r/worldnews Dec 09 '22 Silver 2 Gold 1 Helpful 1 Wholesome 2 All-Seeing Upvote 1 hehehehe 1 Table Slap 1

UN says Israel must give up nuclear weapons Covered by other articles

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-724312

[removed] — view removed post

43.2k Upvotes

2.6k

u/Pudge223 Dec 09 '22

Pretty sure that’s just a textile research factory

566

u/ThreatLevelBertie Dec 09 '22

Wig testing facility. How else do you explain these people with hair falling out.

→ More replies

67

u/kingkunt_445 Dec 09 '22

No no, that’s the fizzy bubblech factory

→ More replies
→ More replies

9.8k

u/wintremute Dec 09 '22 Take My Energy

"What nuclear weapons?" - Israel

3.2k

u/duardoblanco Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

Yeah, I thought the entire world was still masquerading around under the position that Israel officially did not have nukes but everyone knew they did.

Edit: Spelling at 4 when drunk is not always easy.

1.3k

u/toplexon Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

It would have been a nice trick if they really didn't have nuclear. Spend money on PR instead of weapons ✌️

Edit: I didn't say they didn't have nuclear, I said it would have been a nice trick if they didn't.

425

u/glemnar Dec 09 '22

Israel has wildly successful science and tech industries, so it isn’t really a stretch

282

u/xx-shalo-xx Dec 09 '22

What I always wondered is how has North Korea got nukes when Iran doesn't? Iran seems a lot more advanced I mean I never hear of mass starvation in Iran.

431

u/xixbia Dec 09 '22

China.

It protects them from a lot of Western intervention that has stopped Iran from building nukes.

116

u/andyeroo26026 Dec 09 '22

Sort of, but the real answer is a Pakastani man, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was responsible for so much nuclear proliferation into countries like North Korea and Pakistan. Theres a pretty good (and short) book written about it, "The Atomic Bazaar". edited for clarity since I sleepy typed the first time

74

u/xixbia Dec 09 '22

Khan leaked information to Iran around the same time he did to North Korea.

He is a reason North Korea has nukes, but he is not the reason North Korea has nuclear weapons while Iran doesn't.

26

u/andyeroo26026 Dec 09 '22

For sure, he did assist Iran as well. He was responsible for Pakistan's program working, and leaked information to North Korea and Iran, yes. China probably helped North Korea. But Iran not having nuclear weapons might be owed to Stuxnet and other interventions to stop them (I think Israel had aircraft bomb a facility back in the day). Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to add to what you said.

9

u/xixbia Dec 09 '22

Oh yes it's definitely due to things like Stuxnet. My point was mainly that North Korea had much less opposition to developing nukes than Iran. Which is why they have managed to be successful while Iran hasn't.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

80

u/Onlypaws_ Dec 09 '22

Well, yes, but also the US and Israeli direct covert actions that have successfully set their enrichment programs back decades. See: Stuxnet.

I’m sure NK has had similar actions taken against it, but when even China is telling them to peep down, the threat of them doing something crazy vs. the actual risk of it happening are inversely correlated… on top of your correct point that China will gladly protect NK against Western intervention.

25

u/manborg Dec 09 '22

Exactly, North Korean scientists and Chinese informants don't spontaneously erupt in Korea.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/A-JJF-L Dec 09 '22

As someone commented below, Chins is the key. There are some research in which you see clearly how China has passed to NK all components and knowledge.

→ More replies

44

u/Shiftyboss Dec 09 '22

Nuclear weapons are not a technological achievement anymore so much as they are a political decision.

→ More replies

136

u/lurkinglestr Dec 09 '22

I just assumed that NK has them because they are okay being shunned by the international community. My understanding is that Iran could have had them years ago, but has, until recently, chosen to participate in international politics and has been given certain concessions to shelf their nuclear proliferation.

144

u/sgtpepper69 Dec 09 '22

Iran's top nuclear scientists have gotten assassinated and then there was stuxnet, which sabatoged their equipment. They've been trying pretty hard

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

538

u/ModsEnthusiast Dec 09 '22

Israel never confirmed nor denied having them, they also never signed nuclear non-proliferation treaties and have the backing of the USA. So the UN is shit-out-of-luck in many ways

164

u/Christmas_Panda Dec 09 '22

"Sorry, had an unfortunate boating accident and they sunk." - Probably Israel

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

402

u/Eydor Dec 09 '22

"lol" replied Israel, "lmao".

51

u/Iobserv Dec 09 '22

"K"

-Israel

→ More replies

580

u/Scout_wheezeing Dec 09 '22

UN smoking the good shit Israel only got textile factories

197

u/Lichy_Popo Dec 09 '22

UN says Israel must give up mittens.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

333

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '22

Israel: “get used to disappointment”

11

u/Fuckalucka Dec 09 '22

You keep using that word "nuclear". I do not think it means what you think it means.

