quiet_NaN
21hr ago
Let me rephrase that. I think nuclear war -- even though probably not an x-risk -- is really bad and we should try to avoid things which make it more likely, including reducing the number of warheads, disincentivizing states from obtaining nukes and incentivizing nuclear disarmament.
Suitable tools to do that are diplomacy and sanctions. And first and foremost, international law. Sure, like all law, it is just make-believe, but in practice it works well enough. Denmark could afford a nuclear program, and if they felt that the Gemans were going to invade again sooner or later they would have one. Instead, they get to live in a pacified Europe where the marginal security offered by nukes is simply not worth it.
I feel that Trump and Bibi are just accomplishing the opposite. Now, I am fine with using Stuxnet to destroy Iranian centrifuges. Bombing their enrichment program is probably already an undue step of escalation (especially as it likely used intel learned from UN inspections), as is assassinating their nuclear engineers. Killing their head of state in a botched attempt at regime change sends a terrible message.
Any country in the world which has less cozy relations with Trump than the Saudis will notice that recently, one head of state got kidnapped and one got assassinated by him, and how it was basically impossible for these states to hurt the US militarily. They will also notice that North Korea was not targeted, and conclude that this likely has something to do with their nuclear weapons.
The Iran debacle showcases that in a world full of strongmen, you want nuclear deterrence. Any supporter of the Iranian regime who was on the fence wrt nukes will conclude as much -- Iran can't squeeze the balls of the world economy through Hormuz forever.
Netanyahu seems like a foolish hero of some Greek tragedy who wanted to thwart the prediction of some oracle and thereby causes it to be fulfilled. His and Trump's violent disregard for international law have made the world less safe everywhere.
Seconded. The US-Iran deal is not bad for Hezbollah, e.g. it acknowledges that Iran has an interest in what happens in Lebanon.
It is also not bad for Hezbollah's overlords, i.e. the IRGC -- otherwise Iran would simply not have signed the deal.
My understanding is that Hezbollah did attack Israel with rockets when the Iran war began, and in return Israel bombed Beirut and invaded south Lebanon, and is openly destroying villages with the aim of displacing Lebanese.
Quite frankly, I do not like Hezbollah, but them attacking Israeli troops in Lebanon who are busy with genocide-through-displacement seems one of the less objectionable things they did.
More options
Context Copy link