Live data from Hacker News

U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

bbc.co.uk

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#741

moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.

I was surprised to read that in Europe, the closest country to have nuclear weapons are the Netherlands (if they wanted to)

https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#743

The military industrial complex always wins in the US, even if the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it. A majestic mockery of democracy.

There is more to be said about the voters than about the military industrial complex here.

the voters cannot be held accountable, but politicians can

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#744

Could be a good way to boost the economy amidst a trade war while simultaneously doubling-down on protectionism. On the one hand we usually profit from wars, on the other hand we lose trading partners when we do our usual human rights violations shtick. I predict this is a ploy to try to get us into a war, so Trump can have his third term, rejecting calls to step down "because we're at war". It's a little early, but…

I think the contrary. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than a quarter of the world's oil gets shipped. The world price of oil is then expected to go up, and the US economy is very oil-dependent.

Other oil producers would profit from this, ... including Russia's state-run oil company, which would help them fund their war in Ukraine.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#745

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…

[flagged]

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#746

Just out of interest are large parts of Iran set to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years? What happens to all the radioactive dust? What is stopping Iran producing dirty ballistic missiles that would make Tel Aviv uninhabitable? Just the threat of nuclear retaliation?

As I understand it, radiation is more or less a non-issue here, because uranium is only very weakly radioactive. There may be some uranium pollution at the immediate sites, but nothing like clouds of radiation blowing across the land with the wind.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#747

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…

With all due respect, please reconsider these points:

> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent

Well now we should all be terrified.

> Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first

You should reflect on the religious elements prominently at play within these belligerent states.

I deplore kakistocracy of any stripe, but it is obvious that dictatorships and dictatorship-curious regimes of any sort are an existential threat.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#748

The military industrial complex always wins in the US, even if the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it. A majestic mockery of democracy.

There is more to be said about the voters than about the military industrial complex here.

The voters don't decide if a president can bomb something or not. Or, in the case of the US, how much it can bomb.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#749
post #745

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…

[flagged]

> Dictators are not the good the good guys, for their people or their neighbors.

Trying to find a clear line of "good vs evil guys" is bound to led you down a bad path. Is how Iran treat people very shitty and outright evil? Yes. Does that mean other countries should feel OK with invading them to "liberate" them? Probably no and feels like a very dangerous line of thinking that could be used to invade basically any country, including the US itself.

I don't think many people are arguing that Iran is some beacon of democracy and treating their people right, but regardless of that, we tend to favor sovereignty of nations for a good reason, yet it seems like some countries still struggle with accepting this.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#750

Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions. Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?

> Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?

Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.

Post reply on HN