That remains to be seen and, in another universe, could have been said about someone not keeping a nation from creating nuclear weaponry which it subsequently used against its opponents.
IMHO the Israeli policy of punching everyone so hard they're reeling is a massive mistake for Israel in the long term. It works great short-term, but 50 years? 100 years? Who knows what the world will look like then, and being surrounded by enemies is not going to work well when you no longer have your fancy US-backed missile shields and whatnot. The best long-term bet is for normalised relationship with its neighbours, and every time something like this happens that gets set back 20 years at least.
Then again, they had already given up on that with how it treated the Palestinians both in Gaza and West-Bank...
This doesn't mean military action is never an option under any circumstances, but no nation can perpetuate hostilities forever. Whether it's 50, 100, or 200 years: this has a massive risk of coming back to bite Israel hard.
Yeah IMO the last 2 years (and especially 5 hours) have pretty much permanently shattered Israel's privileged child status in the US. Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support, and dragging the US into this war have fractured rightwing support.
Hope they're building other friendships in the region, I don't see the unquestioning US patronage lasting much longer.
It definitely is not. The gulf in support between US politicians and the US public is wider than it ever has been. That's not sustainable in the long run (it is probably a notable factor already in the loss of the Dems' presidential candidate [among many others, of course])
Much of humanity has learned, and so aggressively pursues anti-proliferation.
America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
While it is hard to predict what the future will being and while the middle east has been a hotbed for conflict since times immemorial it is likely that taking the Theocratic regime in Iran out of the equation is a net-positive when it comes to limiting the amount of conflict in the region. I intentionally do not use the word 'peace' because I do not see peace ever breaking out there given the historical record and the many sources of conflict.
Destabilizing Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set up the scene for a big european war for which russia is preparing.
If US hopes to not be involved in it, it will be up for the surprise.
You think migration of refugees will lead to... civil war in Europe? There's a lot of space in Europe – it could accomodate even all 90 million Iranian refugees and not collapse (let us hope Iranian civilians not made into refugees by Trump and Netanyahu).
Colin Powell, is that you? How have you been, man? Have you been keeping in touch with John Yoo? That guy has been on fire lately! btw how'd those things with the Taliban and Saddam work out?
Both parties wilfully fund genocide and mess around with regime change. Trump does seem more restrained than most presidents, but it's hard to agree with this move.
All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited operations. Not believable anymore.
Sure. I don't feel an establishment politician would have directly attacked Iran like this, but the establishment has been sabre rattling at Iran for a long time, so who really knows.
The point is those arguments were often brought up by people justifying why they voted for Trump instead of prioritizing other issues, as if the guy represented some kind of reform rather than just a more base and brazen looter.
Trump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.
> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius"
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.
Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it
Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
> People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
You are deliberately misunderstanding the point being made, while simultaneously making an argument for tone policing. It is quite tiresome.
I stated that George Galloway is a complete scumbag. I think he is utterly amoral. I can still praise his (quite frankly) amazing rhetorical ability that gets even someone like myself who dislikes him, to cheer for him. That is how good he is. Does that make me immoral for stating an obvious fact? no it doesn't. I suspect you know this though.
The exact same logic applies to Trump's statements about Putin.
> Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state. I don't want to get into an argument over this, because I know there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I think the gangs, violent thugs and state governors that encourage law breaking (that what he was doing) should be crushed. I say this as someone that used to call themselves a Libertarian.
> Read the sentence right after the one you quoted.
I did. It doesn't negate what I said. Even if Trump criticism were made to tap into such a feeling, that doesn't mean they are incorrect, or that he hates the country.
Tony Blair said something to effect "You need to actually obtain power to be able to enact the change". That means manipulating the voter base. Every effective politician does this btw.
> I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
Libertarians are just as bad as any other group in engaging in bad faith arguments.
As for the credibility of Libertarians, that was in tatters well before Trump. I used to call myself a Libertarian (a very lonely position in the UK). I realised that many of the people that claimed to be one had never read any of the foundational material and what Libertarianism meant was "I want to smoke weed". You just have to watch some of the convention footage of the Libertarian party conference (which as I understand was the third biggest party after the Dems/GOP in the US) to understand that what I am saying is 100% correct.
I suspect though that isn't want you referring to. I suspect you are lambasting the Libertarian Party under the Chairmanship of Angela McArdle and some of the other more Right-wing Libertarians associated with Trump. All I can say about her Chairmanship is she managed to get Ross Ulbricht freed, which makes her objectively more effective than most Libertarians.
No, I am not "tone policing". I am talking about deliberate nuance. You were careful to reject endorsing George Galloway - not just once, but again even stronger the second time. Because you're treading a balance between praising one qualified aspect, and condemning the overall person. The more you praise that one aspect, the more you want to make sure it's clear you're distancing yourself from that person over all.
Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
> Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state
It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though. I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
(And sure, it's great that Ulbricht was freed. But I'm not going to be placated by one small bone from an overwhelmingly freedom-destroying fascist movement)
> No, I am not "tone policing". I am talking about deliberate nuance. You were careful to reject endorsing George Galloway - not just once, but again even stronger the second time. Because you're treading a balance between praising one qualified aspect, and condemning the overall person. The more you praise that one aspect, the more you want to make sure it's clear you're distancing yourself from that person over all.
Yes you are doing exactly that. "Nuance" is a cop-out. The logic is precisely the same.
> Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
No that isn't the sensible interpretation. You are doing mental gymnastics.
> It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
Dude the footage can be found on Youtube of the riots. I also remember watching in real time with American friends over live streams of the riots in the summer of 2020. I forget which city it was (Minneapolis) but I saw this huge building collapse live. So please don't gaslight me that the local government was handling these things just fine. They weren't.
> But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid,
No, I've barely looked at the news at all over the last month. The weather in the UK has been exceptionally nice and I've been spending my time cycling.
I have watched live-streams of riots and seen stores being looted in real time, guys burning cars etc. There is one guy that literally rides around the city on his electric motorbike thing and documents it that a friend and I were watching the other night.
Apparently I imagined all of the things that were captured on candid camera?
> then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though.
I am interested in American politics because I have many American friends that I speak to regularly. I have also Canadian friends. Most of them are actually left wing.
The reason I don't pay attention to Politics in the UK is very stale, boring, depressing and I know my vote is literally meaningless. Even people in my family that were very much "You must go out and vote" have told me in private that they no longer bother because all they get is more of the same. My father told me he has never voted because he knows whoever you vote for, you end up get shafted anyway.
> I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
I actually know someone that lives in Los Angeles and I talk to them about this very subject maybe a few days ago. They told me that if you live in certain parts of the city, you may never even know there were horrific problems in the other parts.
BTW. I live near Manchester and recently visited Cardiff. Both cities while much smaller are having similar problems to Los Angeles. There are a large number of drug addicts that are literally passed out on the streets, there are homeless people everywhere (my friend regularly has to walk over homeless people camping in his doorstep) and both cities are in a state of decay.
I've seen plenty of real time footage of Los Angeles and ot...
I wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis.
Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course.
Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
When I was doing a postdoc in Germany I shared an office with a woman from Morocco so my office was a meeting point for many islamic woman including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education.
The parent post was about Iranian women jobs getting jobs in engineering. Whatever restrictions are on them, they don't seem to have trouble getting STEM education.
I took the contradiction as the point: that they are oppressed and yet, surprisingly, not with respect to educational opportunity
> including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education
The MOP isn't particularly 'advanced', it's basically refined version of the Korean-vintage Tarzon guided earthquake bombs. It's just too heavy for most military aircraft to carry.
The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP.
There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
Don't think the C-130s can fly high enough with a single 30,000lb bomb. The graphic at bbc site show it would be dropped from about 12km (~40,000 ft) in order to gain the speed needed to drive it some 60m underground.
You are correct but although the B52 can technically carry the GBU-57 MOP, but it was only done that way during the initial testing of the weapon. The B2 is the only aircraft the USAF actually uses for that munition in combat scenarios.
Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
According to Israel they fly freely in West/central Iran and use all the plains including F15/16. Initially they relied on the F-35's stealth but as of last week they claim air superiority.
The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground.
Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
they might be right, but that's why the attack failed and why there's a risk what I said might still come true
i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout.
hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist).
"The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located."
Ok, I see the logic, but nuclear weapon use is the brightest red line in the world. If there's anything a government wouldn't be forgiven for, it's that. I can't imagine how the calculus for the US would work out in favor given the risk. (Of course that assumes rationality, which one could certainly argue is lacking, but even still.)
Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.
It’s possible the MOP was sufficient but I suspect not. Probably parts of the facility are shallower and others are deeper, such is the topology of a mountain.
If you ever engage with what Daniel Ellsberg said, or US plans in north korea or vietnam, you’d know just how close the US comes to actual use in war. It’s never off the table. They are currently concerned with peer competition with China. There is likely a faction that would propose to attempt to show american strength on an unarmed target just like we did with Japan.
However at this juncture i’m starting to think this is all a show and they only care about the optics. Iran has already moved its equipment out of Fordow. However if the Iran war continues, expect things to get increasingly ugly.
As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion. An earthquake bomb would disrupt both. You wouldn't be starting the feed cycle up rapidly, but since we're told Iran has stockpiles, this goes to sustainable delivery of materials more than specific short term risk.
As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
(This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)
Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that?
Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
Yes that's basically my point. They recalibrate, tighten the pipes, and flush the contamination back out of the chain. 6 to 8 weeks/days/whatever later it's back in cycle.
Uranium, especially highly enriched uranium, is not very radioactive. That's one of the reasons its useful for weapons. UF6 is chemically really nasty, but it's heavy and also you have criticality issues that limit how much you can pack into a confined space before it explosively disassembles. That is to say, it would make an extremely poor dirty bomb that would do very little. It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.
> It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
I wouldn't discount it, though. Remember, feelings matter more than facts. Magnitudes more people die on the road than in the air, but we know how well that translates to fear and action.
I mean heck, how about 9/11 compared to COVID? Wearing a mask for a while: heinous assault on freedom, Apple pie, and the American way. Meanwhile, the post-9/11 security and surveillance apparatus: totally justified to keep America safe
Yeah, my point is there are much better options that would also induce fear and actually be effective. Fentanyl strapped to an explosive, or any of a ton of other chemical agents. Iran would do far more damage -- and create a deep source of fear that would likely have lingering consequences for decades -- by giving their HEU away rather than making an ineffective dirty bomb. There is no way anybody who knows what they had would use it that way. Even the most fanatical member of the Iranian regime understands what to do with the material better than that.
While true, the problem is it wouldn't meaningfully change the security situation for Iran.
Deliverable nuclear weapons make you invasion proof - nobody wants to risk it. A "dirty bomb" isn't something that can come flying in on an ICBM and eliminate large chunks of your nation - the threat of it is more likely to enhance aggression rather then deter it.
I'd say the same could be said for 9/11, which didn't really achieve anything positive for anyone but did make for a large bit of "The US hurt itself in its confusion"
Can anyone explain the science behind this statement? To be clear: I believe it, and I have seen multiple reputable sources say that Iran can enrich to 90% within a few months. I was surprised that it is so quick.
You start with natural uranium, which has .72% U-235. Getting from that to 20% is _hard_. You need large cascades of centrifuges to do this because it's only .72%, so each stage gets you just a wee bit more enriched. You do this over and over and over again until you get to higher enrichment. Once you have HEU enriching further is very easy for the same reason that it was hard when it was unenriched: now the stuff you don't want (U-238) is much less. To get from 80% HEU to 96% is trivial using the same centrifuge cascades, and how long it takes really depends on a) how much 80% HEU you have, and b) how much 96% HEU you want. If you have 100lbs of 80% HEU then to get to 10lbs of 96% HEU might really only take weeks if not less when it might have taken years to get from .72% to 80%.
Yep, https://web.mit.edu/22.812j/www/enrichment.pdf is a good starting point if anybody wants to learn more about the economics/logistics of enrichment. Though, it's a notoriously confusing topic so it could take some reading.
Tl;dr is that the amount of energy required to separate a mixture of gasses (U238 waste and U235 product) is roughly proportional to the logarithm of the ratio of the U238 percentage and the U235 percentage. So as your feed stream becomes more enriched in U235, it becomes much easier to do subsequent separations. This log relationship is an approximation, but arises out of the statistical mechanics of separating two mixed gasses and the resulting decrease in entropy.
Edit: a key point most people I'm guessing aren't aware of: centrifuges don't really care what you feed them, whether the feed is natural or 20% or 89% enriched, they just get increasingly more efficient so that a single "pass" through them produces a greater amount of separation as the feed stock becomes more enriched. They do a fixed amount of "separative work" each pass. The same machines can be used to enrich from natural to 20% as 20%-90% (with some relatively minor caveats), and in fact it takes far fewer machines to do the 20-90 step at the same rate as natural-20.
You know how Shannon entropy works in CS, compression and stuff? Atoms work the same way: their mixing entropy is that same x*ln(x) sum which is an extremely steep function near its boundaries. That's your non-linearity. That statistical entropy corresponds to macroscopic thermodynamic properties, enthalpy and work. The starting uranium atom ratios, 0.7%/99.3%, are a very unbalanced mixture deep into that non-linearity side.
(The other half of it is that, as you progressively enrich, you start to discard the "depleted" part of the mass flow, and work only with the, gradually smaller, "enriched" mass flow).
China is estimated to have approximately 600 nuclear warheads. China is rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal and is projected to reach at least 1,000 operational warheads by 2030.
Israel is widely believed to possess around 90 nuclear warheads.
Israel never acknowledged that. It is claimed that the US president at the time demanded that Israel kept this a secret to avoid embarrassment to the US.
Iran repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say, not what they do"
iran might be saying a lot, but if it wanted war, it would have been attacking, the same way that israel is attacking gaza, not threatening gaza.
even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
-----
on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas for the conflict with the positive sum descriptor. israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas. an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
> they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say, not what they do"
Didn't you reverse it? Didn't you mean to say what they do not what they say?
Iran conducted a terrorist network against Israel for decades. It's behind Lebanon, Syria etc. They also called for death to Israel and countless other examples. It's pretty clear what they want to do.
Would they use nuclear weapons against Israel?
No idea. Don't want to know. Just like I'm glad I don't know what Saddam or Assad would have done with their nuclear weapons (had Israel not bombed them away).
> even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
Right now Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. They were able to kill quite a few Israelis (thankfully not as much because the strikes took down a lot of their launchers/missile caches). I'm concerned about what they say because I know where they are headed if they do somehow gain the weapons to kill everyone.
When someone says they want to kill you and your family: believe them.
> on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
Nope. Death to Israel is very much zero-sum.
The reason for your confusion is that Iran didn't attack Israel directly and mostly through proxy. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to destroy Israel, they are just cautious about it. Their goal is still the same.
> you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas
Nope. Israel tried to have peace with the Palestinians. Hamas blew up that peace by blowing up busses and coffee shops in the middle of Tel Aviv until that collapsed. They are a zero-sum player who won't settle for peace.
Israel built defense systems and shelters for its people. It ignored Hamas built rockets launched constantly at its cities and tried to "let them be". But they miscalculated. They saw Israeli tolerance as a weakness and assumed Israel doesn't have the stomach for a painful war. They are 100% at fault here and brought about the whole thing.
The fact that this is Hamas's fault doesn't absolve Israel of the brutality of this war and some of the awful things it did. It's just context.
> israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas.
It's pretty bad that you lump all of Israel together but make the distinction for Hamas. Hamas made a choice to open a can of worms when Israel had one of the worst governments in its history.
> an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
I mostly agree, but it will be far worse for the Palestinians. Israel will survive regardless of the outcome. Palestinians don't have that privilege. As such Hamas is far worse, it is a suicide cult.
So based on your logic we should just let them gain that ability and see what happens?
> It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
It's amazing to me how people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally led terrorist attacks against their country. To people who would stone gay people and punish women for the crime of rape. But won't give a similar benefit of doubt to the people opposing them. Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
> Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
I'm going to play a childish game with you: who started it first?
> Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
> A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
A dirty bomb is basically Hollywood nonsense, and wouldn't use uranium to begin with because it isn't very radioactive.
The premise is that you put radioactive materials into a conventional explosive to spread it around. But spreading a kilogram of something over a small area is boring because you can fully vaporize a small area using conventional explosives, spreading a kilogram of something over a large area is useless because you'd be diluting it so much it wouldn't matter, and spreading several tons of something over a large area is back to "you could do more damage by just using several tons of far cheaper conventional explosives".
Also anything that is dangerous enough to actually be scary in dirty bomb form, like Cobalt-60, would be impossible to handle without providing a lethal dose of radiation to anyone working with he material within minutes if not seconds (presumably a reasonablely large & dangerous amount of this material is involved). At least, not without incredibly expensive equipment. And by the time you factor in those prerequisites it's just not worth it.
And has the same issue with dilution, and is even more boring because there are much cheaper things with more chemical toxicity than uranium too, like lead.
> As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion.
Centrifuges. They got them via the A. Q. Khan network. We learned about if circa 2005 from Qaddaffi who gave up his to secure peace and his safety (and it didn't turn out well for him because Obama did not respect the gentleman's deal Qaddaffi had with Bush).
Whatever about bombing Iran with conventional weapons, being the first president since Truman to nuke another country would split Trumps support base, and also legitimize using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts which would be extremely bad news for Ukraine
Thanks for trying to make this into a technical discussion.
I just realised that this bomb is not the same as the so called Mother of all bombs, which by the way has so far only been used once also by trump. That's the gbu 43. Why did they find
it necessary to build an even bigger bomb? I wonder if they anticipated strikes on the me.
As to your other point iran seems to have a decent level of education. Building an entire home grown nuclear program under sanctions is impressive.
Different outcomes. Moab is fuel air explosion and causes massive pressure wave disruption, it's usable against tunnels but operates on a different principle. Bunker buster is an earth penetration weapon to make a camouflet happen and destroy structural integrity.
> A camouflet, in military science, is an artificial cavern created by an explosion; if the resulting structure is open to the surface it is called a crater.[1]
The GBU-57 used here is an outgrowth of the demonstrated inadequacy of traditional bunker busters bombs used in the Middle East after 9/11. They needed something more specialized for deep penetration than the old bunker busters. This was kind of a stopgap weapon that works pretty well but the size limits the practicality.
US is developing a new generation of purpose-built deep penetration bombs that are a fraction of the size of the GBU-57.
Case hardening. Making something which if propelled fast enough (secondary issue) and with a G force resisting detonator (secondary issue) which has sufficient integrity and inertia to penetrate as deeply as possible before exploding. Materials science in making aerodynamic rigid, shock tolerant materials to fling at the ground.
I am sure the materials science aspects have come along since ww2, as has delivery technology, but I'd say how it goes fast, hits accurately and explodes is secondary to making a case survive impact and penetrate.
I would posit shaped charges could be amazing in this, if you could make big ones to send very high energy plasma out. I'm less sure depleted uranium would bring much to the table.
(Not in weapons engineering, happy to be corrected)
I'm not sure you would want a shaped charge unless you guarantee it was pointing in the right directionatthe right time. Modern bunker design usually includes deflection tactics.
I was guessing either tungsten or depleted uranium, as for APDS, but the bomb's average density is only about 5 g/cc (14 tonnes in 3.1 m³). Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
I don't know how to resolve the discrepancy. The plane wouldn't fly if the bomb weighed four times as much. Maybe most of the bomb's mass is in a small, dense shaft in the middle of the bomb, which detaches on impact?
Shape can change it to be arbitrarily bad; 14 tonnes of 5-micron-thick Eglin steel foil spread over a ten-block area wouldn't penetrate anything, just gently waft down, although it could give you some paper cuts. I suspect it can't make it much better, except in the sense of increasing sectional density by making the bomb longer and thinner, which we already know the results of.
Velocity doesn't enter into Newton's impact depth approximation at all. It does affect things in real life, but you can see from meteor craters that it, too, has its limits.
Target characteristics, no idea, but in a fast enough impact, everything acts like a gas. It's only at near-subsonic time scales that condensed-matter phenomena like elasticity come into play. Even at longer time scales the impact can melt things. This of course comes into conflict with the design objective of the bomb acting solid, so that it penetrates the soil instead of just mixing into it, and can still detonate when it comes to rest. I feel like buried plates of the same metal would have to be able to deflect it? And there are plenty of other high-strength alloys.
A system described in the 2003 United States Air Force report called Hypervelocity Rod Bundles[10] was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods that are satellite-controlled and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[11][12][13]
The bomb would naturally contain large kinetic energy because it moves at orbital velocities, around 8 kilometres per second (26,000 ft/s; Mach 24) in orbit and 3 kilometres per second (9,800 ft/s; Mach 8.8) at impact. As the rod reenters Earth's atmosphere, it would lose most of its velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[13] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[12][14] As the name suggests, the 'bunker buster' is powerful enough to destroy a nuclear bunker.
> Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
This seems to assume that the weapon would penetrate until it displaced an equal amount of dirt by mass, which seems like nonsense. Why would that be the case?
I did some quick calculations: The energy of the impact from the stored kinetic energy gained by falling fro 15,000m is about the same as half a kiloton of TNT going off. That's focused into a circle just 80cm in diameter.
Yet setting off half a tonne of TNT on the ground, or even just under it, won't penetrate 60 meters deep, or even 15; it will just blast open a shallow crater. A shaped charge will do only a little better.
Your calculations appear to be off by a factor of ~1000. Not half a kiloton, but half a ton (~500kg), assuming fall in a vacuum (upper bound on impact energy):
Python 3.10.12 (main, May 27 2025, 17:12:29) [GCC 11.4.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
MOP_potential_energy = 13607*9.8*15000 # E = m*g*h
MOP_potential_energy
2000229000.0
TNT_specific_energy = 4.184e9/1000 # joule/kg
TNT_specific_energy
4184000.0
MOP_potential_energy/TNT_specific_energy
478.0662045889101
No real secret sauce, the weapon weighs almost 30,000lbs and most of it is just hardened metal to make it heavy. The warhead is only ~5,300lbs of explosive
It's not entirely home grown if they were part of the NPT is it? Signing the NPT (a pinky promise not to develop weapons) means other countries then help you develop nuclear energy, which of course has a lot of overlap to weapons tech...
I doubt anyone here works in defence materials sciences and like the rest of the world would be 49/51 regarding voting intention. I've never voted for a pro war party fwiw but if I'd been of an age, I would have called ww2 a just cause war.
This isn't a just cause and it's not even a war. It's state sanctioned terror. I don't know it has ism in it.
Australian legal opinion says it's unlikely a credible defence in international law exists for this attack. It may redefine the norms for (un)lawful acts by the state, other states, weak and powerful will undoubtedly reflect on this.
It's also being claimed a success. Words like "obliterated" used. Time tends to tell a story there. I think it's a little too soon to say how successful these strikes were, tactically or strategically.
- MOP: High penetration; most of its payload is not explosive. (Something heavy). Designed so its body, fuse, explosives etc remain intact after penetrating deep.
- MOAB: Fuel air explosive for massive blast effect.
The MOP is meant for a different use than the MOAB, it isn't about size. The MOAB is meant for surface destruction, the MOP is a penetrating ordinance meant to go deep through rock before eventually exploding.
Yes, bunker buster was used. Per a different source:
> It included a strike on the heavily-fortified Fordo nuclear site, according to Trump, which is located roughly 300 feet under a mountain about 100 miles south of Tehran. It's a move that Israel has been lobbying the U.S. to carry out, given that only the U.S. has the kind of powerful "bunker buster" bomb capable of reaching the site. Known as the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), the bomb can only be transported by one specific U.S. warplane, the B-2 stealth bomber, due to its immense 30,000 pound weight.
I read the article in full. There is no confirmation of using GBU-57 in the strike. Re-read your quoted section.
The English is a bit convoluted, but does do not confirm usage.
Tin foil hat engaged: For all we know special forces detonated plastic explosives deep on site after doors were blown off.
More seriously: Nothing has been confirmed except a Truth Social post.
Bunker buster is not necessarily a solution for this. It was created for normal bunkers, WW2 style of construction. What they have in Iran are construction sites very deep in the mountains. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of bombs can't do more than superficial damage to the sites.
GBU-57 reaches 200ft depth, Fordow is 300ft. The seismic wave of explosion at 200ft of several tons of TNT would reach 300ft with pretty damaging energy.
And, if it weren't enough, you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one.
To the commenters below:
- nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
- I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
- jugding by, for example, the precise drone strikes on the top military commanders, Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them (the public statement of 300ft may be a lie, yet the point is that US and Israel know the depth and thus weapons to use)
Supposedly we dropped six, but I'm interested in any information that comes out about the final damage to see if this was sufficient. Ideally this would be the beginning and end of our direct engagements in this conflict.
EDIT: I kind of wish you had broken your "commenters below" piece into separate replies, but I assume this one was directed at me:
> - I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
I didn't even consider a no-fly zone, and perhaps. I mean at this point, the current Iranian regime is in the most precarious situation it has ever been in whether they go for the kill against Ali Khamenei or just keep picking out the people below him and the IRGC's ability to fight. But if we do this, then we, and I guess I mean we now that we've actually bombed them, then we're committing to more than just taking out their nuclear capabilities, but we're committing to seeing a full regime change come to fruition.
To be blunt, given our most recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still very much of the opinion that the least amount of American involvement, the better. If our bombs help curtail Iran's nuclear weapon R&D and we didn't lose a single B-2 in the process, then great, we've done some good for the world[1], but our track record on seeing regime changes through to the end has been less than fabulous.
[1] Still waiting to see how successful the mission was towards this goal by the way.
They had pinpoint accurate information about a lot of senior leaders, that seems a lot harder to know than a stationary facility's location and layout.
Tracking a person actually seems pretty easy to do. Hack their phone, launch ze missiles. Obviously not trivial, but it is pretty easy to imagine a chain of events involving a little social engineering and a little spycraft involving the major tech companies. The Iranians thought they were mid-negotiations and assassinating their leadership seems counterproductive even in hindsight, I doubt they were using heightened opsec.
Getting the layout of an underground facility, on the other hand, is quite hard to do even on purpose. They'd really want the engineering plans I suppose - which should be quite secure even on a bad day. I wouldn't assume it was secure but it'd be harder than finding senior leadership who often go out in public or to their kids school plays in a regular year.
The equipment in the facility isn't bolted into the limestone though. The facility is inside ultra high performance concrete and if the Iranian engineers had two braincells, dampening layers. They were building it for this moment after all.
> you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one
This is tremendously difficult. There is nothing unclassified to suggest we can do this. (There is also no evidence it didn’t occur. Just clarifying the borders of the fog of war here.)
"At 04:30 on the morning of 13 February, two F-117 stealth bombers each dropped a 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) GBU-27 laser-guided bomb on the shelter. The first bomb cut through 3 metres (10 ft) of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded. Minutes later, the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb."
> nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
Well given that we've been trying to stop that for many years, I doubt its within the US's gift to change that.
Also what has iran got to loose now? like its already being bombed to shit. It's lost a generation to the iran/iraq war, why not another one where they take the USA, israel and saudis with them?
> I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran.
that sounds like a forever war. Moreover trump doesn't have the attention span to deploy a nofly zone for any length of time.
also, have you see the size of iran?
> Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them
yup, but the performance of munitions is unknown. Moreover they are not actually going to tell anyone the real results of the strike. Can you imagine generals telling Hegseth that his plan idea has failed because the clearly articulated unknowns came to pass. let alone trump?
> - nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
How would they enforce that? It is underground, they can't exactly monitor what is down there with satellite photos. There'd need to be something like a blanket ban on underground mining across the whole of Iran and probably a country-wide occupation to enforce the ban. Otherwise it seems quite difficult to identify where the hypothetical centrifuges are.
So facts are thin on the ground currently. More will become clear in the coming days. I've heard different accounts all the way from 12 bunker busters were used on Fordo to none were used and the entrance was bombed after Iran was warne, kinda like a warning shot, to say "we can get you".
What Iran does next depends on the extent of the damage. It could be nothing. It could be a token response. It could be escalation.
But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
When Israel tried to previously escalate the conflict with Iran and drag the US into war with Iran, Iran just didn't take the bait. And this is despite Israel assassinating government officials, bombing Iranian embassies and bombing Iran for absolutely no reason.
> But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
I thought it was generally known that richer societies with me equal treatment - where people are generally more able to choose jobs they like rather than needing to take whatever's a ticket to a decent life - are the places with higher disparities in well-paying occupations?
Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is? What's special about a GBU-57 isn't its explosive force. It's that the bomb casing is made out of special high-density ultra-heavy steel; it's deliberately just a super heavy bomb with a delayed fuse. It is literally like them dropping cartoon anvils out of the sky.
From what I've read, the idea is that they keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole that previous sorties left, each round of bombs drilling deeper into the structure.
So many armchair quarterbacks in this thread. You haven’t defined how silly this is beyond your feelings. Are you a munition expert? If you were an AF general given this order, what tactic would you choose excluding a nuke?
The same bomb hole tactic is an untested theory (which may be ineffective but not silly) but we’ll know more later this week once MAXAR surveillance and other independent or IAEA analysis rolls in.
I'm not an expert. I just think dropping giant anvils from the sky is Loony Toons tactics. Maybe it works great! I don't know! But it's worth knowing how these things work, and how they work is: they're just super super heavy.
>Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?
If it is silly and it works, then it is not silly. If I remember correctly you have good cryptography skills. Rectothermal/rubber hose cryptoanalysis is quite silly too, but breaks AES,RSA,ECC and post quantum crypto schemes in 30 seconds.
If the weather is good and no jamming of gps it’s very practical. The bunker buster is basically a very large jdam and their precision is around 5 meters iirc.
> Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?
Honestly, I'd rather you not. For those who are more personally familiar with warfare and combat operations, consistently describing any sort of bomb as "silly" is childish and inaccurate to the point of making me wonder if there's an ulterior motive with your description.
The typical person compartmentalizes between a weapon's use in military operations and its engineering. You see similar dynamics with things like military aircraft at air shows. Where kids and adults alike enjoy the demonstrative operation of the machines without ruminating on how many human souls were negatively affected by them.
Compartmentalization is a coping mechanism. That children are exposed to similar military engineering in such a way to make it enjoyable does not negate the nature of a bomb, tank, or machine gun.
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
Iran does not have the same degree of sexist restrictions as eg Saudi Arabia. It's a very different climate from places where salafism is more common. Female education in particular is highly supported eg: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1869369086142296490
I doubt that the intersection of IRGC volunteers and potential university students is too big.
The gender ratio is similar in other Middle Eastern countries. Once women in the Islamic world get the legal right to educate themselves, they tend to make use of it much more than men do. It is a pathway towards personal independence.
We don't need a second North Korea. Nor do we want to normalize every country starting a nuclear program.
Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building.
Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia).
Edit 1:
Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities.
This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program.
More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...)
Edit 2:
For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
While I understand not wanting countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes, it does protect them from invasion. We've seen what happened after Ukraine gave up their nukes. Less we forget, the Neocons of the Bush era wanted to remake the entire Middle East, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
The actions of the US and Israel are only proving an unfortunate trend of reality: The only deterrence against invasion from other countries is nuclear deterrence. We had a comprehensive deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program which Trump tore up in 2017 and which Israel is taking advantage of today.
> Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003
Where did you get that info? Makes no sense. South Korea has been consistently against starting another war with NK for at least 30 years or so, and besides, in 2003 South Korea was ruled by Kim Dae-Jung, famous for he's staunch support of improving relations with North Korea (he got a Nobel prize for that), and then Roh Moo-Hyun, from the same party and largely following Kim's foreign policy.
Thanks to them we had no wars, and of course now we have some young whippersnappers complaining about their "pro-NK" policies, saying we could have totally bombed NK, starting a war, and burning the peninsula to the ground, but at least North Korea won't have nukes today!
Isn't it great when people take things out of context? In this case the context that wishing death is quite common in Iranian expressions of frustrations?
I understand that the phrase is intended to call for the end of the US government, not the end of the US people.
That even better supports my point though. Diplomacy is between two governments, not one government and the population of another government. Iran has practiced diplomacy at times, but calling for the end of the US government wouldn't exactly fit well in the implied reality of Iran having done everything they could diplomatically.
If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island? More generally, you don't think its likely that, regardless of what you think of Israel, their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
> If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island?
They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty.
> their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
Oil for starters. Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east. By proxy they are participating in every conflict.
A nuclear iran would be completely intolerable, never mind that their regime might just be lunatic enough to use them.
Add that war is bad for the whole world.
So the us benefits that it protects her economic (and strategic) interests in the ME, which are real and extremely important, at the low cost of a limited air campaign.
There are further moral arguments, but i'm answering your question in the most direct way.
If we want their oil, we can buy it like reasonable people do. What you're referring to is armed robbery.
>Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Is this a joke? The country that has not started any wars in its 300 year existence is not the "destabilizing element". That would be the country that has attacked Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran this year alone.
You misunderstood me. I was talking about oil from the other gulf states. About 25 percent of the global oil supply goes through the straight of Hormuz. If iran were to disrupt that it would be disastrous for obvious reasons.
It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility.
Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel.
This is a strange comparison. Iran funds the Houthis, for example, who commit plenty of acts of war. And if you’re talking about starting wars, it’s worth noting that the present war in Gaza was started by Hamas. (I’m making no statement about whether the actions of either side or justified — I’m just pointing out that, in the present shooting war, the first shots were fired by Hamas, not Israel.)
You ignore decades of aggression and occupation in Gaza, along with the 4 other countries Israel has decided to launch wars against this year. "But Hamas" is not a convincing argument.
I’m not ignoring anything. The situation in Gaza and elsewhere has been horrible for decades. Israel has imposed various forms of nastiness on Gaza, and I imagine that Israel’s government and many of its people saw some of that nastiness (heavy handed restrictions on imports to Gaza for example) as necessary, since Hamas quite regularly converted whatever materials they could into weapons to fire across the border into Israel. Meanwhile, I imagine that Hamas, and many of the people of Gaza, saw that as necessary because Israel treated them poorly. It was a catch-22. Meanwhile, Iran most definitely interfered heavily from the sidelines, and I imagine that Iran’s government had reasons that seemed valid to them.
The situation was and remains unstable, and the factors that made it unstable were did not come from just one place. And you don’t have to look hard to find acts of war initiated by multiple different parties in the area.
I think that claiming that any one country “decided to launch wars” against multiple other parties ignores a whole lot of complexity.
> Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Says Israel, the nation who tore up every single international laws, directly led campaign against UN and ICC, and whose right-wing (ones in power now) have been dreaming about a Greater Israel that threatens territorial integrity of like 10 different ME countries.
It's seeming more and more like Israel, which propped up Hamas for example, is the principal destabilizing element in the region, and therefore really it's America, which spearheaded the original overthrow of Iranian democracy, alongside all its other middle eastern meddling for the last fifty years.
That is true in much the same way that the UK caused ww2 by refusing to make peace with the Germans in 1940. Or the soviets for selfishly resisting their invasion attempt.
Israel doesn't start any wars, it just finishes them. Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason. So they end up with a bloody nose. That's on them.
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as we speak and is expanding settlements more and more in the West Bank. The end game of the Israelis is very clearly complete ethnic cleansing. Israel is no victim here, it's a settler colonialist state that happens to be successful in being a settler colonialist state.
> Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason
If the UN decided to put a country for the Roma in the middle of India, how do you think that turn out? Very well or very badly? Is it surprising that everything turned out so badly in the ME with regards Israel? Seems obvious to me that putting a new country in the middle of a colony just as said colony is gaining independence seems like a shit idea?
Simply put, the very creation of Israel was fundamentally destabilising. We basically torpedoed our relations with the entire Islamic world (and especially the Arab world) just for the sake of some mostly (at that time) European colonists in Israel (who later became Israelis). That was retarded as shit. Say what you like about how good it was for the Israelis, but for us that was shit geopolitics, shit realpolitik, and a shit deal. Israel has now, rather predictably, become an ethnofascist state run by a (war)criminal. And we enabled them the whole way. And for what??? How exactly has anyone in the West actually benefited from this? It was clearly good for Israel and for Israelis, but how have we benefited from this???
i actually hate it when people pull the victim card and i can't stand apologists either but happily i have a very pragmatic answer;
the West benefits from israel that at least one country in the region isn't an authoritarian hellhole and actually contributes to the global economy beyond just providing petrol.
That's my point though, that's not pragmatic in the slightest. It would be ruthlessly pragmatic to favour the 400M Arabs and 2B Muslims over the 10M Israelis. The Israeli economy is 0.5% of global GDP.
> region isn't an authoritarian hellhole
It's colonising the West Bank, committing genocide in Gaza, is led by a (war)criminal... Israel is arguably worse than many of its neighbours. I honestly don't care how good gay people have it in Tel Aviv when they're simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza or settling the West Bank like it's 1899. And yeah Israel is a democracy but they use their democratic choice to vote for a war criminal who's in bed with the settlers and other theocratic extremists. So Israel is really no better than many of its neighbours and arguably worse than many of them. And it's only getting worse, the Israelis are only becoming crazier and more extreme. And now they've got the US into a war with Iran. Sorry, 0.5% of GDP: not fucking worth it.
You are exaggerating. Israel is not that bad and they and the Arab states have basically worked things out by now. And America are not in a war with Iran. They are simply engaging in bigger arms diplomacy.
I am not exaggerating at all. Israel is that bad, indeed it's worse than many of its neighbours.
> And America are not in a war with Iran
Bombing a country's nuclear infrastructure is surely an act of war.
We're going to see a big turn from Israel in the West. Boomers are absolutely obsessed with the place but the younger generations aren't. Netanyahu throwing his lot in with Trump means that Israel will become a partisan issue. Europeans already have mostly turned against Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/03/public-support...
I understand Iran is a headache to Israel, but did it have to be an enemy of USA? Isn't Iran's ambition, and its proxies, are all regional in nature? Have they ever attempted to harm an american living in America?
Israel has led an amazingly succesful campaign in presenting their problems (often arising out of their territorial ambitions) as a problem for the entire west.
I agree which is why we need to get all these evangelical nuts actively trying to destroy the world so that Jesus come back out of power. No more death cults!.
Iran was willing to "come to a diplomatic negotiation" before Israel pre-emptively and unilaterally attacked. In fact, Iran and the US had found a diplomatic solution before Trump tore it up and promised to get a better deal (and then repeatedly failed to do so).
Iran did come to a diplomatic solution: the JCPOA [0]. Unfortunately, it was Obama who did it, so Trump tore it up in his first term. Why would Iran believe that any diplomatic outcome is meaningful?
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups. The key word being “state”. There are many well known terrorist groups that are not sponsored by Iran.
Why must we stop Iran's terrorism? Their terrorism is directed at Israel, not America.
We can in fact just as easily support Iran's attacks against Israel. No reason to pick either side.
Right now the American people are coming to the consensus that Israel are the bad guys. Everybody under 50 already recognizes that, purely based on the thousands of Palestinian toddlers they see on Instagram that Israel kills and injures (the popular post today on Instagram is of a toddler with his legs severed). And the people over 50 will eventually die off, causing Israel's base of support to disappear.
There is no hope of Israel's permanent existence. We should remove our support for Israel immediately and prepare for the long term.
The Netherlands and Germany both produce highly enriched uranium despite not having nuclear weapons programs. 60% enrichment is insufficient for use in nuclear weapons. Iran's enriched uranium is its main bargaining chip in the diplomatic negotiations that the US walked away from. Iran was assessed by the US intelligence community to not be developing nuclear weapons.
Keeping the Arab world from building their own nuclear weapons has long been contingent on Iran not having a nuclear weapons program. It only benefits the US to the extent it prevents the situation where half the countries in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.
Good lord, it benefits far more than just America if the broader middle east doesn't enter into a rapid nuclear weapons proliferation stage. Iran is considered to be a very serious enemy throughout much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran is a very bad idea.
The US is the leader of the liberal empire which depends on the middle east allowing trade. Iran is standing in the way of this and wants to push back the empire's control away from the middle east... but they have their own plans to establish another empire of their own.
I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter.
In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
People who were born into, grew up in, and live the current western bubble take it for granted and genuinely believe it is something natural rather than carefully built and expensively maintained - for extraordinary benefit.
I'm seeing a lot of death and the payoff is... Cheap gas prices? I can't imagine what. But the replies to this laying out all the benefits of blood soaked American hegemony I'm sure will be great for a laugh.
The petrodollar, which largely depends on the US having significant influence over global oil supply, is arguably the main reason why the USD is the global reserve currency and an enormous reason why the US is as wealthy as it is.
The petrodollar is severely overrated by people who claim it's the cause for every foreign policy decision they disagree with. USD is attractive because the US government is stable and US companies are attractive investments, due to a historical track record of competence and rule of law adherence - unlike, say, Saudi currency, or Russian currency, or Chinese currency. The US government doesn't do a lot of currency manipulation relative to those other countries either.
Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
We aren't even really getting cheap gas prices out of this. Iran is one of the largest oil producers, and we won't allow trade with them, so instead we've built a relationship with other dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, who know we have no other choice. But our actions are also straining that.
I don't take it for granted, but Israel and these trillion-dollar Mid East wars don't seem to help it. China and Russia must be very pleased with the US being so distracted for the past 50 years while they established economic control even in the Mid East.
This is the opposite of how I see it. This move is a complete repudiation of the post-ww2 order that emphasized the system of international laws and treaties developed by the UN. For the US to blindly follow Israel into a war with a sovereign country without even taking it to the UN or Congress is preposterous and signals the end of the post-ww2 and American domestic order. Both the UN Charter and the US Constitution are trashed and we won't recover from it in our life times. There's a reason Bush W sent Colin Powell to the UN, we still paid lip service to the rule of law 20 years ago. We don't even pretend anymore. We are trashing our laws and institution all at the behest of some a tiny racist religious extremist country.
I don’t envy the position of American diplomats the next time they are asked to negotiate an off-ramp from hostilities while military options are simultaneously being considered. Intentional or not, the diplomatic posture leading up to this point reads like diversion.
