Iran vs the US Thread

[Zhivotnoye]

This would be best of course. But it unfortunately will not happen.

Islam is loosing traction there. And lets be real it is really the source of all the problems.

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

You can beat a country without invading though.

Depends, what is the goal? Bombing it down to the ground? Sure, possible without invading it. Regime change? Not going to happen without invading it. Crippling its military and nuclear abilities? Not going to happen without invading it.

So unless you want a pointless war, you'll have to invade it.

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

The Iranain people want to get rid of the current government asap

No they don't.

What? Like cancel the olympics? Put a marine barracks in Lebanon? Maybe arm Al Qaeda? OTOH there's North Vietnam which was invaded and bombed, proving invading a 4th rate power isn't always a win either. .

Actually I am hoping this thread will shrivel up and die bc nothing more will happen on this topic. *prays*

By destroying their government and military. We beat the Libyan regime without invading.

But yes, probably nothing comes of it anyways.

You beat the Libyan regime? Last time i checked it were the Lybian people who did all the hard work, and i'm sure you won't get that help from the Iranian people.

[Vetalia]

Iran doesnt wants normal relations. Besides, the only realistic option for that to happen is if the US withdraw entirely from the Middle East alltogether. Which might perhaps not be the worst option.

Then fine, we simply leave them alone but make it clear that if they cause any trouble we will respond with force. The entire goal is to make them the aggressor, not us.

[Zhivotnoye]

Much better equipped and commanded than Iraq's was in 1991 or 2003, though, and much more loyal.

That being said, we only "win" if we achieve a specific objective that benefits the US in the long term. As you describe it, all we would achieve is wasting huge amounts money and American lives while simultaneously strengthening the Iranian government as they rally the people of Iran (and plenty of neighboring countries) against an act of aggressive war from the now widely-hated United States, while also making the US look even more like a warmongering bully to the rest of the world than it already does. The intervention in Libya was a disaster big enough for a generation, we certainly don't need another one in that part of the world. By any measure, this is a loss.

Maybe we just don't do anything and let the Iranians be? Lift the sanctions and normalize relations and maybe then we can work on actually achieving peaceful regime change in Iran.

Israel has a powerful military and its own stockpile of nuclear weapons and can more than take care of itself if Iran tries to start anything, especially if we support them in the face of an attack by Iran.

If our objective is toppling the government we can achieve that.

But again I am NOT saying we launch an unprovoked attack.
Just we be prepared if they attack us or allies.
I am not sure why being prepared is controversial.

But lifting the sanctions and normalizing relations would make the regime STRONGER.
Why would we want to bow to the regime’s demands? Why give them anything for nothing in return? What will they give us

Best option is continue the status quo.

Which demands? The ability to produce nuclear energy, a right every country has? And why exactly should they give you something in return?

[Zhivotnoye]

Maybe we just don't do anything and let the Iranians be? Lift the sanctions and normalize relations and maybe then we can work on actually achieving peaceful regime change in Iran.

Iran doesnt wants normal relations. Besides, the only realistic option for that to happen is if the US withdraw entirely from the Middle East alltogether. Which might perhaps not be the worst option.

What a nonsense.

[Vetalia]

If our objective is toppling the government we can achieve that.

But again I am NOT saying we launch an unprovoked attack.
Just we be prepared if they attack us or allies.
I am not sure why being prepared is controversial.

But lifting the sanctions and normalizing relations would make the regime STRONGER.
Why would we want to bow to the regime’s demands? Why give them anything for nothing in return? What will they give us

Best option is continue the status quo.

I think we might actually be on the same page, then.

I do support lifting sanctions because that will help normalize relations and promote economic development in Iran with an aim for future democratization, with the caveat that they must cease all support for terrorist organizations that attack Israel under penalty of reinstating the sanctions if discovered and making them worse.

[Novus America]

Islam is loosing traction there. And lets be real it is really the source of all the problems.

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.

You can beat a country without invading though.

Depends, what is the goal? Bombing it down to the ground? Sure, possible without invading it. Regime change? Not going to happen without invading it. Crippling its military and nuclear abilities? Not going to happen without invading it.

So unless you want a pointless war, you'll have to invade it.

The Iranain people want to get rid of the current government asap

No they don't.

By destroying their government and military. We beat the Libyan regime without invading.

But yes, probably nothing comes of it anyways.

You beat the Libyan regime? Last time i checked it were the Lybian people who did all the hard work, and i'm sure you won't get that help from the Iranian people.

Building a modern military takes technology and money. A regime bombed into ruins cannot do that.
The still use F-14s from the old regime because they cannot replace them.
Any equipment they lose they cannot easily replace.