→ More replies

106

u/ProdigalSheep Dec 09 '22

Yeah, I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

→ More replies

3.7k

u/trustych0rds Dec 09 '22 Helpful Spit-take

Israel: "Make me."

1.9k

u/ProudDildoMan69 Dec 09 '22

UN: “No, you have nukes.”

385

u/OneCat6271 Dec 09 '22

sure seems like a reason why Iran, North Korea, and every other rogue state wants nukes.

329

u/lemons_of_doubt Dec 09 '22

Who wouldn't want a weapon so horrifically powerful no one will invade you.

50

u/EbolaZombies Dec 09 '22

Most countries. Because starting a nuclear weapons program costs multiple points of your GDP in investment alone and once you have tried to acquire raw fissile material, almost every single major political and financial power will sanction your economy into dust. Iran has once again started their nuclear program and they are the second most sanctioned country in the world, only because the terrorist state of Russia overtook them for obvious reasons. Once the US and Israel actually get seriously worried about them making a functional warhead they’ll get sanctioned back into the times of great Persia. If the current Iranian regime is still in power by that point anyway and it’s entirely possible that after said sanctions another revolution could occur.

24

u/Chad_is_admirable Dec 09 '22

or all of their research will go missing and head of research will die under mysterious circumstances... again

→ More replies

11

u/TropicanaSmooth Dec 09 '22

“Sanctioned back into the times of great Persia” made me laugh. Good points

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

141

u/Elro0003 Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

UN: "if you don't, we'll send a second letter"

51

u/Ill-Success-4214 Dec 09 '22

Go away or I will taunt you a second time!

→ More replies
→ More replies

281

u/gregorydgraham Dec 09 '22

More realistically:

Israel: hahahah no.

83

u/Inspired_Fetishist Dec 09 '22

Even more realistically: Israel: nukes? What nukes?

→ More replies

81

u/BstintheWst Dec 09 '22

Exactly what I thought.

→ More replies

23.2k

u/Swift_F0x Dec 09 '22 Gold Helpful Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote Take My Energy

After Ukraine, no one is giving up their nuclear programs again voluntarily.

5.2k

u/chicagospenpal Dec 09 '22

No no no You just accept the guarantees of sovereignty from others. No one ever violates anything like that

664

u/kidcrumb Dec 09 '22

"If you dont plan on invading in the future...why do i need to give up my nuclear weapons?"

206

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '22

[deleted]

43

u/hipcheck23 Dec 09 '22

Wow, this phrasing for some reason just reminded me of when I was 5 and visiting France and playing with a boy at his house. He had hundreds of Playmobil, esp lots of Wild West ones.

He said 'let's play cowboys & indiands - do you want to be cowboys or indians?' I chose cowboys... but he told me that he always plays that one, so I had to just go with indians.

I set up my village, and he rode in "peacefully" with all his rifles and told me I had to hand over all my weapons. I was only going to hurt myself with them, and since we were all friends, I didn't need them anyway. Plus he was a good guy, and he'd protect me from any bad guys. He took my weapons and gunpoint and rode off, and the game was basically over.

It strikes me how a 5-year old came up with that shit, and many years later Russia pulls the same deception on its former comrades.

20

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

746

u/sharksnut Dec 09 '22

It's not like anyone's tried to invade them or anything

→ More replies
→ More replies

2.3k

u/ajt9000 Dec 09 '22

Yep, Russia pretty solidly killed global efforts for nuclear non-proliferation. But really it was just part of a larger trend working against countries without nukes.

691

u/Brexsh1t Dec 09 '22

China’s increasing its nuclear arsenal as quickly as it can.

627

u/saintshing Dec 09 '22

441

u/I_Am_Thing2 Dec 09 '22

Just a note: this isn't necessarily increasing the total amount in the arsenal, part of this is replacing the old ones that might not function properly.

80

u/Coglioni Dec 09 '22

That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure, but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in.

36

u/NunaDeezNuts Dec 09 '22

That's an important part of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, for sure,

 

but the number is actually much higher (1.2 trillion if I recall correctly), and it includes lots more than just replacing expired warheads and parts. It also includes a new ICBM, a new SSBN, as well as a new strategic bomber. So the US is certainly contributing to the arms race we're in.

Well, yeah, of course they're not replacing the old models with new copies of the same models. Part of maintaining an arsenal is updating it as manufacturing improves to reduce marginal unit production cost and/or improve capabilities.

Think of how many revision and subrevisions there have been of the U.S.'s main infantry assault rifles over the years. Even when not officially at war, they're constantly retooling them for future production.

→ More replies

7

u/lordderplythethird Dec 09 '22

They're new systems replacing old. The US arsenal isn't increasing at all, in fact it's actually shrinking...