This is also how I see it. This child-man has just blown 80 years of careful control and credibility. Who allowed this to happen? A bunch of feckless children, who should never have been allowed to rule. Way to go, people. It all goes downhill from here.
"the system of international laws and treaties" are only effective to the extent that someone is going to enforce it, and that someone is the US and its allies. So ultimately it's military power that matters.
The status quo is only maintained because the US has military bases all over the world. If we retreat from the world and let Iran do whatever it wants (which is more influence and an Islamic empire), the the world order crumbles and that has an even more increased chance of WW3, as multiple nations will fight over the void left behind by the US.
Part of the reason things are unfolding this way is because the US rose to world power with the invention of the nuclear bomb.... which automatically means that toppling the US might mean nuclear war, which spells doom for the entire world. Not sure I would call that luck, but that is why the world cannot change to a new world order easily without existential risk. And as the "world police" the US doesn't want non-allies to get the bomb for this reason (something that Trump has been saying for years, which proves he is just maintaining status quo).
You realize we (us) are a large, religious, racist country? Generally speaking, anti muslim, anti Iran sentiment is EXTREMELY high in the parts of the US that voted for Trump, at least based on my personal network.
I think this attack makes it more likely they’ll get nukes, not less. They moved all their enriched uranium already, and now they know that there’s no longer any point in diplomacy.
The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.
Those can be bombed right at the beginning. Israel will probably try to establish a similar status que as in Lebanon right now - "if you make a move we immediately take it out".
And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden.
(Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)
Yeah I’m sure it will be a huge success with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever. Since that’s how these things have been going over the last thirty years.
They had already crossed the line into nuclear tech that's specifically for weapons, i.e. with a 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. Unless we accept explanations like "scientific curiosity", they were already somewhere in the process of building nuclear weapons, even if success wasn't immanent.
I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?
They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ruler issued a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. Why’d they do all that if their goal all along was to get a nuclear weapon? They could have just done it.
These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?
Just to clarify, is your position that Iran was never working toward nuclear weapons, or just not until recently? I think enriching uranium to 60% is pretty clear evidence of their intent, even though it's just one component of an eventual weapon.
Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.
I think they wanted to be seen as credibly close as a deterrent and bargaining chip in negotiations, but they had no intention of going all the way unless attacked.
Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
There isn't really such a thing as (forcefully) enforcing the NPT. Israel's casus belli (if we consider this a new war and not a continuation of one) would be based on self-defense.
60% enrichment is not weapons grade. Weapons grade is 80%. High enrichment is used in certain reactor designs, such as naval reactors.
There are a lot of reasons to be enriching uranium besides building nuclear weapons. Considering the US reneged on its deal to drop sanctions in exchange for Iran to not enrich uranium, it is pretty obviously useful as a bargaining chip, in the negotiations.
The US intelligence community assessed that Iran has not been working on a bomb since the program was shut down in 2003. They didn't want a nuke, they wanted an end to sanctions. They further wanted to avoid provoking exactly this sort of conflict. This did not delay them getting nuclear weapons, it will make them get nuclear weapons.
To quote an ISIS report, "Iran has no civilian use or justification for its production of 60 percent enriched uranium, particularly at the level of hundreds of kilograms". In theory it could be for naval propulsion, but experts (including IAEA inspectors) seem unconvinced.
Most of Islamic republics are fiefdoms, kingdoms and dictatorships. Most of the populations are radicalized, and have very limited freedom of speech and right to protest.
> I have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character
That is not a good comparison. The US is well reported enough in news and media and movie to have a good awareness of the culture within. You also understand their language.
However, the Arab world is not reported well enough apart from biased sources that seek to defame and discredit them. And neither would you understand their language. So no your awareness of their culture and country and leadership is so far fallen yet you think it is sufficient that it becomes dangerous.
There is no such thing as Islamic population unless you are an Islamophobe who have sought to “other” this part of the world
I will not seek to engage with you on this matter. You have developed a cynical and propagandistic approach to demonize and vilify. Just understand that all of your information is wrong.
> If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East
A fair concern, but it is interesting that although "estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" [1], we are not concerned about those warheads as much as we do about the ones Iran might have. Should US bomb Israeli nuclear plants? No. Should they have bombed the Iranian ones? Why?
Israel has always threatened its neighbors. Remember, it was born as a group of European Jews that attacked Palestine to conquer their land, with arms provided to them by Europe. It will always exist under a state of war.
We have to let Israel die off and change our alliances. An alliance with Iran would be much more beneficial to America than an alliance with Israel.
Have you been to Israel? I have cousins there. When I was 14 and visited, my 19 year old cousin told me we need to kill all the Arabs because “if we exile them, they will just come back.” Do you really think (a large segment of) Israelis are less crazy than (a large segment of) Iranians?
No. People are crazy everywhere. That is not the same as the actual leaders of the country. The one that are calling the shots making the same claims for 46 years.
Now, I don't know if you noticed, your cousins while they are not kind to Arabs (which if you had Arab cousins you would have noticed that they are not very kind to Jews), have nothing whatsoever with Iran, no more than they have anything with Napal.
That’s a little simplistic. Iranians feel, somewhat justifiably, that they and the Arab world have been pushed around by the West for over 100 years. The Jihadism we bemoan today didn’t arise in a vacuum - it is at least partially a reaction to Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs (recall how the US deposed a democratically elected Iranian leader). Israel is one such example of this Western interference, and while I obviously have the utmost sympathy for Israelis - having family there - I do think not enough Westerners are willing to see this from the Arab/Iranian PoV. There’s a reason they dislike us, and it’s not just that they’re fanatics. Negotiation would be more fruitful if we didn’t typecast our enemies as unreasoning fundamentalists.
> Death to Arabs is an anti-Arab slogan originating in Israel. It is often used during protests and civil disturbances across Israel, the West Bank, and to a lesser extent, the Gaza Strip. Depending on the person's temperament, it may specifically be an expression of anti-Palestinianism or otherwise a broader expression anti-Arab sentiment, which includes non-Palestinian Arabs.
"terrorism" is just war fighting that we don't like. Israel is by far the biggest aggressor in the middle east having bombed half a dozen countries in the last year.
> it has something to do with Israel being an ally
There are many allies of the US, still they are not exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I'm not sure if it's a sane strategy to permit a single ally who has never signed the NPT [1] to build nuclear weapons, unlike your many other allies or non-allies:
> The roots of this preferential treatment go back to a secret 1969 understanding between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The agreement essentially allowed Israel to keep its nuclear weapons as long as it remained silent about them and avoided nuclear tests. That bargain has held ever since, with successive U.S. administrations turning a blind eye to what would be a clear violation of international norms if committed by any other state.
Causing a power imbalance in the region doesn't seem the right way to keep peace.
We didn't want Israel to have nukes either, we tried to stop them and failed. We wouldn't bomb Israel's nukes because they -already- have them, and they have grown in a semi-reliable regional ally since then. We are trying to stop Iran from having them at all to prevent them from being essentially off-limits to retaliation (note Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism / people's fears of supporting Ukraine given Russia keeps threatening nuclear action) and kicking off a regional nuclear arms race.
And that's something we will have to accept, that Islamic populations will always have nukes.
How do you plan to handle a world with Islamic populations having nukes? Because that's something you will have to plan for. You have no choice. They will not let you not let them have nukes. They will make sure they will have nukes. That's just given.
the dude needs a PR win of some kind. I guess he gave up on the Nobel prize and decided to try something else. Aside from that, could really be a chance to end the nukes there and try to topple the regime, who knows what's going to happen, but time-wise now is the best opportunity.
If this was about the benefit to the United States, then we would have had months of public buildup and debate like we did with the war in Iraq. It is hardly an example of a good decision, but history shows that it was at least a popular one; the majority of poll respondents and of legislators were both in favor of the initial invasion of Iraq. I was only eleven at the time, but I remember most moderate Democrats and independents who I knew (including, particularly, my seventh-grade history teacher, who was no fan of Bush) were in favor of the war.
Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one.
Why do you highlight that the theocracy "believes in jihad" and not that the theocracy has issued a religious decree opposing weapons of mass destruction?
This is my honest assessment of the calculus of the move. Please don't interpret any of this as me personally supporting or approving of these motives. I'm just trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the potential thought processes of our collective leaders.
* Quick, victorious wars can be incredibly popular domestically, regardless of whether surveys say that only 16% of the US population supports the war. Trump needs an approval ratings boost. The global tariff shock was a PR disaster. A quick, victorious war is a tried-and-true approval rating booster over the last 200-300 years. The key, of course, is actually keeping the war truly short and victorious. If it drags on, or if people start asking "have we truly won?", then that's a whole different matter.
* We have moved out of a unipolar geopolitical world and into a multipolar one. The USA is checking the ambitions of the rival powers. Want to invade Ukraine? Sure, go ahead and try, but it will be a multi-year slog. Want to go for years maybe developing nuclear weapons, maybe not, and making US antagonism a central part of your political platform? Watch us systematically attack your nuclear program and and air power and do highly targeted assassinations of your political elites over the course of two weeks. Want to invade Taiwan? Look at what happened in Ukraine and Iran and maybe reset your expectations about how that will pan out.
* There has been a lot of questioning lately around whether the US will actually help their allies when they're in a pinch. This is sending a pretty strong message of reassurance to allies.
* Trump may actually want things to escalate to a point where he can reasonably declare martial law within the US. How do you stay in power when you've already hit your two-term constitutional limit?
Your question was "how does it benefit the US?" but I don't think that's answerable because everyone has a different take on what's best for the US. It's much more feasible to discuss "how does it benefit Trump?" or "how does it maintain US's position as a world power?"
A large portion of Trump's base are very unhappy about bombing Iran and are very critical of any comments that are pro-war in general. I see it in a lot of comments sections and social media message to the effect of "I voted for Trump, and I didn't vote for this (war in Iran)".
Generally, Any prominent pro-Israel republican if they post anything pro-war will have hundreds of negative replies.
It is incredibly depressing to see people constantly falling into the trap that their political opposition are dumb / brainwashed.
Let's wait and see if they're still unhappy about the bombing in one week. This is a pattern I've seen time and time again with his base, e.g. with January 6th - they start off unhappy & surprised until their media has started sharing theories and viewpoints that slowly move them towards accepting and supporting whatever happened.
I'd love to be wrong here, but I don't think I am.
This is literally the sort of response I was complaining about.
Trump's base have been consistently against wars in the middle-east and him being too close to Israel has been a consistent criticism of Trump from way back in 2016/2017. So his supporters have been consistent about this for almost a decade. So I don't think your assessment is correct at all.
It been almost a decade now since Trump has entered politics and there has been one thing that been consistent throughout this period. That is the inability for otherwise intelligent people to state the beliefs of Trump's supporters accurately.
But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
> But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
No they haven't. They've consistently been against his supporting of the COVID Vaccine (to the point where Trump doesn't mention it anymore), Against wars in the middle-east.
The pro-Trump people were complaining about his bombing of the Syrian Airfield back in 2017. That was spun heavily by the media at the time.
You consistently keep claiming this to be a truism but it isn't true at all. This is wholly disingenuous or you don't know what you are talking about.
> We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
Even if you were wrong, I suspect that you will point to some AstroTurf'd poll and declare victory.
> I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
> I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
I have no idea what you are even referring to. I am specifically talking about anti-war sentiment from Trump's base (which is not the same as Republicans). It has been consistent over the last 9 years.
> But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
You literally did the routine that I specifically complained about in my original comment. Why should I extend to you any good faith? I specifically said I was tired of it and didn't want to hear it.
I don't trust YouGov polls. A few years ago everyone of their polls on English Politics came out at 71% vs 29%, which means they were sampling the same people repeatedly.
Also his base are a different group of people from Republicans, they are often a subset of Republicans.
You can go on Twitter, Youtube or any comment section and they are all saying "MAGA is dead", "I didn't vote for this" or some sort of signalling they are against a war with Iran.
I'm willing to buy that YouGov is a low quality poll, but you can't be suggesting twitter and youtube comment sections as a better alternative. Half of those comments might not even be human.
It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. I generally try to judge the sentiment and the momentum.
I will admit I am a bit of a politico, I see myself as the equivalent of someone betting on horses or dogs.
Generally I do the following:
- It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. Especially on YouTube. You will typically get a lot of real sounding names and real looking avatars that almost say exactly the same thing, along with a fake conversation as replies. These bots aren't using advanced AI. They can be bought quite cheaply actually.
- I also talk to a lot of people both in left and right leaning Discord groups. The consensus to anyone that isn't a complete die-hard is "MAGA has jumped the shark".
- There are lower level commentators who represent maybe few tens of thousands of people. Some of these are political operative, some of these are grifters, others are genuine people that have moved towards nationalist politics over time. I've been around these spaces long enough to know the usernames, the characters and accounts of those that follow them.
I appreciate none of this is scientific. However, I will take that over a poll any-day of the week and has been more consistent IME than polling (which is well known to be skewed depending on who is doing it).
I've been not paying attention to any of it recently because quite honestly I've burned out on it and instead I am having a break from it.
The bunker busters will not have worked on Fordow.
(It will be the first time a GBU-57A/B has been used in war, which is interesting)
They needed troops on the ground. Israel was going to do this.
It's possible they have just collapsed the entrances.
Trumps comments - https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump You have a loop, @Osint613 reposted Trump as "Fordow is gone" which Trump reposted. Neither of them have any idea.
(Natanz, Isfahan were already hit and damaged by Israel, the US didn't bother to bunker bust them, it was Tomahawks from subs )
You need a tactical nuke to destroy Fordow, but the USA considers tactical the same as strategic, so it would be very unlikely. Russia could, since they put tactical in a different category.
Expert opinions seem to differ on this. We will know once enough satellite and signal intelligence data has been analyzed for US leadership to ascertain whether further strikes may be required.
I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.
It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.
In the Obama deal Iran was allowed to back out if the US broke its terms of the agreement (which happened because of Trump pulling out), so they are acting 100% in accordance still with the original Obama deal. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. Why are we picking on Israel here? Unlike the US Israel has never used theirs (or admitted they actually have them). Russia has openly threatened the west with nuclear attack.
It's not really the reason Iran wants to have nuclear weapons though. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel but more generally to be able to act with impunity.
Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).
By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...
"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."
Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.
Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)
> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.
> Exactly.
So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons
Israel wasn't really at war with either Lebanon or Yemen or with the Palestinians. It was with Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas. All attacked Israel with no provocation before Israel retaliated.
Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).
Sure, by that token the US wasn’t really at war with Germany or Vietnam, it was at war with the Nazis and the Viet Cong. It’s a meaningless distinction to anyone actually affected by the wars.
Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign.
Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):
I mean, other neighboring countries close to Israel have largely made peace with the country, and they have no nukes. Iran stands out in terms of constantly funding proxies to attack it.
Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.
(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.
Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.
>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.
Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?
Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.
Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.
Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
The relief of sanctions enabled Iran to fund their other activities in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. It also enable the regime to invest in other weapons programs including weapons Iran has been supplying to Russia and those it and its proxies are launching against Israel.
I'm not sure Trump withdrawal from that deal was the best idea but the deal wasn't great either.
The deal did address – quite precisely and successfully – the core issue. It didn't address some other side issues.
"The thing that prevented them from achieving a nuclear weapon didn't also prevent them from funding x y z other far less problematic things that can be far more easily handled through conventional diplomacy and military action"
Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 months ago, senior intelligence officials said conclusively Iran was not close to having nuclear weapons.
The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.
Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources?
Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
Being able to produce weapons grade uranium != producing weapons grade uranium. It's not that complicated.
And yes, in an alternative universe where delivery systems also just appear out of nowhere, you could sprinkle a million tons of 1% uranium over a city.
It’s not about delivery systems just appearing, the logistics of tossing around nuclear weapons in the Middle East using modern technology allows for a vastly larger bombs without significant issues.
Little boy was a logistical issue at the time but only 4,400 kg. You can buy a used A380 for a few 10’s of millions. Convert that to a drone is fairly cheap, and you end up with a vastly cheaper system than the cost of producing a nuclear bomb.
Obviously a subsonic aircraft isn’t ideal, but historic ICBM’s ended up being designed for multiple bombs that’s a lot of leeway if you use the same system to deliver a single bomb. What the US considered weapons grade in the 40’s through the Cold War is based on assumptions that simply don’t apply here.
Fuel grade is like 3%. It's exponentially harder to go from 3%-60% (months-years) than 60%-90%(days-weeks). So no, the only reason to enrich that high is to keep your breakout time threateningly short.
Yes brother you are technically correct about that substring of that comment. “Weapons-grade” was indeed not 100% accurate and therefore, technically , inaccurate. That is true, you are right.
That same comment also said, even led with “flies in the face of”. That was the most important part of the comment: ‘saying that Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium “flies in the face of” intelligence reports which reported no weapons-grade uranium.’ But that part was not correct: the difference between Iran’s uranium (60% enriched) and weapons-grade uranium, while >0, is not large enough to characterize that assessment “flying in the face of”.
So yes if you focus on that substring of the comment you are right. But why would you? It’s not the point of the comment.
Which makes it nit picking. Which is why you’re getting so much pushback.
Wikipedia points to a source that says it is used for parts of a multi-stage fusion bomb:
> Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage
Just to be clear, this isn't "useful [to make] a bomb" - it's useful in a thermonuclear warhead that already has a primary fission stage using the originally-mentioned highly enriched weapons grade uranium, plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop.
edit: phrasing. it feels like we're going around in circles nitpicking based on a poor framing and the tendency for innuendo on this topic
> plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop.
All modern nukes are two stage designs, Iran would be insane not to have a fusion stage. It would basically be a Hiroshima style dirty bomb with just 1.5% fissible mass actually fissioned.
I'm well aware of the difference in yield, but I thought a second fusion stage required modeling and testing well beyond basic development? Like I take a quick look at Wikipedia for what devices (for example) India has, and it seems to say whether they contain a significant fusion stage is an open question.
Hiroshima was pretty terrible as it was. And I thought the capability that everyone focuses on because it gets nations a seat at the nuclear table was just basic fission weapons. But please correct me if I am wrong.
> I thought a second fusion stage required modeling and testing well beyond basic development
The bottleneck is UF₆ centrifuges, not the modeling. They're definitely aiming for a fission-fusion design: "The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to try to purchase this substance abroad." [0]
India and Pakistan did their first tests ~30 years ago, a lot has changed since then and if you're building a nuke in '25 might as well spend some cash on a simulation cluster and buy some multiphysics simulation software from Russia..
[0] The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to try to purchase this substance abroad.
Aren't there some R&D difficulties there? Like that whole fogbank thing the US forgot how to make? I hear trying to obtain deuterium and I figure it's for development and small-scale experiments, rather than an ingredient for a straightforward bomb recipe.
Maybe I'm just putting too much weight on the trials and tribulations of developing the first fusion bombs, and the details of solving or working around those problems is widely known in the right circles these days? Plus advancements in simulation accuracy?
60% enrichment may not be weapons grade, but it takes only days or weeks to go from 60% to 90%. It is much easier than going from natural uranium to 60%.
But maybe a little harshly: Who cares? Does it somehow raise the moral foundation of the operation if they had nukes? Would the attack suddenly be unethical if it was only against a military target with the public, accepted purpose to, one day, be able to develop precursors to nuclear weapons? Why?
This stuff gets grammar-hacked a million different ways.
Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations.
It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process.
I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet
Sure, but is a kinetic pre-emptive strike in this context legal?
Because this is what underlies all of this -- is the premise that Iran is behaving in an unacceptable and illegal fashion and therefore a legal response with violence is justified.
This all presupposes that Iran is breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons. Are they breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons?
What does "legal" even really mean between states at war. The consequences typically come down to a popularity contest and Iran is one of the few states with fewer friends than Israel.
Was Iran's activities funding militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which launched attacks against Israel and US forces "legal"? Which of the US' activities were "legal"? It's all mostly a bad joke.
It's tricky. Arming a country or group than then launches an attack, or uses those weapons in a war, doesn't make you a participant in that conflict. This is why Europe and the US can supply weapons to Ukraine without being participants in a conflict with Russia.
However Iran has the stated intention of destroying the state of Israel, and actively incites it's proxies to attack Israel, and this could be seen as a valid justification for taking action. Not a lawyer though.
Countries can attack others. There is not like a superset of a country over all countries that says what is and isn’t legal. All we have are agreements and treaties.
Not that we would or should but the US could attack any number of countries today and only if one or more countries stopped the US would the victor be able to say it’s illegal.
This is between nation states. Concepts like laws and legality really don’t apply at this level of abstraction. Agreements are a matter of convenience and convention because there is no higher authority that can enforce them.
Geopolitics operates in an explicitly anarchic arena.
Well, if you have an expansionist apartheid state nearby, bent on seeking any pretense to sabotage or get your infrastructure air raided, higher enrichment factors would make much easier to safeguard fuel, given not high enough to easily cause a criticality incident.
Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
I don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs?
Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation.
The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious?
In the past 24 hours alone, all 3 parties in this conflict have attributed their success to God. You genuinely, honestly have to be more specific in your comment because not a single involved participant is a fully secular country.
So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
israel's whole existance is based on the idea that they are gods chosen people and god promised them that land, and they must defend it or it dishonors him.
going by project 2025, theres a very significant and influential portion of the american conservative sphere that is pants on head evangelical. and the idea of supporting israel as their christian duty is a huge part of that
lets not pretend this isnt the crusades with nukes. all parties here are operating on barbaric political principles
Ted Cruz is explicitly advocating that Christians are biblically commanded to defend the modern day state of Israel, and that this alone justifies our attack on Iran.
Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")
one of the scariest parts of the current US administration is that there is a fairly strong evangelical Christian belief that a massive (possibly nuclear) war in Israel is a necessary precursor to the 2nd coming.
Unfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here.
The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation
Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms
An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited
Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination
People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
if israel and america actually believed iran was as close to nukes as bibi said it was, then the variance on the prediction, and the chance of iran already having nukes and already being able to deliver them via ballistic/hamas means would be too large to risk something like this
north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient.
this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise
This is the pattern of constantly moving the goalposts:
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past nuclear-reactor grade. What's that? They're enriching past 5%?
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past medical purposes grade. What's that? They're enriching past 20%?
- There's no evidence Iran has enough to build bombs. What's that? They have enough to build 10 bomb?
- There's no evidence they have a way to deliver bombs <-- you are here
If Israel doesn't continuously try to stop Iran, they might even have a 10 Megaton ICBM and you'll be saying "there's no evidence Iran has ever said it want's to destroy Israel".
Add to that, its "deterrence" arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) are credible militarily only as nuclear delivery systems. For example, the "Khaybar Breaker" rocket (English meaning), referring to a destruction of an historic Jewish stronghold, leaving little to imagination, when equiped with conventional warheads are simply an expensive way to ruin hospital wings. But, when you merge heavy rockets with diligent production of precursors of nuclear weapons, not only is that work toward military use of a nuclear weapon-- it creates a powerful inertia toward actually completing that work, from two directions, lest your very expensive work prove pointless. The current war is vividly demonstrating that IRBM's are not deterrent unless (a) impossibly numerous or (b) unconventionally armed. A threshold IRBM threat makes it more, not less, likely to provoke a first strike against it, as has occurred.
for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields). On the other side Israel attempt on taking our Iranian AD was success.
It led Iran to make 2 decisions
- Accelerate production of IRBM in order to have 10000 in stock and to build 1000 launchers in order to execute massive launches that will not possible to defend against
- Apparently the did decide to mate their IRBM with nukes as recently there was meeting between whoever managed iranian missiles problem and heads of nuclear project (there is economist article about it).
This comes against backdrop of hamas and hezbollah been wiped. especially hezbollah which was supposed to be strike force against israel with estimated 100k-200k missiles and rockets.
PS. to those who write that jordan/usa intercepted most/a lot. they (together with saudi arabia, uk and france intercepted drones and cruise missiles. out of all IRBM only 6 were intercepted with SM3 missiles from USA ship)
Do they have much in the way of military capability right now? They could have a full two million committed members, and that might be a serious long term strategic issue for Israel, but the actual immediate threat might be nominal.
some yes. left over weapon. they can booby trap buildings, attach explosives to apc/tanks. maybe some rpg. Occasional rocket info Israel. A bunch of undiscovered tunnels
but now after their command was wiped out and they can't sell aid, they have serious financial problems (they need to pay their fighters. it's very transactional).
but in case idf will leave gaza, they will have enough power to dominate the strip.
> for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields).
For clarification, those interception efforts last year required massive assistance from the US and Jordan, and required a hugely disproportionate and unsustainable investment of munitions to pull off. What we've seen in the last week is that Israeli air defenses are much more brittle than they want anyone to believe.
EDIT: For the down-voters, here's Bloomberg citing Israeli media that defending against Operation True Promise cost ~$1 billion USD: https://archive.is/WHDvG
Also note that Iran does have an ICBM of sorts. They have a space launch vehicle, capable of putting maybe 600kg in orbit. Anything that can achieve orbit can also be used as an ICBM. The US tends to operate on the assumption that it can bomb abroad without return fire. That may have just changed. The US has never attacked anybody with significant missile capability before.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable. Washington, D.C. has some drone and missile defenses. But the rest of the east coast is not protected much.
Iran could also attack the US with drones launched from a small ship off the US east coast. Roughly the same technique Ukraine just used on Russia, using some small expendable ship instead of a trailer.
>The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable.
This would mean complete suicide for Iran. The US military basically exists to inflict unimaginable hurt on anyone who does this. Not to mention, an attack on the US is an attack on NATO.
There are loads of NATO countries that will not assist the US in this case because NATO is a defensive alliance not a "this country responded my armed aggression, let's strike them" alliance.
There were no people in Greenland when it was settled by the Norse in the 10th century. The current Inuit population arrived after the Europeans in the 14th century.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable
Iran would definitely possess nuclear weapons after doing something like that. The only question is whether they're armed to explode in the air or when they hit the ground.
A more accurate way of describing it would be "still enriching, not at bomb level concentration yet". There is no question that they were in the process of "enriching to bomb level concentration". You want to wait until they're done?
They were putting together advanced parts towards a nuclear weapon and IAEA says they weren't cooperating. Everyone knew what this meant. Even themselves, why did they need JCPOA otherwise? Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
The IAEA said they weren't cooperating as of this month. Before that they were cooperating despite the fact that the US had withdrawn from the nuclear deal.
I wonder if anything started happening recently that would make Iran less interested in cooperating with the IAEA?
In fact, I think all evidence points to them removing assets from inspected sites knowing that those sites would soon be targets.
> Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
For leverage, obviously.
If Israel were Iran's only rival then it would obviously do everything in its power to become nuclear capable because Israel violated international law to become nuclear capable. However, Iran has many rivals and does not want to set off a nuclear arms race in the middle east.
They also hoped to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions.
So Iran had reason to set themselves up to be able to get nuclear weapons, without actually getting nuclear weapons.
Now, that whole policy looks foolish and Iran's only real rational option is to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
No one in the US government was claiming that Iran had nuclear weapons. The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons based on the current rate of uranium enrichment, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. Of course we may never know whether that's really true.
> The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons
No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so.
Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted.
"Not close" doesn't mean they're not working on it. I think it's reasonable to expect that unspoken bit is "... but their current avenue of work is going to eventually succeed".
I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already.
But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.
The predicate that Iran has them but would show restraint is the same that same that they don't have them but will show restraint and not use desperate measures like blowing up the entire Middle Eastern oil production and distribution network and ports and not use dirty bombs.
Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0]
On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states:
>> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here.
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly!
That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort.
I think a good way of explaining what the Iranian government has been doing, is actively working on reducing breakout time without actually making the breakout decision
"Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable
> "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
Agreed. However, taking into account the full statement (provided by the collective U.S. Intelligence Services) to include the parts about: Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003 and that he has final say in the matter, says they were not working actively towards a bomb.
But there was growing advocation for doing so. Now they have been emboldened further and been given fuel to advocate restarting the program. If Khamenei had so far kept the pro-nuke elements of the regime at bay, this strike may force the very thing that foreign Intelligence roped us into "stopping".
I am not saying they did not have the means; they will rebuild the means, and now they will have the motivation as well as know-how in a way that will be more difficult to stop.
Sure, but so can foreign Intelligence that the America First Trump team decided was way better than US Intelligence that tax payers are paying obscene amounts for. So, I guess we just pick which ever one fits what we find more important to listen to.
This stinks of Iraq & WMD. Which the U.S. Intelligence made drastic changes to prevent happening again.
Only now we were on the side of saying there is no proof it was actively being worked on, and the person/state with "proof" also happens to be the state that has been bitterly opposed to Iran and started launching unprovoked missiles. That state also knows how to get what it wants from this administration and suddenly we go from, there is no proof they are doing nefarious things with their program, to they are about nuke us all if we don't do something; all in a matter of weeks.
The alternative was to do nothing , let them continue the obvious nuclear weapon nation program. I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs or Ukraine with the Shahed drones.
Yes & No. Thats what I understood the Trump campaign promised, to stop military meddling in other countries religious (or otherwise) conflicts.
Diplomacy is not nothing, and has kept the Iran program from restarting (going by US reports that it was stopped). Now it is all but sure to start up again. Unless the goal was for the US to be suckered into forcing a regime change, and we all know how well those attempts have gone.
> I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs
If it happened at that time with proof and congressional approval then okay, but thats not an excuse for now. Thats how states end up in a war that lasts for a couple or more millennia
So it seems that due to imprecise language people disagree on the exact place of the red line the US (and Israel) were drawing. The post you responded to was indicating that the red line was, as a sibling comment mentioned, the breakout time from political decision to working nuclear weapon. Many other people, yourself included, seem to consider the red line to be the political decision itself. This red line now may be crossed in response to our first strike after their violation of the breakout time red line. If we were successful it seems as though the message is clear, we will use overwhelming military force to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. So even if the political decision gets made to build one, any attempt to restart the process - which isn't exactly stealthy - will be met with similar force. If we failed though, then we might get to see a nuclear weapon being used in modern times.
I think this becomes a definitions game again. I'd consider a country to be "working actively towards a bomb" when it's taking costly steps that provide no commensurate benefit except towards a nuclear weapons program. At that point, there's no rational explanation for their actions except that they're working towards the bomb.
So e.g. enrichment of uranium to <3.67% (as permitted by the JCPOA) is not such a step, since that's also economically useful for civilian nuclear power. Enrichment to 60% is such a step--the only conceivable civilian uses are niches for which the cost would far exceed any benefit.
It seems you agree they're enriching in the latter way, but you don't count that as "working actively towards a bomb". So what definition are you using for that phrase? We obviously can't just let the Iranian government decide, or they'll define everything short of a successful test as part of their "peaceful explosive lenses program" or whatever.
My general sense is that the JCPOA was working reasonably well, and it's unfortunate that Trump exited. To the extent these strikes were a necessary solution, they might be to a problem of his own making. I agree that Iran could be emboldened and merely delayed here. That may imply an inevitable endgame of either regime change or near-total destruction of Iran's economic capacity, big escalations and risks.
I question whether lowering your nuclear latency for strategic purposes is the same thing as building towards a bomb.
Switzerland's nuclear program stayed one step away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon for several decades straight. The fact that they could become a nuclear power, but haven't, and could credibly restart their program if attacked, is of strategic importance to them.
Is it building towards a bomb if your intention is to sit on the precipice of building a nuclear weapon for the rest of time, leveraging your position as deterrence, but never going over the edge? I have no idea! I also have no idea whether this describes Iran. Saying that there's "no question" they were building towards a bomb is ignoring this question, though.
A small team of skilled physicists relying only on public knowledge can design a nuclear weapon (and did, back in 1964; their work product was classified, the demonstrated futility notwithstanding). The only reason that random grad students don't have the bomb is that enrichment of uranium requires state-level resources. So why focus on the easier part of building a nuclear weapon that they haven't undertaken, while choosing language ("lowering latency", not "building") that minimizes the much harder part that they have? This view is prevalent, but it seems exactly backwards to me.
As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from? At best it's a bluff, like threatening someone with an unloaded gun. But would you really want to bet your life that Iran has put maybe a quarter of their GDP (including sanctions impact; the program itself is much less) into a bluff? We can't read minds, and their costly actions seem like much more reliable signals than our guesses at their intent.
Switzerland is an odd comparison, since they got their capabilities in what they openly described as the initial stages of a nuclear weapons program. Since abandoning that, Switzerland has been divesting its enriched uranium. If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
> As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from?
Exactly the same place as the deterrence in MAD. You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals when you build the bomb, you intend to sit around with a metaphorical shotgun aimed at your door for the rest of time.
> If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
Sure, I agree. I approve of the strikes against Iran in principle. I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
> You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals
I don't see why intent requires immediacy? Perhaps this becomes uselessly philosophical, but I would say MAD requires the defending state to intend to nuke its adversary, conditioned on some future event (a nuclear attack on themselves, an existential conventional attack, etc.). They hope that condition is never satisfied, but intend to strike if it is.
> I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
For clarity, I don't believe that either. By "working actively towards", I mean only that Iran was taking costly steps that bring them closer to a working bomb, and no other rational purpose could justify those costs. I think the distinction of what such steps we count as "lowering latency" vs. "building a bomb" is arbitrary and mostly meaningless, since as the latency approaches zero the latter goal is effectively achieved.
I agree that Iran might just have been saber-rattling; or even if they currently intended to build and test a complete bomb, they might have discontinued the program before succeeding. I just don't think intent is a useful focus (vs. practical capabilities), since it's fundamentally unknowable and could change at any time.
What is the term for political leaders who fill their speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
"Will be done in 'x' months" vs "Could be ready within 'x' months" are distinct statements.
My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start".
The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
Israel has also been sabotaging their program and murdering scientists for the same time. Maybe it's an instance of the prevention paradox? Together with the fact that things sometimes naturally need MUCH more time than anticipated?
the biggest blocker remains - a religious rule set by the dictator banning all WMDs. not just nukes, but chemical and radiological weapons too.
an iran with a bomb would have to not be the relogious dictatorship anymore, and whatever coup that allowed for the bomb might not have the same opinions about the west as the current one
Why bring him up? No one cares about him. He's been lying about it all those years until it became true, that doesn't mean it's still false. I can say the universe will be destroyed in a year, I'll eventually be right.
You would have thought folks would have learned from the Iraq War that the US lies. I'm no fan of Khomeini's sabre-rattling, but if people are really buying into the narrative that we did this because they had nukes, idk what to tell you besides go read your history.
It isn't just the US that lies, its politicians and leaders. People in charge want to keep power, and the only ones willing to fight their way to the top don't deserve the power of office.
Folks do know. Folks knew before the Iraq war too.
But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use.
In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?
It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing.
Related, example of that brainwashing at scale:
- Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier.
- Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad.
- People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good.
- Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all.
- Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it.
- People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society.
- Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable.
Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
It doesn't matter if it's true at this point. The US can not involve themself in every fucking war for their own motives, just by calling "Bombs" they did this a few times to often. I really hope this is going to have consequences for orange man.
It's literally an anvil they drop out of the sky hoping to punch through structures like an aerial drilling platform. I guess it's dope, but it seems like cartoon armament to me.
"According to an anecdote, the idea arose after a group of Royal Navy officers saw a similar, but fictional, bomb depicted in the 1943 Walt Disney animated propaganda film Victory Through Air Power,[Note 10] and the name Disney was consequently given to the weapon."
Unauthorized in the sense of a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Whether Iran is actually violating the treaty is a matter of some dispute.
Didn't Netanyahu perjure himself to congress about iraq's wmds two decades? Isn't that grounds for arrest? It's amazing how our media never mentions that netanyahu is a habitual liar when they push netanyahu's iran's wmds spiel.
At this point our media companies are israel's PR department. Fox news should be banned like RT for being a foreign mouthpiece.
I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them weren't stored properly.
If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN.
It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence.
Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
Sure glad we spent a generation of lives and treasure, and maybe the golden years of the American hegemony on that boondoggle to take care of a few crappy chemical weapons in some dusty sand pit of a country.
> Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:
The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians.
The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes.
Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
> The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point.
Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them.
So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking?
You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them.
Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision?
It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.
"Yes, we did lie. But in hindsight, our lie did not affect anyone's decision making. The truthful part by itself was enough to convince everyone who was convinced."
It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
You are going off topic. I was only addressing the false claim that they did not have WMDs. They very much did. I am not making any statements on if we should have gotten involved, if there were false pretenses or anything like that.
I don't get why people who are so opposed to the war are the ones who can't admit they actually did have WMD. Making these false claims just makes it look like we, who were opposed to the war, are the liars.
Dude, I don't lose any credibility by stating the truth. The contention was there were active programs to make chemical and nuclear weapons and depots ready to use or be handed over to Al Qaeda. None of that was found.
It was all fake. I don't lose any credibility by stating the obvious and using shorthand.
It would be like the FBI saying they raided the world's biggest drug lord, and the only thing they found was a little bit of shake in a backpack in his garage.
youre still falling for it? these guys knew exactly what they were doing when they said WMDs; they meant nukes and to exploit post 9/11 fears. then they moved the goalposts after their lie was discovered to make bombs "WMDs"
I know they meant nukes. Both Bush and Netanyahu explicitly said nukes. I am strictly talking about potential perjury. If in official testimonies they only said WMD then they did not commit perjury.
People really need to stop glossing over the very real differences between state controlled media, and media that you think is aligned with a certain political group.
You can believe Fox News is the worst entity in human history, but Fox News is not RT.
Fox News is not a problem as long as there are other voices in the media.
Actually the "other voices" as more numerous.
The GP has a problem with plurality of opinions and media.
Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is:
- The ICC is just a court, not a police department. Only countries have those, and while Netanyahu is in Israel, his own police probably won't arrest him.
- Authoritarian governments like Trump, Orban, Putin are actively undermining the ICC, which makes enforcement even less likely.
I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany.
If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.
In most countries state prosecutors are directly controlled by the executive. The US is a bit of an anomaly in having semi-independent elected prosecutors. The government wouldn’t normally get directly involved - the optics are terrible - but in high profile political cases they will.
We're going to start dropping some freedom munitions on every nation that wants to export a looneytunes religious viewpoint? Physician, heal thyself...
Seriously, though. There are thousands of tin-pot dictators who would love to remake the world in their image. None of them have the ability to do so, including Iran. What makes this one special? Other than it being a very convenient target in a news cycle with some very inconvenient stories?
iranian proxies have contributed to the deaths of milllions of people including americans. syria, sudan, kuwait, libya, yemen, you think it's just looney toons you're shielded by the safety of your office chair.
then again if your username is accurate, there's no point
Ok, let's make the language more utilitarian. There are lots of bad governments in the world. What makes this bad government uniquely special? Why are we getting entangled in yet another to generational war? We're well past the point that we can cut blank checks. Our national debt is absolutely insurmountable, we're cutting social programs that will quite literally kill more of our citizens than Iran ever will.
Be the cause of the terrorism, then talk of how you're the "tip of the spear" in preventing terrorism. You'd need to be special to be that kind of deluded.
With these strikes, it seems more like Israel has ample intelligence on the US government than it has on the Middle East, since even DNI concurred that there was no proof of WMDs.
FWIW Jon Stewart covered it quite well
In Mondays episodes with clips. Lots of clips. But I completely agree with respect to mainstream news outlets. .
From what I read, they likely still couldn't penetrate the halls at Fordow, which are about 260 feet underground and encased in 30000psi concrete. Did we even do anything there?
You wouldn't expect significant radiological contamination from bombing an HEU facility deep underground? This isn't like exposed reactor core material.
They do have reactors though, do they not? Hitting the spent fuel pools and/or the reactors would produce detectable radioactive contamination. The HEU? Not so much as its half-life is 700 million years, and the stuff is dense and will quickly settle down.
Why would they not have reactors? Plutonium bombs are more efficient than uranium bombs, so of course they should want to make some plutonium. Remember, they claim they need HEU for civilian reactors.
For sure, but a) they have a civilian reactor program, which surely produces spent fuel, and if they run it with HEU then they probably have breeders, and they might think they can figure out how to make Pu bombs. After all, the W88 bomb design got leaked in the 90s, remember?
With a half-life between 700 million years (for U-235) and 4 billion years (for U-238). And it's dense stuff that will immediately settle on the ground. You're not going to detect it from afar.
260ft is around 79m. The bombs can penetrate around 60m of concrete. So one bomb, probably not, but they are able to follow each other in quick succession meaning 2 or three should be able to do the job quite easily, with accurate GPS positioning.
Also, surely – I have no expertise – but you don't need to totally destroy the bunker to render the operation basically dead, right?
The land, roads, ingress points, elevators, security, everything around here is now FUBAR. Okay so you didn't "destroy the bunker", but how many years until it's functional again?
The point is not to dig a hole. Penetration depth is a function of compression strength of the medium. Every bomb leaves a path of debris in its wake with negligible compression strength that subsequent bombs can pass through before expending their energy.
They can penetrate 60m of soil. They cannot penetrate 60m of concrete. Reinforced concrete at about 5000psi would only get penetration of 8-15m.
The facility is beneath 80m of limestone which in the Qom formation is roughly equivalent to about 5000psi concrete.
Beneath the limestone, sits the facility itself which is encased in high performance concrete. So these bombs need to pen 80m of 5000psi material and then a unknown depth of high performance concrete.
There is no public information about what kind of material 60m refers to, and the best guesses of reinforced concrete are 18m. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP While a single bomb would be insufficient, you don't need that many to get to 80m.
And US military assets are often much more powerful than publicly advertised...
A bomb penetrating 18m of reinforced concrete doesn't excavate 18m of concrete. It would weaken it by some percentage through fractures and overpressure but you'll need to pen it again with the second bomb.
According to the pentagon briefing this morning they dropped 14. News is reporting that it was in 3 specific locations and they were dropped successively. Assuming most detonated successfully, that much specialized ordinance did some damage. This bomb was specifically designed for this very purpose and you have to realize that capabilities that are reported are probably pretty conservative vs what the bomb is actually capable of doing.
I know a bunch of armchair generals on here are speculating that this was ineffective, but time will tell.
Because it’s always the case with the US military equipment capabilities that full capability is never disclosed. What possible reason would the military have in divulging actual specs?
