site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   1151 thread views

Transnational Thursday for August 22, 2024

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Pavel Durov (who has French citizenship from late 2021) is arrested in France and will have to face court. Some say that the plane wasn't heading to France but was redirected.

The mistake he made was that Telegram group chats aren’t (iirc) fully encrypted and so he can presumably be argued to have some kind of legal moderation duty.

What are the odds that Russia just straight up gives Iran nuclear weapons, Cuba style? Or have already done so?

Unlikely. Modern nuclear force, outside of terrorism uses, requires pretty wide support and maintenance, you can't just ship it in a car. In Cuba, there was substantial Soviet military presence, and planned to be more. Deploying those in Iran makes little sense for Russians. And, they will be exposed to being destroyed by Israel, since Israel have declared nuclear Iran to be unacceptable, and probably would declare any Russian nuclear site within Iran a legitimate war target. Why would they need all this trouble for no visible gain?

Russia has tried hard to maintain relations with the Saudis, and that would be over if they gave Iran nukes.

Probably zero. Especially since right now Iran is winning so they don't need them. Their fifth column - the muslim migrants and the woke are doing tremendous work in hurting Israel. And Kamala hasn't distanced herself from the woke wing of her party. And so far she is the frontrunner.

The last few times they gave away nukes they got burned. China was extraordinarily ungrateful considering the huge amount of technical assistance they were given, they actually fought a border war with the Soviet Union after the split. They also sent tactical nukes to Cuba just after the crisis but Castro was behaving like a crazy person so they took them back.

Seems like Iran could have nukes pretty quickly if they wanted. Probably don't want them since it'd just be an excuse for even more sanctions from the west. Better to have the potential to make a nuke quick and the launch platforms but not actually claim to physically have one or test any since as soon as you do you become a pariah state. Unless you have foreign governments in your pocket like Israel I suppose.

In exchange for what?

It would allow Iran to actually fight Israel which would draw the United States further away from Europe. You see how Ukraine temporarily got put on the back burner after October 7. Additionally, having the Middle East controlled by a Russian ally would probably be good for Russia.

How would having nuclear weapons allow them to fight Israel?

They could potentially nuke Israel, and then be nuked back in return by Israel, and very likely other nations, including anyone who considers themselves allied with Israel, or simply against the unprovoked offensive use of nuclear weapons by anyone.

That aside, they can already fire conventional missiles at Israel. They don't have the ability to carry out an offensive land invasion of Israel, and having a few nukes isn't going to change that.

It would allow Iran a much freer hand. Part of the reason they haven’t retaliated for the assassination of the Hamas leader in Tehran is that Israel passed back-channel threats to retaliate with tactical nuclear strikes. You see how the US and UK are constantly breathing down Ukraine’s neck about what they can and cannot do in their war with Russia, specifically because the Allies are worried about a nuclear response. Iran is never going to be able to undertake any significant campaign against Israel unless the have nuclear weapons. Now obviously if Iran ever pushed Israel into a genuinely existential crisis, nuclear response would be on the table anyway, like for any two other nuclear powers.

is that Israel passed back-channel threats to retaliate with tactical nuclear strikes

That sounds like conspiratorial BS. Israel does not need nukes to kick Iran in the nuts (they have demonstrated excellent far strike capabilities before) and nuke usage would annihilate pretty much any relationships they had with EU and dems in the US. That would be a massive stupid and useless move, a well aimed rocket strike against an oil refinery or a port would hurt much more and cause much less civilian casualties. Also, Iran has massive number of proxies capable of striking Israel (such as Hezbollah, for example) - so you assume they told Iran they'd nuke Lebanon too? And Gaza (now that's an idea...jk) This doesn't sound even remotely plausible. I don't believe any such thing ever happened.

That's not how anybody in the world has ever behaved with nuclear weapons.

How do you know Israel made "back-channel threats" about nuclear strikes? If they actually had, why wouldn't Iran immediately go running to Russia for protection? If they went public with evidence of such a thing, international support for Israel's war effort would likely evaporate, including from the US. Nuclear powers as a rule basically never do that because it could easily set off a chain of events exactly like that.

Historically, rival states which both have nuclear weapons become extremely cautious about provoking each other. See India and Pakistan. In every such case, both nations become terrified of doing anything that could conceivably escalate to a nuclear exchange. No set of nations has ever dared see mutual possession of nuclear weapons as an excuse to attack each other harder.

that’s not how anybody in the world has ever behaved with nuclear weapons.

You know, except for Russia. And the United States. And India. And Pakistan. And China. And North Korea. And France.

if they had, why wouldn’t Iran immediately go running to Russia for protection?

Well three days after that is when the Russian military flights carrying unspecified cargo started flying into Iran, so maybe they did.

What would actually happen is that the Saudi’s acquire a nuclear weapon very quickly, the region increases in militarization, and Russia is at the same level of influence as before just with egg on their face.

Iran can already actually fight Israel. It's been waging a bombardment campaign by proxy for the better part of a year now.

Iran can go nuclear without Russia needing to assist. Nuclear weapons don't change Iran's limitations.

Iran does not have the capacity to conquer the middle east with or without nuclear weapons, with or without the US in the region.

Russia's war in Ukraine is substantially facilitated by arms imports from Iran and ties it maintains with various Gulf Arab states to facilitate gold-transactions and other sanctions-evasion mechanisms, both of which would go away if Iran got into a major regional war.

AFAIK nuclear powers tend to want to avoid proliferation, even among their allies.

Reuters: Meet the secretive Colombian guerrillas who could deal final blow to peace plan

Segunda Marquetalia remains loyal to the Marxist ideals, like land redistribution, that inspired the FARC's 1964 founding, and many Segunda Marquetalia leaders are long-time FARC veterans now in their 60s.

 

[Segunda Marquetalia head negotiator Walter] Mendoza, who at 67 is a four-decade rebel veteran, said investment in long-neglected parts of the country is a priority for the guerrillas before they will surrender the leverage offered by arms.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats