391
WHO officials admit they are preparing for possible nuclear weapon use in Iran
(www.the-independent.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
391 points (97.6% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
16068 readers
201 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe "there are no innocents in Gaza", and that every child born is "already a terrorist from the moment of his birth".
Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.
So that's making a very critical assumption: that Israel's territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that. And Hamas/Hezbollah is not an existential threat to Israel's existence despite propaganda to the contrary. We've already seen the full extent of their military capabilities.
The Samson Option is a one time, last-resort deterrence option for when all other defensive and offensive mechanisms have failed. Israel's small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
If Netanyahu pops a nuke for any other reason, he fundamentally shifts his neighbors' calculus in favor of uniting and attacking Israel because nukes are explicitly not a last resort anymore, therefore Israel becomes an immediate existential threat to all its neighbors that must be dealt with accordingly.
That's the thing with nuclear deterrence: it works, but only if your enemies are clear on the lines they can't cross. Otherwise you're just a threat to be eliminated. And ultimately there's only so much that propaganda can help with there. Israel may have convinced a majority of their citizens that genocide is good, but they can't propagandize their enemies into believing that preemptive nuclear strikes are necessary. Netanyahu can whine about Iran's nuclear program all he wants, none of his enemies seriously believe they are close to having nukes.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble that very significantly (if not entirely) weakens nuclear deterrence... All for relatively little military gain. There's very little a nuke would do that Israel can't do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there's a whole lot that nukes don't do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel's nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran's missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.
Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.
Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.
Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.
Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question. The rules of nuclear warfare aren't governed by morality but by game theory. From Israel's perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort for the reasons I outlined. Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally – which you will notice is not at all the same thing as acting morally or honestly. Using nuclear weapons is simply not a tactically rational option for them even if when their explicit goal is genocidal imperialism.
What's scary about Trump is that none of this applies to him. He is not a rational actor and he does not have everything to lose were he to launch a nuclear strike against Iran.
Correct.
Genocide isn't perpetuated by rational thinkers, is not an act of self preservation, and does not protect the wellbeing of it's perpetrators. The absurdity of this cannot be understated.
I am not making a moral argument. I am stating Israel has shown the depravity to use tactics of absolute destruction and barbarity, an established doctrine promoting the use of nuclear arms if Israel were to take heavy damage, and the fact that Israel is taking significant damage as their defenses continue to weaken as additional fronts open. These are all key requirements for the use of nuclear arms by Israel, and they are increasingly being met. Suggesting the US is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons from their position of relative safety is just laughable.