Is Iran *more* likely or *less* likely to seek nukes now that we've shown them how timid we are with nuclear-armed nations after we just went in and wasted the head of the Iranian IRGC while he was visiting Iraq?
Because we're actively telling them that we don't touch nuclear-armed Putin for X while simultaneously telling them that we'll kill whoever in their government we want to because they don't have nukes. That's the message we're sending them *right now*.
Currently...it might be a "pro" but if we continue to ratchet up sanctions and if they lead to Putin's downfall because his country revolts...then they might be a "con".
I'm all for defeating Putin, but I think it's wise to not fast-track it to a pure NATO/West military response for many sound reasons having to do with gaining more unity, allowing Putin to further prove how much a pariah he is to the world and seeing how effective the non-kinetics can be...when his oligarchs are included in the pain.
Not perfect I know...but the risk is real if we get ahead of ourselves on this and an "accident" happens triggering a really bad situation...that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a minor incident.
That's why Kim has his nukes.
Yes it is, but stating that fact, doesn't resolve it. We are actively attempting to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
The point remains...possessing Nukes is a factor in our thinking when considering militarily engagements against these countries.
Why wouldn't it be? It seems foolish to not have this as a consideration and as a moderating factor in our responses to them.
Is Iran *more* likely or *less* likely to seek nukes now that we've shown them how timid we are with nuclear-armed nations after we just went in and wasted the head of the Iranian IRGC while he was visiting Iraq?
Because we're actively telling them that we don't touch nuclear-armed Putin for X while simultaneously telling them that we'll kill whoever in their government we want to because they don't have nukes. That's the message we're sending them *right now*.
Currently...it might be a "pro" but if we continue to ratchet up sanctions and if they lead to Putin's downfall because his country revolts...then they might be a "con".
I'm all for defeating Putin, but I think it's wise to not fast-track it to a pure NATO/West military response for many sound reasons having to do with gaining more unity, allowing Putin to further prove how much a pariah he is to the world and seeing how effective the non-kinetics can be...when his oligarchs are included in the pain.
Not perfect I know...but the risk is real if we get ahead of ourselves on this and an "accident" happens triggering a really bad situation...that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a minor incident.