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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#671

Post by wvbdmp »

Eavolution wrote: post #636

I thought part of Trump's campaign was that he'd distance the US from foreign conflicts and not get involved so much. Is he trying to renege on every single thing he campaigned on?

I think this one is less of a Trump flip-flop in particular. It seems that US presidents just can’t defy these things, even when their whole point is being an outsider. The pressures and propaganda a president is subject to must hit substantially different. Or, if you will, the realities they have to face. Obama ran on closing Gitmo and even that he couldn’t do in two terms (which seems especially absurd in light of Trump’s evident power to just make things happen unilaterally). I’m no Trump supporter but I do still think he was in a unique position to ignore this sort of stuff. Pity it wasn’t enough.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#672

Post by pythonic_hell »

It’s sad to see how Europe leaders are reacting to this and further show how Europe is a vassal state to the US in all but name.

Europe is going to have to pick up the tab for the inevitable refugee and migrant crisis that will result from a wider war in the region - which they won’t be able to afford thanks to Trumps 5% military spending demand.

Imagine what it means for Europe if a fraction of 90 million people (5 times larger than Syria) suddenly find themselves in a situation that would necessitate fleeing for survival.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#673

Post by tim333 »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #633

That's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway). This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.

Dunno - better than the alternative of Iran getting nukes.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#674

Post by nivertech »

dreghgh wrote: post #581
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…

> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice.

1. Haha, just because someone is smart/knows one thing, doesn't mean they are smart/knows everything about all things. Especially when talking about people educated in STEM, not Humanities or Philosophy

2. There are plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are religious fanatics or just power hungry or want to advance in the IRGC ranks/carrier ladder. Khamene.ai is a Living God and there are many engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who worship this deity

3. There are also lots of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are threatened and forced to work for the IRGC. Just like it was in the Soviet Union under the Communism

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#675

Post by tim333 »

Ciantic wrote: post #659

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 I…

Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it at least 50/50 of happening.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#676

Post by zild3d »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #633

That's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway). This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.

> the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war

A lot of people saying this, what would this actually entail? My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange. Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday, leadership chain wiped out, seemingly no other Iran allies getting pulled into the fold

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#677

Post by karmakurtisaani »

tim333 wrote: post #673
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #633

That's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway). This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.

Dunno - better than the alternative of Iran getting nukes.

It was not one or the other. Don't buy into that bullshit.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#678

Post by _zagj »

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.

> American president talking about annexing my country

You country can't even be bothered to meet its 2% NATO obligation, and now you're talking about pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and not to deter Russia, but to threaten the US? Canada and Iran both show how dangerous having state-run media is.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#679

Post by dijit »

k4rli wrote: post #616

[flagged]

I'm really tired of people saying "actual terrorism"; as if there's not an actual definition of what terrorism is.

For those following along; the definition of terrorism is:

> the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Which civilians are hiding in uranium enrichment plants? Sites that are claimed to not be for nuclear power, but for making weapons.

Post reply on HN