Quote (thesnipa @ 15 May 2019 22:32)
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.
wait, wait, wait... you're now reframing the conversation to focus on the period in which they are DEVELOPING nukes, about the time they don't have them yet, but actively pursue building them.
i was talking about the reason they want to HAVE them - and that makes much more sense in the context of our conversation, not only because you asked if i wanted them to HAVE nukes, but also when you look at my argument concerning the countries that have been the targets of american military aggression: the distinction was clearly about having and not having nuclear weapons.
to entertain that first scenario, i'd entirely agree with you - i mean it's quite obvious that this has been the strategy all along: fearmonger about iran developing / completing their nuclear weapons program and using that to justify military action. yes, that would most definitely make them LESS safe - until they succeeded (btw, american and israeli warmongers strongly disagree with your evaluation of their chances, remember bibi's cartoon bomb?). that, however, was not what my point was about, i was quite clearly talking about the point where they HAVE it, in which case i maintain it would make such interference considerably more unlikely.
and just to anticipate the next predictable pivot: even though i really don't want them to have nukes, that does NOT mean i consider it a valid or reasonable ground to militarily intervene, should they actually try developing them. not only because i share your views on their likely capabilities to do so, but also because i think that their public announcements are basically their only political leverage against the crushing sanctions. your current administration has unmistakenly signaled to them that diplomacy and compromise, complying with a deal that effectively halted their nuclear weapons program and was regarded as a serious diplomatic achievement (strongly opposed by iranian hardliners for conceding too much btw. their negotiators received death threats over it - just in case you subscribe to the simplistic 'the deal just wasn't good enough, therefore it was smart to break it and stop negotiations), won't get them anywhere. america will just withdraw and even increase the sanctions.
i mean, you could say that america 'successfully' maneuvered them into a position where they can spin a flimsy 'bad guy' narrative, trying to generate support for a war, but anyone buying that would have to be incredibly gullible not to see what's really going on there.