4 ms·

The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestio

The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).

lm28469 7mo ago
They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
      - Forgeties79 7mo ago
        >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
  - anigbrowl 7mo ago
    So what? Pakistan got nukes and still has them. Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India, or even saber-rattling. The thing about nukes is that they massively disincentivize military attacks on your sovereignty. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate reason to acquire them.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >So what? If that's as far as your logic takes you, there's no point arguing with you further. >Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India You think India is OK with Pakistan having nukes?
      - anigbrowl 7mo ago
        Sorry, I feel no need to accept your premise that Iran simply cannot be allowed to have one. India (which also has nukes) may hate that Pakistan has that capability, but there's nothing they can do about it. I'd say Pakistan is considerably more secure with than without. And despite being an Islamic country with a nexus to terrorism they haven't blown up any western countries.
  - lm28469 7mo ago
    Having nukes seems to be the only way to not be bullied by the US, I'm not going to blame them, especially with Israel next door who has the same level of religious dumb fucks AND nukes
reliabilityguy 7mo ago
Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium? The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well. I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
- the_gastropod 7mo ago
  I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to: 1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts. 2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon). This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children. Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    > I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie. IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
    - the_gastropod 7mo ago
      This is from May 2025. Before we, remember, "completely obliterated" their nuclear facilities. And again, nothing about this justifies the way this war was initiated.

lm28469 7mo ago

They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving

joe_mamba 7mo ago
>They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
- anigbrowl 7mo ago
  So what? Pakistan got nukes and still has them. Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India, or even saber-rattling. The thing about nukes is that they massively disincentivize military attacks on your sovereignty. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate reason to acquire them.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >So what? If that's as far as your logic takes you, there's no point arguing with you further. >Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India You think India is OK with Pakistan having nukes?
    - anigbrowl 7mo ago
      Sorry, I feel no need to accept your premise that Iran simply cannot be allowed to have one. India (which also has nukes) may hate that Pakistan has that capability, but there's nothing they can do about it. I'd say Pakistan is considerably more secure with than without. And despite being an Islamic country with a nexus to terrorism they haven't blown up any western countries.
- lm28469 7mo ago
  Having nukes seems to be the only way to not be bullied by the US, I'm not going to blame them, especially with Israel next door who has the same level of religious dumb fucks AND nukes

reliabilityguy 7mo ago

Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium? The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well. I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.

the_gastropod 7mo ago
I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to: 1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts. 2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon). This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children. Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  > I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie. IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
  - the_gastropod 7mo ago
    This is from May 2025. Before we, remember, "completely obliterated" their nuclear facilities. And again, nothing about this justifies the way this war was initiated.