Opening the floodgates will be good news for the region though. If Iraq or Libya had nukes they wouldn't have been bombed and invaded. I don't want to see Iran bombed or invaded. I am from Saudi Arabia, it is in my best interest for Iran to be strong and stable, rival or not, Iran having nukes does that. Of course I also think that Saudi Arabia should have nukes too.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Every country that has nukes means more risk that some loose cannon sets off a nuke. That is why nuclear non-proliferation agreements are so important.

To demonstrate, what if Saddam and Iran had had nukes during the Iran-Iraq War? Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Would he use nukes? I genuinely don't know, the man was apparently a psychopath. Would you actually want someone like that to have nukes?

[–] robinnn@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran and the U.S. helped him. Would you actually want a country like that to have nukes?

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

No, I am arguing against nuclear proliferation. Especially a total psychopath like Saddam Hussein.

[–] robinnn@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I’m arguing the U.S. is no less psychopathic and countries need protection from Western imperialism.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I have heard accounts from people who were in the presence of Saddam Hussein. He was a special type of psychopathic. You could feel you were in the presence of someone dangerous.

[–] robinnn@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It’s like I’m talking to a character in Disco Elysium who has two preprogrammed responses and maybe a third if I forget to wear a shirt. Completely off in your own world huffing nasal spray.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

My sincerest apologies, comrade. You see, I indeed do have a sinus infection and the therapy has involved huffing Flonase.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The only country that ever used them is the US. The only countries that its elected politicians regularly threaten to use them are the US and Israel.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Putin, as part of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, said that if any countries tried to stop Russia, they would face "such consequences that you have never encountered in your history". It's hard to take that two ways.

Also, much of the point isn't who has threatened to use them. The more nuclear weapons material floating around, the more chance that it lands in the hands of someone with no compunctions about actually using it. The Doomsday Clock gets closer to midnight every time another country gets nukes.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Maybe world leaders will finally be pushed towards diplomacy. As far as I see it, the region needs deterrence against foreign aggression. Just look at what Russia did to Ukraine after it gave up its nukes, or what the US did to Iraq and Libya. I don't want that to happen to any other country in the region. Iran, Saudi Arabia and others all have a right to nuclear weapons. Israel already introduced them to the region and they are as fanatical and genocidal as any country can be.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Nukes are an inevitability following sanctions. North Korea was sanctioned to hell and back by major international players before they developed nukes... At that point, they really might as well go all the way. The same is true for Iran, and the same will be true for any upcoming player with nukes.

The weaponization of sanctions for political gain rather than to act as a counterbalance against actual world-ending threats will be the death of us.