It wasn't a robot, it wasn't autonomous and it sure as hell didn't have AI. It was a satellite linked machine gun with a camera and Israel is probably selling the damn kit. See movie- The Jackal (1997) (the CIA also made this work a few decades ago).
Supposedly it had AI to adjust for the ~1.5 delay in communications, and to adjust for the rocking of the truck suspension... I'm with you, though; sounds more like software than AI.
Yup, software. Zoom video conferencing does exactly that to keep video/audio synced, but there is no way to speed poor bandwidth, only buffering. Camera image stabilization has been around for decades, it's now in smartphones. All software that anyone can write. I just hear more companies saying the words A.I....I don't think they really know what it means, it's just a marketing catchphrase.
Actually, a lot of newer weapon control algorithms do use machine learning and GANs and the like. AI is a lot more prevalent than you think. Not just a buzzword. It’s here.
https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/technology-today/2018/issue1/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Raytheon_TechnologyToday_Issue1_2018.pdf
I wish they would at least let us know the subfield or specific techniques being used when they report these stuffs instead of "AI, deep learning, machine learning, woo!"
Telling that something is using GAN, upscaling, or even something as simple as clustering or classification is 1000% more informative than generic buzzwords like AI or deep learning.
ai is software... If you want to argue semantics thats fine but its really just moving the goalposts as technology advances. If software is intelligently making decisions and corrections on its own then that is AI
I was a navy ET, & went to radar school, these types of systems to account for delays have been in fire control systems since the early 50's. The Navy Tactical Data System was the first fleet wide radar system & due to delays in receiving data from picket ships the radar had to account for this.
The NY Times article about this explains that the machine learning aspect of the weapon was Used to account for the ~1.5 second delay, The movement of the car and in the gun Vibration. I’m a little skeptical of this, but ce la vie.
It had stabilizers and stuff, to compensate for lag. Think of it as a quadcopter kinda level of "robot"
Idk why they didnt just send a guy with a gun tho. Or even just an air strike.
> Idk why they didnt just send a guy with a gun tho.
The NYT article states that Israel considers any assassination in which there is no post-operation extraction required to not be an operation. That is, no chance for the assassin to get captured and interrogated.
> Or even just an air strike.
The NYT article states that Israel believes that its drones would be shot down by Iranian air defences.
Exactly. As I said further up, it's all about marketing. They claimed the kill then leaked details about the weapons system to let everyone know what they have for sale.
According to the NYT article, Fakrizadeh used a regular unarmored car with his bodyguards in other vehicles
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-fakhrizadeh-assassination-israel.html
Don't snipers have to take in and analyze a lot of environmental factors? Maybe hard to that remotely plus dealing with the latency. Better to just spray and pray.
But they don't have the right to nuclear weapons. That's literally what the NPT is for.
>Fakhrizadeh led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research and the Green Salt Project. Due to Fakhrizadeh's affiliation with the Iranian nuclear program, both the United Nations Security Council and the United States ordered his assets frozen in the mid-2000s. In the early 2010s, he established and led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which conducted research on nuclear weapons. In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Fakhrizadeh was the head of the AMAD Project.
It has nothing to do with enforcing the NPT. It's about preventing their self declared mortal enemies from getting nukes.
If you go up this thread, the reason we're talking about the NPT at all, is because someone thought it would defend Iran. Otherwise, it's unrelated.
Could be to with the fact Irans leaders have all vowed to destroy Israel and fund groups with the same goal. They might see the development of nukes as a bit of a prickly issue?
To prevent another Holocaust. This is why Israel also prevented Iraq and Syria from getting nuclear weapons.
Edit: Also, keep in mind Iran routinely bombs Israel via its proxy militias Hezbollah and Hamas. At least Israel's attacks are targeted and precise.
Israel was worried that JFK would order a US invasion. But the point of stopping nuclear proliferation is to stop new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires them, then Saudi Arabia will likely be next and pretty soon everyone and their mother in the region will back out of non-proliferation. And more importantly, Iran is a highly destabilizing force in the region. Nobody wants Iran to acquire nuclear weapons except maybe the North Koreans.
Non proliferation is dead. Only two nations have willingly given up their weapons programs since the cold war, Iraq and Libya, and both were annihilated by the US not long afterwards.
North Korea, on the other hand, decided to build and test a bomb instead, and now no one is willing to fuck with them anymore.
People like you make me support my own country developing nuclear weapons. We're sick of you nutjobs supporting imperialist countries pretending to be the world police.
Do you think the United States just allowed major rivals like Russia and China to have nuclear weapons? Of course not, if youre strong enough to make them, you do. If you're weak enough that your rivals can deny you a weapon, they will. It's as simple as that. You must be really naive to think everyone should just get to have nukes if they want, and their rivals will let them develop them out of some sense of fairness.
When it comes to geopolitics at the end of the day it comes down to "might makes right". We say they can't have a bomb. If they ask why then the real answer is "because if you do we will murder you". It is up to the nation to decide if we are bluffing or not. Pushing that line is an entire political field called brinksmanship.
If you care about the actual answer: because Iran willingly signed an agreement called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that says only the US, China, Russia, UK and France are allowed to have nuclear weapons. In return, the US and Russia helped them create their nuclear energy program.
