tragedy. The deterrent is only relevant to the power in question. If that power is is a democracy, the deterrent protects the people. If the power is a dictatorship, the deterrent only protects the dictatorship, and puts the people in the worst possible position imaginable.

22

Unfair_Salamander_20 3 days ago +9

Having nuclear weapons might be a deterrent, but pursuing nuclear weapons is the opposite of a deterrent. It's an invitation to be attacked by the US.

9

Just_Advertising_657 3 days ago +29

A society who respects suicide bombers shouldn't be allowed to have fissile material at all, under any circumstances. I'll use Anthrax as an example even though it isn't nuclear: A 5kg package of white powder(anthrax) walked across the border by one man, dumped at the top of a skyscraper in Austin, TX, would kill 500,000 people over the course of 3 weeks. It would also kill the attacker, who would go to heaven and get 42 wives for it. Now tell me suicide bombers have a right to Anthrax development. I'll wait patiently for your reply. I suppose 5kg of white powder would NEVER be able to get across the southern border? Oh, wait.

29

quickwit87 2 days ago +11

This is listnook, you will get people defending Iran because Orange man bad. I would much rather the US be the ones with the bombs then Iran.

11

Weak_Syllabub_7994 3 days ago +11

>The US and Russia have shown in the last decade that the only deterrent is nuclear weapons. This is exactly why all conflict between India and Pakistan stopped once both countries gained nuclear weapons, exactly zero military conflicts between the two since. /S

11

darkkilla123 3 days ago +11

Its also the reason why the conflict between Pakistan and India have not escalated beyond what is essentially border skirmishes. Nether country wants a full blown war because they both would lose once nukes start to fly

11

Drak_is_Right 3 days ago +4

Also the single biggest risk of a limited nuclear winter.

4

SnooOpinions8790 2 days ago +2

That was always true and is the whole reason for the non proliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory A nation attempting to violate that treaty has two possible responses 1. Stop them by any available means 2. Give up on the treaty The treaty is one of the most important we have, widespread proliferation would be a genuine risk to the entirety of human life. That's why we have the treaty Enriching to 60% is absolutely attempting to make nuclear weapons, 60% enriched uranium has no civil use - it would be wildly dangerous in a civil reactor

2

Orlonz 3 days ago +9

There is a pretty big gap between enrichment to medical & power grade and enrichment to weapons grade. They were willing to forgo the latter with inspectors from the EU validating so in the last deal. And stuck to most of their end in the few months before Trump pulled the US out. That basically hardened their stance on the topic.

9

KouhaiHasNoticed 3 days ago +36

>There is a pretty big gap between enrichment to medical & power grade and enrichment to weapons grade. Not really. IIRC going from a few percents to 20% (as they got to under Obama) is quite tedious. But after that the whole process becomes way easier, it is not linear. >They were willing to forgo the latter with inspectors from the EU validating so in the last deal. And stuck to most of their end in the few months before Trump pulled the US out. That basically hardened their stance on the topic. Sadly yes, Obama did the right thing at that time. Although, it was already quite tense back in 2015 because 20% is quite a milestone.

36

qTp_Meteor 3 days ago +20

You are right. You are 95% done when you reach 60% of enrichment (which they have half a ton of), reaching 20% takes roughly 45% of the SWU

20

Next_Instruction_528 3 days ago +58

>They were willing to forgo the latter with inspectors from the EU validating so in the last deal. They didn't even follow the Obama deal. There is no legitimate reason Iran needs to enrich urainum. They have more energy than almost every country in the world. They can buy solar they can buy already enriched uranium if they want nuke power plants but they never would because it makes no sense. In reports released in 2016 and 2017, German intelligence highlighted the following: Quantitative Increase: The 2016 report noted that Iran’s "clandestine" procurement activities remained at a "quantitatively high level" even after the deal was signed. Targeting Nuclear Tech: In 2015 alone (the year the deal was finalized), North Rhine-Westphalia’s intelligence agency recorded 141 attempts by Iran to obtain technology for proliferation purposes. Roughly 90% of these were linked to nuclear or missile programs.

58

Crypt33x 3 days ago +22

And had a doomsday clock till the total annihilation of Israel. Let's not lie to ourselves about it.

22

zapreon 3 days ago +87

As if Iran cares about international law lmao

87

Dark_World_Blues 3 days ago +212

They only believe in international law when it benefits them, but otherwise the international law doesn't exist.

212

Doppler74 3 days ago +174

So, they are like almost every country in the world?

