Israel: We Are At War

[igor_kavinski]

Centrifuges no, but they almost certainly evacuated the enriched Uranium.

I bet you would order a full scale invasion to recover that uranium, wouldn't you?

Bullies always want to have the upper hand because they can't stand anyone threatening them. Does nothing to change their fate because cowardly conduct has a way of backfiring sooner or later.

 

[K1052]

You really have to compare before and now and give it a detail look. I bet those holes in the ground where not there before.

Centrifuges no, but they almost certainly evacuated the enriched Uranium. They probably also grabbed all the documents etc.

I think the odds that they kept any HEU on site as a matter of normal operation are very low. Surely moved it out to somewhere basically nobody except the very top IRGC knows about.

 

[cytg111]

Wonder how much Israeli intelligence capabilities has diminished in Iran at this point. With no eyes ... and its plausible Iran got backup enrichment facilities right?
Seems inevitable that a nuke is going to detonate in the ME at some point now.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Russia has a solution for that.

Russia: We will give Iran nuclear weapons.

Never happen. Putin already agreed that Iran cannot have one.

Assuming any other nation tried, the weapons would be destroyed before getting there.

 

[K1052]

and its plausible Iran got backup enrichment facilities right?

I think the likelihood the regime might be operating much smaller clandestine facilities with their most modern centrifuges is pretty good.

Fordow itself was not discovered until nearly complete and it is gigantic...

 

[Brovane]

I bet you would order a full scale invasion to recover that uranium, wouldn't you?

Bullies always want to have the upper hand because they can't stand anyone threatening them. Does nothing to change their fate because cowardly conduct has a way of backfiring sooner or later.

No I wouldn't, I was hoping this type of action could be prevented. I think the last POTUS who wasn't a bully was Carter.

Just because I lay out the facts that just because you think something is unconstitutional doesn't make something unconstitutional doesn't mean I support whatever the fuck POTUS is doing.

 

[zinfamous]

Does anybody truly believe the NUMBER 1 FUNDER OF TERRORISM would hesitate to use a nuke???? Seriously????

Saudi Arabia?

 

[mikeymikec]

That’s a no

View attachment 126078

News presenter, in future please follow up with a comment about instincts being borne of relevant experience.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So if noone died in those bombings cause they were evacuated in advance cause of the anticipation that....

Well wouldnt they have evacuated most of the stuff too?

If possible, most likely. Some things like centrifuges may be/are designed to not be moved easily.

 

[Indus]

Saudi Arabia?

Pakistan is way way way ahead of Saudi Arabia and it's not even close!

 

[IronWing]

Yet the Constitution hasn't prevented POTUS to conduct military strikes against foreign powers as he sees fit without authorization from Congress. Apparently the language isn't as plain as you think it is. Just because you think something is true, doesn't make it true.

No, it's simply that Congress refuses to carry out its duties as laid out in the Constitution.

 

[HomerJS]

Does anybody truly believe the NUMBER 1 FUNDER OF TERRORISM would hesitate to use a nuke???? Seriously????

Let’s say you are right and Iran wants a bomb to attack Israel. They are not stupid and know if they attacked with a nuke Israel would wipe them off the face of the earth.

Having a nuke while making the world more dangerous it makes Iran safer. Think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if we hadn’t coerced them into giving them up in the 90s?

 

[ivwshane]

Why would Iran use a nuke? All that would do is unite the rest of the world against it. Irans smartest option seems to be to start “encouraging” terrorist attacks. The US, with this incompetent admin and a president that doesn’t attend daily briefings, it seems like an easy choice.

 

[HomerJS]

He

Where does it say that in the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution doesn't does almost nothing to prevent POTUS from starting any war they want as long as it is shorter than 60-days. AOC should read the act before commenting.

Here is what is says

“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

If there is no direct threat to the US an AUMF is still required from Congress and that didn’t happen

Watch out Greenland!

 

[HomerJS]

Iran has been significantly weakened because several of it's proxies that it could use for this have been severely degraded. Also Russia is out of the picture because of Ukraine. Iran has been a proxy for Russian influence in the region (think Syria). In addition Israel has destroyed a significant chuck of Iranian Air Defense. Iran would also have to somewhat split its attention between attacks on Israel and the US. Overall I hate to admit it, if the US was going to strike Iranian nuclear infrastructure there was probably no better time than right now while it is has been weakened by Israel and Russia is severely occupied by it's "Special Operation".