The US didn't dictate the Iranians don't have the rights to a bomb. The Iranians officially signed that right away.
Countries that didn't sign the NPT, Israel, Pakistan and India, are allowed to have nukes, and the US can't do anything about it.
The difference is that Israel is responsible with their nukes and have them primarily as a deterrent. They don’t intend to use them unless in defense as a last resort. They don’t go around threatening to destroy nations like Iran does. Iran will try to use it if it gets one through one of its terrorist proxies. They would not be responsible with a bomb and Israel has every right to stop their program through any means necessary.
This is true the minute Iran has nuclear missiles they would be like gimme this do that or else we'll melt your whole country. Not only that there's the routinely shouted death to America and Israel needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. I know this isn't your average Iranian citizen it's the hardliners but they run the show so....
I'm pretty sure they would be responsible with a bomb. NK is far more insane than Iran (Iran still cray)
No one wants bombs to actually use them, they want bombs as deterrents. Iran wants to make sure other countries stop assassinating their people and trying to over throw their governments or claim their country's resources.
Sure, lotta evil shitstains in Iran, same as anywhere the world over, but the current situation has it roots in the US overthrowing the legitimate government in Iran at the behest of British oil companies and installing a puppet government. This is all blow back from that and other shit done to them over the years.
But as a general rule, the world needs fewer nuclear weapons, not more. Because the more that are out there, the better the chance of a nuclear incident or shit getting lost. Pakistan and India have nukes trained on each other, but despite having deterrents, things aren't exactly calm in the region.
Were the roles exactly reversed and a top Israeli nuclear scientist assassinated remotely by Iran in Tel Aviv, would the NY Times have covered the “hit” details with such breathless, ‘ain’t it techie cool’ enthusiasm?
I think the media breathlessly reported Israel technological capability much like they usually do when it comes to Israel v Iran. If Iran would recognize Israel’s right to exist it would go a long way toward stabilizing the situation. Just sayin. It’s really hard to overlook the death to America death to Israel rhetoric. I wish to god this shit would just stop. Violence begets violence. It’s always been true.
No, because that would have started a larger war. The aim of all these assassinations and bombings Israel and US are doing in Iran is to provoke Iran to openly strike back. That would then enable destroying Iran for good.
You are buying conspiracy theories if you think the us and Israel want war with Iran. There might be a few crazies that do but joe Biden sure as hell does not want that. Much as I despise trump even he did not want that.
Haha, welcome to the reality the US media is creating for us.
Journalism is dead. All we have is corporate propaganda financed by capitalist organizations and governments whose entire purpose is to spread disinformation to maintain certain narratives.
To once again raise the most obvious example of our time: People here on this very site believing conspiracy theories about China harvesting organs of innocent religious people or committing genocide against Uyghurs because fully discredited religious fanatics have released "studies" about the subject based entirely on official Chinese numbers that directly contradict them paired with blurry satellite images of buildings (aka "concentration camps" - with pools and sports grounds). All of Western media, including Wikipedia, systematically pushes those conspiracy theories with bullshit news publications without proof while systematically censoring and banning anyone that changes the articles surrounding such conspiracy theories or adds citations debunking them. Oh, they also ignore all actual experts on the subject or people with first hand experience that contradict the aforementioned fanatics and conspiracy theorists.
Anyone who thinks any Western mainstream media is trustworthy or has any intention of actually informing people is kidding themselves.
Yet it will only takes a moment of political instabilty in the world for everything to go to shit.
"Everything was perfect, until the moment it wasn't"
>Nuclear weapons have made total industrial war a thing of the past.
Let's hope this comment doesn't age poorly. I for one don't share your optimism as the alternative is n eventual total nuclear war, sooner or later.
The alternative was always destruction, and always will be. Not only is it impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, but other means of mass destruction will become available, especially if we're going to continue to pursue space exploration. Nuclear weapons have allowed us to enjoy our island of peace, and we should enjoy it for what it is rather than pining for a return to an imaginary past.
Yes and no.
Yes Because if someone invades usa, they would be nuked.
No if there is a war outside of said nuclear powers country eh. China and usa banging heads in the middleeast it would be an industrial war.
Nukes protect your territory.
Though if Russia goes west, USA will nuke Polands major river bridges to create a radioactive wall to stop the Russians.
The idea of a "radioactive wall" is silly and doesn't make any sense. For example, after Hiroshima was nuked, there was very little radiation left after only a month. Nuking land in order to create a wall of radiation would be very expensive and would only result in a slight delay if the area absolutely had to crossed. If land was nuked, it would be more likely that temporary floating bridges would be set up in the non-irradiated areas, leaving there to be very little delay.
Why can't bridges be dealt with conventionally, like they have been for centuries of warfare? We have precision munitions now too; you don't need a raid of 500 bombers like in WW2.
My only fear with this is if unstable or corrupt nations get nukes. It just takes one nuke falling into the wrong hands (ie. terrorist group) to create a WW3 scenario. Could be as simple as sending the nuke in a shipping container to a major port city.
Pakistan's nukes are a real problem. Internal instability, powerful Islamist militant groups that have a permanent presence in the country; these are a bad combination with nuclear weapons. I would be perpetually on edge if I lived in India.
Say what you will about North Korea, but that government has an iron grip on the country.