Military: We can penetrate up to 200 feet with this new bunker buster bomb that we spent a billion dollars on…specifically for this site and some sites in North Korea.
Enemy: Build the bunker at 300 feet, I hear their best bunker buster is only effective to 200 feet.
you don't actually need to completely destroy all the underground levels in Fordow. It is enough to cause enough damage so that the stored uranium contaminates the site, while being sealed from the outside world under the collapsed site.
There were an estimated twenty of these bombs in existence before the bombing; very little head room for throwing more of them down the hole if they haven't done the job.
Which is precisely what makes the calculus of this so dangerous, something I don't think many people understand.
Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option.
The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option.
Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
> Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests
Exactly. I do my best to consider them an "adversary", not an "enemy" for just that reason.
> The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense.
I'd argue there are two risks: one is that this puts Iran in a position where, if the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them.
It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
I don't think we have a better option, sadly, but it is a consequence of this action.
Also, I don't think this makes a rational case for use. For possession, yes. For threatening to use them under certain conditions, yes - but the only rational use case for deploying nuclear weapons is if your opponent has already done the same. This became the case when the thermonuclear bomb was invented.
KSA has been slowly coming around for the past decade or so. Trump's recent visit -- domestic optics aside -- confirmed and strengthened that.
Turkey/Türkiye has been going the other direction. They're not totally off the reservation, but Erdogan isn't exactly in NATO's inner circle personally.
Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term? Your position really only makes sense if that's not the case. By whatever means, the goal now seems to be to prevent that.
If we fail, there's still the hope that other commenters here are right, and Iran isn't intent on using them offensively. If so, then Iran itself will be safe from this sort of attack.
... but it will also be clear to every other that the only way to be secure from Western military intervention is to possess nuclear weapons. There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. This will lead to a world where proliferation is rampant, but not necessarily one where their use is no longer taboo as it is today.
> Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term?
If they managed to get enough of their HEU and any reactor spent fuel out of Fordo and elsewhere into locations we don't know about where they happen to have previously built backup facilities then they could have them very quickly. Hopefully a) they didn't build backup facilities, and b) didn't get a change to spirit away the materials w/o us noticing.
The main problem is the Iranian regime's view that it is their religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. This is why they supply weapons to Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, and anyone who will attack Israel, and incite them to do so.
They will not stop, and they can't be negotiated with on this, again because they see it as a religious duty.
i think this line of reasoning is just falling for both iran's and america's propaganda
they use theology for political mandate and to further their goals. their goals are fundamentally opposed to israel's existence and go against america's interests in the region but they are geopolitical goals wrapped in theological wrapping paper, not mad ravings. no more than israel's "promised land" and america's "christian duty" are
this dehumanization is only going to lead to US boots on the ground and iran becoming an even worse vietnam/afghanistan. the US needs to bring iran down like the soviets were brought down; from the inside. this invading and sabre rattling hasnt worked before and wont work now
Ok if this is a problem, then surely the ministers in the Israeli government are equally problematic given that they want to annex Gaza and the West Bank?
If you disagree can you help me understand the difference between these issues?
Ukraine, and now Iran, have made one thing abundantly clear to the world: if you want to have any actual sovereignty on the world stage, you must have nuclear weapons. Otherwise you are merely waiting for another nation to find an excuse to violate your borders.
Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal either by proxy or by way of a domestic nuclear program. That is the legacy of this strike. It puts the point at the end of the exclamation that was Ukraine.
The seeds of a new era of proliferation have been sown, and our children will reap the rewards.
There are now ways to purify uranium much more cost effectively and in better secrecy that centrifuges. Small labs can do it effectively now, and a massively distributed effort would not only make it possible to achieve without needing to buy restricted equipment, it also would make it nearly impossible to disrupt militarily.
You could just open source a design and let the market do the work. It’s of course a terrible idea, which would lead to explosive proliferation and lots of cancer, but it would work. The technical part is challenging but not outside of the reach of serious hobby level efforts.
I will be surprised if we don’t start to see something along these lines cropping up all over the place soon. It’s a natural progression of several technologies that have become vastly more economical and accessible as time goes on.
> It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
We've already seen that with North Korea and Libya. NK got to having them before we could stop them. Libya gave up its nuclear program (which is how we learned about Iran's), and we staged a revolution there and regime change.
I agree. But also, are the words and actions of Russia, China, North Korea, Israel and the US (and the rest of the nuclear club) the sort you think ideal?
That the US decides who can have them is darkly hilariously.
I think it would mean nuclear weapons in the hands of Hamas, hezbollah and other organizations who could use them without a state/regime to blame. Iran could say “it wasn’t us, you can’t prove anything” meanwhile city after city in Israel is destroyed. Further, any action to destroy Iran’s stockpile would be met with a nuclear response and the claim of self defense.
This thinking is a perfect example of being too clever by half. North Korea has nukes now because very smart people were paralyzed by just this sort of abstract risk-calculation thought exercises.
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation.
If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
Even if the regime doesn't survive, what's our track record in Iranian regime change like? What are the chances people there swallow their pride and roll over? If anything, Khomeini is probably a moderate compared to a lot of what we could end up with after 'regime change' (lol)
I guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings.
Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.
The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
I get this a lot from a guy I do trust, and his old man is an Iranian immigrant, but I also recognize my sources are very biased against the regime.
Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.
You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
The only thing this parent got wrong is the dates. Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime would have collapsed if the West had stood up to:
* The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936
* The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938
* The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938
The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power.
Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again.
I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime never would have existed if the West had not bent Germany over a barrel in 1918 and immediately after.
I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
Not exactly, it was rather that the Treaty of Versailles was painful enough to cause resentment but wasn't harsh enough to cripple Germany. Even so, Weimar Germany managed to stabilize the situation for a decade or so, it's only with the Great Depression that finally broke the Republic's back (and even then, there were all sorts of political shenanigans that could have been manuvered better).
Furthermore, the foreign policy of the Nazis was informed more by their ideological myths than external events. After all, the Nazis admired the Great Imperialist Powers like the British Empire as part of the "Aryan Race". Their enmity was directed at Eastern Europe and the Communists, which had little to do with the enactment of post-war reparations on Germany.
There is alot of paralllels between the mindset of the populace then and today, especially in this thread that enabled Hitler's confidence. The famous Oxford Union "King and Country Debate" in 1933 declared with 275 for and 153 against that "This House under no circumstances would fight for King and Country". It was stated to have a tremendous impression of Hitler's decision-making when generals pushed back against his aggresive actions, and his bluff was rewarded well.
Well, skip forward in 2023 and here we are again...
I think the post war political movement in America that produced the Martial Plan was exceptional. The situation now in terms of institutions, leadership and doctrine is nothing like that. It is difficult to believe that America of today could help a country in that way. Accountability is too fractured. Profiteering has become a way of life. And fundamentalism is too strong.
What are the chances that the peaceful, think it through, be reasonable crowd is ready to organize the next regime. Or maybe the hotheads with guns are ready to shoot first aim later.
Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
He is asking a valid question. Experts on the issue also warn that there is no guarantee that what replaces the current regime would be any more amenable.
Yes, but that name refers to a leader from decades ago. There is a similar-named leader today, but people who conflate the two tend not to be well-informed on the topic.
Yeah sorry for the typo - I obviously didn't mean the dude from the 80s. I'm not a scholar but have been paying attention for at least the last few years, so mea culpa.
They don’t care about the regime, they only want it to be aligned with the US and Israel. The Saudi absolute monarchy regime (something that is way worst than the Iranian one) that is directly coming from middle ages, doesn’t get the same journalistic treatment in the US. Women rights in Iran are lightyears ahead of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. But who cares? Talking about Iran regime change only is pure hypocrisy when your best friend in the region can kill anyone by just deciding it.
Actually, Saudi Arabia doesn't beat woman to death for not wearing a hijab (although they're not great either). Saudi is ranked 56 on the Gender Inequality Index, whereas Iran is 113. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
3 years ago Saudi Arabia set into its law (on the international women’s day) that a male relative always have control on a woman. A few years ago only, women were allowed to drive but as of today they are very few female drivers. But that’s not the point, the point is the hypocrisy to point at a political regime because he his not aligned with your views while having as a best friend the worst absolute monarchy.
You can find many videos of people walking around cities in Iran - not only are plenty of women not covering their hair, there's plenty of dyed hair too. Dress is a bit more conservative than western countries, but not by much, and women are obviously free - and feel safe - to leave the house unescorted. Iran has liberalized a lot compared to the post-revolutionary period.
Mahsa Amini was famously beaten to death by Iran's morality police in 2022 for the crime of not wearing a hijab. Even modern-day Iran is incredibly oppressive to women, and is currently ranked #113 on the Gender Inequality Index.
> A few years ago only, women were allowed to drive but as of today they are very few female drivers.
Maybe. But overall Saudi Arabia has been undergoing pretty dramatic changes in recent years: Women can now drive, are no longer required to wear a hijab, are allowed to work, can meet with male friends/non-relatives without the police stopping them, etc. Yes, it's still a far cry from what women are allowed to do in western countries, and absolute change is still slow, but relatively speaking it's still quite impressive and gives me (and apparently people there) hope.
Yes, quite a few actually. I do have to mention, though, that the women I talked to were from the cities, usually very well educated (studied abroad, spoke English / grew up with Netflix, etc.), and/or used to tourists. I didn't dare talking to women in the smaller, more rural towns as I wasn't sure about repercussions (for them). Plus there would have been the language barrier, anyway.
Overall, there seemed to be a rather pronounced divide between the cities and the country side:
In the cities you did see the occasional woman without hijab, some women working (particularly in the hospitality industry), and a few women driving (though still not many). Meanwhile, in more rural areas tradition strongly prevailed. So none of the things I mentioned are really commonplace yet (not even in the cities) – it's just that at the very least they're legal now and people (women) are making their first baby steps towards enjoying their newfound freedom.
Israel hasn't really engaged in regime change. If anything the opposite. There was a single failed attempt to get the Christians into power in Lebanon. But mostly sort of the devil I know. We have Hussein in Jordan. We had Assad in Syria. Egypt had its own turmoils but not much Israeli involvement. The PA and Hamas were also viewed as a stabler alternative to chaos. Saudi and the emirates pretty stable. Turkey (not quite middle east but whatever) also have their internal turmoil. Iran has been stable as well.
This is true but that happened mostly after Hamas already took Gaza. Israel would have greatly preferred for the PA to control Gaza. The regime change in this case was done by the Palestinians themselves. The Israeli right wing did to some extent strengthen the division once it was in place. The Wikipedia article reads like a propaganda piece and I would not trust it at all. I've lived in Israel through this period so I have a pretty good first hand knowledge/experience of the events.
The PA didn't really come close to negotiating peace and given Hamas were not able to. See Hamas' suicide bombing campaign during the Oslo peace process. The PA, somewhat as a response to Israeli policy, decided to pursue trying to force Israel to yield via a combination of armed and political struggle and not negotiate with it. Strangely enough security cooperation did continue throughout (and the PA is basically supported by the IDF otherwise it would likely have been toppled). This all happened after the Oslo peace process collpased due to Hamas.
Bush pushed for an election as he wanted to have solved the middle east situation before his presidency was over, against both Israel and PAs wishes. Then Hamas won and Bush again pushed PA to do a coup which failed and PA was kicked out of Gaza.
60%? Serious citation needed. The largest Christian population in Iran are Armenians. There are far fewer than 1 million Armenians in Iran. So unless you have evidence for the claim that there are 50+ million atheists in Iran, the number just defies belief.
I would be shocked if there were 50 million atheists in America. Maybe if you included people who are spiritual but do not believe directly in a god. Maybe I could accept it then, but at that point, you are stretching the definition of 'atheist' to its breaking point.
Trump thinks regime change will happen instantly and easily. Maybe he has secret source front NSA and CIA, who track private messages of Iranians! 60% of Iranians are secret christians. 38% are closeted gays!
A few bombs, everyone comes out of closet, unconditional surrender, democracy, live happily ever after... Sounds like American movie...
Not arguing your point. Just thought I’d share that of the emigres I know (big families that left starting in the late 60s) all are either Christian or Zoorastrian (to some degree). To them the Islamic conquest of Persia is not old news!
America allies, Saudi head chop more than Iran. And there are 100K Jews in Iran and they get into parliament too. Show me that in Israel. You got confused with Saudi and Pakistan. Dont think 60% there Christian or atheist there. Westrrn media is always BS. They got so many wrongs since 2 deacdes ago, I read way less western stuff these days. Otherwise my whole world view looks like Marvel MCU and Tom Cruise with Arnie running around with guns.
Your numbers are way off: there are between 10k and 20k Jews in Iran. There are also 5 parliament seats in Iranian parliament (out of 290 members) that are reserved for religious minorities, of which two seats are for Armenians, one for Syrians, one for Jews and one for Zoroastrians.
It's like there's an echo from every other stupid poll-raising middle east adventure we've ever gotten into.
This is a stupid war being waged by idiots against idiots . Unfortunately none of those idiots calling the shots will die, it'll be a bunch of kids who just made the mistake of not being rich and powerful enough.
It is ending a bit like Ming dynasty and Rome towards the end. Corruptions rife everywhere. Leaders try to be competent and yet ended making more mess. You can already see China is doing 5nm. Best camera phone is Huawei. Best EV in both variants models and quality and total volume sales, BYD. Tesla get decimated. Even AI China is on par. In terms of talents, you can see how well Americans read and count. In 30 years time, you need to learn Chinese and maybe Russian. I dont see America will be much viable pass the next 30 years. If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals. If you get JD, debrs will spiral out of control while opening a warfront in the middle east with Iran and China. This is basically empire ending scenario.
>If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals
Is this, in your mind, how empires end? I'm not sure if you've cracked a history book in a while, but immigrants built this country. We are a country of immigrants. We win when we get the hardest working, most entrepreneurial, boldest and smartest people to come here. Immigrants are no couch potatoes - on average they work harder than American born citizens do by an order of magnitude for way less pay.
In 30 years time there will be fewer Mandarin speakers than there are today, and far fewer Russian speakers. This has nothing to do with Americans; four out of five English speakers live in other countries. It's the consequence of Metcalf's Law in age of internet communication, combined with obvious demographic trends.
The US has no desire or intent to occupy Iran. It would take a year just to move enough forces to even contemplate it. Iran is mountainous which makes this a lot harder than Iraq.
It is also completely unnecessary. There are two options. Either the current regime makes a "deal" or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
Iran and Iraq are very different. Different culture, people and history. It's also worth remembering Iran is not homogeneous, only 61% of the population are Persians. There are Azeri, there are Kurds and various other ethnic/region minorities.
Iran is extremely vulnerable. It has internal issues, constantly oppressing/suppressing its people. Its economy is in terrible shape. Most of its economic engine can be easily taken out (its main oil terminals). The bulk of its military can be destroyed from the air, it has little defensive or offensive capability. They know it.
I think what you are missing is how vulnerable the United States and its allies are in the region.
There are much much softer targets than Tel Aviv, many of which Iran has successfully attacked in the past.
The argument that the Iranian people hate their autocratic government might be correct. But a symmetric argument can be made about many of the regimes which work with the United States. No one in those countries is going to war with Iran to defend the US right to have military bases in the Middle East.
One way of looking at last week's ballistic missile attacks is that they were a way of demonstrating Iran's ability to retaliate in the wider region.
If Ramat Gan is not safe, then the UAE's resorts and airports, Saudi's oil processing facilities, the US installations in Iraq and in the Gulf, etc are not even remotely safe.
Israel reportedly took out >50% of the launchers. With complete control of the air space a launcher becomes a single use rather than its intended multiple use. The USA can defend its positions with Aegis/THAAD and its detection capabilities give early warning.
Israel has taken a lot of damage but relatively little loss of life.
Iran would be foolish to expand the war and they know it. They're not going to attack the UAE or Saudi. Iran's bluff has been called.
well israel would, because israel's existance depends on them.
from an israeli perspective, things cant be going better. if the US gets pulled into invading iran, then their only effective opponent in the world is vietnam'd. which is great if your soldiers arent the ones dying to IEDs.
without iranian funding/management, Hamas shrivels up and palestine is open to be ethnically cleansed. israel wins a 3000 year old war, and only has to deal with sternly worded letters from the UN for it.
against who? the persians beat the babylonian tyrants and enabled the rebuilding of the temple way back when. Cyrus is a messiah rather than ancient enemy
Then wouldn’t it be best to prop up groups on the inside? Start with providing restricted airspaces to groups who hate the regime, and let them be autonomous regions. That wouldn’t need any boots on the ground.
Say you give the Kurds their own part of Iran and help protect their area could weaken the rest. I think there is already such a deal in in Iraq afaik.
> or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
how are you gonna do that without boots on the ground?
Trump talking about annexing canada made them go from being sick of the liberal party becuase of trudeau to swinging back around to supporting it to an upset victory because they were the only ones standing up to america. and thats america's closest ally, iran is their most bitter foe
this is either gonna end any chance of cooling things off with iran (and make them realize they need a nuclear deterrent yesterday), or turn into another vietnam/afghanistan
the regime was unpopular, the US could have collapsed them slowly like they did the soviets, but instead they let israel's "trust me bro" on nukes pull them into another quagmire.
Can't compare Ukraine, which is a democracy where the government enjoys broad support, to Iran, which is a dictatorship where 80% of the population wants the government gone and rules by an iron fist and public executions.
Don’t think the current guy in the white house is much into nation building. Also after Iraq and 20 years wasted in Afghanistan - Americans are less likely to care about rebuilding a country.
Well, its done now. All we can do is to hope for the better outcome and ever more powerful ideological regime is not the better outcome. Trump might just guaranteed that though. He isn’t good at this international relations and peacemakings stuff.
i doubt israel cares. if they can get the US to invade iran for them, then no matter what happens, their only effective opponent is dismantled. you can definitely hope to springboard that to regional dominance and guaranteeing your existance
This is true, no Americans have the desire to invade Iran after Iraq and Afghanistan. If Trump goes in then the next politician that runs on ending the invasion would win in a landslide. Further, there’s just nothing to justify an invasion. Regime change or not, Iran’s nuclear program and militias can now be destroyed from the air uncontested, why invade?
No, it's damn near geographically impossible or would require cooperation from countries who would be absolutely be opposed to it, and the Pentagon knows it even the small brained people in fancy suits in Washington don't.
The US occupied Japan and West Germany after WW2. Admittedly mostly with the support of local authorities. But that was the US with a pop of ~133m and Japan with a pop of ~70m. So yes, if the US had the political will it could occupy Iran.
Does it have the political will? No way!
Michael Shurkin-- a former rand analyst and I strongly recommend his podcast-- says that politicians say "there is no military solution" when they mean there is no military solution that people would politically support. The US could do all sorts of things in Iran but the US people would not accept the casualties or the human rights abuses.
Why there is regime change there? You are watching fake news projected by your own government for your bubble. The regime now is way stronger. Their economy now is also significantly bigger and stronger (hint: China). A fresh grad there can find job in less than 2 weeks. Try that in UK or NY...even 6mths would be atough endevour.
Iran has smaller gdp than israel and 12 times it's population. They are a delusional dwarf, and they beat and blind women that refuse to wear headscarf. So I wouldn't mind some dead and crippled clergy and IRGC as long as there are no boots on the ground. Just kill the elites until the population sorts the thing themselves.
Exactly. Libya is non threatening and doesn't sponsor terrorism as of late. That the Libyans decided to fuck things up internally doesn't change the fact that externally it was a success.
I don't think we have a historical precedence to what is happening here. The closest would be Israel's attack on Hezbollah which literally collapsed and led to the collapse of the Syrian regime as well.
The Iranian regime is very centralized and with Israel and the USA having air superiority and having penetrated it completely from an intelligence perspective (see Israel's perfect knowledge of the whereabouts of the previous chief of staff and the newly appointed chief of staff) it's going to be very hard for it to survive if a decision is made to remove it. There are a handful of key people that once gone there is not going to be any continuity.
The current regime is allowed to continue because of fear of chaos if it is removed, not because there isn't a capability to remove it.
The troops on the ground were only able to act because the regime has been weakened. But yes, someone in Iran would need to somehow actively do something.
According to my Iranian friends (even the most hardline Ayatollah haters), most Iranians hate the regime, but they'll rally behind them if boots land on the ground.
Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty).
The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
I find it hard to believe foreign intervention can do anything other than rally support.
A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
> The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.
my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.
Not necessarily but this is also not the end of the campaign. If Israel and US take out their ultimate bargaining chip and have air supremacy then the room to maneuver for the ayatollah is quite small. What happens next inside Iran is anyone’s guess. There have been multiple waves of very large protests in the past five years. What’s stopping mossad from delivering rifles to them from Syria or an airdrop at this point of escalation
Japan was on the verge of being invaded by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The writing was on the wall and the choice to surrender very likely turned out better for Japan, both territorially and in the key priority of persevering the Imperial Dynasty.
First footage from the area doesn't appear to show any extended damage, so maybe it was all a show.
Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order.
What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK.
The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.
> Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can.
The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
The way the world works these days m 60 Days is enough for the president to unilaterally get us into war with literally every country on the planet.
This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
Congress and the US in general has had plenty of time to adjust the powers of the president as US naval, air, and communications capabilities have increased.
not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement
IRGC isn’t a sovereign country, it’s a designated terrorist organization
You forgot that IRGC already directly attacked Israel twice in 2024 [1,2], and that’s not including countless proxy attacks and terrorist acts, culminating in October 7th massacres & atrocities
You got it wrong: IRGC attacked and Israel retaliated
US is just helped a little bit their ally
> This stuff isn't OK.
UN, ICC, ICG, etc. all became a $hit show, they don’t work. For 40 years IRGC threatened with Genocide of Jews, and they did nothing. Now when Jews retaliated: * This stuff isn't OK.* ;)
Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the substance and not merely a [legal] form
Examples:
- form: a cryptocurrency, but substance: an unregistered security
- “medical alcohol” during dry laws / Prohibition
- “medical marijuana” & patients vs drug users
- etc.
—-
Was Third Reich[1] a “sovereign government” or a front for The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Was USSR a “sovereign government” or a front for a Communist Party?
Is Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) a “sovereign government” or merely a front for IRGC[2]?
And wasn’t Iran/Persia already a “sovereign government” before IRGC staged a coup d'état (aka “revolution”)?
—-
> "De facto" and "de jure" are Latin terms used to distinguish between what exists in reality and what is legally recognized. "De facto" refers to something that exists in practice or reality, even if not officially established or legally recognized. "De jure" refers to something that is legally recognized or officially established
If any entity threatens u: u have 3 options: fight back, surrender, or self-destruct
In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate
It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not
——
> So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...?
I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
My conclusion from the last 30 years of regime changes in ME is, be careful what you wish for. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt - they all had their regimes "improved" by well-meaning (?) external powers, and they all went pretty badly.
That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
If the regime survives, it is also going to target (and murder) a whole hell of a lot of innocent civilians that it suspects aided Israel (and many/most will almost certainly be innocent). Due process is not a thing with IRGC.
No matter what. America getting them self into this, so fast is going to lead to a lot of worldwide drama distracting from the disastrous financial situation of the US.
Well the mass destruction and death in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya came with regime change but what followed was more death and chaos that none have fully recovered from. I'm sorry but that "we'll just bomb the country and hope that helps" attitude is utterly stupid and has been repeatedly proven to be deeply ineffective
How do you imagine Iran giving up? If anything, it will radicalize. This would happen even if you did anything remotely similar to your kid (i.e., attacked the kid violently because of an accusation they did something wrong), not to mention to a state that revolted against US political manipulation 45 years ago.
I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.
As an Iranian, I want it clear: the Islamic Republic has destroyed Iran. For 46 years, they held our country hostage, suppressing us, dictating what we can wear, say, or believe, while chanting death to the West and chasing nuclear power. They’ve brutalized peaceful protesters, raped, imprisoned, and killed our people. Now, their so-called enemies have walked right in, understandably. A regime that has no mercy for us citizens can't be trusted with nuclear power. This is why we’re here: a paper lion with no real strength beyond the people it oppresses.
More to it, I've had personal experience with this brutal regime, they arrested my old cousin during the Mahsa Protests(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests), she was taken to the Evin prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison) and was tortured for 6 months. We had no news from her. When she was finally released, she was so skinny that you could see her rib bones. We managed to bring her to Canada and it took her over a year of medical care until she began to recover. She was only 20.
No one hates this regime more than Iranians.
With all that out of the way, Iranians have no choice now but the defend their homes against hostile forces. They will not simply sit back and watch Israel and United States bomb their land to oblivion and then demand unconditional surrender.
This attack will inflict more pain on Iranians and only serves to grow the regime stronger.
We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US.
I'm a little surprised too. Even at the speed of sound in granite (6km/s) where you can start to consider crater-forming dynamics you only get an impact depth of 200ft. Treating it as a Newtonian impactor you get a depth of 60ft. I'd wager the cone shape pushing material to the side is hugely important to the outcome.
The GBU-57 is dropped from a high-altitude B-2 Spirit bomber, which can fly at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. This high drop altitude is crucial for the bomb to reach a very high terminal velocity. Some sources suggest it reaches supersonic speeds, potentially around Mach 1.29 (approximately 440 m/s).
Let's conservatively assume a terminal velocity (v) of 400 m/s (approximately 895 mph).
Calculating Kinetic Energy (KE):
The formula for kinetic energy is:
KE = 0.5 * m * v²
Plugging in our values:
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * (400 m/s)²
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * 160,000 m²/s²
KE ≈ 1.088 billion Joules
This is an enormous amount of energy that must be absorbed by the ground to stop the bomb.
---
Resistive Force of Soil (60m penetration estimation):
To simplify, we can use empirical formulas developed from extensive testing. One of the most well-known is Young's empirical formula, which provides a way to estimate penetration depth based on the projectile's characteristics and the soil's properties.
resistive force is as a pressure (force per unit area) acting on the front of the MOP. Let's call this the dynamic soil resistance. The total resistive force (F) would be this pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area (A) of the bomb.
The cross-sectional area of the MOP (with a diameter of 0.8 m) is
A = π * (radius)² = π * (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.5 m²
---
Calculating Penetration Depth (d):
The work done (W) by the soil to stop the bomb is:
W = F * d
Setting the initial kinetic energy equal to the work done:
KE = F * d
Therefore, the penetration depth is:
d = KE / F
To achieve a 60-meter penetration, the average resistive force would have to be:
F = 1,088,000,000 J / 60 m
F ≈ 18,133,333 Newtons
This is equivalent to a force of over 4 million pounds. While this seems immense, it's plausible given the energies involved.
---
Now, we can calculate the resistive force:
Convert PSI to Pascals (Newtons per square meter):
15,000 psi(assuming) × 6,895 Pa/psi ≈ 103.4 Million Pascals (MPa)
Calculate the MOP's Cross-Sectional Area:
Diameter = 31.5 inches (0.8 meters)
Radius = 0.4 meters
Area (A) = π × (radius)² = π × (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.503 m²
Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):
Force = Pressure × Area
F = 103,400,000 N/m² × 0.503 m²
F ≈ 52 Million Newtons
So we see that 18 Million Newtons is not enough and the bomb would have to be significantly supersonic, or my calculations are too conservative, or they are overestimating the 60m soil penetration, but we ARE in the same ballpark.
---
now, you might ask how can an object achieve over 1 Mach terminal velocity?
At high altitudes (like 30,000-50,000 feet): The air is much colder and less dense. For instance, at 35,000 feet, the temperature can be around -54°C, and the speed of sound drops to about 295 m/s (about 660 mph).
In this high-altitude, low-density environment, the MOP's terminal velocity is incredibly high. It can easily accelerate past the local speed of sound (which is already lower due to the cold) and go supersonic, then slowing down when near ground.
The bomb is also likely designed like a super aerodynamic dart to achieve maximum terminal velocity.
Thanks for showing your work, I guess my intuition just doesn't involve objects of this size often enough to be accurate.
It does seem like we're nearing the limit of what can be done with aircraft though. The challenge of hitting the ground much harder seems to be greater than just digging your facility a little deeper (that said, I've nevler dug a hole that deep either so perhaps I'm wrong about that also).
This is not what I was claiming. I was talking about soil. Concrete, I believe they claimed 18 meters. Obviously, different ground types will be more complex/easier to penetrate.
Thinking that doing something like that will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is naive. It's not a technical challenge for them, it's a political decision, only a political decision. If they really wanted to, they would already have it. Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago, as news outlets have already reported.
As for the facts, and not just the narrative: 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment, and it is not illegal under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore, today's attack is an illegal act of aggression against another country, violating international law. Those are the facts.
I would like to see the confirmation as well. At the same time, it does sound plausible. Why keep the highly enriched uranium at the centrifuge site after you're done doing all the centrifuging.
The challenge for Israel is there's always a small chance your intelligence has a blind spot or is wrong. You can't prove a negative.
This is why I think the most likely scenario is that Israel will commit to regime change. Israel can't trust the current regime to not race to a nuclear weapon at this stage, and Israel can never be over 99% certain that a clandestine effort isn't being done outside of the current understanding of intelligence. "Assume the worst" seems to be a doctrine they adhere to.
And honestly I'm ok with Israel attempting to force regime change. I think they'll fail but whatevs.
The problem is that the US government appear to support them in whatever craziness they aim for. That's the part that makes this a lot more problematic.
There was regime change against the Russian Tsar in response to his failures in WW1. The rally around the flag didn't count for anything. If the weakness and failures of Khamenei becomes a reality strong enough to pierce through the perceptions shaped by state run media then I am putting my money on regime change. Maybe not right now but soon.
Happened with Japan in WW2, too, although that was a surrender rather than bottom up. But still a form of regime change. There are many ways it could play out.
It's close to unknowable. The entire 500 kg stash of highly enriched uranium that we're fighting this war over has a volume of about 20 liters- not easy to track. Bombing the uranium doesn't unenriched it either unless you do something like drop an equal mass of depleted uranium and then hit it with enough explosives to thoroughly mix the two
There isn't anything special about Iran. It's anyone's political decision to use a nuke. So you make diplomatic decisions, war inclusive, to increase chances that you will not be nuked.
Just curious where the enrichment fact you are claiming comes from. I see the NPT outlined 3% max while watchdogs detected over 80%. I didn’t think there were debates about them breaking the NPT
I am not sure how its only a political decision when they don't have control of their own airspace. How exactly do they rebuild when as soon as they start they get bombed. I think its more accurate to say it WAS a political decision. They had the capability but did not pursue it due to the fallout of doing so. The question its do they still retain the capability and will they ever be allowed to reclaim that capability if they lost it.
Sorry, but this is a hopelessly naive take. They were undoubtedly content to abide by the terms of the JCPOA, but they have also done significantly more than would be required for a purely civilian nuclear program, notwithstanding their prolific ballistic missile program.
All obviously true, but what I don’t understand is how anyone could possibly believe that this strike could push Iran toward signing and abiding by the terms of an agreement more stringent than JCPOA. I’d be very happy to be wrong but it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t a big step backward.
I don't think anyone believes that, it's just a matter of giving up on a diplomatic solution and resorting to the use of force. It might only be a short-term solution, but it is what it is.
The factual's don't matter in Politics, not when mad men are at the helm. Funny how Trump closed his address with thanking god, and the Iranians start theirs in the name of god. So different, yet the same.
The US posturing against Iran dates back to the Cold War era when Iran was tagged as “northern tier” state, and any nationalist moves inside looked like a Soviet opening, and a threat to the Anglo stronghold of Iran's Oil.
This keeps getting repeated all around the comments, but it's absolutely false.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are monotheistic and all claim to be the religion of the One God, yes.
But the Jews rejected the God the Christians believe in, and the Muslims describe/portray a god that is absolutely incompatible with the Christian God.
So essentially no, they can't possibly all believe in the same God.
There is saying might is right. Since he is the new American president, that is might. So he is righteous. I dont think prisons fit a "righteous" person.
All it did was prove to Iran they need nuclear weapons. There’s one thing every country knows and it’s that the only way you don’t become the target of Russia, the US, or Israel is to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
We couldn’t stop North Korea with threats of violence but we did manage to stop Iran for almost 50 years through diplomacy. That’s all pissed down the drain now.
Oh we stopped them? They’ve steadily advanced towards being a nuclear state regardless of all the diplomacy deployed. How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc. they don’t have nukes and I don’t think they’re about to be invaded because they’ve joined the international community and are not sponsoring hezbollah or houthis etc.
>Oh we stopped them? They’ve steadily advanced towards being a nuclear state regardless of all the diplomacy deployed.
Yes, we stopped them. How many nuclear weapons does Iran possess today? 0? Despite having a vast, VAST head start on North Korea - like decades worth of experience and capabilities. The ONLY reason they don't have one today is the diplomacy that convinced them to not move forward faster.
>How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc.
I think my favorite part is when the first country on your list is one who has been threatened repeatedly by the current US administration.
What exactly do you think Canada is going to do should Trump decide to follow-through on his threats of making them the 51st state? Make some strongly worded notices of condemnation with the UN while Ottawa is being razed?
Costa Rica has nothing anybody wants. If the US tomorrow declared they are no longer protecting Japan, they would likley find themselves invaded by Japan before the end of the year. The only reason Italy is safe is because they're part of the EU, and the EU has... you guessed it... access to nuclear weapons.
Israel has been using force for multiple decades to no avail, it ultimately was delayed by diplomacy.
If force alone could stop a nuclear program, why does North Korea have bombs? Many nations could have attacked them without any concerns of recourse for decades.
Also: Khadafy. We asked him to not pursue nukes (and for whatever reason he didn't). When there was unrest in his country the European powers (first) and the US (later) struck him. They would have never done that if he had a nuke.
Now we have regime change and Libya is a paradise. /s
One of the problems with all of this is we may hate the government, but in getting rid of it we don't get anything better.
This needs to be repeated over and over every time it comes up:
North Korea is poised to level Seoul with conventional rocket artillery. A military solution has never been an option. Threats of violence in Korea are transparent.
Iran has killed, threatened, or killed-through-proxy many Americans in the last 50 years. They have created and sown instability throughout the region threatening Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few. Notice that none of their regional neighbors have come to their defense.
They have consistently and openly threatened US leaders.
What a bunch of assholes, you're right, there's no talking to them. I wonder why they're so angry at us?
"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
>"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
When people are mixing up basic facts like this you know the mainstream's knowledge of Iran is heavily propagandized. Really would help if people actually read a history textbook for once instead of believing everything they hear from someone else.
It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know.
In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.
Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned.
This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws.
You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
> I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it.
Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years.
So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
But it's not their terror web that is being attacked. Hezbollah and the Houti are fine, today anyway.
I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening.
Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
Sorry, what? You're literally [edit: figuratively] flying in the face of... well, just about anyone who has any knowledge or expertise in the middle east.
It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge:
Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel?
And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel?
This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?
What does that matter? Are you saying you are more of an expert than everyone else?
Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that.
For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way".
Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia.
(In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
> So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel?
No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this.
I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread:
> Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that.
I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect.
You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.
I think austin-cheney's point is largely right. Iran has fought a series of proxy wars against Saudi, ever since the Islamic Revolution.
The Iran-Iraq war was the first one, with Iraq funded and supported by the Gulf states.
Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is strategic in this context. The Saudi regime wants rapprochement with Israel and to remain aligned with US interests. But neither of these are remotely popular in the Saudi population. By funding guerrilla warfare against Israel, Iran and to a lesser extent Qatar, keeps the Sauds discredited and unpopular among at home and in other Arab countries. The same applies to Egypt, another regional rival of Iran, whose government have never been off the defensive with the Egyptian people and wider Arab opinion since normalisation with Israel.
Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah themselves are only interested in fighting Israel and not the wider regional conflicts. But Iran itself uses that conflict, quite cynically, for wider geopolitical goals. Its stance is the reason that, from Afghanistan to Turkey to Tunisia, it can always find allies who want to challenge the Gulf states vision for the Middle East. Iran supplies the weapons and the know how, but there's never a shortage of locals to drive the car bombs.
There is an interpretation of Iran's behaviour which sees it as a source of Muslim pride for standing up to imperialism, and suggests in contrast that the Saudi leaders are too decadent, too corrupt, and bring shame by ignoring injustice and exploitation done to Arabs. I would certainly question this, but it's not an unpopular discourse in Saudi and other Arab countries.
If you have never come across the idea of the conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine etc being part of a long game of proxy war and influence between Iran and Saudi, I would question how broad your sources of analysis are.
Well, that's fair, and a pretty good analysis. And obviously I view the situation with an Israeli bias.
Still, I think you (or austin-cheney) go way too far in seemingly completely dismissing the idea that the proxies are to fight Israel. Yes, there are a lot of larger strategic implications here, and yes, this is sometimes seen as part of Iran positioning itself as the leader of the Muslim nation that will restore honor to Islam, etc.
But "Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening." doesn't make much sense, given the consistent statements of Iran for the last 40 years, given the fact that they're pouring so much of this funding into Hamas and Hezbollah which, as you say, are only interested in fighting Israel themselves.
(Btw, in some sense, Israel is probably the most powerful regional power in the Middle East.)
In any case, none of this makes my original point "nonsense". The point that it's Iran that's disrupting the rules-based order, not the US, still stands, even if the proxy wars were not "really" to destroy Israel (most evidence to the contrary) and even if it's only funding these proxies which have spread terror and war in the region to try and destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Iran has spent 100x more (1000x) preparing for and battling Israel than it has Saudi. You are clearly not counting Iranian-funded rockets in the region or where they point. (Hezbollah had 15,000 of em... zero pointed at Saudi... ditto arms in Syria... ditto arms in Gaza...)
Saudi Arabia does not threaten to fire rockets at Iran on a daily basis or encourage others to do so. That is a striking distinction that cannot be ignored. And also Israel has nuclear weapons.
Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.
This strongly reminds me how naval warfare had period where participants was supposed to act according to certain fair rules. First they would fly the right color, then they would request the attacked ship to surrender, then they would attack if the other party declined surrender, and then they would pick up any surviving sailors that ended up in the water. World war 2 (and to a degree, world war 1) kind of ruined all that.
The head of the UN, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. [1] The US tried to pass a resolution legalizing the invasion of Iraq through the UN, but it failed. The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. But it was used as a pretext for hostile actions with relatively gullible populations.
Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most.
If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support.
>The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always.
The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point.
In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect.
To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.
The point is that there is no meaningful understanding of 'who is breaking international law' when everything is based on lies. For instance at this point in time most of everybody claims they didn't support the Iraq War, yet in reality the overwhelming majority did. At the peak of propaganda and lies, 80% of Americans approved of Bush's actions with regards to Iraq. [1]
And the thing about war is that there's no real way to tell who's going to win. For instance I think many people believe that the war in Afghanistan basically simmered down once the media coverage of it simmered down. But that couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban was killing US proxies and soldiers alike, by the tens of thousands. The only way we could have even possibly won would have been a full-on ground invasion which would have entailed at least tens of thousands of US deaths, which Americans would never tolerate so it wasn't even an option. We withdrew because we were losing - the Taliban defeated the US. No sort of proxy you could ever create would predict that.
Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.
I'm not saying I have beef with it. I would be happier with a world where fewer countries, including Iran and Israel, have nukes. I'm saying legality of nukes seems 100% derived from a calculus of power, not first principles - that includes US, UK, Russia, China, everyone.
If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible. Like seriously, the ideal number of nuclear warheads in the world is 0, but that is not the world we were born into.
So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
I think Russia invading Ukraine, after signing a treaty to respect their borders if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, let this particular cat out of the bag a long time ago.
I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their power, which in the end encourages all countries to get nuclear weapons to protect their own safety and interests.
As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.
> As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet.
The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.
You can ridicule this idea, but we're already having the US (partly through NATO) taking the role of a global sherif, except without aiming for neutrality, accountability, nor justice, so we end up living in a geopolitical world in which "might makes right". If we continue like this, we will have another World War, but learning by mistakes is sometimes the only realistic way forward.
No. What I'm proposing is to make these processes purposefully and explicitly neutral, accountable, and just. This implies democratic and decentralised governance and decision-making. Clearly this isn't happening now.
As long as you’ve got humans in the mix, it’ll also be political. What you’re describing is a political organization and wishcasting that it’ll be as neutral as you envision according your values of neutrality. It’ll also be the most powerful political and military organization on Earth, so in other words, same shit as we have now, different letterhead. You may as well be describing America, you just don’t want it to be America, and I can respect that perspective even if I don’t agree with it, but your hypothetical organization is not as different as you think it is.
It's 100% different. The institution I envision should represent all countries, or at least member countries, so that it has global democratic legitimacy. Simply put, interests of one country are not equivalent to interests of all countries. If one country tries to take the role of that institution, sooner or later it will run into a conflict of interests.
> There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible.
> So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
The contradiction is that by relying on militarism instead of diplomacy we keep demonstrating that countries are safer from aggression once they have the bomb. You think the situation you’ve described provides a negative incentive for nuclear development, but it does not.
Or more realistically: both war and diplomacy. I don’t know why it’s being framed as one or the other, but the fact is when diplomacy fails, and it is a must-achieve goal, war is an option.
With regard to the "mafia boss power politics" you were talking about, the mafia boss keeps doing things like withdrawing from the JCPOA (back then) and abandoning negotiations to follow Israel's lead in war (today). Maybe approaching things at the mafia boss level isn't the way to go.
Yeah what I was talking about doesn't exclude diplomacy, but at one point or another you've got to be clear that under no circumstances will the development of nukes by $country be tolerated either if you're going to keep the number of nuclear powers tamped down.
Or maybe that is the wrong approach, but the policy we've had that let North Korea develop nukes and Iran at least get very close also isn't working.
North Korea is the place where foreign policy hawks go to die. It's embarrassing to watch. Every now and then over the past seven decades we have had politicians who think they're clever because their trusted advisors told them "we'll find a new way to threaten them," "let's offer them something," "you're really smart, you've got this, and nobody has noticed that you're orange" and so on, and they issue some tough talk about North Korea. It's hard to describe how inadequate their diplomacy has always been to the task. Their diplomacy is like the Visigoths trying to pull down the hated remnants of the Roman Empire, like bridges and aqueducts and so on, using oxen and ropes and inevitably failing. Something like that. North Korea is a tough problem.
