[trustinmenowpls]

Just so we're clear every time they said this, they also did something to prevent it from actually happening, whether that's stuxnet, targeted assassinations, other forms of sabotage, they always found a way to push that timeline out, but they couldn't do it indefinitely.

[orwin]

No, some of it was to complain about the nuclear deal Iran had with the west and try to prevent it. Deal that saw Iran stop development and stop some of its research.

Now when I see what happened to Ukraine, Libya/Irak and what might happen to Iran, and compare it with NK/Pakistan, my position on nukes is: get nukes. Especially if a western country say you have nukes: get them.

[quotz]

Iran getting nukes would arguably make the middle east way more stable, and possibly also mitigate further genocide

[orwin]

I'm not sure I agree with that totally, but for sure threat of force from the US is worse for the middle east stability than Iran getting nukes.

My point was that preventing countries from getting nukes used to be an acceptable, if not a majority opinion, and a lot of countries more or less accepted it. From now on, I feel that that opinion will become a minority opinion, even on the anti-nuke/hippie left. And if the hiipies start agreeing with the tankies on a point, you can be sure it's the majority opinion in the non-west world.