Five minutes of hate news

[ThatZenoGuy]

Not going to lie, I don't believe in the WMD nonsense personally. And frankly I couldn't give a shit if they DID have nuclear weapons.
North Korea and China has nukes, are considerably more threatening and oddly enough we don't obliterate their country and they haven't obliterated ours (yet).

Almost like MAD is a concept.

 

[Blasterbot]

added up isn't it more like a third of the 30+ Trillion dollars debt went into the middle eastern kerfuffles? there is a reason that there is a large anti-intervention wing forming on the conservative side.

 

[Jormungandr]

Not going to lie, I don't believe in the WMD nonsense personally. And frankly I couldn't give a shit if they DID have nuclear weapons.
North Korea and China has nukes, are considerably more threatening and oddly enough we don't obliterate their country and they haven't obliterated ours (yet).

Almost like MAD is a concept.

There's one factor you're forgetting here: North Korea and China, for all their many [and I mean many] faults, aren't suicidal. Yes, they have nuclear weapons. Yes, they would use them for defence if they were invaded. But they wouldn't use them for ideological reasons.

The Middle-East is full of batshit crazy religious nutjobs that wouldn't care if a target, be it fellow Muslims or Christians or the West, and themselves after went up in nuclear fire.

If a Middle-Eastern country, especially Iran or Saddam's Iraq, created or got ahold of a nuclear weapon, it'd only be a matter of time before some Islamist nut or group gets/had gotten a hold of it and uses/used it somewhere. And, because of Islam's nature and the sheer amount of terror groups out there, some funded by billionaires and States, it would've only been a matter of time.

It's also why there were so much concerns over the Soviet Union's stockpile after it dissolved; one or two "going missing", as it were, and appearing on the Black Market.

Fundamentalist religion, especially Islam, will always be an irrational actor, even if there are some rational actors who'd seek to stop this e.g. members of Iran's government, but even then they'd be one or two bandaids covering a few out of a hundred holes in a bucket of water.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Fundamentalist religion, especially Islam, will always be an irrational actor, even if there are some rational actors who'd seek to stop this e.g. members of Iran's government, but even then they'd be one or two bandaids covering a few out of a hundred holes in a bucket of water.

The best way to understand them is that they are rational actors pursuing irrational goals.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

There's one factor you're forgetting here: North Korea and China, for all their many [and I mean many] faults, aren't suicidal. Yes, they have nuclear weapons. Yes, they would use them for defence if they were invaded. But they wouldn't use them for ideological reasons.

The Middle-East is full of batshit crazy religious nutjobs that wouldn't care if a target, be it fellow Muslims or Christians or the West, and themselves after went up in nuclear fire.

If a Middle-Eastern country, especially Iran or Saddam's Iraq, created or got ahold of a nuclear weapon, it'd only be a matter of time before some Islamist nut or group gets/had gotten a hold of it and uses/used it somewhere. And, because of Islam's nature and the sheer amount of terror groups out there, some funded by billionaires and States, it would've only been a matter of time.

It's also why there were so much concerns over the Soviet Union's stockpile after it dissolved; one or two "going missing", as it were, and appearing on the Black Market.

Fundamentalist religion, especially Islam, will always be an irrational actor, even if there are some rational actors who'd seek to stop this e.g. members of Iran's government, but even then they'd be one or two bandaids covering a few out of a hundred holes in a bucket of water.

Dude I've seen Chinese people do the most comically unhinged suicidal shit possible, things you wouldn't believe if you saw it, I wouldn't trust your average Chinese politician with a grounded modern kitchen appliance, let alone nukes.

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[Ixian]

Once again, public education proves that it has a bias against boys and young men. Misandry is very normalized in the west.

 

[Poe]

There's one factor you're forgetting here: North Korea and China, for all their many [and I mean many] faults, aren't suicidal. Yes, they have nuclear weapons. Yes, they would use them for defence if they were invaded. But they wouldn't use them for ideological reasons.

