4 ms·

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 an

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.

mupuff1234 1y ago
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)
- danenania 1y ago
  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.
  - mupuff1234 1y ago
    Can't that be said about every path of action in this scenario?
dlubarov 1y ago
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?
- danenania 1y ago
  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?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    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.
    - danenania 1y ago
      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.
    - guelo 1y ago
      Why would it be up to a rogue non-NPT country, Israel, to enforce the NPT?
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        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.
- 1y ago

mupuff1234 1y ago

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)

danenania 1y ago
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.
- mupuff1234 1y ago
  Can't that be said about every path of action in this scenario?

dlubarov 1y ago

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?

danenania 1y ago
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?
- dlubarov 1y ago
  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.
  - danenania 1y ago
    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.
  - guelo 1y ago
    Why would it be up to a rogue non-NPT country, Israel, to enforce the NPT?
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      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.
1y ago