Iran is more straightforward. I don't know why we've been so reluctant to make real diplomatic effort, especially after so many of Iran's proxies were significantly weakened in the last year or two, and Iran's sway was at a minimum. There seems to be an unwritten rule that once we've categorized a country as an enemy we're obligated to deal with them in the dumbest ways imaginable.
Everyone will agree with that. It's pretty obvious NK got nukes because they had an ally strong enough to shield them. "Unauthorized" referred to precisely the lack of credible support from a strong ally.
recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe.
Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
I think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
GP is missing one very relevant example of Libya.
Gaddafi was persuaded by the west to abandon his nuclear programme, and 8 years later he was dead in a ditch.
Considering that his own population was vehemently opposed to his authoritarian regime, I don’t think it’s fair to say Gaddafi’s fate was tied to the end of the nuclear programme. I certainly hope he wouldn’t leash nuclear weapons on his fellow countrymen.
Thanks for picking up that minor spelling mistake. Can’t correct it now, unfortunately, but at least the message is understandable.
I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
North Korea wasn't attacked because they have rocket artillery trained on Seoul. That's why nobody stopped them from developing nukes in the first place. Kim doesn't need nuclear weapons to cause nuclear-scale damage.
Hahaha, and what do you think's going to happen to Iran if this stuff is successful? They already have more refugees living there than in any other country in the world except Turkey [1], owing to US adventures in other parts of the world. And they have more than 3x the population of North Korea on top. For that matter they also have more than 3x the population of Syria.
The goal is to overthrow the Iranian government (again) and try to install a puppet regime (again). Conveniently enough, even if you happen to think the nuclear pretext is the goal - it still entails the exact same thing. Destroying some facilities is obviously not going to change their nuclear skills, capabilities, or ambitions. On the contrary - if there was internal doubt about developing a nuclear weapon within Iran, that doubt is now completely erased.
There was never any doubt about developing a nuclear weapon within Iran. You don't enrich to beyond 60% in a secretive bomb-proof bunker with any other goal in mind. This "oh now we've convinced them to build a bomb" line is nonsense.
They began enriching to 60% as a response to Israeli attacks on the country in 2021. Before that it was never higher than 20%. 60% is just below weapons grade and was meant to send a message. Similarly, the reasons their nuclear program is completely underground should be completely obvious at this point. Israel has been trying to get somebody to invade them for decades, has been assassinating anybody they can find, and so on.
Before this there was every reason to doubt Israel's claims, which they've been making for 30 years, about Iran imminently having a nuclear weapon. But at this point there's a practically 100% certainty that they will be aiming to create nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
Except that police exists. We willingly relinquish the monopoly of violence to the state that protects us. The world nation stage is anarchic instead, there is no world police, and the strong dominate
the calculus that I, everyone I know and care about, and everyone that i've ever heard about, relies upon is that you're far less likely to need to police to teleport instantly to you if our divorced angry next door neighbor don't have a gun for his self defence
it's literally a hypothetical person. He studied marketing and made okay money for a while, but he's been out of a job for a bit over a year and a half now too :) His one good friend died a little while ago too.
I made a profile of a person that fits the profile of somebody that might be a little angry at society. Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating.
For what its worth, there are plenty of guys I know who are divorced, and it was probably the right decision, and they're great people. Most marriages end that way, in fact. It doesn't mean the "divorced jaded man who lost his social place in the world, struggles to find kindness or peers, and lashes out" is a stock character that will go away. It's a real problem
That's based on a misleading "fact." Many people claim that most victims of homicide knew their killer. That's true only when the relationship between the two was known. The most common relationship, by far, is "relationship unknown". [1] You are much more likely to be killed by a stranger or somebody who is "relationship unknown" than anybody else.
And furthermore most gun crime is committed by people who do not legally own the firearm being used. [2] I'm loathe to link to that site, but this is an issue that is poorly reported and so it requires exploring a web of data sources, which they actually competently do, on this issue at least.
You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
>You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
You should take a refresher on statistics and the difference between correlated and causative
And you should read the post I am responding to. The claim was that there was a correlation between gun ownership a region and your chances of being killed by a gun. When in reality the correlation that exists there is the exact opposite.
On paper that could work if people didn't have children.
Problem is it is impossible to combine:
- responsible storage of firearms
- immediate availability of firearms anywhere at home when faced with hostility
Also most gun violence is domestic so having firearms at home do not solve a problem but creates it.
Strong disagree. Education is key, as are not leaving children that are too young to be educated alone where a weapon (not just a gun) is.
Curiosity is the number one problem with kids and guns, and that's because we hide them behind a mystique and don't make them understand. But talk to any redneck kid, and guns aren't a big deal, because they've had the mystique removed through education and familiarity.
Not redneck here, but introduced and taught fun safety at a young age. Recently, my kids came down to ask me if they could play with their nerf guns. They had the guns aimed down, finger off the trigger, and already put on the safety glasses. I wiped away a tear knowing that they are responsible with toy guns.
Nice anecdotal stories aren't worth anything against statistics.
Also people can be responsible for years until they aren't. As much as you believe you couldn't hurt someone you love, there is no way you (pr anyone else) can be 100% sure that reality will never change. If there was a way to know, people would be stopped or would surrender their weapons before they commit crimes.
Like anything else, it's about safety. There's all sorts of dangerous stuff in a household, like a stove. You don't lock them up, you teach kids thst stoves are hot and not to touch them.
That said: lock up your guns. Your mid will probably survive a stove burn.
Except you’ve been tricked if you think the ruler of police is to protect you. Despite the little sticker on their car, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the police HAVE NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect you out anyone. That’s just not their role nor responsibility. To think otherwise is to linger in a fantasy world.
I expect that the frequency of violent crime is predictive of police behavior towards crime.
When it's rare, then it's easy and reasonable to take a highly idealistic approach. When it's frequent you have to deal with uncomfortable practical issues like whether an officer should prioritize your survival, or their own. There's a line where heroics turn into suicidality, and that's largely driven by frequency.
The police aren’t here to protect citizens, courts here have ruled on this. Police are an extension of corporate power & the wealthy. The LA Sheriff’s Department is filled with police gangs.
We’ve seen the footage of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors beating them with clubs, riding over them repeatedly with horses.
The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works.
What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
> Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
People who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective.
Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension.
Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery.
You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
The stability of society and the law based facilitation of peace are absolutely within the mission of police forces and highly facilitative to the prosperity of a society.
I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does: but not for a simple reason like “because we have the police which is meant to give security to people”
A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on.
The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe.
Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
> A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does
Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control.
And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed.
In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
Grew up rural Alberta with rifles around the house all the time, in plain view. For shooting game. Not a word was ever uttered about "defending ourselves" with guns... From who?
Hell, we left our door unlocked when we left the house unless it was overnight.
Good grief. Nothing is sadder than people valorizing social/cultural breakdown.
AR-15 is relatively popular for hunting in the US though?
I don't lock my house or my car habitually, never had a problem, never felt the need to keep a weapon either, but I know plenty of people that live in the city that have been robbed or assaulted and do feel the need to carry though. I can't really blame them for not relying on police.
Sportsmen use long guns like 30’6 for big game hunting (elk, deer, antelope) out west. Shots over 100 yards require a large cartridge like that. AR-15 are used in the southern states for wild hogs and varmints, or coyotes. Not exactly trophy hunters. I’m just saying the popularity of the AR-15 is not driven by hunters.
I'm citation heavy, but it's also a fact I wouldn't cite as I think/thought it was fairly common knowledge. Here [1] is some random report on it. There's a huge difference in criminality rates between urban and rural, and this applies to most of everywhere in the world.
As someone with roots in a rural area, there’s a lot of crime in such places that is simply never found out (sparse population == fewer opportunities to be caught), is an “open secret” that never gets resolved, is quietly swept under the rug, etc, sometimes even involving local law enforcement. As a result, there’s plenty in the data worth questioning.
This is definitely true, and that report works to control for it. The reason there's no homicide data listed on that report is because it's based on the National Crime Victimization Survey. It surveys people on their victimization instead of relying on police reports. Police reports would make the differences appear even larger.
Although on this topic I'd also add that urban areas have a similar issue. Criminals know that the overwhelming majority of crime goes unpunished, while people have a reality deluded by shows like CSI. Homicides, for instance, have the highest clearance rate, by far. And it's 47.5%. [1] Vehicular theft has the worst at 6.6%. If you end up with your window busted out and everything that's not strapped down stolen, there's no real point reporting it to the police unless necessary for an insurance claim because you're never getting that stuff back, and the thief is never getting caught.
> A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
That's also not necessarily the point I'm making. Suppose you are in a society where a small part of people are bad actors, for whatever reason. They will break and enter, murder, and rape. You want to protect the rest of the society against these bad actors. You can now equip everyone with weapons so they may defend themselves. That also enables the bad actors to use said weapons because we don't know who really know who is a bad actor (at least not the ones that didn't commit any crimes yet). Or you give weapons only to a small part of society, where you enforce strict gun laws.
The alternative is to reduce the number of bad actors and this is, in part, fulfilled by the conditions that you are describing. But how do I reduce the number of state leaders that are willing to shoot each other? I guess it's what you are saying, namely constructive, open, and fair trade. But we're not really making progress in that direction it seems.
In properly safe countries this is of course not true. But sadly the world stage still seems to be on the development level of ”lawless neighborhood” so there’s some merit to the idea (not that it is necessarily the best way forward though).
Please note ICE is doing operations in blue cities against law abiding immigrants at hearings because to go after either actual criminals or the gun infested red areas would be a danger to life and limb.
Turns out, making yourself a more dangerous target works to an extent.
ICE must cast a wide net in blue cities because they are not sharing data on the criminal undocumented residents. They are shielding the illegal migrants who are already in jail or released on bond. Red areas are not shielding their criminal element and there is less need for such a wide net. Sanctuary cities ignoring the constitution and delegation of powers to do whatever they want is causing much of the escalation.
You will love this amendment (14th) from the US Constitution then, it’s a banger with it’s opening text that describes how states are responsible for protecting the people in their borders and giving them due process, citizen or not:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You know because it’s hard to make a case about being a country of rights, due process, law and order if you don’t extend that to the people within it’s borders.
The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.
>” The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.”
The 14th Amendment is federal law that the States must protect the people within their borders through rights, due process, etc. by their own state laws. The Supremacy Clause is irrelevant.
a different reason is that the red areas are currently in power, and have a say in where ICE deploys. its explicitly a civil war styled attack on blue state sovereignty, rather than anything about guns
> operations ... against law abiding immigrants ...
Putting aside ICE tactics, if their immigration status is not legal, then by definition they are not law abiding citizens.
Unless you are privy the status of any planned or ongoing ICE operations against criminals, you have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
Law enforcement at all levels needs checks along with better direction in carrying out their duties. However, allowing people to continue living in an immigration limbo is not a solution. Sanctuary cities leave illegal immigrants unprotected.
The point parent is in making is that this strike against Iran demonstrates, that yes indeed you do need nukes to be safe and that's one of the major risks of this action.
Going with your analogy, this would be the same as if police basically ignored all home invasion/trespassing laws such that the only houses that criminals entered were in fact those of undefended home owners. In this scenario, it would be demonstrated, by this policy, that yes home owners need to own guns to be safe.
To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true. The lesson of Ukraine and Iran is that, if you don't have nuclear weapons, your sovereignty is always at the mercy of nations that do.
A world where every country needs nuclear weapons to remain sovereign is similarly undesirable (on a larger scale) to a country where every home needs to have guns to be safe. However we're on a path with nuclear weapons where that is unfortunately not the reality we are creating.
A handful of nuclear weapons won't keep a country safe. They would also need a credible second-strike deterrent.
Relations between sovereign states are fundamentally anarchic. There are no world police. The UN and other international institutions have little or no real power, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is only enforceable through kinetic action by other countries when it suits their interests.
NK can have a handful of submarine-based missiles that threaten to wipe out say Seoul or LA for example, even after the first strike. It's not a guarantee by any means but it does raise the bar and would probably prevent a situation like the current one.
NK kept itself safe for decades with just a lot of artillery aimed at Seoul.
Second strike weapons are in some ways a holdover from Cold War strategic thinking which it's sort of acknowledged probably overestimated the penchant of any side to engage in a first strike.
The practical reality of nuclear war planning has generally been that no one will accept even a single city-buster landing - and no first strike option is really reliable enough to guarantee you didn't miss one.
>To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true
So achieving monopoly on violence first. Which requires forcefully disarming all opposition just like what is happening right now. Is the Sovereign hypocritical because they arrest and potential kill people they don't like but they do not others to do so? According to many mainstream political theories, not neccessairly so.
The matter of fact is that if a major power really wants to destroy a smaller power, there's nothing a smaller power can do even if they develop a handful of nukes, especially at the cost of their economy. Much better just to work diplomatically with said major powers so that interests are aligned rather than demanding a absolute respect for sovereignity which does not exist in reality. So then the question is, why can the Shah or the Gulf States work with Israel and America, but not the Islamic Regime? Even worse so, it's one to turn a cold shoulder that America or Israel wouldn't care much, but to actively fund proxies that destabilize other allies is just warranting a response.
It's the prisoners dilemma: best scenario is nobody has nukes. But if your enemy get nukes, you better get them ASAP. A Nash equilibrium is set where everybody should either have nukes or be strongly allied with someone with nukes.
Regarding guns: if you have easy access to weapons, everyone also has access, so the Nash equilibrium is "get a weapon". If weapons circulation is restricted, the Nash equilibrium is "don't waste your money on weapons".
> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation
I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
> both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt).
Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis.
You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make.
It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
> It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments.
I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
Well then you should explain how it doesn't make sense. Focusing on how he didn't mention the case where both countries have nuclear weapons is not convincing.
So far… trading a more devastating consequence for a decreased likelihood on average will always appear to work until it doesn’t. There may become a time when the use of nukes is tolerated and expected and the only way to win a conflict is to carpet nuke your enemy.
As a peer mentioned, nukes not being used has nothing to do with them not being tolerated. It's all about there being no win condition. A single modern nuke can wipe a city out of existence. Even more so when you consider that most are on rockets that split into multiple warheads both to increase destruction and to sidestep any sort of missile defenses. Scale that up and you can wipe entire countries out of existence.
If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation.
Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.
What I’m saying precisely is that quite often things will appear to be one way for a long time even if the underlying premise is wrong. E.g. the chicken who thinks the farmer is nice because the farmer feeds, houses, and provides safety until the inevitable untimely end for the chicken.
Similar situations which are assumed to be impossible have risks pushed right up to the edge until it becomes inevitable. Sure Pakistan and India narrowly averted this time but what if they didn’t. Take for example the concept that US housing market couldn’t crash simultaneously across the US, this enabled cheap debt which pushed the market to the edge until one day it went over the edge.
There is additionally the problem of victory disease, it looks like you’re winning right up until you fail.
There is a survivability bias, we wouldn’t be discussing the viability of MAD had it not worked out thus far.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they’ll be able to avoid being invaded while being able to constantly needle Israel, to the point the survival of Israel would be at stake. Similar to how Israel is needling Iran now but with proxies. At that point Israel must make a choice, peacefully collapse or escalate and I’m confident they’ll escalate. I don’t think it’s a question of if but a question of when, once the threshold has been crossed the once unthinkable becomes routine.
Additionally the inaction of a strong adversary is often seen incorrectly as sign of weakness, but it is the cornered rats that lashes out. We can cross Russia’s and Chinas red lines all day every day, right up until they think they’re a cornered rat and then we can’t. How confident can we really be that we know exactly where that limit is. Because the bellicose are more often promoted the people marking these assessments are more likely to have an overly optimistic on the location of that limit. It appears to me China and Russia have a wait and see approach to the US which appears to be in terminal decline, and yet again the west is taking that as a sign of weakness.
When you have morons in charge not even MAD can save you.
They always immediately stop their conflicts once the building opposite of the one with the nuclear command center blows up. So... it seems to work for them
with the lack of a war happening between them? neither side invaded or killed 800 of the other's citizens and US/china didnt step in to back their horse with bombs
That's what they meant: that's what war looks like when both parties don't have nukes. It's usually the defending party which benefits from nukes the most; and both parties having nukes makes every war a very dangerous affair (if it goes unchecked, as opposed to limited like India-Pakistan).
I think it was meant like not (A has nukes and B has nukes) rather than (not A has nukes) and (not B has nukes). Strange wording, I felt the same way too.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. We naturally always try to paint the "enemy" as an unhinged maniac ready to unless destruction on the entire world at a whim, but in reality I don't think this is pretty much ever the case. A population with the industrial and intellectual capability to develop a nuke in the first place is going to have grander ambitions than going out in a blaze of glory. I think even ultra-fundamentalists like the Taliban mostly just want to build up their own little vision of a utopia.
I think a part of the reason North Korea plays crazy is because they have to. If the US didn't think they'd push the big red button, then we'd invade them in a heart-beat. Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other guy will push the button. So you need the bomb and then you also need to make sure everybody thinks you're willing to actually use it.
Sorry for the repetition but I'm just going to repeat this every time it comes up. Maybe some day I'll make it a bot.
North Korea has enough conventional rocket artillery within range of Seoul to level the city. This is how Kim was able to run his nuclear program to completion in the first place. It also hasn't changed.
Iran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years and everyone seems to agree that Israel has nukes… so clearly nukes don’t actually work as a deterrent, unless (again according to many comments here) you attack a genocidal state who’s only goal is to kill everyone but not use the only weapon at your disposal that can actually accomplish that goal.
Iraq also attacked an allegedly nuclear capable Israel without fear of a nuclear reprisal.
> Iran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years
Please give dates, locations, and number of casualties. Iran has made many aggressive statements and funded and armed Palestinian resistance organizations, but actual conflict between Israel and Iran has been mostly clandestine and not officially acknowledged, with a few exceptions where Israel and the US unilaterally attack Iran.
>recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe.
More recent events show that it doesn't matter. India-Pakistan endless fight.
And Ukraine. Imagine they had nukes in 2022 and russian army advances. Should they nuke russian cities? It would not stop troops and give them more motivation to fight, to revenge. Should they nuke russian troops? To many nukes need for such large frontline.
Does it matter? The Russian parliament, most of it's wealthy citizens and all the critical industries would be dead.
Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..."
The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again.
Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their position. As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission is to maintain peace and prevent large-scale conflict on the planet. This should be the only entity that is approved to have nuclear weapons.
In a reasonable world, the first step would be reforming NATO so that it becomes more neutral and focused on preventing wars rather than countering Russia. I'm saying this as a Pole, so definitely this isn't self-serving, since Poles are second most hated by Russians after Ukraine. This step should, however, happen in parallel with the EU developing its European army, to defend itself from Russia if that's needed, which is another challenging and non-obvious step, but we're closer to this now than we were before Trump.
However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.
Let’s be honest - like most international law, it’s just a coat of paint over the stronger demand the weaker do what they say.
If it wasn’t the US as the world’s leading power, but rather China, the list of countries forced to give up nuclear programs would be entirely different.
I’m not against trying to limit nuclear proliferation, but trying to paint it as some democratic legal process is naive.
The US loves to use the UN as cover for their own strategic goals, but happy to ignore the UN if it benefits them. Same with those talking nuclear non-proliferation.
>> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them.
you're both correct.
Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents?
Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
It's not about "authorized" or "unauthorized". If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. The problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes.
There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.
What marks a state out as being religiously extreme? Or sponsoring terror? Stuff like killing politicians of the opposing side? Pardoning insurrectionists on your side? Sponsoring organisations that badger mothers in foreign nations as they attempt to get an abortion?
> If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind.
I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.
As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
> As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program.
Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either.
It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors.
> It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.
Well don't you know? In the worldview of certain people there are major powers and all other countries have to lick their boots or perish. Whether that major power is the US, China or Russia depends on the particulars, but a surprising amount of people hold that opinion, probably without even being aware of it.
What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians?
And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards.
After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power.
There are 3 lead characters in this tragedy of a play. And what they have in common is that all 3 try to cling to power because the alternative is prison (at best).
In this specific case of the Iranian nuclear program, I believe the highly-enriched uranium weights more in the balance than any other domestic reason for Netanyahu to act. There’s no way any Israeli government will willingly let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
Sure, but he's been complaining about Iran getting nukes for 30 years now. It's interesting that this happened round about the time there was a split in his coalition about the Orthodox and IDF service.
The pager attacks were surgical. The counterfactual is Israel blowing up hundreds of homes which would lead to many, many more civilian deaths. If you saw the videos people 3 feet away from the pagers were completely unharmed. I can not think of a more surgical attack at the scale Israel carried out.
It'd be ignorant to think that only Hezbollah uses pagers in that part of the world, and that Hezbollah would be completely isolated from civilians, including children.
The parent comment says that hundreds were maimed or killed. That is accurate, and clearly contradicts any claim to the strike's "surgical" nature.
For those who didn't know: There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of.
But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza. The starvation has entered a new critical phase.
The populace has been concentrated, so they can no longer work the fields.
The number of sites that are handing out food aid have been greatly reduced, and dozens of people are killed every day by Israeli soldiers while they are trying to get to the sites.
Netanyahu has visited countries which are signatories and not been arrested. Even politicians in the Netherlands have said that they will not arrest him if he comes.
You're referring to the cutting off of supply lines into places where the enemy has chosen to embed themselves. With almost infinite video proof of misappropriation of all humanitarian aid (food and supplies) of their citizens during the conflict.
This is literally how every war since time has gone. The "Starvation" nomenclature is propganda, which to their credit they are CRUSHING at.
Yep. Israel is still a party to the starvation and restriction of humanitarian aid. Hamas notwithstanding. Both sides can be evil. Two wrongs don’t make a right etc etc.
International organizations already warned that this might happen if the Israelis and USA would try to supply the aid directly by themselves, because this requires a level of expertise that they simply don't have. However, Netanyahu wanted to take matters in his own hands and the result was another crime against humanity.
That is too broad. There are NATO countries who will not currently arrest Netanyahu, but not all. The tide of public opinion has turned against Israel in even the countries most supportive like Germany and the US, so it's only a matter of time.
Israel is clearly capable of targeted attacks, like hitting one bedroom in a large apartment building in Iran. Yet they continue to use block sized bombs in Gaza.
They released footage of Hamas leaders being assassinated by drones to prove that Hamas really does exist. But they gotta bomb those hospitals to be extra sure.
Where is Hamas? How come I see Ukraine vs Russia combat footage every single day but only dead children out of Palestine? Where’s the IDF/Hamas combat footage? It’s because the IDF is just bombing kids.
There is no Hamas and if there is there’s barely any
Let's rephrase it then: Why aren't journalists allowed to corroborate facts on the ground and even are murdered by Israel on a regular basis, while Israel is allowed to genocide an entire population away?
comments like this add negative value to the discussion. it shows complete refusal to engage on a professional level. If you can't articulate your thoughts or disagree with someone without taunting them, why do you comment at all?
lol. Embeds among civilians? Like the IDF does, with military underground bases? Disable Hamas via genocide? By destroying every hospital in Gaza? By raping Palestinian women & girls? By looting their homes? By bombing and starving them?
Exactly who is the Dragon here? You think Israel’s bloodlust is done with Iran? They want much more Territory across the Middle East. They are occupying parts of Cypress right now, And have craving for parts of Egypt and more.
Why not mention the events of the previous half century? Just admit you were born yesterday and go study history so we can at least have an honest conversation.
Territory?! What the hell are you talking about?! They offered to retain a tiny portion of territory some decades ago, and that was rejected. You can say whatever you want, but this is not about land. That is ignorance. Sorry.
Israel has already this year claimed a chunk of Syria, and has destroyed over 100,000 (!!!) homes in Lebanon with the clear intention of taking that land too.
Multiple Israeli ministers have publicly made the claim. But no, for now they are only saying that they will stay there for as long as they want. I'm sure destroying all those homes has nothing to do with it either...
Ok. I just misunderstood several comments, which say it is about gaining territory. And I see no evidence to support that. There are military operations, occupations, but nothing really solid that show intention of taking territory for later civilian use, or anex to Israel. Those are very different things. E.g. Russia is invading with a clear goal of annexing land; but Israel not ao much.
I am not saying is good or bad, just that the goal seems different here.
“Head of the dragon” what’s that supposed to mean? Reminds me of language used by Israel citizens and government to describe the regime without pointing to hard facts. As far as I can see there’s many aggressors in that area. Israel is a main one.
You’re going to be brow beaten and down voted but you’re speaking the truth.
What other country is attacking or has attacked its neighbors as Israel has? What other country has been executing a live-streamed genocide that you can see the outcomes of on Instagram?
Just yesterday I saw a video of a mother comforting her infant whose leg was blown off by Israeli bombs. And yet these religious fanatics are the ones we call our “allies”.
Youre just picking a random rung on the ladder and calling it the start. Where did your team get it from? Why was it not OK that two groups share the land given they both had occupied at a previous point in history?
No, my question was how many countries has Israel attacked in the last year. I know this might be outside your wheelhouse as a former CTO for some random porn company but I have faith you can use google
Iraq invaded Iran - that wasn't a war of Iranian aggression. Or is your point just that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was just as bad as Israel, so Israel is OK somehow?
Hamas recruits among civilians. Radicalized civilians. And Israel has just radicalized even more Palestinians, creating even better recruiting ground for Hamas.
Israel has supported Hamas because it's a very convenient enemy for them. Hamas wants to wipe Israel from the map, and to Israel, that means a powerful Hamas controlling Palestine justifies their wiping Palestine off the map.
During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas.
Note that the Netanyahu government only goes after the people on the ground, not the leadership abroad. And they clearly have no problem killing and radicalizing more Palestinian civilians.
This is exactly what's happening and I wish people would say it more often. Plenty of reporting showed the IDF had indication oct 7 attacks were about to happen and warnings were ignored.
> During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas
You have got that the other way around. Hamas was founded in 1987 during the Intifada, before the PLO started supporting a two state solution in 1988. The reason the PLO made that shift was that it was in exile and a new leadership in Palestine was formed (including Hamas), and they were afraid they will lose relevancy.
In 1987 and going forward Hamas fought Israel, so claiming Israel supported it is paradoxical.
Qatari money was transferred to Hamas prior to any Israeli involvement as early as 2007, sometimes in cash through the tunnels.
In 2017 the Palestinian Authority refused to transfer taxes collected to the Hamas Gaza government or pay Israel for Gaza's electricity, leading to an economical downturn in Gaza.
Because of the pending humanitarian crisis that would probably end in starvation due to Gaza less than stellar economy, whose blame would be put on Israel as is accustomed, Qatar was used as a lesser evil solution. It allowed Israel not to directly fund the Hamas government, which except for its military wing, is also its schools, hospitals, municipal and all other civilians functions.
The narrative you are repeating also repeats itself as Israel created Hezbollah or even as far as the US created ISIS, 9/11 was an inside job etc
The source of this narrative in my opinion is the old racist imperialist narrative where the so-called natives are merely children incapable of agency. Here in the post colonialist sense, if there is any evil actor around, its actions or mere existence must quickly be attributed to the West/Israel, or else cognitive dissonance abounds
Found it! For reference, I originally heard this in the Some More News episodes about “Uncomplicating the complicated situation in the West Bank”, but I can’t find those episodes at the moment.
> As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
Israel under scharon has given gaza back including the settlements and got for that 700 civilians who followed the hamas members to murder, rape and kill children on the 7th October. Fuck all those fanatics ..
> But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
Well, that's kind of true. The Iran war has certainly stopped proceedings against Netanyahu, because the courts are shut down - along with much of the country.
That said, this can't last much because the economy is completely shut down, and the trials against him were ongoing, eve amidst the Gaza war.
So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against him.
Recently, I read about the Qibya massacre [1]. Sometimes, even the end of war does not seem to bring any justice, and you wonder what kind of people manage to become prime minister...
>There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of.
For anyone who is not following the trial, as soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.
The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.
During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the presocution had the evidence to show it could not have occurred.
Don't assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.
Why are people getting in the weeds about these specific cases? Isn’t, you know, all the genociding a good enough reason for us to want him to be imprisoned? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this thread.
the 20 years leading up to trump, calling every republican a nazi, has completely destroyed the meaning of the word. trump is actually doing a lot of fascist leaning stuff this time around, and you could possibly use that word appropriately but it is currently meaningless.
It's genocide. And the reason we were using the word nazi for twenty years was to try to warn everyone what was happening, but nobody listened, and now you got nazis.
Calling everyone Nazis wasn’t to warn everyone. Fairly sure it was mostly just virtue signalling. Everyone using the word wasn’t around when WWII happened.
The result probably just desensitised people to what was going on since every little infraction the right did seemed to make them a nazi.
"flippantly tossing words around devalues them and debases the conversation." Agreed- and that's exactly what you are doing with the word, "no."
Soldiers are murdering an entire population- or as many of them as they can, seemingly- for political purposes that desire that population to simply not exist anymore. To say that is _not_ a genocide devalues the meaning of the word.
> seemingly something happened by the democratically elected government of Gaza on 10/7
Gaza doesn't have a democratically elected government, and one of the reasons Palestine (of which Gaza is a region) does not have a democratically elected government is that Israel has exercised its power as an occupying power administering large parts of Palestine directly and controlling the rest indirectly to prevent elections which have been jointly agreed on by the two main factions.
And they’ve done that specifically to maintain the current violent and divided status quo, which they leverage as pretext to continue their long policy of genocide.
* Hamas keeps its missiles, arms and other military equipment inside or underneath schools and hospitals
* UNRWA was functioning as an arms dealer by putting arms inside of bags of flour or other food items
* Hamas generally has its fighters not wear uniform, but instead wear civilian clothes or even niqabs (where only the eyes are visible). Making it extremely difficult for the IDF to determine who is a combatant and who isn't- and guaranteeing mistakes will be made.
* Hamas also uses child soldiers or orders children to throw stones at IDF soldiers - again ensuring IDF soldiers have to always be afraid the person in front of them is going to kill them and that they have to make split second decisions on what to do about it
Ah yes, the human shield argument. Like the "tunnels" and graphics provided by the IDF. Convenient isn't? Every hospital, apartment block, school and refugee camp has hamas in them, so everything is fair game.
ya it's pretty FUCKED UP that HAMAS does that, and Iran funds it, isn't it? or do you think Israel just wants to slaughter people weaker than them because they can? if that was their aim why did they wait until 10/8 to start doing it? they could have done it any time in the last 30 years.
They're not "murdering an entire population"; although many thousands of Palestinians have been killed, it's still a tiny percentage of the total population.
But it's not necessary to murder an entire population for it to count as genocide. Any attempt to destroy a people counts, including forced sterilization, re-education, mass deportations, etc.
But it's also clear that Israel has explicitly targeted civilians, help workers, journalists, refugee camps, food distribution, and I've even read about them shooting people hiding in churches. None of those are valid targets.
The current campaign against Gazans satisfies the criteria for genocide.
Here is the UN definition for genocide. While you normally can't prove a negative, each jot and tittle of the definition is clear in the Gazans' case, so I leave it to you to figure out why you're so cautious to call a spade a spade and call a genocide a genocide.
> The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.
> Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.
> The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.
> # Definition
> Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
> ## Article II*
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> *Elements of the crime*
> The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
> 1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
> 2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Sure, openly written documents can help with evaluation of intent, but how can we ever define someone's intent (something that is only in people's hearts)? We know of many legal cases where the intent is obvious but not easily provable.
Isn't intent usually decided by a jury/court, taking the actions of the alleged perp into account? Most law breakers won't just admit their guilt, and most legal systems don't let defendants unilaterally declare themselves innocent.
> Hamas explicitly states that committing genocide in Palestine and Israel against Jews and "Palestinian traitors" ... is the start. They clearly state their intent to do so worldwide, on essentially everyone, as that will bring the islamic second coming. Yes, really, that's what it says.
Nice, it's like the "preventive" strikes of Trump on Iran. Israel is basically committing genocide on Palestinians so ...Palestinians don't do genocide on them AND the world? Thank you Israel, for saving the world, by committing untold atrocities, a genocide and ethntic cleasing (in the name of good, of course).
Again, I will reiterate: Israel currently does to Palestinians what answers ALL criterias of a genocide. Is it a genocide? Yes. Can we call it a genocide? Yes. Would we continue calling it a genocide and compare it to what Nazis did to the Jewish population? Yes.
What Israel is doing checks the first and third items in your list. They kill members of the group, and not just in Gaza; in the Westbank, it's common for illegal settlers to attack Palestinian towns, including killing people. The IDF does nothing to stop them, but if Palestinians try to defend themselves against this aggression, IDF shows up to stop that.
The wall separates farmers from their land, and has made it nearly impossible for Palestinians to live their life, to go to work, etc. And Gaza is a ghetto; an open-air prison, with way too many people, and no way for them to build a normal life. Israel has also kicked Palestinians out of their homes in order to give them to Jews.
I'm not denying that Hamas is also genocidal; they clearly and openly are. And probably more so in intent, but a lot less so in capability. Israel has been killing and disrupting a lot more Palestinian lives than the other way around.
Do you think these are all accidents? Read what I wrote. The intent is clearly there.
If Hitler said "I'm not going to kill any Jews" while murdering a million Jews, would you believe he didn't have the intent to kill them? And there's plenty of people in Israel who do talk openly about destroying Palestine, destroying Gaza, killing or deporting all Palestinians, and even arguing that Palestinians aren't a real people (like Putin does with Ukrainians). All of that shows intent.
You've posted several comments in this thread that are inflammatory and outside the guidelines. We have to ban accounts that continue to post like this. Please read the guidelines and observe them in future, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
I love how no one mentioned trump or nazis in this immediate thread but the fact that you brought it up unprompted paints a perfect picture of exactly what kind of person you are. I don’t need to call you any names, you’ve outed yourself all by yourself.
Why you were downvoted for this is beyond me except in assuming this site to be full of fanatics for defending anything Israel's government does regardless of rationality or moral reasoning. I've long defended Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but when those policies mutate into deliberately starving a tiny, poverty stricken and crowded strip of land until you're knowingly causing the deaths of who knows how many little children and civilians through essentially deliberate starvation, it becomes a deeply, grotesquely criminal act. This deserves legal punishment, however unlikely that seems to be given the Israeli government's powerful backers and their absurd stubbornness in justifying monstrosities.
sometimes people who operate within rules-based systems mistakenly project those same rules outside of the same systems which they are operating within
Without commenting on your characterization of what is happening as "all the genociding", I want to actually answer your actual question - why are "we" talking about the weeds of this case.
There are a few completely separate issues here. GPs comment is talking about the internal-to-Israel, state-level trials against Netanyahu. These have been ongoing, started several years before the Gaza war, and are being adjudicated in Israeli courts right now. These actually have the power to force Netanyahu out of office or actually make changes to how he behaves - because they are internal to Israel, and if the court decides something, presumably the police and military will follow the courts. (Unless there's an actual coup and Israel stops being a democracy - which I don't think is even remotely likely, btw.)
There is no ongoing trial within Israel against Netanyahu related to the conduct of the war. In general, Israelis view the current war as being fought legally.
Regarding what you call "genocide" or other accusations of war crimes or illegal conduct in war - that's something that gets adjudicated by international courts like the ICC and ICJ. The ICJ has a case open against Israel, claiming it is committing genocide, and the ICC has a warrant out against Netanyahu for war crimes. Those are completely unrelated matters. They also have less immediate impact - because there is no real way to force Netanyahu to comply with those warrants.
I was speaking more to the desire for him to be put away, rather than the practical means of how to get there, but I appreciate your comment regardless.
I am learning this. And to think I thought this place might be better than some other notable forms of social media. People need to remember what they do and don’t know about and learn not to comment so strongly on things they know nothing about…
after how many years in power one can assume that the prosecution is simply ineffective in uncovering something resembling the truth when it's directly about those in power?
We should be clear about these cases that are brought against him (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but context is important here):
Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.
Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage
*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Bringing up Al Jazeera as an unbiased source about Israel is weird.
Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed":
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
Somehow people cite it as a proof of genocide.
BBC has produced a documentary with narrator being son of Hamas official, and were forced to apologize for that [1]. They sheleved another documentary with impartiality concerns. They have contributors calling to "burn Jews like Hitler" [2].
So yeah, there are unbiased critics of Israel, just none of those you listed
> Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed"
Source? Perhaps older report, before the country dropped any pretense of respecting international norms on human rights. Today Amnesty sees a clear case of genocide underway against indigenous palestinians in Gaza. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
> 5.5.2 STATE INTENT
The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals.380 However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.
Regarding state intent, it appears this means that Amnesty is just remarking that a state can't launder genocide intent by parallel constructing additional motives or goals that are legitimate sounding.
So that does not support your conclusion that "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed". Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Those are not Amnesty words, neither the text actually in the report supports it.
> Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.
I wrote the direct quote after the colon and ">" symbol. The part in quotes in my rephrasing. Of course AI wouldn't write such thing directly, they need to hide it deep into the report behind convoluted language.
This paragraph consists of
1. Explaination how genocide definition is interpreted by international courts, specifically ICJ.
2. Claim that existing interpretation preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict (for example, war in Gaza). I'm not sure that it's true, because for example, Srebrenica massacre happened during armed conflict and was found an act of genocide, but let's take their claim on face value.
3. Conclusion that we need change the interpretation of definition of genocide to be able to find during war conflict (specifically, war in Gaza)
Part 2 is what I summarized as "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions", and part 3 is what I summarized as "thus definitions should be changed". Technically they want to change interpretation and not definition, so the better summary would be "Israel cannot be found guilty of genocide according to existing interpretation of genocide, so the interpretation should change". Or do you disagree with this one too?
They're starving 2 million people in broad daylight and basically everyone in the highest levels of the administration has said blatantly genocidal shit, but yeah it's all just bias.
They used a computer program to target hamas members based on signals and other intelligence inclusive of people who are not in any way combatants.
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
> Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).
Please don’t delete this thread. Yes it’s getting pretty heated, but it’s by far the most rational discussion of this topic I’ve seen in a while.
Plus I’ve learnt a few things, which tends to be a positive signal for quality
The US Airforce specs for the GBU-57, and the independent assessment from Jane's are that is able to penetrate about 60 m (200 ft) of earth or 18 m of concrete.
Fordow sits beneath a thick cap on a limestone–dolomite mountain, whose compressive strength rivals granite, and the facility is at least at 90 to 100 meters. If a warhead detonates the carbonate stack fractures and absorbs the pressure wave, calcite dissociation soaks up heat, keeping the cavern wall below all braking thresholds and leaving the target probably intact.
"unauthorized" is a weird description. the iranian government is the sovereign regulator in iran, and prsumably they did authorize it. they dont need anyone else's authorization, same as nobody authorizes what happens in the US except the US government
I think it's reasonable to use "unauthorized" to include international law and treaties. It is true that the US (and maybe every country?) also does "unauthorized" things, by that definition. But I still think it is a reasonable word to use.
Gonna need a source for that whole "weapons-grade uranium" claim, otherwise you sound like the New York Times for the last 30 years.
It's also very likely, and so far an exact figure is yet to be reported, that several smart, kind, and non-hostile scientists working towards a clean energy program were killed by this strike.
Celebrating death for the sake of a hypothetical is a very dangerous attitude, and is frankly repugnant to see as a top comment.
unathorized? they have let more nuclear inspectors into their country than israel. just because you don't agree with them having something doesn't mean you can bomb them.
FYI every credible expert agrees that Iran aren’t making bombs yet. They are enriching to 60%. Far from what’s needed for a weapon. They have been capable of making bombs for decades and have chosen not to. They even adhered to the JCPOA when Trump tire it up.
It’s odd to have a country that illegally proliferated treating a neighbor who isn’t doing that yet as the greatest threat to world piece. Backed by the only country that’s used nuclear weapons in anger.
It’s very possible that in a decade the Us will be at war in Iran. Trump and Netanyahu will be off the world stage. The cost to the US will be thousands of lives and several trillion and China will have taken Taiwan while we aren’t capable of stopping them.
These wars always seem to start well because destroying things is the easy but.
We don’t know if we’ve done much damage to the buried facilities. Bunker busters don’t dive very deep, they can be deflected via engineering, and concrete is cheap.
Conflict like this are what will definitively end “The American Century” and we are currently witnessing that.
The ones used for this operation go 197 feet, including 25 solid feet of high-strength concrete, with just one bomb. The idea is to use multiple bombs trailing one another to achieve extra depth. It's too soon yet to tell if that worked, or not.
From the image you describe it sounds like you think the situation is a bit of a cartoon, maybe a black and white one. Do you ever reflect on why that is?
Admittedly, I was one of the people who wasn’t impressed with the deal Obama made in 2016. I didn’t like that it allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium or that we paid them.
In recent years, that deal has been looking better every day. We are undoubtedly worse off today than we would be had Trump left the deal in place. This is a bad situation.
It was just not a good deal. It was more like kicking the can down the road and funding the regime. That's not good for Iranians and not good for anyone else.
It wasn’t a good deal. It was also probably the best deal that could have been achieved at any point in the past 20 years. More importantly, it would have kept things on an even keel and kept us talking to each other for as long as we both honored the deal. It was an opportunity to see if we could build a little bit of trust and make another deal later. Yes, it kicked the can down the road. It also represented a willingness on the part of both countries to try to avoid a conflict even though we both had reasons to want one.
It’s possible it would have been a complete failure. We will never know. What we do know for sure is that we have had fewer options for dealing with the situation since we pulled out of the deal and now we are at war.
Our country’s handling of Iran has been nothing short of a spectacular blunder. Two administrations have tried to negotiate out of the hole Trump got us into when he tore up the deal. The buffoon actually thought he would cancel the deal and make a better one. Now, after 20+ years of criticizing the Iraq war and campaigning three times on not starting new wars, he is the trigger man getting us into a new one when we are least prepared for it.
