Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

Here's a good timeline:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d0...

The upshot is that the US terminated the deal in 2019 and then the Iranians started "racing" for a bomb.

Before you think the nuclear deal was good, I have to ask: Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"?

It seems a bit like holding the world hostage. There are other ways to stop the bomb program, as we have now seen. The diplomatic solution grants Iran permission to destabilize the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

I'm pretty ok bombing hostile religious fanatics trying to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.

View on HN

> Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"

Lots of nations are "bad actors" in lots of ways. And sanctions come in many different shapes and sizes.

So yes, it is absolutely OK to sanction a country more because they are building a nuclear bomb, and then remove those extra sanctions if they stop.

Sanctions aren't all-or-nothing. The whole idea is that the more you go along with international norms, the less you're sanctioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work to change behavior, because change is always a matter of degrees. Iran isn't going to become Switzerland overnight. That's not how countries work.

>Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"?

As Morpheus said, "Welcome to the real world."

I'm pretty okay bribing nations to verifiably not build nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.

According to these absolute la-la-land real politickers, states are supposed to just not build nuclear weapons — tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely.

Obviously you have to fucking bribe them! Bribing is infinitely better than bombing, where each marginal bombing increases the imperative for every other state to develop their own nukes by reaffirming they are permanently at the mercy of nuclear states!

> tools that are empirically required to have a seat at the international table since 1945 — because you ask politely.

Umm, what? There are plenty of countries that "have a seat at the table" without nuclear weapons. Depending on what you mean by "seat at the table", of course, but I'm not sure there's any way to define it that excludes 95% of countries.

Maybe if defined as "permanent member of the un security council".

When push comes to shove, 100% of those states are either victims or vassals of a nuclear state.

I personally think that it's not ok that Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis.

I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites. I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.

> Iran has sewed so much discord in the Middle East by arming Hez, Hamas and the Houthis.

Have you seen Israeli leaders plans for 'Greater Israel'?

> I'm very happy the US got involved and destroyed their enrichment sites.

A - Did they though?

B - Cheering on huge breaches of international law, spurring nations to develop their own nuclear weapons and ignore peace talks, seems rather short-sighted.

> I'm also happy Israel didn't wait around for Iran to destroy them, which they've actively been trying to do in this war.

... That's quite the cherry on a remarkably ahistorical cake. Countries generally respond to people genociding and invading their neighbours, assassinating their negotiators and scientists, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com