Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:


Were they?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/12/world/middleeast/un-iaea-iran-nuclear-program.html
 

Iran Is Breaking Rules on Nuclear Activity, U.N. Watchdog Says

The decision comes as officials say they believe that Israel is preparing to launch a military attack on Iran. Tehran condemned the vote.

 

*could be bullshit as well 

I don't think there is much dispute that Iran was in non-compliance with the torn up agreement shortly before Israel attacked. All sources indicate Iran accelerated its accumulation of highly enriched material relatively recently But people keep conflating having highly enriched material with having bomb grade enrichment or actively developing a bomb. Iran had certainly positioned itself to fairly quickly create a weapon if it needed to. There hasn't been any specific evidence that they actually made in moves toward taking those final steps. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

That’s not necessarily how mountains and caves work. They may have collapsed the facilities inside without the rock above losing an inch. Or they may have damaged the building inside with pressure and blast eaves without collapsing the excavated spaces. Or they may have just created a big pile of slag on the outside. 

Fair point. 

Posted
5 hours ago, B00M said:

Isn’t the assessment based on satellite radar that’s accurate down to like a couple inches or better? Like… the fuck?

In addition to knowing trump is lying because his lips move, add you know when he sends a text.

Posted
4 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The fact that Iran has produced some fissile material at the very least and possibly smuggled it out of Fordow ahead of any attack suggests that they weren’t deterred from the goal of a nuclear weapon before Israel started bombing them. 

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

And, yet, they were compliant when a deal was in place. But now that Bibi has revealed his hand that regime change was his intent with Operation Rising Lion, the Iranian regime now knows their days are numbered if they don't get the bomb.

Between Israel attacking Iran and Russia deciding it wanted a piece of Ukraine (or all of it), and the US pulling back from being Top Dog/kicking countries out from under our tent, I don't see how more countries aren't considering nukes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I would suggest that governments have been brazenly misleading their populaces since time immemorial. That’s this administration, and the one before it and so on and so forth. It would behoove all of us to entertain the idea that we are being lied to even when the lies agree with our viewpoints. 

There are a whole lot of people who do not know that Netanyahu barely survived a no-confidence vote right before he started this war, and that he desperately needed to rally the Israeli people behind him. He literally only survived because he promised the Orthodox Jews he wouldn't draft their kids.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Between Israel attacking Iran and Russia deciding it wanted a piece of Ukraine (or all of it), and the US pulling back from being Top Dog/kicking countries out from under our tent, I don't see how more countries aren't considering nukes.

Like who?  Not necessarily disagreeing but what countries, realistically, could start a program for nukes that don't already have them?  It is very expensive.  It requires illegal coordination with another country that has them already.  Add in the fact that really no other country on the planet has condemned the strikes against Iran suggests that if a country did try to get a nuke now that they would likely be bombed/sanctioned etc.  What could possibly be the upside?

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Like who?  Not necessarily disagreeing but what countries, realistically, could start a program for nukes that don't already have them?  It is very expensive.  It requires illegal coordination with another country that has them already.  Add in the fact that really no other country on the planet has condemned the strikes against Iran suggests that if a country did try to get a nuke now that they would likely be bombed/sanctioned etc.  What could possibly be the upside?

Ukraine is an obvious example. And I don't really see why it would require coordination with another country. You could also see countries like Germany in the EU wanting to add a nuclear arsenal if US protection weren't guaranteed. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ukraine is an obvious example. And I don't really see why it would require coordination with another country. You could also see countries like Germany in the EU wanting to add a nuclear arsenal if US protection weren't guaranteed. 

It's tricky because technically it would be considered illegal under international law/a treaty violation to develop a nuclear weapon but only a few/several dozen countries have actually adopted the treaty at this point IIRC. Ukraine is an interesting case as a country that has had nuclear weapons before but gave them up (oops).

The US becoming an unpredictable/unreliable actor makes widespread nuclear proliferation much more likely and certainly doesn't make a country like Iran less likely to pursue one.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Here's the problem. Even if we did destroy everything including the uranium (which we most likely didn't), it doesn't matter as long as the Iranian regime is still in power. They can just say they have uranium and capabilities to produce quickly. You think we'll just say "we don't believe you" and assume they're lying? Khameini and his cronies lie about everything. To the point where we bombed them even though there was no real proof they were close to a nuclear weapon.

We tore up the Obama deal and no one is going inside Iran anymore to assess/inspect. All of this is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't move the needle until the regime is gone.

 It seems pointless at this point to argue the JCPOA but if we consider the factual tenets of the deal including the sunset clauses combined with the "legal under the agreement" ability for Iran to upgrade their centrifuges after just a few years combined with even Obama admitting that after 12 or so years the break out time would be days and in exchange Iran would get 100s of billions in unfrozen assets and trade deals- the JCPOA was a far, far better deal for Iran than the rest of the world.  