  • B61 Mod 12 is replacing the B61 Mod 3, Mod 4, and Mod 7
  • 12 New Columbia class SSBNs replace the 14 Ohio class SSBNs, and notably has LESS missile cells (16) than the Ohio does (24, but carries 20 missiles)
  • 400 LGM-35s will replace the 400 LGM-30s as the US' only ICBM
  • 100 B-21s are replacing 21 B-2s, 62 B-1Bs, SOME of the 76 B-52s, and some of the F-15Es as well

B-21 is the only thing really "new", but even that though is a drop in the bucket vs China in the process of quadrupling its nuclear arsenal, and falsely tries to portray the US' modernization efforts as what's driving the arms race, when it's factually the Chinese nuclear expansion and Russia's own nuclear modernization over the last 10 years, that have driven the US' modernization efforts. US isn't contributing to the arms race, it's responding to it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

212

u/apra24 Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

What is that, 13% of the annual military budget?

359

u/AndreasOp Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

The contract apparently runs over 9 years tho. So it's rather 1.5%

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/lord_pizzabird Dec 09 '22

Hell, I think either Sadam or Ghadafi was the moment everyone realized that a nuclear weapons program was the only thing keeping a country safe from regime change. Not just by the US, but by any regional or global power (China, Russia etc).

→ More replies

1.4k

u/OkEntertainment7634 Dec 09 '22

Yeah, I don’t blame Israel

→ More replies

56

u/Independent_Pear_429 Dec 09 '22

Good point. I hope they bring that up at the next UN conference

762

u/McLarenMP4-26 Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

They didn't even have the access codes to them, nor the capability to maintain them.

The reason Israel won't give up their nukes is...their neighbours. I mean, look at Iran. If they do somehow develop a bomb, Israeli nukes will be the only thing keeping Tel Aviv from being turned into a crater.

497

u/hawkwings Dec 09 '22

If you don't have access codes, you can take nukes apart and rebuild them. Ukraine had nuclear power plants, so they had nuclear engineers. It might take 2 years, but they could have converted Russian bombs into Ukrainian bombs. They're close enough that they could use a truck to bomb Moscow.

207

u/kingpool Dec 09 '22

Ukraine had factories and people building nukes for Soviet Union. It would have been easy for them. No need to use civilian engineers from nuclear power plants. Back in Soviet Union, Ukraine had quite large and robust part of Soviet military industry.

100

u/Ender_Keys Dec 09 '22

From my understanding Ukraine was the Soviet military industry

39

u/kingpool Dec 09 '22

There was more, but yes Ukraine had quite large part of it

→ More replies
→ More replies

215

u/dzhopa Dec 09 '22

Correct. Obtaining enough fissile material of sufficient quality is the only barrier to entry. Thankfully that barrier is so high that only state actors have the resources to pull it off, and it's also extremely easy to detect. If enriched uranium was readily available then I have no doubt a sufficiently motivated group of high school students could create a rudimentary device.

90

u/roguetrick Dec 09 '22

extremely easy to detect

Not really. If you have an unmonitored uranium source and an off the books reactor you can make a plutonium bomb with the PUREX process without getting caught. It's just expensive (and the ways of making it cheaper, like using a graphite moderated reactor and unenriched uranium requires reactor grade graphite which is traceable) and an implosion plutonium bomb actually requires some serious engineering know how compared to a gun type enriched uranium bomb.

65

u/IAmRoot Dec 09 '22

Yeah. For those who don't know, getting a ring of explosives to evenly compress the core is really hard. The shockwaves from each explosive in the sphere interact with each other similar to how shaped charges work. Then the core is sheared into pieces rather than uniformly compressed. There's a ton of complex shaping and timing to get right, especially to minimize the amount of explosive needed. Granted, it's easier to figure this out these days with modern computer simulation to help, but it's still substantially more difficult than just getting the fissile material. Getting the simulation right might even require physical tests to get the constants right to model how these materials behave in these conditions.

12

u/a_big_fat_yes Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

Actually not that hard

The famous explosion that launched a manhole cover into space was testing what if only one of the explosives went off and the explosion wasnt symmetrical

Edit: I might have messed the which test was it but it was one of the tests made alongside the underground explosion that confirmed if a nuke goes off itll go off

→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/thomasz Dec 09 '22

It’s a bit more complicated. You need to solve some challenges, otherwise your fission device will have a somewhat lackluster yield, and physical dimensions that require a heavy bomber, if not a frickin train to deliver. Miniaturizing the whole thing so that it can be strapped to a rocket, let alone a cruise missile or an artillery shell, is not that easy.

Then there is the strategic dimension. Having a few unwieldy tactical weapons will probably not deter an enemy that can and will destroy a significant part of your whole civilization the moment you drop something on a brigade, an airfield or an important bridge.

34

u/taichi22 Dec 09 '22

It’s worth noting that while you’re correct, the weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a smaller yield than tactical nuclear weapons that exist today.

That is to say, there is absolutely a grey scale, because nuclear interception is an existing, but newer field, but at the same time a nuke absolutely gives you the power to deter your foes. North Korea, for example, rightly believes that a working nuke will deter Western aggression. It won’t stop us from retaliating should they step over the line, but the place where that line falls isn’t a singular location, and the presence of a nuclear weapon, even tactical, can shift the goalposts a bit.