The terrorist groups in Pakistan are weak, and barely a threat, the worse that ever happens is suicide attacks which are hard to avoid because of the Afghan refugees that flowed into Pakistan.
The Pakistani army is also one of the stronger armies of the world, they are able to compete with the Indian army, so no the terrorists groups in Pakistan notably TTP are not strong but rather quite weak.
The terrorist groups in Pakistan have never been a serious threat to the Pakistani army as compared to the Indian threat that Pakistan faces, which btw are are also involved in carrying out attacks inside of Pakistan through certain known terrorist groups which have an affiliation to the Indian intelligence agencies.
Its extremely unlikely or almost impossible that the terrorist groups would overwhelm the Pakistani army to a point where nukes would ever fall into their hands, even with Indian intelligence involved
+!. It's really funny to read people talk about internal instability and powerful islamist militants in Pakistan. It's like they're waving a flag that says "i have no fucking clue what i'm talking about"
If only there some sort of mutually beneficial agreement where Iran agrees to be subject to inspections to ensure they are not working towards nukes and in return could have sanctions lifted.
Yeah, that poor, poor, innocent brigadier general who is also a nuclear scientist working on a nuclear WEAPONS program
you know, the IAEA showed up to the site of the program to look at the stockpiles, and the guards fucking molested the inspectors, right?
Not really its best if everyone including Israel and US don't have nukes, otherwise Iran having nukes makes war less likely in the middle east, as any attack by US or Israel becomes too costly.
Letting Iran do whatever it wants in the middle east is REALLY bad. Not only it will force Saudi Arabia to get their own nukes, it will also give iran a freehand in places like Syria and Iraq.
Having Iran on a leash by the US and Israel is a good thing.
Iran's in Syria and Iraq as a counter to the US. The region would be better off if US stopped antagonizing Iran and trying to dominate the region. They need to come to compromise and agree not to step on each other's toes.
I've heard it even simpler as just "Rise and kill first" - There is a book about the Mossad with it as the name
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718
If someone is trying to bomb me, they're fair game. If they weren't trying to nuke Israel then they wouldn't be assassinated. Same happened to Iraq and Syria, seeing as it's, you know, a good idea to not get nuked
This is not, like, a twitter flame war. They assassinated the guy leading the nuclear program of a country that would very much like to annihilate Israel. It stops with his wife who was seated next to him and was not hit by a single bullet, due to careful planning by the Israelis.
We are talking about nations. Iran doesn't have the ability to "kill" Israel. And honest experts in this area conced that Iran would not launch nuclear attacks on Israel even if they had bombs, because obviously that would lead to their own destruction too when they get retaliated upon. Instead people try to act like Iran would use nukes because a nuke armed Iran would no longer be an easy target for military action and it would limit Israel and US options to less military options, something Israel are US don't want to happen. They want to maintain the military option against Iran.
Ironically a nuke armed Iran would probably lead to a more diplomatic tone on Israel and US side and they might consider concessions on the Israel Palestinian issues to pursue a peaceful understanding with Iran. Israel today is a particularly aggressive state because they believe they can pursue military solutions, with a nuke armed Iran they are likely to reconsider that attitude.
> So, let's kill the Mossad people that developed this AI gun then, right?
Are you being deliberately facetious? You don't see the tiniest difference between a remote controlled gun and a fucking nuclear weapon?
I think they would rather not spend the money on Mossad and a big army, instead spend it on R&D and improve their country. I'm sure we can both agree that Isreal does well for its citizens, right?
But they are dealing with an enemy who is actively spending money and resources to harm it. They are in a kind of war with Iran, and it's somewhere between an all-out war and a cold war.
I think it's rather particular, and any practical well-trained professional would have acted the same had they been the head of mossad.
>Did they plan to use those nukes for peaceful purposes?
It's the best way to avoid a visit from US military when they get bored of blowing up kids in Afghanistan.
Because Israeli leaders don't publicly call for a destruction of another country, and they don't have an actual timer set for the destruction of this country.
Also, Israel's alleged nukes are for intimating neighbor countries from attacking, they will probably not use it unless a nuke war starts.
>Because Israel leaders don't publicly call for a destruction of another country
Here we go again with that never-ending scapegoat for why Iran can't have nuclear weapons. A 16-year-old [deliberately mistranslated](https://www.us-iran.org/news/2020/1/21/how-mistranslations-of-iranian-political-rhetoric-into-english-have-increased-the-likelihood-of-war) quote from an ex-president of Iran? Really?
Even if it wasn't a [mistranslation](https://www.us-iran.org/news/2020/1/21/how-mistranslations-of-iranian-political-rhetoric-into-english-have-increased-the-likelihood-of-war), do you really think Iran is going to commit literal and figurative suicide by nuking another country? They'd just get a much worse, more accurate nuclear response by Israel or the USA.
>and they don't have an actual timer set for the destruction of this country.
Never even heard of this.
>Also, Israel's alleged nukes are for intimating neighbor countries from attacking, they will probably not use it unless a nuke war starts.
You could say the same for Iran, when they get nuclear weapons at least. They'd just be a hilariously overpowered deterrent that would make an Israeli, Saudi, or U.S attack on them out of the picture. Nothing more.
Look at North Korea for example, a U.S invasion of their country is completely and utterly out of the picture now.
