this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
269 points (96.5% liked)

politics

24585 readers
3606 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I would happily give up all our nukes if everyone else agreed to do so as well.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As nice as that would be, the unfortunate reality is that's just not a realistic solution. You can't put the cat back in the bag, so to speak.

The technology is already known; If everyone agreed to disarm, each party would just be even more worried about nations potentially ignoring that agreement and their now lack of defense against it.


The biggest reason I'm not all that concerned about Iran having nukes is the fact that so many nations are already nuclear armed. The use of nuclear weapons is so hated globally that they can only really be used in defence. If any individual nation chose to use their nukes offensively, the inevitable response from everyone else would mean the decision is suicide.

If Iran acquired nukes, then used them on say, Israel; America at the very least would turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland. I'm sure there are other nations that would join in, even if just on principle.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, I agree with everything you said, I'm just not as confident as I would like to be that Iran would stay their own hand. I agree that it's an idiotic idea, actually using a nuke, which is part of why even North Korea hasn't used theirs, but I'm just not that confident Iran could resist the temptation once they've got it. Making Israel disappear is high on their priority list, even if it's a stupid idea.

I'm not dedicated to the preservation of Israel or anything, but part of preserving the taboo against nukes means making sure that we never actually have to retaliate after a strike. Like you said, the cat is out of the bag as far as owning nukes goes, we don't want to end up in a situation where we have to say "okay, WWII and then that time Israel disappeared but we're serious, no more nukes?"

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I know it's much easier said than done; but I just wish the world as a whole would put more effort into diplomatic relations instead of just bombing eachother into 'compliance'.

We don't all have to like each other and work together; but if we could stop burning each others houses down, that'd be great.

Hopefully that's not an unpopular opinion...