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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#253

Post by scythe »

vaughands wrote: post #6

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

If this was about the benefit to the United States, then we would have had months of public buildup and debate like we did with the war in Iraq. It is hardly an example of a good decision, but history shows that it was at least a popular one; the majority of poll respondents and of legislators were both in favor of the initial invasion of Iraq. I was only eleven at the time, but I remember most moderate Democrats and independents who I knew (including, particularly, my seventh-grade history teacher, who was no fan of Bush) were in favor of the war.

Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one.

1: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-p...

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#254

Post by bgwalter »

SkyeCA wrote: post #37

As is tradition: Israel says jump, the US responds "How high?"

That may be the perception from the outside due to theater (Trump holding Netanyahu's chair for the cameras etc.), but these plans have existed forever. Here is a plan from the Brookings Institute from 2009:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg

"CHAPTER FIVE Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike"

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#256

Post by the__alchemist »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #158
ggm wrote: post #5

I wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis. Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course. Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engin…

Thanks for trying to make this into a technical discussion. I just realised that this bomb is not the same as the so called Mother of all bombs, which by the way has so far only been used once also by trump. That's the gbu 43. Why did they find it necessary to build an even bigger bomb? I wonder if they anticipated strikes on the me. As to your other point iran seems to have a decent level of education. Building an e…

  - MOP: High penetration; most of its payload is not explosive. (Something heavy). Designed so its body, fuse, explosives etc remain intact after penetrating deep.
  - MOAB: Fuel air explosive for massive blast effect.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#259

Post by goodluckchuck »

xnx wrote: post #151

Did I miss the part where Congress declared war or is that passe?

A declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.
Post reply on HN