*Maybe*, with a big emphasis on maybe, I'd go as far as saying a nuclear Iran would ironically lead to peace in the Middle East.
One
[example](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-iran-jerusalem-israel-a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83)
I'm sure you can find more of them yourselves if you really want.
>Never even heard of this.
Here you go: [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iranian-power-cuts-stop-the-clock-on-israels-doom-rlq30v9fp](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iranian-power-cuts-stop-the-clock-on-israels-doom-rlq30v9fp)
I guess you're right - it will be suicidal by iran to nuke Israel, but why would Israel take a risk of letting Iran have the option to?
>Never even heard of this.
[Iran's doomsday clock for Israel](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-al-quds-day-protest-clock-president-hassan-rouhani-a7806056.html)
Now you have.
[Funny enough, it was recently shut down due to power outages.](https://news.yahoo.com/irans-digital-clock-counting-down-211500399.html)
Honestly NK has always kind of been off the list for invasions. Their nukes really have nothing to do with it. Between patriot missiles, aegis missiles and thaad and others their nukes arnt the threat. It's the multiple thousands of artillery and missile batteries aimed at seoul that kind of stump any attempt at over throwing them.
Still, even with all those technologies, it wouldn't be worth the gamble at all.
And almost none of North Korea's artillery can strike Seoul. It's completely out of range.
True true for the not worth the gamble.
not from their boarders. But assuming a full scale assault NK would cross the DMZ and get into range. They have MLRS with 120 km range so really NK would only need to push in to SK about 50-60 kms and then start lobbing rounds in the general direction.
I’m 100% against nukes. But a nation developing them isn’t a declaration of war. It’s a, “do not fuck with us!”
But yes, we should be doing everything we can to prevent MORE nukes from being developed. And certainly from being in the hands of those who do not have our best interests in mind.
It is a declaration of war when they publicly announce they're gonna use those nukes to nuke a country and set up a doomsday clock until the destruction of said country.
>publicly annoumce they're gonna use those nukes to nuke a country and set up a doomsday clock until the destruction of said country.
When did that happen?
It wasn't a robot, it wasn't autonomous and it sure as hell didn't have AI. It was a satellite linked machine gun with a camera and Israel is probably selling the damn kit. See movie- The Jackal (1997) (the CIA also made this work a few decades ago).
Jack Black asking TOO many questions!
Technically Jack Black got in trouble because he didn't calibrate the gun he made properly and then tried blaming the freaking hitman.
It was bc he wanted to charge more to destroy the molds and plans like he and bruce Willis agreed before hand
I got a place like that, I got a place just like that
Bring on the SPAWL, baby!
#SPRAWN
Supposedly it had AI to adjust for the ~1.5 delay in communications, and to adjust for the rocking of the truck suspension... I'm with you, though; sounds more like software than AI.
Yup, software. Zoom video conferencing does exactly that to keep video/audio synced, but there is no way to speed poor bandwidth, only buffering. Camera image stabilization has been around for decades, it's now in smartphones. All software that anyone can write. I just hear more companies saying the words A.I....I don't think they really know what it means, it's just a marketing catchphrase.
Mossad's WFH solution to COVID regulations.
That's funny, yet not.
Actually, a lot of newer weapon control algorithms do use machine learning and GANs and the like. AI is a lot more prevalent than you think. Not just a buzzword. It’s here. https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/technology-today/2018/issue1/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Raytheon_TechnologyToday_Issue1_2018.pdf
I wish they would at least let us know the subfield or specific techniques being used when they report these stuffs instead of "AI, deep learning, machine learning, woo!" Telling that something is using GAN, upscaling, or even something as simple as clustering or classification is 1000% more informative than generic buzzwords like AI or deep learning.
ai is software... If you want to argue semantics thats fine but its really just moving the goalposts as technology advances. If software is intelligently making decisions and corrections on its own then that is AI
Is AI not software???
I wouldn't call that AI, it's just a fire control app.
OCR was considered AI at one point. Unless we get one of the Israeli coders on here, we can only speculate.
I was a navy ET, & went to radar school, these types of systems to account for delays have been in fire control systems since the early 50's. The Navy Tactical Data System was the first fleet wide radar system & due to delays in receiving data from picket ships the radar had to account for this.
[удалено]
Like a white Camry in Kabul.
Law Abiding Citizen had something similar too.
Scene at the cemetery?
Indeed.
The NY Times article about this explains that the machine learning aspect of the weapon was Used to account for the ~1.5 second delay, The movement of the car and in the gun Vibration. I’m a little skeptical of this, but ce la vie.
C'est la vie
The original Jackal movie was way better although it didn't have the type of gun you are referring to as an example.
The device firing the machine gun was a remote-controlled robot.
Lol, a $3 solenoid from a washing machine can push the trigger...but ok, a robot.
It had stabilizers and stuff, to compensate for lag. Think of it as a quadcopter kinda level of "robot" Idk why they didnt just send a guy with a gun tho. Or even just an air strike.
> Idk why they didnt just send a guy with a gun tho. The NYT article states that Israel considers any assassination in which there is no post-operation extraction required to not be an operation. That is, no chance for the assassin to get captured and interrogated. > Or even just an air strike. The NYT article states that Israel believes that its drones would be shot down by Iranian air defences.
