𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Why the fuck did he sign it

So it’s just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?

I mean, haven’t they?

And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel?

The IAEA cites several officials that have stated that Iran is able to manufacture nuclear weapons, and pundits on state tv have threatened Israel with total destruction and “annihilation”. It doesn’t take much to put two and two together. They’re overt threats, but threats nonetheless.

The Soviets didn’t just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check.

This ignores the many proxy wars the US and USSR fought in many regions. I wouldn’t necessarily call that very stabilizing. Meanwhile the theory that wars won’t be declared between nuclear powers is actively being tested by several states at the moment, prodding and probing nuclear-capable alliances to test where the boundary lies.

Results achieved in the past do not guarantee success in the future.

As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don’t have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That’s how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.

I’m not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn’t really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don’t trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.

Iran can’t use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it’d be an empty threat. Iran can’t nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.

MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn’t prevent conventional wars.

International law doesn’t permit the blockading of humanitarian aid. Israel was allowed to board and inspect the vessel, but not block it from entry.

The judges were personally sanctioned I believe.

That’s all conjecture. I’m not sure lawmakers would be particularly swayed by the Haka, particularly not the proponents of the bill (who probably care even less about it).

Even then, an impassioned speech tends to be far more effective in parliament than disruptive protests (historically speaking).

The bill was already fairly controversial, so it probably wouldn’t have passed through legislative apathy.

Yeah but why bother? That same parliamentary process defeated the bill?

But that same procedure ended up defeating the bill? I’m not sure the protest really achieved much.

You can fight a bill like this in a 100 ways within parliamentary procedure. If they had announced the protest it would be allowed too I believe.

Protest is for when the procedure fails. But it worked just fine here.

Also, arguments about the protest aside, my main point was that it’s not racist to punish an unannounced disruptive protest, just because that protest happened to be a Haka.

I mean, personally I don’t really agree with people here saying this punishment is racism.

For me this falls into the same category as walking up to other members of parliament and yelling loudly at them, or breakdancing, or doing anything that disrupts the parliamentary process. I don’t think making exceptions for a Haka is reasonable. Parliament has these rules to ensure the room stays calm, collected and can do its work. The Labour party too believes some punishment is appropriate, though they suggested a censure instead.

Most articles refer to a previous suspension of 3 days, but I can’t find what that was for. I can’t judge if the severity of the punishment is therefore in line with precedent.

It should be mentioned, the bill they protested ultimately did not end up passing.

It’s insane, the basic fucking concept of why human shields “work” is that it’s morally wrong to kill them. Totally bizarre.

That’s not what he’s saying, he says that due to Apartheid there are still some racial tensions and it’s also a reason for said unemployment and poverty.

Interesting, for me there’s a fairly clear difference in the colour blue:

You exist in the brain, which is ruled by physical processes. Not sure what citations you need for that.

What actions on Gaza has the Trump regime taken that are demonstrably worse than what the Biden administration allowed?

I often see this question asked, and I wonder if those asking have been asleep the past few months?

Under Biden:

• Israel was still negotiating with Hamas for a ceasefire and release of hostages. A ceasefire deal was even reached.
• Israel limited the amount of occupation zones at the request of the Biden administration.
• Mass deportations weren’t being planned (at least not openly, and not by the US).
• Israel reduced but still allowed some foreign aid.

Under Trump:

• Israel broke the ceasefire and resumed hostilities with even greater military force.
• Is creating very large occupation zones and “kill zones” where Palestinians are forced to leave.
• Is openly planning mass deportations and ethnic cleansing, in collaboration with the US.
• Israel has blocked foreign aid completely.

As a result people now face mass starvation and the prospect of being fully ethnically cleansed.

I understand Biden was extremely disappointing. I thought he was too. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that he was in any way equally bad as Trump has been. And given what Trump and Israel have been saying, the worst is likely to come.

The nebulous term is “intent”. That’s not something that’s always clear. Especially early on in the war the argument was that the intent was to destroy Hamas and rescue the hostages. That wouldn’t be a genocide. But given what several cabinet ministers have now been publicly saying, we can determine that the intent is present.

The energy grid of tomorrow is is in no need of a baseline supply.

The baseline is often referred to as baseline supply, but in reality it’s baseline demand that always needs to be met. A steady supply made most sense in the past, but that’s not the case anymore thanks to renewables. Several countries already produce so much power at peak hours, the supply from renewables exceeds the total demand significantly (leading to negative energy prices).

Because renewables are the cheapest source of power by some distance, this means that it’s economically the best option to switch all other power generation off. Meaning that to ensure the baseline supply is met, you need a flexible source of power, one that quickly scales up and down without pricing itself out of the market doing so.

The renewable answer to this is batteries. The fossil fuel answer is natural gas reactors. Both options are cheaper than nuclear.

Nuclear takes too long to build and there’s just no economic case for it. It’s considerably better to invest in cheaper options with a much faster return on decarbonization.

This wasn’t true 2 years ago and it’s even less true now.

Battery costs have dropped 80% in the past decade.

Here’s a reddit comment that pretty succinctly sums it all up: https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1h62c1i/comment/m0ecbyq/

I mean several of them acknowledge it, but this guy at least seems to think it’s problematic.

? I’ve seen plenty of talk about the situation in Ukraine, Sudan and Kenia. Maybe your instance doesn’t federate with the instances where those discussions happen?

Palestine is a notable one because it’s perpetrated by our “ally” and it’s also very high in civilian casualties. And I really don’t say that to minimise any of the other atrocities going on.

Accelerationism has historically never ended well.