3 ms·

This is a great comment IMO :) > Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests Exactly. I do my best to consider the

This is a great comment IMO :) > 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.

z2 1y ago
In the region, it feels like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are going to be watching this very closely closely.
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  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.
rexer 1y ago
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. > I don't think we have a better option I'd love help getting on board with this
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  The plan we've committed to now is to prevent it. 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.
  - seadan83 1y ago
    > There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. Like North Korea?
    - Ancapistani 1y ago
      Correct. And like Ukraine (conversely).
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  I mean 20 years ago, mossad literally destroy their nuclear program using Stuxnet 20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
- cryptonector 1y ago
  > 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.
  - 15155 1y ago
    https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250619-Fordo-trucks.jpg?w=1024&h=809 https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250619-Fordo-... 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.
firesteelrain 1y ago
“ the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them” Which is why they likely were trying to possess them before and the US and Israel felt the need to strike
simonh 1y ago
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.
- samrus 1y ago
  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
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  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?
K0balt 1y ago
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.
- jopsen 1y ago
  > Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal.. 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?
  - K0balt 1y ago
    “Food on the table in nice, Mrs Jones, but nothing beats a beautiful, green, weed free lawn” But yeah, you’ve got a point. It’s great for general dynamics stock outlook. lol.
cryptonector 1y ago
> 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.

z2 1y ago

In the region, it feels like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are going to be watching this very closely closely.

Ancapistani 1y ago
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.

rexer 1y ago

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. > I don't think we have a better option I'd love help getting on board with this

Ancapistani 1y ago
The plan we've committed to now is to prevent it. 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.
- seadan83 1y ago
  > There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. Like North Korea?
  - Ancapistani 1y ago
    Correct. And like Ukraine (conversely).
tonyhart7 1y ago
I mean 20 years ago, mossad literally destroy their nuclear program using Stuxnet 20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
cryptonector 1y ago
> 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.
- 15155 1y ago
  https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250619-Fordo-trucks.jpg?w=1024&h=809 https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250619-Fordo-... 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.

firesteelrain 1y ago

“ the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them” Which is why they likely were trying to possess them before and the US and Israel felt the need to strike

simonh 1y ago

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.

samrus 1y ago
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
disgruntledphd2 1y ago
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?

K0balt 1y ago

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.

jopsen 1y ago
> Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal.. 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?
- K0balt 1y ago
  “Food on the table in nice, Mrs Jones, but nothing beats a beautiful, green, weed free lawn” But yeah, you’ve got a point. It’s great for general dynamics stock outlook. lol.

cryptonector 1y ago

> 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.