Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.

The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself.

“Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.

They pledged to “remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.”

  • REDACTED@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Are you claiming that the world would be a safer place with every other unstable or authoritarian country having nukes?

    • NewDayRocks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      He didn’t say the world would be safer. But history kind of shows it is in each countries self interest to have nukes vs not having them.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Why? Give it some thought and actually come up with a logical answer, because countries do not invade US because of nukes, but because they have the most advanced army in the world. Nukes for US changes nothing, they’re there only as an answer to other nukes.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      The world would be a safer place if not only every country had nukes, but also every adult citizen had a farm of combat drones.

      I personally don’t want to hear of NATO&allies lecturing everyone else morals. Tired of that. And I understand why in ex-USSR the perception of them like some global good guys was common - the reaction to very invasive and obnoxious and irritating Soviet propaganda.

      I don’t understand how people in the west can believe that.

      Anyway, no intelligent person from the west I’ve talked to did, so … kinda as it should be.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Imagine giving every potential madman (including school shooters and what not) destructive weapons thinking you’re making world a better place. Unhinged take honestly.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.

          • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            No, school shooters aren’t using it as a last resort. They are physcopaths who feel slighted and can’t process emotions.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              This is wrong. Psychopaths feel themselves just fine in the society and usually don’t become school shooters.

              Shooting up bullies is a very crude solution, one that a psychopath usually doesn’t need.

              In any case most of school shootings I’ve read about were connected to bullying, and bully lives don’t matter. Don’t bully, don’t get killed.

              A psychopath usually plans their murders, so they’ll do just fine with a heavy sharp object or a reactive not intended for food getting into food. A psychopath will also be on the convenient side of any socially approved action.

              I’ve recently fully realized that I’ve met a high quality psychopath once.

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      MAD safer no, but essentially disabling conventional warfare as a practical idea yes.

      India and Pakistan are armed to the teeth, yet they haven’t fought a real war ever since they both got nukes.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        What makes you assume said countries would not act exactly like Russia towards others without nukes?

            • Leet@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 days ago

              There’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and these days there’s talk about a 51st state, rumblings about Greenland, Palestine

              American aggression and coups in various countries… there’s so many examples going back to Vietnam and maybe before.

              Basically after the British cocked up so many countries in the world, it passed the baton to America.

              Iran is one example of a country whose problems are directly caused by American interventionism.

              • REDACTED@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                You wrote all that and failed to give me one example of annexation by US. Israel is annexing Palestine. Russia is annexing Ukraine. US didn’t annex Afghanistan or other countries. The states/countries live on, sometimes better than before. There is a huge difference.

                I honestly believe trump is BS’ing about annexing Canada.

                • Berserker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  You don’t have to annex countries nowadays to make them your colonies. You just let your companies take all the business there, exploiting the resources etc, you install a few military bases to serve your geopolitcal interests, aka war games, and just for show you let them elect your lackeys as local representatives of the empire. The american empire is the largest one in the world currently, even without techincally owning all that land. There is no need to, it’s the 21st century. Power is not measured only by land.

                • Leet@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Oh no, I didn’t. I gave you examples of the USA doing much worse things. I also replied to your comment about Russias behavior to other countries, of which only 1 they had attacked. How many did America attack?

                  In any case the USA would have stayed much longer if in their occupation of the Middle East if public pressure, suicide rate of their forces etc.

                  • REDACTED@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 days ago

                    Tf? How is, for example, doing a genocide in gaza (part of annexation) better than wiping out terrorist groups in Iraq?