| US bombs Iran 00:54 - Jun 22 with 4199 views | Perublue |
Oh .... here we go.
Nuclear sites....3 of them |  |
| |  |
| US bombs Iran on 12:06 - Jun 22 with 468 views | Guthrum |
| US bombs Iran on 11:33 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
That's a fair point but in reality dirty bombs aren't for destruction but for psychological effects.
Even non-enriched uranium isn't a good choice for a dirty bomb but they probably have plenty of that still and it would cause panic even if it's not that effective.
I don't think one can dismiss that Iran haven't previously looked at things like dispersal or just causing panic.
It also looks like Iran might have managed to move the majority of their enriched uranium before the US strikes.
SB |
I'm sure Iran did get all of their enriched Uranium out before the raid. But destruction/burial of the centrifuges will for some time stop them proceeding any further (if they haven't already).
Plus it is now stashed elsewhere, perhaps improvised and more vulnerable to attack. I don't think the Israelis would be that careful about contamination risks. |  |
| |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 12:17 - Jun 22 with 403 views | Guthrum |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:34 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
That's also fair, Little Boy was a large bomb.
Just pointing out that it's possible to do it with lower levels of refinement. Delivery would be an issue but who knows, things get smuggled into places all the time (see Ukrainian drone attack for instance).
SB |
In the hold of a ship in port was always the concern in the early days of nuclear weapons. That was why the first UK test in 1952 simulated exactly that scenario.
Tho the effectiveness of a bomb detonated at ground level (or below/underwater) would be considerably more limited than at altitude for optimum fireball contact with the surface. Would still be pretty devastating, many people dead, but over a much reduced area. | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 12:22 - Jun 22 with 377 views | reusersfreekicks |
| US bombs Iran on 09:13 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
They might have stopped Iran from getting a bomb but it still has plenty of enriched uranium it could use in dirty bombs.
With Trump now saying he will bomb them into peace it's hard to know what they will do.
Some of the responses from Republican's are quite extraordinary as has been highlighted. The Democrats and some Republicans are rightly pointing out that it's unconstitutional to use military force without consulting Congress.
All this from a President who campaigned on a ticket of no more foreign intervention and who seems to be acting in ever increasing unilateral ways in order to sidestep historic governmental checks and balances.
SB |
Let's face it. He is an immature man who grew up in a dysfunctional family with bullying from his father.
All decisions he makes stem from this.
Terrifying |  | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 12:23 - Jun 22 with 385 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 10:21 - Jun 22 by unstableblue |
Iran is a very bad actor, and had been causing mayhem in region for decades.
(Irony is that the main Iranian populous is one of the friendliest and progressive in region)
Can’t let them gain nuclear capability.
But this hawkish Israeli government is also causing real damage in region, and have committed atrocities at scale in Gaza and the nefarious settler movement is being sponsored.
Tulsi Gabbard is one of those ridiculous Trump appointees as head of national security - out of her depth, unqualified - she’s apparently blown the entire budget on ICE and US are now hugely exposed on cyber (which ironically got Trump elected in the first place).
But Gabbard correctly shared with the press that Iran were some way off nuclear capability and they were negotiating.
But Trump doesn’t work like that; Nethanyahu needed his own flood the zone moment to distract from Gaza, Trump saw a window to get something to make him look good with minimal impact on US and no troops on ground.
So goes with gut, probably with a green light of some sorts from the Saudis.
Says Gabbard and her intelligent community got it wrong.
In the long term this may be a good moment for regional peace. And Iran with Syria down and Hesbollah and Hamas decimated look very weak.
But I am very pleased the UK did not get involved, as there will be ramifications. |
A well reasoned post.
I loathe both the current American and Israeli administrations. They are appalling.
Israel’s actions in Gaza shame them in a way that will forever blacken their name. Netanyahu and his cronies are truly despicable.
And yet!
Iran is a rogue state that threatens us all and we should accept that this single action by the US is overdue. As I understand it the US had warned Iran and Iran had evacuated the sites. If Trump has the sense to now hold off from further action this could lead to a safer and more settled Middle East. Could the Iranian people topple the regime? I hope so.
If, as the Americans claim this bombing halts Iran's nuclear programme it also removes Israel’s justification for further attacking Iran. Netanyahu can therefore no longer argue that Israel is under an existential threat from Iran, which is his way of diverting world focus on his crimes in Gaza.
All in all a cluster f*** but a way forward might just be possible. |  | | |
| US bombs Iran on 12:25 - Jun 22 with 367 views | Guthrum |
| US bombs Iran on 09:51 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
It could be argued that International Law is in the bin now. It’s old hat. A product of WW2 in an attempt to prevent a repeat of that horror. But those lessons are for the history books.
Law is made by might and might is right. That’s basically how Trump, the other authoritarians and dictators see it. Nothing countries like the U.K. that can’t even protect its tiny air force from vandalism by its own people do not have a say. That’s the reality.