174

Hot-Delay5608 3 days ago -24

Not every other country in the world wants to produce nuclear weapons and has the destruction of another independent country as their main foreign policy objective. Iran is quite alone in that club

-24

IShitMyselfNow 3 days ago +22

Israel?

22

JesusWasMetro 3 days ago -4

[It's not like the current ruling party of Israel has "from the river to the sea" as one of their founding principles...](https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party)

-4

DaEccentric 3 days ago

So NOW you choose to take offense at "from the river to the sea", as if that wasn't the slogan of the Palestinians since 1960?

0

markpb 3 days ago +21

I dunno, the US seems to fit those criteria pretty well. Nuclear weapons and a leader who promised to destroy another country? Russia also fits those criteria too.

21

joecitizen79 3 days ago +2

Im sure they were talking about the US breaking international law. Because it does, frequently.

2

TheLandOfConfusion 3 days ago +1

Uh do we know that for sure? I know western media only covers specific conflicts but there are several actual genocides going on in the world right now, why do you think iran is the only country in the world that wants to destroy another country and would love to get their hands on a nuke to do so?

1

Dark_World_Blues 3 days ago +1

I agree with you on IRGC's objectives.

1

honuworld 3 days ago +1

Thanks, Orel.

1

mikerbt 3 days ago +54

They being all parties involved?

54

Desperate-Custard355 3 days ago +26

we don't see the US leading by example

26

dosedatwer 3 days ago +5

Only one party involved has vowed to invade the Hague if any of it's citizens are detained for international crimes.

5

Grow_away_420 3 days ago +13

So every country?

13

dickhouse__ 3 days ago +166

Radical Islamists shouldn’t get to have a nuclear bomb or anything remotely close to it, i agree with america there.

166

_BryndenRiversBR 3 days ago +3

Then US should stop helping Pakistan in that case.

3

DirectJob7575 3 days ago +25

Unfortunately the ship has sailed in that regard.

25

YourAverageExecutive 3 days ago +35

Already have one. Games over there. Now it’s maintain it. If ANYONE thinks current global powers shouldn’t be shutting down countries trying to develop nukes, you are a terrible human being. We should have no countries with a nuclear arsenal. This “they have it so everyone should” is an insane logical premise that leads to a world with nuclear bombs being dropped in the future. Shame on you.

35

crispdude 3 days ago -36

Radical imperialists should though

-36

TheFragturedNerd 3 days ago +24

Just because some countries made a bunch before and proven to not use them, doesn't mean we should let more countries have world ending weapons... Especially not one that has been shown to be willing to "die for god" Aka "die in the glory of a figmentation of the human mind"

24

kblkbl165 3 days ago +13

Hasn’t the US used it?

13

grixos 3 days ago +6

What law again?

6

torina-to 3 days ago +8

International law isn't real, unfortunately - or else North Korea would get to tell us what haircuts are legal

8

DrawingDramatic1641 2 days ago +1

Hate nk but you can't get Kim's cut But others are pretty dope why would you get Kim's cut when it's awful Who even tried it

1

empowered676 3 days ago +108

Is killing thousands of your own people under international law, and charging 2 mill to cross the Strait all under international law?

108

thatguy425 3 days ago +8

Is it recruiting 12-year-olds into your army Also I against international law?

8

Free-Initiative7508 3 days ago +10

Executing ur own citizens is though

10

HarEr89 3 days ago +7

Every day the same barking.

7

Stepfordhusband69 3 days ago +6

I see where Hamas go their playbook from

6

didnt-ask-but-ok 2 days ago +7

F*** Iran

7

manhothepooh 3 days ago +10

Just forget about the international laws. There is no such thing as laws unless someone is there to enforce it. and when someone (the America) tries to enforce the international laws, they are accused of breaking the international laws. yes you can do economic sanctions to the countries breaking the law. but it will always be the people suffering instead of the leaders. P.S. The same also applies to national laws. That's why there are no-law zones in countries where the police/army have no presence and cartels/gangs/whoever-got-the-weapons are controlling the area.

10

Metasenodvor 3 days ago +4

the same US that disregards international law when it suits it?

4

lonigus 3 days ago +13

Its delusional thinking Iran will give up its nuclear program looking at how North korea is enjoying its untouched regime bubble because of nukes. If think is gonna end up with a deal Trump makes which is gonna be basically the same Obama had its gonna end in a disaster in the midterms pretty much ending MAGA. He completely burried his ass in a hole he cant get out now. His last hope is China now.

