You must log in or register to comment.
What’s with these weird imaginary articles? The media has talked enough about their nukes, western youtube is filled with documentaries and western wiki has detailed info on vela incident and other related information, not even talking about the fact that I, a westerner, learned about Israel’s nukes from western media. Idiocy.
As an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal
- racism
- white supremacy
- imperialism
- judeo-christian values
- western civilization
- only democracy in the middle east
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.
being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.
The persecution isn’t even theirs. Sure they’d likely have relatives affected by the Holocaust of WW2, but these are the the Jewish people who were rich enough to escape it. Actual Holocaust of WW2 survivors live under the poverty line in Isn’treal.
I’ll throw post WW2 apologetics into the ring. Can’t blame Israel publicly without risking career suicide, both in politics and corporate.
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
trump departed from that agreement.
We used to have that, Trump 45 ripped it up.
In an oligarchy, corporate media is state media.
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
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.
Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO and the EU. That means they technically have UK’s, France’s, and the US’s nukes.
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.
There are other countries too that unofficially have nukes
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:
- Destabilize border regions of neighboring countries and foster the creation of militant groups within them.
- Use those destabilized regions as justification for military occupation of the territory of neighboring countries.
- Announce the creation of border “buffer zones.”
- Allow their civilians to move into what is supposed to be a DMZ-like buffer zone.
- Again have civilians in the line of fire of militants, demanding further border expansion.
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.
because they’re trying to manufacture consent for a war with Iran
MSM has talked about Israel’s nukes. Can’t remember which channel it was, but yesterday they were doing a comparison between Israel’s and Iran’s offense & defense capabilities.
What’s MSM? MSN?
Found it. Looks like SkyNews was reporting it.
mainstream media?
e.g. all of them
Gotcha, thx.
Why won’t the mainstream media of the Western bloc, a well known propaganda apparatus that will always spin things in favour of capitalists and Western imperialism, mention Israel’s (a Western colonial project) nukes? Gee, I wonder why. 🤔😅
Now this is a classic lemmy world salad
Everyone would rather circle around the answer
Only mainstream Western media and those who consume it without question… which I guess is a lot of people, NGL.
Because Israel has a disproportionate amount of control over the media.
Maybe because there’s no danger of Israel slinging nukes all over the middle east, whereas that’s always been a concern about Iran?
What about Pakistan?
Netanyahu went on a massive warning rant about them having nukes and using it all over the middle east, yet they haven’t.
Maybe because there’s no danger of Israel slinging nukes all over the middle east,
This has to be a joke right?
Why is there no such danger? Explain.
This is the same Israel which is currently bombing Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran?
It’s like portraying a person who is actively gunning down civilians with a handgun as "unlikely to kill anyone with a rifle’.
They have also bombed Yemen and Iraq multiple times.
Of course. Israel is one of the most peaceful countries, after all.
Are you genuinely worried they will use their nukes?
Yes. It’s unlikely, but definitely possible.
Yes. Have you seen the yahoos in charge in Israel?
Why are you not?
When terrorists have nukes, you must always entertain the possibility they will use them. Otherwise, you’re a moron.
It’s obviously possible, you’d have to be a moron to not know that. But compared to if Iran or hamas had nukes I’m not as worried.
That’s a big if, huge. The genocidal terror state already has nukes though, no ifs.
All I’m saying is I’d be far more worried if it were the other way around
But that’s just because you’re racist. Israel is the genocidal state, not Iran or Palestine
I’m sure Iran and hamas want to wipe out israel too
Who, out of the three, are actively committing genocide right now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Israel will destroy the entire planet with nukes if they don’t get unfettered access to their “holy land.”
I just don’t get why they are so fucking evil. It makes no sense.
If you read the link you’ve provided you’ll see that it’s a last resort doctrine meant to deter neighboring countries from invading. Pretty much in line with how most western (nuclear) nations would use their nuclear arsenal.
You mean the nuclear arsenal that Israel denies exists?
Which of those western (nuclear) nations are also doing that?
Israel doesn’t deny that they have a nuclear arsenal
Okay so Israel denies that they have nuclear weapons but at the same time threatens the whole world with nuclear annihilation as the user above claimed. How does that work?
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I can’t tell how it’s any different from MAD based on what’s written.
It’s different because they will fuck over allies too, and make sure the world is unlivable. It’s a massive fuck you to the world.
People get very emotional when discussing Israel and can’t stay with the facts.
Exactly, Israel is such a peaceful country. They would never invade their neighbors like Lebanon, Syria, ignore treaties, or pretend that Palestinian territory is actually belonging to them
What does that have to do with slinging nukes around?
Nevermind you guys are fucking idiots.
They have literally come very close to launching them when they were losing a few battles during the Yom Kippur war when Golda Meir ordered them readied to be launched. She then extorted Nixon for supplies because if he didn’t agree to airlift in help she’d order them launched.
Like this isn’t crazy talk. They have a known policy under which they will take the entire region with them if they fall.
It’s worth considering and talking about and just because you don’t know basic history surrounding this doesn’t mean others are stupid for considering it a possibility.
At some point, with a quarter hundred downvotes and many negative replies, the person you should first inspect is not the other, but self.
a quarter hundred
Lol who says ‘25’ this way?
Supposedly 50 million people voted for a reality tv star to have control of the largest stockpile of nuclear arms on earth… Perhaps the herd is diseased.
If I’ve learned one thing it’s that it’s absolutely impossible to have productive discussions on geopolitics on Lemmy. People are insanely uninformed but at the same time will not move an inch from their preconceived opinions.
The fact that Israel is a warmongering country guilty of a genocide but at the same is no real nuclear threat in the region whereas Iran would be is something that exceeds the binary thinking of people here.
The fact that IF Iran had nukes… A hypothetical fact then? Right…
The fact
You mean the completely baseless assertion
Good job proving their point
No
Do you deny the genocide in Gaza?
No, that part is true
🤡
Nice self portrait
Got em
https://apnews.com/article/israel-nuclear-weapons-gaza-iran-china-1e18f34dcec40582166796b0ade65768
Plus israel has talked before about the “samson option”. When has Iran talked using nukes?
