They don't have nukes as such. They are prepositioned US owned nukes that remain under the custody of the USAF. The part of the base where the nukes are stored is strictly off limits to local personnel.

What makes them "shared", is that they are intended to be dropped by planes owned by the host country, and both the government of the host country as well as the US government need to give their authorization to activate and use them.

So you may as well just consider them as US nukes.

Plus they killed the last people who were telling.

Forced by who? The Republican Congress would likely say Iran deserved it, and even if they didn't Trump would dismantle any group the executive branch is supposed to use to enforce them as he was pushing for with Russia .

Their biggest trading partner is China .. not sure what they would do

I think the West has already demonstrated that they're perfectly happy to just ignore obligations like that, as evidenced by them all refusing to inforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.

sanction Israel

Yeah that's not happening

Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.

Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them...

...and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.

....

Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?

That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching... that are about Israel's nuclear doctrine?

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/

Despite Israel also having a 'nuclear ambiguity' policy?

Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?

That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?

Look up 'Apollo Affair'.

That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?

That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?

'Vela Incident'.

That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433

...

Why?

Why doesn't the world openly call out this bullshit?

Well it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.

Yeah after ukraine, i don't think anyobe else will ever make that mistake again.

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.

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.

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.

Not just an interesting read: also a good example of the media mentioning Israel’s nukes, like OP seems to think they never do.

What’s MSM? MSN?

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.

being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.

I'll throw post WW2 apologetics into the ring. Can't blame Israel publicly without risking career suicide, both in politics and corporate.

Everyone would rather circle around the answer

Now this is a classic lemmy world salad

not every country has a nuclear arsenal