7 ms·
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
by dj_gitmo 1y ago
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
- trebligdivad 1y agoI don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs? Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
- friendlyasparag 1y agoThey might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation. The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
- ra0x3 1y agoThis was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
- card_zero 1y agoSo the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious? OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
- WaxProlix 1y agoAre you referring to Israel here, who stole the recipe from their closest 'ally' and has made not one or two but hundreds of nukes outside of the NPT?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWe made an exception for Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
- coredog64 1y agoNorth Korea left the NPT, Israel never signed it.
- coredog64 1y agoThe prior government did sign it and there’s very good reason to hold successor states to the treaties signed before they existed.
- lostlogin 1y agoWhat about the agreement to protect Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons? Trusting the US or any agreement with it would be foolish.
- samrus 1y agothe NPT is a joke. the only "authorized" nukes are the ones you can keep
- Workaccount2 1y agoThe problem is that these people are religiously unhinged. They are executing Gods will with God on their side.
- yencabulator 1y agoUnlike the American evangelicals and the Israeli?
- bigyabai 1y agoIn the past 24 hours alone, all 3 parties in this conflict have attributed their success to God. You genuinely, honestly have to be more specific in your comment because not a single involved participant is a fully secular country. So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
- crystal_revenge 1y agoUnfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here. The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
- skissane 1y ago> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
- jhanschoo 1y agoMy understanding is that the prospect of nuclear retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute greatly to peace in the region.
- stogot 1y agoThis is what I’d expect Iran to do instead of ICBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies
- samrus 1y agoif israel and america actually believed iran was as close to nukes as bibi said it was, then the variance on the prediction, and the chance of iran already having nukes and already being able to deliver them via ballistic/hamas means would be too large to risk something like this north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient. this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise
- unyttigfjelltol 1y agoAdd to that, its "deterrence" arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) are credible militarily only as nuclear delivery systems. For example, the "Khaybar Breaker" rocket (English meaning), referring to a destruction of an historic Jewish stronghold, leaving little to imagination, when equiped with conventional warheads are simply an expensive way to ruin hospital wings. But, when you merge heavy rockets with diligent production of precursors of nuclear weapons, not only is that work toward military use of a nuclear weapon-- it creates a powerful inertia toward actually completing that work, from two directions, lest your very expensive work prove pointless. The current war is vividly demonstrating that IRBM's are not deterrent unless (a) impossibly numerous or (b) unconventionally armed. A threshold IRBM threat makes it more, not less, likely to provoke a first strike against it, as has occurred.
- tguvot 1y agofor people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields). On the other side Israel attempt on taking our Iranian AD was success. It led Iran to make 2 decisions - Accelerate production of IRBM in order to have 10000 in stock and to build 1000 launchers in order to execute massive launches that will not possible to defend against - Apparently the did decide to mate their IRBM with nukes as recently there was meeting between whoever managed iranian missiles problem and heads of nuclear project (there is economist article about it). This comes against backdrop of hamas and hezbollah been wiped. especially hezbollah which was supposed to be strike force against israel with estimated 100k-200k missiles and rockets. PS. to those who write that jordan/usa intercepted most/a lot. they (together with saudi arabia, uk and france intercepted drones and cruise missiles. out of all IRBM only 6 were intercepted with SM3 missiles from USA ship)
- Stevvo 1y agoHamas has not "been wiped"; they have more members than before October 7th.
- 1y ago
- piracyrules 1y ago[dead]
- jordanb 1y agoEveryone in Iran who decided to follow international law and not pursue nuclear weapons including Khamenei look like clowns right now.
- stickfigure 1y agoNobody believes that running a secretive bomb-proof underground bunker full of gas centrifuges is "not pursuing nuclear weapons". We're not stupid.
- jordanb 1y agoThese sites were under IAEA supervision until recently.
- stickfigure 1y agoThey enrich uranium. Supervising the process doesn't change the process.
- 8note 1y agohowever, they were supervised to not be enriching to bomb level concentration. the purpose of the bomb shelter seems obvious - israel is gonna be bombing because israel likes bombing stuff
- stickfigure 1y agoA more accurate way of describing it would be "still enriching, not at bomb level concentration yet". There is no question that they were in the process of "enriching to bomb level concentration". You want to wait until they're done?
- devcpp 1y agoThey were putting together advanced parts towards a nuclear weapon and IAEA says they weren't cooperating. Everyone knew what this meant. Even themselves, why did they need JCPOA otherwise? Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.