And the regime needs its security apparatus to function,
That can be seriously disrupted or destroyed. Without its apparatus to keep the people in line it will collapse.
Which is the flaw of all authoritarian regimes.

[Thuzbekistan]

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.



Depends, what is the goal? Bombing it down to the ground? Sure, possible without invading it. Regime change? Not going to happen without invading it. Crippling its military and nuclear abilities? Not going to happen without invading it.

So unless you want a pointless war, you'll have to invade it.



No they don't.



You beat the Libyan regime? Last time i checked it were the Lybian people who did all the hard work, and i'm sure you won't get that help from the Iranian people.

Building a modern military takes technology and money. A regime bombed into ruins cannot do that.
The still use F-14s from the old regime because they cannot replace them.
Any equipment they lose they cannot easily replace.

And the regime needs its security apparatus to function,
That can be seriously disrupted or destroyed. Without its apparatus to keep the people in line it will collapse.
Which is the flaw of all authoritarian regimes.

Sooo where were the spontaneous revolutions we hoped would come after beating the snot out of Saddam in 91? Oh, there weren't any. It's probably best not to rely on those.

[Novus America]

If our objective is toppling the government we can achieve that.

But again I am NOT saying we launch an unprovoked attack.
Just we be prepared if they attack us or allies.
I am not sure why being prepared is controversial.

But lifting the sanctions and normalizing relations would make the regime STRONGER.
Why would we want to bow to the regime’s demands? Why give them anything for nothing in return? What will they give us

Best option is continue the status quo.

I think we might actually be on the same page, then.

I do support lifting sanctions because that will help normalize relations and promote economic development in Iran with an aim for future democratization, with the caveat that they must cease all support for terrorist organizations that attack Israel under penalty of reinstating the sanctions if discovered and making them worse.

But we saw how that approach was with China.
Trade with China only made China worse. MUCH more dangerous.
A wealthy regime is more dangerous than a poor one.
Economic development means more money for them to buy weapons.

If we could get real concessions out of them maybe, but they will NEVER accept the conditions you suggest. We could offer that. Sure.

But it would be like offering the UK a few million dollars for the Crown Jewels.
It is not realistic.

[Novus America]

Building a modern military takes technology and money. A regime bombed into ruins cannot do that.
The still use F-14s from the old regime because they cannot replace them.
Any equipment they lose they cannot easily replace.

And the regime needs its security apparatus to function,
That can be seriously disrupted or destroyed. Without its apparatus to keep the people in line it will collapse.
Which is the flaw of all authoritarian regimes.

Sooo where were the spontaneous revolutions we hoped would come after beating the snot out of Saddam in 91? Oh, there weren't any. It's probably best not to rely on those.

Because we never tried to topple the regime.
We saw how quickly airstrikes in 2003 caused the regime to cease function.
The hard part is not toppling an authoritarian regime by destroying its security apparatus.

Destroying Saddam’s regime in 2003 was easy.

Resolving the Sunni Shia conflict not easy of course.
But why try to fix what cannot be fixed?

[Nakena]

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.

It absolutly is. It is worshipping and empowering a malevolent and evil deity that intends enslavement of mankind.

The whole iranian system of governance is specifically set up as provisional system waiting for the return of the true Mahdi who supposedly will act as direct enforcer for their deity from another dimension.

Islam has its own idea of what Mankind ought to be and it is bent on conquering this world, and Khomeini decided to turn the iranian nation into a vassel for this end.

Ignoring the spritual, metaphysical dimension of the enemy and this struggle is a folly.

Neither the american leadership nor you antiimps understand it.

You are just useful pawns in a War beyond your comprehension.

[Duhon]

Apparently a House committee has voted to revoke the 2001 law that gave the president the authorization to wage war against anyone deemed to be an ally of or harboring members of Al-Qaeda. A start, but good luck with that.

In the (extremely unlikely) event that Congress gathers up the balls to revoke that authorization altogether, then override Trump's veto, what would stop Trump from going ahead with a third Gulf War anyway?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Apparently a House committee has voted to revoke the 2001 law that gave the president the authorization to wage war against anyone deemed to be an ally of or harboring members of Al-Qaeda. A start, but good luck with that.

In the (extremely unlikely) event that Congress gathers up the balls to revoke that authorization altogether, then override Trump's veto, what would stop Trump from going ahead with a third Gulf War anyway?

It won't be a war, it'll be a Police Action. Totes different.

[Duhon]

Apparently a House committee has voted to revoke the 2001 law that gave the president the authorization to wage war against anyone deemed to be an ally of or harboring members of Al-Qaeda. A start, but good luck with that.