The Middle-East is full of batshit crazy religious nutjobs that wouldn't care if a target, be it fellow Muslims or Christians or the West, and themselves after went up in nuclear fire.

If a Middle-Eastern country, especially Iran or Saddam's Iraq, created or got ahold of a nuclear weapon, it'd only be a matter of time before some Islamist nut or group gets/had gotten a hold of it and uses/used it somewhere. And, because of Islam's nature and the sheer amount of terror groups out there, some funded by billionaires and States, it would've only been a matter of time.

It's also why there were so much concerns over the Soviet Union's stockpile after it dissolved; one or two "going missing", as it were, and appearing on the Black Market.

Fundamentalist religion, especially Islam, will always be an irrational actor, even if there are some rational actors who'd seek to stop this e.g. members of Iran's government, but even then they'd be one or two bandaids covering a few out of a hundred holes in a bucket of water.

Islamic states aren't any more irrational than any other states, you are looking at certain paramilitary groups and pretending they are aligned or equivalent to the nation. Al-Qaeda seems irrational because its goals are the destruction of existing states, even Islamic ones, and not the maintenance of one they currently control. Iraq wasn't some irrational state, even the Gulf War is widely attributed to poor policy on the US side (Saddam thought we were friends and was (wrongly) convinced a US delegate gave him the go ahead to invade.)

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Once again, public education proves that it has a bias against boys and young men. Misandry is very normalized in the west.

Even among men.

 

[mrttao]

Not going to lie, I don't believe in the WMD nonsense personally. And frankly I couldn't give a shit if they DID have nuclear weapons.
North Korea and China has nukes, are considerably more threatening and oddly enough we don't obliterate their country and they haven't obliterated ours (yet).

Almost like MAD is a concept.

See, these are different arguments.
There is the argument of "everyone who said WMD lied"
And then there is the argument of "WMD was a shitty justification to invade them".

WMD is not just nukes. it is nukes OR bioweapons OR chemical weapons. And they objectively had bioweapons and a bioweapon supply chain. Chemical weapons and a chemical supply chain. Used BOTH bioweapons AND chemical weapons. Had partially enriched uranium but no nuclear bomb.

Thus the crazed leftists (and occasionally people like bacle) screaming that it was all lies are just wrong.

Whether those WMDs justified the USA invading them is a whole different question.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

TL;DW.

 

[Jormungandr]

Islamic states aren't any more irrational than any other states, you are looking at certain paramilitary groups and pretending they are aligned or equivalent to the nation. Al-Qaeda seems irrational because its goals are the destruction of existing states, even Islamic ones, and not the maintenance of one they currently control. Iraq wasn't some irrational state, even the Gulf War is widely attributed to poor policy on the US side (Saddam thought we were friends and was (wrongly) convinced a US delegate gave him the go ahead to invade.)

Religious states always have a degree of instability in them because their fundamentalism drives them to commit actions in the name of their religion or god. While often this is just typical bias for those of their religion, with Islam it's a whole different ball game because the religion is inherently intolerant, expansionist by the point of the sword, and aggressive.

And, yes, I am aware that states driven by other motivations, such as communism or nationalism, can be just as irrational, too. We saw that with Nazi Germany's flavour of government.

But I have zero doubts that if an Islamist had control of a nuclear weapon, he or she would deploy it against those who stand against their religion in their eyes, even if they die in the attempt and regardless of other consequences.

Even a communist would consider the ramifications like any other sane person and go "yeah, maybe firing a nuke at Washington, London, or Tel-Aviv is a bad idea because we'd end up all dead in the aftermath".

An Islamist would be all for it for killing "infidels" and going to "heaven" alongside their friends and family.

Also, Iraq under Saddam wasn't a Muslim state: Yes, it was the official religion, but basically it was a socialist state one short step from outright communism at the top. What they did wasn't in the name of Allah or Islam but nationalism, racism, and political, not religious, ideology.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

ut I have zero doubts that if an Islamist had control of a nuclear weapon, he or she would deploy it against those who stand against their religion in their eyes, even if they die in the attempt and regardless of other consequences.