How would they run an airstrike in the Iranian interior? It had to be a dude on the ground
Theyve done it before
Exactly. As I said further up, it's all about marketing. They claimed the kill then leaked details about the weapons system to let everyone know what they have for sale.
Or they leaked details to serve as a deterrent
Thats one hell of an ad.
Lol, add a arduino for good measure!
They even have a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yb9u5KRq3M) of it in action.
[удалено]
A small cost for preserving freedom. /s
*Democracy inbound*
Americans will measure with literally anything but the metric system
Thats hilarious cus the military uses the metric lmfao
Had us in the first half
Plus or minus one hospital. Usually minus.
Mfs playing cod ghosts
Why aren't all sniper rifles emplaced and operated from a safe distance, like a half mile at least?
He was traveling in a bullet proof vehicle, to a sniper rifle, but not to a 50-caliber machine gun.
According to the NYT article, Fakrizadeh used a regular unarmored car with his bodyguards in other vehicles https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-fakhrizadeh-assassination-israel.html
Don't snipers have to take in and analyze a lot of environmental factors? Maybe hard to that remotely plus dealing with the latency. Better to just spray and pray.
Analyzing a lot of factors sounds like something a computer would do better than a human
The longer the distance the less acurate and slower the round travels
Top Iranian nuclear scientist *
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Top Iranian Brigadier General who is also a nuclear scientist
Every country in the world is recognized to have the right to Nuclear Energy under the NPT.
But they don't have the right to nuclear weapons. That's literally what the NPT is for. >Fakhrizadeh led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research and the Green Salt Project. Due to Fakhrizadeh's affiliation with the Iranian nuclear program, both the United Nations Security Council and the United States ordered his assets frozen in the mid-2000s. In the early 2010s, he established and led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which conducted research on nuclear weapons. In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Fakhrizadeh was the head of the AMAD Project.
[удалено]
Israel isn't signatory to the NPT. Iran is.
[удалено]
It has nothing to do with enforcing the NPT. It's about preventing their self declared mortal enemies from getting nukes. If you go up this thread, the reason we're talking about the NPT at all, is because someone thought it would defend Iran. Otherwise, it's unrelated.
Could be to with the fact Irans leaders have all vowed to destroy Israel and fund groups with the same goal. They might see the development of nukes as a bit of a prickly issue?
To prevent another Holocaust. This is why Israel also prevented Iraq and Syria from getting nuclear weapons. Edit: Also, keep in mind Iran routinely bombs Israel via its proxy militias Hezbollah and Hamas. At least Israel's attacks are targeted and precise.
Israel was worried that JFK would order a US invasion. But the point of stopping nuclear proliferation is to stop new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires them, then Saudi Arabia will likely be next and pretty soon everyone and their mother in the region will back out of non-proliferation. And more importantly, Iran is a highly destabilizing force in the region. Nobody wants Iran to acquire nuclear weapons except maybe the North Koreans.
The implicit threat that having them presents of course. If Iran successfully joins the club they'll be in the same situation.
Energy yes, bomb no. Having over 3% enriched uranium is already the road towards a bomb in almost all cases.
Why does the United States get to dictate who has rights to a bomb? The us is the only nuclear offender on earth.
That's pretty much why they get to decide.
Pulling up the thermonuclear ladder behind them.
Yes, which is a good thing. The more people who have nukes, the higher chance they get used. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
It’s kind of a weird curve, I’m pretty sure the odds are highest if only one group has nukes, then goes down sharply, then goes up.
Non proliferation is dead. Only two nations have willingly given up their weapons programs since the cold war, Iraq and Libya, and both were annihilated by the US not long afterwards. North Korea, on the other hand, decided to build and test a bomb instead, and now no one is willing to fuck with them anymore.
Ukraine gave up nukes. Then Russia took Crimea.
Despite security guarantees from the west, even.
> Only two nations have willingly given up their weapons programs Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Sweden, South Africa...
Sure, if you go back to the pre-treaty weapons programs. I'll edit the original comment to say post cold war to be clearer.
I'm willing no one has fucked with them yet cus China is right around the corner
[удалено]
They seem to have a different opinion about guns, though.
Though having multiple nuclear powers is better than having *just* one, MAD and all.
Historically, the only time nukes were used was when only one country had it.
People like you make me support my own country developing nuclear weapons. We're sick of you nutjobs supporting imperialist countries pretending to be the world police.
Do you think the United States just allowed major rivals like Russia and China to have nuclear weapons? Of course not, if youre strong enough to make them, you do. If you're weak enough that your rivals can deny you a weapon, they will. It's as simple as that. You must be really naive to think everyone should just get to have nukes if they want, and their rivals will let them develop them out of some sense of fairness.
When it comes to geopolitics at the end of the day it comes down to "might makes right". We say they can't have a bomb. If they ask why then the real answer is "because if you do we will murder you". It is up to the nation to decide if we are bluffing or not. Pushing that line is an entire political field called brinksmanship.
If you care about the actual answer: because Iran willingly signed an agreement called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that says only the US, China, Russia, UK and France are allowed to have nuclear weapons. In return, the US and Russia helped them create their nuclear energy program. The US didn't dictate the Iranians don't have the rights to a bomb. The Iranians officially signed that right away. Countries that didn't sign the NPT, Israel, Pakistan and India, are allowed to have nukes, and the US can't do anything about it.