In the (extremely unlikely) event that Congress gathers up the balls to revoke that authorization altogether, then override Trump's veto, what would stop Trump from going ahead with a third Gulf War anyway?

It won't be a war, it'll be a Police Action. Totes different.

... explain.

[Bloodshade]

An Iran War is probably going to be the catalyst for World War 3 so please no. I'm still waiting for Bannerlord 2 to come out and I'll be rather annoyed if I'm bathed in nuclear fire before that happens.

But seriously, what benefit does the US gain other than patting itself on the back for being the world police? I'm certainly no expert but won't meaningless wars like this probably end up hurting the US's budget deficit even further than it already is? Sure, weapons manufacturers are going to have such a fantastic time but I doubt they have enough clout to move Congress or the public. Also, even if Iran is a theocracy and has nuclear weapons, don't you think the MAD doctrine applies to them as well? I mean, Kim and North Korea haven't launched any nuclear weapons despite threatening to do so on multiple occasions. I doubt the Irani authorities are more 'rogue' than the North Korean leadership in any case. Looking at it from Iran's perspective, nuclear weapons would be a helpful deterrent against any future US invasions...

I don't think there's any real reason for the US to send its forces all the way to Iran and I highly doubt they will. To me at least, this just sounds like a classic diversionary tactic.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It won't be a war, it'll be a Police Action. Totes different.

... explain.

Presidents for a long while now have gotten away with troop deployments and fighting wars without actual declarations by just calling them Police Actions or some variation thereof and thus insisting they don't need Congressional approval for it.

To put into perspective how abused this has become the last time the US issued a declaration of war was on June 5, 1942 when we recognized a state of war with some of the minor Axis states.

[Thuzbekistan]

Sooo where were the spontaneous revolutions we hoped would come after beating the snot out of Saddam in 91? Oh, there weren't any. It's probably best not to rely on those.

Because we never tried to topple the regime.
We saw how quickly airstrikes in 2003 caused the regime to cease function.
The hard part is not toppling an authoritarian regime by destroying its security apparatus.

Destroying Saddam’s regime in 2003 was easy.

Resolving the Sunni Shia conflict not easy of course.
But why try to fix what cannot be fixed?

Because you kinda take on that responsibility when you start governing the place that split really occured

[Vetalia]

But we saw how that approach was with China.
Trade with China only made China worse. MUCH more dangerous.
A wealthy regime is more dangerous than a poor one.
Economic development means more money for them to buy weapons.

If we could get real concessions out of them maybe, but they will NEVER accept the conditions you suggest. We could offer that. Sure.

But it would be like offering the UK a few million dollars for the Crown Jewels.
It is not realistic.

China is different, though, they have a population four times the size of the USA with a government focused on economic development and opening to foreign trade whereas Iran has a population 1/4th of the US and a private sector that is...lackluster...to say the least. Even under the best of circumstances they might be able to rival Germany.

And if Iran doesn't accept those conditions regarding Israel, no problem. Back to the status quo.

Regarding Israel, we do need to reign in their actions in Gaza and the Golan Heights/Syria in some ways but they are a sovereign state that deserves to exist and is one of the few true democracies in the region, with a much better human rights record and level of economic development than the rest of its neighbors. That being said, the treatment of Israel by its neighbors has been shameful over the past 70 years and quite frankly inexcusable.

[Novus America]

Because we never tried to topple the regime.
We saw how quickly airstrikes in 2003 caused the regime to cease function.
The hard part is not toppling an authoritarian regime by destroying its security apparatus.

Destroying Saddam’s regime in 2003 was easy.

Resolving the Sunni Shia conflict not easy of course.
But why try to fix what cannot be fixed?

Because you kinda take on that responsibility when you start governing the place that split really occured

Well only if you want to. No one can stop you from just saying “fuck it” and let them sort it out.
But yes you do take responsibility IF you start a war with building a new regime as the objective.

Iraq was a mistake sure, which is why we should do things differently here.
Not start a war without them starting it first, and not try to be the ones to build a new government afterwards should they start a war.

Though Iran does not have the internal Sunni Shia conflict Iraq has.

[Zhivotnoye]

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.



Depends, what is the goal? Bombing it down to the ground? Sure, possible without invading it. Regime change? Not going to happen without invading it. Crippling its military and nuclear abilities? Not going to happen without invading it.

So unless you want a pointless war, you'll have to invade it.



No they don't.



You beat the Libyan regime? Last time i checked it were the Lybian people who did all the hard work, and i'm sure you won't get that help from the Iranian people.

