Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

There is an important distinction between attacking civilian-critical services like healthcare systems and pipelines, and attacking a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran.

View on HN

Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians [1]?

"Trust us we are the good guys" doesn't cut it for the US anymore when international deals get broken when a new administration comes in. [2]

We should be going towards a global disarmament which everyone could agree on.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

The US isn't making the call in this case. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is thus prohibited from having nuclear weapons.

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/

> Why does the US get to make the call who can have nuclear weapons and who can't when the US is the only one whom ever dropped one on civilians?

Well, I for one am not about to cross the people who use nukes on civilians.

Proliferation prevention is applied fairly to all non-nuclear states. However, especially reckless ones get the stick, and those actions are usually multilateral. For example, the “Iran Deal”.

What does this have to do with nuclear weapons?

Does Iran have a good track record for human rights protection? No it is a religious dictatorship that has vowed many times to wipe a nearby country of people different than them off the map.

Again the US may be a democracy but has repeatedly threatened other nations. [1] The US also is not shy in admitting it has a kill list [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UhQ-gqVkg

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

You mean like how the US president threatened "fire and fury like the world has never seen" against a country of people different than them?

I am deeply ashamed by some of the things that that President said, especially with regards to internationally policy. Can't we just agree that he no longer speaks for the US, and as such, neither do his Twitter rants?

Also we voted him out via democracy, the system worked. Iran's people have no such luxury.

The stories my Persian friends' parents tell of life before and after 1979 are heartbreaking.

Sure, as long as we also agree that he (or someone in the same ballpark) will not get re-elected in 4 years time.

He won't. The political party that elected him is split now. Half of them want him back, but half want to move on, so he is gonna just lose again.

Half of them believe he's actually still President and he'll be using a secret army to re-install himself when the time is right.

What about the half of Democrats that realize Biden deliberately stubbed his own toe on critical campaign promises to help working poor Americans? Will they fall in line one more time as the progressive candidate (ala Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020) gets railroaded by the Democratic party machine one more time?

Was the US overthrowing Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister in 1953 about human rights then? He was introducing progressive reforms in Iran.

> progressive reforms

You mean nationalize other peoples property then try to starve capitalism of resources. As a liberal I always find it funny when leftists have this magical ability to just forget WHY the States had the containment policy. So yea it was about the human right of private property.

Oh ok so how was the human right of private property respected when the US annexed Hawaii?

Um what system of government did they have before? I guess we have beef against most forms of Monarchies. And before you mention it was a constitutional monarchy that was done by the Bayonet Constitution.... read that history that was basically us. not as bad as the constitution of 1894 tho... that was rather direct.

Ok got it. So "respecting human rights" means the US should get to decide the form of government and economy of everyone else in the world (which through total happenstance always ends up benefiting the US). At least you admit it. Now don't complain when the consequences of that stance fully manifest over the next couple of decades.

Every non-democracy or republic is oppressing its people in some way shape or form. So yea that is respecting human rights.

A Chase survey from January of this year found that 40% of Americans don’t have enough cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency. The NHIS estimated that from 2017-2019 anywhere from 8,500 to 25,000 non-elderly adults died in the US from lack of healthcare coverage. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 25% of US adults said they or a family member had delayed treatment for a serious medical condition during the past year because of financial concerns. As of 2018 there were roughly 550,000 homeless people in the US on any given night. The US has around 25% of the world’s prison population with 698 people incarcerated per 100,000.

But we have freedom and human rights!

> A Chase survey from January of this year found that 40% of Americans don’t have enough cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency.

Did you know that has nothing to do with how much money you make? if you don't save any money you won't have money for unexpected expenses.

> As of 2018 there were roughly 550,000 homeless people in the US on any given night

Heres some other countries homeless populations Germany: 650,000 China: 2,579,000 Canada: 129,127 (36 per 10k) New Zealand: 41,207 (94 per 10k). The US is 17 per 10k just so you know.

Let's say your number for China is accurate (it's not). Why aren't all these free human rights respecting places able to do better on the rate of homelessness than an oppressive authoritarian regime?

Let's assume you're right that everyone is just spending all their money irresponsibly. Why isn't our system of free speech and open access to information able to educate people better?

>a single nuclear WEAPONS manufacturing plant in Iran

If "mass disinformation campaigns" were very successful, then:

1."WEAPONS manufacturing plant" could be actually a "civilian-critical nuclear power plant related services"

2.You would never find statement 1 is unprovable. In stead you would insist that statement 1 must be false as the consequence of disinformation.

It seems that hacking of any "civilian-critical" services , whether in US or Russia, is less critical than the hacking of people's mind (especially of smart developers/hackers) who would support and thus actively involve in hacking "evil" entities, along with other activities causing conflicts.

I believe HNers minds are less likely to be hacked then those of other communities. (Technology topics are almost never be hacked. I'm talking about politics discussion which is more fascinating to watch how hacked HNer's minds interacting with each other.)

My belief could be wrong because "Mind's I" could be hacked and it's unprovable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com