Search Results
6/24/2025, 8:10:13 PM
>>63890895
Here, let me try to make anon's case for him. Any new nuclear actor is fundamentally a threat to the United States. Not simply from direct attack, but because each new player at the table exponentially increases the number of scenarios where a nuclear weapon is deployed, and any deployment of a nuclear weapon places the United States at risk via the breakdown of the nuclear taboo. This is why non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades. North Korea was able to sneak their way to the table by maintaining the secrecy of their program up until their test detonation. At that point, the genie is out of the bottle, you can't do anything about that without starting a nuclear war, and by the grace of God we were able to get Kim to realize that he can't play fuck-fuck games with nukes the way he likes to with his conventional forces.
Iran's policy, on the other hand, has been to low-key threaten going nuclear. This is called a near-nuclear state, and consists of doing a bunch of the lead time to develop a nuclear weapon and then sitting on it. The advantage of this is that you maintain some degree of deterrence without having to go all the way. The downside is that you are a known threat. Without having my own sources in Iranian decision-making circles, it looks from the outside like Iran's conventional deterrent measures, the Axis of Resistance and its conventional ballistic missile program, have suffered greatly over the last 2 years and are no longer a sufficient deterrent to preserve Iran's interest. With those means faltering, finalizing the program and going nuclear becomes an increasingly attractive option. I can't say for sure if they chose to do it or not, but the situation was leading them towards it, but even if we afford Iran the courtesy of assuming that they will not be a bad steward of nuclear weapons, them getting one is still a bad thing for the aforementioned reasons.
Here, let me try to make anon's case for him. Any new nuclear actor is fundamentally a threat to the United States. Not simply from direct attack, but because each new player at the table exponentially increases the number of scenarios where a nuclear weapon is deployed, and any deployment of a nuclear weapon places the United States at risk via the breakdown of the nuclear taboo. This is why non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades. North Korea was able to sneak their way to the table by maintaining the secrecy of their program up until their test detonation. At that point, the genie is out of the bottle, you can't do anything about that without starting a nuclear war, and by the grace of God we were able to get Kim to realize that he can't play fuck-fuck games with nukes the way he likes to with his conventional forces.
Iran's policy, on the other hand, has been to low-key threaten going nuclear. This is called a near-nuclear state, and consists of doing a bunch of the lead time to develop a nuclear weapon and then sitting on it. The advantage of this is that you maintain some degree of deterrence without having to go all the way. The downside is that you are a known threat. Without having my own sources in Iranian decision-making circles, it looks from the outside like Iran's conventional deterrent measures, the Axis of Resistance and its conventional ballistic missile program, have suffered greatly over the last 2 years and are no longer a sufficient deterrent to preserve Iran's interest. With those means faltering, finalizing the program and going nuclear becomes an increasingly attractive option. I can't say for sure if they chose to do it or not, but the situation was leading them towards it, but even if we afford Iran the courtesy of assuming that they will not be a bad steward of nuclear weapons, them getting one is still a bad thing for the aforementioned reasons.
6/24/2025, 8:10:13 PM
>>508613125
Here, let me try to make anon's case for him. Any new nuclear actor is fundamentally a threat to the United States. Not simply from direct attack, but because each new player at the table exponentially increases the number of scenarios where a nuclear weapon is deployed, and any deployment of a nuclear weapon places the United States at risk via the breakdown of the nuclear taboo. This is why non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades. North Korea was able to sneak their way to the table by maintaining the secrecy of their program up until their test detonation. At that point, the genie is out of the bottle, you can't do anything about that without starting a nuclear war, and by the grace of God we were able to get Kim to realize that he can't play fuck-fuck games with nukes the way he likes to with his conventional forces.
Iran's policy, on the other hand, has been to low-key threaten going nuclear. This is called a near-nuclear state, and consists of doing a bunch of the lead time to develop a nuclear weapon and then sitting on it. The advantage of this is that you maintain some degree of deterrence without having to go all the way. The downside is that you are a known threat. Without having my own sources in Iranian decision-making circles, it looks from the outside like Iran's conventional deterrent measures, the Axis of Resistance and its conventional ballistic missile program, have suffered greatly over the last 2 years and are no longer a sufficient deterrent to preserve Iran's interest. With those means faltering, finalizing the program and going nuclear becomes an increasingly attractive option. I can't say for sure if they chose to do it or not, but the situation was leading them towards it, but even if we afford Iran the courtesy of assuming that they will not be a bad steward of nuclear weapons, them getting one is still a bad thing for the aforementioned reasons.
Here, let me try to make anon's case for him. Any new nuclear actor is fundamentally a threat to the United States. Not simply from direct attack, but because each new player at the table exponentially increases the number of scenarios where a nuclear weapon is deployed, and any deployment of a nuclear weapon places the United States at risk via the breakdown of the nuclear taboo. This is why non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades. North Korea was able to sneak their way to the table by maintaining the secrecy of their program up until their test detonation. At that point, the genie is out of the bottle, you can't do anything about that without starting a nuclear war, and by the grace of God we were able to get Kim to realize that he can't play fuck-fuck games with nukes the way he likes to with his conventional forces.
Iran's policy, on the other hand, has been to low-key threaten going nuclear. This is called a near-nuclear state, and consists of doing a bunch of the lead time to develop a nuclear weapon and then sitting on it. The advantage of this is that you maintain some degree of deterrence without having to go all the way. The downside is that you are a known threat. Without having my own sources in Iranian decision-making circles, it looks from the outside like Iran's conventional deterrent measures, the Axis of Resistance and its conventional ballistic missile program, have suffered greatly over the last 2 years and are no longer a sufficient deterrent to preserve Iran's interest. With those means faltering, finalizing the program and going nuclear becomes an increasingly attractive option. I can't say for sure if they chose to do it or not, but the situation was leading them towards it, but even if we afford Iran the courtesy of assuming that they will not be a bad steward of nuclear weapons, them getting one is still a bad thing for the aforementioned reasons.
Page 1