4 ms·

> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that. And where are they wrong?

by Ray20 7mo ago

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> where are they wrong? Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.
- Cyph0n 7mo ago
  And on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now? The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn’t mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect Someone in the Middle East gets hit. > would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now? The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter. (MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
    - c0nducktr 7mo ago
      > Someone in the Middle East gets hit. Wow so no big deal then right? Jesus Christ dude
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > so no big deal then right? Are you arguing it would be in this White House?
        ben_w 7mo ago
        Assuming I get your point, I would nevertheless say I think most White House admins would care: would not one of those someones in the Middle East who gets hit perhaps include Israel? I have no idea what strategic value the nation of Israel has for the nation of the USA, but there is clearly strong cultural and political relevant of the former to the latter.
- ohjimny2 7mo ago
  The difference between shooting down a conventionally armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile is that the former will explode in the air or not at all, whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout instead.)

> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that. And where are they wrong?

by Ray20 7mo ago

> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that. And where are they wrong?

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> where are they wrong? Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.

Cyph0n 7mo ago
And on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now? The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn’t mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect Someone in the Middle East gets hit. > would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now? The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter. (MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
  - c0nducktr 7mo ago
    > Someone in the Middle East gets hit. Wow so no big deal then right? Jesus Christ dude
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > so no big deal then right? Are you arguing it would be in this White House?
      - ben_w 7mo ago
        Assuming I get your point, I would nevertheless say I think most White House admins would care: would not one of those someones in the Middle East who gets hit perhaps include Israel? I have no idea what strategic value the nation of Israel has for the nation of the USA, but there is clearly strong cultural and political relevant of the former to the latter.
ohjimny2 7mo ago
The difference between shooting down a conventionally armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile is that the former will explode in the air or not at all, whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout instead.)