6 ms·

And if the US/Israel didn't strike Iran, Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which Iran could use for peace. Did you forget the purpose of the war?

wolvoleo 5mo ago
The pretense that has already been debunked you mean. Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. The purpose of the war was keeping Netanyahu in power by having a constant war going on. And Trump went along because he was promised a quick win which he could have used to turn his midterms around.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  > Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
  - spiderfarmer 5mo ago
    "Thus, a renewed offer to retrieve Iran’s 60% enriched uranium “under the supervision of the Agency [IAEA],” as stated by Foreign Minister Araghchi, and to down-blend it to lower enrichment, along with a return to IAEA verification and monitoring as well as constraints on Iran’s future enrichment levels, would be extremely valuable and well worth bargaining for. " Or, you could be very, very stupid and start bombing like maniacs. Without a plan, without allies and without justification. During ongoing negotiations as well, making you SO UNBELIEVABLY untrustworthy that NO-ONE will EVER trust this idiotic regime ever again. The stupidity is astounding.
- _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
  Why does HN flag valid replies like this dead? tristanj 3 hours ago [dead] | root | parent | next [–] > Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
  - tristanj 5mo ago
    It's automatic, the information trips the content filters.
  - bigyabai 5mo ago
    Iran has had a stockpile of >100kg medium-enriched uranium for decades. The "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" scare line has been repeated since the 1990s, and it's not really any better of an argument today.
    - _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
      Knowing the numbers we are talking about isn't a scare line. Knowing the related facts should not be downvoted to [dead] on HN. Hiding facts feels manipulative/propaganda-y and not Hacker News worthy. A comment like yours seems the more appropriate response wouldn't you agree?
      - tristanj 5mo ago
        [dead]
      - bigyabai 5mo ago
        > Knowing the numbers we are talking about Which numbers? "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" is a stupid figure, you could come up with similar scare quotes for raw uranium ore if you extrapolated the refinement process. It's a dishonest tactic that has been tossed around for decades without much meaning. The upstream claim that Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads is just not true. Iran does not have any credible ICBM in their inventory, nor a known reentry vehicle, nor a strategy that would enable them to fight anyone besides regional powers like Israel. I did not flag their comments, but this kind of extraordinary "flood the zone" logic is consistent with what HN ends up flagging in the long run.
Hikikomori 5mo ago
The "reason" for this war was created by Trump in 2017 when the US left the agreement with Iran, while US intelligence agencies all testified to congress Iran was following the agreement and was not working towards a bomb. Then US imposed sanctions and Iran eventually started enrichment again. Such a dumb lie.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  JCPOA was a terribly designed deal, it never addressed the Iranian missile issue, which is arguably just as bad the Iranian nuclear issue. While following JCPOA, Iran decided to build tens of thousands of conventional missiles and drones instead. Enough to swarm and overwhelm air defense systems. 1000 conventional missiles cause as much infrastructure damage as a single nuclear warhead. Iran basically bypassed JCPOA, and built the equivalent to a nuke with conventional weapons. Obama had the choice to negotiate missile limits in JCPOA, but chose not to, because he wanted a quick politcal win, without realizing the future consequences. And if you think paying a country tens of billions of dollars not to develop a nuke is a great deal, that incentives every other country to develop their own nuclear weapons.
  - Hikikomori 5mo ago
    Yeah you got me, Obama didn't solve everything in a first step of diplomacy in a 100+ year history of the west fucking over this country. Clearly the only solution is to keep attacking them because it has worked so well before. And keep letting the colonial project of Israel terrorize their neighbors. It's the only viable solution.
  - Hikikomori 5mo ago
    >And if you think paying a country tens of billions of dollars not to develop a nuke is a great deal, that incentives every other country to develop their own nuclear weapons. Iran was never paid any money, sanctions were lifted. Are you able to state a truthful point at all?
    - tristanj 5mo ago
trymas 5mo ago
Is this sarcasm? Bibi says this for 30+ years and there are no ICBMs.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  My mistake, Iran presently only has IRBMs, not ICBMs. Iran's nuclear-capable Khorramshahr-4 missile has a range of up to 4,000 km [0], and the requirement for an ICBM is above 5,500 km. So you are technically correct. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_strike_on_Diego_Garcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_strike_on_Diego_G...