The problem in Iran is the government or shall we say the dictatorship. I'm not sure how the US could have/should have handled Iran since the revolution. You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals. It wants to cement its control, broaden its sphere of influence:
Deals are tactical. They're not about shifting world views.
I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now". This is very different than Iraq. But I do agree intervention has risks. The problem is that no intervention also has risks. Take for example Obama's lack of appetite to intervene in Syria. Contrast to Turkey and Israel that effectively intervened recently in Syria and force a regime change that at least so far is more or less holding out.
Something like is going on between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Iran (borderline). The Iraq war. The Afghanistan war. A prolonged period of hostilities.
Something you would look back at and call "The US Iran War". I don't think the previous acts of violence, or the current one, between these two meets the mark yet. And it's not clear if this one will. Iran can't really do much right now and it's not clear whether the US will go a lot further here.
E.g. we probably aren't going to look back at the hostilities with Yemen and call them the "US-Yemen war" or the "US Houthis war" like we look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Or as Putin would put it, it's a special military operation (yeah yeah, that one is a war).
My common interpretation of a war is that it involves the continuous exchange of violence on both sides over some time. An isolated bombing operation isn't what I think of as a war. Israel and Iran are at war for sure. The US and Iran, we'll see. It's possible Iran will calculate that it is not in their benefit to wage an open war on the US.
There's is already a history of violence between Iran and the USA. Was that a war? When Iranian funded militias attacked American bases is that war?
>You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals.
You are going to have take a step back and convince me why I should care about US hegemonic interests in the region. Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place. If you really care about the profit margins of Aramco and ExxonMobil (the whole reason were in this mess in first place) you should lead with that so that others know why you care about what a sovereign country does.
I honestly don't care about the oil companies. I'll lead with that.
I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
A regime like Iran's that has killed Americans, is openly calling the US "The Great Satan", is supporting militias in places like Iraq that attack Americans. That funds, supports and trains organizations the US considers terrorist organizations. Is abusing its own citizenry and actively seeks to export its values to other countries. Is supplying weapons to Russia for attacking Ukraine. This sort of regime can't just do whatever it wants under the label of "its own nation" since what its doing impacts others.
The US is the big superpower of the "west" and the "free world". For the most part it is its deterrence against Russia and China that is standing in the way of those doing whatever they want (e.g. China taking Taiwan by force). I don't think the world would be a better place if the US just stands back.
All that said, intervention, and use of force, needs to be sensible/reasonable/calculated. It's not easy to say where this is going. But it's also not easy to say where it would have gone otherwise. I can also understand Americans not having an appetite for any of this after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. But to contrast that I think failure to intervene in the Arab Spring led to pretty bad consequences, prolonged civil wars, a refugee crisis, etc. So perhaps some intervention and support would have helped. Also the US withdrawal and lack of support to democracy in Russia were probably factors in the reversal of that country back to where it is today.
Anyways, that's my very long opinion on this topic. But I can totally understand Americans not wanting any part of this. But don't think that you can just hide, things that happen in the world impact you.
>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there.
It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants".
Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that.
Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better?
Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.
> Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place
Iran spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders. Pretending that Iran is its own country and can thus be ignored is not an effective policy.
>spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders.
1. This describes many countries that we haven't invaded that I'm not sure you are being serious.
2. You will need to be specific. Which US interests? The interests of Californians or of Saudi Aramaco?
3. America is propoganda giant number one, and China has seemed to come up just fine despite America spending hundreds of billions trying to convince the world the communists in China are eating dirt.
I'm not convinced that this is a good use time or money for the American tax payer. I'm fully convinced American hegomonic decline is fully self-inflected and the trillions wasted in Afghanistan did more to hurt American than any backwards goat farmer in the middle east could ever accomplish.
I guess we'll see what the fallout from this attack is, but if there isn't anything major (and that's where my money is) then it would seem that just dropping bunker busters on their nuclear facilities and then going home was actually the best solution all along.
That is pure fantasy. You don’t launch an unprovoked attack and simply go home without any consequences. What we and Israel have done to Iran in recent weeks is akin to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, if we were legitimately without any other options it is because of our own failure to honor the deal we made in 2018.
You can be assured that there will be a response. What it will be and for how long I don’t know. What I do know is that diplomacy is completely off the table. It’s possible we are dealing with the consequences of this for decades.
Human problems are always in conflict, in cycle. How was that a bad deal? Never let perfect be the enemy of good
It also just as well could have been us making another deal to extend the time, but just because Obama's deal was "not good enough" this the outcome we want?
The Iran deal was far from perfect, especially taking into account the ancillary payments to Iran. I find it hard to believe that the oil-rich country of Iran is interested in nuclear energy for purely altruistic means.
Either there will be an _extremely_ bloody and long disintegration of government in Iran, or Trump will probably agree a slightly worse version of the Iran nuclear deal (and now the Iranians will know - once and for all - that the only way for them to remain in power is to get the bomb as soon as possible).
Russia's drones are primarily domestic production, not imported. The original Shaheds and their design were imported, but now the Russians are on the Geran-3 version and are cranking them out at the cyclic rate.
Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
If Iran had a nuke, they are crazy enough to use it by slipping it to their cells.
"If someone says they are going to kill you, believe them."
Iran: Death to Israel
Iran: Death to America
Hamas: Death to Israel
Hamas: Death to America
So, hugs and pallets of cash? ...or you destroy their ability to kill a million of your civilians.
If their enrichment wasn't for weapons-development, why was it being done in a hardened under-ground bunker?
In 2023, unannounced inspections uncovered uranium particles enriched near weapons-grade. The so-called agreement was toilet paper to the terrorist state.
> Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
Well, the Democrats had a very good plan to deal with this: diplomacy. They agreed a deal where Iran agreed not to build nuclear weapons, and in exchange they removed sanctions on Iran. A win-win scenario for everyone (except Bibi). Trump then - completely inexplicably - decided that he could do better at negotiating a deal, ripped up Obama's one, and then decided to... plunge the Middle East into chaos.
> You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
Surely the man who decided it was a good idea to alllow Qatar to give Hamas lots of money is at least partially to blame? [1] Or perhaps the person who decided to advocate to the US government that they should sell weapons to Iran [2]
Nearly all of Iran's neighbors in the region except Jordan and Syria supported our withdrawal from the agreement. The only complaining was done by Iran, European nations and the UN.
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, etc all supported us.
I really don't understand why you think this makes this a good idea. Saudi Arabia also decided to launch an extremely ill-fated and brutal invasion of Yemen, which worked out terribly for them and for the Yeminis. I don't think they have good judgement on this.
The Middle East is not strongly in the sphere of influence that Europeans have yes.
I promise you that the boots on the ground of the rest of the nations listed by the other person here is far more important here than strongly worded letters by the aging bureaucracy that governs the EU.
all those countries are effectively US vassals. Most of them have US military bases on their soil. Of course they’re going to do exactly what the US wants
There are many people around the world who are relived with Iran denied nuclear weapons, not just Israel. There are many countries in the Middle East, some openly hostile to Israel, who are very happy that Iran will not get immunity like North Korea.
Israel did most of the dirty work, US just came in to drive the final nail.
When someone says he'd like to destroy you, spends half a trillion dollars pursuing that ambition instead of feeding his people, and is in the midst of attempting to wipe one of your closest allies off the face of the earth, I think you should believe him. What would it take for you to think it's more than just talk?
If my government was responsible for funding, training and defending foreign torture camps from international scrutiny, their citizens probably are justified in demanding the destruction of my states as a form of justice for unaccounted human rights abuses: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-mag...
> SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
> All observers to trials since 1965 have reported allegations of torture which have been made by defendants and have expressed their own conviction that prisoners are tortured for the purpose of obtaining confessions. Alleged methods of torture include whipping and beating, electric shocks, the extraction of nails and teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.
Good luck convincing Iranians that they should welcome your kind into their country for any reason ever again.
I am skeptical that your description is an accurate depiction of Iranians' views regarding the US and their own government. It seems more likely that you're ascribing your opinion to a much larger group than is justified.
No one wants my kind (Americans?) in Iran until they can go there as tourists. Apparently around 80% of Iranians would like that to be possible though.
Not the situation as it stands. If it ends here its a disaster for Netanyahu.
As concerns global stability a single precision strike from an untouchable platform with zero marginal increase in obligations on strained naval assets is basically the best case scenario. If we had dropped a bomb, took a picture in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and gone back to playing chess with peer adversaries in any conflict since the Korean War it would have been the smart move. The United States military is designed to protect global trade and win high intensity conflicts against peer adversaries and be seen preparing for it as a deterrant. It does this job extremely well. It was not designed for assymetrical quagmires with no possible palatable exit strategy.
Likud may be willing to fight Iran to the last American, but I'd rather we didn't.
Israel is "too big to fail" at this point. Netanyahu knows he can provoke every country in the world and if he ever meets real resistance the US government and military will take over. There's literally no way this cannot end well for him.
Maybe, but I think that in the cold calculus of geo-realpolitik, TSMC is more important than Israel in a world where WTI is unlikely to ever trade above 150 and will never break 200 [1]. APAC is influential, but not in the same way it was when the entire economy was weeks from collapse without Israel dominating the region.
And the Trump Administration understands that we can't defend them both at a cost the public will accept. I think. Even MAGA diehards are like 70% opposed to another quagmire in the Middle East even if Trump endorses like a downticket primary radical.
That may be the perception from the outside due to theater (Trump holding Netanyahu's chair for the cameras etc.), but these plans have existed forever. Here is a plan from the Brookings Institute from 2009:
Your questions in here give the impression you do, and that your opinion is in favor of some kind of intervention. Military interventions have all gone poorly for us, while using diplomacy has worked over and over. Results should matter here and results say bombing is the wrong choice.
They wouldn't be the only country that made nuclear weapons. Or are you proposing that every country that's ever manufactured nukes be bombed into dust? There are a lot of them.
Unlike, India, Pakistan or, say, Israel, Iran is a ratifier of the non-proliferation treaty and subject to inspections making sure they don’t. Meanwhile Israel not only has had nukes for decades but also continually refuses any accountability for them.
Indeed, to venture off-topic, Israel has sought nuclear weapons for as long as it has existed, which one might plausibly construe as further evidence that their state was knowingly and willingly established by military force, without much pretense that it could ever persist otherwise.
Their meddling directly contributed to the current disastrous war in Gaza and lebanon. They also helped prop up the Assad regime in Syria. All so they could threaten a country 700 miles away.
I expect you to deny or water down most of my claims, so to spare a long flamewar, just assume i've given all the generic standard responses everyone here has seen 100 times. I agree with most of them.
But what business is it of Iran whether or not israel exists? They don't seem
to care
about palestinians too much otherwise they wouldn't be supporting hamas and the war they started.
It's a genocidal regime, despised by most of her citizens. They fund proxy wars across the middle east based on religious extremism. They deserve everything they are getting and with all due respect only an idiot would support them.
IAEA declared that Iran has violated the previous agreements, hides their enriched uranium, and their enrichment is essentially weapons-grade.
> The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now “the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material” — something the agency said was of “serious concern.”
> The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency — which was seen by The Associated Press — says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.
> U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”
> "The Board of Governors... finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said.
Anyway, there's a difference between having enough enriched uranium for a bomb, and actually making that uranium into a bomb. But it's not that big of a difference, it's not like enriching uranium to weapons-grade isn't bad.
Diplomatic options include returning to the JCPOA framework (the "Iran deal"), multilateral sanctions enforcement, or establishing a new verification regime with IAEA oversight.
> Gödel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit America's republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship.
It wasn't supposed to be how it worked but our legislature is basically dysfunctional and either vaguely gave away or just won't protect its own power.
Congress has been happily shedding its powers for decades. They don't want to be held responsible if a war turns out badly, so they haven't declared a war since 1945, I believe.
The last formal declaration of war by the US was during World War 2.
We got very good at gray area nonsense. The Korean War is not a war, it's a conflict. The Vietnam War is not a war, it's an engagement. We have police actions, "peacekeeping" operations, and a hundred other things...but not "wars".
We have the "global war on terror" and the accompanying Authorization for the Use of Military Force, created in the wake of 9/11 and still in effect today.
Congressional approval of military action is fundamentally dead.
Generally no, but if you gaslight yourself into thinking you're the greatest democracy in the world with no equal and you need no patches or bugfixes, you can achieve a lot without any real checks or balances.
> The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
So it seems he's allowed to do this? It's still within 48 hours, so he has time to officially "notify" Congress, if he hasn't done so already. And since this was an aerial bombing, no armed forces remain there, so the 60-day bit is irrelevant.
For a similar situation to Trump bombing Iran and only notifying a few members of Congress:
1983 Granada
1989 Panama
2011 Libya
2012 Syria
The 1990s actions in Yugoslavia were done without fall declaration of war, but Congress was more fully engaged in saying no at least.
The 1991 war against Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration allowed a witness to flat out lie to Congress about the horrors of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration lied to Congress about weapons of mass destruction.
I mentioned these last two because they make a mockery of the act itself, or of the US congress, or both...
It's, unfortunately, not illegal unless the military action continues for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. This is due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
"Accountability is the essence of democracy. If people do not know what their government is doing, they cannot be truly self-governing. The national security state assumes the government secrets are too important to be shared, that only those in the know can see classified information, that only the president has all the facts, that we must simply trust that our rulers of acting in our interest." ~ Garry Wills
The strong do as they will while the weak suffer what they must.
I’m glad that trump has returned us to a world where quotes from the 5th century bc seem like commentary on current affairs, since it means that all my time learning about power dynamics in political systems during antiquity is now completely relevant to dealing with current events, rather than a giant waste of time.
The limits were to sunset starting from 2026 and end by 2031. The deal was to end with Iran being allowed to enrich as much as they wanted to, just a step away from a bomb.
Enrichment to levels suitable for domestic nuclear power (the goal, and follow on decoupling from Russia as the supplier and extractor of fuel for existing Iran nuclear power station) is a magnitude and more less time and effort than enrichment to levels suitable for weapons.
Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases.
"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.
"The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."
That's a tad Descartes before the hordes .. the response that situation in 2002 was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 which had plenty of carrots, sticks, and ability to peer into dark places .. but not real support from Isreal or the US who scuppered the plan under Trump.
You are aware the deal was entirely dependent on Russia, and the follow-on Biden wanted to sign (but couldn't since Iran wouldn't fully cooperate with IAEA) involved Russia even more heavily? There's no other place that both sides accept can store the enriched Uranium or supply fuel rods to Iran.
>Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns
It's the other way around. Going from 3 to 20 percent is much harder than 20 to 60 which is harder than 60 to 90. Going to 99.9999% would be tough, but is unnecessary even for nukes.
>"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres
They were allowed to enrich to that level under the deal starting in 2031, inspections would have tested if the enriched material was diverted.
Even if they could be effective at such short notice, it would have taken the US being distracted by some other crisis and being unable to act in the short period between detection and weaponization to lead to a nuke.
The point was to build trust that Iran would not continue to pursue nuclear weapons. The trust would be built through the multi-year partnership.
The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what." And yeah, if that's your starting place, you've figured out where that path ends up. You're never going to be satisfied with anything Iran says because your fundamental premise is that they can't be trusted to not pursue a nuclear bomb.
By walking away from the deal, we gave Iran a clear message: "you might as well pursue a bomb because we are always going to act like you are, no matter what you actually do."
>The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.
After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.
> The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.
There's no evidence the fatwa even exists (aside from statements by self-interested parties), much less any details of its contents and any exception it may have. At any point they could point to an exception in subsection 4) c) and do whatever they want. Because the fatwa isn't published, they can add whatever exception they want later. If it really exists and is really meaningful, they would have publicized it in advance and so been bound by it.
I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities. The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them. It does sound like a good reason to not capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium that was discarded to no positive end by Donald Trump, the man who is illegally starting another US war of choice as we speak.
Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.
Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.
That doesn't seem like a good reason to cancel the only thing stopping them from developing nukes. Of course they fund proxy armies, but that's a reginal problem that can be addressed through conventional means.
Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
Yep, the JCPOA was canceled because 1) Bibi has always wanted to go to war with Iran, and knew very well how to get the US's help to do it, and 2) Trump's ego can be trivially played by just saying it's something Obama got credit for.
Even if Iran were arming regional proxies, that's an Israel problem, not an america problem. Though AIPAC et el makes sure no american is ever aware of that distinction.
Your question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.
The premise here is correct only as far as it is true that anyone besides the US possesses the capacity to act. Beyond that point, it is no longer charitable to frame it that way.
By "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.
Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The official concern has always been that Iran signed the NPT, but then at various times seems to have possibly violated the terms. I'm not necessarily in favor of this recent attack, just pointing out that legally Israel and Iran are in completely different situations.
True. I doubt that the US would have this strong of a reaction to a different non-compliant country we were allied with, though. (Can you imagine the US bunker-bombing Germany, SK, AUS, etc?)
Israel signed the Rome statue and has repeatedly violated specific orders from the ICJ to prevent genocide, so let's not pretend that this is somehow about a concern for international law.
Another great point! The US doesn't recognize the ICJ anymore after it was caught illegally planting mines in Nicaraguan harbors and lost in the ICJ. A verdict the US still has not complied with. Just more evidence that upholding international law isn't a priority for the US.
I already heard that when the USA illegally attacked and invaded Iraq. Both of these situations, from the point of view of international law, are no different from Russia's illegal bombing of Ukraine.
Yes, but as much as I don't trust Trump or his administration, it's not clear whether Iran has or doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and if they do, how close they are to a serviceable weapon.
Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.
Israel has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels.
Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?
Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?
Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
One of the problems is that we became the defenders of Israel. And it's a situation we created when we created a religious extremist government in Iran.
The US and Israel have a long standing partnership. During the cold war the USSR backed Syria and Egypt (E.g.) and the US backed Israel. That was not different than other places in the world where the US pushed back against soviet expansion. Unlike Europe though there was never a formal defense pact. Also unlike Europe there were actual wars with people getting killed.
I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)
- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
The US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up.
But the US has also at times been a positive force.
I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.
But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
Facilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).
Let's be clear Iran is the bad guy. But so was Saddam Hussein and he didn't have the weapons they said he did.
On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
I don't watch Fox News. Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons. I'm all for prosecuting Blair and Bush, always have been. This is not a matter in which you can just sit back and say "well, hopefully it's all innocent". Iran had to be open - they were the opposite.
> Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons
You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.
I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.
Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.
Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
The alternatives were that they were enriching well beyond peaceful thresholds primarily for leverage in negotiations, or that they wanted "breakout" capability, so they could build multiple bombs quickly, if they ever chose to. But these alternatives can still be unacceptable from the standpoint of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation.
There are some ridiculous pro-palestine/anti-israel takes out there that says that the politics of the region are more stable when Iran has nuclear weapons.
Iran is one of the top producers or radiopharmaceuticals from highly enriched materials including uranium. This should be unsurprising because Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
Well let's not forget stuxnet... Iran hasn't been left uncontested. They have faced considerable setbacks along the way. They've been trying to develop [all of the things you need for nuclear weapons] for some time, and more recently had been accelerating those efforts.
Netanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years.
The single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on.
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
The deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
Breakout time was not reduced lol. You have a deal, then you get another deal, then you get another deal.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
I get the feeling you're willfully playing dumb, but to take it step by step:
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0].
> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.
I have heard similar estimates. I think what is important: It is less than one year. That is pretty quick from the view of regional geopolitics.
Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google:
> According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.
Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.
Radiopharmaceuticals are enriched to 60%. Iran is one of the top producers in the world. Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
Iran imports radiopharmaceuticals from Canada and that import was never restricted. Besides, radiopharmaceuticals are done with cyclotrons and do not require 60% HEU.
There are dozens of elements and isotopes used in radiopharmacology. Highly enriched uranium is absolutely one of them -hence why energy.gov is posting about it- and it's significantly cheaper than using a particle accelerator to create radioactive isotopes.
Cato institute has argued it was for leverage in talks with the US. Iranians were quite clear about this, setting timelines for enrichment targets to amp up the pressure after the us withdrew from JCPOA.
You raise a very good point here, probably the most important consideration if one wishes to defend Israel's and US's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear research sites. I don't know any legitimate civilian purpose to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade... except to eventually produce weapons grade material.
Honestly Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
the last bit of refinement is much easier than the initial bits. Natural abundance is 0.7%, so getting to 10% is about halfway to weapons grade and 60% is ~80-90% of the way there.
'has them', 'could make them', it doesn't matter what the claim is when you there no requirement for evidence. There are no penalties for US presidents who lie to start a war.
No it isn't. Most countries work with other countries under a shared set of principles. Even China and Russia do this to an extent. Where deviation happens, it happens when a country can afford to do it (see: south China sea disputes.) Sometimes, they'll do it anyway and suffer (see: North Korea.)
Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.
Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law.
How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons?
They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons".
(I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
Did I say the Supreme Leader is a benign figure? Iran has problems. Big ones.
You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa.
You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held.
In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.
It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
You might if a nuclear-armed genocidal pariah state backed by the most powerful and richest country in the world was obsessed with you. Especially if the superpower I've alluded to had previously installed its regime in your country.
You really should be ashamed to lie like this. Iran is the country that has said it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Israel just wants to live in peace with Iran. But the current religious nutjobs in charge of Iran absolutely will not allow that to happen.
The bombing of Iran by Israel and the US is the result of Iran picking a fight with them since 1979.
Israel is actively engaged in a genocide and its ethnic cleansing program is fully supported by the USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing through violent and illegal kidnappings by heavily armed, erratic, masked, unidentified secret police. The American genocide is informed by and its gestapo trained in Israeli doctrine.
Innocent children are being maimed, starved, and murdered and it is being done with materiel produced with my tax dollars and provided with the bipartisan endorsement of my government.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not perfect, they have promulgated many evils within their society. The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran, but even that pales in the light of the disgusting atrocities being committed today by the traitorous US government. Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty.
This is absolutely not true. Hamas is actively attempting to destroy Israel. I really hate this watering down of the word "genocide". Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" have specific meanings that shouldn't be diluted through overuse.
"The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran"
Don't remove agency from the Iranians. THEY chose an Islamic Theocracy all on their own after the Shah was overthrown. You "merica evil" types really like to remove agency from people.
"USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing "
I truly, truly hate Trump and think what ICE is doing is stupid and sadistic but calling it "ethnic cleansing" is completely absurd. The federal government does have the constitutional authority to deport non-citizens.
"Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty."
Iran's biggest issue is that they constantly try to pick fights with MUCH stronger countries. They have spend every second since 1979 antagonizing the US and Israel in a profoundly foolish way. Compare this to how Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge against the US and benefits greatly from having a normal relationship with it.
"Israel can't do genocide because it is Jewish and it is their right" is a fascist Big Lie, right up there with "The America people cannot do genocide because the USA is an inherently Good actor and entitled to the things it takes."
I am targeted in an ongoing campaign of eradication by the US government. I was born in the USA and my parents parents parents were too. Genocide is as obvious as the light of the sun.
Humans who have retained their ability to process information in an adversarial environment do not struggle to identify such obvious moral failures.
"I am targeted in an ongoing campaign of eradication by the US government"
You are completely and utterly delusional. Heavy handed deportation is NOT eradication. You really need to see reality for what it is and not what you need it to be. Go ask everyone you know if they agree with your usage of the word "genocide".
We can just disagree about this and let the evidence people can find on their own speak for itself. I find the idea that the SL is "opposed to nuclear weapons" to be risible. Iran bought from AQ Khan!
It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.
Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.
Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons.
What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.
Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
Indeed. The lowest of the horses, however, is clearly the USA. Our history and our actions (POSIWID is the most effective heuristic in the modern information environment), including the capricious abandonment of the very successful JCPOA, suggest complete dishonesty in this realm. There is zero reason to believe we have any legitimate reason for attacking Iran and every reason to distrust our stated motivations. Iraq was 22 years ago.
We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
I am bathed in the light of heaven for my war is in service of justice and peace for all existence. Those who stand in opposition to these goals are an evolutionary dead-end. An answer to the Fermi Paradox.
My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim.
Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke.
It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species.
Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
After Israel assassinated Haniyeh in July and launched an air strike on Beirut that killed 30+ people, some of which were civilians. Keep going on with this game though.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Do you think it's not public knowledge that Iran finances and orchestrates Hezbollah? Or is this the terrorism card? Maybe it's different when the US supports al-Zenki et al (or the many years of financial support and hands-off permission Israel gave Hamas and then encouraged Qatar to give Hamas).
I think Hezbollah has done some truly disgusting things and I have no delusions about the ill deeds of Iran's regime. But I think it's extremely fair to say that Israel is an even more egregious perpetrator of murder, displacement, and apartheid and Iranians have every right and reason to see themselves in solidarity with Palestinians and the people of Lebanon.
If it helps understand where I'm coming from, I don't think Hezbollah is (was?) a terrorist force at all. It was designed to be a near-peer military adversary against Israel (on paper) and Sunni militias (in reality). It is (was?) an instrument of the IRGC, with very little of its own agency; a genuine part of the Order of Battle of the Iranian military command.
I think this is all common knowledge? A brigadier general of the IRGC was in the room with Nasrallah when he was killed IIRC. I might quibble with "militia", which has legal ramifications I'm sure you're aware of. Maybe there are conspiratorial cranks who deny that's what Hezbollah is, but I'm not sure I know any people who would disagree with this. I believe Khamenei called Hezbollah and Nasrallah "his children" with pretty clear connotations being conveyed after Nasrallah was assassinated.
Right, so stuff about how terroristic Hezbollah is/was isn't motivating to me. I'm not more OK with strikes on Hezbollah because they were "terrorists"; they were a military force, the largest in Lebanon, operated by Iran, launching a continuous stream of rockets (several per day) into Israel. By any normal standards, an act of war by Iran.
I don't think "acts of war" mean much in real statecraft; there's no referee, things are what people say they are and outcomes are determined by military and economic power. But anyone going down that path has to recognize the hole Iran dug for itself here. They didn't have to do any of this.
But the people of Iran, for very obvious reasons, do not like the real leadership of Iran, and Iran does a lot of things just to keep that leadership structure intact.
Finally, and super-importantly: I think HN is just a weird place to have these kinds of discussions, and I'm very sure nobody who's angry at me about my takes on these things know what I actually believe about any of this stuff --- and why should they? What I believe about any of this is immaterial. Like every nerd, I'm motivated to comment when I see something I "know" to be wrong; that's all that's happening on these threads.
In this particular thread, I only appeared because I think the GBU-57 is a very goofy munition. I had previous to last week thought it was like some ultra-explosive "close as you can get to nuclear without being nuclear" kind of weapon. But nope, it's just a normal bomb strapped to a giant anvil. That's weird! Seems HN-y to comment on.
(But now I'm here and I see things like "the SL of Iran has declared nuclear weapons Haram" and, like, I'm not going to let that fly past! But also: not pretending there's anything useful about this discussion. If it's annoying to you, stop engaging! That's what I'm doing.)
> I don't think "acts of war" mean much in real statecraft; there's no referee, things are what people say they are and outcomes are determined by military and economic power. But anyone going down that path has to recognize the hole Iran dug for itself here. They didn't have to do any of this.
I'll preface this by saying I understand fixating on a small detail, and as evidenced by this thread, I readily engage in that. I also think the thing about the fatwa against nuclear weapons is a little silly, it seems like there are incredibly obvious, rational reasons for Iran to want a nuclear arsenal.
To back up to Oct 2024 (to make a different point, I'm not trying to take us further down the rabbit hole), I think it's worth pointing out how arbitrary it is to choose this moment in time as a point where Iran "dug a hole for itself". Presumably a moment of intervening agency that breaks from what came before and after. It's a vantage point that has no real significance to the broader conflict, doesn't tie to the beginning or end of anything significant. It's unclear why that moment in particular is where Iran could have set us on a different course, and why we should consider jettisoning the rest of historical baggage that lead up to that moment. And it has the whiff of being chosen arbitrarily to exculpate (or sideline any notion of) the United State's involvement in this conflict. It's the kind of detail I expect to see fixated on CNN, without any mention of events like Israel's former invasion of Lebanon, the impact of the Nakba and the One Million Plan on the surrounding Arab states, the Dulles brother's lead coup in Iran that deposed a secular, democratic leader, etc. Not that you even really need to go back that far, there's plenty of events proximate to 10/1/24 that lead to Iran launching missiles, like Israel staging a land invasion outside Lebanon.
I don't think that's what you're doing (I'd rather not speculate on why that moment is significant to you, and would be curious to hear your own take), but I want to explain why discourse like this becomes touchy. For some of us millennials, our defining political experience was seeing the United States become an incredibly sore loser via a problem of our own making (and infuriatingly, we apparently learned nothing from the consequences of funding the Mujahideen). We are obviously, also a victim of our own circumstances, no less than Iran, but we are also an agent of incomparable power in world events. And for many of us it became clear how carelessly, callously, and selfishly that power is wielded and how quickly we victimized ourselves and were unwilling to tolerate criticism. Aaron Sorkin wasn't even able to make the movie that depicted how much of a problem of our own making this was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War_(film)#...
All this to say, if you feel ganged up on, I get it and sympathize. I think you have good intentions here, and I'm sorry if I came in too hot. Some of us are just nauseated by our position in the world and culpability for all this harm, and are constantly frustrated by the hegemonic political discourse that is adamant to deflect criticism and prioritize American exceptionalism above all.
Oh, no, not at all. I don't come to HN to reconcile myself to what's happening in politics and foreign relations (possible exception: zoning; I'm a housing activist). I generally feel like in these kinds of discussions, I'm doing things right if neither pole of the argument happening on HN thinks I'm on their side; the only thing I'm sure about is that this stuff is complicated.
Thanks for the detailed response! I could pick at it, but that's not the spirit of where we're at at this point in the thread.
Oh, by the way: Charlie Wilson's War --- the book is much better than the movie.
It is possible that mistakes were made in the aftermath of WW2. It is possible that the victors have rewritten history in a favorable light -- in fact, that is the most reasonable expectation. This must not be used to justify genocide for if our society takes that path the victory against the Axis powers is meaningless and evil will have triumphed in the world.
Israel is more than Netanyahu and less than the Jewish people. Humanity must unite and destroy the power structures that incentivize the hyperscale atrocities we are currently manifesting.
Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting.
Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
> the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary
This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.
There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.
I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.)
Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability.
If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.
I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above:
> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
A civilian is just a soldier who hasn’t put on a uniform in this scenario, and a soldier is just a civilian who has put on a uniform. You’re making a meaningless distinction in this context. There isn’t some sort of magic status that changes here - the same Japanese civilians were working at shipyards and ordinance factories to build weapons to kill American soldiers - you think we shouldn’t bomb those factories because we would kill Japanese civilians building weapons to kill American soldiers and that’s ok because the Americans were wearing a costume and we call them “military personnel”?
Dwight Eisenhower had a different view (from The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313):
The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many.
The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context.
> It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”
Japan and its leadership consisted of various factions, ranging from hardliners who wanted to arm every single Japanese citizen and fight to the last child, to those who wanted to surrender and negotiate a peace settlement.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so.
When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost.
Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc.
The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons.
But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude.
Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument.
As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs.
I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.
>I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it.
You are an evil and stupid person.
>Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
No they didn't. They didn't want an unconditional surrender, they had sued for peace multiple times and it was ignored.
So instead of us negotiating with Japanese we completely destroyed two civilian cities to put them in their place.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
- Adm. William Leahy, President Harry Truman’s chief military adviser
"First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "
- Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950
So we have the supreme allied commander, commander and chief of the pacific fleet, and the chief military advisor to Truman all on record saying the bomb was not necessary nor really saved American lives.
Then we have people like you on the internet saying otherwise, with no proof.
Quotes aren’t an argument. Instead, write original thoughts. I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google, but you’ll understand more about the war and the human condition by cracking open a few books. Really.
Anyway
Many people feel regret over various aspects of World War II, including veterans who only killed enemy soldiers in what was honorable combat against a violent and viscous enemy who attacked them. No reason to think military commanders wouldn’t also express regret over using destructive weapons, even if they would have made the same decision over again. There’s no moral difference between bombing a city and killing civilians and bombing a factory making ordinance and also killing citizens. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of warfare, and in particular Total War. There are no innocents. Unsurprisingly, the West were the only powers that gave even the slightest damn about minimizing civilian casualties. Which is why we are sitting here talking about western actions because we are a moral people by and large. Nobody in the former USSR has any regrets over raping and murdering Germans.
Same commanders ordered many gruesome, albeit necessary military decisions that resulted in the deaths of soldiers, women, and children.
Interestingly you aren’t quoting those who express regret over any number of those other decisions. Why is that?
Find us some quotes of Japanese commanders that survived the war and their regret over their heinous and disgusting acts. If not maybe you can find some Chinese friends or Filipino colleagues (or others) who can enlighten you.
Truman did not regret using the bombs and would have done it again, and as he said “at the snap of my fingers”, despite being sorrowful for the death and destruction caused. His opinion matters more than anyone else’s since it was his decision. And, your random quoting of people like “nuke them all “ Curtis LeMay shows you don’t even know anything about who you are quoting.
>Quotes aren’t an argument. Instead, write original thoughts.
Nothing you've written is an argument or original lol; it's baseless conjecture. It's certainly as original as flat earth perspectives.
Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above? There's nothing affirmative. There's nothing to counter, I can't even being debate anything because it doesn't say _anything_ other than wild claims that are based on pure narrative.
>I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google
All of your posts are well, well, well below just rehashing quotes on Google. Try a little bit harder if you want to even being to critique other people?
Please say something substantive and supportable by evidence. Anything at all.
I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not choosing random quotes. I chose Eisenhower since I was surprised to learn his opinion on the subject, and actually read the quote out of a paper copy of his autobiography. So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
Until a few years ago, I believed what I had learned in school - that the bombs were necessary to end the war more quickly, and that they actually saved both American and Japanese lives by hastening the surrender. If invading the home islands was the only way, and if there was a fight to the last person, then that would be a reasonable conclusion.
A few counterarguments I heard over time were not easy to dismiss:
1. Why did the surrender come on August 15th? Since no more bombs arrived after August 9th, what changed? In particular, if the US had more nuclear weapons to use, where was the August 12th bomb, since there was apparently a 3 day cycle. From the perspective of the Japanese military leadership, one explanation would be there were no more ready, so the urgency to surrender before further bombs would be lessened.
2. Why did Operation Meetinghouse (March 10th, 1945) which caused a similar amount of destruction with only conventional weapons not precipitate a surrender?
3. How important were the other reasons to use the weapons, such as:
a. Testing out their effectiveness against a real enemy target. Conducting such a test initially seemed hard to believe, but in context of the firebombing of cities in Japan (e.g. Tokyo) and Germany (e.g. Dresden) may have made this test plausible to Allied military leaders. The fact that two different types of bomb were used bolsters the argument that this was in part a test.
b. Deterring the Soviet armies from continuing to take territory because they had the conventional means to doing so. In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.
c. Making sure that the huge expense of developing the weapons wasn't "wasted" by not using them against an enemy.
I've read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (which I just re-read now) since it's the most concise yet persuasive argument I've encountered in favor of using atomic weapons to save lives. If I knew of a similar writing making the opposite case, I would share it here. If you know of such a thing, please let me know.
My current understanding of the situation is that the accumulation of damage inflicted against Japan helped cause the leadership to surrender. The proximate tipping point was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. That meant the end of their peace treaty with the Soviets, the foreclosing of the possibility of the Soviets facilitating peace negotiations with the Allies, and increased the likelihood of an invasion of the home islands by the Red Army before an American invasion could happen. This is the event that finally brought the Japanese government to their senses.
> So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
I didn't meant to imply I was questioning that he wrote what was quoted and I apologize if I did so. It was just that he was but one person in an excruciatingly complicated political dynamic and neither the United States nor Japan had perfect information. I'm not sure we knew that Japan would surrender, and even so I think we forget the utter insanity of World War II and how that drove nation states to do, what seem like in hindsight, to be crazy things or at least take suboptimal actions. With respect to some of your questions regarding various dates, my understanding is that you can chalk some of that up to the fog of war, lack of instantaneous communication, and more. It takes time to send a message to Washington from the Pacific, etc.
> In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.
I have little doubt that this was a factor (as were other items mentioned), though I don't think it was the primary reason of course - i.e. testing.
Given how absolutely abhorrent the Soviet Union was to become and even today the situation we find ourselves in with a nuclear armed Russia, Churchill and Patton (among others) made sincere, if not perhaps flawed arguments for taking the war immediately to the Soviets but we simply did not have enough nuclear weapons I think at the time.
We didn't know for sure that Communism would fail, although it seems so obvious in hindsight given that it's a failed/flawed ideology. What was it that Teddy Roosevelt said? I don't recall the exact quote but something about the man in the arena. I think that's applicable here. Well, it's applicable to almost all of the wartime decisions that were made. We weren't there. It wasn't my son or daughter dying on some random island in the Pacific. It wasn't me taking a bullet to the chest, or losing an eye, or a leg. How dare I, or anyone else alive today judge the actions of those enduring such horror? An end to the war, by any means possible, seems appropriate to me, however, even if that means as some say unnecessarily killing "innocent" civilians to save American lives. If there were other benefits to using the atomic weapons, so be it.
We're so quick to judge the actions of our leadership at the time, but we shouldn't forget that in the end we came not to conquer but to liberate. And we helped to liberate both Europe and Japan, and of course the Philippines, China, and others from the yolk of despotism. I reject any and all cynical takes to the contrary as useless and corrupt.
> My current understanding...
I largely agree, but want to reiterate that the leadership of Japan wasn't sitting around some conference table saying "oh but please America let us just surrender!". To the very moment of surrender there were hardliners who stood against it. Only when the emperor, with what I have come to understand to be quite a bit of difficulty, issued an end to the war did it finally end. My memory may be incorrect but even after that the Imperial Army, or at least factions of it, wanted to continue to fight. As you mention and I understand currently, there are some historians who have argued that the Japanese did not want to surrender or did not have the political will to do so when the atomic bombs were dropped (assuming the Americans did not have more) but the Soviet invasion was the tipping point. Which I think goes to further show that dropping the bombs on the Japanese wasn't some wonton act of aggression but the United States continuing to take the fight to a determined and dangerous enemy.
I think also with respect to the Soviets, they partially entered the war with Japan for territorial gain and to make sure they had a seat at the table for the negotiation in the Pacific.
If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up.
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes.
The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.
You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.
It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
"Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes."
This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use.
Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
Soviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.
I did not say anything about "morally acceptable", I was talking about what's possible, and yes, it is much easier to wage wars against countries that are weaker than you.
Probably not your intent, but this is a very clear summation of why it is is likely understood as critical to Iranian security to develop and publicly test a nuclear weapon.
The development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons has been against Islamic law in the Islamic Republic of Iran since the mid 90s under a fatwa issued by Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. It is well understood that Iran wants the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat that justifies the atrocity of their creation but all of the evidence suggests that they are otherwise uninterested in nuclear weapons.
We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.
Understood. I am just making the latter argument that any head of state in a conflicted region must, as a matter of baseline sovereignty, pursue a nuclear deterrent.
It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.
Not like when Netanyahu pledged to turn Gaza into a "deserted island"¹, but if that's the kind of rhetoric that justifies US bombing campaigns, then why haven't we bombed Israel's not-so-secret nuclear weapon production facilities, too?
Asking HN for political analysis is like asking Politico for an in depth analysis on ML capabilities.
There are a handful of users on HN who have domain experience or knowledge in policymaking due to professional adjacencies (IP Law, High Finance, Space/Defense Tech VC, etc) but get drowned out.
I agree completely. Try to mention that on this site though and you get replies such as "we're not the same as other social media sites!", or some variant of the community here being the smartest in the room.
the kind of domain expertise you describe results in a different kind of imperialist psychosis. you should look to analysis coming from communists, Brazil, China, Iran, Palestine, Yemen, etc. These groups have a much more clear-eyed view of US policy.
He did order the commander of the IRGC to be taken out during his last term while simultaneously pushing the Abraham accords with several Sunni nations. The "peace through strength" concept is only believable when it is clear that strength will be used - call it Chekhov's gun of international relations.
Right-leaning is giving them too much credit. It's just self-leaning and, like many other political groups, Trump just said the transparently false stuff that he needed to in order to appeal to them.
The dumbest and/or most self-interested of many demographics, it turns out, were happy to be tricked!
Yes because I would not expect HN populace to be the same distribution as the general US. Just like how I would find it strange if medical professionals had more anti-vaxx than I expected.
4,270 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 734 ms ] threadIMHO the Israeli policy of punching everyone so hard they're reeling is a massive mistake for Israel in the long term. It works great short-term, but 50 years? 100 years? Who knows what the world will look like then, and being surrounded by enemies is not going to work well when you no longer have your fancy US-backed missile shields and whatnot. The best long-term bet is for normalised relationship with its neighbours, and every time something like this happens that gets set back 20 years at least.
Then again, they had already given up on that with how it treated the Palestinians both in Gaza and West-Bank...
This doesn't mean military action is never an option under any circumstances, but no nation can perpetuate hostilities forever. Whether it's 50, 100, or 200 years: this has a massive risk of coming back to bite Israel hard.
Hope they're building other friendships in the region, I don't see the unquestioning US patronage lasting much longer.
Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers though.
America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
If US hopes to not be involved in it, it will be up for the surprise.
All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited operations. Not believable anymore.
The point is those arguments were often brought up by people justifying why they voted for Trump instead of prioritizing other issues, as if the guy represented some kind of reform rather than just a more base and brazen looter.
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.
Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it
Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
You are deliberately misunderstanding the point being made, while simultaneously making an argument for tone policing. It is quite tiresome.
I stated that George Galloway is a complete scumbag. I think he is utterly amoral. I can still praise his (quite frankly) amazing rhetorical ability that gets even someone like myself who dislikes him, to cheer for him. That is how good he is. Does that make me immoral for stating an obvious fact? no it doesn't. I suspect you know this though.
The exact same logic applies to Trump's statements about Putin.
> Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state. I don't want to get into an argument over this, because I know there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I think the gangs, violent thugs and state governors that encourage law breaking (that what he was doing) should be crushed. I say this as someone that used to call themselves a Libertarian.
