What the heck is this racist drivel

It’s tricky to argue it in court if you have already been deported to a prison in a foreign country.

They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation.

The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.

> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation

Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms

An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited

Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination

People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.

This is what I’d expect Iran to do instead of ICBM

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

But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies

This is the pattern of constantly moving the goalposts:

- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past nuclear-reactor grade. What's that? They're enriching past 5%?

- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past medical purposes grade. What's that? They're enriching past 20%?

- There's no evidence Iran has enough to build bombs. What's that? They have enough to build 10 bomb?

- There's no evidence they have a way to deliver bombs <-- you are here

If Israel doesn't continuously try to stop Iran, they might even have a 10 Megaton ICBM and you'll be saying "there's no evidence Iran has ever said it want's to destroy Israel".

if israel and america actually believed iran was as close to nukes as bibi said it was, then the variance on the prediction, and the chance of iran already having nukes and already being able to deliver them via ballistic/hamas means would be too large to risk something like this

north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient.

this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise

They just hit population centers in Israel with high explosives this week. Clearly if they had a nuke they would be able to deliver it.

My understanding is that the prospect of nuclear retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute greatly to peace in the region.

This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)

Unfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here.

The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.

I feel like it's been demonstrated that if Israel orders the United States to destroy the world on its behalf, the United States will do it.

So Iran is a special case compared to every other country getting them?

So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious?

OK, they never signed up to it, but still.

Are you referring to Israel here, who stole the recipe from their closest 'ally' and has made not one or two but hundreds of nukes outside of the NPT?

AFAIK the recipe was given to them by the French.

We made an exception for Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

North Korea left the NPT, Israel never signed it.

The prior government did sign it and there’s very good reason to hold successor states to the treaties signed before they existed.

What about the agreement to protect Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons?

Trusting the US or any agreement with it would be foolish.

the NPT is a joke. the only "authorized" nukes are the ones you can keep

The problem is that these people are religiously unhinged. They are executing Gods will with God on their side.

Ted Cruz is explicitly advocating that Christians are biblically commanded to defend the modern day state of Israel, and that this alone justifies our attack on Iran.

Or just because they tried to assassinate Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-a...

Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")

In the past 24 hours alone, all 3 parties in this conflict have attributed their success to God. You genuinely, honestly have to be more specific in your comment because not a single involved participant is a fully secular country.

So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?

To be fair it's the same god.

Unlike the American evangelicals and the Israeli?

one of the scariest parts of the current US administration is that there is a fairly strong evangelical Christian belief that a massive (possibly nuclear) war in Israel is a necessary precursor to the 2nd coming.

That's from Islam. Infact the entire point of ISIS was to manifest this prophecy

Evangelical Christianity shares the same belief. That’s why the red heifer breeding program [0] is supported by US Christian orgs [1].

[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/red-heifer-temple-institute/

[1] https://cbn.com/news/israel/first-time-after-2000-years-isra...

Are you referring to Iran or Israel?

this describes both jihadis and the chosen people. the whole region is operating on pre enlightenment notions of diplomacy

To be fair you are the first person in this thread to bring up gender, as if women don’t also feel depression in retirement, and indeed at higher rates. Why would you only mention men?

Ya, that was an error. I was thinking of myself, perhaps.

I suspect many commentators would say the same thing to the English majors out there who were told that passion and a college degree would lead to economic mobility and not a load of debt. Weren’t they also harboring unreasonable views that were not 100% of their own creation?

I'm unable to read minds, so if in your head that self-serving scenario played out such that they were, then they were. Does that justify being uncompassionate towards them by calling them entitled? Is entitled really the best fit for what they were being, rather than say, just plain unreasonable or misguided? Can you read minds that you know they were thinking the world owes them and that's how they developed a passion and completed a college degree?

I’m glad you are willing to treat both groups the same. I suspect many on this site wouldn’t and would take pains to explain how they’re entirely different :)

Maybe I'm just not smart/eloquent enough to come up with a response like GP, but often I'll have arguments in my head where it looks like:

- make a point A

- oh, counterexample with point B

- ehh that's a good point logically...

but I'll just go with point A anyways, especially when point A is something generally optimistic, and point B is cynical.

I don't like going into social arguments for this reason - it's very easy (and often logically correct) to create an ad-absurdum counter-argument to a lot of our general social beliefs.

But to be a functioning human being, sometimes you just have to take the optimistic choice regardless. I know that certainly when I was constantly listening to B, I was depressed out of my mind; would rather be "delusional and stubborn" on some things than depressed.

Twice two might not be five, but it keeps your sanity.

In their defense nobody expected America to jettison education. You can’t plan your career around idiocy like that, it just happens to you.

The escalation is perhaps less surprising given that it happened while Cruise had many (much smaller) traffic issues and CPUC was already significantly limiting Cruise. They were on very thin ice.

images released to the press sometimes get another, um, aesthetic pass. I bet if you could get ahold of the actual image file it would have the proper sentinel sentinel value (if they're still using fits files it'd be something ridiculous like -9999.)

Astronomy often also deals with wide ranges of pixel exposure such that it can be hard to tell the difference between overexposed and "brighter than the max on the color scale". Better to be extra clear and remove all doubt.

To be fair...

- The US government also effectively decides the number of US residency places by how much they will fund Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

- Many places in the US won't see you if you are on Medicare.

- It is quite common to need to wait 6-12 months to see specialists in the US too.

As someone with a chronic condition who has had to make many appointments with specialists over the years, 6-12 months is a gross exaggeration. IME the typical wait time to be seen by a specialist in the US is between 2 and 3 months. The worst I've seen is 4 months.

:) I'm glad your experience hasn't been so bad. I've had to wait that long. My partner is a chronic pain specialist and wait times for new patients often exceed 6 months.

IceCube also likes to name their events after Sesame Street characters, so you’d get things like Bert and Ernie events. Not sure if they still do since you eventually run out of characters.

its possible you havent been keeping up with sesame street, because no they won't.