A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
take your pick
Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.
The world ends because a bunch of elderly white dudes want to measure dicks. Yay!
Pretty simple. Currently not all nations have nukes, out of those who have, a few have enough to completely destroy a rival nation. This means that the nations with the big nuke stocks are the ones calling the shots as to who should have nukes and how much. Iran being mostly against the US is not allowed nukes, Israel being mostly a US ally is allowed nukes.
This is the unpolitical explanation.
we really should have some deal to allow Iran to have access to nuclear power under supervision
We used to have that, Trump 45 ripped it up.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
with extinction technology, i don't know what the answer is. i think you either need a high level of trust and cooperation between all wielding parties which never goes away, or you need a singular world government which has no reason to arm itself with such a thing.
the stalemate situation where all enemies have a gun to point at one another so that nobody fires a shot is crazy. that can't be the solution.
Yeah after ukraine, i don't think anyobe else will ever make that mistake again.
Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It's best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran's allies aren't exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.
best to keep the number low
Yeah it would be cool if Ukraine was a positive example of what happens when you surrender your nuclear weapons.
How about we all just agree to glass any religious fanatics, especially ethnostates, that get their hands on the things?
That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can't stop bullying everyone else.
the conventional wisdom checks out to me. Sometimes bullies happen to be right.
In an oligarchy, corporate media is state media.
We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it's what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.
The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They're a destabilizing force because they're an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren't actually fixed; they're in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel's MO is to:
Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there's no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they'll be next under the Israeli boot, and they'll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.
Israel is out of control. It's an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they're able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.
Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn't be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel's endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, "no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You're not taking one more square meter of land."
As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn't seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don't have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That's how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.
I'm not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn't really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don't trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.
Iran can't use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it'd be an empty threat. Iran can't nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.
MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn't prevent conventional wars.
Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion.
So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they're even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, "death to Israel?" Sure, but that's just part of their discourse. The Iranians use "death to" as a synonym for "down with." They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.
An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don't prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan's arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.
You can speculate that nukes wouldn't prevent further expansion of Israel, but that's ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It's only when some of Israel's neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn't possible.
Everyone's got them but nobody uses them. So do they really need them or just need to convince other countries that they have them.
not every country has a nuclear arsenal
Why not? Everyone should keep a nuke in their basement just in case
It's my uhh hunting tactical nuke. I use it when I need to blast 40-60 wild hogs in 5 milliseconds
because they’re trying to manufacture consent for a war with Iran
There are other countries too that unofficially have nukes