> Read the sentence right after the one you quoted.
I did. It doesn't negate what I said. Even if Trump criticism were made to tap into such a feeling, that doesn't mean they are incorrect, or that he hates the country.
Tony Blair said something to effect "You need to actually obtain power to be able to enact the change". That means manipulating the voter base. Every effective politician does this btw.
> I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
Libertarians are just as bad as any other group in engaging in bad faith arguments.
As for the credibility of Libertarians, that was in tatters well before Trump. I used to call myself a Libertarian (a very lonely position in the UK). I realised that many of the people that claimed to be one had never read any of the foundational material and what Libertarianism meant was "I want to smoke weed". You just have to watch some of the convention footage of the Libertarian party conference (which as I understand was the third biggest party after the Dems/GOP in the US) to understand that what I am saying is 100% correct.
I suspect though that isn't want you referring to. I suspect you are lambasting the Libertarian Party under the Chairmanship of Angela McArdle and some of the other more Right-wing Libertarians associated with Trump. All I can say about her Chairmanship is she managed to get Ross Ulbricht freed, which makes her objectively more effective than most Libertarians.
Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
> Quelling actual riots and enforcing immigration law is not attacking a state
It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though. I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
(And sure, it's great that Ulbricht was freed. But I'm not going to be placated by one small bone from an overwhelmingly freedom-destroying fascist movement)
Yes you are doing exactly that. "Nuance" is a cop-out. The logic is precisely the same.
> Trump does not distance himself from Putin in this way - rather he compliments often, and then only occasionally backpedals when pressed. The sensible interpretation is that overall he supports Putin, and the occasional critical remark is just part of his signature contradictory word salad.
No that isn't the sensible interpretation. You are doing mental gymnastics.
> It is the job of the local and state governments to strike the balance between the right to protest and keeping order. The elected officials were handling that just fine - there was no "riot", especially not some kind of ongoing one not being handled by LAPD. Deputizing the national guard against the direction of the state governor to perform domestic enforcement duties is an attack on that state authority. It had the exact opposite effect of restoring order, resulting in a predictable escalation for a TV stunt.
Dude the footage can be found on Youtube of the riots. I also remember watching in real time with American friends over live streams of the riots in the summer of 2020. I forget which city it was (Minneapolis) but I saw this huge building collapse live. So please don't gaslight me that the local government was handling these things just fine. They weren't.
> But if you're drinking this level of fascist Kool-Aid,
No, I've barely looked at the news at all over the last month. The weather in the UK has been exceptionally nice and I've been spending my time cycling.
I have watched live-streams of riots and seen stores being looted in real time, guys burning cars etc. There is one guy that literally rides around the city on his electric motorbike thing and documents it that a friend and I were watching the other night.
Apparently I imagined all of the things that were captured on candid camera?
> then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I do have to wonder why you're so invested in American politics not even being American though.
I am interested in American politics because I have many American friends that I speak to regularly. I have also Canadian friends. Most of them are actually left wing.
The reason I don't pay attention to Politics in the UK is very stale, boring, depressing and I know my vote is literally meaningless. Even people in my family that were very much "You must go out and vote" have told me in private that they no longer bother because all they get is more of the same. My father told me he has never voted because he knows whoever you vote for, you end up get shafted anyway.
> I'm guessing you're emboldened by not actually having to suffer the inevitable poor results of Trump's destructive bluster-and-back-down approach. Contrast with say, if you lived in Los Angeles.
I actually know someone that lives in Los Angeles and I talk to them about this very subject maybe a few days ago. They told me that if you live in certain parts of the city, you may never even know there were horrific problems in the other parts.
BTW. I live near Manchester and recently visited Cardiff. Both cities while much smaller are having similar problems to Los Angeles. There are a large number of drug addicts that are literally passed out on the streets, there are homeless people everywhere (my friend regularly has to walk over homeless people camping in his doorstep) and both cities are in a state of decay.
I've seen plenty of real time footage of Los Angeles and ot...
Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course.
Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
> including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education
Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP.
There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/iran...
You can threaten a C-130 with visually guided WWII era flak.
You are unlikely to get an F-35 with it.
Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
Source:
i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout.
hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist).
https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181
"The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-...
Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.
If you ever engage with what Daniel Ellsberg said, or US plans in north korea or vietnam, you’d know just how close the US comes to actual use in war. It’s never off the table. They are currently concerned with peer competition with China. There is likely a faction that would propose to attempt to show american strength on an unarmed target just like we did with Japan.
However at this juncture i’m starting to think this is all a show and they only care about the optics. Iran has already moved its equipment out of Fordow. However if the Iran war continues, expect things to get increasingly ugly.
As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
(This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)
Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.
I wouldn't discount it, though. Remember, feelings matter more than facts. Magnitudes more people die on the road than in the air, but we know how well that translates to fear and action.
I mean heck, how about 9/11 compared to COVID? Wearing a mask for a while: heinous assault on freedom, Apple pie, and the American way. Meanwhile, the post-9/11 security and surveillance apparatus: totally justified to keep America safe
Deliverable nuclear weapons make you invasion proof - nobody wants to risk it. A "dirty bomb" isn't something that can come flying in on an ICBM and eliminate large chunks of your nation - the threat of it is more likely to enhance aggression rather then deter it.
Tl;dr is that the amount of energy required to separate a mixture of gasses (U238 waste and U235 product) is roughly proportional to the logarithm of the ratio of the U238 percentage and the U235 percentage. So as your feed stream becomes more enriched in U235, it becomes much easier to do subsequent separations. This log relationship is an approximation, but arises out of the statistical mechanics of separating two mixed gasses and the resulting decrease in entropy.
Edit: a key point most people I'm guessing aren't aware of: centrifuges don't really care what you feed them, whether the feed is natural or 20% or 89% enriched, they just get increasingly more efficient so that a single "pass" through them produces a greater amount of separation as the feed stock becomes more enriched. They do a fixed amount of "separative work" each pass. The same machines can be used to enrich from natural to 20% as 20%-90% (with some relatively minor caveats), and in fact it takes far fewer machines to do the 20-90 step at the same rate as natural-20.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_mixing
(The other half of it is that, as you progressively enrich, you start to discard the "depleted" part of the mass flow, and work only with the, gradually smaller, "enriched" mass flow).
Israel is widely believed to possess around 90 nuclear warheads.
Iran repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say, not what they do"
iran might be saying a lot, but if it wanted war, it would have been attacking, the same way that israel is attacking gaza, not threatening gaza.
even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
-----
on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas for the conflict with the positive sum descriptor. israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas. an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
Didn't you reverse it? Didn't you mean to say what they do not what they say?
Iran conducted a terrorist network against Israel for decades. It's behind Lebanon, Syria etc. They also called for death to Israel and countless other examples. It's pretty clear what they want to do.
Would they use nuclear weapons against Israel?
No idea. Don't want to know. Just like I'm glad I don't know what Saddam or Assad would have done with their nuclear weapons (had Israel not bombed them away).
> even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
Right now Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. They were able to kill quite a few Israelis (thankfully not as much because the strikes took down a lot of their launchers/missile caches). I'm concerned about what they say because I know where they are headed if they do somehow gain the weapons to kill everyone.
When someone says they want to kill you and your family: believe them.
> on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
Nope. Death to Israel is very much zero-sum.
The reason for your confusion is that Iran didn't attack Israel directly and mostly through proxy. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to destroy Israel, they are just cautious about it. Their goal is still the same.
> you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas
Nope. Israel tried to have peace with the Palestinians. Hamas blew up that peace by blowing up busses and coffee shops in the middle of Tel Aviv until that collapsed. They are a zero-sum player who won't settle for peace.
Israel built defense systems and shelters for its people. It ignored Hamas built rockets launched constantly at its cities and tried to "let them be". But they miscalculated. They saw Israeli tolerance as a weakness and assumed Israel doesn't have the stomach for a painful war. They are 100% at fault here and brought about the whole thing.
The fact that this is Hamas's fault doesn't absolve Israel of the brutality of this war and some of the awful things it did. It's just context.
> israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas.
It's pretty bad that you lump all of Israel together but make the distinction for Hamas. Hamas made a choice to open a can of worms when Israel had one of the worst governments in its history.
> an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
I mostly agree, but it will be far worse for the Palestinians. Israel will survive regardless of the outcome. Palestinians don't have that privilege. As such Hamas is far worse, it is a suicide cult.
Calling for it and being actually able to do it are two very different things.
It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
> It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
It's amazing to me how people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally led terrorist attacks against their country. To people who would stone gay people and punish women for the crime of rape. But won't give a similar benefit of doubt to the people opposing them. Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
I'm going to play a childish game with you: who started it first?
> Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
Are you saying people on the internet lie?
You can say that the CIA. Not Israel. But again that's a child's game just like you said.
How many Jews conducted suicide bombings in Germany after the holocaust?
We moved on, I can't say forgive and forget but we go to Germany and Austria. We talk and we live.
> Are you saying people on the internet lie?
Yep. And exaggerate and simplify the wrong things.
A dirty bomb is basically Hollywood nonsense, and wouldn't use uranium to begin with because it isn't very radioactive.
The premise is that you put radioactive materials into a conventional explosive to spread it around. But spreading a kilogram of something over a small area is boring because you can fully vaporize a small area using conventional explosives, spreading a kilogram of something over a large area is useless because you'd be diluting it so much it wouldn't matter, and spreading several tons of something over a large area is back to "you could do more damage by just using several tons of far cheaper conventional explosives".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb for others who haven't heard the term
Centrifuges. They got them via the A. Q. Khan network. We learned about if circa 2005 from Qaddaffi who gave up his to secure peace and his safety (and it didn't turn out well for him because Obama did not respect the gentleman's deal Qaddaffi had with Bush).
I just realised that this bomb is not the same as the so called Mother of all bombs, which by the way has so far only been used once also by trump. That's the gbu 43. Why did they find it necessary to build an even bigger bomb? I wonder if they anticipated strikes on the me.
As to your other point iran seems to have a decent level of education. Building an entire home grown nuclear program under sanctions is impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflet
> A camouflet, in military science, is an artificial cavern created by an explosion; if the resulting structure is open to the surface it is called a crater.[1]
US is developing a new generation of purpose-built deep penetration bombs that are a fraction of the size of the GBU-57.
I am sure the materials science aspects have come along since ww2, as has delivery technology, but I'd say how it goes fast, hits accurately and explodes is secondary to making a case survive impact and penetrate.
I would posit shaped charges could be amazing in this, if you could make big ones to send very high energy plasma out. I'm less sure depleted uranium would bring much to the table.
(Not in weapons engineering, happy to be corrected)
I was guessing either tungsten or depleted uranium, as for APDS, but the bomb's average density is only about 5 g/cc (14 tonnes in 3.1 m³). Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
I don't know how to resolve the discrepancy. The plane wouldn't fly if the bomb weighed four times as much. Maybe most of the bomb's mass is in a small, dense shaft in the middle of the bomb, which detaches on impact?
Shape can change it to be arbitrarily bad; 14 tonnes of 5-micron-thick Eglin steel foil spread over a ten-block area wouldn't penetrate anything, just gently waft down, although it could give you some paper cuts. I suspect it can't make it much better, except in the sense of increasing sectional density by making the bomb longer and thinner, which we already know the results of.
Velocity doesn't enter into Newton's impact depth approximation at all. It does affect things in real life, but you can see from meteor craters that it, too, has its limits.
Target characteristics, no idea, but in a fast enough impact, everything acts like a gas. It's only at near-subsonic time scales that condensed-matter phenomena like elasticity come into play. Even at longer time scales the impact can melt things. This of course comes into conflict with the design objective of the bomb acting solid, so that it penetrates the soil instead of just mixing into it, and can still detonate when it comes to rest. I feel like buried plates of the same metal would have to be able to deflect it? And there are plenty of other high-strength alloys.
The bomb would naturally contain large kinetic energy because it moves at orbital velocities, around 8 kilometres per second (26,000 ft/s; Mach 24) in orbit and 3 kilometres per second (9,800 ft/s; Mach 8.8) at impact. As the rod reenters Earth's atmosphere, it would lose most of its velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[13] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[12][14] As the name suggests, the 'bunker buster' is powerful enough to destroy a nuclear bunker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment?useskin=ve...
This seems to assume that the weapon would penetrate until it displaced an equal amount of dirt by mass, which seems like nonsense. Why would that be the case?
It's not entirely home grown if they were part of the NPT is it? Signing the NPT (a pinky promise not to develop weapons) means other countries then help you develop nuclear energy, which of course has a lot of overlap to weapons tech...
This isn't a just cause and it's not even a war. It's state sanctioned terror. I don't know it has ism in it.
Australian legal opinion says it's unlikely a credible defence in international law exists for this attack. It may redefine the norms for (un)lawful acts by the state, other states, weak and powerful will undoubtedly reflect on this.
It's also being claimed a success. Words like "obliterated" used. Time tends to tell a story there. I think it's a little too soon to say how successful these strikes were, tactically or strategically.
The international community has known for a while that USA and Israel are both belligerent nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#U...
My expectation is that it was 3 rounds of 2 MOPs, hedging bets and potentially cresting a larger hole than drilling a hole one bomb at a time.
> It included a strike on the heavily-fortified Fordo nuclear site, according to Trump, which is located roughly 300 feet under a mountain about 100 miles south of Tehran. It's a move that Israel has been lobbying the U.S. to carry out, given that only the U.S. has the kind of powerful "bunker buster" bomb capable of reaching the site. Known as the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), the bomb can only be transported by one specific U.S. warplane, the B-2 stealth bomber, due to its immense 30,000 pound weight.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/21/nx-s1-5441127/iran-us-strike-...
Tin foil hat engaged: For all we know special forces detonated plastic explosives deep on site after doors were blown off.
More seriously: Nothing has been confirmed except a Truth Social post.
And, if it weren't enough, you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one.
To the commenters below:
- nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
- I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
- jugding by, for example, the precise drone strikes on the top military commanders, Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them (the public statement of 300ft may be a lie, yet the point is that US and Israel know the depth and thus weapons to use)
EDIT: I kind of wish you had broken your "commenters below" piece into separate replies, but I assume this one was directed at me:
> - I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
I didn't even consider a no-fly zone, and perhaps. I mean at this point, the current Iranian regime is in the most precarious situation it has ever been in whether they go for the kill against Ali Khamenei or just keep picking out the people below him and the IRGC's ability to fight. But if we do this, then we, and I guess I mean we now that we've actually bombed them, then we're committing to more than just taking out their nuclear capabilities, but we're committing to seeing a full regime change come to fruition.
To be blunt, given our most recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still very much of the opinion that the least amount of American involvement, the better. If our bombs help curtail Iran's nuclear weapon R&D and we didn't lose a single B-2 in the process, then great, we've done some good for the world[1], but our track record on seeing regime changes through to the end has been less than fabulous.
[1] Still waiting to see how successful the mission was towards this goal by the way.
Please don't bring this kind of BS to the discussion
You seem to believe they really have accurate information about these installations. I doubt it.
Getting the layout of an underground facility, on the other hand, is quite hard to do even on purpose. They'd really want the engineering plans I suppose - which should be quite secure even on a bad day. I wouldn't assume it was secure but it'd be harder than finding senior leadership who often go out in public or to their kids school plays in a regular year.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Iranian...
This is tremendously difficult. There is nothing unclassified to suggest we can do this. (There is also no evidence it didn’t occur. Just clarifying the borders of the fog of war here.)
More than 30 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing
"At 04:30 on the morning of 13 February, two F-117 stealth bombers each dropped a 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) GBU-27 laser-guided bomb on the shelter. The first bomb cut through 3 metres (10 ft) of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded. Minutes later, the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb."
Well given that we've been trying to stop that for many years, I doubt its within the US's gift to change that.
Also what has iran got to loose now? like its already being bombed to shit. It's lost a generation to the iran/iraq war, why not another one where they take the USA, israel and saudis with them?
> I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran.
that sounds like a forever war. Moreover trump doesn't have the attention span to deploy a nofly zone for any length of time.
also, have you see the size of iran?
> Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them
yup, but the performance of munitions is unknown. Moreover they are not actually going to tell anyone the real results of the strike. Can you imagine generals telling Hegseth that his plan idea has failed because the clearly articulated unknowns came to pass. let alone trump?
How would they enforce that? It is underground, they can't exactly monitor what is down there with satellite photos. There'd need to be something like a blanket ban on underground mining across the whole of Iran and probably a country-wide occupation to enforce the ban. Otherwise it seems quite difficult to identify where the hypothetical centrifuges are.
What Iran does next depends on the extent of the damage. It could be nothing. It could be a token response. It could be escalation.
But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
When Israel tried to previously escalate the conflict with Iran and drag the US into war with Iran, Iran just didn't take the bait. And this is despite Israel assassinating government officials, bombing Iranian embassies and bombing Iran for absolutely no reason.
Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
I thought it was generally known that richer societies with me equal treatment - where people are generally more able to choose jobs they like rather than needing to take whatever's a ticket to a decent life - are the places with higher disparities in well-paying occupations?
Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is? What's special about a GBU-57 isn't its explosive force. It's that the bomb casing is made out of special high-density ultra-heavy steel; it's deliberately just a super heavy bomb with a delayed fuse. It is literally like them dropping cartoon anvils out of the sky.
From what I've read, the idea is that they keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole that previous sorties left, each round of bombs drilling deeper into the structure.
If it is silly and it works, then it is not silly. If I remember correctly you have good cryptography skills. Rectothermal/rubber hose cryptoanalysis is quite silly too, but breaks AES,RSA,ECC and post quantum crypto schemes in 30 seconds.
I wonder how practical this part is.
Honestly, I'd rather you not. For those who are more personally familiar with warfare and combat operations, consistently describing any sort of bomb as "silly" is childish and inaccurate to the point of making me wonder if there's an ulterior motive with your description.
This is not "Looney Tunes".
Iran does not have the same degree of sexist restrictions as eg Saudi Arabia. It's a very different climate from places where salafism is more common. Female education in particular is highly supported eg: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1869369086142296490
The gender ratio is similar in other Middle Eastern countries. Once women in the Islamic world get the legal right to educate themselves, they tend to make use of it much more than men do. It is a pathway towards personal independence.
Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building.
Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia).
Edit 1:
Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities.
This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program.
More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...)
Edit 2:
For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
You need to have delivery mechanisms like medium/long range ballistic missiles and second strike capabilities like SLCMs.
Frankly you're not going to have a very strong chance of convincing me given Israel's actions over the past few years.
Israel has nukes and Hamas still invaded them.
Perhaps nukes protect you from invasion by rational actors, but I don't think they work on zealots.
I certainly hope Iran's adversaries are rational actors.
Where did you get that info? Makes no sense. South Korea has been consistently against starting another war with NK for at least 30 years or so, and besides, in 2003 South Korea was ruled by Kim Dae-Jung, famous for he's staunch support of improving relations with North Korea (he got a Nobel prize for that), and then Roh Moo-Hyun, from the same party and largely following Kim's foreign policy.
Thanks to them we had no wars, and of course now we have some young whippersnappers complaining about their "pro-NK" policies, saying we could have totally bombed NK, starting a war, and burning the peninsula to the ground, but at least North Korea won't have nukes today!
It was after the Six Party Talks started in Aug 2003 that tensions started cooling down, before North Korea stunned the world in 2006.
Edit: though now that I think about it, I might be confusing this incident with the 1993-94 incident.
Why don't you go die!
I don't mean it literally, read: https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-explained-o...
Isn't it great when people take things out of context? In this case the context that wishing death is quite common in Iranian expressions of frustrations?
That even better supports my point though. Diplomacy is between two governments, not one government and the population of another government. Iran has practiced diplomacy at times, but calling for the end of the US government wouldn't exactly fit well in the implied reality of Iran having done everything they could diplomatically.
they are also punishing iran for selling oil in their national currency
imperialism run amok
They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty.
> their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
A nuclear iran would be completely intolerable, never mind that their regime might just be lunatic enough to use them.
Add that war is bad for the whole world.
So the us benefits that it protects her economic (and strategic) interests in the ME, which are real and extremely important, at the low cost of a limited air campaign.
There are further moral arguments, but i'm answering your question in the most direct way.
If we want their oil, we can buy it like reasonable people do. What you're referring to is armed robbery.
>Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Is this a joke? The country that has not started any wars in its 300 year existence is not the "destabilizing element". That would be the country that has attacked Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran this year alone.
It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility.
Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel.
Really you are being deliberately obtuse.
Oh, and how did it come to power?
The situation was and remains unstable, and the factors that made it unstable were did not come from just one place. And you don’t have to look hard to find acts of war initiated by multiple different parties in the area.
I think that claiming that any one country “decided to launch wars” against multiple other parties ignores a whole lot of complexity.
Says Israel, the nation who tore up every single international laws, directly led campaign against UN and ICC, and whose right-wing (ones in power now) have been dreaming about a Greater Israel that threatens territorial integrity of like 10 different ME countries.
Israel doesn't start any wars, it just finishes them. Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason. So they end up with a bloody nose. That's on them.
> Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason
If the UN decided to put a country for the Roma in the middle of India, how do you think that turn out? Very well or very badly? Is it surprising that everything turned out so badly in the ME with regards Israel? Seems obvious to me that putting a new country in the middle of a colony just as said colony is gaining independence seems like a shit idea?
Simply put, the very creation of Israel was fundamentally destabilising. We basically torpedoed our relations with the entire Islamic world (and especially the Arab world) just for the sake of some mostly (at that time) European colonists in Israel (who later became Israelis). That was retarded as shit. Say what you like about how good it was for the Israelis, but for us that was shit geopolitics, shit realpolitik, and a shit deal. Israel has now, rather predictably, become an ethnofascist state run by a (war)criminal. And we enabled them the whole way. And for what??? How exactly has anyone in the West actually benefited from this? It was clearly good for Israel and for Israelis, but how have we benefited from this???
the West benefits from israel that at least one country in the region isn't an authoritarian hellhole and actually contributes to the global economy beyond just providing petrol.
You might resent it but that's the truth.
> region isn't an authoritarian hellhole
It's colonising the West Bank, committing genocide in Gaza, is led by a (war)criminal... Israel is arguably worse than many of its neighbours. I honestly don't care how good gay people have it in Tel Aviv when they're simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza or settling the West Bank like it's 1899. And yeah Israel is a democracy but they use their democratic choice to vote for a war criminal who's in bed with the settlers and other theocratic extremists. So Israel is really no better than many of its neighbours and arguably worse than many of them. And it's only getting worse, the Israelis are only becoming crazier and more extreme. And now they've got the US into a war with Iran. Sorry, 0.5% of GDP: not fucking worth it.
> And America are not in a war with Iran
Bombing a country's nuclear infrastructure is surely an act of war.
We're going to see a big turn from Israel in the West. Boomers are absolutely obsessed with the place but the younger generations aren't. Netanyahu throwing his lot in with Trump means that Israel will become a partisan issue. Europeans already have mostly turned against Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/03/public-support...
Israel has led an amazingly succesful campaign in presenting their problems (often arising out of their territorial ambitions) as a problem for the entire west.
The US is leaving many moments for Iran to come to the table to stop building towards nuclear power.
Here’s a list, make of that what you want: https://x.com/chalavyishmael/status/1936107345093996775?s=46
How much does Iran spend sponsoring terrorism?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
We can in fact just as easily support Iran's attacks against Israel. No reason to pick either side.
Right now the American people are coming to the consensus that Israel are the bad guys. Everybody under 50 already recognizes that, purely based on the thousands of Palestinian toddlers they see on Instagram that Israel kills and injures (the popular post today on Instagram is of a toddler with his legs severed). And the people over 50 will eventually die off, causing Israel's base of support to disappear.
There is no hope of Israel's permanent existence. We should remove our support for Israel immediately and prepare for the long term.
So tired of american bullshit.
I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter.
In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
I'm seeing a lot of death and the payoff is... Cheap gas prices? I can't imagine what. But the replies to this laying out all the benefits of blood soaked American hegemony I'm sure will be great for a laugh.
Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
The status quo is only maintained because the US has military bases all over the world. If we retreat from the world and let Iran do whatever it wants (which is more influence and an Islamic empire), the the world order crumbles and that has an even more increased chance of WW3, as multiple nations will fight over the void left behind by the US.
Part of the reason things are unfolding this way is because the US rose to world power with the invention of the nuclear bomb.... which automatically means that toppling the US might mean nuclear war, which spells doom for the entire world. Not sure I would call that luck, but that is why the world cannot change to a new world order easily without existential risk. And as the "world police" the US doesn't want non-allies to get the bomb for this reason (something that Trump has been saying for years, which proves he is just maintaining status quo).
Iran getting nukes is the spark that will start a lot of chain reactions.
And islamic populations are radicalized enough that the possibility of a nuke on Israel increases dramatically.
The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.
And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden.
(Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)
I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?
These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?
Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.
Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
There are a lot of reasons to be enriching uranium besides building nuclear weapons. Considering the US reneged on its deal to drop sanctions in exchange for Iran to not enrich uranium, it is pretty obviously useful as a bargaining chip, in the negotiations.
The US intelligence community assessed that Iran has not been working on a bomb since the program was shut down in 2003. They didn't want a nuke, they wanted an end to sanctions. They further wanted to avoid provoking exactly this sort of conflict. This did not delay them getting nuclear weapons, it will make them get nuclear weapons.
I have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character.
That is not a good comparison. The US is well reported enough in news and media and movie to have a good awareness of the culture within. You also understand their language.
However, the Arab world is not reported well enough apart from biased sources that seek to defame and discredit them. And neither would you understand their language. So no your awareness of their culture and country and leadership is so far fallen yet you think it is sufficient that it becomes dangerous.
There is no such thing as Islamic population unless you are an Islamophobe who have sought to “other” this part of the world
A fair concern, but it is interesting that although "estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" [1], we are not concerned about those warheads as much as we do about the ones Iran might have. Should US bomb Israeli nuclear plants? No. Should they have bombed the Iranian ones? Why?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
We have to let Israel die off and change our alliances. An alliance with Iran would be much more beneficial to America than an alliance with Israel.
Now, I don't know if you noticed, your cousins while they are not kind to Arabs (which if you had Arab cousins you would have noticed that they are not very kind to Jews), have nothing whatsoever with Iran, no more than they have anything with Napal.
1500km away!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Arabs
There are many allies of the US, still they are not exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I'm not sure if it's a sane strategy to permit a single ally who has never signed the NPT [1] to build nuclear weapons, unlike your many other allies or non-allies:
> The roots of this preferential treatment go back to a secret 1969 understanding between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The agreement essentially allowed Israel to keep its nuclear weapons as long as it remained silent about them and avoided nuclear tests. That bargain has held ever since, with successive U.S. administrations turning a blind eye to what would be a clear violation of international norms if committed by any other state.
Causing a power imbalance in the region doesn't seem the right way to keep peace.
[1] https://www.eurasiareview.com/23062025-israels-nuclear-ambig...
How do you plan to handle a world with Islamic populations having nukes? Because that's something you will have to plan for. You have no choice. They will not let you not let them have nukes. They will make sure they will have nukes. That's just given.
Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one.
1: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
The third temple's holy of holies : Israel's nuclear weapons
https://dp.la/item/525bc46d51878c5e285d9069a80246d0
* Quick, victorious wars can be incredibly popular domestically, regardless of whether surveys say that only 16% of the US population supports the war. Trump needs an approval ratings boost. The global tariff shock was a PR disaster. A quick, victorious war is a tried-and-true approval rating booster over the last 200-300 years. The key, of course, is actually keeping the war truly short and victorious. If it drags on, or if people start asking "have we truly won?", then that's a whole different matter.
* We have moved out of a unipolar geopolitical world and into a multipolar one. The USA is checking the ambitions of the rival powers. Want to invade Ukraine? Sure, go ahead and try, but it will be a multi-year slog. Want to go for years maybe developing nuclear weapons, maybe not, and making US antagonism a central part of your political platform? Watch us systematically attack your nuclear program and and air power and do highly targeted assassinations of your political elites over the course of two weeks. Want to invade Taiwan? Look at what happened in Ukraine and Iran and maybe reset your expectations about how that will pan out.
* There has been a lot of questioning lately around whether the US will actually help their allies when they're in a pinch. This is sending a pretty strong message of reassurance to allies.
* Trump may actually want things to escalate to a point where he can reasonably declare martial law within the US. How do you stay in power when you've already hit your two-term constitutional limit?
Your question was "how does it benefit the US?" but I don't think that's answerable because everyone has a different take on what's best for the US. It's much more feasible to discuss "how does it benefit Trump?" or "how does it maintain US's position as a world power?"
Hopefully the ensuing economic meltdown will sour enough Americans before too many people are killed, but who knows.
Generally, Any prominent pro-Israel republican if they post anything pro-war will have hundreds of negative replies.
It is incredibly depressing to see people constantly falling into the trap that their political opposition are dumb / brainwashed.
I'd love to be wrong here, but I don't think I am.
Trump's base have been consistently against wars in the middle-east and him being too close to Israel has been a consistent criticism of Trump from way back in 2016/2017. So his supporters have been consistent about this for almost a decade. So I don't think your assessment is correct at all.
It been almost a decade now since Trump has entered politics and there has been one thing that been consistent throughout this period. That is the inability for otherwise intelligent people to state the beliefs of Trump's supporters accurately.
But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
> But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
No they haven't. They've consistently been against his supporting of the COVID Vaccine (to the point where Trump doesn't mention it anymore), Against wars in the middle-east.
The pro-Trump people were complaining about his bombing of the Syrian Airfield back in 2017. That was spun heavily by the media at the time.
You consistently keep claiming this to be a truism but it isn't true at all. This is wholly disingenuous or you don't know what you are talking about.
> We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
Even if you were wrong, I suspect that you will point to some AstroTurf'd poll and declare victory.
I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
I have no idea what you are even referring to. I am specifically talking about anti-war sentiment from Trump's base (which is not the same as Republicans). It has been consistent over the last 9 years.
> But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
You literally did the routine that I specifically complained about in my original comment. Why should I extend to you any good faith? I specifically said I was tired of it and didn't want to hear it.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results...
> Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. bombing nuclear sites in Iran?
Republicans say:
Also his base are a different group of people from Republicans, they are often a subset of Republicans.
You can go on Twitter, Youtube or any comment section and they are all saying "MAGA is dead", "I didn't vote for this" or some sort of signalling they are against a war with Iran.
I will admit I am a bit of a politico, I see myself as the equivalent of someone betting on horses or dogs.
Generally I do the following:
- It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. Especially on YouTube. You will typically get a lot of real sounding names and real looking avatars that almost say exactly the same thing, along with a fake conversation as replies. These bots aren't using advanced AI. They can be bought quite cheaply actually.
- I also talk to a lot of people both in left and right leaning Discord groups. The consensus to anyone that isn't a complete die-hard is "MAGA has jumped the shark".
- There are lower level commentators who represent maybe few tens of thousands of people. Some of these are political operative, some of these are grifters, others are genuine people that have moved towards nationalist politics over time. I've been around these spaces long enough to know the usernames, the characters and accounts of those that follow them.
I appreciate none of this is scientific. However, I will take that over a poll any-day of the week and has been more consistent IME than polling (which is well known to be skewed depending on who is doing it).
I've been not paying attention to any of it recently because quite honestly I've burned out on it and instead I am having a break from it.
(It will be the first time a GBU-57A/B has been used in war, which is interesting)
They needed troops on the ground. Israel was going to do this.
It's possible they have just collapsed the entrances.
Trumps comments - https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump You have a loop, @Osint613 reposted Trump as "Fordow is gone" which Trump reposted. Neither of them have any idea.
(Natanz, Isfahan were already hit and damaged by Israel, the US didn't bother to bunker bust them, it was Tomahawks from subs )
3D model of Fordow - https://x.com/TheIntelLab/status/1398716540485308417
You need a tactical nuke to destroy Fordow, but the USA considers tactical the same as strategic, so it would be very unlikely. Russia could, since they put tactical in a different category.
https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Iranian...
Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).
By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.
That's often spread by Jewish media, but I see no evidance for this. Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
> Israel has nothing against Iran
Just like Israel has nothing against Palestinians?
> Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."
Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...
> A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Exactly.
Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is...
Israel also supported rebel groups in Syria https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-cl...
> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.
> Exactly.
So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons
I think this framing is incorrect. It’s more like “Iran has helped these organizations fight Israel”.
It’s fairly obvious that Hamas and Hezbollah are not proxies - they arose not because of Irani funding but as a reaction to Israeli actions.
"America arms Israel to attack Lebannon and Palestine"
Palestine Syria Lebanon Yemen And Iran
Have all been bombed repeatedly by Israel
Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).
Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign. Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Ira...
> no provocation
There’s a long history of violence in that region. To say that either side was “unprovoked” is a bit rich.
E.g https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_cla...
Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.
(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
Some developments in this area:
https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-presents-15-developments-in...
https://wanaen.com/iran-surpasses-70-locally-produced-radiop...
When you hear these words you’re being sold an agenda.
Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?
Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.
Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.
Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
The relief of sanctions enabled Iran to fund their other activities in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. It also enable the regime to invest in other weapons programs including weapons Iran has been supplying to Russia and those it and its proxies are launching against Israel.
I'm not sure Trump withdrawal from that deal was the best idea but the deal wasn't great either.
"The thing that prevented them from achieving a nuclear weapon didn't also prevent them from funding x y z other far less problematic things that can be far more easily handled through conventional diplomacy and military action"
Seriously?
The core issue to the most of the world is nuclear proliferation, not low level terrorism and militia groups.
But Iran also contains reformers, and the deal was a bet that if you do good diplomacy you can reduce the power and influence of the shit-stirrers.
Edit: 3 months, and source: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...
Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade.
[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2... [1]: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
It turns out there's a big gap between most peaceful purposes and weapons grade, and this was in that gap.
Saying it’s not weapons grade only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage.
So in other words it’s not weapons grade?
Reduced fat milk is often specifically referring to 2% milk, but 1% milk is also reduced fat milk.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
And yes, in an alternative universe where delivery systems also just appear out of nowhere, you could sprinkle a million tons of 1% uranium over a city.
Little boy was a logistical issue at the time but only 4,400 kg. You can buy a used A380 for a few 10’s of millions. Convert that to a drone is fairly cheap, and you end up with a vastly cheaper system than the cost of producing a nuclear bomb.
Obviously a subsonic aircraft isn’t ideal, but historic ICBM’s ended up being designed for multiple bombs that’s a lot of leeway if you use the same system to deliver a single bomb. What the US considered weapons grade in the 40’s through the Cold War is based on assumptions that simply don’t apply here.
That same comment also said, even led with “flies in the face of”. That was the most important part of the comment: ‘saying that Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium “flies in the face of” intelligence reports which reported no weapons-grade uranium.’ But that part was not correct: the difference between Iran’s uranium (60% enriched) and weapons-grade uranium, while >0, is not large enough to characterize that assessment “flying in the face of”.
So yes if you focus on that substring of the comment you are right. But why would you? It’s not the point of the comment.
Which makes it nit picking. Which is why you’re getting so much pushback.
> Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage
Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html#nfaq6.2
edit: phrasing. it feels like we're going around in circles nitpicking based on a poor framing and the tendency for innuendo on this topic
Also, you can use 60% enriched uranium in the primary stage at the cost of a much larger, less efficient, and dirty device.
All modern nukes are two stage designs, Iran would be insane not to have a fusion stage. It would basically be a Hiroshima style dirty bomb with just 1.5% fissible mass actually fissioned.
Hiroshima was pretty terrible as it was. And I thought the capability that everyone focuses on because it gets nations a seat at the nuclear table was just basic fission weapons. But please correct me if I am wrong.
The bottleneck is UF₆ centrifuges, not the modeling. They're definitely aiming for a fission-fusion design: "The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to try to purchase this substance abroad." [0]
India and Pakistan did their first tests ~30 years ago, a lot has changed since then and if you're building a nuke in '25 might as well spend some cash on a simulation cluster and buy some multiphysics simulation software from Russia..
[0] The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to try to purchase this substance abroad.
Maybe I'm just putting too much weight on the trials and tribulations of developing the first fusion bombs, and the details of solving or working around those problems is widely known in the right circles these days? Plus advancements in simulation accuracy?
Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations.
It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process.
I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
Do you have a citation for this?
60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.
Was what Iran doing illegal?
Because this is what underlies all of this -- is the premise that Iran is behaving in an unacceptable and illegal fashion and therefore a legal response with violence is justified.
This all presupposes that Iran is breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons. Are they breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons?
Was Iran's activities funding militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which launched attacks against Israel and US forces "legal"? Which of the US' activities were "legal"? It's all mostly a bad joke.
However Iran has the stated intention of destroying the state of Israel, and actively incites it's proxies to attack Israel, and this could be seen as a valid justification for taking action. Not a lawyer though.
Is the US funding of Ukrainian militias "legal"?
Not that we would or should but the US could attack any number of countries today and only if one or more countries stopped the US would the victor be able to say it’s illegal.
Geopolitics operates in an explicitly anarchic arena.
Besides, there is no non-military need for enriching uranium beyond a few percent, so it's very clear what those 60% mean.
Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are enriching uranium?
Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
Trusting the US or any agreement with it would be foolish.
So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
going by project 2025, theres a very significant and influential portion of the american conservative sphere that is pants on head evangelical. and the idea of supporting israel as their christian duty is a huge part of that
lets not pretend this isnt the crusades with nukes. all parties here are operating on barbaric political principles
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-a...
Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/red-heifer-temple-institute/
[1] https://cbn.com/news/israel/first-time-after-2000-years-isra...
The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms
An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited
Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination
People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies
north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient.
this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past nuclear-reactor grade. What's that? They're enriching past 5%?
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past medical purposes grade. What's that? They're enriching past 20%?
- There's no evidence Iran has enough to build bombs. What's that? They have enough to build 10 bomb?
- There's no evidence they have a way to deliver bombs <-- you are here
If Israel doesn't continuously try to stop Iran, they might even have a 10 Megaton ICBM and you'll be saying "there's no evidence Iran has ever said it want's to destroy Israel".
It led Iran to make 2 decisions
- Accelerate production of IRBM in order to have 10000 in stock and to build 1000 launchers in order to execute massive launches that will not possible to defend against
- Apparently the did decide to mate their IRBM with nukes as recently there was meeting between whoever managed iranian missiles problem and heads of nuclear project (there is economist article about it).
This comes against backdrop of hamas and hezbollah been wiped. especially hezbollah which was supposed to be strike force against israel with estimated 100k-200k missiles and rockets.
PS. to those who write that jordan/usa intercepted most/a lot. they (together with saudi arabia, uk and france intercepted drones and cruise missiles. out of all IRBM only 6 were intercepted with SM3 missiles from USA ship)
but now after their command was wiped out and they can't sell aid, they have serious financial problems (they need to pay their fighters. it's very transactional).
but in case idf will leave gaza, they will have enough power to dominate the strip.
I'm skeptical of this; any source?
For clarification, those interception efforts last year required massive assistance from the US and Jordan, and required a hugely disproportionate and unsustainable investment of munitions to pull off. What we've seen in the last week is that Israeli air defenses are much more brittle than they want anyone to believe.
EDIT: For the down-voters, here's Bloomberg citing Israeli media that defending against Operation True Promise cost ~$1 billion USD: https://archive.is/WHDvG
and here is NPR about Jordan's assistance: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/15/1244900560/what-is-known-abou...
and here is the NYT questioning Israel's missile stockpiles: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/world/middleeast/israel-i...
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable. Washington, D.C. has some drone and missile defenses. But the rest of the east coast is not protected much.
Iran could also attack the US with drones launched from a small ship off the US east coast. Roughly the same technique Ukraine just used on Russia, using some small expendable ship instead of a trailer.
.
This would mean complete suicide for Iran. The US military basically exists to inflict unimaginable hurt on anyone who does this. Not to mention, an attack on the US is an attack on NATO.
Donald Trump has made it very clear that the US should be looked upon as an adversary.
Iran would definitely possess nuclear weapons after doing something like that. The only question is whether they're armed to explode in the air or when they hit the ground.
the purpose of the bomb shelter seems obvious - israel is gonna be bombing because israel likes bombing stuff
I wonder if anything started happening recently that would make Iran less interested in cooperating with the IAEA?
In fact, I think all evidence points to them removing assets from inspected sites knowing that those sites would soon be targets.
> Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
For leverage, obviously.
If Israel were Iran's only rival then it would obviously do everything in its power to become nuclear capable because Israel violated international law to become nuclear capable. However, Iran has many rivals and does not want to set off a nuclear arms race in the middle east.
They also hoped to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions.
So Iran had reason to set themselves up to be able to get nuclear weapons, without actually getting nuclear weapons.
Now, that whole policy looks foolish and Iran's only real rational option is to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so.
Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted.
[pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already.
But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.
Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states:
>> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here.
[0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
[pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly!
That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort.
1. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-...
"Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable
Agreed. However, taking into account the full statement (provided by the collective U.S. Intelligence Services) to include the parts about: Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003 and that he has final say in the matter, says they were not working actively towards a bomb.
But there was growing advocation for doing so. Now they have been emboldened further and been given fuel to advocate restarting the program. If Khamenei had so far kept the pro-nuke elements of the regime at bay, this strike may force the very thing that foreign Intelligence roped us into "stopping".
I am not saying they did not have the means; they will rebuild the means, and now they will have the motivation as well as know-how in a way that will be more difficult to stop.
This stinks of Iraq & WMD. Which the U.S. Intelligence made drastic changes to prevent happening again.
Only now we were on the side of saying there is no proof it was actively being worked on, and the person/state with "proof" also happens to be the state that has been bitterly opposed to Iran and started launching unprovoked missiles. That state also knows how to get what it wants from this administration and suddenly we go from, there is no proof they are doing nefarious things with their program, to they are about nuke us all if we don't do something; all in a matter of weeks.
Yes & No. Thats what I understood the Trump campaign promised, to stop military meddling in other countries religious (or otherwise) conflicts.
