What happens if Russia has an arab spring type implosion after Putin becomes really unpopular or dies?
We do not acknowledge it enough how much we have resting on the continued stability of Russia. And it's obvious Putin doesn't give a shit what happens to his country after he is gone.
I hate to break this to you, but overthrowing a modern government is actually, really REALLY hard. So much so it's near wishful thinking unless its already a failed state.
My God, please do not interpret my comments as wishful thinking. The collapse of the Russian government, as terrible as it is, gives me nightmares. And I don't think collapse is unlikely. Humanity is heading towards a clusterfuck of chaos in these coming decades as climate change intensifies and large economic shifts occur. Governments are going to buckle, and the awful truth is that we are all dependent on stability in some parts of the world more than others.
What happens if Russia has an arab spring type implosion after Putin becomes really unpopular or dies?
We do not acknowledge it enough how much we have resting on the continued stability of Russia. And it's obvious Putin doesn't give a shit what happens to his country after he is gone.
I hate to break this to you, but overthrowing a modern government is actually, really REALLY hard. So much so it's near wishful thinking unless its already a failed state.
My God, please do not interpret my comments as wishful thinking. The collapse of the Russian government, as terrible as it is, gives me nightmares. And I don't think collapse is unlikely. Humanity is heading towards a clusterfuck of chaos in these coming decades as climate change intensifies and large economic shifts occur. Governments are going to buckle, and the awful truth is that we are all dependent on stability in some parts of the world more than others.
How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though
Part of the issue with there being no clear successor but an ostensible structure in place to replace him means that no individual would risk overthrowing him. They would have bo clue who would rule in his place. But at the same time overthrowing the system has little to replace it with since its already ostensibly democratic.
You would have to either have a conspiracy of oligarchs(who have little reason to attempt it. They get another oligarch who rules for them like Putin and also risk being found out) or a revolution so complete that there were no oligarchs left to exert power(IE so one of them didnt pick up the mantle of Putin and just continue, new boss same as the old)
Russia's historical experience with democracy has been pretty bad. The first one put the Bolsheviks in charge and the second one ended up with the president apologizing for failing the nation and then drinking himself to death.
Democracy is associated with the absolute nadir of Russian society in the 1990s.
What happens if Russia has an arab spring type implosion after Putin becomes really unpopular or dies?
We do not acknowledge it enough how much we have resting on the continued stability of Russia. And it's obvious Putin doesn't give a shit what happens to his country after he is gone.
I hate to break this to you, but overthrowing a modern government is actually, really REALLY hard. So much so it's near wishful thinking unless its already a failed state.
My God, please do not interpret my comments as wishful thinking. The collapse of the Russian government, as terrible as it is, gives me nightmares. And I don't think collapse is unlikely. Humanity is heading towards a clusterfuck of chaos in these coming decades as climate change intensifies and large economic shifts occur. Governments are going to buckle, and the awful truth is that we are all dependent on stability in some parts of the world more than others.
Also, you know, they have nukes. Lots of them.
Credit where it's due, western analysts have been issuing dire warnings about loose Russian nukes for decades but the Russians have done a pretty solid job keeping their arsenal under control. Even at the cost of letting parts of the Army literally starve so that the Strategic Rocket Forces could get paid.
(seriously, some Russian troops in isolated outposts died of starvation in the 1990s. The country really went to shit for awhile.)
Democracy is a bit of a red herring. Some degree of democracy is probably necessary for a prosperous, free, liberal society but it has been shown over and over it is in no way sufficient.
Iran has responded to the US sanctions by scaling back its compliance with the deal, culminating with an announcement this month that it would reject all limits on production of enriched uranium, although it says it wants to keep the deal in place.
America is threatening to make new tariffs on imported cars. Iran is threatening to make more enriched uranium which is much worse.
Iran has responded to the US sanctions by scaling back its compliance with the deal, culminating with an announcement this month that it would reject all limits on production of enriched uranium, although it says it wants to keep the deal in place.
America is threatening to make new tariffs on imported cars. Iran is threatening to make more enriched uranium which is much worse.
One, the tariffs would have applied to the UK for not doing what Trump wanted. So that's not a direct comparison.
Two, we broke the deal where they wouldn't do that. No shit they're going to do it.
Iran has responded to the US sanctions by scaling back its compliance with the deal, culminating with an announcement this month that it would reject all limits on production of enriched uranium, although it says it wants to keep the deal in place.
America is threatening to make new tariffs on imported cars. Iran is threatening to make more enriched uranium which is much worse.
It is. Which is why we shouldn't have broken our treaty with them where they agreed not to do it.
