• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Days to months, not years.

    If Iran is days to months away from a nuclear bomb, then for all intents and purposes they already have a nuclear bomb. The fact they don’t have a nuclear bomb already despite having 60% enriched uranium for years can only mean that they simply don’t want a nuclear bomb.

    The only winning move is a pre-emptive strike to prevent nuclear proliferation.

    The only winning move is diplomacy to prevent nuclear proliferation, aka JOCPA. I wonder how that went. Also I find claims that Iran is so close to a nuclear bomb very doubtful given that they’ve been around for literal decades.

    • Stabbitha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      they don’t want a bomb

      Then why the fuck are they enriching uranium beyond what’s necessary for energy purposes?

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        To point to if and when America wants to invade? There’s a difference between “yo we can make a nuclear bomb so play nice” and actually making a nuclear bomb. Also because they have literally no reason to not enrich uranium given that they’re already sanctioned to hell and back, so they might as well go the potentially nuclear-powered pariah route.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, days to months away from weapons grade enriched uranium if they so chose. If you don’t trust what the International Atomic Energy Agency has to say about nuclear proliferation from on-site assessments, I guess there’s no convincing you of anything else.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sooo they haven’t “so chosen” for years now, why would they suddenly “now so choose”?

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean, Russia “hadn’t chosen” to invade Ukraine for decades, and then they did. Things can, and in fact do change.

          And it’s not like the past year has been super calm in the region. Israel (who they would almost certainly be using the nukes on) has been popping off. So that seems like a pretty good reason to “now so choose” that wasn’t the case a decade ago (to the same degree).

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Russia has been consistently invading Ukraine since 2014. In 2022 they escalated. Before that they attacked Georgia, and got a madman into power through orchestrating terrorist attacks.

            Iran has been consistently “a year away from nukes” since 92’ according to Israel. Nothing changed, just the fact that as you said Israel has been “popping off” and murdering and destabilizing every country around them.

            • testfactor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I was referring to 2014 when I said that, but it’s neither here nor there. Especially since it’s not like Iran hasn’t been actively shooting missiles at Israel for decades.

              And I’m not stan-ing for Israel here. I agree that their behavior has been terrible and has been doing terrible things to their neighbors. But that is in fact something that has changed that could push Iran towards a nuclear option. And as bad as Israel is being, it would still be very very bad if Iran nukes them.

              • Maalus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Yes, it would be bad. But Iran has been cooperating so far until Trump fucked everything up. That’s the thing that changed - letting Israel run rampant, killing everyone they want without a peep (or just strongly worded letters). There is no difference between Iran cooperating and having nuclear power plants, and Iran not cooperating, trying to make nukes. They were attacked because “Israel could”, not because there was danger of them getting a nuclear bomb.

                It is a manufactured casus beli to hit a sovereign state, murder its military brass, politicians and scientists. It is literally the same logic that Russia used against Ukraine - and equally as nonsensical as it was then - the “they were going to attack me and so I attacked them” excuse.