Iran Issues Unprecedented Nuclear Threat in Duel With Israel - eviltoast
  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    A bit of a click bait title. They said they would hit Israel’s nuclear facilities if Israel attacks Iran’s.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I wasn’t betting on 2024 being the year everyone died, but it looks like we’re heading that way…

  • psychothumbs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    If I were the Iranian leadership I’d want to develop a nuclear arsenal yesterday. It’s the only way to really deter Israeli or American aggression. As an American myself I’d appreciate the resulting reduction in the likelihood of our going to war against Iran.

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If Iran uses a nuclear device, the whole world will use conventional weaponry to flatten the entire country, just to make an example of them. None of the serious players actually want nuclear war.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      All the, “We’re gonna DIE!” posts come from people that never lived the Cold War.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        7 months ago

        The same Cold War where if a couple of people made different choices (like Stanislav Petrov) the earth would be an irradiated wasteland?

        The doomers can be irritating at times but let’s not get complacent.

      • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s the result of growing up under 2 very different impending calamities. Nuclear annihilation was a constant but invisible threat that promised to wipe the world clean before you would even have time to comprehend what was happening, so the mentality was to live in the moment and pretend it didn’t exist, because it all might not tomorrow. While climate change is a constant but blatantly visible threat that clearly gets worse and worse as time goes on, giving a real sense of desperate urgency to do something now.

        So you have a dissonance of the older generations who shrug their shoulders at the horrors of the news and pretend that nothing’s happening because it doesn’t immediately affect them, and the younger generations who are freaking out about everything all at the same time because their whole lives they’ve basically been on the train tracks watching the train come barreling towards them and begging the older folks to just drive the car off the tracks.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Enjoy the little moments

          If the worst should happen (nuclear war) unless you live somewhere quite rural you would die incredibly quickly.

          So rather than constantly worrying about if the world ends, enjoy the little moments and work on building a better world with the people around you. And hopefully with your small collective and other people doing the same we can steer the world into a less treacherous direction.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is kind of a cliche at this point but I have found mindfulness to be helpful for me. I like to go out into the woods and just watch the wind blow the trees around and just appreciate the nature around me. Keeping yourself in the present is tough but it does wonders.

    • Ab_intra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      They don’t even have them. How would they be able to use something they don’t have?

  • Edwardthefma99✡@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Iran might have 1 or 2 but we have hundreds iran doesn’t want us to get MAD also known as Mutual assured destruction there desert country would be irrataded for the next 100 years where as NORAD would of stopped there missile over flying over the Pacific or Atlantic ocean

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        These people actually think they are smart. Can’t fathom why “the rest of the world” doesn’t understand them, disagrees with them, is against them.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I pictured a mentally deficient trucker, ala Curt Russell in Big Trouble in Little China, but fatter and uncool screaming into his phone while Real American by Rick Derringer plays in the background.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      The point of building nukes isn’t really to launch a nuke at someone, it’s to make others decide that attacking you is too risky. Missile defense isn’t perfect, so even if it probably would stop them, there’s still a risk one gets through, that someone would have to take into consideration before launching an attack. It’s even more a threat against Isreal, since they have less time to intercept, and even one missile getting through would destroy a comparatively larger fraction of the country, being that it’s fairly small.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          That’s certainly the case today, though. The only reason it wasn’t the case then was because only one nation had nukes.

          Now that mutually assured destruction is a near guarantee, only seriously deranged people are eyeing the button.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Japan was nuked at a time when the realities around nuclear weapons (namely, the hostile nation having them too, or an ally of theirs) were different. The strategy around them is dramatically different now from then.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Hundreds? America has thousands of nuclear weapons. I wish we only had hundreds