top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What's crazy about this whole thing, is how many people I see insenting this can't be WW3, solely because there have been multiple events happening that people said could lead to WW3...

Like, think of it as placing straw on the back of a camel.

Eventually you're going to get to the point where lots of people say another straw will break it. That's just reality, it can't hold an infinite amount of straw.

Now imagine how ridiculous you'd be for walking up when the camel can barely stand, and loudly and proudly telling everyone the camel's back will never break, because people have been saying it would happen for the past hour.

Rather than realizing that some people would guess early to be safe, because guessing late means your break the camels back and are shit out of luck.

trumps going to keep throwing straw till the camels a bloody heap, the man has never shown restraint in his life. It's a matter of when, not if.

So if it doesn't happen after this, it doesn't mean it'll never happen, just that were even closer than before.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Except it’s not like either of the other two wars.

    I’d agree with the comparison if, for example, the US attack on Iran immediately brought Russia to war with the US, which triggered Article 5, which got China involved. That sort of domino effect happened the last two times but doesn’t appear to be happening now.

    Could it become WWIII? Maybe. But right now it still looks like a regional conflict, and a rather small one at that compared to the first two Iraq wars.

    But I’m only 1/3 of the way through the latest Perun video so I reserve the right to change my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    28 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 29 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Pissing contest or most careless game of chicken ever? Both?

    Idiocracy prepared me for this to happen, but it also failed me because it made me believe that it would be a lot less serious/more funny than it is.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    that movie is BS, Camacho and his cabinet were way more competent than what we have here.

    no question.

    when they met someone smarter, they listen to the experts and had no ego, just wanted to solve their crisis and step aside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I wouldn't consider it a pissing match. Iran suffered an unprovoked attack on their energy infrastructure, that scenario would call for retaliation from any nation. They appear to be walking a fine line of inflicting damages while attempting to avoid escalation to full conflict. Call it a measured response, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    This isn't a measured response. They notified Qatar and the US of the attacks in advance, they only fired 14 missiles, and 13 of them were knocked down. Also these missles didn't carry any notable payloads. Iran did this before when Israel killed Haniyeh in Tehran and Trump killed Soleimani. This is Iran go to way of singling that they want to concede retaliation by intentionally putting out a weak response. They want to deescalate in a way where they can save face.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    ah yes, the completely civilian nuclear program that for last month+ was busy using up 5% enriched uranium (on upper range of enrichment in normal reactors) and 20% (usual in research reactors) to get 60% enriched uranium (no civilian applications)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Iran was attacked here. No amount of "what about the WMD's" makes the attacks on them by the US and Israel legal under international law.

    Iran had a deal that allowed other countries to control their nuclear sector. The US left that deal. Iran was taking part in negotiations about a new deal. The US bombed them. What has been done to Iran here is a terrible violation of international law, and a terrible violation of their sovereignty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    they were still a party to NPT the entire time, and they didn't meet obligations of that treaty for over 20 years. NPT also includes inspections by IAEA

    say what you want, they can't unbomb Fordow so any discussions about future iranian nuclear program are pointless

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And how many treaties have the us violated ?

    Daily.

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

    Many. Yet they're still justified in striking a nuclear bomb-making facility in a nation that has more or less said it plans to use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    This is where you're dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there's not even consensus that they're amassing the weapons you say they are.

    This is just absurd to claim. It's like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It's like saying that you're justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched "preemptive" strikes on Israel, or conducted "preemptive" assassinations on Israeli soil?

    If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting "preemptive" strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that "Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities."

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

    Okay, well let me clarify. I think they were justified in doing so. I don't want them or their proxies obtaining nukes because unlike Russia or even North Korea, they're actually suicidal enough to use them.

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

    Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they've openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).

    However, two wrongs don't make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If "we" want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just "right of the strongest", we can't accept these kind of violations of international law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.

    Legally speaking, I agree. I’m speaking strictly from a strategic or game-theoretical standpoint. I see this as a binary situation: either we physically stop them from building a nuke, or they will build one. I’d much rather we strike preemptively now - so long as it actually stops them - than have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future, especially given their history of threatening violence, using violence, and funding violence.

    Nukes never should’ve been invented in the first place. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so this is the best we can do given the current situation. They don’t have to pursue one - they’re choosing to, knowing full well the potential (now actual) consequences. I’d argue that the tragedy of a nuclear detonation in a major city far-outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the human and geopolitical cost of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I’d be against it too if the facility were in Sweden or Finland - but it’s not.

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

    neither. the same kind of propaganda activity targeted at iranian internal audience like after assassination of qasem soleimani. like in 2020, it's pretty obvious that trump takes this offramp

    but also, this time international response is wildly different

    in 2020: UK and Qatar called for deescalation, Saudis said they stand with Iraq, Turkey offered diplomatic support for deescalation

    today, Saudis, UAE, Qatar (obviously), Bahrain, Kuwait, (countries directly impacted) but also Oman, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen (Aden) and Palestinian Authority all condemned Iranian strikes

    today also iranian proxies are much weaker, and we already know how incompetent their air defences were

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I've played fallout 3, new vegas, and 4 so I'm ready for what's to come

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

    I’m gonna go bathe in the rads if i see a flash. Either i ghoulify or fry. Either is acceptable for a Fallout scenario.

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

    If the terrorists say so...

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    ah they'll get them next time keep trying

  • source