Back to your point, you are right of course, but the Americans would argue that Iran does present a threat. Unlike Iraq they openly admit they are developing nuclear capability. Their track record since 79 suggests they are a risk. They sponsor terrorism and actions in all sorts of places, including the Red Sea. Whether this paragraph is correct is open to challenge, since I’m only paraphrasing what I’ve read. The truth? Gawd knows.
As for Trump and whether he can order this or needed Congress’ authority, I’ve read that as Commander in Chief he can. But then his lot would say that.
Trump has taken a big risk here from potential escalation to an ending he doesn’t know to internal challenge given America’s lack of appetite for foreign adventures. If he succeeds it may embolden him to go after Canada, Panama and Greenland, but I can’t see that happening however much he wants, like Putin, his Empire.
The one thing we need to forget about and stop hiding behind though is International Law. Strength is all that matters for now. A pity really given the abject state of this country and the world in general, whether it be desperate poverty or climate.
I cannot recall a more dangerous time than this. The old order is dead. Britain has little strength to force others to leave us alone, no influence, few allies and fewer friends. It makes us very vulnerable.
If Iran does go down the terror route, I’d start right here. A PM that sends mushy signals wanting it all ways, brown noses Trump, with completely open borders and little risk to aggressors. In other words, I suspect we’ll get dragged into this, regardless of the fact that the govt are at heart pacifists and hope it’ll all go away.
I’m probably wrong and pray that I am. |
International law has only ever worked so long as there is sufficient strength from key signitories to back it up. If they are not playing (through disinclination or weakness), then it is unenforceable.
The UN is bedevilled by the same problem as the League of Nations, but with the added issue of veto powers held by the senior, now not aligned, powers. And being based in New York. | |
| |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 12:43 - Jun 22 with 312 views | Guthrum |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 12:23 - Jun 22 by Crawfordsboot |
A well reasoned post.
I loathe both the current American and Israeli administrations. They are appalling.
Israel’s actions in Gaza shame them in a way that will forever blacken their name. Netanyahu and his cronies are truly despicable.
And yet!
Iran is a rogue state that threatens us all and we should accept that this single action by the US is overdue. As I understand it the US had warned Iran and Iran had evacuated the sites. If Trump has the sense to now hold off from further action this could lead to a safer and more settled Middle East. Could the Iranian people topple the regime? I hope so.
If, as the Americans claim this bombing halts Iran's nuclear programme it also removes Israel’s justification for further attacking Iran. Netanyahu can therefore no longer argue that Israel is under an existential threat from Iran, which is his way of diverting world focus on his crimes in Gaza.
All in all a cluster f*** but a way forward might just be possible. |
Interesting point about this undermining Israel's justification for attacking Iran. I doubt it will be enough to make Netanyahu stop, tho. He has pretty much committed to full regime change in Tehran. | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 12:48 - Jun 22 with 284 views | WeWereZombies |
| US bombs Iran on 12:25 - Jun 22 by Guthrum |
International law has only ever worked so long as there is sufficient strength from key signitories to back it up. If they are not playing (through disinclination or weakness), then it is unenforceable.
The UN is bedevilled by the same problem as the League of Nations, but with the added issue of veto powers held by the senior, now not aligned, powers. And being based in New York. |
To some extent true, but international law works slowly most of the time. So actions can happen that violate it but those actions also leave individuals, organisations and states that are keen to redress wrongs done to them and to others who are in a similar position. |  |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 13:02 - Jun 22 with 261 views | Swansea_Blue |
| US bombs Iran on 10:11 - Jun 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
The Iranian foreign minister has issued a new statement on social media, commenting on European officials urging Iran to “return” to negotiations following the US attacks.
“Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy,” Abbas Araghchi wrote.
“What conclusion would you draw? To Britain and the EU High Rep, it is Iran which must ‘return’ to the table,” he said.
“But how can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?” |
As much as I hate to agree with that vile and oppressive regime, who’ve set human rights back to the Dark Ages for the people of Iran, he’s got a point. Israel and the US are the aggressors who need to down weapons and return to the negotiating table. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| US bombs Iran on 13:07 - Jun 22 with 246 views | Guthrum |
| US bombs Iran on 03:35 - Jun 22 by Illinoisblue |
It was interesting although not surprising to hear senator Ted Cruz say there’s a verse in the Bible that commands him to support Israel. That this happens in the year 2025 and millions of Americans don’t see it as strange tells you a lot about this country. |
There isn't, tho. Not in any sense that he's using it.
Quite apart from the fact modern Israel is a secular nation state, not the location of the central temple for worship of God, which was its significance in Biblical times. | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 21:20 - Jun 22 with 20 views | StokieBlue |
Seems some MAGA types aren't too happy with Trump's actions.
Trump ally and MAGA superfan Marjorie Taylor Greene for instance:
"Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer."
SB |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
