True, but the point is that this is 80 year old technology. With 3D printing, CNC machining, and modern electronics (and the foreknowledge that it actually WILL work) the terminal stages of making a workable device are a lot easier and quicker to do than they were back in the 40s. And even back then, we went from the first primitive pile in a racquetball court under Stagg field in Dec 1942 for a proof of very concept of self sustained induced fission (how primitive? The emergency method to scram the reactor in case of runaway was for someone to use an axe to cut a rope to gravity drop a control rod into the pile. For those unfamiliar with Stagg Field, it was on the University of Chicago campus https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhatt...1_critical.htm) to an actual proof of concept weapon test at Trinity Site in July of 1945 in 18 months.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18ZFUCOT8Xc

And Hiroshima was hit all of three weeks later. And that was with 1940s technology and logistics. If the Iranians had anywhere near the amount of 60% enriched Uranium they claimed they had they were indeed only weeks short of having a nuke.

 

Which is why it's silly to think we can prevent anyone from having nukes.

 

The situation prior to the current conflict was not significantly different than the situation 10 years ago. The stockpile in 2016 was sufficient to create 8-10 bombs. They were as close then as they were prior to the current conflict. The difference seems to be that Netanyahu was able to puppet Trump into the current conflict for reasons that are unclear.

The notion that military action had to be taken immediately due to the imminence of their nuclear threat is a false dichotomy between a war now or an Iranian nuke. There were other, better options and outcomes possible for US interests, but this war was certainly the best outcome for the Israeli regime.

This false dichotomy is the only way this conflict can be justified and why you insist on repeating this tired talking point. It's also an argument Israel has been making for the last 20 years. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? At some point we have to view the Israelis with the same skepticism as the Iranians.



I do find it interesting that you think the Iranians can be trusted when they assert their capabilities, but cannot be trusted to uphold their commitments. Your argument depends on the notion that the Iranians categorically cannot be trusted or taken seriously, but also we have to trust their threats completely and treat them literally.

At the same time, you have no problem handwaving away the genocidal threat of the president as hardball negotiating 5-d chess, but then clutch your pearls because the Iranians have chanted "death to America." We have no moral authority here because this administration has chosen to stoop to their level.

In case you didn't know, North Korea also has rallies where they chant death to America, and have been doing so for longer than 47 years. They also have nukes. They have yet to deploy those nukes.

The Iranian regime faces a similar calculus, and given the complete lack of evidence that the Iranians were gearing up to produce a nuke imminently, it's pretty clear that the whole argument for this war depends on tired talking points. Even if they were weeks away from a nuke, there would be no rational basis for the Iranians to deploy a nuke preemptively. Like the North Koreans, they might talk tough and shout death to Israel/America, but any authoritarian regime is concerned first and foremost with perpetuating their own rule.

The real question is how the Iranians can trust anything we say. We have been the bad-faith negotiators, which is unfortunate because the only palatable way out depends on diplomacy.

 

Within the hour IDF is convinced they’re anywhere near boomer capacity, attack plan R is in motion.

 

As I said they *chose* not to sprint to the finish line.

I've said several times I don't know what Trump's motive was, but I can guess at several, mostly not good. But if Bibi said "It's go time, either help or we go it alone the hard way", then Trump did the right thing.

Presumably we'll have more insight in a decade when some insider writes a book.

I never said any such thing, or justified any such thing. I have said, multiple times, that I don't think this was a good idea. I've just been speculating on how it all might play out.

I've also said i don't trust IL.

I never said any such thing. It is true that IL would most likely err on the side of caution, and takes IR literally. IR knows as much, which is why they haven't to date sprinted to the finish.

I never said any such thing. That's exactly the reason I don't like Trump, because he runs his mouth in ways that no president should.

Apples to oranges. They are objectively quite a different animal. Their system is all about worship of the Dear Leader and absolute control of everything. their elites want to enjoy power, wealth, and privilege... everything they do is intended to secure that, which due to their inherent paranoia includes trying to scare us out of invading (again, paranoia even though we don't really have a motive to invade).

There's a grain of truth in your misrepresentations. Many of the Mullahs have similar motives to DPRK.

But in the process of their revolution they created a *very* dedicated fundamentalist wing which is now deeply integrated into well everything. Unfortunately some of their specific religious beliefs align quite well with fiery apocalypse. The mullahs created a monster, which they know have to appease, and might overthrow them if they seem to lack purity.

DPRK doesn't have that divide, it's all about Junior.

 

Most of my "you said" statements were directed at Excargodog, who was also quoted, and the other cheerleaders for this war, not you specifically. Apologies for the confusion.

Beyond that what have I misrepresented here?

There is also a political spectrum within Iran; they have their own version of liberals, moderates, and conservatives within their context. Speaking of them as a political monolith ignores the extent to which US actions have given strength to their most fiery fundamentalists at the expense of their more reasonable moderates. Pulling out of the JCPOA undermined the "moderates" over there and has lent credence to their most hard line leaders; if the US won't even uphold it's own end of the bargain, why bargain at all? We have contributed to that "monster" significantly by our own bad-faith actions.

As far as the religious difference between IR and NK, I don't think that point has much salience. The NK leader is viewed as divine as well, and just because Islam has it's own eschatology doesn't make it any different from Christianity. Christianity is equally concerned with bringing about the apocalypse as Islam is from a theological perspective.

Are the generals who purportedly referred to the book of Revelations and the Sec of War constantly referencing scripture in press conferences really that much different than the IRGC spewing their version of fire and brimstone?

 

The Supreme leadership of Iran that controls the IRGC exists on only one part of the spectrum. Radical Islamic terrorists.

Also, what General said something about the book of revelations?

 

Hilarious. Bet you get your news from podcasts.



If there are furloughs, please volunteer.

 

This is demonstrably untrue and overly simplistic, but if you see the world in such black and white terms with no shades of grey, it's not worth arguing the point

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...l-mandate.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/...164235865.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...stian-rhetoric

 

What general was that again? Still don’t see one.