I think you don't understand how serious nuclear weapons are. They are a threat to all life, and any country that 1) has nuclear weapons and 2) hasn't signed onto nonproliferation treaties should be bombed into the stone age. We need to be extra serious if they're warmongers or actively genociding anyone too.
Nuclear weapons are such a threat, any country that fulfills those requirements should be considered at war with the US without exception. Even if they are our ally.
has nuclear weapons and 2) hasn't signed onto nonproliferation treaties should be bombed into the stone age.
So, who do you want to start bombing then? Because there are 8 countries confirmed (and almost certainly a 9th country) who have nukes, and only 5 of them have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
If you start by bombing India then you probably need to go after Pakistan at the same time (or vice versa) but geopolitically they are relatively stable. North Korea has nukes (likely not good nukes, but still nukes) but is definitely not stable. But, if you want an active warmonger who almost certainly has nukes I assume you think we should, as you put it, bomb Israel into the stone age?
Going by the criteria that the US pretends to follow but only does selectively would mean war with Israel, then India, then Pakistan. And that would be much better for our country than war with Iran.
threats everywhere. with folks in charge like israel and their vassal states, knowing their history they would not hesitate to use nukes.
why havent they yet? probably cost-benefit in rebuilding infrastructure.
in gaza they clearly have bombed that area to shit and and in the process of cleaning up and building their own infrastructure there since its nearby and relatively small. And not one other nation in the international community tried to stop them. they just cry in the council halls but let israel do its thing at the end of the day.
I think you don't understand how serious nuclear weapons are. They are a threat to all life, and any country that 1) has nuclear weapons and 2) hasn't signed onto nonproliferation treaties should be bombed into the stone age. We need to be extra serious if they're warmongers or actively genociding anyone too.
Nuclear weapons are such a threat, any country that fulfills those requirements should be considered at war with the US without exception. Even if they are our ally.
So, who do you want to start bombing then? Because there are 8 countries confirmed (and almost certainly a 9th country) who have nukes, and only 5 of them have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
If you start by bombing India then you probably need to go after Pakistan at the same time (or vice versa) but geopolitically they are relatively stable. North Korea has nukes (likely not good nukes, but still nukes) but is definitely not stable. But, if you want an active warmonger who almost certainly has nukes I assume you think we should, as you put it, bomb Israel into the stone age?
That's the joke.
Going by the criteria that the US pretends to follow but only does selectively would mean war with Israel, then India, then Pakistan. And that would be much better for our country than war with Iran.
threats everywhere. with folks in charge like israel and their vassal states, knowing their history they would not hesitate to use nukes.
why havent they yet? probably cost-benefit in rebuilding infrastructure.
in gaza they clearly have bombed that area to shit and and in the process of cleaning up and building their own infrastructure there since its nearby and relatively small. And not one other nation in the international community tried to stop them. they just cry in the council halls but let israel do its thing at the end of the day.