Comment on WHO officials admit they are preparing for possible nuclear weapon use in Iran
berg@lemmy.zip 1 day agoSo that’s making a very critical assumption: that Israel’s territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.
Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel’s nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran’s missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.
Israel’s small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.
There’s very little a nuke would do that Israel can’t do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there’s a whole lot that nukes don’t do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble
Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.
Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.
azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question. The rules of nuclear warfare aren’t governed by morality but by game theory. From Israel’s perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort for the reasons I outlined. Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally – which you will notice is not at all the same thing as acting morally or honestly. Using nuclear weapons is simply not a tactically rational option for them even if when their explicit goal is genocidal imperialism.
What’s scary about Trump is that none of this applies to him. He is not a rational actor and he does not have everything to lose were he to launch a nuclear strike against Iran.
berg@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Correct.
Genocide isn’t perpetuated by rational thinkers, is not an act of self preservation, and does not protect the wellbeing of it’s perpetrators. The absurdity of this cannot be understated.
I am not making a moral argument. I am stating Israel has shown the depravity to use tactics of absolute destruction and barbarity, an established doctrine promoting the use of nuclear arms if Israel were to take heavy damage, and the fact that Israel is taking significant damage as their defenses continue to weaken as additional fronts open. These are all key requirements for the use of nuclear arms by Israel, and they are increasingly being met. Suggesting the US is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons from their position of relative safety is just laughable.