44 ms·
The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This would
by denkmoon 1y ago
The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- smashah 1y agoPrecisely, Trump could only do this terrorist attack because he knows for certain that Iran does not have nukes. Nukes are an abomination to the Islamic Rules of War - which is why there is/was a long standing fatwa against it.
- selimthegrim 1y agoI guess this fatwa doesn’t apply to Pak Army?
- heavyset_go 1y agoWhy would Sunni leaders adhere to another sect's fatwas?
- mensetmanusman 1y agoBombing a mountain spinning uranium around to find the right isotopes to make death spheres is an act of terrorism against uranium spinning around.
- smashah 1y agoVampires lack a reflection.
- arandomusername 1y agoIran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.
- tmnvix 1y agoI think it's too early to say that the Fordow facility has definitely been destroyed. So far I've only heard Trump make the claim and I'm not inclined to take his word for it.
- arandomusername 1y agoTrue, Trump's words are worthless. I'm hearing that the Iranian state media is claiming no irreversible damage at Fordow / only entry points were targeted - but ofcourse that doesn't carry much weight either.
- tmnvix 1y agoFWIW one take on all of this that I have considered is that Israel and the US have been looking for an out that allows them to claim to have successfully achieved their objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if this attack was unsuccessful but won't be followed up if that becomes apparent later. Israel only just (before this US bombing) claimed they had set Iran's nuclear program back by 2-3 years. I found the timing of the announcement curious. This after suffering extensive damage from direct missile strikes (Haifa port/refinery, Mossad headquarters, Wiezmann institute, C4I/cyber defense, etc). I think the missile strikes have been much more damaging than expected and understandably under-reported. Weapons expert Ted Postol of MIT claims Israel's missile defense is only intercepting around 5%. I think Israel will be very unhappy if things continue to escalate without further US involvement. Depending on how Iran retaliates against the US, further involvement might not be forthcoming. We've seen seen Iran attack a US base in Jordan without causing escalation from the US. Could expect something similar.
- Glyptodon 1y agoI've wondered how much of a deterrent dirty bombs are or aren't outside of nukes and curious if they might be in the cards for retaliatory moves by Iran.
- klipt 1y agoMy understanding is those don't accomplish much militarily since they just give people cancer 30 years later. So you commit a war crime for no military advantage, then what? The other country just hits back with a dirty bomb of their own?
- Glyptodon 1y agoMy mental model does assume they must have plutonium in a meaningful quantity rather than just uranium for a dirty bomb to be remotely "effective" and I have no idea if that's even plausible. And if they do I'm not sure exactly what would lead to a dirty bomb over attempting an actual nuclear device. But even a not very effective permutation of a dirty bomb seems like it could lead to headlines that look more "positive" for their leadership. (IE create outsized headlines.)
- paxys 1y agoUkraine and Iran have showed that if a country doesn't have nukes they don't have sovereignty.
- ericmay 1y agoWell, it’s not really that simple. Plenty of countries are still sovereign without nuclear weapons. And even nuclear armed nations aren’t exactly able to use their weapons to devastate an opponents military - see Ukraine and Russia.
- paxys 1y agoWhich country? Do you think Canada is sovereign? Do you think it will be able to defend itself if Trump gives the military an order to make them the 51st state by any means necessary?
- ericmay 1y agoWell, Afghanistan defended itself for a bit. As did Vietnam, as clear examples. Neither possess nuclear weapons. Today countries as various as Brazil and Australia are independent, sovereign nations. Even Ukraine which was invaded by nuclear-armed Russia is still sovereign and fighting. Iran for that matter still has its sovereignty, they just lost some military assets.
- nemothekid 1y agoCanada is sovereign because of its proximity and interconnection with US. If your economy is large enough, you can "nuke" your opponents by using mutually assured poverty. But I largely agree, if you aren't a giant economy and you don't have nukes - then if the US or Russia accesses you of building nukes, you need to start building nukes ASAP.
- ekianjo 1y agoTaiwan has no nukes, and still has not been invaded by China.
- abletonlive 1y agoYou don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.
- siltcakes 1y agoThey can continue to bomb Israel at will. These minimal attacks will not stop that and there will be no regime change.
- abletonlive 1y agolol remind me in 2 weeks
- fuckyah 1y ago[dead]
- throwaway_dang 1y agoIndeed. You'll be wrong but I doubt you'll have the integrity to discover why you're wrong.
- siltcakes 1y agoThis morning in Israel: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395 https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395
- runako 1y ago> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'. Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
- deepsquirrelnet 1y agoThe other irony being it starting out with claiming a country has WMDs on questionable evidence. I hope the US can use hindsight right now to guide the next decisions.
- azurezyq 1y agoThen it might be better that the country really has WMD. Otherwise uncle Sam will let you know you have them
- kurtis_reed 1y agoIsrael would say if Iran just stops attacking and threatening Israel then they wouldn't need to defend themselves.
- NekkoDroid 1y agoAs controversial of a figure he is, the Hasanabi Doctrine at play.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoI'm not sure what you mean - Iran has been full-tilt pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. And America, its partners, and even its definitely-not-partners, have been working to counter that the whole time. Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
- hajile 1y agoThis is simply not true. Iran's religious dictator issued a Fatwa declaring nukes haram. This is why they've consistently stopped at 60% enrichment. In a religious cult, everything rides on the leadership. He can't just come out and change his mind. He must have a very definitive reason that doesn't disagree with the reasoning in the previous Fatwa. His only real out is an existential threat where threatening a nuke becomes a tool to preserve lives. Israel and the US have now given him that out. It remains to be seen if he actually takes it.
- denkmoon 1y agoThat Iran has been "full-tilt" pursuing nuclear weapons for decades doesn't make sense. Building a nuke isn't that hard, and getting the nuclear material is the hardest part. They've got that worked out. They've had the capability to do so for 20 years now. I defer to the intelligence community; they have the capability to build the bomb within about a year if they chose to do so, and are also not actively attempting to do that. (Until a few days ago at least). If Kim can get nukes, Khomeini can gets nukes.
- _zagj 1y ago> The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally If Iran is willing to use its nuclear weapons in response to this (limited, conventional air strikes), then that's a clear demonstration they aren't rational actors and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
- denkmoon 1y agoWhy does the US not use conventional means to remove the Kim dictatorship? Perceptions of trustworthiness and rationality are orthogonal to a nation's incentives to acquire nukes.