13

SomeoneSimple 3 days ago +29

> North korea is enjoying its untouched regime NK is bothering its neighbor by floating poop-balloons over the border. Iran is supplying thousands of rockets and the largest ballistic missiles they could possibly hide in commercial shipping to Yemen and Hezbollah to bother its neighbor. There is a difference.

29

doc5avag3 3 days ago +9

North Korea also has China's hand directly on it's neck in case they misbehave.

9

Kharenis 3 days ago +7

NK also has enough of a conventional arsenal within range of Seoul to level it. South Korea was always going to favour dealing with the occasional poop balloons over potentially having their capital destroyed.

7

BrainboxExpander 3 days ago +3

Except they can never do anything because their security guarantee is China, and China said they won't step in if they start anything.

3

Boo_and_Minsc_ 3 days ago +1

Israel has nukes as well. They do what they want.

1

blastmemer 3 days ago +32

NK is generally leaving everyone alone, not funding terror around the world. If they fucked around like Iran/Russia, they’d be bombed too.

32

polemism 3 days ago +8

Nuclear doesn't make you untouchable. Look at Ukraine bombing Moscow.

8

tropango 3 days ago +1

Nuclear doesn't make you untouchable, but it is what remains if you couldn't defeat your opponent militarily. Like conventional forces in a straight up fight, you may be outgunned, outnumbered, and surrounded, but if you have nukes, they'll think twice before attacking you. Iran knows they cannot defeat the US or Israel head on. Hence the asymmetric warfare in attacking its neighbours and closing the straight. Nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent. They're crazy terrorists after all. Who's to say they won't use nukes if they had them?

1

OffbeatDrizzle 3 days ago +1

...Russia started it? And Ukraine isn't intense enough for them to put nukes on the table. also Ukraine is not pushing deep into Russian territory... a nuke is overkill

1

ChickenSoup131 3 days ago +17

If north korea yell death to and fund terrorists in SK or jpan. It would receive iran treament. Right now their mischief is only Kim's saber rattling

17

Quickjager 3 days ago +2

Using North Korea as an example when they have threatened half of South Korea's population with artillery for 60+ years shows a lack knowledge.

2

stogie_t 3 days ago +1

They have far more leverage now, the deal is going to be worse than Obama’s.

1

ceapaire 2 days ago +1

China's support/backing of NK is a larger reason. That's also the reason they're relatively peaceful with their neighbors.

1

TonyTheTerrible 3 days ago +12

There's no reality where the world would allow another nuclear power, especially not an extremist country like Iran. This is just part of the bargaining process for IR, they want to claim a few hundred billion in damages and the right to nuclear enrichment then negotiate down to tolls on the strait and other provisions

12

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +4

I'm not here to bat for Iran, it's clearly a terrible regime. But just for the record, North Korea was allowed to gain nuclear weapons and they seem like just as much of an extremist country. Not sure the rhetoric why it is no big news for one and totally impossible for the other.

4

jews4beer 3 days ago +27

"Allowed" is a stretch. If anything NK is (more) proof that the JCPOA was toothless. They were under non-proliferation deals and even gifted means of enrichment so long as they were civilian purposes only. They went ahead and made nukes regardless and got condemed for it. Now you have a belligerent nation with a horendous human rights record that no one can touch because nukes. That shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

27

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +7

Seems to me like having nuclear weapons is a solid deterrent in that case. Maybe everybody who doesn't want to be invaded should get one. If the conflict in Ukraine has taught us anything it is that a minor nation can not depend on the US nuclear umbrella to protect it, and we all need to have our own deterance. De Gaulle was right. And if every country is getting it's own deterrence, isn't choosing for ourselves what country has that right and what ones don't kind of self serving? This is the exact kind if hypocrisy that places like Iran accuse us of.

7

HelloYesItsMeYourMom 3 days ago +6

You’re right, they should. Unfortunately they can’t because someone will invade them to stop them first. Too bad for them. Why should anyone want an Islamic theocracy to have nukes? Because you don’t want to be a hypocrite? lol okay

6

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +2

So that is it then? Everybody should have nuclear deterrence, everybody wants it, everybody needs it, and everybody has a right to it. Except we live in a world of might makes right, and the USA, being the mightiest, will pick and choose who gets to defend themselves and who can eat dirt. Doesn't that validate everything that they say about us? Doesn't that expose our hypocrisy?

