5 ms·

Does keeping Iran from having Nuclear weapons make sense? Does keeping Iran from paying terrorists make sense? Does keeping Iran and it's proxies from killing

by johng 6mo ago

Does keeping Iran from having Nuclear weapons make sense? Does keeping Iran from paying terrorists make sense? Does keeping Iran and it's proxies from killing Americans and civilians from other countries make sense? All of those things make sense to me. This needed to be done long ago. Every single administration said so.... it's clear as day. But, he finally did it. In a decisive way. I would gladly pay a bit more at the pump so end all of the above. Now, think of all the protests and political backlash that he got for not helping Palestine more. What Iran is doing to their own people is much worse, IMHO. Not a peep about it from most people. No campuses shut down. No riots. No walk outs.... because it's not Israel doing it. Go talk to someone from Iran... someone who has family there. They all support Trump on this issue. This needed to be done. It amazes me how many Americans want us to lose simply because it's Orange Man doing it.

GJim 6mo ago
> Does keeping Iran from having Nuclear weapons make sense Why do (some!) Americans insist on believing Iran was going to obtain nuclear weapons? Netanyahu is repeating the line "Iran will have a nuke in 2 months" for 30 years. American intelligence also showed that Iran was nowhere near building a nuclear weapon. Frankly, a better question would be to ask why Mango Mussolini tore up the 2016 Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA).... most likely because it was made by his predecessor.
- johng 6mo ago
  The fact that Iran themselves admitted it, and so has the IAEA. You can hate on Trump all you want but this is without dispute. If they weren't trying so hard to create nuclear weapons, they'd surely agree not to. I notice no one addressed the issue of them killing 40,000+ of their own citizens.
  - bediger4000 6mo ago
    Iran is a sovereign nation. Many such are killing tons of their civilians. South Sudan comes to mind instantly. Many sovereign nations have killed that many or more of their own citizens, Myanmar and Cambodia for example, and the USA has not intervened. Part of Trump's campaign promises related to the USA not being the world's policeman, this issue strikes me as another propaganda red herring.
bediger4000 6mo ago
If nuclear weapons was an issue, Trump blew up a cheaper far less disruptive agreement his first term. If that's an issue, it's one of his own making. The "terrorist" business? I've seen a rotating cast of "terrorists" over the years. That's pretty obviously villain of the moment propaganda.
tartoran 6mo ago
U.S. war in Iran has cost $25B so far [1]. Was that worth it? Did it help with anything? Is the Horumuz strait open? This looks like a disaster that is about to sink the US economically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 [1]
- ben_w 6mo ago
  For the sake of argument, presume that Iran having nuclear weapons means there is a risk of them being used on the USA. Even in a dull first-order utilitarian sense, if {cost of getting nuked} * P(Iran would otherwise have nuked the USA) > $25B, yes. I've seen estimates that {cost of getting nuked}, even for a moderately powerful nuke (100s of kT, not MT) over Manhattan, the cost of the damage and a proper cleanup of the radioactive contamination is roughly comparable to the US annual GDP*. That makes it worth the cost even if you think there's only a 0.08% chance. But this is a very naïve approximation, which doesn't account for the geopolitical impact of the US being seen as untrustworthy in its treaties; nor that this is the second time a middle east country that did not actually have nukes was attacked by the US on the basis that they might be making some, while North Korea actually made nukes and has not been attacked as a consequence, and lots of countries may be looking at this as precedent and thinking "we need some nukes" and this overall increases the risk to the USA. * Can't find it now, but one of my older comments had a link to it, if you go back far enough.
  - bediger4000 5mo ago
    Based on such a utilitarian, economic argument, Trump should not have dumped the Joint Agreement that Obama's people negotiated. But he did, apparently based on racial animus towards Obama. Therefore, we can safely say that this is not Trump's rationale for his Iran war of choice.
    - ben_w 5mo ago
      Indeed. He is also easily manipulable, almost to the extent that it's useless to do so because everyone knows what his buttons are and push them some other way continuously. However, the question was not "was Trump wise?", but "was $25bn etc. worth it?"

by johng 6mo ago

GJim 6mo ago

> Does keeping Iran from having Nuclear weapons make sense Why do (some!) Americans insist on believing Iran was going to obtain nuclear weapons? Netanyahu is repeating the line "Iran will have a nuke in 2 months" for 30 years. American intelligence also showed that Iran was nowhere near building a nuclear weapon. Frankly, a better question would be to ask why Mango Mussolini tore up the 2016 Iran Nuclear deal (JCPOA).... most likely because it was made by his predecessor.

johng 6mo ago
The fact that Iran themselves admitted it, and so has the IAEA. You can hate on Trump all you want but this is without dispute. If they weren't trying so hard to create nuclear weapons, they'd surely agree not to. I notice no one addressed the issue of them killing 40,000+ of their own citizens.
- bediger4000 6mo ago
  Iran is a sovereign nation. Many such are killing tons of their civilians. South Sudan comes to mind instantly. Many sovereign nations have killed that many or more of their own citizens, Myanmar and Cambodia for example, and the USA has not intervened. Part of Trump's campaign promises related to the USA not being the world's policeman, this issue strikes me as another propaganda red herring.

bediger4000 6mo ago

If nuclear weapons was an issue, Trump blew up a cheaper far less disruptive agreement his first term. If that's an issue, it's one of his own making. The "terrorist" business? I've seen a rotating cast of "terrorists" over the years. That's pretty obviously villain of the moment propaganda.

tartoran 6mo ago

U.S. war in Iran has cost $25B so far [1]. Was that worth it? Did it help with anything? Is the Horumuz strait open? This looks like a disaster that is about to sink the US economically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 [1]

ben_w 6mo ago
For the sake of argument, presume that Iran having nuclear weapons means there is a risk of them being used on the USA. Even in a dull first-order utilitarian sense, if {cost of getting nuked} * P(Iran would otherwise have nuked the USA) > $25B, yes. I've seen estimates that {cost of getting nuked}, even for a moderately powerful nuke (100s of kT, not MT) over Manhattan, the cost of the damage and a proper cleanup of the radioactive contamination is roughly comparable to the US annual GDP*. That makes it worth the cost even if you think there's only a 0.08% chance. But this is a very naïve approximation, which doesn't account for the geopolitical impact of the US being seen as untrustworthy in its treaties; nor that this is the second time a middle east country that did not actually have nukes was attacked by the US on the basis that they might be making some, while North Korea actually made nukes and has not been attacked as a consequence, and lots of countries may be looking at this as precedent and thinking "we need some nukes" and this overall increases the risk to the USA. * Can't find it now, but one of my older comments had a link to it, if you go back far enough.
- bediger4000 5mo ago
  Based on such a utilitarian, economic argument, Trump should not have dumped the Joint Agreement that Obama's people negotiated. But he did, apparently based on racial animus towards Obama. Therefore, we can safely say that this is not Trump's rationale for his Iran war of choice.
  - ben_w 5mo ago
    Indeed. He is also easily manipulable, almost to the extent that it's useless to do so because everyone knows what his buttons are and push them some other way continuously. However, the question was not "was Trump wise?", but "was $25bn etc. worth it?"