4 ms·
... so we need to hit them again...
by jacknews 5mo ago
... so we need to hit them again...
- johng 5mo agoIf their regular missiles are bad enough, just imagine them with nukes.
- jacknews 5mo agoDid they fire their missiles before they were surprise-attacked by Trump? IMHO they should have nukes as a deterrent and to balance Israel.
- bigyabai 5mo agoThat sounds like Israel's problem. Iran doesn't possess a large enough missile to credibly nuke the US.
- CamperBob2 5mo agoThey could have had nukes long ago. They exercised restraint. We didn't. Just imagine the regret they are experiencing now. Basically, Trump has taught some terrible people that they should have been even worse. The lesson will not be lost on their descendants.
- JohnMakin 5mo agoAnd what's truly ironic and moronic, is that the deal the talks are seeking a graceful exit for now would basically be a version of the JCPOA that was withdrawn for pretty much no reason in 2018. Which, if you are Iran, there is zero chance you're going to agree to anything like that anymore now they have all the leverage. Working hard, thank you!
- delecti 5mo agoI don't think they should be experiencing regret. The power in nukes is not in using them, it's in the threat of using them. The threat of using them keeps you from being attacked, but once you actually use them, so will the other guys. This war has pulled the tarp off of their control over the Strait of Hormuz though. That's a strategic weapon they can use without getting nuked back. Iran is much stronger than they were before the war; this was their Trinity test.
- CamperBob2 5mo agoThe power of nukes is that you don't get attacked by the US or Israel or Russia or anyone else. None of this would have happened if they had developed (or otherwise acquired) nuclear weapons. End of story.
- M95D 5mo ago> The power of nukes is that you don't get attacked by the US or Israel or Russia or anyone else. Until they use them...
- CamperBob2 5mo agoNo reason to think they would, unless some idiot were to attack them. Turns out they were the idiots, for trusting us to behave in accordance with international law.
- M95D 5mo agoThat "idiot" could attack using false flag op, blame someone else. Also, would you trust a decentralized military like Iran has to not fire a nuke for a minor provocation?
- defrost 5mo agoSo far they've been sound, unsurprising considering they have no nuclear weapons despite being a week away from having one for three or four decades now. The greater question is can the world trust a self indulgenent narcissist with zero checks and balances from having a 3 am whim to launch while Truthing on the toilet.
- tejohnso 5mo agoI imagine with nukes they'd be much like Russia, or Pakistan, or India, or China. In other words, showing restraint and intelligence, and having a deterrent against wars of aggression from the world's highest-funded army.
- jalapenoj 5mo ago[flagged]
- megous 5mo agoUS will kill more people through secondary effects of their aggression against Iran, than Iran's nuke ever would directly. True barbarians, except I understand English, so they sound to me less like bar bar bar, and more like a*holes. My gf tries to convince me US americans just don't care and are more like a bear in a porcelain shop. But dunno, I look at Cuba, Iran, Israel and lot of other places americans are very aggressive in/against and it's more like a*holes at this point to me. Whole porcelain shop is suffering. This just isn't the "we are big and stumbled a bit and broke stuff", anymore.
- glaslong 5mo agoAll we seem to have done is prove to every non-nuclear country that they all SHOULD have nukes. Because it would have prevented Iran being invaded.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]