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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#481

Post by tptacek »

rich_sasha wrote: post #478
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…

> unauthorized It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know. In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.

Correct. That is how sovereign states relate to each other, though.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#482

Post by reissbaker »

rich_sasha wrote: post #478
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…

> unauthorized It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know. In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.

Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#483

Post by viccis »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #376

I imagine every reasonably-sized country looking at this and thinking: "well, we'd be idiots not to have nuclear weapons by any means necessary." This will be one of the single-most proliferation-inducing events in history, maybe save Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Russia-Ukraine war already did that. Ukraine let us talk them into giving up their nukes, and see what happened.

Iran having nukes would mean peace in the Middle East.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#484

Post by birn559 »

alkyon wrote: post #476
cakealert wrote: post #465

Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpo…

If anything, the lack of competence is on the other side. Was enriched uranium destroyed? I doubt it. Have they even "obliterated" Fordow site buried 90 m deep inside the mountain? I have serious doubts. Iran's nuclear program was set back some months if anything.

Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#485

Post by crossroadsguy »

As someone who absolutely hates American bullying of a hegemony. This is one case where I believe people of Iran might come out beneficial of it. In the long term? I am not so sure.

But will that happen? I doubt it. A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America. So Iranian things in the best interest of America would be the same theocracy but docile to America at least in the near future (or worse a full fledged military dictatorship which they anyway installed once).

However I just hope/dream (and it's too much of a hope) for the sake of Iranian people - it ends up getting a democracy after all (maybe).

However there is one thing clear - there is no rule based foreign relations, business, diplomacy anymore in this post truth world of ours. It's plain simple - you look after your own hind lest you find someone is at the door wanting to take it; might be an ally just as well.

A side note: I can't thank four of my country's ex PMs [0] enough that they ensured we had nukes inspite of stringent sanctions from other nations which ironically, among them, almost all already had nukes :D

The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.

[0] esp. Indira Ghandhi; also, probably the only head of sate that actually succeeded in "selling freedom" thing. Something America specialises in and uses as a premise to routinely reduce various parts of the world to rubble. A positive outcome of such endeavours - its defence industry getting push from it and of course it goes about trying to re-build it, giving push to other of its industries, half or quarter way and then finds other sundry places to subject to this routine.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#486

Post by PeterHolzwarth »

denkmoon wrote: post #125

The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.

I'm not sure what you mean - Iran has been full-tilt pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. And America, its partners, and even its definitely-not-partners, have been working to counter that the whole time.

Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#487

Post by simonh »

cakealert wrote: post #465

Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpo…

It's not so much them being a theocracy IMHO. It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.

Put those Israeli shoes on. There's a state armed with ballistic missiles in easy range of you, they have the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium, recently acquired more advanced centrifuges, they have the uranium already enriched far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, they have far more of it than they credibly need for such civilian use, and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you.

How well would you sleep at night?

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#488

Post by khazhoux »

apu wrote: post #446

Incredible to see the bloodlust and warmongering here, cloaked in the language of technical interest.

Why do you see it as bloodlust though?

If (if) this destroyed a nuclear weapons program, that is good for the world.

No one can predict the downstream consequences of today, but I fail to see an argument for why the world benefits from another nation getting the bomb.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#489

Post by JohnBooty »

rich_sasha wrote: post #478
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…

> unauthorized It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know. In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.

I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#490

Post by jandrewrogers »

cakealert wrote: post #465

Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpo…

North Korea is a Chinese client state. As a general rule, client states are treated as extensions of the countries that control them. Iran is not a client state.
Post reply on HN