Diplomacy is not nothing, and has kept the Iran program from restarting (going by US reports that it was stopped). Now it is all but sure to start up again. Unless the goal was for the US to be suckered into forcing a regime change, and we all know how well those attempts have gone.
> I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs
If it happened at that time with proof and congressional approval then okay, but thats not an excuse for now. Thats how states end up in a war that lasts for a couple or more millennia
Everyone keeps saying Trump didn’t have approval when Congress authorized this
Or the alternative being the JCPOA. Which was an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions.
An agreement which failed because the US side reimplemented the sanctions while Iran was in compliance with the agreement.
I think this becomes a definitions game again. I'd consider a country to be "working actively towards a bomb" when it's taking costly steps that provide no commensurate benefit except towards a nuclear weapons program. At that point, there's no rational explanation for their actions except that they're working towards the bomb.
So e.g. enrichment of uranium to <3.67% (as permitted by the JCPOA) is not such a step, since that's also economically useful for civilian nuclear power. Enrichment to 60% is such a step--the only conceivable civilian uses are niches for which the cost would far exceed any benefit.
It seems you agree they're enriching in the latter way, but you don't count that as "working actively towards a bomb". So what definition are you using for that phrase? We obviously can't just let the Iranian government decide, or they'll define everything short of a successful test as part of their "peaceful explosive lenses program" or whatever.
My general sense is that the JCPOA was working reasonably well, and it's unfortunate that Trump exited. To the extent these strikes were a necessary solution, they might be to a problem of his own making. I agree that Iran could be emboldened and merely delayed here. That may imply an inevitable endgame of either regime change or near-total destruction of Iran's economic capacity, big escalations and risks.
Switzerland's nuclear program stayed one step away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon for several decades straight. The fact that they could become a nuclear power, but haven't, and could credibly restart their program if attacked, is of strategic importance to them.
Is it building towards a bomb if your intention is to sit on the precipice of building a nuclear weapon for the rest of time, leveraging your position as deterrence, but never going over the edge? I have no idea! I also have no idea whether this describes Iran. Saying that there's "no question" they were building towards a bomb is ignoring this question, though.
As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from? At best it's a bluff, like threatening someone with an unloaded gun. But would you really want to bet your life that Iran has put maybe a quarter of their GDP (including sanctions impact; the program itself is much less) into a bluff? We can't read minds, and their costly actions seem like much more reliable signals than our guesses at their intent.
Switzerland is an odd comparison, since they got their capabilities in what they openly described as the initial stages of a nuclear weapons program. Since abandoning that, Switzerland has been divesting its enriched uranium. If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
Exactly the same place as the deterrence in MAD. You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals when you build the bomb, you intend to sit around with a metaphorical shotgun aimed at your door for the rest of time.
> If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
Sure, I agree. I approve of the strikes against Iran in principle. I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
I don't see why intent requires immediacy? Perhaps this becomes uselessly philosophical, but I would say MAD requires the defending state to intend to nuke its adversary, conditioned on some future event (a nuclear attack on themselves, an existential conventional attack, etc.). They hope that condition is never satisfied, but intend to strike if it is.
> I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
For clarity, I don't believe that either. By "working actively towards", I mean only that Iran was taking costly steps that bring them closer to a working bomb, and no other rational purpose could justify those costs. I think the distinction of what such steps we count as "lowering latency" vs. "building a bomb" is arbitrary and mostly meaningless, since as the latency approaches zero the latter goal is effectively achieved.
I agree that Iran might just have been saber-rattling; or even if they currently intended to build and test a complete bomb, they might have discontinued the program before succeeding. I just don't think intent is a useful focus (vs. practical capabilities), since it's fundamentally unknowable and could change at any time.
Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where.
Etc
My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start".
The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
an iran with a bomb would have to not be the relogious dictatorship anymore, and whatever coup that allowed for the bomb might not have the same opinions about the west as the current one
But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use.
In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran
So apparently it's humourous to kill.
It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing.
Related, example of that brainwashing at scale:
- Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier.
- Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad.
- People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good.
- Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all.
- Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it.
- People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society.
- Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable.
Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
vs.
> Some band in the USA wrote a song about bombing Iran in 1980.
Yeah, those are completely equal.
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
The GBU-57 is dope. Really curious to see how well it worked here
The first bunker-buster :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bomb
"According to an anecdote, the idea arose after a group of Royal Navy officers saw a similar, but fictional, bomb depicted in the 1943 Walt Disney animated propaganda film Victory Through Air Power,[Note 10] and the name Disney was consequently given to the weapon."
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
If they built the facility out of 30,000psi concrete, they'd be lucky to pen 4 meters with a direct hit, nevermind the 80m of limestone above it.
Did you have to add that qualifier because otherwise there's at least one other nuclear power in Middle East that regularly bombs civilians.
Didn't Netanyahu perjure himself to congress about iraq's wmds two decades? Isn't that grounds for arrest? It's amazing how our media never mentions that netanyahu is a habitual liar when they push netanyahu's iran's wmds spiel.
At this point our media companies are israel's PR department. Fox news should be banned like RT for being a foreign mouthpiece.
It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence.
Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
- Saddam factually didn’t have WMD to use,
- If he had, they were not powerful anyway,
- Not a reason for groundbreaking safekeeping invasion,
- We all know it was a matter of petrol, not humanitarian causes.
I’m literally all ok with invasions caused by power struggles; I’m not ok with lying. Colin Powell lied and the UN Security Council validated,
…proving the UNSC is a shitbag, and irremediable, hopeless, handicapped pile of corrupt officials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
> U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.
The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians.
The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes.
Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point.
Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them.
So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking?
You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them.
Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision?
It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.
It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
> It was ginned up BS
This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations.
> that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD.
I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.
What are these documents you are referring to?
Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable.
Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.
It was about ongoing programs, including a whole bunch of horse droppings about yellowcake uranium enrichment.
Pedantically saying but there were some old shells of gas misses the entire point.
The US ginned up a war on false pretenses, leading to millions dying.
Your um actually on some trivia ain't helpful or interesting
I don't get why people who are so opposed to the war are the ones who can't admit they actually did have WMD. Making these false claims just makes it look like we, who were opposed to the war, are the liars.
It would be like the FBI saying they raided the world's biggest drug lord, and the only thing they found was a little bit of shake in a backpack in his garage.
You pedantically "but they did find drugs!"
You forget that it is also US state media. Republicans would be banning their own version of RT.
You can believe Fox News is the worst entity in human history, but Fox News is not RT.
[0] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/04/five-...
Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is:
- The ICC is just a court, not a police department. Only countries have those, and while Netanyahu is in Israel, his own police probably won't arrest him.
- Authoritarian governments like Trump, Orban, Putin are actively undermining the ICC, which makes enforcement even less likely.
It's not just a Trump thing.
In 2002 on the heels of 9/11 George W Bush signed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... into law, also known as Hague Invasion Act, specifically acknowledging the ICC in the clearest of ways.
How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
Seriously, though. There are thousands of tin-pot dictators who would love to remake the world in their image. None of them have the ability to do so, including Iran. What makes this one special? Other than it being a very convenient target in a news cycle with some very inconvenient stories?
then again if your username is accurate, there's no point
What justifies this?
With these strikes, it seems more like Israel has ample intelligence on the US government than it has on the Middle East, since even DNI concurred that there was no proof of WMDs.
The land, roads, ingress points, elevators, security, everything around here is now FUBAR. Okay so you didn't "destroy the bunker", but how many years until it's functional again?
The facility is beneath 80m of limestone which in the Qom formation is roughly equivalent to about 5000psi concrete.
Beneath the limestone, sits the facility itself which is encased in high performance concrete. So these bombs need to pen 80m of 5000psi material and then a unknown depth of high performance concrete.
And US military assets are often much more powerful than publicly advertised...
I know a bunch of armchair generals on here are speculating that this was ineffective, but time will tell.
Why do you believe that to be true?
Military: We can penetrate up to 200 feet with this new bunker buster bomb that we spent a billion dollars on…specifically for this site and some sites in North Korea.
Enemy: Build the bunker at 300 feet, I hear their best bunker buster is only effective to 200 feet.
Military: Damn, foiled again!
Not saying you're wrong, but... source?
And, if so, where was it moved to?
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-858619
Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option.
The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option.
Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
> Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests
Exactly. I do my best to consider them an "adversary", not an "enemy" for just that reason.
> The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense.
I'd argue there are two risks: one is that this puts Iran in a position where, if the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them.
It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
I don't think we have a better option, sadly, but it is a consequence of this action.
Also, I don't think this makes a rational case for use. For possession, yes. For threatening to use them under certain conditions, yes - but the only rational use case for deploying nuclear weapons is if your opponent has already done the same. This became the case when the thermonuclear bomb was invented.
Turkey/Türkiye has been going the other direction. They're not totally off the reservation, but Erdogan isn't exactly in NATO's inner circle personally.
> I don't think we have a better option
I'd love help getting on board with this
If we fail, there's still the hope that other commenters here are right, and Iran isn't intent on using them offensively. If so, then Iran itself will be safe from this sort of attack.
... but it will also be clear to every other that the only way to be secure from Western military intervention is to possess nuclear weapons. There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. This will lead to a world where proliferation is rampant, but not necessarily one where their use is no longer taboo as it is today.
Like North Korea?
And like Ukraine (conversely).
20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
If they managed to get enough of their HEU and any reactor spent fuel out of Fordo and elsewhere into locations we don't know about where they happen to have previously built backup facilities then they could have them very quickly. Hopefully a) they didn't build backup facilities, and b) didn't get a change to spirit away the materials w/o us noticing.
If commercial satellite photography can keep an eye on the movement of trucks in this area, it's probably safe to assume that spy satellites can too.
Which is why they likely were trying to possess them before and the US and Israel felt the need to strike
They will not stop, and they can't be negotiated with on this, again because they see it as a religious duty.
they use theology for political mandate and to further their goals. their goals are fundamentally opposed to israel's existence and go against america's interests in the region but they are geopolitical goals wrapped in theological wrapping paper, not mad ravings. no more than israel's "promised land" and america's "christian duty" are
this dehumanization is only going to lead to US boots on the ground and iran becoming an even worse vietnam/afghanistan. the US needs to bring iran down like the soviets were brought down; from the inside. this invading and sabre rattling hasnt worked before and wont work now
If you disagree can you help me understand the difference between these issues?
Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal either by proxy or by way of a domestic nuclear program. That is the legacy of this strike. It puts the point at the end of the exclamation that was Ukraine.
The seeds of a new era of proliferation have been sown, and our children will reap the rewards.
There are now ways to purify uranium much more cost effectively and in better secrecy that centrifuges. Small labs can do it effectively now, and a massively distributed effort would not only make it possible to achieve without needing to buy restricted equipment, it also would make it nearly impossible to disrupt militarily.
You could just open source a design and let the market do the work. It’s of course a terrible idea, which would lead to explosive proliferation and lots of cancer, but it would work. The technical part is challenging but not outside of the reach of serious hobby level efforts.
I will be surprised if we don’t start to see something along these lines cropping up all over the place soon. It’s a natural progression of several technologies that have become vastly more economical and accessible as time goes on.
Maybe, but the US and Israel also just demonstrated that Russian air defense assets (as employed in Iran) can be worthless.
The conflict does make me think the F35 might not be that bad. Granted who knows how Israel got air superiority?
But yeah, you’ve got a point. It’s great for general dynamics stock outlook. lol.
We've already seen that with North Korea and Libya. NK got to having them before we could stop them. Libya gave up its nuclear program (which is how we learned about Iran's), and we staged a revolution there and regime change.
I don’t wish for more nuclear weapons, but to date, the states with them, usually (a nice apply word) don’t use them.
Does that sound like someone who should have a nuclear arsenal?
That the US decides who can have them is darkly hilariously.
They just execute 1000 people a year for crimes like not wearing the propper hat. Or letting be raped.
If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.
The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
Relative to their last, America-backed regime? I don't think you're looking at this from an Iranian perspective at all.
Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
and a war that killed 400,000 Americans.
You want to repeat that history?
1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.
You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
* The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936
* The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938
* The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938
The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power.
Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again.
I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
Furthermore, the foreign policy of the Nazis was informed more by their ideological myths than external events. After all, the Nazis admired the Great Imperialist Powers like the British Empire as part of the "Aryan Race". Their enmity was directed at Eastern Europe and the Communists, which had little to do with the enactment of post-war reparations on Germany.
Well, skip forward in 2023 and here we are again...
https://cherwell.org/2023/05/28/oxford-union-votes-not-to-fi...
Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
That is literally the ultimate ambition of this war.
There's a long list of middle eastern countries where we've installed our stooges.
And Iran executes plenty of journalists too.
Maybe. But overall Saudi Arabia has been undergoing pretty dramatic changes in recent years: Women can now drive, are no longer required to wear a hijab, are allowed to work, can meet with male friends/non-relatives without the police stopping them, etc. Yes, it's still a far cry from what women are allowed to do in western countries, and absolute change is still slow, but relatively speaking it's still quite impressive and gives me (and apparently people there) hope.
Source: I was in Saudi and talked to people.
Overall, there seemed to be a rather pronounced divide between the cities and the country side: In the cities you did see the occasional woman without hijab, some women working (particularly in the hospitality industry), and a few women driving (though still not many). Meanwhile, in more rural areas tradition strongly prevailed. So none of the things I mentioned are really commonplace yet (not even in the cities) – it's just that at the very least they're legal now and people (women) are making their first baby steps towards enjoying their newfound freedom.
So they want to either change the regime or change the regime, and don't much care which one?
The PA didn't really come close to negotiating peace and given Hamas were not able to. See Hamas' suicide bombing campaign during the Oslo peace process. The PA, somewhat as a response to Israeli policy, decided to pursue trying to force Israel to yield via a combination of armed and political struggle and not negotiate with it. Strangely enough security cooperation did continue throughout (and the PA is basically supported by the IDF otherwise it would likely have been toppled). This all happened after the Oslo peace process collpased due to Hamas.
The Wikipedia article does not mention this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... but that doesn't mean anything given the current sorry state of that site, and this article supports this idea: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
This is relevant to the coup: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandt...
Thanks for the extra colour here.
This is more likely to be the end of the American empire than an actual change in Iran.
You think we need to occupy them? This isn't Iraq.
war and conflict are almost always bipartisan to some degree.
[0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-reporting-team-that-g_n_9... [1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/journalism-press-failed-...
I would be shocked if there were 50 million atheists in America. Maybe if you included people who are spiritual but do not believe directly in a god. Maybe I could accept it then, but at that point, you are stretching the definition of 'atheist' to its breaking point.
A few bombs, everyone comes out of closet, unconditional surrender, democracy, live happily ever after... Sounds like American movie...
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GAMAAN-Iran-Re...
This survey is heavily weighted towards emigres and people who know emigres.
(If you mean Muslims, or Arabs, there are plenty of those in the Israeli parliament too.)
This is a stupid war being waged by idiots against idiots . Unfortunately none of those idiots calling the shots will die, it'll be a bunch of kids who just made the mistake of not being rich and powerful enough.
Is this, in your mind, how empires end? I'm not sure if you've cracked a history book in a while, but immigrants built this country. We are a country of immigrants. We win when we get the hardest working, most entrepreneurial, boldest and smartest people to come here. Immigrants are no couch potatoes - on average they work harder than American born citizens do by an order of magnitude for way less pay.
It is also completely unnecessary. There are two options. Either the current regime makes a "deal" or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
Iran and Iraq are very different. Different culture, people and history. It's also worth remembering Iran is not homogeneous, only 61% of the population are Persians. There are Azeri, there are Kurds and various other ethnic/region minorities.
Iran is extremely vulnerable. It has internal issues, constantly oppressing/suppressing its people. Its economy is in terrible shape. Most of its economic engine can be easily taken out (its main oil terminals). The bulk of its military can be destroyed from the air, it has little defensive or offensive capability. They know it.
There are much much softer targets than Tel Aviv, many of which Iran has successfully attacked in the past.
The argument that the Iranian people hate their autocratic government might be correct. But a symmetric argument can be made about many of the regimes which work with the United States. No one in those countries is going to war with Iran to defend the US right to have military bases in the Middle East.
If Ramat Gan is not safe, then the UAE's resorts and airports, Saudi's oil processing facilities, the US installations in Iraq and in the Gulf, etc are not even remotely safe.
Israel has taken a lot of damage but relatively little loss of life.
Iran would be foolish to expand the war and they know it. They're not going to attack the UAE or Saudi. Iran's bluff has been called.
from an israeli perspective, things cant be going better. if the US gets pulled into invading iran, then their only effective opponent in the world is vietnam'd. which is great if your soldiers arent the ones dying to IEDs.
without iranian funding/management, Hamas shrivels up and palestine is open to be ethnically cleansed. israel wins a 3000 year old war, and only has to deal with sternly worded letters from the UN for it.
against who? the persians beat the babylonian tyrants and enabled the rebuilding of the temple way back when. Cyrus is a messiah rather than ancient enemy
Say you give the Kurds their own part of Iran and help protect their area could weaken the rest. I think there is already such a deal in in Iraq afaik.
how are you gonna do that without boots on the ground?
Trump talking about annexing canada made them go from being sick of the liberal party becuase of trudeau to swinging back around to supporting it to an upset victory because they were the only ones standing up to america. and thats america's closest ally, iran is their most bitter foe
this is either gonna end any chance of cooling things off with iran (and make them realize they need a nuclear deterrent yesterday), or turn into another vietnam/afghanistan
the regime was unpopular, the US could have collapsed them slowly like they did the soviets, but instead they let israel's "trust me bro" on nukes pull them into another quagmire.
Does it have the political will? No way!
Michael Shurkin-- a former rand analyst and I strongly recommend his podcast-- says that politicians say "there is no military solution" when they mean there is no military solution that people would politically support. The US could do all sorts of things in Iran but the US people would not accept the casualties or the human rights abuses.
Good ol US was fine though, if that's what you mean.
I cannot. Ground occupation, yes. But afaict bombing just reinforces the regime.
The Iranian regime is very centralized and with Israel and the USA having air superiority and having penetrated it completely from an intelligence perspective (see Israel's perfect knowledge of the whereabouts of the previous chief of staff and the newly appointed chief of staff) it's going to be very hard for it to survive if a decision is made to remove it. There are a handful of key people that once gone there is not going to be any continuity.
The current regime is allowed to continue because of fear of chaos if it is removed, not because there isn't a capability to remove it.
Again, no bombing campaigns led to a change of regime. This theory is proven again and again
The key element is where the will of the people points - Milosevic was already unpopular and the bombing further united the people against him.
The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.
Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty).
The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.
Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.
Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order.
What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK.
The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.
The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement
From what I gathered from OSINT types, they have breached the ventilation shafts above the centrifuge halls
IRGC isn’t a sovereign country, it’s a designated terrorist organization
You forgot that IRGC already directly attacked Israel twice in 2024 [1,2], and that’s not including countless proxy attacks and terrorist acts, culminating in October 7th massacres & atrocities
You got it wrong: IRGC attacked and Israel retaliated
US is just helped a little bit their ally
> This stuff isn't OK.
UN, ICC, ICG, etc. all became a $hit show, they don’t work. For 40 years IRGC threatened with Genocide of Jews, and they did nothing. Now when Jews retaliated: * This stuff isn't OK.* ;)
—-
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes...
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...
or
De facto vs de jure
Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the substance and not merely a [legal] form
Examples:
- form: a cryptocurrency, but substance: an unregistered security
- “medical alcohol” during dry laws / Prohibition
- “medical marijuana” & patients vs drug users
- etc.
—-
Was Third Reich[1] a “sovereign government” or a front for The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Was USSR a “sovereign government” or a front for a Communist Party?
Is Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) a “sovereign government” or merely a front for IRGC[2]?
And wasn’t Iran/Persia already a “sovereign government” before IRGC staged a coup d'état (aka “revolution”)?
—-
> "De facto" and "de jure" are Latin terms used to distinguish between what exists in reality and what is legally recognized. "De facto" refers to something that exists in practice or reality, even if not officially established or legally recognized. "De jure" refers to something that is legally recognized or officially established
——
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_...
In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate
It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not
——
> So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...?
I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
Japan.
That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.
If one were really concerned about the Iranians, the first thing they'd hope for is the containment of radiation not a revolution.
More to it, I've had personal experience with this brutal regime, they arrested my old cousin during the Mahsa Protests(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests), she was taken to the Evin prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison) and was tortured for 6 months. We had no news from her. When she was finally released, she was so skinny that you could see her rib bones. We managed to bring her to Canada and it took her over a year of medical care until she began to recover. She was only 20.
No one hates this regime more than Iranians.
With all that out of the way, Iranians have no choice now but the defend their homes against hostile forces. They will not simply sit back and watch Israel and United States bomb their land to oblivion and then demand unconditional surrender.
This attack will inflict more pain on Iranians and only serves to grow the regime stronger.
We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US.
Honest question, do Iranians want foreign help for regime change? If so, what would be the nature of this help?
You've had decades to change the regime and you didn't do it. If not now, when?
Let's conservatively assume a terminal velocity (v) of 400 m/s (approximately 895 mph).
Calculating Kinetic Energy (KE):
The formula for kinetic energy is:
KE = 0.5 * m * v²
Plugging in our values:
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * (400 m/s)²
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * 160,000 m²/s²
KE ≈ 1.088 billion Joules
This is an enormous amount of energy that must be absorbed by the ground to stop the bomb.
---
Resistive Force of Soil (60m penetration estimation):
To simplify, we can use empirical formulas developed from extensive testing. One of the most well-known is Young's empirical formula, which provides a way to estimate penetration depth based on the projectile's characteristics and the soil's properties.
resistive force is as a pressure (force per unit area) acting on the front of the MOP. Let's call this the dynamic soil resistance. The total resistive force (F) would be this pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area (A) of the bomb.
The cross-sectional area of the MOP (with a diameter of 0.8 m) is
A = π * (radius)² = π * (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.5 m²
---
Calculating Penetration Depth (d):
The work done (W) by the soil to stop the bomb is:
W = F * d
Setting the initial kinetic energy equal to the work done:
KE = F * d
Therefore, the penetration depth is:
d = KE / F
To achieve a 60-meter penetration, the average resistive force would have to be:
F = 1,088,000,000 J / 60 m
F ≈ 18,133,333 Newtons
This is equivalent to a force of over 4 million pounds. While this seems immense, it's plausible given the energies involved.
---
Now, we can calculate the resistive force:
Convert PSI to Pascals (Newtons per square meter):
15,000 psi(assuming) × 6,895 Pa/psi ≈ 103.4 Million Pascals (MPa)
Calculate the MOP's Cross-Sectional Area:
Diameter = 31.5 inches (0.8 meters)
Radius = 0.4 meters
Area (A) = π × (radius)² = π × (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.503 m²
Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):
Force = Pressure × Area
F = 103,400,000 N/m² × 0.503 m²
F ≈ 52 Million Newtons
So we see that 18 Million Newtons is not enough and the bomb would have to be significantly supersonic, or my calculations are too conservative, or they are overestimating the 60m soil penetration, but we ARE in the same ballpark.
---
now, you might ask how can an object achieve over 1 Mach terminal velocity?
At high altitudes (like 30,000-50,000 feet): The air is much colder and less dense. For instance, at 35,000 feet, the temperature can be around -54°C, and the speed of sound drops to about 295 m/s (about 660 mph).
In this high-altitude, low-density environment, the MOP's terminal velocity is incredibly high. It can easily accelerate past the local speed of sound (which is already lower due to the cold) and go supersonic, then slowing down when near ground.
The bomb is also likely designed like a super aerodynamic dart to achieve maximum terminal velocity.
It does seem like we're nearing the limit of what can be done with aircraft though. The challenge of hitting the ground much harder seems to be greater than just digging your facility a little deeper (that said, I've nevler dug a hole that deep either so perhaps I'm wrong about that also).
As for the facts, and not just the narrative: 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment, and it is not illegal under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore, today's attack is an illegal act of aggression against another country, violating international law. Those are the facts.
That's what Iran state media says. Has anyone else said this?
This is why I think the most likely scenario is that Israel will commit to regime change. Israel can't trust the current regime to not race to a nuclear weapon at this stage, and Israel can never be over 99% certain that a clandestine effort isn't being done outside of the current understanding of intelligence. "Assume the worst" seems to be a doctrine they adhere to.
The problem is that the US government appear to support them in whatever craziness they aim for. That's the part that makes this a lot more problematic.
Happened with Japan in WW2, too, although that was a surrender rather than bottom up. But still a form of regime change. There are many ways it could play out.
…
> 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment.
So which is it?
1. They already have enriched uranium and can just make a bomb now
2. They don’t have weapons-grade enriched uranium (and now probably cannot enrich it)
Whether they had the theoretical ability to complete enrichment or not last week, does not matter, because they likely do not have it now.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
We're working on it, 10-20 more years of legal proceedings and it's done.
The US posturing against Iran dates back to the Cold War era when Iran was tagged as “northern tier” state, and any nationalist moves inside looked like a Soviet opening, and a threat to the Anglo stronghold of Iran's Oil.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are monotheistic and all claim to be the religion of the One God, yes.
But the Jews rejected the God the Christians believe in, and the Muslims describe/portray a god that is absolutely incompatible with the Christian God.
So essentially no, they can't possibly all believe in the same God.
We couldn’t stop North Korea with threats of violence but we did manage to stop Iran for almost 50 years through diplomacy. That’s all pissed down the drain now.
Yes, we stopped them. How many nuclear weapons does Iran possess today? 0? Despite having a vast, VAST head start on North Korea - like decades worth of experience and capabilities. The ONLY reason they don't have one today is the diplomacy that convinced them to not move forward faster.
>How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc.
I think my favorite part is when the first country on your list is one who has been threatened repeatedly by the current US administration.
What exactly do you think Canada is going to do should Trump decide to follow-through on his threats of making them the 51st state? Make some strongly worded notices of condemnation with the UN while Ottawa is being razed?
Costa Rica has nothing anybody wants. If the US tomorrow declared they are no longer protecting Japan, they would likley find themselves invaded by Japan before the end of the year. The only reason Italy is safe is because they're part of the EU, and the EU has... you guessed it... access to nuclear weapons.
Yet, if they had moved faster, force would've been used to stop them earlier.
If force alone could stop a nuclear program, why does North Korea have bombs? Many nations could have attacked them without any concerns of recourse for decades.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia after the collapse of the USSR with a treaty-promise that Russia will never be an aggressor.
Iran has now been bombed into regime change for trying to even get to that point.
If there's one thing every 2-bit aspiring dictator now knows, it's the only way to protect yourself is to get nukes.
This wasn't a non-proliferation enforcement action, this was the nail in the coffin of all future non-proliferation efforts.
Now we have regime change and Libya is a paradise. /s
One of the problems with all of this is we may hate the government, but in getting rid of it we don't get anything better.
North Korea is poised to level Seoul with conventional rocket artillery. A military solution has never been an option. Threats of violence in Korea are transparent.
They have consistently and openly threatened US leaders.
There was no diplomacy here.
"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
No, can't imagine that causing any bitterness.
We reaped what we sowed with Iran.
When people are mixing up basic facts like this you know the mainstream's knowledge of Iran is heavily propagandized. Really would help if people actually read a history textbook for once instead of believing everything they hear from someone else.
It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know.
In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.
Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned.
This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws.
You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years.
So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge:
Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel?
And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel?
This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?
Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that.
For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way".
Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia.
(In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel?
You are doing a really bad job of presenting anything coherent.
No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this.
I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread:
> Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that.
I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect.
You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.
No.
Your parent is figuratively flying in the face of …
I have five figures of karma with which to fight this battle…
The Iran-Iraq war was the first one, with Iraq funded and supported by the Gulf states.
Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is strategic in this context. The Saudi regime wants rapprochement with Israel and to remain aligned with US interests. But neither of these are remotely popular in the Saudi population. By funding guerrilla warfare against Israel, Iran and to a lesser extent Qatar, keeps the Sauds discredited and unpopular among at home and in other Arab countries. The same applies to Egypt, another regional rival of Iran, whose government have never been off the defensive with the Egyptian people and wider Arab opinion since normalisation with Israel.
Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah themselves are only interested in fighting Israel and not the wider regional conflicts. But Iran itself uses that conflict, quite cynically, for wider geopolitical goals. Its stance is the reason that, from Afghanistan to Turkey to Tunisia, it can always find allies who want to challenge the Gulf states vision for the Middle East. Iran supplies the weapons and the know how, but there's never a shortage of locals to drive the car bombs.
There is an interpretation of Iran's behaviour which sees it as a source of Muslim pride for standing up to imperialism, and suggests in contrast that the Saudi leaders are too decadent, too corrupt, and bring shame by ignoring injustice and exploitation done to Arabs. I would certainly question this, but it's not an unpopular discourse in Saudi and other Arab countries.
If you have never come across the idea of the conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine etc being part of a long game of proxy war and influence between Iran and Saudi, I would question how broad your sources of analysis are.
Still, I think you (or austin-cheney) go way too far in seemingly completely dismissing the idea that the proxies are to fight Israel. Yes, there are a lot of larger strategic implications here, and yes, this is sometimes seen as part of Iran positioning itself as the leader of the Muslim nation that will restore honor to Islam, etc.
But "Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening." doesn't make much sense, given the consistent statements of Iran for the last 40 years, given the fact that they're pouring so much of this funding into Hamas and Hezbollah which, as you say, are only interested in fighting Israel themselves.
(Btw, in some sense, Israel is probably the most powerful regional power in the Middle East.)
In any case, none of this makes my original point "nonsense". The point that it's Iran that's disrupting the rules-based order, not the US, still stands, even if the proxy wars were not "really" to destroy Israel (most evidence to the contrary) and even if it's only funding these proxies which have spread terror and war in the region to try and destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.
Well, sort of. They tried, but when the UN gave an answer that the US and UK didn't like, they went ahead anyway.
> You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it.
I'm not quite cynical enough to wholly agree with that, but given enough motivation and power the façade does crack pretty easily.
Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most.
If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s
I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisle...
The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point.
In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect.
To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.
And the thing about war is that there's no real way to tell who's going to win. For instance I think many people believe that the war in Afghanistan basically simmered down once the media coverage of it simmered down. But that couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban was killing US proxies and soldiers alike, by the tens of thousands. The only way we could have even possibly won would have been a full-on ground invasion which would have entailed at least tens of thousands of US deaths, which Americans would never tolerate so it wasn't even an option. We withdrew because we were losing - the Taliban defeated the US. No sort of proxy you could ever create would predict that.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...
If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
It’s not that people were just too dumb or too scared to do something about it.
As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.
The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.
This speaks like someone who has never been outside of a heavily bureaucratized regime. People don't get "approval" for things, they just do them.
Agreed. Let's start with US and Russia first.
The contradiction is that by relying on militarism instead of diplomacy we keep demonstrating that countries are safer from aggression once they have the bomb. You think the situation you’ve described provides a negative incentive for nuclear development, but it does not.
Or maybe that is the wrong approach, but the policy we've had that let North Korea develop nukes and Iran at least get very close also isn't working.
Iran is more straightforward. I don't know why we've been so reluctant to make real diplomatic effort, especially after so many of Iran's proxies were significantly weakened in the last year or two, and Iran's sway was at a minimum. There seems to be an unwritten rule that once we've categorized a country as an enemy we're obligated to deal with them in the dumbest ways imaginable.
Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
It's "make nukes first, ask questions later"
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
Also, you probably mean "unleash".
I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
Seoul is in artillery range of the border.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_re...
Before this there was every reason to doubt Israel's claims, which they've been making for 30 years, about Iran imminently having a nuclear weapon. But at this point there's a practically 100% certainty that they will be aiming to create nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
This seems analogous to the idea that every household should have guns if they want to be safe.
And why a divorced guy living in his house be an issue with your friends or neighbors?
Why is “divorced” relevant. Maybe he should be the one worried about NIMBYs.
I made a profile of a person that fits the profile of somebody that might be a little angry at society. Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating.
For what its worth, there are plenty of guys I know who are divorced, and it was probably the right decision, and they're great people. Most marriages end that way, in fact. It doesn't mean the "divorced jaded man who lost his social place in the world, struggles to find kindness or peers, and lashes out" is a stock character that will go away. It's a real problem
Oh god… please fix me.
Anyways it read to me like an obvious generalization. My bad if you weren’t. After all, some of your best friends are “x”.
And furthermore most gun crime is committed by people who do not legally own the firearm being used. [2] I'm loathe to link to that site, but this is an issue that is poorly reported and so it requires exploring a web of data sources, which they actually competently do, on this issue at least.
You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
[1] - https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...
[2] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/...
You should take a refresher on statistics and the difference between correlated and causative
Problem is it is impossible to combine: - responsible storage of firearms - immediate availability of firearms anywhere at home when faced with hostility
Also most gun violence is domestic so having firearms at home do not solve a problem but creates it.
Curiosity is the number one problem with kids and guns, and that's because we hide them behind a mystique and don't make them understand. But talk to any redneck kid, and guns aren't a big deal, because they've had the mystique removed through education and familiarity.
Also people can be responsible for years until they aren't. As much as you believe you couldn't hurt someone you love, there is no way you (pr anyone else) can be 100% sure that reality will never change. If there was a way to know, people would be stopped or would surrender their weapons before they commit crimes.
That said: lock up your guns. Your mid will probably survive a stove burn.
In most case, it is the same countries that give adequate training to their cops, a not-so-surprising correlation.
When it's rare, then it's easy and reasonable to take a highly idealistic approach. When it's frequent you have to deal with uncomfortable practical issues like whether an officer should prioritize your survival, or their own. There's a line where heroics turn into suicidality, and that's largely driven by frequency.
We’ve seen the footage of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors beating them with clubs, riding over them repeatedly with horses.
The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
It takes more time and training to be certified as a hairdresser in most parts of the US than it does a cop.
What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
You're naive. The police (or whatever you call it) is meant for inward force projection of the state. Your security is not the main concern.
Besides the police works too slowly to truly protect you when SHTF. Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
> This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home
Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension.
Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery.
You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
If you re-read what I've wrote carefully you can observe I didn't refer once to my lived experience.
A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on.
The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe.
Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control.
And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed.
In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
Why do Canada and Europe have dramatically lower violent crime rates despite having a mostly unarmed population?
Grew up rural Alberta with rifles around the house all the time, in plain view. For shooting game. Not a word was ever uttered about "defending ourselves" with guns... From who?
Hell, we left our door unlocked when we left the house unless it was overnight.
Good grief. Nothing is sadder than people valorizing social/cultural breakdown.
"Peace, order, and good government."
I don't lock my house or my car habitually, never had a problem, never felt the need to keep a weapon either, but I know plenty of people that live in the city that have been robbed or assaulted and do feel the need to carry though. I can't really blame them for not relying on police.
[1] - https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/...
Although on this topic I'd also add that urban areas have a similar issue. Criminals know that the overwhelming majority of crime goes unpunished, while people have a reality deluded by shows like CSI. Homicides, for instance, have the highest clearance rate, by far. And it's 47.5%. [1] Vehicular theft has the worst at 6.6%. If you end up with your window busted out and everything that's not strapped down stolen, there's no real point reporting it to the police unless necessary for an insurance claim because you're never getting that stuff back, and the thief is never getting caught.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_rate#In_the_United_S...
Source: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.3040...
That's also not necessarily the point I'm making. Suppose you are in a society where a small part of people are bad actors, for whatever reason. They will break and enter, murder, and rape. You want to protect the rest of the society against these bad actors. You can now equip everyone with weapons so they may defend themselves. That also enables the bad actors to use said weapons because we don't know who really know who is a bad actor (at least not the ones that didn't commit any crimes yet). Or you give weapons only to a small part of society, where you enforce strict gun laws.
The alternative is to reduce the number of bad actors and this is, in part, fulfilled by the conditions that you are describing. But how do I reduce the number of state leaders that are willing to shoot each other? I guess it's what you are saying, namely constructive, open, and fair trade. But we're not really making progress in that direction it seems.
Turns out, making yourself a more dangerous target works to an extent.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You know because it’s hard to make a case about being a country of rights, due process, law and order if you don’t extend that to the people within it’s borders.
The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.
There’s a supremacy clause, and it’s quite clear.
That's a lie. They broke the law when they entered the country illegally. Then some of them committed more crimes.
Just like you don't need a judge to determine if someone drives without a driver's license.
The states don’t have any sovereignty to make their own decisions about immigration.
Putting aside ICE tactics, if their immigration status is not legal, then by definition they are not law abiding citizens.
Unless you are privy the status of any planned or ongoing ICE operations against criminals, you have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
Law enforcement at all levels needs checks along with better direction in carrying out their duties. However, allowing people to continue living in an immigration limbo is not a solution. Sanctuary cities leave illegal immigrants unprotected.
There are plenty of guns in LA, and any ICE agent or cop would be dumb to assume those they are arresting are unarmed because “it’s against the law”.
The red cities don’t have sanctuary city rules in place, so local law enforcement helps ICE and the arrests don’t make the news.
Going with your analogy, this would be the same as if police basically ignored all home invasion/trespassing laws such that the only houses that criminals entered were in fact those of undefended home owners. In this scenario, it would be demonstrated, by this policy, that yes home owners need to own guns to be safe.
To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true. The lesson of Ukraine and Iran is that, if you don't have nuclear weapons, your sovereignty is always at the mercy of nations that do.
A world where every country needs nuclear weapons to remain sovereign is similarly undesirable (on a larger scale) to a country where every home needs to have guns to be safe. However we're on a path with nuclear weapons where that is unfortunately not the reality we are creating.
Relations between sovereign states are fundamentally anarchic. There are no world police. The UN and other international institutions have little or no real power, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is only enforceable through kinetic action by other countries when it suits their interests.
Second strike weapons are in some ways a holdover from Cold War strategic thinking which it's sort of acknowledged probably overestimated the penchant of any side to engage in a first strike.
The practical reality of nuclear war planning has generally been that no one will accept even a single city-buster landing - and no first strike option is really reliable enough to guarantee you didn't miss one.
So achieving monopoly on violence first. Which requires forcefully disarming all opposition just like what is happening right now. Is the Sovereign hypocritical because they arrest and potential kill people they don't like but they do not others to do so? According to many mainstream political theories, not neccessairly so.
The matter of fact is that if a major power really wants to destroy a smaller power, there's nothing a smaller power can do even if they develop a handful of nukes, especially at the cost of their economy. Much better just to work diplomatically with said major powers so that interests are aligned rather than demanding a absolute respect for sovereignity which does not exist in reality. So then the question is, why can the Shah or the Gulf States work with Israel and America, but not the Islamic Regime? Even worse so, it's one to turn a cold shoulder that America or Israel wouldn't care much, but to actively fund proxies that destabilize other allies is just warranting a response.
But if law enforcement is not only not doing their job but actively threatening you: well, I guess 2A won this time.
The differences are so extreme it's a waste of time to discuss the analogy further.
Regarding guns: if you have easy access to weapons, everyone also has access, so the Nash equilibrium is "get a weapon". If weapons circulation is restricted, the Nash equilibrium is "don't waste your money on weapons".
How do you explain India vs Pakistan?
I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis.
You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make.
It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation.
Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.
But let me put it in familiar worlds from pop culture:
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
(Because Iran doesn't have nukes, it's currently being forced into playing and making losing moves.)
What I’m saying precisely is that quite often things will appear to be one way for a long time even if the underlying premise is wrong. E.g. the chicken who thinks the farmer is nice because the farmer feeds, houses, and provides safety until the inevitable untimely end for the chicken.
Similar situations which are assumed to be impossible have risks pushed right up to the edge until it becomes inevitable. Sure Pakistan and India narrowly averted this time but what if they didn’t. Take for example the concept that US housing market couldn’t crash simultaneously across the US, this enabled cheap debt which pushed the market to the edge until one day it went over the edge.
There is additionally the problem of victory disease, it looks like you’re winning right up until you fail.
There is a survivability bias, we wouldn’t be discussing the viability of MAD had it not worked out thus far.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they’ll be able to avoid being invaded while being able to constantly needle Israel, to the point the survival of Israel would be at stake. Similar to how Israel is needling Iran now but with proxies. At that point Israel must make a choice, peacefully collapse or escalate and I’m confident they’ll escalate. I don’t think it’s a question of if but a question of when, once the threshold has been crossed the once unthinkable becomes routine.
Additionally the inaction of a strong adversary is often seen incorrectly as sign of weakness, but it is the cornered rats that lashes out. We can cross Russia’s and Chinas red lines all day every day, right up until they think they’re a cornered rat and then we can’t. How confident can we really be that we know exactly where that limit is. Because the bellicose are more often promoted the people marking these assessments are more likely to have an overly optimistic on the location of that limit. It appears to me China and Russia have a wait and see approach to the US which appears to be in terminal decline, and yet again the west is taking that as a sign of weakness.
When you have morons in charge not even MAD can save you.
What was this, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont have nukes
Looking at india pakistan, and ukraine russia, its clear whether you should give your nuclear arsenal up or not
I think a part of the reason North Korea plays crazy is because they have to. If the US didn't think they'd push the big red button, then we'd invade them in a heart-beat. Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other guy will push the button. So you need the bomb and then you also need to make sure everybody thinks you're willing to actually use it.
North Korea has enough conventional rocket artillery within range of Seoul to level the city. This is how Kim was able to run his nuclear program to completion in the first place. It also hasn't changed.
(Probably the risk to S. Korea, and the risk of pulling China into a war.)
Iraq also attacked an allegedly nuclear capable Israel without fear of a nuclear reprisal.
Please give dates, locations, and number of casualties. Iran has made many aggressive statements and funded and armed Palestinian resistance organizations, but actual conflict between Israel and Iran has been mostly clandestine and not officially acknowledged, with a few exceptions where Israel and the US unilaterally attack Iran.
More recent events show that it doesn't matter. India-Pakistan endless fight.
And Ukraine. Imagine they had nukes in 2022 and russian army advances. Should they nuke russian cities? It would not stop troops and give them more motivation to fight, to revenge. Should they nuke russian troops? To many nukes need for such large frontline.