But, to your post above, we need to remember that it seems very obvious at this point that Israel/Mossad has infiltrated Iran up to the highest levels.  They apparently knew where the highest ranking military people were in Iran up to the exact floor and apartment number of a particular building.  The "world" will never, ever know the depths of the intelligence that we have on Ira. Reacting to tweets and news articles and quotes from supposed insiders (from all sides) is a fool's game.  It is all either subterfuge or guesses.  Guesses might actually be right sometimes but they are still guesses. But it certainly seems that whatever Iran decides to do next, the intelligence agencies will know about almost immediately.  More importantly, the Iran regime now knows that they have been infiltrated so they have no real way of doing much of anything nefarious.  Couple that fact with the now known fact that the US will call their bluff and that no one is going to defend them and you have a regime that really can't do much of anything nefarious without getting killed.  

I do not know enough about internal Iranian politics to know who might be the next leader of Iran (likely in the next 5 years) but based on the actions of this past week or so, I doubt a true believer/hardliner is going to get the gig.  Hopefully that helps Iran move forward

Posted
9 hours ago, victory88 said:

Daily reminder of that Netanyahu is charged with numerous war crimes and is starving an entire population.  Not only are they starving an entire population, they are using food trucks as bait to shoot civilians.  Want to know how sick this gets, Israel has observation decks where their citizens can watch this happen.  

Israel has murdered and killed more journalists than world war 1, world war 2, Vietnam war, and Afghanistan war, Iraq war combined.

Israel has killed 233 UN aid workers.  Most recent one was shot driving a UN aid truck.  Who is the terrorist again?  Or is that word only for Muslims?

 

 

 

@Rex Kramer and @statsman when they see this:

 

image.thumb.png.186f5672982822159e2350ff19665517.png

  • Haha 5
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ukraine is an obvious example. And I don't really see why it would require coordination with another country. You could also see countries like Germany in the EU wanting to add a nuclear arsenal if US protection weren't guaranteed. 

Germany is a non starter.  They are a NATO and EU member and both entities have nukes already.  It is not even on their radar.  No one is fucking with Germany whether they have nukes or not.  They do not need them.  Their people do not want them.   They are costly.

Ukraine may want them but play it out.  Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Ukraine is going to be extremely dependent on the US and EU for survival.  They lose all of that support if they try and get nukes.  Of course we support Ukraine against Russia but it is still a fact that Ukraine is a terribly corrupt nation and has many rogue entities.  We will not let it happen.  Russia will go even more scorched earth on Ukraine if they try and get nukes and the rest of the world would likely "allow" Russia to destroy Ukraines sites if the try.  

If anything, this past few weeks has shown that the world is not tolerant of new nukes.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Germany is a non starter.  They are a NATO and EU member and both entities have nukes already.  It is not even on their radar.  No one is fucking with Germany whether they have nukes or not.  They do not need them.  Their people do not want them.   They are costly.

Ukraine may want them but play it out.  Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Ukraine is going to be extremely dependent on the US and EU for survival.  They lose all of that support if they try and get nukes.  Of course we support Ukraine against Russia but it is still a fact that Ukraine is a terribly corrupt nation and has many rogue entities.  We will not let it happen.  Russia will go even more scorched earth on Ukraine if they try and get nukes and the rest of the world would likely "allow" Russia to destroy Ukraines sites if the try.  

If anything, this past few weeks has shown that the world is not tolerant of new nukes.  

Well, the hypothetical was US withdrawal. Germany only has nukes because the US does. Without NATO, the EU only has nukes because France does. So if the US nuclear umbrella weren't reliable, I absolutely believe Germany and other EU powers would scramble to develop and deploy their own. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, the hypothetical was US withdrawal. Germany only has nukes because the US does. Without NATO, the EU only has nukes because France does. So if the US nuclear umbrella weren't reliable, I absolutely believe Germany and other EU powers would scramble to develop and deploy their own. 

I missed the part about the US withdrawal, but it really isn't even worth discussing.  You are hypothesizing that the US would pull all of its military out of Germany and the rest of the EU.  That would seriously harm our own defense interests.  Not even Trump would consider that.  Something like that would actually be a reason for impeachment.  

But even if that impossible scenario came about, it would still take more than that.  The UK would have to abandon Germany.  The EU would have to dissolve and abandon Germany.  NATO would have to abandon Germany.  France has what around 300 nukes?  300 isn't enough of a deterrent?

And who does Germany think they need to protect themselves from that could attack them without the US and the EU and other NATO countries getting involved?  Russia?  China?  Pakistan?  Even if the US got out of NATO, they are still getting involved in any scenario where Germany gets attacked.  

There is no scenario that exists where some country is considering attacking Germany but would then change their mind if Germany has a nuke.  If someone attacked Germany it is full on WWIII and the attacking country is getting obliterated.  And maybe the rest of the world too.

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...