| US bombs Iran 00:54 - Jun 22 with 3501 views | Perublue |
Oh .... here we go.
Nuclear sites....3 of them |  |
| |  |
| US bombs Iran on 09:49 - Jun 22 with 742 views | redrickstuhaart |
| US bombs Iran on 09:41 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
His destruction of US democracy could be the most dangerous thing to happen in the world.
The fact he is ignoring the checks and balances inbuilt in the constitution and acting in a unilateral manner across all policy areas is a very deep concern. The fact he threatens the judiciary when they state his actions are unconstitutional is a huge concern. It's at the point where it would be surprising if he doesn't try and make a play for a 3rd term in a few years time.
Let's not forget, his own intelligence services said Iran weren't trying to construct a bomb. This attack is part of the Netanyahu strategy of prolonging or escalate conflicts to remain in power, you can see how pleased he is with this action from his statements.
If anything it's only going to push Iran to try and get a bomb quicker, it worked for North Korea, you don't hear much about them now and they are just left to get on with it given they have a nuclear capability.
SB |
The only way Iran can protect itself is, essentially, to have a nuclear response available. |  | | |
| US bombs Iran on 09:51 - Jun 22 with 735 views | Churchman |
| US bombs Iran on 09:02 - Jun 22 by DJR |
To be fair to Starmer, and the Attorney General (who is Jewish), they are both sticklers for the law. Indeed, there are reports that the Attorney General has advised against UK involvement.
My view is that the attacks on Iran cannot be justified as pre-emptive self-defence under international law, and Philip Sands takes the same view.
https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/philippe-sands-international-l
I have also seen an international lawyer argue that the US (and by analogy the UK) could not in any event justify involvement on pre-emptive self-defence grounds because the US isn't in danger of attack. Don't forget that before the Iraq war, we were incorrectly told that London was only 45 minutes from a possible attack in order to justify the action. [Post edited 22 Jun 9:04]
|
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. |  | | |
| US bombs Iran on 10:04 - Jun 22 with 668 views | Pinewoodblue |
| US bombs Iran on 09:23 - Jun 22 by DJR |
That seems a reasonable assumption. The reports I have seen suggested B-2 bombers were moved to Guam in advance of the attack. |
Guam still a long way from Teheran. Sounds as if US didn’t ask to use Diego Garcia as presumably we would have said No. |  |
| |
| Nyoo-klee-uh on 10:09 - Jun 22 with 620 views | unstableblue |
| US bombs Iran on 09:09 - Jun 22 by NthQldITFC |
Utterly unimportant, but I can't believe the number of journalists and politicians who can't say "Nu-cle-ar". |
Is the official pronunciation
I am pedantry |  |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 10:11 - Jun 22 with 623 views | 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?” |  |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 10:12 - Jun 22 with 607 views | StokieBlue |
| US bombs Iran on 10:04 - Jun 22 by Pinewoodblue |
Guam still a long way from Teheran. Sounds as if US didn’t ask to use Diego Garcia as presumably we would have said No. |
It's easily doable from Guam with a mid-air refuel.
In 2001, 5 B2's attacked Afghanistan flying from the US and then returning to the US with multiple mid-air refuelling's. Total flight time was 44 hours.
I think you're right they didn't ask to use Diego Garcia which is lucky for Starmer I guess.
SB |  | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 10:21 - Jun 22 with 582 views | 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. | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 10:29 - Jun 22 with 546 views | pointofblue |
| US bombs Iran on 09:41 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
His destruction of US democracy could be the most dangerous thing to happen in the world.
The fact he is ignoring the checks and balances inbuilt in the constitution and acting in a unilateral manner across all policy areas is a very deep concern. The fact he threatens the judiciary when they state his actions are unconstitutional is a huge concern. It's at the point where it would be surprising if he doesn't try and make a play for a 3rd term in a few years time.
Let's not forget, his own intelligence services said Iran weren't trying to construct a bomb. This attack is part of the Netanyahu strategy of prolonging or escalate conflicts to remain in power, you can see how pleased he is with this action from his statements.
