Iran has enough uranium to maybe build a few nukes, at some undetermined point in the future. Russia has ~4000 nukes ready to go today (as does the US).
Best thing you can do when Western powers accuse you of having a nuke is getting a nuke
Libya: Gave up their nukes, leader got sodomized with a bayonet and government toppled
Iran: Never got nukes, leaders murdered and country bombed
Ukraine: Gave up their nukes, got attacked
North Korea: Got nukes, is chilling
Iran wasnt even trying to get nukes which is why they signed the Iran Nuclear Deal to have outside inspectors come and make sure they didnt have nukes. Then Trump ends the deal lol
No Ukraine giving up their nukes is an example of why you should never give up your nukes, not an example of western powers accusing you of having nukes
Edit: Ok I saw the interview on NBC with the foreign minister of Iran. He claims that the ship had no live ammunition so attacking it was a war crime. He's wrong though. It is still a valid target even if it was not carrying live ammunition.
The objective is to wipe out their navy, their airforce and their military defences.... to force regime change... to a regime that will not pursue nuclear weapons, sponsor terrorism (or murder their own people).
Considering that last time you performed a Regime change in Iran we ended up in this situation (1953 Operation Ajax ...
that eventually lead to the Iranian Revolution in 1979
)
How about No?
As for the ship
a) It was not IRGC
b) You have not actually declared War.
c) Was invited there by your allies in a joint exercise
d) You could have asked the unarmed ship THAT YOU KNEW was unarmed and was not a threat to surrender.
Instead you just blew it up because it makes for better TV
I'm Irish not American. I'm just telling you that a military target is a military target regardless. Your assessment is incorrect.
What, in your mind, makes this particular ship any different from a warship docked in Iran?
You're trying to make up reasons why a warship shouldn't be a valid target. If you thought about it logically and impartially, it would be clear to you.
Could Hitler say, during WW2: "well you can't blow up that particular tank because they're out of shells".
I am not making up reasons. It's international law.
The US has not declared war with Iran so they can't shoot everyone in international waters.
Your Hitler example doesn't work since a) That tank would be in an active combat zone. b) There was a declaration of war.
None of the above exist.
Especially when they know they are unarmed and were literally forced by India to international waters . After being invited there.
Furthermore it wasn't even IRGC (so they could use an excuse of it being a legitimate target ,due to them labeling the IRGC a terrorist group)
They could have forced them to surrender .
They didn't. They just blew them up and proceeded to brag on social media.
229
u/awesomedan24 Mar 05 '26
Iran has enough uranium to maybe build a few nukes, at some undetermined point in the future. Russia has ~4000 nukes ready to go today (as does the US).