How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though
Hard to say, since Putin does everything in his power to smother any hint of opposition (free press is dead, opposition can't hold rallies, critics and others are routinely bugged and/or forced to deal with the FSB investigating them) but that isn't to say it doesn't exist and hasn't gotten clever with how to oppose him (As I understand it, his opposition used some legal chicanery to oust his mayoral puppet in moscow).
How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though
Hard to say, since Putin does everything in his power to smother any hint of opposition (free press is dead, opposition can't hold rallies, critics and others are routinely bugged and/or forced to deal with the FSB investigating them) but that isn't to say it doesn't exist and hasn't gotten clever with how to oppose him (As I understand it, his opposition used some legal chicanery to oust his mayoral puppet in moscow).
The Communist Party did well in the 2018 regional election, and it seems to be slowly rebuilding support after a sharp decline in the mid-00s. I could easily see them returning to power in the post-Putin era.
Phillishere on
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Why does McConnell have the authority to deny witnesses as opposed to Robert's, the judge?
Because Impeachment was ruled by the supreme court to be a political process, and therfore the rules need to be established by a vote of senators, not a body of established law and precedent.
Yeah....it looks like he's going to transition himself to Prime Minister?
Again?
Well, no, last time he swapped places with Medvedev and controlled him like a puppet because he couldn't do a third consecutive term as president. This time he is also swapping the power and role of the offices, basically taking the presidency with him. I suspect he is doing this because doing the same switcharoo as last time would look too transparently corrupt to most Russians.
How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though
Surprisingly little. Putin has managed to make him and his party actually legit popular enough to convincingly pretend they overwhelmingly win elections. Bunch of popular reforms, lot of propaganda, and "allegedly" serious political repression. He is popular. And he remains popular by keeping up the appearance of democracy and changing governments while keeping actual power to himself.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
It's possible Iran wouldn't build a nuke for defense but instead provides enriched uranium to a proxy for some conflict outside their borders. And when a disastrous attack occurs, Iran can say, "We don't know what happened in Iraq/Syria/Israel. Must have been a mechanical failure."
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
It's possible Iran wouldn't build a nuke for defense but instead provides enriched uranium to a proxy for some conflict outside their borders. And when a disastrous attack occurs, Iran can say, "We don't know what happened in Iraq/Syria/Israel. Must have been a mechanical failure."
States tend not to provide non-state actors with any type of WMD or related material because the blow back would be severe and unanimous. In the reverse, that may not necessarily be true but that depends on how independent you think e.g. AQ Khan was from the Pakistani government.
+10
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
The U.S. intelligence community is trying to persuade House and Senate lawmakers to drop the public portion of an annual briefing on the globe’s greatest security threats — a move compelled by last year’s session that provoked an angry outburst from President Donald Trump, multiple sources told POLITICO.
Officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, on behalf of the larger clandestine community, don’t want agency chiefs to be seen on-camera as disagreeing with the president on big issues such as Iran, Russia or North Korea, according to three people familiar with preliminary negotiations over what's known as the Worldwide Threats hearing.
The request, which is unlikely to be approved, has been made through initial, informal conversations at the staff level between Capitol Hill and the clandestine community, the people said.
At the last such threats briefing a year ago, the chiefs presented findings that diverged from the president’s statements on the longevity of Islamic State terror group, as well as Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. He blistered them on Twitter the following day, labeling them “passive” and “naive” while writing that “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"
Trump later claimed his top intelligence chiefs, including then-DNI Dan Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel, told him that they had been misquoted in the press — even though their remarks had been broadcast and the video footage was publicly available.
Thankfully it sounds, at least from the articles I've read, like Congress is unlikely to agree to this.
+20
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
It's possible Iran wouldn't build a nuke for defense but instead provides enriched uranium to a proxy for some conflict outside their borders. And when a disastrous attack occurs, Iran can say, "We don't know what happened in Iraq/Syria/Israel. Must have been a mechanical failure."
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
Every person who made that decision is dead. The last egomaniac to make a concerted effort to use them in a different conflict was marginalized and is also dead.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter. You can't say you truly believe that nuclear proliferation is bad while still having six thousand nukes.
It's like a community where a couple guys got a shitload of guns and then decided that they are very bad and nobody is allowed to have any more guns except for them. And to show how much they believe in that they make a show of throwing away a couple of their guns. Are we supposed to go "oh wow you only got a bunch of guns left which is completely fair"?
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yeah, the thought that we have that reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles makes the world a safer place comes partially from the perspective of living in countries where nuclear weapons are the only thing that could possibly destroy us. Nuclear disarmament hasn't really made the Middle East a safer place to be, and the Mutually Assured Destruction club has to look pretty appealing.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yeah, the thought that we have that reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles makes the world a safer place comes partially from the perspective of living in countries where nuclear weapons are the only thing that could possibly destroy us. Nuclear disarmament hasn't really made the Middle East a safer place to be, and the Mutually Assured Destruction club has to look pretty appealing.
