3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

jhanschoo 1y ago
My understanding is that the prospect of nuclear retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute greatly to peace in the region.
stogot 1y ago
This is what I’d expect Iran to do instead of ICBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies
samrus 1y ago
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
dreghgh 1y ago
They just hit population centers in Israel with high explosives this week. Clearly if they had a nuke they would be able to deliver it.
xdennis 1y ago
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".

jhanschoo 1y ago

My understanding is that the prospect of nuclear retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute greatly to peace in the region.

stogot 1y ago

This is what I’d expect Iran to do instead of ICBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies

samrus 1y ago

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

dreghgh 1y ago

They just hit population centers in Israel with high explosives this week. Clearly if they had a nuke they would be able to deliver it.

xdennis 1y ago

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".