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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#891

Post by tome »

epolanski wrote: post #537
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…

> Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. I feel very conflicted about what's happening. On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked. > What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives. That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a cl…

> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked

That's ahistorical in the case of Syria and Iraq. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq, just as it has done to Iran's. Syria and Iraq did not give up those programmes willingly.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#892

Post by nivertech »

GMoromisato wrote: post #884

I'm curious to hear people's predictions for the future: 1. Will Iran escalate, stay-the-course, or yield more in negotiations? Or take some other action I haven't thought of. 2. If Iran escalates, how far will it go? 3. If Iran does a token retaliation without major escalation, but refuses to give up its remaining nuclear program, what happens? Will the Israeli's be satisfied with a 2-4 year delay in Iran's program…

Watch the last episode of SILO.

> Dan is a congressman, and what journalist Helen really wants from him is information. She’s particularly interested in a “dirty bomb”—particularly, whether the rumors of one exploding in New Orleans are real, or merely fabricated to advance a war between America and Iran. Dan doesn’t answer, instead choosing to leave. It’s all vague, but it gives the viewer a chance to piece some details together: It was likely the bomb and the escalation of a war between America and Iran that led to the creation of the silos.

https://time.com/7206478/silo-season-2-finale-explained/

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#893

Post by xdennis »

827a wrote: post #889
GMoromisato wrote: post #884

I'm curious to hear people's predictions for the future: 1. Will Iran escalate, stay-the-course, or yield more in negotiations? Or take some other action I haven't thought of. 2. If Iran escalates, how far will it go? 3. If Iran does a token retaliation without major escalation, but refuses to give up its remaining nuclear program, what happens? Will the Israeli's be satisfied with a 2-4 year delay in Iran's program…

IMO #3. They'll moan for a bit. Continue firing rockets. A couple weeks of this; Iran will claim that Iran won, Israel will claim Israel won. There won't be negotiations or concessions. They'll continue trying to develop nukes, but these past two weeks has set them back years. Things go quiet. In ten years we'll do this all over again. The thing people seem to not recognize is: There's basically three countries on th…

That seems ideal, but my fear is that Iran won't stop.

It's cheaper to build low precision rockets/drones than the Israeli interceptors, so the war _could_ swing in Iran's favor in the long term.

Additionally, Iranians aren't rising up because they don't want to be seen as being controlled by foreigners, but once the war stops, the Iranian regime will have to answer to its citizens. This means the mullahs have no incentive to stop.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#897

Post by sanderjd »

8note wrote: post #887
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" is a weird description. the iranian government is the sovereign regulator in iran, and prsumably they did authorize it. they dont need anyone else's authorization, same as nobody authorizes what happens in the US except the US government

I think it's reasonable to use "unauthorized" to include international law and treaties. It is true that the US (and maybe every country?) also does "unauthorized" things, by that definition. But I still think it is a reasonable word to use.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#899

Post by 15155 »

mrs6969 wrote: post #235

So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ?

> nuclear facility in ukraine

Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways

> us can in iran

Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#900

Post by zorobo »

mrs6969 wrote: post #235

So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ?

Ukraine has not been saying death to Russia for 40 years straight. Ukraine did not sponsor terrorism in Russia and other countries. Ukraine does not install and arm suppletive militia in other countries. Ukraine does not physically eliminate opposition at home and abroad. Ukraine does not hang homosexuals. Ukraine does not have a supreme leader for life. Etc.
Post reply on HN