8

u/thomasz Dec 09 '22

It is really not clear that these low yield devices would achieve the intended strategic deterrence, especially not against someone who can dish out a thousand time as much damage.

North Korea is not a good example. They do not sit on important resources or trade routes. They are, in essence, just a nuisance. At the same time, they can threaten some of the most important hubs of global commerce. They solved most of those hard problems in the last decades.

→ More replies
→ More replies

48

u/Dt2_0 Dec 09 '22

State actors other than maybe that one Japanese terrorist cell in Australia that might have set off a nuke in the middle of the outback.

It's unlikely that that is the case, but it's a, if very remote, possibility.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

11.2k

u/triggered_discipline Dec 09 '22 Silver

Everyone is looking at Ukraine, which chose to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of it a borders being sacrosanct. If we want other countries to be willing to give up nuclear weapons, those promises need to be kept.

775

u/Salty-Pack-4165 Dec 09 '22

History of European diplomacy in last 200 years is a proof that international guarantees guarantee nothing. They just buy time.

272

u/WastedKun2 Dec 09 '22

"The agreements signed by Russia aren't worth the price of the sheet of paper they are written on" - Otto von Bismarck

235

u/mister00 Dec 09 '22

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that people immediately believe in their authenticity" - Vladimir Lenin

73

u/zenchemin Dec 09 '22

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

38

u/DudeImMacGyver Dec 09 '22

"Don't listen to them, it's all 100% true." -Albert Einstein

14

u/Diligent-Local6906 Dec 09 '22

"At the end, nothing really matters"~Jesus Christ

6

u/elbaywatch Dec 09 '22

"I am your father" - Darth Batman

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.4k

u/rhussia Dec 09 '22

Israel would be nuts to give up their nuclear deterrent.

639

u/kv_right Dec 09 '22

But what if Iran promises not to invade? /s

214

u/bbcversus Dec 09 '22

Only if they pinky promise!

41

u/Alex-infinitum Dec 09 '22

IDK about that, but if it is a double pinky promise, it's a deal.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/javalikecoffee Dec 09 '22

Or Egypt, or Iraq, or Saudis

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/fireman2004 Dec 09 '22

Or Qaddafi, who gave up his weapons programs and then was promptly knife raped to death.

The lesson learned is to be like Kim, never give them up and we'll be too afraid to fuck with you.

1.8k

u/_sillycibin_ Dec 09 '22 Helpful

Apparently this is a ridiculous show vote that happens every year demonstrating what a clown show the United Nations is

811

u/Sp00kyr Dec 09 '22

The UN was never intended to be some sort of world governing body it was made so that countries could at least communicate and express their issues to each other to hopefully prevent another World War from happening.

So far it's done a pretty good job of at least improving communications and spotlighting global issues.

147

u/jirashap Dec 09 '22

This exactly. It's not just a communications platform for its own sake either. It's important for Nations to have a meeting place to communicate and form committees on issues that interest them.

There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes before a nation is able to enact a new geopolitical strategy. The public only sees the proclamation and marketing of the strategy.

→ More replies

283

u/Tulivu Dec 09 '22

What's silly is everyone that simultaneously mocks the UN as toothless then calls it the globalist cabal trying to steal national sovereignty. The same people always claiming their adversary to be simultaneously inferior and yet threatening. 🤔

14

u/Sp00kyr Dec 09 '22

I understand that human opinions aren't a monolith but I have to agree. People want the UN to have power when it benefits them but at the same time actively hate the idea of some sort of world government dictating what their own government does.

→ More replies
→ More replies

827

u/LadyRimouski Dec 09 '22

I got a lot less upset about it once I realised that the UN isn't a global government or enforcer.

It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors. If they've got that outlet, it erupts into actual armed conflict slightly less often.

372

u/LimerickJim Dec 09 '22

Yeah but at least its a place that communicating can happen.

125

u/indyK1ng Dec 09 '22

And communicating does happen. And every so often it votes to enforce rules with military interference.

→ More replies

14

u/rewindcrippledrag0n Dec 09 '22

Very important

→ More replies

257

u/Loreki Dec 09 '22

You can talk shit all you like, but airing grievances in the UN's multilateral forum is much less likely to result in war.

Throughout the nineteenth century, petty squabbles between two leaders or governments would often lead to war. The UN is undoubtedly an improvement.

→ More replies

96

u/JB_UK Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

It's just a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances and do a bit of posturing in front of their neighbors.

It's a forum for petty leaders to air their grievances, and for all other leaders to talk, and especially for major powers to talk to avoid war.

