Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

On this thread, that poster has devolved into the caricature of an ill informed American.
Au contraire. My opponents here would have us believe that the US should simply ship a few nuclear-laden ICBMs to Iran, because what is it going to hurt?
 
And diverted mega resources away from national security.
The great irony of America First is that, when it comes to global influence and national security, we’ve been an unchallenged #1 for almost 40 years now. And an average president likely could have kept us there for another 50. But the odds are now shockingly high that we won’t be #1 in November 2028. We may not even be the top three.
 
We bombed them because that's the only realistic way their nuclear facilities, which are largely buried deep underground, could be destroyed.
But as people keep pointing out, there is little to no evidence that they were close to actually having a nuclear bomb, and no evidence that this bombing has actually hurt their chances of building one. If anything, it is likely only going to cause them to redouble their efforts to build one. And your persistent arguments about how weak Iran is only keep undermining your argument that we needed to bomb them. If Israel already had them on their knees and they're weaker than ever then there was no need for us to get involved, beyond Dear Leader's desire to bomb somebody to prove how tough he is.
 
But as people keep pointing out, there is little to no evidence that they were close to actually having a nuclear bomb, and no evidence that this bombing has actually hurt their chances of building one. If anything, it is likely only going to cause them to redouble their efforts to build one. And your persistent arguments about how weak Iran is only keep undermining your argument that we needed to bomb them. If Israel already had them on their knees and they're weaker than ever then there was no need for us to get involved, beyond Dear Leader's desire to bomb somebody to prove how tough he is.
As an0maly graciously pointed out, Iran was "less than a week" from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. You can't build a nuclear weapon in your grandma's garage. It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them. Taking out a nuclear enrichment facility that took many many years to build is a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program and it will take them some time to recover from it. There is a good chance that they will never be able to recover from these setbacks. That's why they built this facility literally inside of a mountain....they didn't want anything to happen to it.
 
Yet the article you posted disagrees:

If the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, started on June 13, is to prove successful in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then a necessary—but not sufficient—step will involve the elimination of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.

Did you mean to post something else?
I now confirm you are a essentially a troll, and will not respond to you again. The use of "million" by you was idiotic. Right in your quote it says "not sufficient."

From the article, and intentionally ignored by you:

But the United States and Israel must acknowledge that Fordow is not the only pathway for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran may have other centrifuges available, including at secret sites, and probably already at work. On June 12, Iran said that it would retaliate for the IAEA Board of Governors’ adoption of a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance with its treaty obligations by unveiling another secret “invulnerable” enrichment facility. Iran could also have a stock of additional centrifuges that it could either rapidly install or use, with enriched uranium from other parts of the country serving as feedstock. Destroying or rendering Fordow inoperable would not preclude Iran from using these alternative sites to potentially produce one or several nuclear weapons.
 
What an elitist post, attempting to judge someone's intelligence by their occupation. I used to watch a show called South Park. I'm 100% positive that this show is beneath someone of your stature and education, so I'll summarize an episode that they did about people like you. Basically, the people they depicted got their jollies off by farting into a wine glass and then inhaling their own scent. This sounds like an activity that you might enjoy.
Dude. You completely misinterpreted what I said. I was specifically not judging anyone's intelligence by their occupation. Are you, or are you not acquainted with the work of anti-colonialist sociologist/cultural theorist Edward Said? I doubt you are. Not because you're not intelligent; rather, because you're not a humanities scholar.

Statistically speaking, the odds of someone having the academic ability to be a law professor (not counting the trade law schools) are extremely long. That's a fact. And all that academic ability has saved zero lives. I'm guessing you have saved a positive number of lives. Isn't that important? I think it's important. "Intelligence" is a vastly overrated ability/trait. It's prestigious but not nearly important as some people like to pretend. It's useful. So is work ethic, and bravery, and gumption, and "social intelligence" -- i.e. people skills -- to name a few. Not all basketball players can be Vince Carter. Some of them can aspire to be Tyler Hansbrough, though few have the personality traits to get there. Wouldn't you want both of them on your team?
 
As an0maly graciously pointed out, Iran was "less than a week" from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. You can't build a nuclear weapon in your grandma's garage. It is a tremendously complicated labor and resource-intensive effort, which is why there are only a handful of countries that have them. Taking out a nuclear enrichment facility that took many many years to build is a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program and it will take them some time to recover from it. There is a good chance that they will never be able to recover from these setbacks. That's why they built this facility literally inside of a mountain....they didn't want anything to happen to it.
One of the primary and most annoying bad faith argumentation tactics is to assume all disputed or uncertain facts in your favor, and then refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some or all of those facts may not be what you have assumed them to be. You do that over and over and over again on this board, and it’s why threads are almost always derailed when you get involved.
 
