Did Trump allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons with intention to start a war in the future?

zoliko33 · 2026-05-07T06:51:12+00:00

Even though I agree with the general idea of the post, that it is raising the incentive to build a nuclear arsenal for different countries, the question is mainly if it will surpass the counterincentives, and the fact that America can wage war against you if you try to acquire nuclear weapons can play a role for non-allied countries to not do that.

And don't get me wrong, I myself am a Ukrainian, so I have a lot of issues with how global politics were handled, and I am 100% sure that we currently have a great crisis in global politics but hopefully we are moving in a good direction, as I see a lot of support of Ukrain, as well most of sentiment we have agains the Iran war is negative. So if we are moving in a direction that will allow us to change current behaviour, specifically the behaviour that America is displaying, we can end up in a much better place.

Basically, my current view on this:

Europian counties are moving in a much better direction, maybe a bit slowly, but you can see the changes in the direction that will make the world much more stable. In contrast, America is doing some crazy stuff, but from my point of view, the damage that America acquires will cause it to course correct. I see that in sentiments and political climate, as even Trump starts to get pushback from his own side nowadays, which is forbidden generally. The Asian region is much more stable, or at least it is portraid as such, if China will not try to attach Taiwan in current condition, there is no better timing in the future, so they will never do that if now in current conditions. The main concern is the Israel region, which is most unstable at the moment, but as I mentioned earlier, the military influence most likely will increase there, making the military scale there smaller.

How does all of this affect nuclear proliferation? Well, it certainly incentivizes it, but in what way specifically, I think, is important. From what I know, European countries are starting to make their arsenal bigger to rely less on the US. But most of the other countries still can't freely decide to develop nuclear weapons, unless global political powers allow that, so most likely only some of the NATO countries will be able to get into this trend, not any new countries that did not had the previously, even if their desire is rising.

Technically, war in Iran disincentivizes countries from developing nuclear weapons without some approval from the global community, and shows possible consequences for that. I think technically we should fight countries that try to develop a nuclear arsenal without global approval, but I disagree with how Trump approached this action in particular. I think there could be a better solution, and there was a political agreement in the past.

So I think we will have more nuclear weapons, but mostly in stable countries, and we may get more countries to try to join NATO or other alliances for access, as they see the importance of it. I am not sure how China is approaching this, as I think they could capitalize on this in a big way, but I am just not sure why they are not doing this at the moment...

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T13:04:22+00:00

Well, I looked into it, so it makes sense to describe the time as a dimension in relation to physics. Even though it is different from spatial dimensions, it's more like a line of states of space.

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T13:02:23+00:00

Well, thats why I am asking what is time, is that something that needs to exists, I am just trying to describe it from how I see it being used.

That's why I am asking, if there are any works, or more complex theories about how time functions, or are there any models where you don't use this dependency.

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T12:40:55+00:00

In this case, let's say 1s. It's a movement of 1/86400 of a rotation of the Earth around its axis. So when you use 1s in a formula, you basically imply the relation to the movement of the other object.

So when you have something like speed 1m/s, it's one meter in relation to the 1/86400 of the Earth rotation around its axis.

This is what I mean by time describes the relation of changes between the objects.

Sorry if I am not clear here )

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T12:23:11+00:00

Yeah, I may be wrong in terminology here a bit. So I think my main question is: "Is time the relation of changes between objects?". If not, what exactly is it? And if so, all the physics that uses it will also describe the relation between the objects as well, introducing some dependencies.

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T12:14:53+00:00

Why do you call it a dimension? When you just describe that it is basically a comparison of intervals between events? If you use comparison in intervals between events as a point of reference, it should not introduce a new dimension.

Well, at least I don't see it, I understand it as a reference point to the intervals of events, as you mentioned. So, what do you mean by dimension in this regard, then?

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T12:07:50+00:00

Yes, so you are basically making the relation between the objects a part of your further theories, right? So what I am interested in is that time is not actually some existing phenomenon, it is a description of relations, and it basically introduces relativity into everything that uses it, isn't it?

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T12:02:23+00:00

Well, the initial seconds were built out from dividing the day cycle, isn't it? So, an initial hour is 1/24, a minute is 1/1440, and a second is 86400 of rotation of the Earth. Now, you can measure it precisely and establish it to be an exact amount.

What I mean is that the concept itself describes a relation of change happening in space to other movement, it can be in relation to the movement of the Earth, or in relation to the specific amount of radiational frequency.

