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."

top 66 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

China, India, and Pakistan once again proving that having nukes does actually matter because you can't be arbitrarily shoved around around by the only other nuclear powers.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 46 points 1 year ago (19 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well then we wouldn’t have nuclear power either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It would have been discovered later on, perhaps by another power first.

    We would still have all the atrocities that happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki but people in the West would not suffer the anxiety that they could be possibly get hurt as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Makes you wonder if their scientists did it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Germany was miles off, they lost the war before the first bomb was dropped, 7th May vs. 6th August. Its impossible for them to be both behind the Allied effort to make a nuclear bomb (so would have not been read to drop one until after 6th August) and still make one after they surrendered.

    The Allies very much lied to the scientists about how far along the Germans were to guilt them into making one against objections raised at the time.

    Now if those defecting Nazis who joined NASA and the like post war would have instead been used to replace objecting Allied scientists in the nuclear program, thats a real possibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's no real way of knowing what would have happened, but knowledge is eventually gained. Somebody would have developed nukes even if it tool a lot longer and we'd end up being in a similar situation eventually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Knowledge is eventually gained, someone would have built practical devices relating to nuclear fission, whether that was a bomb or a reactor.

    Nazi Germany would not have done that in any time frame relevant to WWII. They specifically rejected aspects of atomic/quantum theory because they were tainted by "jewish science" which unknowingly set them back decades and sent them in the wrong direction. As much as they were obsessed with super weapons, they were very unscientific in their R&D.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They specifically rejected aspects of atomic/quantum theory because they were tainted by "jewish science" which unknowingly set them back decades and sent them in the wrong direction.

    This shit sounds so familiar...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This illustrates exactly why we, as a species, are fucking doomed. If some on can do something that gives them a competitive edge, then someone will do it. Those who opt out are left behind.

    It's why we can't stop fossil fuels. Whoever stops using them will be at a competitive disadvantage. It's why we can't just leave AI on the shelf.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Well, the Germans wouldn't have because they got defeated long before the Manhattan Project produced a usable weapon. Their own attempt at it failed. Some suspect that Heisenberg actually did sabotage the German project, though it's also possible that he was just bad at it.

    But the Soviet Union would have done it later on. Or any of a variety of other countries that probably shouldn't be the first or only countries to have nuclear weapons. Science is not unique to the discoverer, other people can independently discover the same things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    either that, or nukes would be used first in korean war instead. imo it's a good thing that nukes were first used against the most cartoonishly evil fascist state imaginable at that point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, who else. Nuking Dresden at that point would be useless

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The Japanese at the time were, at the least, very close in terms of evilness. What with the crazy human experiments, execution of prisoners, and everything they did to the Chinese.

    This obviously does not reflect on modern day Japan.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 39 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Iran is two weeks away from nuclear capability" - Netanyahu: 2012, 2015, 2018, 2023, 2025

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (29 children)

    Ukraine gave up their nukes, look what happened to them. Libya gave their nuclear weapons program up, and look at them today. North Korea didn't, and they're still standing, for better or for worse. Iraq was accused of having nukes, but didn't have them, and got destroyed. Seems that if you want any semblance of sovereignty outside of NATO, you better have some nukes.

    So for any nations reading along I'll summarize the basic conclusions:

    1. Get nukes
    2. If you have nukes, do not give them up
    3. If you're accused of having nukes, drop everything and get nukes asap

    Do you think Israel would be bombing Iran if they had nukes?

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (28 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (16 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    You're kinda making the point for them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    But then we're back to "would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?"

    Some are ready to watch the world burn

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who decides which country is "crazy"?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.

    Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.

    Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.

    Russians are to blame for their government's actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That's justified by "killing Russia's economy for the war", except Russia's war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia's war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by "punishing Russians and making them change the regime", which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not "punished" this way, they are also the exact group that should be "punished" for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don't have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.

    Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin's and Yeltsin's regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.

    And it's the same everywhere, if there's an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it's sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It's one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the "neo" prefix.

    That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It's a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.

    Say, Iran's regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran's appearance of democracy is above what it's "allowed" is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.

    ... I'd rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey's leadership have to say on what's civilized and what's not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia's ... eh, I've met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Lmao Hamas would have launched them at Israel and we would be seeing world war 3 with nukes. The fact that you think Hamas would be more responsible with WMDs than US, which hasn't used them since Japan, is bizzare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-3 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    US is expanding? When was the last time US annexed a territory? Did you honestly just try to make US as a better example than Russia in this context?

    https://i.imgur.com/AJinNsQ.png

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,”

    I guess we all just have to pretend Israel doesn't exist?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›