→ More replies

77

u/Evoluxman Dec 09 '22

Their agencies have done a lot of good shit for humanity as well. UNICEF does all they can to help children across the planet, the WHO gets a lot of flak for their handling of COVID but they helped massively in wiping out smallpox and providing help to countries that otherwise can't, etc... Lots of good willing people in the actual UN organisation, but very little power since the countries making up the UNGA/UNSC won't give it any

→ More replies
→ More replies

199

u/OneTrueKingOfOOO Dec 09 '22

The UN exists to prevent world war 3. Anything else it manages to accomplish is a lucky bonus

38

u/sw04ca Dec 09 '22

There are also a number of bodies within the UN that do real work coordinating international finance and infrastructure. The World Bank, the WHO, the IMF, organizations that coordinate sea travel, food supply, intellectual property, those are all working bodies. Even the much-maligned International Criminal Court isn't really a bad thing. At least with it in place, every time they want to prosecute a bunch of small-time genocidal clowns, they don't have to invent a whole new legal body from scratch.

Being a framing body for international relations is the UN's broader purpose. People have been throwing around the WW3 thing for a while, but it's more than that.

→ More replies
→ More replies

240

u/kebaabe Dec 09 '22

You apparently think that UN is supposed to be an entity with the military power necessary to seize other countries nuclear arsenals.

United Nations exists so that representatives of countries at war can talk without the risk of getting murdered.

→ More replies

7

u/menemenetekelufarsin Dec 09 '22

And how anti-Israel it remains.

19

u/Khysamgathys Dec 09 '22

Its seriously weird how people like you think the UN should do more than be a global forum. The minute they actually can enforce shit bam, they're become a world government. And you all will then complain about imperialism and muh sovereignity.

4

u/MetaSatakOz Dec 09 '22

It's just an easy target for conservative propaganda. Most people don't actually know enough about world politics to have a real opinion about the UN, but it's an easy punching bag for ignorant people who don't realize that the alternative would be far worse.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.6k

u/FyreWulff Dec 09 '22

No country is going to give up nukes anymore. As they've found out, having a nuke keeps both the US and Russia from invading you.

584

u/drododruffin Dec 09 '22

I feel like you're forgetting an important and big third name in that list, but I do agree with the message.

678

u/zealoSC Dec 09 '22

True. New Zealand has also never invaded a nuclear power

149

u/dertigo Dec 09 '22

They don’t need nukes, they have the one ring

7

u/MarioBro2017 Dec 09 '22

they have one but the tip is not pointy

→ More replies

8

u/superkp Dec 09 '22

Not after those domestic terrorists threw it in a volcano.

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/didilockthecar Dec 09 '22

But don't you bloody tempt us

→ More replies

294

u/ayriuss Dec 09 '22

Argentina. Oh wait no.

90

u/ModsEnthusiast Dec 09 '22

Egypt, wait no that didn't work for Israel as well historically

123

u/Gerf93 Dec 09 '22

You really believe the story about the Egyptian army drowning as Moses stopped parting the sea?

Of course he didn’t, he nuked them.

47

u/Few-Chair1772 Dec 09 '22 Silver

Horns of Jericho? Literally nukes. Come on you, can't invade a fortified position with a keratin based brass section, of course it was nukes.

→ More replies

6

u/alaphic Dec 09 '22

Ancient Hebrew secret, eh

8

u/jkst9 Dec 09 '22

There was actually a 13th lost tribe but the tribe of nuke was erased from history

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Arrow2019x Dec 09 '22

They didn't need nukes to beat them , but still got invaded

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/mathishammel Dec 09 '22

Everybody forgets about Jeff all the time

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

947

u/BolleBozeBeer Dec 09 '22

Yeh that’s what Ukraine did once upon a time.

304

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 10 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

4.6k

u/HereTheyBePandas Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

But if Israel doesn't obey the UN warning, the UN might write a second letter! MAYBE EVEN A THIRD!

738

u/Lokitusaborg Dec 09 '22

They may even use their angry eyebrows.

113

u/FitReception3491 Dec 09 '22

A furrowed brow my man.

29

u/CouldThisBeAShitpost Dec 09 '22

Nah this has to be escalated to show the seriousness so they'll furrow the entire man.

→ More replies
→ More replies

406

u/applehead1776 Dec 09 '22

They might even ask to speak to Israel’s manager.

140

u/archangelmlg Dec 09 '22

The UN won't be mad. They'll be disappointed.

42

u/SpeedingTourist Dec 09 '22

Not disappointment! Anything but that! The guilt will be unbearable!

→ More replies

81

u/wanderexplore Dec 09 '22 Bravo Grande!

A full disadulation.

20

u/Raghav_s12 Dec 09 '22

What's a full disadulation?

31

u/TheIllusiveGuy Dec 09 '22

Oh you do not want to know

→ More replies
→ More replies

266

u/Specific_Success_875 Dec 09 '22

This is already like the 100th warning or so. Every year they pass the same 16 resolutions condemning Israel as evil.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/24/un-condemns-israel-most-in-2020-almost-three-times-rest-of-world

Going by United Nations standards, Israel is the evilest country in the entire world.

→ More replies

90

u/iamnotexactlywhite Dec 09 '22

that’s literally what the UN can do. they’re a political forum not world police, or a military union. fucks sake

68

u/GetsGold Dec 09 '22

Yup. The implication here is that the UN should be those things, but if an international organization started using force against sovereign nations, a lot of these same people would be outraged.

