this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
17 points (75.8% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

20431 readers
2 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Case In point I own 10 acres of land in the USA and find the world biggest oil reserve or the world biggest Uranium reserve and I really really hate Britain for whatever reason you can pick. Does that give the UK to enter and bomb my 10 acres back to the stone age?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The more countries with a nuclear deterrent, the less advantage countries who already wield nuclear power have.

Iran also explicitly regards the US as its primary enemy(regime change says what) and has been historically unwilling to kowtow to US demands, which really upsets imperialists.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The more countries with a nuclear deterrent,

…. The more likely someone is to use them.

While the current nuclear powers haven’t always behaved well, the last thing we need is higher likelihood of someone using nuclear weapons. I do t co do e the attack nor believe the stated justification but I agree that it would be bad for more countries to be able to use nuclear weapons

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

…. The more likely someone is to use them.

There is only one country on this planet with nukes that has used them, on civilian targets, twice.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

“mutually Assured Destruction” may not yet have destroyed humanity but it’s insane to think it’s desirable.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

the only time nukes have been used is when 1 side had them, it would seem the more forces that have them the less likely they are to be used

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

That is really naive

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The Iranian government identifies Israel as its number 1 enemy. The USA is second and it's because the USA has historically protected Israel. Antisemitism is an ancient drug.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I was with you until the last statement; it’s not antisemitism; pretty much everyone in the mid east is “Semitic”. It’s being against a nation who lives on land that they believe is rightfully theirs, persecuting and outright genociding people of a shared sect of their religion.

They don’t want to nuke Israel, because they want the land; they don’t want to kill all Jews (other than the far right agitators that seem to pop up everywhere), they want to destroy the nation of Israel.

This makes things a bit messy because if Israel ceased to be a country and Palestine took over tomorrow, Iran would rejoice, but then they’d likely try expanding into surrounding countries, and at least some would want to absorb Palestine into Iran.

They’d also have to come to grips with the US, who has been the great satan for two generations now. Iran has defined itself in relation to the US in the meantime.

Meanwhile, most people living in Iran identify themselves as Persian, and don’t consider this their fight. And the Persian diaspora is pretty large.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

White European colonists are not semitic.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Iranians/Persians are white European colonists?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago