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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#921

Post by make3 »

sanderjd wrote: post #916
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…

I think it is fantasy to think we can ever get back to a point where we're seen as a credible negotiating partner, after the events of the past decade.

maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic and a non-Trump Republican governments

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#922

Post by rabidonrails »

Findecanor wrote: post #732
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…

> I think Netanyahu belongs in prison For those who didn't know: There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of. But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them. This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza. The starvation has entered a new critical phase. The populace h…

We should be clear about these cases that are brought against him (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but context is important here):

Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.

Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage

*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#923

Post by themagician »

amai wrote: post #873

A country like Iran doesn‘t need nuclear energy. It could be like Norway and produce all its energy from renewables/solar, sell its oil and get rich easily. Instead they threaten neighbors, support terrorism and suppress their own people. But if the Israeli/US bombs will convince them to become smarter I really don‘t know.

USA says Iran can't have nuclear weapons. Says China can't have modern silicon.

USA only has a limited amount of time left to dictate these things. We are playing with fire before the world order shifts. It is inevitable, and we would all be better off recognizing this and working towards a better future for all of humanity than trying to pretend like the USA is always going to be able to dictate who gets to do what.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#924

Post by lif »

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.

the protests in 2003 were massive

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#925

Post by [deleted] »

amai wrote: post #873

A country like Iran doesn‘t need nuclear energy. It could be like Norway and produce all its energy from renewables/solar, sell its oil and get rich easily. Instead they threaten neighbors, support terrorism and suppress their own people. But if the Israeli/US bombs will convince them to become smarter I really don‘t know.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#927

Post by nsingh2 »

sepisoad wrote: post #826

As Iranians, we are exhausted and frustrated with the Islamic regime in Iran, which has proven to be more destructive than any weapon. Despite numerous attempts to peacefully change the regime, each effort has been met with brutal violence, mass killings of civilians, and imprisonment of anyone who dares to oppose them. Over time, we’ve realized that protests alone cannot overthrow this regime; it requires a force st…

Judging by history, external forces toppling a regime through violence usually leads to instability, with the result being militancy.

I hope if this does happen in Iran, the day after involves a movement towards a secular and free government. But I have my doubts, especially considering a government led by a dictator tends to be easier to control, so external powers may lean towards that option if given the choice.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#928

Post by nickpsecurity »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #754

A liberal Israeli friend has told me on a few occasions that Iran is one of the safest places in the Middle East for Christians and Jews to live, work, and raise families as long as they don’t publicly protest against the Iranian government. I have no way of knowing if my friend is correct about this, but with the conflicting news broadcasts in the USA the situation is as confusing as hell. Off topic, but I have star…

I know a missionary that serves Iranians. The country is so hostile to Christians that the main, missions strategy is to reach Iranians outside of Iran. Then, they go back in and maybe talk to their own people. Eventually, they get ejected or something worse happens to them, too. There's always a narrow window where people can hear or share the Gospel. Then, discipleship in a high-persecution regime is usually done in secret churches whose meetings are even more difficult.

Under such regimes, the hope is that a sprinkle of people here and there come to know Christ. They immediately have eternal life with forgiveness of sins. Over time, as they share Christ and His Word, more lives will transform as a side effect of the sanctification process. As they do, and people witness it, hearts and minds might change over time in a way that changes the whole country (or its leadership).

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#929

Post by nsingh2 »

NalNezumi wrote: post #774

One thing about this situation is that makes me reassess my impression of "deep state / military industrial complex". Both Trump and Tulsi Gabbard (pre election) was running a "no war" platform with heavy connotation of "deep state" and wars only serving special interests (including Israel). My impression was that this outsider aspect really bought many libertarian and non-hawk republicans vote. Hell, Gabbard was eve…

US foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus.

Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.

Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.

Post reply on HN