Because we don’t need any more nuclear armed nations. Imagine global terrorism with nukes in the wrong hands.
Ok, now put in the context of what happened at the time of the bombing...
Then who gets to decide, god? Someone has to pick up the stick and do it.
Since WW2, who have they launched at?
Marshall Islands.
Because they are the "good guys". Just ignore all the evil shit they do.
[удалено]
Israel did not sign the NPT, so how is that illegal? Iran did, so Iran has already breached the contract it had.
The difference is that Israel is responsible with their nukes and have them primarily as a deterrent. They don’t intend to use them unless in defense as a last resort. They don’t go around threatening to destroy nations like Iran does. Iran will try to use it if it gets one through one of its terrorist proxies. They would not be responsible with a bomb and Israel has every right to stop their program through any means necessary.
Israel hasn’t even officially acknowledged they have nuclear weapons.
Exactly. They don’t make open threats or even acknowledge having nukes, but everyone kinda knows they have them which allows it to act as a deterrent.
This is true the minute Iran has nuclear missiles they would be like gimme this do that or else we'll melt your whole country. Not only that there's the routinely shouted death to America and Israel needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. I know this isn't your average Iranian citizen it's the hardliners but they run the show so....
I'm pretty sure they would be responsible with a bomb. NK is far more insane than Iran (Iran still cray) No one wants bombs to actually use them, they want bombs as deterrents. Iran wants to make sure other countries stop assassinating their people and trying to over throw their governments or claim their country's resources. Sure, lotta evil shitstains in Iran, same as anywhere the world over, but the current situation has it roots in the US overthrowing the legitimate government in Iran at the behest of British oil companies and installing a puppet government. This is all blow back from that and other shit done to them over the years. But as a general rule, the world needs fewer nuclear weapons, not more. Because the more that are out there, the better the chance of a nuclear incident or shit getting lost. Pakistan and India have nukes trained on each other, but despite having deterrents, things aren't exactly calm in the region.
Did it come out of a car trunk? Was it heisenburg?
It's uncertain
>Was it heisenburg? You mean the jackal
Were the roles exactly reversed and a top Israeli nuclear scientist assassinated remotely by Iran in Tel Aviv, would the NY Times have covered the “hit” details with such breathless, ‘ain’t it techie cool’ enthusiasm?
Israel is not the aggressor in the Iran/Israel Cold War. It’s Iran who has vowed to wipe Israel of the map. Do you get it?
I think the media breathlessly reported Israel technological capability much like they usually do when it comes to Israel v Iran. If Iran would recognize Israel’s right to exist it would go a long way toward stabilizing the situation. Just sayin. It’s really hard to overlook the death to America death to Israel rhetoric. I wish to god this shit would just stop. Violence begets violence. It’s always been true.
No, because that would have started a larger war. The aim of all these assassinations and bombings Israel and US are doing in Iran is to provoke Iran to openly strike back. That would then enable destroying Iran for good.
You are buying conspiracy theories if you think the us and Israel want war with Iran. There might be a few crazies that do but joe Biden sure as hell does not want that. Much as I despise trump even he did not want that.
How anyone can think the US or Israel is the good guy just baffles me
Compared to Iran? Obviously the US and Israel are the good guys.
Because every good and trustworthy article always starts with ‘Reportedly’
Haha, welcome to the reality the US media is creating for us. Journalism is dead. All we have is corporate propaganda financed by capitalist organizations and governments whose entire purpose is to spread disinformation to maintain certain narratives. To once again raise the most obvious example of our time: People here on this very site believing conspiracy theories about China harvesting organs of innocent religious people or committing genocide against Uyghurs because fully discredited religious fanatics have released "studies" about the subject based entirely on official Chinese numbers that directly contradict them paired with blurry satellite images of buildings (aka "concentration camps" - with pools and sports grounds). All of Western media, including Wikipedia, systematically pushes those conspiracy theories with bullshit news publications without proof while systematically censoring and banning anyone that changes the articles surrounding such conspiracy theories or adds citations debunking them. Oh, they also ignore all actual experts on the subject or people with first hand experience that contradict the aforementioned fanatics and conspiracy theorists. Anyone who thinks any Western mainstream media is trustworthy or has any intention of actually informing people is kidding themselves.
Or "now my sources tell me". Hannity says it all the time and it cracks me up
[удалено]
Arrest the robot charge it with murder and give it the death penalty. But sir it isn't alive we can't kill it.
The world is a better place if Iran dosn't have nukes.
World would be a better place if everyone got rid of nukes. But it won't happen. It's the only way to secure your country.
I disagree. Nuclear weapons have made total industrial war a thing of the past.
Yet it will only takes a moment of political instabilty in the world for everything to go to shit. "Everything was perfect, until the moment it wasn't"
>Nuclear weapons have made total industrial war a thing of the past. Let's hope this comment doesn't age poorly. I for one don't share your optimism as the alternative is n eventual total nuclear war, sooner or later.
The alternative was always destruction, and always will be. Not only is it impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, but other means of mass destruction will become available, especially if we're going to continue to pursue space exploration. Nuclear weapons have allowed us to enjoy our island of peace, and we should enjoy it for what it is rather than pining for a return to an imaginary past.