wolvoleo 5mo ago

The pretense that has already been debunked you mean. Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. The purpose of the war was keeping Netanyahu in power by having a constant war going on. And Trump went along because he was promised a quick win which he could have used to turn his midterms around.

tristanj 5mo ago
> Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
- spiderfarmer 5mo ago
  "Thus, a renewed offer to retrieve Iran’s 60% enriched uranium “under the supervision of the Agency [IAEA],” as stated by Foreign Minister Araghchi, and to down-blend it to lower enrichment, along with a return to IAEA verification and monitoring as well as constraints on Iran’s future enrichment levels, would be extremely valuable and well worth bargaining for. " Or, you could be very, very stupid and start bombing like maniacs. Without a plan, without allies and without justification. During ongoing negotiations as well, making you SO UNBELIEVABLY untrustworthy that NO-ONE will EVER trust this idiotic regime ever again. The stupidity is astounding.
_DeadFred_ 5mo ago
Why does HN flag valid replies like this dead? tristanj 3 hours ago [dead] | root | parent | next [–] > Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks. This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
- tristanj 5mo ago
  It's automatic, the information trips the content filters.
- bigyabai 5mo ago
  Iran has had a stockpile of >100kg medium-enriched uranium for decades. The "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" scare line has been repeated since the 1990s, and it's not really any better of an argument today.
  - _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
    Knowing the numbers we are talking about isn't a scare line. Knowing the related facts should not be downvoted to [dead] on HN. Hiding facts feels manipulative/propaganda-y and not Hacker News worthy. A comment like yours seems the more appropriate response wouldn't you agree?
    - tristanj 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - bigyabai 5mo ago
      > Knowing the numbers we are talking about Which numbers? "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" is a stupid figure, you could come up with similar scare quotes for raw uranium ore if you extrapolated the refinement process. It's a dishonest tactic that has been tossed around for decades without much meaning. The upstream claim that Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads is just not true. Iran does not have any credible ICBM in their inventory, nor a known reentry vehicle, nor a strategy that would enable them to fight anyone besides regional powers like Israel. I did not flag their comments, but this kind of extraordinary "flood the zone" logic is consistent with what HN ends up flagging in the long run.

Hikikomori 5mo ago

The "reason" for this war was created by Trump in 2017 when the US left the agreement with Iran, while US intelligence agencies all testified to congress Iran was following the agreement and was not working towards a bomb. Then US imposed sanctions and Iran eventually started enrichment again. Such a dumb lie.

tristanj 5mo ago
JCPOA was a terribly designed deal, it never addressed the Iranian missile issue, which is arguably just as bad the Iranian nuclear issue. While following JCPOA, Iran decided to build tens of thousands of conventional missiles and drones instead. Enough to swarm and overwhelm air defense systems. 1000 conventional missiles cause as much infrastructure damage as a single nuclear warhead. Iran basically bypassed JCPOA, and built the equivalent to a nuke with conventional weapons. Obama had the choice to negotiate missile limits in JCPOA, but chose not to, because he wanted a quick politcal win, without realizing the future consequences. And if you think paying a country tens of billions of dollars not to develop a nuke is a great deal, that incentives every other country to develop their own nuclear weapons.
- Hikikomori 5mo ago
  Yeah you got me, Obama didn't solve everything in a first step of diplomacy in a 100+ year history of the west fucking over this country. Clearly the only solution is to keep attacking them because it has worked so well before. And keep letting the colonial project of Israel terrorize their neighbors. It's the only viable solution.
- Hikikomori 5mo ago
  >And if you think paying a country tens of billions of dollars not to develop a nuke is a great deal, that incentives every other country to develop their own nuclear weapons. Iran was never paid any money, sanctions were lifted. Are you able to state a truthful point at all?
  - tristanj 5mo ago

trymas 5mo ago

Is this sarcasm? Bibi says this for 30+ years and there are no ICBMs.

tristanj 5mo ago
My mistake, Iran presently only has IRBMs, not ICBMs. Iran's nuclear-capable Khorramshahr-4 missile has a range of up to 4,000 km [0], and the requirement for an ICBM is above 5,500 km. So you are technically correct. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_strike_on_Diego_Garcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_strike_on_Diego_G...