Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#161

Post by cwmoore »

arandomusername wrote: post #40
tptacek wrote: post #23

I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they c…

What does "unauthorized" mean here? Who needs to authorize weapons-grade uranium enrichment? The GBU-57 is dope. Really curious to see how well it worked here

Curious too. I can’t even imagine driving a 16ton nail through hundreds of feet of hard rock and reinforced concrete.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#163

Post by ivape »

lwansbrough wrote: post #157

There sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.

North Korea is crazy and diplomacy works just fine with them. This is entirely the foreign policy of another country that has taken American foreign policy hostage. I'm sorry, the America is not safer because of this ... the opposite in fact.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#164

Post by TulliusCicero »

lwansbrough wrote: post #157

There sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.

It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowhere (because they obviously wanted nukes), eventually NK got the nukes they wanted.

Does anyone think that situation resolved well? If we were able to go back in time, would we choose diplomacy again, knowing it would fail?

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#165

Post by CamperBob2 »

msgodel wrote: post #93

Yeah there was no good reason for that. The main thing I liked about Trump is that he didn't start any wars his first term, if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad.

11/29/11: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."

1/17/12: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."

9/16/13: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order save face!"

11/10/13: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!"

"If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace." - Presidential debate, 2024

If you voted for Trump, you voted precisely for this. Every accusation from him is either a confession in disguise or an unfulfilled wish.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#167

Post by bagels »

Waterluvian wrote: post #149

When I look at Russia invading Ukraine, and I see how Israel is behaving, and I listen to the American president talking about annexing my country, I can see why a country might believe it needs nuclear weapons. Whether this is good or bad is something people can discuss. But I think it’s fleetingly difficult for me to see any sort of righteous high ground these days.

With Trump in office, everybody should be seeking them out, Canada included.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#168

Post by jandrewrogers »

vaughands wrote: post #6

Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.

Keeping the Arab world from building their own nuclear weapons has long been contingent on Iran not having a nuclear weapons program. It only benefits the US to the extent it prevents the situation where half the countries in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#169

Post by knowknow »

lwansbrough wrote: post #157

There sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.

You do realize that there are ways to avoid nuclear proliferation without war? The US had a deal with Iran and multiple other countries that made them limit their nuclear capabilities, but the US withdrew from it in 2018.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#170

Post by tdeck »

lwansbrough wrote: post #157

There sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.

There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".

What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.

Post reply on HN