I now confirm you are a essentially a troll, and will not respond to you again. The use of "million" by you was idiotic. Right in your quote it says "not sufficient."

From the article, and intentionally ignored by you:

But the United States and Israel must acknowledge that Fordow is not the only pathway for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran may have other centrifuges available, including at secret sites, and probably already at work. On June 12, Iran said that it would retaliate for the IAEA Board of Governors’ adoption of a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance with its treaty obligations by unveiling another secret “invulnerable” enrichment facility. Iran could also have a stock of additional centrifuges that it could either rapidly install or use, with enriched uranium from other parts of the country serving as feedstock. Destroying or rendering Fordow inoperable would not preclude Iran from using these alternative sites to potentially produce one or several nuclear weapons.

The premise of your argument holds that the Fordow strike occurs in a vacuum. As I'm sure you are aware, it doesn't. It was simply one component of a multifaceted attack on Iran's nuclear program, which included strikes not only on other nuclear facilities but also on its leading nuclear scientists. Israel and the US are aware that Fordow is not the only pathway. That's why they have been taking out the other pathways as well. Thank you for the link, it has been most useful.
 
One of the primary and most annoying bad faith argumentation tactics is to assume all disputed or uncertain facts in your favor, and then refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some or all of those facts may not be what you have assumed them to be. You do that over and over and over again on this board, and it’s why threads are almost always derailed when you get involved.
Which of these facts are uncertain, again?
 
And nonsense like this is why you have no credibility, even when peel agree with you.
Agree with me or not, when I'm right I'm right and when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have a pretty good hunch that I'm right about this one. You are more than welcome to hide in your basement waiting for WWIII, though.
 
What an elitist post, attempting to judge someone's intelligence by their occupation. I used to watch a show called South Park. I'm 100% positive that this show is beneath someone of your stature and education, so I'll summarize an episode that they did about people like you. Basically, the people they depicted got their jollies off by farting into a wine glass and then inhaling their own scent. This sounds like an activity that you might enjoy.
I should add that with this level of hostility from you -- completely unmerited and frankly just weird -- I'm unlikely to come to your defense in the future.

If you think that portrayal is remotely close to the mark, then a) you don't understand me at all; b) you have an insecurity complex; and c) you have almost no conception of the nature of higher education.

Your enemies are not the academic "elites." They are the actual elites -- i.e. the billionaires who are trying to screw working folks at every turn. The academic "elites" are generally speaking your allies. If not for academics, your pay would be half of what it is today, because you wouldn't have collective representation. Your equipment would be horribly unsafe. Building codes would be 1960s levels. Your taxes would be much higher.
 
Agree with me or not, when I'm right I'm right and when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I have a pretty good hunch that I'm right about this one. You are more than welcome to hide in your basement waiting for WWIII, though.
Wait, who is the paranoiac here? The person who fears the type of retaliation that Iran absolutely could do because it's shown time and again that it can? Or the person who fears the prospect of Iran doing something that has never been done before; that they are incapable of doing; and would be suicidal for them.

Which of these events is more likely? What does your gut tell you about that? By the way, everyone has a hunch that they are right. That's why they hold the position they do. Most hunches, like most people, are wrong.
 
I trust the US and other intelligence over Netanyahu, that has been lying about it for 30 years. Netanyahu’s evidence is “trust me, bro”
I think that’s fair. I do think there are three actors in this (Iran, Israel and the US). All said that Iran was close to a bomb.
 
Which of these facts are uncertain, again?
Among many others you’ve advanced on this thread —

1. We don’t know how far Iran was from a bomb.
2. We don’t know what the bombs actually did.
3. We don’t know what impact the bombs will have on Iran’s nuclear program.
4. We don’t know what Iran will do in response.
5. We don’t know what we will do in response to Iran’s response.
 
We needed to bomb them because there was no other way to take out this specific nuclear facility. It isn't a difficult point to understand. Iran's weakness made this a no-brainer....if they were stronger, they would actually be able to retaliate militarily in a significant manner. Right now, they can't.
All right. How long do you think Iran will take to get over this? In five years, when they rebuild their military (remember -- that's your premise, not mine), it will have blown over? You really think that?

It will have blown over for you. Iran is going to be seeking to retaliate for this for a generation, or a decade at least.
 
Back
Top