I still think Iran shouldn't get nukes.
The whole Libya affair and the US attitude towards North Korea has shown that nukes will go a long way to prevent the US from "soap vial"-ing you and bomb you to the stone age, though
Last edited:
I still think Iran shouldn't get nukes.
If you think Iran should be able to enrich enough uranium to build even one bomb you're tolerating their nuclear programme according to the logic of America and Israel. They don't want Iran to enrich any uranium to weapons grade level. That's what the Iran nuclear deal was all about.China shouldn't promote or tolerate nuclear proliferation anywhere, it just makes a nuclear Vietnam or South Korea or Japan more likely.
Both Saudi Arabia and Iran should have a right to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves. But it's still in China's interest to prevent it. But you don't need actual nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence in a regional context. A large stockpile of plutonium and the ability to produce highly enriched uranium are enough. Japan and Germany are thought to be on the threshold of developing nukes and it's not safe for any country to attack them unless they can ensure total victory within a few months. If Iran is a month from producing a functional warhead then that's enough deterrence to prevent an American invasion or Israeli attack but not enough of a threat to destabilise the region. Same for Saudi Arabia and turkey.
Oh, westerners were caught lying and projecting again. This is their cultural thing, I guess.You hear ALOT about tiktok being owned by Chyna but you don't hear about twitter on mainstream news helping the pentagon to amplify state propaganda against "adversaries"
Afghan women suspended from universities by Taliban-led education ministry
- A letter instructed Afghan public and private universities to suspend access to female students immediately, in accordance with a Cabinet decision
To a certain extent; we do after all have American policymakers mooting the possibility of a "limited nuclear war" with China under the assumption that china will not expand its nuclear arsenal.The whole Libya affair and the US attitude towards North Korea has shown that nukes will go a long way to prevent the US from "soap vial"-ing you and bomb you to the stone age, though
NK was outraged when China established diplomatic relationship with SK. Now China and NK are talking about blood bond friendship and regular meeting of leaders. You didn't hear China complaining NK's latest missile launches, did you?That's naive thinking, I assume you missed Iran's recent outrage towards China for some be reasons.
Precisely because of this saying, there is no reason why China should be particularly worried about Iran.There are no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.
Nobody having nukes is in China's interest, I don't understand why you keeps singling out Iran.Facts are that Iran getting nukes is not in China's interest
China said the same thing about NK not long ago, and is still insisting a nuclear-free peninsular.(you may refer to the dozens of official Chinese statements about not wanting Iran not getting nuclear weapons).
True.The China - US hegemonic clash will come and go (hopefully peacefully)
Are you singling out Iran? Or all countries should be nuclear disarmed? Starts with India, Israel, Pakistan, NK together with Iran, then the UNSC 5. Only that would be justified by the consistent principle.Iran getting nukes would be a permanent, destabilizing, event.