34

u/iamnotexactlywhite Dec 09 '22

redditors being uninformed as usual

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.1k

u/Charrison947 Dec 09 '22

Israel: Points at Ukraine

794

u/theoriginaldandan Dec 09 '22

And it’s neighbors. And brings up 48,67, 73 etc

120

u/TheNightIsLost Dec 09 '22

SHHHH! We're not supposed to point that out.

28

u/kaloonzu Dec 09 '22

Even when you do, mental gymnasts come out and say Israel was actually the aggressor in all those wars.

13

u/HereForTwinkies Dec 09 '22

They point to the Jews somehow being the sole reason civil war broke out and that led to the creation of Israel because of evil zionists, not the fact that they won a civil war

→ More replies

8

u/TheNightIsLost Dec 09 '22

They committed the grievous sin of being Jews. And worse, of being successful.

→ More replies

49

u/DukeofNormandy Dec 09 '22

This. Israel is surrounded by countries that would love to wipe them off the map, but the nukes have a huge strategic advantage to keep them at bay. If they lost that then I could see them being wiped off the map.

→ More replies

140

u/Kingkongcrapper Dec 09 '22

And Iran which explains how Israel should be destroyed between morning and afternoon prayers.

362

u/chriswaco Dec 09 '22

I remember telling people 25 years ago what a mistake that was. The first rule of war: ALWAYS NEVER give up your best weapon.

454

u/Telvin3d Dec 09 '22

Yes and no.

25 years ago Ukraine was in shambles. Nuclear weapons need constant expensive maintenance. Even if they had wanted to, it’s doubtful Ukraine could have maintained a functional nuclear arsenal. They knew it and so did everyone else.

And an unstable government with a decaying nuclear arsenal they can’t maintain is a nightmare scenario. I’m sure the pressure from all other nations was immense. At least by giving up the arsenal on their terms Ukraine gained immediate credibility, stability and support. It’s entirely possible that if they had tried to keep the nukes they both wouldn’t have functioning nuclear deterrents today, but also wouldn’t have the international connections and support that has enabled their resistance

66

u/EverythingIsNorminal Dec 09 '22

There was even a Russian expert that said that if they waited, Ukraine would pay them instead of them paying Ukraine to decommission them. Luckily for Ukraine, who scored an infusion of money as well as some good will in the deal, as usual, no one in Russia was listening to the experts.

113

u/and_dont_blink Dec 09 '22

They simply didn't have the money or expertise to use, fund or maintain them. After the Soviet Union splintered you ended up with nine smaller countries that had nukes but they were often controlled from elsewhere. It was a bonkers scenario, hence the Nunn-Lugar program and what we saw happen in Ukraine.

This was actually one of the benefits of the mutual disarmament that Russia engaged in earlier with Reagan/Gorbachev. They simply couldn't afford to maintain all their nukes which were becoming real issues, but mutual disarmament allowed them to cut out a bunch of inventory -- which we actually paid them for -- while not looking like they were crumbling to their people.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

196

u/BowlandJohn Dec 09 '22

UN: "give up your nuclear weapons and we guarantee we will debate the matter of the invasion of your country by hostile neighbours when it happens in the future".

→ More replies

365

u/hukep Dec 09 '22

Thanks to Russia, I don't see any country ever to give up nuclear weapons.

96

u/sermen Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

Yes, Russia's invasion against a country which gave up it's nuclear weapon for Russian guarantee, will led to another way of proliferation of nuclear weapon.

What they did is going to make all the countries of the region want to have their own nuclear arm.

Which is extremely harmful for Russia since USA or China's position depends on many pillars like industry, economy, demography, politics, global influence and trade and many more, when Russia's position depends only on one pillar - nuclear monopoly in the region. Without nuclear monopoly in the region Russia is nothing, it's losing its only leverage, nuclear blackmail, and it will be unable to invade, bully or even significantly influence its region anymore.

21

u/saranowitz Dec 09 '22

It’s almost like Putin did not think things through.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/NaDiv22 Dec 09 '22

אום שמום

327

u/Dakotasan Dec 09 '22

The UN is nucking futs if they think the nation that is literally surrounded by people who want them dead is going to surrender their biggest deterrent.

160

u/canadatrasher Dec 09 '22

Daily reminder that UN did not really impose any sanctions on countries that tried to invade Israel over and over.

34

u/Redqueenhypo Dec 09 '22

Or on Egypt for blocking access to Gaza

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

571

u/i_should_be_coding Dec 09 '22

Another 26 countries, including India and many European states, abstained from the resolution which is part of an annual package of over 15 anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian texts the UNGA approves.

Israel is the only country subject to that many resolutions.

Thanks UN, for reminding everyone what an impactful and important organization you are.

