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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#651

Post by UmGuys »

huhtenberg wrote: post #643
jameslk wrote: post #508

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.

What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#654

Post by LAC-Tech »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #638
LAC-Tech wrote: post #497

I can't help but conclude the primary rogue state in region is not Iran - it's Israel: - Did not sign the non-proliferation treaty - Does not allow IAEA inspectors into their country - Nuclear weapons program widely believed to have started from material stolen from the US - Prime Minister wanted by the ICC for war crimes. Since 2023, they have: - Invaded and occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon - Bombed Syria, Lebano…

[flagged]

How far back do we want to go? We could go back to 1948 when the precursor to the IDF poisoned the wells of the Arab villages they captured, so if the Arabs returned they'd get typhoid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread

So yes, there's quite a lot I am glossing over.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#655

Post by UmGuys »

czhu12 wrote: post #611
jameslk wrote: post #508

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either. Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.

Trump only wants to get richer. He'll do as many wars as he can get away with. Laws don't matter anymore. He just struck Iran because he felt like it and announced it on his social media network. This is beyond Idoicracy.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#656

Post by Narretz »

jameslk wrote: post #508

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#657

Post by Narretz »

missedthecue wrote: post #501
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…

By a wide margin, the majority of Iranian university students are women. The ratio is over 60/40

I guess because many men are needed for the IRGC and related organisations.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#658

Post by throwawaynagain »

huhtenberg wrote: post #643
jameslk wrote: post #508

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.

I think you meant to say:

Change of the US regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war.

From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#659

Post by Ciantic »

The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations.

The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep.

Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first.

The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections.

Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#660

Post by zelphirkalt »

Narretz wrote: post #656
jameslk wrote: post #508

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.

Which experience is that?
Post reply on HN