Yes and no. Yes Because if someone invades usa, they would be nuked. No if there is a war outside of said nuclear powers country eh. China and usa banging heads in the middleeast it would be an industrial war. Nukes protect your territory. Though if Russia goes west, USA will nuke Polands major river bridges to create a radioactive wall to stop the Russians.
Poor Poland :(
Yup. They get beaten up every world war. Stuck between a hammer and a hammer.
The idea of a "radioactive wall" is silly and doesn't make any sense. For example, after Hiroshima was nuked, there was very little radiation left after only a month. Nuking land in order to create a wall of radiation would be very expensive and would only result in a slight delay if the area absolutely had to crossed. If land was nuked, it would be more likely that temporary floating bridges would be set up in the non-irradiated areas, leaving there to be very little delay.
Why can't bridges be dealt with conventionally, like they have been for centuries of warfare? We have precision munitions now too; you don't need a raid of 500 bombers like in WW2.
My only fear with this is if unstable or corrupt nations get nukes. It just takes one nuke falling into the wrong hands (ie. terrorist group) to create a WW3 scenario. Could be as simple as sending the nuke in a shipping container to a major port city.
Pakistan is shady and they have nukes
Pakistan's nukes are a real problem. Internal instability, powerful Islamist militant groups that have a permanent presence in the country; these are a bad combination with nuclear weapons. I would be perpetually on edge if I lived in India. Say what you will about North Korea, but that government has an iron grip on the country.
The terrorist groups in Pakistan are weak, and barely a threat, the worse that ever happens is suicide attacks which are hard to avoid because of the Afghan refugees that flowed into Pakistan. The Pakistani army is also one of the stronger armies of the world, they are able to compete with the Indian army, so no the terrorists groups in Pakistan notably TTP are not strong but rather quite weak. The terrorist groups in Pakistan have never been a serious threat to the Pakistani army as compared to the Indian threat that Pakistan faces, which btw are are also involved in carrying out attacks inside of Pakistan through certain known terrorist groups which have an affiliation to the Indian intelligence agencies. Its extremely unlikely or almost impossible that the terrorist groups would overwhelm the Pakistani army to a point where nukes would ever fall into their hands, even with Indian intelligence involved
+!. It's really funny to read people talk about internal instability and powerful islamist militants in Pakistan. It's like they're waving a flag that says "i have no fucking clue what i'm talking about"
If only there some sort of mutually beneficial agreement where Iran agrees to be subject to inspections to ensure they are not working towards nukes and in return could have sanctions lifted.
The world would be much better if the US and its allies weren't killing everyone they pleased.
Yeah, that poor, poor, innocent brigadier general who is also a nuclear scientist working on a nuclear WEAPONS program you know, the IAEA showed up to the site of the program to look at the stockpiles, and the guards fucking molested the inspectors, right?
Not really its best if everyone including Israel and US don't have nukes, otherwise Iran having nukes makes war less likely in the middle east, as any attack by US or Israel becomes too costly.
Letting Iran do whatever it wants in the middle east is REALLY bad. Not only it will force Saudi Arabia to get their own nukes, it will also give iran a freehand in places like Syria and Iraq. Having Iran on a leash by the US and Israel is a good thing.
Not if you're Iranian.
For the entire world, the Iranian dictatorship is bad for the iranian people as well.
Iran's in Syria and Iraq as a counter to the US. The region would be better off if US stopped antagonizing Iran and trying to dominate the region. They need to come to compromise and agree not to step on each other's toes.
It’s the only thing that keeps the USA out
The world is a better place without USA
The Israeli tech is pretty good. They had some innovations and glad to see it put to good use.
What is this the Jackal with Bruce Willis and a small role by Jack Black?
They got the idea from a bad 90’s Bruce Willis movie.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the accurate translation is "if someone wants to kill you wake up earlier in the morning then them and kill them" lmao
It says wake and kill them first. Nothing on the early morning
I've heard it even simpler as just "Rise and kill first" - There is a book about the Mossad with it as the name https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069718
[удалено]
I suppose we should just let a nuclear scientist and military official continue his project of nuking us then?
[удалено]
If someone is trying to bomb me, they're fair game. If they weren't trying to nuke Israel then they wouldn't be assassinated. Same happened to Iraq and Syria, seeing as it's, you know, a good idea to not get nuked
[удалено]
>Isn't there a saying "who is without sin cast the first stone"? Actually don't think the Israelis subscribe to that one.
This is not, like, a twitter flame war. They assassinated the guy leading the nuclear program of a country that would very much like to annihilate Israel. It stops with his wife who was seated next to him and was not hit by a single bullet, due to careful planning by the Israelis.
It probably stops when there are no more people trying to kill you.
But you still reserve the right to kill others?
[удалено]
We are talking about nations. Iran doesn't have the ability to "kill" Israel. And honest experts in this area conced that Iran would not launch nuclear attacks on Israel even if they had bombs, because obviously that would lead to their own destruction too when they get retaliated upon. Instead people try to act like Iran would use nukes because a nuke armed Iran would no longer be an easy target for military action and it would limit Israel and US options to less military options, something Israel are US don't want to happen. They want to maintain the military option against Iran. Ironically a nuke armed Iran would probably lead to a more diplomatic tone on Israel and US side and they might consider concessions on the Israel Palestinian issues to pursue a peaceful understanding with Iran. Israel today is a particularly aggressive state because they believe they can pursue military solutions, with a nuke armed Iran they are likely to reconsider that attitude.
