News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I hope the bunker-buster bombs worked. Whether the costs of war are worth paying in order to destroy Iran's nuclear program is debatable, but they're definitely paid in vain if the program survives.
Yeah. If they didn't manage to really destroy the material base of the program, Iran wil get nukes and the world's opinion could also shift in Iran's favour. Especially if they now act with restraint and hit all the legal avenues to say how they got harmed without justification.
My major concern is that faced with defeat either way, they use dirty bombs to irradiate the population centers of israel. We’d have 9 million refugees and a huge environmental catastrophe.
"Dirty" Bombs are just weapons of terror, the radiation is extremely localized. It would be absolutely pointless for a nation-state to use them. If you want to say that Iran would give Isis/Hamas one, I guess it's possible, but equally pointless. You aren't going to scare Israel away with a dirty bomb.
Is that on the cards? I guess they could load whatever material they have onto missiles and shoot. Even if they're intercepted, the fallout would still occur. But I thought their nuclear option is actually destroying Saudi oil facilities. That would plunge the world into another inflationary cycle and accompanying economic instability, likely political instability too. Wouldn't get rid of the Israeli threat though. I guess irradiating Israel would achieve that.
I don't think that Iran is going to get much useful sympathy from any country not already on its side (and of those, Russia has other priorities). Iran's ambitions have put it at odds with both Western countries and the Arab world and international law (even if it is on Iran's side - I don't know) is never going to lead countries to act against the dictates of realpolitik.
I also don't think that failing to destroy these facilities necessarily makes a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, given that Israel and the USA apparently have total air dominance. The infrastructure needed to deploy nuclear ICBMs can't all be kept deep underground and Iran's dependence on oil exports makes its economy particularly vulnerable to strategic bombing. I just don't trust Trump to see things through if his initial attempts fail - he's too impulsive. (And I'm not sure the moral calculus remains the same either - it's one thing to blow up a few underground weapons labs and quite another to engage in a strategic bombing campaign against the entire country.)
If anything, Israel and the US have clearly showed Iran that they will never be safe unless they develop military capabilities strong enough to deter attacks.
Like... what kind of message do you think you're sending when you attack a country trying to develop nukes because they see you as an existential threat? Iran has been shown that the only way they will ever be safe from Israel is by developing nukes such that Israel doesn't dare attack them.
The intent is presumably to force Iran to accept that it cannot be safe, and that the best it can do is to appease its enemies. That is, as a matter of fact, currently true if the USA decides to see things through. It's a situation that many countries have been forced to accept over the course of history (and one that Iran has been eager to impose on is neighbors).