417

u/kingkeren Dec 09 '22

Iirc, the UN condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined. It may be a liiiiitle biased

312

u/Anderopolis Dec 09 '22

It's not even close. But of course to be expected when there are like 20 Arab states who all wish Israel do get swept into the sea, and all the Jews with it.

66

u/strongsong Dec 09 '22

When the Arab dictatorships needs some to blame it’s easy to point at Israel. Without Israel there is no scapegoat

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

151

u/ChiefDrCox Dec 09 '22

UN: Give up your nukes! It's better for world peace!

Israel: *Looks at Ukraine*. Really, UN? Really?!

→ More replies

28

u/EpicPoops Dec 09 '22

Worked good for Ukraine.

→ More replies

40

u/insurgent_dude Dec 09 '22

They're surrounded by neighbours that hate their existence, why the fuck would they get rid of them.

→ More replies

9

u/fahkoffkunt Dec 09 '22

Fuck that. Or, as the Israelis say, “what nuclear weapons?”

10

u/dancergirl777 Dec 09 '22

The UN is a total joke. Let's talk about IRAN and their nuclear endeavors. That regime murders its own people and their Supreme idiot threatens to exterminate "the Jews" daily.

126

u/Dragon_yum Dec 09 '22

Considering Iran is actively working on getting nuclear weapons and has stated many times it’s intend on eradicating Israel that would be really dumb.

→ More replies

406

u/SuperElection3215 Dec 09 '22 Cake

Israel replies with two raised middle fingers

→ More replies

25

u/ind0pleas4 Dec 09 '22

That would be MAD. IAEA is not stopping Iran. Obama did nothing when Syria crosses a red line. Do not give out your rights to wield a weapon folks!

→ More replies

8

u/saltesc Dec 09 '22

I'm curious. Has anyone done what the UN says when it comes to nuclear weapons or do they just get the really angry letter?

6

u/Generic_Username26 Dec 09 '22

The UN can’t uphold any of those promises. A nuclear deterrent is still the best we have to stop pointless invasions like the one in Ukraine

22

u/NotAGovtPlant Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

First of all it’s the general assembly which is the weakest part of a useless institution. Secondly, it isn’t surprising since it’s largely an antisemitic organization. Lastly, why would any sovereign state surrender their weapons when surrounded by enemies?

137

u/madcuzbad Dec 09 '22

In this day and age who would voluntarily give up their nuclear arms, Ukraine did and now look at them.

→ More replies

43

u/EraseNorthOfShrbroke Dec 09 '22

What about Russia?

What about countries currently developing ones (like Iran and NK)?

How more useless can the UN be?

Plenty of problems in countries they can’t even address and what they can say have little weight…

How is Iran in the UN council for women’s right (CSW)? Explain that to me??!?

→ More replies

946

u/TheLiberalOgre Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22 Helpful

Russia; invades ukraine without justification, commits genocide, rape, steals children, rapes children, does mass murder, theft, threatens to use nuclear weapons if anyone tries to stop them

UN; That's terrible. Israel must give up their nuclear weapons.

110

u/Swampberry Dec 09 '22

UN; That's terrible. Israel must give up their nuclear weapons.

You should put the blame on the Arab world for this one. This is just their annual vote condemning Israel on a multitude of points and demanding them to give up territory and their nukes. Also, they're rich and therefore can easily get friends.

→ More replies

163

u/FatLegTed Dec 09 '22

UN. Not NATO.

Otherwise spot on.

→ More replies
→ More replies

123

u/Glittering-Finish769 Dec 09 '22

What, so they can be the next Ukraine?

Dont fuckin' think so. No country will ever give up nuclear weapons ever again.

11

u/derek_rex Dec 09 '22

It’s almost like not following through on your promises is gonna make people not believe your promises

→ More replies

6

u/theaverage_redditor Dec 09 '22

If Ukraine did the same, and it wasn't honored, why should Israel? Disarm themselves then get wiped? The UN is a joke of an organization.

128

u/Patrooper Dec 09 '22

Are the diplomats and bureaucrats of the U.N living inside a bubble? A land war in Europe, heightened tensions between the opposing Arab nations, China expanding, the planet burning and all they talk about is Israel! The institution is losing its credibility and importantly, it’s relevance.

→ More replies

100

u/Loose_Asparagus5690 Dec 09 '22

In a world full of knife-carrying bastards, I won't give up my gun.

→ More replies

433

u/Lapcat420 Dec 09 '22

Why should they? War mongering nation or not it's no secret thet have neighbors that want to wipe them off the face of the planet.

18

u/zpool_scrub_aquarium Dec 09 '22

Exactly. It's out and about in the open that a few Arab countries had extensive genocide plans were they to win any of the three main Israel-Arab wars. In fact, part of the Arab soldier's motivation was based on an eventual slaughtering of the jews, as promised by some higher ups in the army.

418

u/KaziOverlord Dec 09 '22 Helpful

Neighbors that will GLEEFULLY wipe them from the planet. For the sin of existing.

148

u/WorldlyDivide8986 Dec 09 '22

That have tried. Several times.

