The Iran Nuclear Program thread
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
To use a nuke to prevent nukes would be the height of hypocrisy.
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
To use a nuke to prevent nukes would be the height of hypocrisy.
That's an interesting statement. It must surely depend on intent?
Batant aggression, self defence etc.When a person intends to kill you, has said so, written their intention for all to see, and is fastening a blade to a broom handle in order to kill you, is it wrong for you to use your spear to defend yourself preemptively?
And in our case we would only be destroying their spear making capabilities. In the hope that they could eventually change. Maybe spend the billions on agriculture instead of spears.
-
Yeah, that’s a non-starter. Israel wants peace with all. Iran’s is death to everyone but us. There’s no equivalence to be found.
wrote 26 days ago last edited by kluurs@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Israel wants peace
Many (most?) Israeli's do - BUT just as in America, there are some very powerful and influential Israelis who want that PLUS a lot of land and more. Israel, like he US, has some significant parts of its population who have very different (contradictory) objectives.
-
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
To use a nuke to prevent nukes would be the height of hypocrisy.
That's an interesting statement. It must surely depend on intent?
Batant aggression, self defence etc.When a person intends to kill you, has said so, written their intention for all to see, and is fastening a blade to a broom handle in order to kill you, is it wrong for you to use your spear to defend yourself preemptively?
And in our case we would only be destroying their spear making capabilities. In the hope that they could eventually change. Maybe spend the billions on agriculture instead of spears.
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
Not going to happen until someone has their back against the wall.
See “offramp”.
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by Mik
I suspect the Iranian people as a whole have lost their fervor for spreading Islamic revolution now that they see their utter vulnerabilities. If they ever really had it. My impression is those who signed on to that did it for personal power, not ideology.
-
I suspect the Iranian people as a whole have lost their fervor for spreading Islamic revolution now that they see their utter vulnerabilities. If they ever really had it. My impression is those who signed on to that did it for personal power, not ideology.
wrote 26 days ago last edited by@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
I suspect the Iranian people as a whole have lost their fervor for spreading Islamic revolution now that they see their utter vulnerabilities. If they ever really had it. My impression is those who signed on to that did it for personal power, not ideology.
Iran is not the only nation where a group of religious fanatics have a degree of influence out of bounds with that of the majority of the population - part of the reason that Chris Hitchens had such disdain for religion.
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
I don't agree with everything this guy says, but it's worth listening to.
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
Contrarian view
Link to video
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by Mik
I hear what he says, but if you are not intending to enrich weapons grade materials, why do you go to the expense of hiding your facilities half a mile under a mountain where you have to build tunnels and power facilities into it? When your stated goal is death to <whoever we don't like today> and you are sponsoring attacks on that entity is it reasonable to believe you are not intending to develop the weapon?
-
I hear what he says, but if you are not intending to enrich weapons grade materials, why do you go to the expense of hiding your facilities half a mile under a mountain where you have to build tunnels and power facilities into it? When your stated goal is death to <whoever we don't like today> and you are sponsoring attacks on that entity is it reasonable to believe you are not intending to develop the weapon?
wrote 26 days ago last edited by@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
I hear what he says, but if you are not intending to enrich weapons grade materials, why do you go to the expense of hiding your facilities half a mile under a mountain where you have to build tunnels and power facilities into it? When your stated goal is death to <whoever we don't like today> and you are sponsoring attacks on that entity is it reasonable to believe you are not intending to develop the weapon?
Same arguments regarding Hussein and the WMD inspections in 2004… Though, I still find it extremely hard to believe that there weren’t WMD… The only other explanation that I’ll entertain is that he pretended to have WMD programs to try and have some leverage…
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 26 days ago last edited by
There ya go.
For me it's never been about believing either one. I looked at what Iran does, not what it, or anyone else, says.
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by jon-nyc
-
wrote 25 days ago last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
B2s on their way to Diego Garcia.
Range of a B2 is just shy of 7K miles…
Still, I’m surprised there aren’t B2s already stationed within range of the Middle East.