Quote (fender @ May 15 2019 03:20pm)
your attempt to maintain your typical little smear attempt, while ignoring how idiotic it is in this context (like most of the time you use it)? sure.
oh so your whole point was that my statement explaining why i understand iran's arguably single most important reason to want nukes, pointing to historical evidence to support that logic, does NOT entirely explain their whole rationale (which you will find is a strawman introduced to find something to argue about anyway, no one actually claimed or suggested that), the reasons it might not lead to the intended result (immediately or even in the long run), and every detail in world history that could be used to discredit this generally applicable, but obviously not law of nature-like 'rule'? sure, i'll happily give you that. just don't act like the blanket statements you reply with (e.g. 'the opposite is true') debunked it, or that it wasn't blatantly obvious who addressed whom just to argue...
that bolded part is a gross oversimplification of my entire point.
to put it shortly i think Iran actively trying to create a nuke or even if they succeeded (highly unlikely imo) would make them less safe. it would make them more likely to get invaded. you seem to think the opposite. i can see that perspective, in some specific cases (i.e. NK, Iran, and USSR) nukes have played a role in them not being invaded. but even in those specific cases I contend that nukes are one motivation among many. or more specifically that the presence or lack of nukes didn't specifically change the status quo of the US motivation. NK is a perfect example, we wanted to invade them and oust the Kims pre-nukes, and post-nukes we still did. and in both cases we couldnt invade because of the heavy artillery pointed directly at Seoul. we wanted to invade them MORE once they got nukes tho, that's a notable change.
i would say that having nukes, if they could come into existence out of thin air, makes you less likely to get invaded. but time is linear and the development stage is so much danger of invasion that it might not be worth the risk. in the case of Iran i don't think it is worth the risk to them, they feel differently. that's fine, i'm gauging what the chances are they get invaded by developing or not developing nukes. on that front we seem in agreement, that the US has a hate boner for Iran and nukes are only a small part of their excuse to oppose them.
really overall we have very little precedent for a situation like Irans, part of the reason i find you brisk dismissal with "history says otherwise" so inadequate. NK is differernt from a political, geographical, and historical standpoint. USSR was never really invade-able due to being the US's relative equal and the mutually assured destruction that nuclear war would have led to. Pakistan is the most similar, especially given India's issues with them being similar to the Iran/Saudi Conflict. The only differences that I think are notable is 1, they had nukes when we would have wanted to invade them and 2, its a Hindu-Muslim conflict rather than an intra-Islamic conflict.
i didn't try to argue with you over something fruitless, i simply disagree that developing nukes is a safe course (if that's what you think). and in this context given how long they'll need to develop them and the whole world watching, i think Iran will not realistically be allowed to develop. they are assuring their own invasion. we could discuss whether that could be calculated in an attempt to spark their allies into a holy war, but i think the presence of the Sauds in any eventual conflict makes that conversation unnecessary.
This post was edited by thesnipa on May 15 2019 03:35pm