2

HelloYesItsMeYourMom 3 days ago +1

Yes that’s exactly how this works. Don’t like it? Make your country stronger. I’d rather be called a hypocrite then let an Islamic theocracy have a nuke.

1

Ko_tatsu 2 days ago +1

But there is a clear way to make your country stronger...

1

WiredEarp 3 days ago -1

I have no more problem with an Islamic theocracy having nukes than I do with Pakistan, India or Israel having nukes. The issue should be whether a government is likely to *use* nukes, and has shown signs of belligerence, not their governmental structure and religion.

-1

sneakysssnek 3 days ago +19

NK is definitely not a sane or safe country, but they are not on the same plane of existence as Iran. The ruling regime in Iran believes and operates by the religious zealotry that says destroying all other religions and their followers is mandatory as they are all infidels. Iran can never have a weapon capable of achieving just that.

19

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +6

Ok but North Korea regularly threatens to use their WMDs to destroy all western civilization. I think they have just as much capacity to hate as the Iranians. I really do not see a difference in the levels of extreme zealotry and violence between the two places. In fact I'm sure to the people of Seoul who are within the range of NK artillery and often threatened, NK seems much worse. And in the eyes of the Ukrainians trying to defend their homeland who have had to deal with North Korean infantry, they might be thinking that at least Iran isn't sending soldiers as part of a hostile invasion. Once again, f*** Iran and their government, I have no love for them at all, but is there a consistent argument here why we are so against one and just don't care for a second about the other?

6

sneakysssnek 3 days ago +13

I’m not here to cheer on NK or anything, but have you ever actually studied the difference between Iran and NK? The current (or former?) leadership in Iran wants to destroy all life that doesn’t follow their interpretation of their religion. There are public countdown clocks to the end of life for Israel for example (I’m not an Israel shill). They arm and support terrorist militias in several countries that attack civilians that aren’t living in line with their religion. North Korea wants to be recognized and accepted globally as a powerful dictatorship. They do not want to conquer the world, nor do they want to reclaim the southern half of Korea. They are brutal and awful to their people also, but aside from threats to countries that meddle in their affairs, they aren’t seeking to murder all other cultures and belief systems. That’s the fundamental difference. There’s plenty of nuance, but it’s the answer to your question about why the world is firmly against Iran having nuclear weapons. North Korea isn’t exporting nukes to small terrorist armies. Iran would in a heartbeat.

13

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +4

Are you sure about that first statement? What if that is just propaganda? How would we know? See it occurs to me that if Iran wanted to destroy all life that doesn't follow their religion, they would start within their own country. They would murder anybody following a different faith that is within their borders and has no protection. But I just googled it and apparently a group called GAMAAN did the numbers for this back in 2023 and only 37.9% are even shia Muslims. There is a wide range of other faiths represented. So why, if what you say is true, do these groups exist?

4

PilotArtist 3 days ago +4

China is NK's saving grace. China doesn't want US forces butted right up to their border. They keep NK in check, in power because of this and the fact neither the US or China want the millions of impoverished NK's coming over their borders and dealing with them.

4

Digi59404 3 days ago +6

“I really do not see a difference between the levels of zealotry and violence of these two places” - Paraphrased. Then that’s a you problem. North Korea has nukes for their defense and to keep the Kim Regime in power to make money and control their people. While Iran and NKs rhetoric may be similar. Their actions are not. NK has people pose as IT staffers to make the Kim’s rich, Iran straps bombs to children and blows up its neighboring countries. While NK does lots of terrible horrific things - It does so to its own people. The Iran Regime does it to all of its neighbors. There’s a huge difference there. Put another way; violence sucks all across the board. But if my neighbor beats his kids, I’ll call the cops and that’s on their hands. If my neighbor breaks into my house and beats my kids, I’ll be calling the coroner.

6

Engineerofdata 3 days ago +4

The difference is that another nuclear country says North Korea should exist. Blame China for North Korea having nukes. Iran doesn’t have that nicety. North Korea also somewhat has to listen to China, it’s a puppet state at the end of the day. Iran is ,more or less, fully autonomous. That’s the big issue. Now we can argue all day about how rules should be applied equally. However, the real question is how you pick your poison? Do you want a government who actively destabilises the local area to have more power to do that, or do you want “short term” suffering to achieve long term stability, hopefully? Both options are completely valid and based on how you view the situation.

4

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +1

So if China said that Iran has a right to exist, then it makes it ok? We are all golden as long as some super power comes along and puts the country in question into its sphere of power? This sounds like a return to colonialism with extra steps.