The only nuclear weapons Ukraine would need is enough to reliably ensure Moscow and St Petersburg cease existing.
Do you really think the US would trade Washington and New York for a chunk of Mexico?
Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..."
The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again.
Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.
If it wasn’t the US as the world’s leading power, but rather China, the list of countries forced to give up nuclear programs would be entirely different.
I’m not against trying to limit nuclear proliferation, but trying to paint it as some democratic legal process is naive.
The US loves to use the UN as cover for their own strategic goals, but happy to ignore the UN if it benefits them. Same with those talking nuclear non-proliferation.
1. Check this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...
2. Cross out the countries which are attacked for having nuclear weapons.
Here's your definition of approved nukes.
>> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them.
you're both correct.
Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents?
When the west has had such overthrows, we've tended to declare the acts of the previous administration null-and-void https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944
Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.
Yes, tell me more about the US please
I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.
In general many sanctions around nukes are based on many many treaties and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs. [2]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat...
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
Israel is not a singer of the treaty.
Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either.
It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors.
> It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.
What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians?
And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards.
After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power.
Who loses? Everybody.
It's unsurprising but very, very depressing.
These people don’t deserve fair trial
Source: Because I said so
—-
"Might makes right"
"The stronger always blames the weaker"
"My need of food is guilt enough of yours" ("Ты виноват уж тем, что хочется мне кушать")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device...
12 civilians were killed. Not "hundreds"
The parent comment says that hundreds were maimed or killed. That is accurate, and clearly contradicts any claim to the strike's "surgical" nature.
For those who didn't know: There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of. But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza. The starvation has entered a new critical phase. The populace has been concentrated, so they can no longer work the fields. The number of sites that are handing out food aid have been greatly reduced, and dozens of people are killed every day by Israeli soldiers while they are trying to get to the sites.
Also, don't mix up a politician's personal opinions and official policy.
There is nothing political about that, and any measure of righteousness in what lead to it is irrelevant.
This is literally how every war since time has gone. The "Starvation" nomenclature is propganda, which to their credit they are CRUSHING at.
One-sided proof. The Isreali already made themselves impossible by banning the press.
International organizations already warned that this might happen if the Israelis and USA would try to supply the aid directly by themselves, because this requires a level of expertise that they simply don't have. However, Netanyahu wanted to take matters in his own hands and the result was another crime against humanity.
my interpretation is: disable Hamas (who embeds amongst civilians), then go after Iran (the true head of the dragon).
what do you mean by this? that there is no Hamas, or that they aren't embedded amongst civilians, or something else?
israel is instead making up its own hamas, and then bombing the food aid to target the civilians.
There is no Hamas and if there is there’s barely any
Exactly who is the Dragon here? You think Israel’s bloodlust is done with Iran? They want much more Territory across the Middle East. They are occupying parts of Cypress right now, And have craving for parts of Egypt and more.
What we cannot tolerate anymore is the violence of the Israeli state. It has become the monster.
And here's HRW and France regarding Lebanon - Israel even destroyed the fields: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/17/lebanon-destruction-of-i..., https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250218-returning-leb...
I am not saying is good or bad, just that the goal seems different here.
What other country is attacking or has attacked its neighbors as Israel has? What other country has been executing a live-streamed genocide that you can see the outcomes of on Instagram?
Just yesterday I saw a video of a mother comforting her infant whose leg was blown off by Israeli bombs. And yet these religious fanatics are the ones we call our “allies”.
How many countries has Israel attacked in last year alone?
> What other country is attacking or has attacked its neighbors as Israel has?
Hamas recruits among civilians. Radicalized civilians. And Israel has just radicalized even more Palestinians, creating even better recruiting ground for Hamas.
Israel has supported Hamas because it's a very convenient enemy for them. Hamas wants to wipe Israel from the map, and to Israel, that means a powerful Hamas controlling Palestine justifies their wiping Palestine off the map.
During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas.
Note that the Netanyahu government only goes after the people on the ground, not the leadership abroad. And they clearly have no problem killing and radicalizing more Palestinian civilians.
You… you think that was the start of the process?
You have got that the other way around. Hamas was founded in 1987 during the Intifada, before the PLO started supporting a two state solution in 1988. The reason the PLO made that shift was that it was in exile and a new leadership in Palestine was formed (including Hamas), and they were afraid they will lose relevancy.
In 1987 and going forward Hamas fought Israel, so claiming Israel supported it is paradoxical.
Qatari money was transferred to Hamas prior to any Israeli involvement as early as 2007, sometimes in cash through the tunnels.
In 2017 the Palestinian Authority refused to transfer taxes collected to the Hamas Gaza government or pay Israel for Gaza's electricity, leading to an economical downturn in Gaza.
Because of the pending humanitarian crisis that would probably end in starvation due to Gaza less than stellar economy, whose blame would be put on Israel as is accustomed, Qatar was used as a lesser evil solution. It allowed Israel not to directly fund the Hamas government, which except for its military wing, is also its schools, hospitals, municipal and all other civilians functions.
The narrative you are repeating also repeats itself as Israel created Hezbollah or even as far as the US created ISIS, 9/11 was an inside job etc
The source of this narrative in my opinion is the old racist imperialist narrative where the so-called natives are merely children incapable of agency. Here in the post colonialist sense, if there is any evil actor around, its actions or mere existence must quickly be attributed to the West/Israel, or else cognitive dissonance abounds
> As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
Israel says it killed Iran's military co-ordinator with Hamas - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9yxrxwzzzo
Well, that's kind of true. The Iran war has certainly stopped proceedings against Netanyahu, because the courts are shut down - along with much of the country.
That said, this can't last much because the economy is completely shut down, and the trials against him were ongoing, eve amidst the Gaza war.
So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against him.
Unless he changes the law, which he's tried on multiple occasions
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
For anyone who is not following the trial, as soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.
The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.
During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the presocution had the evidence to show it could not have occurred.
Don't assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)
the 20 years leading up to trump, calling every republican a nazi, has completely destroyed the meaning of the word. trump is actually doing a lot of fascist leaning stuff this time around, and you could possibly use that word appropriately but it is currently meaningless.
The result probably just desensitised people to what was going on since every little infraction the right did seemed to make them a nazi.
Soldiers are murdering an entire population- or as many of them as they can, seemingly- for political purposes that desire that population to simply not exist anymore. To say that is _not_ a genocide devalues the meaning of the word.
Gaza doesn't have a democratically elected government, and one of the reasons Palestine (of which Gaza is a region) does not have a democratically elected government is that Israel has exercised its power as an occupying power administering large parts of Palestine directly and controlling the rest indirectly to prevent elections which have been jointly agreed on by the two main factions.
And they’ve done that specifically to maintain the current violent and divided status quo, which they leverage as pretext to continue their long policy of genocide.
If Iraq got some sort of super advanced technology that made them the superpower in the world, would they be justified if they:
- Started bombing US cities, including hospitals, schoolsetc and killing US civilians?
- Would they be justified in cutting off food and water supply to all of the US?
- Sniping kids and people waving white flags in the head?
* Hamas keeps its missiles, arms and other military equipment inside or underneath schools and hospitals
* UNRWA was functioning as an arms dealer by putting arms inside of bags of flour or other food items
* Hamas generally has its fighters not wear uniform, but instead wear civilian clothes or even niqabs (where only the eyes are visible). Making it extremely difficult for the IDF to determine who is a combatant and who isn't- and guaranteeing mistakes will be made.
* Hamas also uses child soldiers or orders children to throw stones at IDF soldiers - again ensuring IDF soldiers have to always be afraid the person in front of them is going to kill them and that they have to make split second decisions on what to do about it
But it's not necessary to murder an entire population for it to count as genocide. Any attempt to destroy a people counts, including forced sterilization, re-education, mass deportations, etc.
But it's also clear that Israel has explicitly targeted civilians, help workers, journalists, refugee camps, food distribution, and I've even read about them shooting people hiding in churches. None of those are valid targets.
Here is the UN definition for genocide. While you normally can't prove a negative, each jot and tittle of the definition is clear in the Gazans' case, so I leave it to you to figure out why you're so cautious to call a spade a spade and call a genocide a genocide.
> The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.
> Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.
> The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.
> # Definition
> Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
> ## Article II*
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> *Elements of the crime*
> The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
> 1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
> 2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
> 2a. Killing members of the group
> 2b. Causing serious bodily or mental h...
Based on news reporting, what Israel is doing in Gaza checks multiple items.
Nice, it's like the "preventive" strikes of Trump on Iran. Israel is basically committing genocide on Palestinians so ...Palestinians don't do genocide on them AND the world? Thank you Israel, for saving the world, by committing untold atrocities, a genocide and ethntic cleasing (in the name of good, of course).
Again, I will reiterate: Israel currently does to Palestinians what answers ALL criterias of a genocide. Is it a genocide? Yes. Can we call it a genocide? Yes. Would we continue calling it a genocide and compare it to what Nazis did to the Jewish population? Yes.
The wall separates farmers from their land, and has made it nearly impossible for Palestinians to live their life, to go to work, etc. And Gaza is a ghetto; an open-air prison, with way too many people, and no way for them to build a normal life. Israel has also kicked Palestinians out of their homes in order to give them to Jews.
I'm not denying that Hamas is also genocidal; they clearly and openly are. And probably more so in intent, but a lot less so in capability. Israel has been killing and disrupting a lot more Palestinian lives than the other way around.
If Hitler said "I'm not going to kill any Jews" while murdering a million Jews, would you believe he didn't have the intent to kill them? And there's plenty of people in Israel who do talk openly about destroying Palestine, destroying Gaza, killing or deporting all Palestinians, and even arguing that Palestinians aren't a real people (like Putin does with Ukrainians). All of that shows intent.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There are a few completely separate issues here. GPs comment is talking about the internal-to-Israel, state-level trials against Netanyahu. These have been ongoing, started several years before the Gaza war, and are being adjudicated in Israeli courts right now. These actually have the power to force Netanyahu out of office or actually make changes to how he behaves - because they are internal to Israel, and if the court decides something, presumably the police and military will follow the courts. (Unless there's an actual coup and Israel stops being a democracy - which I don't think is even remotely likely, btw.)
There is no ongoing trial within Israel against Netanyahu related to the conduct of the war. In general, Israelis view the current war as being fought legally.
Regarding what you call "genocide" or other accusations of war crimes or illegal conduct in war - that's something that gets adjudicated by international courts like the ICC and ICJ. The ICJ has a case open against Israel, claiming it is committing genocide, and the ICC has a warrant out against Netanyahu for war crimes. Those are completely unrelated matters. They also have less immediate impact - because there is no real way to force Netanyahu to comply with those warrants.
Edited: removed some inflammatory language I shouldn't have used.
Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.
Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage
*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed":
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
Somehow people cite it as a proof of genocide.
BBC has produced a documentary with narrator being son of Hamas official, and were forced to apologize for that [1]. They sheleved another documentary with impartiality concerns. They have contributors calling to "burn Jews like Hitler" [2].
So yeah, there are unbiased critics of Israel, just none of those you listed
[1] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/statements/gaza-how-to-survi...
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/26/well-burn-jews-l...
Source? Perhaps older report, before the country dropped any pretense of respecting international norms on human rights. Today Amnesty sees a clear case of genocide underway against indigenous palestinians in Gaza. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
> 5.5.2 STATE INTENT The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals.380 However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.
Regarding state intent, it appears this means that Amnesty is just remarking that a state can't launder genocide intent by parallel constructing additional motives or goals that are legitimate sounding.
So that does not support your conclusion that "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed". Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Those are not Amnesty words, neither the text actually in the report supports it.
I wrote the direct quote after the colon and ">" symbol. The part in quotes in my rephrasing. Of course AI wouldn't write such thing directly, they need to hide it deep into the report behind convoluted language.
This paragraph consists of
1. Explaination how genocide definition is interpreted by international courts, specifically ICJ.
2. Claim that existing interpretation preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict (for example, war in Gaza). I'm not sure that it's true, because for example, Srebrenica massacre happened during armed conflict and was found an act of genocide, but let's take their claim on face value.
3. Conclusion that we need change the interpretation of definition of genocide to be able to find during war conflict (specifically, war in Gaza)
Part 2 is what I summarized as "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions", and part 3 is what I summarized as "thus definitions should be changed". Technically they want to change interpretation and not definition, so the better summary would be "Israel cannot be found guilty of genocide according to existing interpretation of genocide, so the interpretation should change". Or do you disagree with this one too?
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m...
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).
Please don’t delete this thread. Yes it’s getting pretty heated, but it’s by far the most rational discussion of this topic I’ve seen in a while. Plus I’ve learnt a few things, which tends to be a positive signal for quality
>The populace has been concentrated
>in a camp
ummmmmmmmmm
Who authorized Manhattan Project?
Fordow sits beneath a thick cap on a limestone–dolomite mountain, whose compressive strength rivals granite, and the facility is at least at 90 to 100 meters. If a warhead detonates the carbonate stack fractures and absorbs the pressure wave, calcite dissociation soaks up heat, keeping the cavern wall below all braking thresholds and leaving the target probably intact.
And they had hundreds of trucks in and out the days before the attack: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
Maybe Iran will not retaliate, not because the attack was successful but because it was not.
This one is probably the highest resolution, publicly available picture post attack. It's notable how the fence is still perfectly aligned...
https://static-cdn.toi-media.com/www/uploads/2025/06/AFP__20...
"U.S. strikes failed to destroy ‘core pieces’ of Tehran’s nuclear program" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/24/israel-iran-ceasefire-live-u...
I immediately thought about Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner.... wasted youth
It's also very likely, and so far an exact figure is yet to be reported, that several smart, kind, and non-hostile scientists working towards a clean energy program were killed by this strike.
Celebrating death for the sake of a hypothetical is a very dangerous attitude, and is frankly repugnant to see as a top comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349794
Work through the cognitive dissonance; it’ll be okay.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-...
It’s odd to have a country that illegally proliferated treating a neighbor who isn’t doing that yet as the greatest threat to world piece. Backed by the only country that’s used nuclear weapons in anger.
It’s very possible that in a decade the Us will be at war in Iran. Trump and Netanyahu will be off the world stage. The cost to the US will be thousands of lives and several trillion and China will have taken Taiwan while we aren’t capable of stopping them.
These wars always seem to start well because destroying things is the easy but.
We don’t know if we’ve done much damage to the buried facilities. Bunker busters don’t dive very deep, they can be deflected via engineering, and concrete is cheap.
Conflict like this are what will definitively end “The American Century” and we are currently witnessing that.
You cannot bomb your way to peaceful coexistence.
83.7%, according to the United Nations: https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-g...
Only 6.3% short of weapons-grade.
As for the rest of your comment, you might find information about modern-day bunker busters interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/20/world/middlee...
The ones used for this operation go 197 feet, including 25 solid feet of high-strength concrete, with just one bomb. The idea is to use multiple bombs trailing one another to achieve extra depth. It's too soon yet to tell if that worked, or not.
In recent years, that deal has been looking better every day. We are undoubtedly worse off today than we would be had Trump left the deal in place. This is a bad situation.
It’s possible it would have been a complete failure. We will never know. What we do know for sure is that we have had fewer options for dealing with the situation since we pulled out of the deal and now we are at war.
Our country’s handling of Iran has been nothing short of a spectacular blunder. Two administrations have tried to negotiate out of the hole Trump got us into when he tore up the deal. The buffoon actually thought he would cancel the deal and make a better one. Now, after 20+ years of criticizing the Iraq war and campaigning three times on not starting new wars, he is the trigger man getting us into a new one when we are least prepared for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_policy_of_exporting_the_Is...
Deals are tactical. They're not about shifting world views.
I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now". This is very different than Iraq. But I do agree intervention has risks. The problem is that no intervention also has risks. Take for example Obama's lack of appetite to intervene in Syria. Contrast to Turkey and Israel that effectively intervened recently in Syria and force a regime change that at least so far is more or less holding out.
It’s amazing what decades of propaganda has done to Western discourse. Now somehow bombing another country isn’t war.
The US has had many bombings of other countries without a full out war:
https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html
Most recent big example is Yemen. Would you say the US is at war right now with Yemen?
Was this already the start of this war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
I guess you could say that during the bombing campaign in Yemen until the ceasefire (and maybe now) they were at "war".
Were Israel and Iran "at war" when they exchanged blows a year ago?
What to you counts as “war”? When the countries fire back?
Something you would look back at and call "The US Iran War". I don't think the previous acts of violence, or the current one, between these two meets the mark yet. And it's not clear if this one will. Iran can't really do much right now and it's not clear whether the US will go a lot further here.
E.g. we probably aren't going to look back at the hostilities with Yemen and call them the "US-Yemen war" or the "US Houthis war" like we look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Or as Putin would put it, it's a special military operation (yeah yeah, that one is a war).
Curious about this. Are we not technically at war because they haven't retaliated yet?
Americans definitely believed we were at war with Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
There's is already a history of violence between Iran and the USA. Was that a war? When Iranian funded militias attacked American bases is that war?
Anyways, that's how I think about it.
You are going to have take a step back and convince me why I should care about US hegemonic interests in the region. Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place. If you really care about the profit margins of Aramco and ExxonMobil (the whole reason were in this mess in first place) you should lead with that so that others know why you care about what a sovereign country does.
I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
A regime like Iran's that has killed Americans, is openly calling the US "The Great Satan", is supporting militias in places like Iraq that attack Americans. That funds, supports and trains organizations the US considers terrorist organizations. Is abusing its own citizenry and actively seeks to export its values to other countries. Is supplying weapons to Russia for attacking Ukraine. This sort of regime can't just do whatever it wants under the label of "its own nation" since what its doing impacts others.
The US is the big superpower of the "west" and the "free world". For the most part it is its deterrence against Russia and China that is standing in the way of those doing whatever they want (e.g. China taking Taiwan by force). I don't think the world would be a better place if the US just stands back.
All that said, intervention, and use of force, needs to be sensible/reasonable/calculated. It's not easy to say where this is going. But it's also not easy to say where it would have gone otherwise. I can also understand Americans not having an appetite for any of this after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. But to contrast that I think failure to intervene in the Arab Spring led to pretty bad consequences, prolonged civil wars, a refugee crisis, etc. So perhaps some intervention and support would have helped. Also the US withdrawal and lack of support to democracy in Russia were probably factors in the reversal of that country back to where it is today.
Anyways, that's my very long opinion on this topic. But I can totally understand Americans not wanting any part of this. But don't think that you can just hide, things that happen in the world impact you.
You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there.
It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants".
Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that.
Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better?
Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.
Iran spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders. Pretending that Iran is its own country and can thus be ignored is not an effective policy.
1. This describes many countries that we haven't invaded that I'm not sure you are being serious.
2. You will need to be specific. Which US interests? The interests of Californians or of Saudi Aramaco?
3. America is propoganda giant number one, and China has seemed to come up just fine despite America spending hundreds of billions trying to convince the world the communists in China are eating dirt.
I'm not convinced that this is a good use time or money for the American tax payer. I'm fully convinced American hegomonic decline is fully self-inflected and the trillions wasted in Afghanistan did more to hurt American than any backwards goat farmer in the middle east could ever accomplish.
You can be assured that there will be a response. What it will be and for how long I don’t know. What I do know is that diplomacy is completely off the table. It’s possible we are dealing with the consequences of this for decades.
It also just as well could have been us making another deal to extend the time, but just because Obama's deal was "not good enough" this the outcome we want?
What kind of argument is that
https://apnews.com/united-states-government-fd4113419276444e...
Ukrainian sources still insist on calling them "Shaheds": https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/4/7515633/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/29/russia-iran-...
You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
If Iran had a nuke, they are crazy enough to use it by slipping it to their cells.
"If someone says they are going to kill you, believe them."
Iran: Death to Israel Iran: Death to America Hamas: Death to Israel Hamas: Death to America
So, hugs and pallets of cash? ...or you destroy their ability to kill a million of your civilians.
If their enrichment wasn't for weapons-development, why was it being done in a hardened under-ground bunker?
In 2023, unannounced inspections uncovered uranium particles enriched near weapons-grade. The so-called agreement was toilet paper to the terrorist state.
Well, the Democrats had a very good plan to deal with this: diplomacy. They agreed a deal where Iran agreed not to build nuclear weapons, and in exchange they removed sanctions on Iran. A win-win scenario for everyone (except Bibi). Trump then - completely inexplicably - decided that he could do better at negotiating a deal, ripped up Obama's one, and then decided to... plunge the Middle East into chaos.
> You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
Surely the man who decided it was a good idea to alllow Qatar to give Hamas lots of money is at least partially to blame? [1] Or perhaps the person who decided to advocate to the US government that they should sell weapons to Iran [2]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8d75baf6-6756-4d52-a412-bc90bbbde...
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, etc all supported us.
I promise you that the boots on the ground of the rest of the nations listed by the other person here is far more important here than strongly worded letters by the aging bureaucracy that governs the EU.
Have you seen the bureaucracy currently running the US government? Makes the EU look pretty sane and well-rounded in comparison.
Israel did most of the dirty work, US just came in to drive the final nail.
Like what? Declare a fatwa against them?
When you answer, please provide sources for your claims. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response.
https://www.memri.org/tv/iran-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-k...
> SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
> All observers to trials since 1965 have reported allegations of torture which have been made by defendants and have expressed their own conviction that prisoners are tortured for the purpose of obtaining confessions. Alleged methods of torture include whipping and beating, electric shocks, the extraction of nails and teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.
Good luck convincing Iranians that they should welcome your kind into their country for any reason ever again.
Even more people would be relieved if trump bombed israel's nuclear facilities. But that doesn't make it right or justified.
Do you really want military attacks based on popularity or feelings? I don't think israel would enjoy living in such a world.
As concerns global stability a single precision strike from an untouchable platform with zero marginal increase in obligations on strained naval assets is basically the best case scenario. If we had dropped a bomb, took a picture in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and gone back to playing chess with peer adversaries in any conflict since the Korean War it would have been the smart move. The United States military is designed to protect global trade and win high intensity conflicts against peer adversaries and be seen preparing for it as a deterrant. It does this job extremely well. It was not designed for assymetrical quagmires with no possible palatable exit strategy.
Likud may be willing to fight Iran to the last American, but I'd rather we didn't.
And the Trump Administration understands that we can't defend them both at a cost the public will accept. I think. Even MAGA diehards are like 70% opposed to another quagmire in the Middle East even if Trump endorses like a downticket primary radical.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
"CHAPTER FIVE Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike"
> I ask mainly to be convinced one way or another.
"Let Iran do whatever?" is not even close to a neutral perspective.
The intent is not clear. You come across as lying about neutrality.
Or learn how to not write non-leading questions.
Edit: Hey Hey editing all your posts doesn't make you look more sincere, that's just being more antagonistic.
They’ve said they’re not making weapons.
Trump pulled us out of a deal where we lifted sanctions in order to ensure there were no weapons.
This is embarrassing and outright illegal.
Indeed, to venture off-topic, Israel has sought nuclear weapons for as long as it has existed, which one might plausibly construe as further evidence that their state was knowingly and willingly established by military force, without much pretense that it could ever persist otherwise.
I expect you to deny or water down most of my claims, so to spare a long flamewar, just assume i've given all the generic standard responses everyone here has seen 100 times. I agree with most of them.
But what business is it of Iran whether or not israel exists? They don't seem to care about palestinians too much otherwise they wouldn't be supporting hamas and the war they started.
It's a genocidal regime, despised by most of her citizens. They fund proxy wars across the middle east based on religious extremism. They deserve everything they are getting and with all due respect only an idiot would support them.
The initial nuclear agreement that Trump tore up was a good starting point
US just kept insisting on 0% enrichment.
It was the only other nuclear armed country of the Middle East crying wolf, which they have since decades before I was born.
> The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now “the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material” — something the agency said was of “serious concern.”
> The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency — which was seen by The Associated Press — says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.
> U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c996...
> "The Board of Governors... finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran...
Anyway, there's a difference between having enough enriched uranium for a bomb, and actually making that uranium into a bomb. But it's not that big of a difference, it's not like enriching uranium to weapons-grade isn't bad.
Japan has the rockets, the material, and the know how. They’re sometimes described as a screwdriver turn away from a bomb.
That said this particular bug for starting wars without congress has been exploited for decades with no patches in site
> Gödel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit America's republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship.
We got very good at gray area nonsense. The Korean War is not a war, it's a conflict. The Vietnam War is not a war, it's an engagement. We have police actions, "peacekeeping" operations, and a hundred other things...but not "wars".
We have the "global war on terror" and the accompanying Authorization for the Use of Military Force, created in the wake of 9/11 and still in effect today.
Congressional approval of military action is fundamentally dead.
So it seems he's allowed to do this? It's still within 48 hours, so he has time to officially "notify" Congress, if he hasn't done so already. And since this was an aerial bombing, no armed forces remain there, so the 60-day bit is irrelevant.
1983 Granada 1989 Panama 2011 Libya 2012 Syria
The 1990s actions in Yugoslavia were done without fall declaration of war, but Congress was more fully engaged in saying no at least.
The 1991 war against Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration allowed a witness to flat out lie to Congress about the horrors of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration lied to Congress about weapons of mass destruction.
I mentioned these last two because they make a mockery of the act itself, or of the US congress, or both...
Never heard of Wills? Whet your appetite with his masterpiece and best work (in my humble opinion): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29435.Nixon_Agonistes
I’m glad that trump has returned us to a world where quotes from the 5th century bc seem like commentary on current affairs, since it means that all my time learning about power dynamics in political systems during antiquity is now completely relevant to dealing with current events, rather than a giant waste of time.
https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases.
"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...
"The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."
You are aware the deal was entirely dependent on Russia, and the follow-on Biden wanted to sign (but couldn't since Iran wouldn't fully cooperate with IAEA) involved Russia even more heavily? There's no other place that both sides accept can store the enriched Uranium or supply fuel rods to Iran.
>Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns
It's the other way around. Going from 3 to 20 percent is much harder than 20 to 60 which is harder than 60 to 90. Going to 99.9999% would be tough, but is unnecessary even for nukes.
>"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres
They were allowed to enrich to that level under the deal starting in 2031, inspections would have tested if the enriched material was diverted.
Even if they could be effective at such short notice, it would have taken the US being distracted by some other crisis and being unable to act in the short period between detection and weaponization to lead to a nuke.
The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what." And yeah, if that's your starting place, you've figured out where that path ends up. You're never going to be satisfied with anything Iran says because your fundamental premise is that they can't be trusted to not pursue a nuclear bomb.
By walking away from the deal, we gave Iran a clear message: "you might as well pursue a bomb because we are always going to act like you are, no matter what you actually do."
No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.
After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.
Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.
Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.
Most theocracies do not declare themselves sovereign over God. If it's truly a religious duty than it exists independently of anything in our world.
>The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them.
I meant that the fatwa proves nothing until it is publicly published. Bombing was due to the nuclear program and no other reason.
>capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium
The agreement had sunsets, it would have very soon expired. It's better to actually solve problems and not leave them to successors.
>illegally starting another US war of choice
Every modern President violated the War Powers act. It's unworkable.
>Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA
The way some people talk, very likely not.
Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.
Oh wait, we did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...
Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
Otoh, ballistic missiles eventually become a western europe/NATO security issue.
Not exactly sure how close Iran would be to that, but that is an element of the situation.
I see both arguments, but I’m curious what others think
Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...
Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?
Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?
Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)
- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
But the US has also at times been a positive force.
I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.
But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.
I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.
Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.
Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...
This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons.
[0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-timeline-tensions-con...
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
Off to the races!
10,000kg down to 300.
Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. The deal worked great. Bibi and Trump failed.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
Say more. What's the relevance?
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.
0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google:
Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
It's much cheaper to use a cyclotron than get massively sanctioned - unless you what you really want is a weapon.
Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.
Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law.
How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons?
This is pure imperialism.
(I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa.
You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
He is LYING. Because he is a liar. Who lies. Like about opposing nuclear weapons.
In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.
It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
The bombing of Iran by Israel and the US is the result of Iran picking a fight with them since 1979.
Innocent children are being maimed, starved, and murdered and it is being done with materiel produced with my tax dollars and provided with the bipartisan endorsement of my government.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not perfect, they have promulgated many evils within their society. The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran, but even that pales in the light of the disgusting atrocities being committed today by the traitorous US government. Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty.
This is absolutely not true. Hamas is actively attempting to destroy Israel. I really hate this watering down of the word "genocide". Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" have specific meanings that shouldn't be diluted through overuse.
"The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran"
Don't remove agency from the Iranians. THEY chose an Islamic Theocracy all on their own after the Shah was overthrown. You "merica evil" types really like to remove agency from people.
"USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing "
I truly, truly hate Trump and think what ICE is doing is stupid and sadistic but calling it "ethnic cleansing" is completely absurd. The federal government does have the constitutional authority to deport non-citizens.
"Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty."
Iran's biggest issue is that they constantly try to pick fights with MUCH stronger countries. They have spend every second since 1979 antagonizing the US and Israel in a profoundly foolish way. Compare this to how Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge against the US and benefits greatly from having a normal relationship with it.
Humans who have retained their ability to process information in an adversarial environment do not struggle to identify such obvious moral failures.
You are completely and utterly delusional. Heavy handed deportation is NOT eradication. You really need to see reality for what it is and not what you need it to be. Go ask everyone you know if they agree with your usage of the word "genocide".
It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.
Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.
By making that statement you are implying that I am being misleading. The reality is quite the opposite.
I believe you're referring to the former prime minister of Pakistan? If so, truly a derail. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
I think the Shia-Sunni relationship is rather more complex than the post-WW2 anglosphere, quite frankly.
Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.
Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
What is the reason to trust Israel, who engaged in subterfuge to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, over Iran?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim.
Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke.
It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species.
Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
I think Hezbollah has done some truly disgusting things and I have no delusions about the ill deeds of Iran's regime. But I think it's extremely fair to say that Israel is an even more egregious perpetrator of murder, displacement, and apartheid and Iranians have every right and reason to see themselves in solidarity with Palestinians and the people of Lebanon.
I don't think "acts of war" mean much in real statecraft; there's no referee, things are what people say they are and outcomes are determined by military and economic power. But anyone going down that path has to recognize the hole Iran dug for itself here. They didn't have to do any of this.
But the people of Iran, for very obvious reasons, do not like the real leadership of Iran, and Iran does a lot of things just to keep that leadership structure intact.
Finally, and super-importantly: I think HN is just a weird place to have these kinds of discussions, and I'm very sure nobody who's angry at me about my takes on these things know what I actually believe about any of this stuff --- and why should they? What I believe about any of this is immaterial. Like every nerd, I'm motivated to comment when I see something I "know" to be wrong; that's all that's happening on these threads.
In this particular thread, I only appeared because I think the GBU-57 is a very goofy munition. I had previous to last week thought it was like some ultra-explosive "close as you can get to nuclear without being nuclear" kind of weapon. But nope, it's just a normal bomb strapped to a giant anvil. That's weird! Seems HN-y to comment on.
(But now I'm here and I see things like "the SL of Iran has declared nuclear weapons Haram" and, like, I'm not going to let that fly past! But also: not pretending there's anything useful about this discussion. If it's annoying to you, stop engaging! That's what I'm doing.)
I'll preface this by saying I understand fixating on a small detail, and as evidenced by this thread, I readily engage in that. I also think the thing about the fatwa against nuclear weapons is a little silly, it seems like there are incredibly obvious, rational reasons for Iran to want a nuclear arsenal.
To back up to Oct 2024 (to make a different point, I'm not trying to take us further down the rabbit hole), I think it's worth pointing out how arbitrary it is to choose this moment in time as a point where Iran "dug a hole for itself". Presumably a moment of intervening agency that breaks from what came before and after. It's a vantage point that has no real significance to the broader conflict, doesn't tie to the beginning or end of anything significant. It's unclear why that moment in particular is where Iran could have set us on a different course, and why we should consider jettisoning the rest of historical baggage that lead up to that moment. And it has the whiff of being chosen arbitrarily to exculpate (or sideline any notion of) the United State's involvement in this conflict. It's the kind of detail I expect to see fixated on CNN, without any mention of events like Israel's former invasion of Lebanon, the impact of the Nakba and the One Million Plan on the surrounding Arab states, the Dulles brother's lead coup in Iran that deposed a secular, democratic leader, etc. Not that you even really need to go back that far, there's plenty of events proximate to 10/1/24 that lead to Iran launching missiles, like Israel staging a land invasion outside Lebanon.
I don't think that's what you're doing (I'd rather not speculate on why that moment is significant to you, and would be curious to hear your own take), but I want to explain why discourse like this becomes touchy. For some of us millennials, our defining political experience was seeing the United States become an incredibly sore loser via a problem of our own making (and infuriatingly, we apparently learned nothing from the consequences of funding the Mujahideen). We are obviously, also a victim of our own circumstances, no less than Iran, but we are also an agent of incomparable power in world events. And for many of us it became clear how carelessly, callously, and selfishly that power is wielded and how quickly we victimized ourselves and were unwilling to tolerate criticism. Aaron Sorkin wasn't even able to make the movie that depicted how much of a problem of our own making this was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War_(film)#...
All this to say, if you feel ganged up on, I get it and sympathize. I think you have good intentions here, and I'm sorry if I came in too hot. Some of us are just nauseated by our position in the world and culpability for all this harm, and are constantly frustrated by the hegemonic political discourse that is adamant to deflect criticism and prioritize American exceptionalism above all.
Thanks for the detailed response! I could pick at it, but that's not the spirit of where we're at at this point in the thread.
Oh, by the way: Charlie Wilson's War --- the book is much better than the movie.
Isn't that subterfuge?
It is possible that mistakes were made in the aftermath of WW2. It is possible that the victors have rewritten history in a favorable light -- in fact, that is the most reasonable expectation. This must not be used to justify genocide for if our society takes that path the victory against the Axis powers is meaningless and evil will have triumphed in the world.
Israel is more than Netanyahu and less than the Jewish people. Humanity must unite and destroy the power structures that incentivize the hyperscale atrocities we are currently manifesting.
Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.
There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.
But hey, don't take my word for it:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
* https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.
I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
Nuts!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...
It's not a suggestion. It's a well-supported historical fact.
The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many.
The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context.
Japan and its leadership consisted of various factions, ranging from hardliners who wanted to arm every single Japanese citizen and fight to the last child, to those who wanted to surrender and negotiate a peace settlement.Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so.
When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost.
Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc.
The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons.
But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude.
Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument.
As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs.
I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.
You are an evil and stupid person.
>Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
No they didn't. They didn't want an unconditional surrender, they had sued for peace multiple times and it was ignored.
So instead of us negotiating with Japanese we completely destroyed two civilian cities to put them in their place.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
- Adm. William Leahy, President Harry Truman’s chief military adviser
"First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "
- Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950
So we have the supreme allied commander, commander and chief of the pacific fleet, and the chief military advisor to Truman all on record saying the bomb was not necessary nor really saved American lives.
Then we have people like you on the internet saying otherwise, with no proof.
Really quite the contrast.
Anyway
Many people feel regret over various aspects of World War II, including veterans who only killed enemy soldiers in what was honorable combat against a violent and viscous enemy who attacked them. No reason to think military commanders wouldn’t also express regret over using destructive weapons, even if they would have made the same decision over again. There’s no moral difference between bombing a city and killing civilians and bombing a factory making ordinance and also killing citizens. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of warfare, and in particular Total War. There are no innocents. Unsurprisingly, the West were the only powers that gave even the slightest damn about minimizing civilian casualties. Which is why we are sitting here talking about western actions because we are a moral people by and large. Nobody in the former USSR has any regrets over raping and murdering Germans.
Same commanders ordered many gruesome, albeit necessary military decisions that resulted in the deaths of soldiers, women, and children.
Interestingly you aren’t quoting those who express regret over any number of those other decisions. Why is that?
Find us some quotes of Japanese commanders that survived the war and their regret over their heinous and disgusting acts. If not maybe you can find some Chinese friends or Filipino colleagues (or others) who can enlighten you.
Truman did not regret using the bombs and would have done it again, and as he said “at the snap of my fingers”, despite being sorrowful for the death and destruction caused. His opinion matters more than anyone else’s since it was his decision. And, your random quoting of people like “nuke them all “ Curtis LeMay shows you don’t even know anything about who you are quoting.
QED.
Nothing you've written is an argument or original lol; it's baseless conjecture. It's certainly as original as flat earth perspectives.
Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above? There's nothing affirmative. There's nothing to counter, I can't even being debate anything because it doesn't say _anything_ other than wild claims that are based on pure narrative.
>I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google
All of your posts are well, well, well below just rehashing quotes on Google. Try a little bit harder if you want to even being to critique other people?
Please say something substantive and supportable by evidence. Anything at all.
That's for you to figure out. I've proven my point to my satisfaction.
The last thing I'll say is America rules, greatest country on earth. :)
For your reading and understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes?wprov=sfti...
I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not choosing random quotes. I chose Eisenhower since I was surprised to learn his opinion on the subject, and actually read the quote out of a paper copy of his autobiography. So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
Until a few years ago, I believed what I had learned in school - that the bombs were necessary to end the war more quickly, and that they actually saved both American and Japanese lives by hastening the surrender. If invading the home islands was the only way, and if there was a fight to the last person, then that would be a reasonable conclusion.
A few counterarguments I heard over time were not easy to dismiss:
1. Why did the surrender come on August 15th? Since no more bombs arrived after August 9th, what changed? In particular, if the US had more nuclear weapons to use, where was the August 12th bomb, since there was apparently a 3 day cycle. From the perspective of the Japanese military leadership, one explanation would be there were no more ready, so the urgency to surrender before further bombs would be lessened.
2. Why did Operation Meetinghouse (March 10th, 1945) which caused a similar amount of destruction with only conventional weapons not precipitate a surrender?
3. How important were the other reasons to use the weapons, such as: a. Testing out their effectiveness against a real enemy target. Conducting such a test initially seemed hard to believe, but in context of the firebombing of cities in Japan (e.g. Tokyo) and Germany (e.g. Dresden) may have made this test plausible to Allied military leaders. The fact that two different types of bomb were used bolsters the argument that this was in part a test. b. Deterring the Soviet armies from continuing to take territory because they had the conventional means to doing so. In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon. c. Making sure that the huge expense of developing the weapons wasn't "wasted" by not using them against an enemy.
I've read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (which I just re-read now) since it's the most concise yet persuasive argument I've encountered in favor of using atomic weapons to save lives. If I knew of a similar writing making the opposite case, I would share it here. If you know of such a thing, please let me know.
My current understanding of the situation is that the accumulation of damage inflicted against Japan helped cause the leadership to surrender. The proximate tipping point was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. That meant the end of their peace treaty with the Soviets, the foreclosing of the possibility of the Soviets facilitating peace negotiations with the Allies, and increased the likelihood of an invasion of the home islands by the Red Army before an American invasion could happen. This is the event that finally brought the Japanese government to their senses.
I didn't meant to imply I was questioning that he wrote what was quoted and I apologize if I did so. It was just that he was but one person in an excruciatingly complicated political dynamic and neither the United States nor Japan had perfect information. I'm not sure we knew that Japan would surrender, and even so I think we forget the utter insanity of World War II and how that drove nation states to do, what seem like in hindsight, to be crazy things or at least take suboptimal actions. With respect to some of your questions regarding various dates, my understanding is that you can chalk some of that up to the fog of war, lack of instantaneous communication, and more. It takes time to send a message to Washington from the Pacific, etc.
> In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.
I have little doubt that this was a factor (as were other items mentioned), though I don't think it was the primary reason of course - i.e. testing.
Given how absolutely abhorrent the Soviet Union was to become and even today the situation we find ourselves in with a nuclear armed Russia, Churchill and Patton (among others) made sincere, if not perhaps flawed arguments for taking the war immediately to the Soviets but we simply did not have enough nuclear weapons I think at the time.
We didn't know for sure that Communism would fail, although it seems so obvious in hindsight given that it's a failed/flawed ideology. What was it that Teddy Roosevelt said? I don't recall the exact quote but something about the man in the arena. I think that's applicable here. Well, it's applicable to almost all of the wartime decisions that were made. We weren't there. It wasn't my son or daughter dying on some random island in the Pacific. It wasn't me taking a bullet to the chest, or losing an eye, or a leg. How dare I, or anyone else alive today judge the actions of those enduring such horror? An end to the war, by any means possible, seems appropriate to me, however, even if that means as some say unnecessarily killing "innocent" civilians to save American lives. If there were other benefits to using the atomic weapons, so be it.
We're so quick to judge the actions of our leadership at the time, but we shouldn't forget that in the end we came not to conquer but to liberate. And we helped to liberate both Europe and Japan, and of course the Philippines, China, and others from the yolk of despotism. I reject any and all cynical takes to the contrary as useless and corrupt.
> My current understanding...
I largely agree, but want to reiterate that the leadership of Japan wasn't sitting around some conference table saying "oh but please America let us just surrender!". To the very moment of surrender there were hardliners who stood against it. Only when the emperor, with what I have come to understand to be quite a bit of difficulty, issued an end to the war did it finally end. My memory may be incorrect but even after that the Imperial Army, or at least factions of it, wanted to continue to fight. As you mention and I understand currently, there are some historians who have argued that the Japanese did not want to surrender or did not have the political will to do so when the atomic bombs were dropped (assuming the Americans did not have more) but the Soviet invasion was the tipping point. Which I think goes to further show that dropping the bombs on the Japanese wasn't some wonton act of aggression but the United States continuing to take the fight to a determined and dangerous enemy.
I think also with respect to the Soviets, they partially entered the war with Japan for territorial gain and to make sure they had a seat at the table for the negotiation in the Pacific.
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply
Thanks to you as w...
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.
You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.
It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use.
Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.
It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.
[1] https://archive.is/IcLBh
There are a handful of users on HN who have domain experience or knowledge in policymaking due to professional adjacencies (IP Law, High Finance, Space/Defense Tech VC, etc) but get drowned out.
At tech? Maybe. At everything else? Not so much.
The dumbest and/or most self-interested of many demographics, it turns out, were happy to be tricked!