Building a modern military takes technology and money. A regime bombed into ruins cannot do that.
The still use F-14s from the old regime because they cannot replace them.
Any equipment they lose they cannot easily replace.

And the regime needs its security apparatus to function,
That can be seriously disrupted or destroyed. Without its apparatus to keep the people in line it will collapse.
Which is the flaw of all authoritarian regimes.

So you basically want to bomb Iran every 40ish years? After all, Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is very much justified, and any action against Iran will only fuel said hostility, causing an endless loop of destruction and construction up till the point where U.S. hegemony has come to an end.

Fun fact: The amount of Iranians who found religion important in their lives climbed from 76% (2006) to 86% (2016). So no, it's certainly not losing traction, nor is it 'the source of all problems'.

It absolutly is. It is worshipping and empowering a malevolent and evil deity that intends enslavement of mankind.

The whole iranian system of governance is specifically set up as provisional system waiting for the return of the true Mahdi who supposedly will act as direct enforcer for their deity from another dimension.

Islam has its own idea of what Mankind ought to be and it is bent on conquering this world, and Khomeini decided to turn the iranian nation into a vassel for this end.

Ignoring the spritual, metaphysical dimension of the enemy and this struggle is a folly.

Neither the american leadership nor you antiimps understand it.

You are just useful pawns in a War beyond your comprehension.

I'm sure we are

[Novus America]

But we saw how that approach was with China.
Trade with China only made China worse. MUCH more dangerous.
A wealthy regime is more dangerous than a poor one.
Economic development means more money for them to buy weapons.

If we could get real concessions out of them maybe, but they will NEVER accept the conditions you suggest. We could offer that. Sure.

But it would be like offering the UK a few million dollars for the Crown Jewels.
It is not realistic.

China is different, though, they have a population four times the size of the USA with a government focused on economic development and opening to foreign trade whereas Iran has a population 1/4th of the US and a private sector that is...lackluster...to say the least. Even under the best of circumstances they might be able to rival Germany.

And if Iran doesn't accept those conditions regarding Israel, no problem. Back to the status quo.

Regarding Israel, we do need to reign in their actions in Gaza and the Golan Heights/Syria in some ways but they are a sovereign state that deserves to exist and is one of the few true democracies in the region, with a much better human rights record and level of economic development than the rest of its neighbors. That being said, the treatment of Israel by its neighbors has been shameful over the past 70 years and quite frankly inexcusable.

Well sure obviously Iran could not become a peer competitor, but an Iran as rich as Germany would be far more dangerous than Iran today.

Admittedly sure Iran’s economic problems are much deeper than the sanctions and Iran would never be that rich. But still the wealthier they are the more dangerous they become.

But yes, we really do not disagree much then.

Iran will say no, and we continue the status quo.

[Zurkerx]

... explain.

Presidents for a long while now have gotten away with troop deployments and fighting wars without actual declarations by just calling them Police Actions or some variation thereof and thus insisting they don't need Congressional approval for it.

To put into perspective how abused this has become the last time the US issued a declaration of war was on June 5, 1942 when we recognized a state of war with some of the minor Axis states.

That long ago? Not even Vietnam or Korea? Wait- Korea was a UN Operation; the only time the UN actually had balls.

Eh, Congress has relinquished too much of its power.

[Nakena]

An Iran War is probably going to be the catalyst for World War 3 so please no. I'm still waiting for Bannerlord 2 to come out and I'll be rather annoyed if I'm bathed in nuclear fire before that happens.

But seriously, what benefit does the US gain other than patting itself on the back for being the world police? I'm certainly no expert but won't meaningless wars like this probably end up hurting the US's budget deficit even further than it already is? Sure, weapons manufacturers are going to have such a fantastic time but I doubt they have enough clout to move Congress or the public. Also, even if Iran is a theocracy and has nuclear weapons, don't you think the MAD doctrine applies to them as well? I mean, Kim and North Korea haven't launched any nuclear weapons despite threatening to do so on multiple occasions. I doubt the Irani authorities are more 'rogue' than the North Korean leadership in any case. Looking at it from Iran's perspective, nuclear weapons would be a helpful deterrent against any future US invasions...

I don't think there's any real reason for the US to send its forces all the way to Iran and I highly doubt they will. To me at least, this just sounds like a classic diversionary tactic.

Also, take a look at my former post; Nuclear Weapons would tenfold their power level and make them almost impossible to remove by force.

Given their hostile attitudes and intentions that would become a real problem and danger to anyone way beyond the middle east. Nuclear weapons in the hand of a structurally and ideologically driven totalitarian Islamic Republic would be very bad news given their abhorrent ideology.