If anything it's only going to push Iran to try and get a bomb quicker, it worked for North Korea, you don't hear much about them now and they are just left to get on with it given they have a nuclear capability.
SB |
Though a key reason why North Korea could develop a weapon was the protection of China and concern they would retaliate had North Korea been attacked. In comparison, with Russia trying to keep Trump sweet because of his position over Ukraine, they're not willing to rock the boat over something which is not a key foreign policy objective. This opened a window for the US to attack. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| US bombs Iran on 10:34 - Jun 22 with 531 views | StokieBlue |
| US bombs Iran on 10:29 - Jun 22 by pointofblue |
Though a key reason why North Korea could develop a weapon was the protection of China and concern they would retaliate had North Korea been attacked. In comparison, with Russia trying to keep Trump sweet because of his position over Ukraine, they're not willing to rock the boat over something which is not a key foreign policy objective. This opened a window for the US to attack. |
China were never going to retaliate against the US, there is absolutely nothing in it for them. The recent tariff nonsense has shown how interlinked those countries are.
SB | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 10:34 - Jun 22 with 535 views | StokieBlue |
This has aged well.....
SB | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 11:00 - Jun 22 with 458 views | pointofblue |
| US bombs Iran on 10:34 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
China were never going to retaliate against the US, there is absolutely nothing in it for them. The recent tariff nonsense has shown how interlinked those countries are.
SB |
China would have been exceptionally nervous to have America attack an ally so close to their border. I disagree there was nothing in it for them; the Korean peninsula is split because of Chinese interest in not having a western state next door. | |
| |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:02 - Jun 22 with 466 views | Guthrum |
| 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. |
The Iranian regime, for whom "Death to Israel" is a core political tenet, have done their best to avoid and block international inspection of their nuclear programme. One can see where the suspicions come from.
60%+ refinement of Uranium in sizeable quantities is still a way short of the 90%+ required for working bombs, but it's a fair distance down that road and way above what is needed for ordinary peaceful use. That's assuming they haven't already gone beyond. |  |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 11:07 - Jun 22 with 443 views | positivity |
| US bombs Iran on 07:36 - Jun 22 by chicoazul |
More dangerous than a Mullah with a nuclear bomb? I don’t think so. |
what's more dangerous than an unstable extremist with a nuclear bomb? an unstable extremist with many, many nuclear bombs.
khamenei may be a danger to the region, trump is a danger to the world | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 11:07 - Jun 22 with 441 views | StokieBlue |
| US bombs Iran on 11:00 - Jun 22 by pointofblue |
China would have been exceptionally nervous to have America attack an ally so close to their border. I disagree there was nothing in it for them; the Korean peninsula is split because of Chinese interest in not having a western state next door. |
Historically I think that maybe you're correct but I don't think they care anymore. They don't care about seizing shipping routes in the South China Sea and saying western ships can't use them. South Korea and Japan are next door when it comes to military distance and are both western states.
They are also more than a bit fed-up with NK, they weren't going to get in a shooting war with the US over it.
I do honestly think that NK have proven that if you want to protect yourself from these actions you need to have nukes.
SB [Post edited 22 Jun 11:11]
| | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:10 - Jun 22 with 427 views | StokieBlue |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:02 - Jun 22 by Guthrum |
The Iranian regime, for whom "Death to Israel" is a core political tenet, have done their best to avoid and block international inspection of their nuclear programme. One can see where the suspicions come from.
60%+ refinement of Uranium in sizeable quantities is still a way short of the 90%+ required for working bombs, but it's a fair distance down that road and way above what is needed for ordinary peaceful use. That's assuming they haven't already gone beyond. |
It's worth noting that 90% is a modern threshold for enrichment. The bombs dropped during WW2 were barley 80% enriched.
SB | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 11:21 - Jun 22 with 373 views | Guthrum |
| 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 |
Dirty bombs are really quite a minor threat. You need both dispersal and concentration to be effective, which work against each other. Enriched Uranium is not all that effective for such a device, it is too stable, thus not massively radioactive (but has other properties relating to chain reactions). It is the products from Uranium fission, such as Strontium-90 which are the problem in fallout, not the Uranium itself.