I mean if Iran gets a nuke it's not anywhere near Mutually Assured Destruction.
At best (or worst I suppose) all it would allow Iran to do is something incredibly stupid that could trigger a response from a country with an actual nuclear arsenal which would be utterly tragic.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yeah, the thought that we have that reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles makes the world a safer place comes partially from the perspective of living in countries where nuclear weapons are the only thing that could possibly destroy us. Nuclear disarmament hasn't really made the Middle East a safer place to be, and the Mutually Assured Destruction club has to look pretty appealing.
I mean if Iran gets a nuke it's not anywhere near Mutually Assured Destruction.
At best (or worst I suppose) all it would allow Iran to do is something incredibly stupid that could trigger a response from a country with an actual nuclear arsenal which would be utterly tragic.
Probably. Though I wouldn't be too quick to jump to that conclusion. While the Iranian government have shown some levels of irrationality, them just being crazy madmen appears to be at least in part western propaganda. That they engaged in the JCPOA, and for all intents and purposes kept to it, and continued to keep to it for quite a while after the US pulled out (and only really appear to have broken it, because Trump has consistently proven to be a bad actor), and that they were the ones to show a level of restraint in the recent conflict, that many countries might not have.
While yes, adding another nuclear armed nation with a history of being belligerent is a bad thing, I'm not sure they're a bigger threat than some of the other nations that already have them. Specifically, North Korea, Pakistan, and most recently, India (The Kashmir annexation is irresponsible as fuck).
Don't get me wrong. Nuclear armed Iran = Bad. But I think the fear is exaggerated at least in part because of the demonization of Iran by western governments for a half century, that the last half-decade doesn't really bear out.
Iran doesn't even need that many nukes per se; having 50 or so scattered about that have hiroshima level warheads would be sufficient to fuck up a carrier group or flatten some cities in SA or israel and that's really all you need for them to be an effective deterrent.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yeah, the thought that we have that reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles makes the world a safer place comes partially from the perspective of living in countries where nuclear weapons are the only thing that could possibly destroy us. Nuclear disarmament hasn't really made the Middle East a safer place to be, and the Mutually Assured Destruction club has to look pretty appealing.
I mean if Iran gets a nuke it's not anywhere near Mutually Assured Destruction.
At best (or worst I suppose) all it would allow Iran to do is something incredibly stupid that could trigger a response from a country with an actual nuclear arsenal which would be utterly tragic.
"Something stupid" is still "millions dead", which is the appeal. Nukes mean the US leaves Iran alone. It means Israel leaves Iran alone. MAD isn't needed with nukes because no one is realistically thinking they're going to "win" any level of nuclear exchange and have the outcome be worth it. Doing anything else at all absolutely is.
Posts
My God, please do not interpret my comments as wishful thinking. The collapse of the Russian government, as terrible as it is, gives me nightmares. And I don't think collapse is unlikely. Humanity is heading towards a clusterfuck of chaos in these coming decades as climate change intensifies and large economic shifts occur. Governments are going to buckle, and the awful truth is that we are all dependent on stability in some parts of the world more than others.
Also, you know, they have nukes. Lots of them.
Part of the issue with there being no clear successor but an ostensible structure in place to replace him means that no individual would risk overthrowing him. They would have bo clue who would rule in his place. But at the same time overthrowing the system has little to replace it with since its already ostensibly democratic.
You would have to either have a conspiracy of oligarchs(who have little reason to attempt it. They get another oligarch who rules for them like Putin and also risk being found out) or a revolution so complete that there were no oligarchs left to exert power(IE so one of them didnt pick up the mantle of Putin and just continue, new boss same as the old)
Both seem unikely.
But the Russian populace by and large seems to have accepted that they're to be run by an amazingly corrupt oligarchy.
That does seem to cover quite a bit of their history, along with the resulting fatalism.
"It's a very Russian ending." - Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5
Democracy is associated with the absolute nadir of Russian society in the 1990s.
Credit where it's due, western analysts have been issuing dire warnings about loose Russian nukes for decades but the Russians have done a pretty solid job keeping their arsenal under control. Even at the cost of letting parts of the Army literally starve so that the Strategic Rocket Forces could get paid.
(seriously, some Russian troops in isolated outposts died of starvation in the 1990s. The country really went to shit for awhile.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-tariffs-uk-iran-nuclear-deal-france-germany-eu-a9286496.html
The deal the US left?
