Hacker News Reader

Comment by foxglacier | Hacker News Reader

War with Iran was inevitable - either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand. And that war was bound to disrupt oil supply. Don't forget their goal is death to America and Death to Israel. That's what they've been arming themselves for for decades. That's what they're trying to build nuclear bombs for. They had to be stopped eventually and that was always going to be uncomfortable for whoever did it, but the sooner the better. Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?

View on HN

Iran has been “two weeks away” from a nuclear capability for nearly 40 years, and the status quo was the best possible outcome for the US.

The US getting dragged into Israel’s war does not serve anyone’s interests other than Israel’s.

Preventing another country getting nuclear weapons is a very good thing. That's Trump's stated aim for this war. How can all these people replying not see the value in? Two weeks away could turn into "never" if he succeeds. I don't understand this belief that if we just leave the festering wound that is Iran's Islamic Republic alone, it'll never get any worse.

Do you also think that global nuclear disarmament would be a bad thing because the Doomsday clock has been a few minutes from midnight for 40 years so the risk is obviously overblown and nuclear war will never happen?

The Iran problem is one that the UK and US jointly created, and that there is no uncreating. The status quo was really the best possible outcome.

I think world peace with everybody holding hands and dancing would be a good thing, but it’s about as likely to happen as global nuclear disarmament.

Ukraine is an excellent contemporary case study of what happens to a nuclear-armed nation with dangerous neighbours that gives up its nukes.

If the status quo really remains status, then sure, Iran wasn't really directly doing much harm to its neighbors. But the danger of status quo is that it would eventually make nuclear weapons. From your last sentence, it sounds like that's what you want. Is it?

We destroyed the nuclear capability of Iran last year during the 12 day war. Trump said so himself.

Now we're engaged in a full regional conflict to destroy Iran's nuclear capability that was destroyed last year. The same capability the Iranians were willing to give up via negotiations that were ongoing when the US and Israel took out the country's leadership in a decapitation strike which began the war.

Respectfully, this war virtually guarantees Iran will now develop nuclear weapons. The exact thing Trump thought shooting them would stop is going to come to fruition because of these actions. The exact thing that was barred by a fatwa since 2004.

How do you not see this?

You want Iran to forever be a short step away from completing their project of making of nukes but never quite doing it because of its own internal decision and integrity at keeping its promises? No, that's naïve. They will obviously do it if they think they can get away with it. To be safe, they have to be physically prevented from doing it even if they want to.

Proof you're wrong is that they had a self-imposed 2000km limit on their missiles but when push came to shove, they changed their mind and shot one 4000km.

For the vast majority of entire life Iran has been weeks away from having a nuke. I'm nearly 50. And yet you believe that they're now "two weeks away" because that's what politicians told you. Who's being naive here? How old are you?

> Proof you're wrong is that they had a self-imposed 2000km limit on their missiles but when push came to shove, they changed their mind and shot one 4000km.

The details of this attack are murky, it might not have even occurred. And given the penchant for the Trump administration to lie about this conflict on a daily basis I don't believe it either. Show me some radar tracks, hell, ANY EVIDENCE and I might consider it. Otherwise I'll consider it propaganda.

"2 weeks away" means they have the technical capability do it soon if they decide to and can get away with it without their equipment being bombed. It obviously doesn't mean they will do it soon and it isn't literally 2 weeks. They can be delayed by international pressure or internal decisions, or whatever. So yeah, I do believe that, interpreted correctly instead of maliciously literally.

Same as the doomsday clock doesn't mean we'll have a nuclear war 2 minutes from now.

In my city, we've been "overdue for the big one" (earthquake) for my entire life. In never came but that doesn't mean it won't come in the near future so we still prepare for it.

OK, I have no evidence for those missiles. It doesn't really change things though. Iran clearly can change its mind if it wants. It's not the one country with permanently unwavering integrity that everyone can trust their lives to.

> either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand

Iran's modern history doesn't suggest this at all. Quite the opposite - they have been continually invaded. To me, theirs seems like an explicitly defensive stance. They have no airforce, navy, or tanks and such to speak of - just missiles and drones. Not a force suited to invading other countries.

You could argue about their support for regional militia's but I still wouldn't concede that indicates any desire to start a war.

The ruling class of Iran is still in place but more radicalized, global supply of oil is distupted, and nearly 200 schoolgirls are dead. This is a good thing how?

I assume this is an infuriatingly subtle parody, because:

> Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?

reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.

Yep, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say. Maybe a bot comment?

You seem to be unaware that the whole world doesn't share your bubble's political opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com