The issues come only with a critical mass/density causing a burst of radioactivity (at fairly close range only). If you can do that, you're a lot of the way to manufacturing a full-on nuclear weapon anyway. | |
| |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:25 - Jun 22 with 330 views | mellowblue |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:10 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
It's worth noting that 90% is a modern threshold for enrichment. The bombs dropped during WW2 were barley 80% enriched.
SB |
Enriched with barley, does enriching with wheat work as well? Vegan-bomb ! | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 11:27 - Jun 22 with 315 views | strikalite |
| US bombs Iran on 11:07 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
Historically I think that maybe you're correct but I don't think they care anymore. They don't care about seizing shipping routes in the South China Sea and saying western ships can't use them. South Korea and Japan are next door when it comes to military distance and are both western states.
They are also more than a bit fed-up with NK, they weren't going to get in a shooting war with the US over it.
I do honestly think that NK have proven that if you want to protect yourself from these actions you need to have nukes.
SB [Post edited 22 Jun 11:11]
|
What's North Korea's position in all this right now? Are they likely at any point to get involved? |  | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:28 - Jun 22 with 301 views | Guthrum |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:10 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue |
It's worth noting that 90% is a modern threshold for enrichment. The bombs dropped during WW2 were barley 80% enriched.
SB |
Which made Little Boy massively inefficient and extremely heavy. To deliver it at any useful range with a missile, the design needs to be as small and light as possible (for which a Plutonium implosion design is far better, in any case). | |
| |
| US bombs Iran on 11:33 - Jun 22 with 274 views | StokieBlue |
| US bombs Iran on 11:21 - Jun 22 by Guthrum |
Dirty bombs are really quite a minor threat. You need both dispersal and concentration to be effective, which work against each other. Enriched Uranium is not all that effective for such a device, it is too stable, thus not massively radioactive (but has other properties relating to chain reactions). It is the products from Uranium fission, such as Strontium-90 which are the problem in fallout, not the Uranium itself.
The issues come only with a critical mass/density causing a burst of radioactivity (at fairly close range only). If you can do that, you're a lot of the way to manufacturing a full-on nuclear weapon anyway. |
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 | | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:34 - Jun 22 with 265 views | StokieBlue |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 11:28 - Jun 22 by Guthrum |
Which made Little Boy massively inefficient and extremely heavy. To deliver it at any useful range with a missile, the design needs to be as small and light as possible (for which a Plutonium implosion design is far better, in any case). |
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 | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 11:36 - Jun 22 with 254 views | iamatractorboy |
| US bombs Iran on 08:50 - Jun 22 by ElderGrizzly |
Trump’s other issue, not that he’ll care is he has broken the law to bomb Iran.
Both international law and US domestic law which mandates Congress is the only place that can approve this, not the Presidency by itself |
Just add it to his rap sheet. Getting to be quite a long list. | | | |
| US bombs Iran on 11:51 - Jun 22 with 173 views | BloomBlue |
| US bombs Iran on 08:50 - Jun 22 by ElderGrizzly |
Trump’s other issue, not that he’ll care is he has broken the law to bomb Iran.
Both international law and US domestic law which mandates Congress is the only place that can approve this, not the Presidency by itself |
Seems to be different opinions on the Congress argument. For example when Biden approved the bombings in Yemen he didn't ask Congress he just told them. Obama didn't seek Congress approval either on more than one occasion.
Both stated they only required congress approval for war, and they weren't starting or declaring war, just bombing terrorists who were posing a threat to the USofA. |  | | |
| Tulsi Gabbard out of her depth, but maybe right on 12:00 - Jun 22 with 144 views | Trequartista |
| 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. |
Didn't she say that in March though, and there's been a UN Nuclear watchdog report since then saying they are non-compliant? |  |
| |
| Nyoo-klee-uh on 12:03 - Jun 22 with 134 views | solemio |
| Nyoo-klee-uh on 10:09 - Jun 22 by unstableblue |
Is the official pronunciation
I am pedantry |
No, you may be a pedant, you may be exhibiting pedantry, but you are not pedantry.
Thank goodness I'm not a pedant, even if I may be a peasant. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
