6 ms·
Two ways to interpret this: 1) US and Israel will throw everything they have (of conventional weapons) at Iran. 2) US will use (tactical) nuclear weapons on s
by TrackerFF 6mo ago
Two ways to interpret this:
1) US and Israel will throw everything they have (of conventional weapons) at Iran.
2) US will use (tactical) nuclear weapons on strategic targets.
Of the two evils, I truly hope it will be (1).
- jacquesm 6mo agoI hope it will be neither and someone reins in this buffoon.
- fabian2k 6mo agoA previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.
- AnimalMuppet 6mo agoYou remember that video that some Democratic legislators did about refusing to obey illegal orders? This is where that becomes absolutely real. (Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Orders to commit war crimes are illegal by definition.)
- franktankbank 6mo agoIs that US law or international law?
- JohnFen 6mo agoInternational law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
- franktankbank 6mo agoThat says internation law as US law. Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
- JohnFen 6mo ago> it is selectively applied for national security. This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
- OrangePilled 6mo ago> and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law. Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
- JohnFen 6mo agoIt is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
- OkayPhysicist 6mo agoThis is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- bdbdbdb 6mo agoThey left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago
- recursivecaveat 6mo agoThere was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/ https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
- nofriend 6mo agoInternational law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
- vunderba 6mo agoYup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it. Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc. Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks. It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...
- KwisatzHaderack 6mo agoRemember how they claimed this war was actually about helping the Iranian People? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
- OhMeadhbh 6mo agoPretty sure it was to get everyone to stop talking about Epstein.
- morkalork 6mo agoI saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.
- ben_w 6mo agoOr 3, he's bluffing. I'm not sure which of 1 and 2 is least-bad. All depends on downstream consequences, because we're already past the point where everyone's looking at Trump (not just in Iran but also, and we already had this to an extent with Putin attacking Ukraine) and thinking they need a credible deterrent. OTOH, the USA getting suckered into a drawn-out war with Iran in the same way Russia is with Ukraine may be good for almost everyone else, because an exhausted USA is a manageable threat, in a way that the current USA almost certainly isn't.
- mongol 6mo ago1 is least bad. Maybe not for Iran, but for the world. If Trump re-opens Pandora's box, there is much less to hold back other nuclear powers in similar circumstances. The US has lost some dozen troops in this war, Russia has lost hundreds of thousands in its. Why should Russia restrain themselves if the US president goes mental? Our world becomes much, much more dangerous if Trump becomes unable to control himself.
- mongol 6mo agoDo you mean tactical weapons on strategic targets? Or strategical weapons? I honestly don't know what to believe, but I feel the doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight than in a long, long time
- jacquesm 6mo agoEither way, we won't be talking about it on HN, this got flagged so hard it is on page 4. We don't do politics. By the way, here is some new nonsense built with an LLM.
- whycome 6mo agoA threat to destroy a civilization isn’t politics
- jacquesm 6mo agoNo, obviously it is not, but, Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona so this is somewhat political. Since I posted the link above I'm obviously of the impression that this is something that might interest us but apparently the subject is too uncomfortable/too mainstream/too 'not HN' for discussion.
- fuzzfactor 6mo agoOnce I do find out about something major that's "trending" on mainstream media, I wouldn't want it to take over HN. I just wouldn't want it to be absent altogether. Anywhere you go some things will be controversial no matter what. What you can't get anywhere else is the insight from the thoughtful commentators drawn from the unique and diverse corners of technology and business, with all the adjacent domain expertise, all in one place. Usually more informative than a number of other accomplished sources. The occasional outlier having a gentleman's appearance and a Trump-like character is nothing new, about as old as the hills. One of the most revealing things when it comes to digital tech and SV in particular, was the pop-up reversal where so many turned out to sheepishly start following the dumb money all of a sudden. Just because there wasn't any "smart money" to follow right that minute was no excuse. That might be one of the things that too many frequent flagrant flaggers would rather not have serious commentary about. For some of the biggest capitalists it could be very embarrassing when things emphasize any glaring deficiencies in character judgment they might harbor, that can only be undeniable after falling behind Trump. When now the simple math can give an idea how much further their money would have gone if they backed the Democrats instead. And it's still early :( Sure, the Democrats weren't that great but at least they weren't as abysmal as they could be. I know how I would feel if I was a bright young college innovator having dreams of backing from a successful benevolent capitalist someday. And before you have your chance, you find out that so many of the capitalists you have been admiring and looking up to, are not actually that good with money instinctively, and can't even tell the difference between an honest person and a Trump. smh >Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona This is what makes me ashamed and embarrassed about for quite some time to come. Along with the vast majority of Americans (too bad they didn't vote) and the entire rest of the world. I've recognized this before, but every single day there is more emphasis from Trump himself showing why Obama was the final US President sophisticated enough to carry forward the hard-earned tradition of being the "leader of the free world." I would have liked it if Obama did a better job, but Trump couldn't even pick up the torch.
- johnbarron 6mo agoOption 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances. But in case the biggest mistake in human history, is done by a convicted felon and convicted rapist, that the US elected two times as supreme leader, you should know, that Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran.
- JohnFen 6mo ago> Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances. Too many unthinkable things have come to pass in the last decade or so for me to find that reassuring.
- franktankbank 6mo ago> Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran. Can you clarify what this would even mean? And could you provide a source (because I couldn't)?
- JohnFen 6mo agoDon't forget that Israel has nukes as well.
- verzali 6mo agoWhat possible advantage would using them offer Israel right now? The war is going just fine as it is for them.
- irthomasthomas 6mo agoApparently they came with 75 meters of bombing an nuclear power plant already. A plant with 10x the material Chernobyl had, and in vulnerable above-ground storage. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/middle-east-war-why-attacks-near-irans-bushehr-nuclear-plant-alarm-the-gulf-11317406 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/middle-east-war-why-attacks-...
- OhMeadhbh 6mo agoI mean... the Israelis could use their nuke. I don't know how quickly they could move it from Philadelphia, though.