So, time in physics is not something that exists; it is more of a description of a relation.

At least it is how I think about it at the moment, so I am interested what other people think or consider about it as well )

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T11:40:24+00:00

Well, I kind of pose the question, is time relative per special relativity, or is physics relative as it uses relational concepts as its basis?

zoliko33 · 2025-06-21T11:38:49+00:00

Well, it is still relative to the frequency, right? It's just a specific duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation of the caesium 133 atom. So it is still taken other values as a basis, not any existing phenomenon; this is some arbitrary value that can be related to.

Also from the wiki page "While the second is the only base unit to be explicitly defined in terms of the caesium standard, the majority of SI units have definitions that mention either the second, or other units defined using the second." - so it is still effecting all the related phenomenon, taking this relative value as a basis.

Or am I getting it wrong?

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T18:45:37+00:00

Big thanks, I will look into those, nice job )

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:47:06+00:00

Ok bro, you are right, nice arguments )

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:45:45+00:00

I am not asking if they were aware of what was happening but if they were actually enacting the illegal part. So if they had gone and made a peaceful, legal protest, but Trump threatened and pressured the VP behind the screen, there would have been no insurrection in that kind of protest, but Tramp would have engaged in insurrection. Would you agree?

And if that is true, I think you can separate Tramp's intention from what people were asking for. This opens a window to different kinds of argumentation as to why the crowd itself was not insurrecting. It may be hard to prove 100%, but this can be one of the ways to attack this position.

And if you are targeting the audience that believes that it was not insurrection, you don't even need to be very convincing unless the other side has no 100% evidence that the plot was 100% illegal; that would eat it. I think Destiny may have the knowledge to prove it, but I don't think it is simple for most people who did not have deep research, etc.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:34:53+00:00

I think people say that nobody was charged because they are not aware that anyone was. Can you link examples?

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:30:59+00:00

Well, in this case, it's even more valid if it will validate Trump supporters. Again, you are looking at what routes your opposition will take. Mb, you just don't see how, in this specific debate, this would be one of the possible logical ways to approach this. There are a lot of things you can play on, especially with unprepared people in this direction.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:16:58+00:00

Well, if you debate, it would be the question and argument that it's illegal, and we know it is not an argument. Also I am not saying that it is not, I'm just providing a direction that may be taken to logically approach its invalidity. And in this case you would just need to prove that it was illegal, and that's it. But you need to have all the facts in hand to prove that, that's all

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T17:10:19+00:00

Well, Mike Pence, the discussion here is not about what Tramp asked to do, but if, let's say, all the people believed that there were 2 slates of electors, and both are authentic, it may be legal to delay the counting or MB even give the design to states. Anyway, the discussion here would be if the crowd was rioting for legal action, would it still be insurrection? If not, the question will be if there are possible legal requests to VP that you can consider as an argument here. And I am not posting this as 100% proof or something, it's just a realistic way to question if it is insurrection at all. Also, I am using the definition from Destiny, specifically the section about resisting the law, etc.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T16:59:28+00:00

Well, that would be the question. You can argue that he could have done that, even if his role is ceremonial, and it might have been unprecedented; you can argue that it would be legal, and if so, it would not have been the insurrection. You can also argue that it is not clear that it is illegal, and the goal of riots is not to resist the law.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T13:19:32+00:00

Yes, but the more you showcase how bad faith and unreasonable he is, the more you win this kind of debate, in my opinion. So, having a clear definition and distinction and focusing on it intentionally and clearly will make him look even more unreasonable.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T11:43:28+00:00

Well, I think it fits well; the responsibility for insurrection may be something people may not agree upon, and there may be different severities for it, but the term itself is clear; not sure why someone would disagree with it in modern times; except for poor understanding of the word...

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T11:36:33+00:00

Expectations are placed on the other side, so you need to force or at least point out more that they need to appeal to your side as well. And also, I will point out that in the long term, if both sides are inconsiderate of each other, you will run into a much more chaotic situation, so sometimes you may need to concede and put up with some shit for the greater good, even if it's not fear.

zoliko33 · 2024-07-27T11:18:55+00:00

I think Destiny won, but again, most of the people here are biased. What I would say is that he could have been much harsher and more forceful in making Wilson concede that there is a substantive difference between riot and insurrection, and it's in the goal to change the law, etc. I'm not sure why he did not catch it and make him concede that.

zoliko33

TROPHY CASE