Hmm. You still forget we had a working JCPOA. Trump ended it because the Negro enacted it

 

[you2]

He

Here is what is says



If there is no direct threat to the US an AUMF is still required from Congress and that didn’t happen

Watch out Greenland!

Doesnt' matter what the law or consitution states when it comes to Trump.... as for Greenland, Canada or panama one would hope those would be neutral enough targets to upset even republicans but who knows in this day and age.

 

[HomerJS]

Doesnt' matter what the law or consitution states when it comes to Trump.... as for Greenland, Canada or panama one would hope those would be neutral enough targets to upset even republicans but who knows in this day and age.

You mean after almost 10 years of irrational subservience to Trump they will change?

Yeah right!

 

[blankslate]

I think people should remember that while Israel attacked Iran during Trump's Term...

Israel has been on a murderously aggressive stance for some 14 months by the time Trump was inaugurated for the 2nd time.

Maybe if Biden's babysitters in the Whitehouse thought to follow the Leahy Law VP Kamala Harris would have had better odds of winning against Trump... not that it would have prevent Israel from starting the War with Iran. but at least the odds of insanely stupid tariffs taking place would have been about nil.

a bit off topic but related.
We have seen Yemen suspend their attacks on shipping during the few ceasefires when Israel paused their attacks on civilians. Giving evidence that their motives for such attacks was indeed to put pressure on Israel to stop using military munitions on civilians, hospitals and refugee camps in Gaza. something someone vehemently called stupid to say back around November of 2023... <looks around, yeah they posted in this thread fairly recently>



________________

 

[mikeymikec]

Think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if we hadn’t coerced them into giving them up in the 90s?

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference? The only way that Ukraine could have got away with a defensive nuking of Russia would be if the entire West backed it up. The fact aside that we've done a shit job of backing up Ukraine in this timeline let alone that one, nuking will always be a highly controversial move. I doubt there's a single situation where most of the civilised world would respond with, "well, they did deserve it...".

IMO the only scenario where having nukes makes any sense is if you're the only country with them. That ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[amenx]

Iran parliament voted to close Hormuz. Final decision to be made by Iran Supreme Council tonight. Oil tankers, ships in rush to exit the strait.

 

[KMFJD]

meanwhile back in Gaza, the genocide continues

 

[K1052]

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference? The only way that Ukraine could have got away with a defensive nuking of Russia would be if the entire West backed it up. The fact aside that we've done a shit job of backing up Ukraine in this timeline let alone that one, nuking will always be a highly controversial move. I doubt there's a single situation where most of the civilised world would respond with, "well, they did deserve it...".

IMO the only scenario where having nukes makes any sense is if you're the only country with them. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Putin's goal in Ukraine is regime change and to destroy the Ukrainian state. Any nuclear armed country facing a foe with such aims will probably resort to their deterrent in the last extremity. For the purposes of this yes I think Putin would not have invaded trying to topple the place if there was even a slim chance a Ukrainian ICBM is gonna loose a half dozen 500kt MIRVs on Moscow.

 

[KMFJD]

nvm

 

[manly]

That's what I don't get about all this - why the desperation to stop Iran having nuclear weapons? The theory of 'deterrence' would say that as Israel aleady has them (and it's protector and patron, the US, has vast numbers of them) then Iran won't start a nuclear war. Either we're admitting deterrence is a flawed idea that can't be relied on, or the point is that this is not about fear of Iran using such weapons, it's about Israel and the West not being able to use them on Iran.

Nuclear non-proliferation has worked well in the 21st Century, and we want to keep it that way. It's much easier for 9 countries in this exclusive club to all understand MAD, than for a couple dozen countries where it just takes one madman that DGAF. As a thought experiment, what if every new entry to the nuclear club was like a North Korea and you added one per year? Would deterrence continue to work?

IIRC the most likely scenario of a nuclear war is between India and Pakistan. They're neighbors who hate each other, and India has the conventional strength advantage. If backed up against an "existential" wall, who knows for sure what Pakistan is willing to do? Is the status quo more likely with 9 countries or two dozen?

I don't know if desperation is the right term, but you can prevent Iran from getting nukes but you can't put the genie back in the bottle afterwards (i.e. NK will never give them up). The other concern is that if just a couple more countries get nukes, many others would reject non-proliferation.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the U.S. strikes on Iran. I'm saying that deterrence does work, but NNP is even more important.

 

[IronWing]

If non-proliferation means the destruction of your country by a belligerent aggressor, it would be foolish to abstain from developing or otherwise obtaining nuclear weapons.