It's a tell of a weak argument to not answer questions directly and instead fear-monger with 'what-ifs.'
To answer your question, a nuclear weapon is an extremely complex system with an international supply chain and I think there are plenty of ways to keep states non-nuclear that aren't direct acts of war.
Now to play Devil's Advocate:
What if Iran strikes Israel's suspected nuclear sites? Would that be justifiable to you?
Because to your very point, there are plenty of people in Iran who see a nuclear Israel to be just as catastrophic as you see a nuclear Syria.
(Again, this is why this content shouldn't be posted to HN per the rules, because now what? We are going to argue about whether or not Iran is an inherently evil state?)
RC_ITR|3 years ago
To answer your question, a nuclear weapon is an extremely complex system with an international supply chain and I think there are plenty of ways to keep states non-nuclear that aren't direct acts of war.
Now to play Devil's Advocate:
What if Iran strikes Israel's suspected nuclear sites? Would that be justifiable to you?
Because to your very point, there are plenty of people in Iran who see a nuclear Israel to be just as catastrophic as you see a nuclear Syria.
(Again, this is why this content shouldn't be posted to HN per the rules, because now what? We are going to argue about whether or not Iran is an inherently evil state?)