Soloist wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:22 am
It’s interesting that only one country has ever used them militarily yet it’s all the other countries that are dangerous
i’d rather they didn’t exist.
they’re incidental to the reality of men+wars, destruction. by numbers, abortion eclipses all.
The people of Iran?
What is correct? versus What is reported? The ongoing question. No matter country.
“Iranian regime facing 'real threat' from its own people after US strikes”
National Council of Resistance of Iran Deputy Director Alireza Jafarzadeh
joins 'Fox & Friends First' to discuss Iranian protests following Operation Midnight Hammer and the possibility of regime change. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ir ... ocialshare
R7ehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:57 am I predict we don’t get more involved than we currently are. No bunker busters lent or used.
my fervent prayer.
(i believe) all prayers are answered. (only sometimes in ways+time we understand.)
now i pray for the people of Iran. for them to be protected and guided to good paths.
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
I was reading several assessments this morning, if the US missed the enriched uranium, Iran has no reason to hold back now as they could have a package in a matter of weeks to a few days. They have a serious concern about being boxed in by the US and Israel and eventually be toppled by a CIA backed coup which has happened in surrounding nations. They very likely will see a nuclear package as the only effective deterrent at this point. The alternative is their nation will collapse under either implied threat from Israel and the US, Overt actions, or CIA/Mossad actions.
Iran was further pushed into a corner with this attack and I think its highly unlikely that even if they agreed to a "treaty" that they would actually follow it as they likely believe the treaty is unsustainable with the US or Israel.
This leaves them with a few options and none of them good.
Gamble they can achieve breakout and hope that US does not follow with shock and awe campaign set on elimination and regime change.
Surrender to Israel's demands and covertly continue and risk detection (US and Israel likely won't trust them anyway) Probable outcome is delayed regime change, ie, collapse or detection
Refuse and continue to be bombed while not developing nuclear weapons until the regime collapses.
Based on these, I'm expecting a calculation to be made on the first two.
Following that, I'm expecting a broader war with Iran at this point with the US actually invading to remove the risk of WMD's. Its only a matter of time. If they get an actual nuclear weapon, the ability to deploy it would likely be poor although an aerial burst would be the most effective if the US didn't intercept at launch.
That being said, they demonstrate they have the capability, then the roll of the dice. Does America hit harder knowing future risk? or back off?
Either way, I see a much broader war in Iran likely within the next few months with continued bombing by Israel and likely the US. I think the US government has decided Iran needs to go. The longest prediction would be during Trump's remaining administration but I see it less likely after a year from now. I'm expecting something done within this next 12 months at the longest.
The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:46 am
The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.
It's hard to understand how you get from "trusting in bombs doesn't make us safer" to "it's okay for Iran to build nuclear weapons, and it's bad for other countries to try to stop them".
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:46 am
The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.
It's hard to understand how you get from "trusting in bombs doesn't make us safer" to "it's okay for Iran to build nuclear weapons, and it's bad for other countries to try to stop them".
I don't read that he is saying its okay for them to build them.
I think you need to take a look at posts and accept that we can have opinions on what is a logical course of action or perceived course without maligning our beliefs as reflecting our opinions.
From a religious view, the US, Israel and Iran need to lay down their weapons and make peace. Realistically though, that isn't going to happen and thus having an opinion on possibilities or probable outcomes doesn't mean we are okay. Stop intentionally distorting positions of users here.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:46 am
The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.
It's hard to understand how you get from "trusting in bombs doesn't make us safer" to "it's okay for Iran to build nuclear weapons, and it's bad for other countries to try to stop them".
I don't read that he is saying its okay for them to build them.
I think you need to take a look at posts and accept that we can have opinions on what is a logical course of action or perceived course without maligning our beliefs as reflecting our opinions.
From a religious view, the US, Israel and Iran need to lay down their weapons and make peace. Realistically though, that isn't going to happen and thus having an opinion on possibilities or probable outcomes doesn't mean we are okay. Stop intentionally distorting positions of users here.
From a religious view, each person needs to accept Christ and seek and pursue peace. Nations have a duty to protect their own people, and also a moral obligation not to engage in bellicosity against other nations. Funding terrorists and trying to develop nuclear bombs is the latter, in my view.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:46 am
The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.
It's hard to understand how you get from "trusting in bombs doesn't make us safer" to "it's okay for Iran to build nuclear weapons, and it's bad for other countries to try to stop them".
Does the blinding irony of an empire with more nuclear bombs than nearly anyone else, and the only one that ever actually melted off the faces of citizens with them, righteously deciding that they aren't necessary for other countries, actually escape you?
Today in 2025 we live in a different world than 1945. Upwards of 75 million people died in WW2. What percentage of them died from nuclear weapons? That is simple math exercise.
The US and its allies had basically three options for bringing the Pacific war to an end in 1945: (1) Military blockade of Japan along with continued conventional aerial bombing, (2) conventional military invasion of Japan, (3) force surrender through the use of nuclear weapons.
Which of those three options would have ended the war the quickest with the least amount of death and suffering? Put yourself in Truman's shoes. Which strategy for ending the war do you choose? A war in which by 1945 had a weekly death toll across the Pacific theater that was well north of a Hiroshima's worth of people per week. In both Europe and the Pacific, 1945 was the deadliest year of the war. In fact, in just China alone, people were probably dying at a rate of a Hiroshima per week by 1945.
But we don't live in 1945. The question for American and other decision-makers across the globe is what kind of world order provides the safest and most just world in 2025? One in which nuclear weapons do not proliferate, obviously. But also one in which we have a robust enough international order such that smaller countries do not feel the need to seek nuclear weapons and are also not rewarded for doing so. So what does that world look like?
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:41 am
Today in 2025 we live in a different world than 1945. Upwards of 75 million people died in WW2. What percentage of them died from nuclear weapons? That is simple math exercise.
The US and its allies had basically three options for bringing the Pacific war to an end in 1945: (1) Military blockade of Japan along with continued conventional aerial bombing, (2) conventional military invasion of Japan, (3) force surrender through the use of nuclear weapons.
Which of those three options would have ended the war the quickest with the least amount of death and suffering? Put yourself in Truman's shoes. Which strategy for ending the war do you choose? A war in which by 1945 had a weekly death toll across the Pacific theater that was well north of a Hiroshima's worth of people per week. In both Europe and the Pacific, 1945 was the deadliest year of the war. In fact, in just China alone, people were probably dying at a rate of a Hiroshima per week by 1945.
But we don't live in 1945. The question for American and other decision-makers across the globe is what kind of world order provides the safest and most just world in 2025? One in which nuclear weapons do not proliferate, obviously. But also one in which we have a robust enough international order such that smaller countries do not feel the need to seek nuclear weapons and are also not rewarded for doing so. So what does that world look like?