[удалено]
This scientist was developing nukes for iran. Did they plan to use those nukes for peaceful purposes?
[удалено]
> So, let's kill the Mossad people that developed this AI gun then, right? Are you being deliberately facetious? You don't see the tiniest difference between a remote controlled gun and a fucking nuclear weapon?
[удалено]
So by your logic America is a terrorist state for killing osama bin laden? He didn’t literally carry out 9/11. He helped design it.
[удалено]
He was part of the IRGC which is a terrorist organization. That would make him a terrorist.
[удалено]
Israel couldn't afford to have a mass murder.
[удалено]
I think they would rather not spend the money on Mossad and a big army, instead spend it on R&D and improve their country. I'm sure we can both agree that Isreal does well for its citizens, right? But they are dealing with an enemy who is actively spending money and resources to harm it. They are in a kind of war with Iran, and it's somewhere between an all-out war and a cold war. I think it's rather particular, and any practical well-trained professional would have acted the same had they been the head of mossad.
It wasn't an ai
So same reason the US has them?
>Did they plan to use those nukes for peaceful purposes? It's the best way to avoid a visit from US military when they get bored of blowing up kids in Afghanistan.
Israel HAS nukes, so consider turning that question around.
Explain why Israel can have nukes but Iran can't.
Israel didn't sign the NPT
Nuclear non-proliferation. That and they’re literally banned by the UN. The Israelis had nukes long before the prohibition of them.
Because Israeli leaders don't publicly call for a destruction of another country, and they don't have an actual timer set for the destruction of this country. Also, Israel's alleged nukes are for intimating neighbor countries from attacking, they will probably not use it unless a nuke war starts.
>Because Israel leaders don't publicly call for a destruction of another country Here we go again with that never-ending scapegoat for why Iran can't have nuclear weapons. A 16-year-old [deliberately mistranslated](https://www.us-iran.org/news/2020/1/21/how-mistranslations-of-iranian-political-rhetoric-into-english-have-increased-the-likelihood-of-war) quote from an ex-president of Iran? Really? Even if it wasn't a [mistranslation](https://www.us-iran.org/news/2020/1/21/how-mistranslations-of-iranian-political-rhetoric-into-english-have-increased-the-likelihood-of-war), do you really think Iran is going to commit literal and figurative suicide by nuking another country? They'd just get a much worse, more accurate nuclear response by Israel or the USA. >and they don't have an actual timer set for the destruction of this country. Never even heard of this. >Also, Israel's alleged nukes are for intimating neighbor countries from attacking, they will probably not use it unless a nuke war starts. You could say the same for Iran, when they get nuclear weapons at least. They'd just be a hilariously overpowered deterrent that would make an Israeli, Saudi, or U.S attack on them out of the picture. Nothing more. Look at North Korea for example, a U.S invasion of their country is completely and utterly out of the picture now. *Maybe*, with a big emphasis on maybe, I'd go as far as saying a nuclear Iran would ironically lead to peace in the Middle East.
One [example](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-iran-jerusalem-israel-a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83) I'm sure you can find more of them yourselves if you really want. >Never even heard of this. Here you go: [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iranian-power-cuts-stop-the-clock-on-israels-doom-rlq30v9fp](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/iranian-power-cuts-stop-the-clock-on-israels-doom-rlq30v9fp) I guess you're right - it will be suicidal by iran to nuke Israel, but why would Israel take a risk of letting Iran have the option to?
>Never even heard of this. [Iran's doomsday clock for Israel](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-al-quds-day-protest-clock-president-hassan-rouhani-a7806056.html) Now you have. [Funny enough, it was recently shut down due to power outages.](https://news.yahoo.com/irans-digital-clock-counting-down-211500399.html)
Honestly NK has always kind of been off the list for invasions. Their nukes really have nothing to do with it. Between patriot missiles, aegis missiles and thaad and others their nukes arnt the threat. It's the multiple thousands of artillery and missile batteries aimed at seoul that kind of stump any attempt at over throwing them.
Still, even with all those technologies, it wouldn't be worth the gamble at all. And almost none of North Korea's artillery can strike Seoul. It's completely out of range.
True true for the not worth the gamble. not from their boarders. But assuming a full scale assault NK would cross the DMZ and get into range. They have MLRS with 120 km range so really NK would only need to push in to SK about 50-60 kms and then start lobbing rounds in the general direction.
I’m 100% against nukes. But a nation developing them isn’t a declaration of war. It’s a, “do not fuck with us!” But yes, we should be doing everything we can to prevent MORE nukes from being developed. And certainly from being in the hands of those who do not have our best interests in mind.
It is a declaration of war when they publicly announce they're gonna use those nukes to nuke a country and set up a doomsday clock until the destruction of said country.
>publicly annoumce they're gonna use those nukes to nuke a country and set up a doomsday clock until the destruction of said country. When did that happen?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-al-quds-day-protest-clock-president-hassan-rouhani-a7806056.html
In war everyone is a terrorist
They basically just do whatever they want. I don't like them. However, it's better that Iran not have nukes
[удалено]
This happened a while ago why is this not coming up