[Novus America]

Building a modern military takes technology and money. A regime bombed into ruins cannot do that.
The still use F-14s from the old regime because they cannot replace them.
Any equipment they lose they cannot easily replace.

And the regime needs its security apparatus to function,
That can be seriously disrupted or destroyed. Without its apparatus to keep the people in line it will collapse.
Which is the flaw of all authoritarian regimes.

So you basically want to bomb Iran every 40ish years? After all, Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is very much justified, and any action against Iran will only fuel said hostility, causing an endless loop of destruction and construction up till the point where U.S. hegemony has come to an end.

It absolutly is. It is worshipping and empowering a malevolent and evil deity that intends enslavement of mankind.

The whole iranian system of governance is specifically set up as provisional system waiting for the return of the true Mahdi who supposedly will act as direct enforcer for their deity from another dimension.

Islam has its own idea of what Mankind ought to be and it is bent on conquering this world, and Khomeini decided to turn the iranian nation into a vassel for this end.

Ignoring the spritual, metaphysical dimension of the enemy and this struggle is a folly.

Neither the american leadership nor you antiimps understand it.

You are just useful pawns in a War beyond your comprehension.

I'm sure we are

When did we last bomb Iran? We sank a few ships and accidentally shot down a plane but did not bomb them. And they started that by attacking Kuwaiti ships.
But the quickly fell into line at little cost to us, that was a successful operation, although the shoot down was a unfortunate tragedy.

And the coup argument is BS because the Clerics SUPPORTED the coup too!
Which is ironic. The clerics blaming us for supporting a coup they also supported.
Which shows what liars they are.
Actually that coup saw us on the same side.

And Carter working to topple the Shah and back Khomeini benefited the clerics too!
So what are they bitching about exactly?
We supported them in two coups but okay.

Plus although we supported the coup we did not start it nor cause the conditions that caused it.

Anyways a bombing every 40 years is easily affordable.

But again I am NOT saying we bomb them for no reason.
I am simply saying we be ready to respond if they attack us or our allies.
That is all, again what is so controversial about that?

[Dooom35796821595]

An Iran War is probably going to be the catalyst for World War 3 so please no. I'm still waiting for Bannerlord 2 to come out and I'll be rather annoyed if I'm bathed in nuclear fire before that happens.

But seriously, what benefit does the US gain other than patting itself on the back for being the world police? I'm certainly no expert but won't meaningless wars like this probably end up hurting the US's budget deficit even further than it already is? Sure, weapons manufacturers are going to have such a fantastic time but I doubt they have enough clout to move Congress or the public. Also, even if Iran is a theocracy and has nuclear weapons, don't you think the MAD doctrine applies to them as well? I mean, Kim and North Korea haven't launched any nuclear weapons despite threatening to do so on multiple occasions. I doubt the Irani authorities are more 'rogue' than the North Korean leadership in any case. Looking at it from Iran's perspective, nuclear weapons would be a helpful deterrent against any future US invasions...

I don't think there's any real reason for the US to send its forces all the way to Iran and I highly doubt they will. To me at least, this just sounds like a classic diversionary tactic.

Also, take a look at my former post; Nuclear Weapons would tenfold their power level and make them almost impossible to remove by force.

Given their hostile attitudes and intentions that would become a real problem and danger to anyone way beyond the middle east. Nuclear weapons in the hand of a structurally and ideologically driven totalitarian Islamic Republic would be very bad news given their abhorrent ideology.

There could be a way to limit ownership of nuclear weapons back to the original 5, just use the UN and hold the relevant P5 member responsible for the actions of their proxy, and charge them with denuclearisation. China for North Korea, Russia for Iran, America for Israil ect. India and Pakistan would be a tougher, but that’s a separate issue.

[Nakena]

Also, take a look at my former post; Nuclear Weapons would tenfold their power level and make them almost impossible to remove by force.

Given their hostile attitudes and intentions that would become a real problem and danger to anyone way beyond the middle east. Nuclear weapons in the hand of a structurally and ideologically driven totalitarian Islamic Republic would be very bad news given their abhorrent ideology.

There could be a way to limit ownership of nuclear weapons back to the original 5, just use the UN and hold the relevant P5 member responsible for the actions of their proxy, and charge them with denuclearisation. China for North Korea, Russia for Iran, America for Israil ect. India and Pakistan would be a tougher, but that’s a separate issue.

It would probably good for world peace if the proliferation of nuclear weapons be limited as much as possible, since they do have actually the potential to destroy our civilization. I agree with you that in a ideal world only the P5 should have nukes, but that train has passed imo.