FTFY
America is threatening to make new tariffs on imported cars. Iran is threatening to make more enriched uranium which is much worse.
It's the only way to guarantee your sovereignty
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
One, the tariffs would have applied to the UK for not doing what Trump wanted. So that's not a direct comparison.
Two, we broke the deal where they wouldn't do that. No shit they're going to do it.
It is. Which is why we shouldn't have broken our treaty with them where they agreed not to do it.
Hard to say, since Putin does everything in his power to smother any hint of opposition (free press is dead, opposition can't hold rallies, critics and others are routinely bugged and/or forced to deal with the FSB investigating them) but that isn't to say it doesn't exist and hasn't gotten clever with how to oppose him (As I understand it, his opposition used some legal chicanery to oust his mayoral puppet in moscow).
The Communist Party did well in the 2018 regional election, and it seems to be slowly rebuilding support after a sharp decline in the mid-00s. I could easily see them returning to power in the post-Putin era.
He doesn't, the Senate as a whole does. A majority of Senators could choose to allow witnesses and testimony.
Just like how a majority of Senators could make McConnell a back bencher rather than Leader. Which is just as likely to happen.
Well, no, last time he swapped places with Medvedev and controlled him like a puppet because he couldn't do a third consecutive term as president. This time he is also swapping the power and role of the offices, basically taking the presidency with him. I suspect he is doing this because doing the same switcharoo as last time would look too transparently corrupt to most Russians.
Surprisingly little. Putin has managed to make him and his party actually legit popular enough to convincingly pretend they overwhelmingly win elections. Bunch of popular reforms, lot of propaganda, and "allegedly" serious political repression. He is popular. And he remains popular by keeping up the appearance of democracy and changing governments while keeping actual power to himself.
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
It's possible Iran wouldn't build a nuke for defense but instead provides enriched uranium to a proxy for some conflict outside their borders. And when a disastrous attack occurs, Iran can say, "We don't know what happened in Iraq/Syria/Israel. Must have been a mechanical failure."
States tend not to provide non-state actors with any type of WMD or related material because the blow back would be severe and unanimous. In the reverse, that may not necessarily be true but that depends on how independent you think e.g. AQ Khan was from the Pakistani government.
I don't know if the banality of it all makes me feel better or worse.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/intel-agencies-threats-hearing-trump-099494
Thankfully it sounds, at least from the articles I've read, like Congress is unlikely to agree to this.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
Why the hell would they do that?
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
Every person who made that decision is dead. The last egomaniac to make a concerted effort to use them in a different conflict was marginalized and is also dead.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter. You can't say you truly believe that nuclear proliferation is bad while still having six thousand nukes.
It's like a community where a couple guys got a shitload of guns and then decided that they are very bad and nobody is allowed to have any more guns except for them. And to show how much they believe in that they make a show of throwing away a couple of their guns. Are we supposed to go "oh wow you only got a bunch of guns left which is completely fair"?
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yeah, the thought that we have that reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles makes the world a safer place comes partially from the perspective of living in countries where nuclear weapons are the only thing that could possibly destroy us. Nuclear disarmament hasn't really made the Middle East a safer place to be, and the Mutually Assured Destruction club has to look pretty appealing.
I mean if Iran gets a nuke it's not anywhere near Mutually Assured Destruction.
At best (or worst I suppose) all it would allow Iran to do is something incredibly stupid that could trigger a response from a country with an actual nuclear arsenal which would be utterly tragic.
Probably. Though I wouldn't be too quick to jump to that conclusion. While the Iranian government have shown some levels of irrationality, them just being crazy madmen appears to be at least in part western propaganda. That they engaged in the JCPOA, and for all intents and purposes kept to it, and continued to keep to it for quite a while after the US pulled out (and only really appear to have broken it, because Trump has consistently proven to be a bad actor), and that they were the ones to show a level of restraint in the recent conflict, that many countries might not have.
While yes, adding another nuclear armed nation with a history of being belligerent is a bad thing, I'm not sure they're a bigger threat than some of the other nations that already have them. Specifically, North Korea, Pakistan, and most recently, India (The Kashmir annexation is irresponsible as fuck).
Don't get me wrong. Nuclear armed Iran = Bad. But I think the fear is exaggerated at least in part because of the demonization of Iran by western governments for a half century, that the last half-decade doesn't really bear out.
"Something stupid" is still "millions dead", which is the appeal. Nukes mean the US leaves Iran alone. It means Israel leaves Iran alone. MAD isn't needed with nukes because no one is realistically thinking they're going to "win" any level of nuclear exchange and have the outcome be worth it. Doing anything else at all absolutely is.