1

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +2

No. You are wrong. North Korea is currently actively involved in a conflict with Ukraine, sending active combatants. I'm not entertaining any argument that states that NK is actually a pacifist state when they are clearly capable of extreme violence against their own people and others.

2

Digi59404 3 days ago +7

North Korea is not “actively involved” with that you are incorrect. North Korea exports its labor to Russia, including soldiers. It’s happened for decades. In addition North Korea uses its factories to sell Russia munitions. Selling solders as human trafficking is not the same as deploying soldiers. The North Koreans in Russia are integrated with Russian units and under Russian command. They’re not under North Korean control. Big difference. That’s not the same thing as being an expansionist state. It’s not the same thing as being in an active war yourself against another nation. If it was; the US would be at war everywhere. As US Soldiers are everywhere, and they sell weapons to every western aligned country. Is the US at war in Africa because they have bases there, train some military factions, and arm them? If the US at war when we sold Ukraine weapons and sent SF/NATO Officers there to learn/train? No. The argument is not that NK is pacifist. The argument is that NK is a hermit kingdom who wants to be left alone. While Iran wants to control all of the Arab/Islamic world. Big difference.

7

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +3

"If it was; the US would be at war everywhere." Interesting statement to make about the country with the largest military budget in the world.

3

Digi59404 3 days ago +6

Yes, the largest military budget in the world. Thank God for that otherwise Ukraine would have lost the war with Russia within the first year. Thankfully the US has a large budget to do R&D on weapons systems, otherwise Europe might be a way less calm place. As would the Asia-Pacific region.

6

PilotArtist 3 days ago +1

>I'm not entertaining any argument that states that NK is actually a pacifist state Lol, who is saying that?

1

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +3

The comment that I was replying to implied that NK kept all its disdainful activities internally, which is just fundamentally not true.

3

themathmajician 3 days ago +2

You can't really compare what the two have done internationally.

2

missurunha 3 days ago +3

Why is North Korea so extremist? Do they fund terrorism abroad?

3

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +8

Yes, especially against South Korea. They literally pay cells to do assassinations and kidnappings! When did everybody forget that NK are literally terrorists?

8

Javimoran 3 days ago +3

>When did everybody forget that NK are literally terrorists? The moment that they got nukes...

3

RadiumJuly 3 days ago +2

It's almost like we are explicitly incentivizing rogue nations to get nuclear weapons by excusing their behavior the moment they have them.

2

balooaroos 3 days ago +3

Someday it will become too easy to build nuclear weapons to be something that can be contained anymore, but for the time being yeah, nobody wants Iran of all places to have them.

3

Digi59404 3 days ago +11

No it won’t. Nuclear bombs are easy, you take this dirty irradiated part, and shove it into that irradiated part really fast. Then boom. The problem is getting the enriched uranium. That’s the part that’s difficult and takes time. It’s a known quantity, but it’s hard because of the time, resources, and scarcity of resources. That’s a physics problem.

11

Complex-Flight-3358 3 days ago

Is it THAT hard though? We been hearing about Iran's nuclear threat since like the 90s, and it's 2026 now. Like yeah there was stuxnet, and there are bunker buster bombs. But I doubt you really need like 25-30 years to enrich enough uranium for a single weapon. It's either bogus like Saddam's WMDs, or Iran didn't REALLY want to develop nuclear arms (They sure will now though) or something somewhere in the middle...

0

AzureDrag0n1 3 days ago +9

Not too hard to enrich uranium. It is quite hard to get weapons grade enriched uranium. Anyway discussions on this topic are rather pointless here as nobody really has an understanding of what Iran is negotiating for and what people think they are negotiating for since most people don't understand nuclear physics.

9

PilotArtist 3 days ago +4

North Korea's apparently been able to develop around 10 while arguably under harsher sanctions than Iran and anywhere else for that matter. Where there's a will there's a way apparently.

4

WiredEarp 3 days ago +2

I dunno, we already got India, Israel, Pakistan, NK. The concept that somehow we are going to stop proliferation *starting now* seems a bit optimistic.

2

Loose_Skill6641 3 days ago +3

nope

3

DateMasamusubi 3 days ago +6

That isn't going to fly per Nuclear Domino Theory.

6

MachineDog90 3 days ago +4

Ok, civilian nuclear energy yes, but how about no nuclear weapons and everyone just stop acting like fundamentalist religions nations, this is for all religions and beliefs.

