Acquiring nukes seems like the best way for any country to protect themselves against outside interference.

We know that as soon as Gaddafi decommissioned his nukes, Libya was targeted and invaded. If Iraq actually did have nukes, the USA wouldn't have been so brazen to invade.

China, Russia, and North Korea's acquisitions of nukes are also some of the main reasons why they are not easy targets for direct US invasion.

If Iran had nukes, it would drastically limit Israel's ability to indiscriminately attack Iranian assets.

Western policies against nuclear proliferation always seem to target the countries that need them the most to ensure national sovereignty, and never refer to their own nukes.

For example, they always fearmonger about "rogue states" like North Korea getting nukes, while being perfectly okay with Israel's own nukes. It might be best if these policies are ignored entirely.

  • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]16•2 months ago

    I'm split on nukes. On one hand yea, pretty much the only way to ensure you won't be invaded/bombed by America is to have a credible nuclear program and the ability to strike American targets.

    On the other hand, I really hate the existence of nukes and the threat of nuclear war, and more nukes is only going to make that more likely.

    But at the end of the day I support countries like Iran aquiring nukes to ensure their security. As long as one country has nukes then every other country has a right to their own for sake of deterrence.