But the very islamist Pakistan does have a nuke, but they still haven't used it in some idiotic murder-suicide attempt against India, their Hindu rival.

Once again, Islamists are rational people. They're just pursuing irrational goals for ideological reasons. Goals that they can plausibly achieve.

 

[Jormungandr]

But the very islamist Pakistan does have a nuke, but they still haven't used it in some idiotic murder-suicide attempt against India, their Hindu rival.

Once again, Islamists are rational people. They're just pursuing irrational goals for ideological reasons. Goals that they can plausibly achieve.

Point taken about Pakistan: Although they do sponsor various Islamist groups along India's borders "unofficially", they haven't let the nukes fly because they don't want to become radioactive toast.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

they haven't let the nukes fly because they don't want to become radioactive toast.

...Did...Did Iraq want to become radioactive toast? I don't think they even wanted to become the IRL-timeline regular variety of toast!

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Point taken about Pakistan: Although they do sponsor various Islamist groups along India's borders "unofficially", they haven't let the nukes fly because they don't want to become radioactive toast.

And it's for that very same reason that the Taliban tried to avoid fighting the US in the field when possible, why Iran makes sure not to test the US too much, why Egypt eventually decided to purge its Islamists, and why nobody messes with China despite its Muslim Concentration Camps.

They are not irrational madmen. They are rational people pursuing irrational goals.

 

[ATP]

Point taken about Pakistan: Although they do sponsor various Islamist groups along India's borders "unofficially", they haven't let the nukes fly because they don't want to become radioactive toast.

And the same would go for every othe muslim.Fanatics want to live,too.At least their leaders.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Sidenote : there are nuclear warheads/bombs that are still counted as "missing" because nobody found them (or declared to have found them) both with the US and Russia (mostly during the 1990s because of the post-Soviet collapse if I recall correctly) and there is a good chance at least one of them fell in the hands of a bad actor.

The reason why nobody used it so far? There's no definite answer and only speculation.

My ideas are the following : maintaince was more difficult than expected, not to mention storing it safely and whoever kept them/it threw the towel and abandoned the idea; they sold the material to whoever who could what they couldn't; they might have realized they value self-preservation more than vengeance or other objectives because you can maximum aspire to a Sum of All Fears scenario where your rivals annihilate each other and you remain relatively intact (for lack of a better term) or the nuclear whack a mole starts because nobody can point the finger to a definite culprit, so everyone gets screwed.

 

[King Arts]

Religious states always have a degree of instability in them because their fundamentalism drives them to commit actions in the name of their religion or god. While often this is just typical bias for those of their religion, with Islam it's a whole different ball game because the religion is inherently intolerant, expansionist by the point of the sword, and aggressive.

And, yes, I am aware that states driven by other motivations, such as communism or nationalism, can be just as irrational, too. We saw that with Nazi Germany's flavour of government.

But I have zero doubts that if an Islamist had control of a nuclear weapon, he or she would deploy it against those who stand against their religion in their eyes, even if they die in the attempt and regardless of other consequences.

Even a communist would consider the ramifications like any other sane person and go "yeah, maybe firing a nuke at Washington, London, or Tel-Aviv is a bad idea because we'd end up all dead in the aftermath".

An Islamist would be all for it for killing "infidels" and going to "heaven" alongside their friends and family.

Also, Iraq under Saddam wasn't a Muslim state: Yes, it was the official religion, but basically it was a socialist state one short step from outright communism at the top. What they did wasn't in the name of Allah or Islam but nationalism, racism, and political, not religious, ideology.

I'm sorry but this nonsense is pretty stupid that many American neo cons say. No the only radical religious group that WOULD launch a suicidal nuclear launch to kill all humans is Evangelical protestants. Because their religion is focused solely on if they go to heaven. Islam and Judaism are different as their religion as a whole host of rules on what you have to do. Just being a "believer" and then not following the moral rules isn't enough in traditional religions like Islam, Judaism, and real Apostolic Christianity. Hell I'll even give a source of an actual Islamist in the US.