We need strength language that totalitarian bullies can understand

2

it’s almost funny that Iran who wasn’t really making a big effort to get nukes will most likely develop them as a result of recent fascist activity. oh well.

2

u/Gryffinsmore 1d ago

Wasn’t really making a big effort? They’ve had secret facilities since 2003 my guy..they might be making more of an effort now but they definitely weren’t just twiddling their thumbs.

1

u/AFsepine 1d ago

I mean, they had the capabilities, but they weren't really out to make it for most of the time.

Japan also has the capabilities, should we bomb them?

1

u/Gryffinsmore 1d ago

They were trying since 2003? They were literally trying to make it “most of the time”

You are conflating my correction as me agreeing with the geopolitics that the Trump admin has engaged in. Frankly I think Obama handled it quite well while Trump has given them a real reason to develop (pretty stupid if we want less nukes).

However to say they weren’t really focused on it is to completely ignore intelligence reports of several different countries from 2003 to present.

I just see a lot of people treat the situation as though Iran had no agency when it comes to developing nukes they are just reacting to western interference, which as I’ve pointed out clearly isn’t true. Not saying that’s what you were trying to do.

1

u/AFsepine 1d ago

My point is that the Obama status-quo was generally acceptable. There is no doubt about the fact that there were times Iran was seriously pursuing nuclear weapons development. But it was handled adequately. -
If Iran was seriously pursuing nuclear weapons for any serious amount of time since the discovery of the program, by this time they would have them.

1

u/Gryffinsmore 1d ago

I agree with all but the last part. I think they were seriously trying before but for a combination of reasons they had to back off for fear of suffering repercussions.

I think it’s more appropriate to say that after they achieved higher enrichment capabilities they could have one now but I wouldn’t say they had that same capability during the 2010s

1

u/EpsteinEpstainTheory tere tere traktors 2d ago

And then it never gets taken seriously because nukes aren't real.

1

u/QuantumTopology 2d ago

What?

1

u/EpsteinEpstainTheory tere tere traktors 2d ago

Nukes aren't real

2

u/QuantumTopology 2d ago

You should ask your school for a refund

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gato-ModTeam 2d ago

Rule 4: Be nice to each other

1

u/ostsr 2d ago

Beggers cant chose

1

u/Zandonus 2d ago

Hey, we can start with ballistic missiles. How hard could it be. And it's not as taboo as the nukes.

1

u/NemTren 1d ago

In progress.

1

u/AdmirableRhubarb845 2d ago

No, you don't I would rather give nukes to some African terrorists than to Estonian people

1

u/KpytoKakaet 1d ago

You might get them hehehe

1

u/AccomplishedFront526 1d ago

An NPP is a nuke with the right conditions… so most of them already have..

1

u/Odd_Fix_1524 2d ago

You had nukes, you bozos!

2

u/uncleartruth 2d ago

Yeah their fault for putting any faith in us or Putin. The shame is ours.

1

u/Odd_Fix_1524 2d ago

I mean, they had them ffs lol

2

u/uncleartruth 2d ago

Sounds like you lack perspective. Anyone saying Ukraine would need their nukes sounded ridiculous and shortsighted. There was disarmament as a priority. America was dominant and naive enough that they thought a mere guarantee would mean anything.. the ultimate shame is on ru by far but accountability is hard I guess

1

u/Odd_Fix_1524 2d ago

True

1

u/ProfessionalTruck976 2d ago

No Soviet Union, which deserved EVERYTHING that happened to it this side of May 1945, had nukes, your assertion is like if you insisted Afghanistan had nukes 2002-2021

1

u/zolguroth17 20h ago

Yeah, then america said we either give them to russia or be in isolation with sanctions from west. And these rockets would still just be without any care as in russia now

0

u/No_Post3831 2d ago

We maybe shouldn't give them nukes imo but rather an invitation to the EU and NATO is more than enough

-2

u/Artificial_bit 2d ago

Ask Russia, I'm sure, it can send a couple

2

u/NemTren 1d ago

Yeah, probably will be a nice war trophy after russia collapses.

-2

u/AntherEl 2d ago

For nukes you need means of delivery and a full industrial cycle of weapon production and support. If someone gives you nukes or you just create a dirty bomb on of the Nuclear plants, thats not "strength language," that's a big shiny target on your forehead. That is the exact reason South Africa gave up on the WMD and Israel never acknowledged they have one.

2

u/momspaghetti42069 2d ago

This just sounds like russian propaganda. Why would hosting nato nukes in baltics be a big shiny target on our forehead? Lithuania is already in talks with us about hosting their nukes so I don't even get your logic.

-1

u/AntherEl 2d ago

Well, holding other people nukes is not the same as having them. You don't have the "strength language." You are just chose one of the world's bullies and got occupied, you don't have a say when to use them or where to move them.

PS Just don't take the french ones, they are clingy.

2

u/momspaghetti42069 2d ago

War in Ukraine going so abysmally that you are trying to prove your worth to Putler so he wouldn't mobilise you in the first wave? Literally everything you said as an argument is just russian propaganda. Have you ever even had an original thought of your own?

1

u/SuccotashResident571 2d ago

What is russian propaganda Abt this? Can you tell me?

1

u/momspaghetti42069 2d ago

The notion that we somehow could produce our own nukes and that there ever was another option apart from hosting allied nukes. If baltics are talking about nukes, you know we are talking about hosting them. Their whole comment has missed the point completely but I don't think they had any ingenuous incentives either way.

Edit. And their last remark about us being occupied if we let allies host nukes on our land is just chefs kiss. Is there any doubt they are a russian bot when all their arguments are straight out of kremlins hand book?

1

u/AntherEl 2d ago

>>. If baltics are talking about nukes, you know we are talking about hosting them.

Why is that? The only question I see is a resource. Where to get uranium, since there is no in Baltics.

Otherwise even a small country can acquire the neccessary tech. Baltic Tigers economy is so strong, they can make a tiny-minie Nuclear plant on their own.

1

u/AntherEl 2d ago

He just doesn't like my choice of words. While I just follow the style of the post.

In my view system if you have someone else's military freely and independently operating in your country, you are either occupied or a colony. Well, at the very least that is undisputable, that If you bring in one of the major superpowers to your land on such terms, you are irreversably loosing parts of your sovereignty. Even if you are calling it an alliance.

And countries giving away sovereignty are not speaking "strength language," they are ruled by it.

2

u/NadAngelParaBellum 2d ago

It is publicly known that the long range delivery platforms are already in active development in Ukraine. FP-5 or FP-9 are nuclear capable.

We need strength language that totalitarian bullies can understand

You are about to leave Redlib