No man, it is you who started off with a strawman argument. Here is the full discussion:




General antagonism and talk about wanting to destroy one's foes does not automatically imply that you need to act like a rabid dog, hell bent on killing negligible amounts of civilians by any means necessary, even if you can only "accomplish" that in short-sighted, self-defeating fashion. And hence, a lack of such short-sighted action (Iran not using its chemical weapons to attack Israel) does not disprove their genocidal hatred and intent against Israel.

Simply put, the Iranian leadership are no fools, they know that using their chemical weapons would not really make a dent, but cost them tons of PR on the global stage and give Israel and the US the justification to completely kick their shit in. Nukes are fundamentally different because getting just one of them to detonate in a major Israeli city would not only kill far more Israelis than a chemical WMD ever could, it would also make parts of Israel's limited settlement area uninhabitable for decades.

Which brings me back to my wider point that nukes would be a far stronger deterrent than chemical WMDs, and that the Iranian regime can't be trusted with them.



-----------------------



And yes, I stand by calling you out for projection when you write stuff like this:




This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 21 2025 08:00am

You are lying whether intentionally or not. The mass boycotts around the world have nothing to do with you personally.. like how self centered are you? They've affected many corporations that support Israel, so much so that, again, I'm gonna repeat myself: American lawmakers are attempting to make it illegal to boycott Israel.

You fail to understand Israel isn't just your little bubble. Your country affects many others. Including my own. (Always in negative ways by the way)

In fact your hubris and nonchalant attitude towards it all is further proof that Israel are not the victims whether it be against Gaza or against Iran, or anywhere else.

Nobody buys your bull.

Ultimately, Israel has carried out attacks on Palestinians and its neighbors for the last 7 decades. There was an Oct 6th before Oct 7th. It is Israel that has gone to war, if you want to call it a war, against Gaza, while dramatically increasing its settlements in the West Bank. Israel is the invader. In tandem with this Israel has bombed Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and now Iran. Ever it is disproportionate, which is in keeping with its military doctrine. My argument is that Iran has had the means to attack Israel, for quite some time, but has refused to do so, instead relying on its terror funding against Israel (which to be clear I do not condone). Your argument re: chemical weapons vs Nukes is inconsistent. The claim that Iran is “rational” enough to avoid using chemical weapons because it would be self-defeating, damaging its global image and inviting retaliation, but might nevertheless use nuclear weapons, is not logical.

Another double post, apologies.

This is a purely logic exercise exploring how context and existential threats can shift what decisions are considered “logical.” It is not an endorsement or justification of any action, especially not the use of nuclear weapons. The goal is to understand how logic adapts to circumstances, not to promote violence. This exercise was developed in conversation with ChatGPT, an AI language model, to explore the boundaries of strategic logic. (Don’t worry, no AI were harmed in the making of this logic exercise)

Initial Question: Is it logical, under any circumstances, for a non-nuclear country to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed country?
Initial Answer: No.

Logic Sequence:

If a nuclear-armed country attacks a non-nuclear country, is it logical for the non-nuclear country to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
→ Answer: Yes

If a nuclear-armed country bombs a non-nuclear country with the goal of destroying it, should the non-nuclear country passively allow its own destruction?
→ Answer: No

If a nuclear-armed country refuses to negotiate and demands unconditional surrender, should the non-nuclear country comply, knowing it will lose its sovereignty and cultural identity?
→ Answer: No

If a non-nuclear country possesses weapons of mass destruction but chooses not to use them, does that suggest restraint and rationality?
→ Answer: Yes

If a neighboring non-nuclear country has already been destroyed beyond recovery by a nuclear-armed country, is it reasonable for the remaining non-nuclear country to view similar threats as existential?
→ Answer: Yes

If the nuclear-armed country played a key role in instigating wars and pursues regime change against the non-nuclear country, is it fair to say the non-nuclear country perceives this as an existential threat?
→ Answer: Yes

If the nuclear-armed country is engaged in actions erasing the cultural identity of peoples in contested territories, does that increase the perception among adversaries that the nuclear-armed country seeks dominance through elimination?
→ Answer: Yes

If the non-nuclear country faces sanctions, isolation, and no meaningful support from other great powers, while the nuclear-armed country receives backing from a powerful bloc, does the non-nuclear country have any true allies?
→ Answer: No

If a non-nuclear country is under decades of sanctions, isolated, and facing total destruction from a nuclear-armed country, is it reasonable to say the non-nuclear country has nothing left to lose?
→ Answer: Yes

Final Question:

Is it logical, under any circumstances, for a non-nuclear country to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed country?
Final Answer: Yes.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 21 2025 09:11am

I am sorry to hear that you are miserable thats not my problem
Tho

As of today the US has deployed its B2 bombers, heading towards Iran. So here we go.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/american-b-2-stealth-bombers-deploy-amid-iran-tensions/
https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/iran-war-us-deploys-b2-stealth-bombers-nuclear-diego-garcia-donald-trump
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/6-united-states-b2-stealth-bombers-appear-headed-towards-guam

Will you be the first on this forum to construct a counter argument?

poor people of Iran

unlike their regime the US and Israel wont target civilians there