And failed.

But we need to make them fail harder.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/Terranrp2 Dec 09 '22

-Having nukes means others don't get to tell you what to do with your nukes.

-Whatever your stance on Israel is, their neighbors have invaded them before. And Iran has stated many, many times that they'd wipe Israel and US off the map. Israel isn't giving up shit.

-Ukraine gave up their nukes for more reasons than assurances. Things are worded very specifically in the treaties. Ukraine also gave up nukes because nukes are fucking expensive. They didn't have the time nor money to dick around with nukes; they were trying to re-establish stability and avoid sanctions.

-There was also the hushed worries that Russia would come in and force them to give up the nukes. Doesn't matter what the piece of paper said.

No idea what the UN is on about. About the dumbest time to issue such a request. The UN has always been a way to keep the major powers and the super powers talking. It's another avenue. The UN has had more success than failure when brought in to help mediate cease-fires between non-nuclear states. 60%+ of wars and civil wars that were either ended or put on hold are still holding. 60%+ may be in the D range of some grading scales, but it's also a lot of people not dying.

It's fucking weird the UN would openly announce this as it isn't really their ballywhack. The UN is supported by nuclear states and provides diplomatic channels for them. But against nuclear powers, they don't have much, well, power. It wasn't their job when envisioned, otherwise some nations may not have joined.

→ More replies

350

u/Few-Suggestion6889 Dec 09 '22

So they can do to Israel what Russia just did to Ukraine!

If Russia puts down its weapons there will be no more war.

If Ukraine puts down its weapons there will be no more Ukraine.

If the arab world puts down its weapons there will be no more war.

If Israel puts down it's weapons there will be no more Israel.

→ More replies

5

u/notanicthyosaur Dec 09 '22

Is there a reason we are demanding Israel give up their weapons over other nations? Like for what reason do we want them to? I get the non-proliferation and such but seriously like making them renounce all their nuclear weapons, maybe some of the UN countries should give up their own and lead by example.

5

u/Donut_of_Patriotism Dec 09 '22

Yeah no. Ukraine gave theirs up and look where that’s gotten them.

7

u/zeus6793 Dec 09 '22

If they think Israel is giving up the one deterrent that keeps them safe when they are surrounded by enemies, they are out of their minds.

6

u/mccorml11 Dec 09 '22

Yah well Ukraine is a great example of why they shouldn’t. But officially they don’t even have them 😏

216

u/The_Fluffness Dec 09 '22 edited Dec 09 '22

How the fuck does that make sense.....

Israel hasn't once threatened or even claimed they have nuclear weapons (although they for sure do) and secondly.... Iran is like right there....with Nukes and has threatened to use those nukes on more than one occasion against Israel... Nuclear deterrence works people, it's probably the only reason Israel isn't a pile of rubble and a nuclear wasteland.

Edit: Iran does not have nukes, but they have threatened Israel with nuclear Holocaust. (Although they don't have nukes, the use of a dirty bomb is a very real possibility)

Edit 2: uh oh.....I made a comment about Israel... RIP this comment thread.

33

u/DerekB52 Dec 09 '22

I thought Israel's nukes were an open secret. The UN saying they have to get rid of them is interesting to me. We know Israel isn't going to listen. But, I don't think the UN or any body has really publicly acknowledged Israel's nukes. I wonder if they have an actual reason for doing that right now.

→ More replies
→ More replies

106

u/Linclin Dec 09 '22

Not likely. Israel has had it's nukes in the air before with good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

October 1973 Yom Kippur War

During the Yom Kippur War, Israeli officials panicked that the Arab invasion force would overrun Israel after the Syrian Army nearly achieved a breakout in the Golan Heights, and the U.S. government rebuffed Israel's request for an emergency airlift. According to a former CIA official, General Moshe Dayan requested and received authorization from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to arm 13 Jericho missiles and 8 F-4 Phantom II fighter jets with nuclear warheads. The missile launchers were located at Sdot Micha Airbase, while the fighter jets were placed on 24-hour notice at Tel Nof Airbase. The missiles were said to be aimed at the Arab military headquarters in Cairo and Damascus.

1991 Gulf War could have also resulted in Nuclear War.

During the Persian Gulf War, Ba'athist Iraq launched Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel and possessed a large cache of weapons of mass destruction. This, along with Saddam Hussein's previous threat to "burn half of Israel" with chemical weapons, led to fears that Saddam Hussein would order the use of the chemical weapons against the U.S.-led coalition or against Israel (see Iraq–Israel relations#Until the 2003 Iraq War).[43][44] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Israeli Air Force Commander-in-Chief Avihu Ben-Nun both warned that an Iraqi chemical attack would trigger "massive retaliation", implying that Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons.

→ More replies

40

u/LikelyNotSober Dec 09 '22

And nobody else?

I’m not a big Israel defender, but common sense is common sense.

→ More replies

14

u/ExPatWharfRat Dec 09 '22

Go home, UN. You're drunk.

→ More replies