4

stonertear 3 days ago +3

It is when you plan on making nuclear bombs with it - and you are crazy enough to use them on Israel.

3

[deleted] 3 days ago -14

[deleted]

-14

Exotic_Zucchini9311 3 days ago +10

Ah sure. Let's give Iran nuclear bombs then. Solid logic.

10

F4ntasticPants 3 days ago +10

Countries with nuclear bombs should tell others they can't have them *precisely because* they have nuclear bombs. Adding shit to a shit bucket is never good for anyone.

10

Onedweezy 3 days ago +14

Tell that to Ukraine who regret not getting nuclear bombs. It's literally the only deterrent left.

14

F4ntasticPants 3 days ago +3

Ukraine didn't "not get them". They had them, and chose to give them away.

3

Onedweezy 3 days ago +5

Even worse!

5

markpb 3 days ago +4

Those chose to give them away in return for protection that the US subsequently reneged on.

4

Kharenis 3 days ago +4

>Those chose to give them away in return for protection that the US subsequently reneged on. You seem to be missing a rather important country in that statement.

4

DEWSTAR 3 days ago +1

>Seek immediate [Security Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council) action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) There is nothing that says "protection". Just that the UK, US and/Or Russia would put in a request.

1

[deleted] 3 days ago

[deleted]

0

IVD1 3 days ago +4

Americans (and everyone who listen to their bs) are told to believe that is the case their entire lives. Is that surprising that people genuinely believe that to be true? At this point, it is not even a "gotya!" situation, but full indoctrinarion at play - the kind they say they fear others are doing to them and their children - but they are unable to perceive they have abandoned critical thinking on the matter.

4

Blah_McBlah_ 3 days ago +3

Maybe if you don't want Iran enriching uranium or making nuclear weapons, don't make it a policy where it's the better choice. With just Trumps administrations, they ripped up the nuclear deal, bombed Iran multiple times, ignored Ukraine's pleas for help (Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for security garentees from Russia and the USA), captured Maruro, and the soon to be invasion of Cuba. And if we go to past administrations, like the 2nd Gulf War. All the while, nuclear capable North Korea sits unattacked. Iran's best policy will be to enrich uranium (or breed plutonium, but that doesn't seem to be part of the conversation). It's every middle-power's best interest to do the same. However, no one wants to be the first to break the stigma. But once one does, I expect a dozen more nuclear powers.

3

General_windu 3 days ago

America cannot continue to dictate the Middle East, especially when aggressively opportunistic nations like Israel are so close.

0

Totoques22 3 days ago +4

Nonsense Iran is the opportunist agressive nation here and that’s why everybody else in the Middle East wants them to not have nukes

4

Kharenis 3 days ago +9

Yep, there's a reason why nations across the Middle East have been normalising relations with Israel, but not Iran.

9

Unicorn_Colombo 3 days ago

Iran says one thing, bunker buster bomb another. Who are we gonna believe?

0

Ro-ftw 3 days ago

Wasting time negotiating and playing games with a braindead cancer regime with a fucked up Islamic extremist agenda. It was alot more impactful when their top guys were getting obliterated every other hour. But this time there's no need to spare the reformists or less radicals or whatever - just hunt the whole lot until they run out or run away eventually. All they're doing is wasting time hoping for Western pressure to stop the war or Trump's term to end.

0

Ultra_Metal 3 days ago +1

The Islamic Republic regime doesn't even have the right to exist due to being an illegitimate dictatorship that most of the Iranian people hate. If the regime doesn't have the right to exist, it doesn't have the right to enrich uranium or do anything else for that matter. That illegitimate, evil regime that massacred tens of thousands of people in January needs to be removed from power for its crimes against humanity.

1

Hi-archy 3 days ago +1

I cant tell if there’s bots here or just racists lol

1

waterbed87 3 days ago +1

I’m shocked ripping up an agreement, sanctioning them and then dropping bombs on them has not totally swayed their opinion on nuclear weapons. The Iran regime is awful for many reasons but make no mistake they obviously want nuclear weapons as deterrents and not to actually use offensively no matter what U.S. propaganda wants people to believe they are gonna go on offense. They aren’t stupid, they’d be obliterated by half the world overnight, they just want the United States and Israel to piss off and terrible as they are from a human rights perspectiveI can’t exactly blame them.

1

Iran says nuclear enrichment rights non negotiable under international law

💬 Send a Message

138 Comments