Preferences

I remember the fate of Iraq's WMD (chemical) -- they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years. It was all way too suspicious, but their biggest trick was that when UN approved a military intervention, no WMDs were actually found. That put US in a very bad position because they couldn't prove WMDs existense. Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs (or just hidden well).

However, unlike chemical substances, radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace, so I bet they won't be lost for long. The only way to actually hide them is to contaminate the whole area with the same materials.


ToucanLoucan
We're so back. Another quagmire war in the middle east. Exactly what we needed.

For whatever you feel about WMDs or the justification for the Iraq war, the facts are we spent almost two decades in the first go round, found no WMDs, killed a dictator we installed, blew up a shit ton of infrastructure, rebuild a shit ton of it, killed probably millions of innocent people, absolutely blew up the Taliban and later ISIS's recruitment numbers, made ourselves look fucking stupid on the global stage, then pulled out, leaving billions in military materiel to be claimed by the people we were ostensibly there to stop.

An utter fucking farce, and we have learned absolutely nothing. Time to send more young men to die.

stickfigure
Why do you assume the US will invade?
whatshisface
The actions on the US-Israel side so far (deeply cutting non-defense discretionary spending, decoupling from international trade, assassinating secular leaders who can be replaced, bombing three locations which can be rebuilt) only make sense as the near-term prelude to a major ground invasion. If the invasion doesn't happen the US will be left with a self-inflicted economic growth wound and no way to explain it, and Israel will be left with an adversary that believes itself to be facing an existential risk, that is able to enrich uranium, and that would not trust any treaty negotiations.
stickfigure
If the ground invasion doesn't happen, will you come here and openly admit "I was wrong and need to adjust my priors"?
whatshisface
Realistically speaking I don't see how we would get credible evidence that there would not be a permanent war, not when so many people have been trying to create one for so long. Who would be able to promise that?

I can't give you a prediction with timing either, because Israel would have to claim that Iran had rebuilt its facilities for the US to get pulled back in again, and an outsider has no way of telling when they would choose to do that.

Eddy_Viscosity2
Did you believe Trump and his people when they campaigned on not attacking Iran while claiming repeatedly that Harris would if elected. If so did can you admit you were wrong and need to adjust your priors?
cosmicgadget
The self-inflicted economic wound is nothing more than Trumpnomics. If the numbers look bad he will just say they are fake or solved by GDP growth or tariff revenue.

Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them. Nothing has changed with these strikes.

Bombing nuclear facilities and killing scientists kicks the can down the road and that has worked for decades. But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.

ToucanLoucan
> Iran already knows that Israel can decapitate them at will, but not occupy them.

Every respected strategist said the exact same fucking thing about Iraq before we killed 17 years there. Didn't stop us from trying and failing.

geoka9
> But the US/Israel coalition is also trying to negotiate or orchestrate regime change, which could provide a more lasting impact.

Are there any credible signs of this?

cosmicgadget
I don't think anyone has said so beyond, of course, "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"

Considering how far Israel has gone in Gaza, I wouldn't rule out them pursuing maximized goals in Iran.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2
While I am first to admit that my basic assumptions have been severely tested by the last news cycle, I do think it is very naive to think this is the end of hostilities.
platevoltage
Because we've all been here before. This time we are led in by someone who is just as stupid, but with several times more malicious intent.
stickfigure
We've also bombed places without invading. I share your opinion of Trump, but even a stopped clock...
leptons
Both the US and Israel currently have leaders that have to be seen as "wartime leaders" to extend their rule beyond what their respective country's laws usually permit, because otherwise they both very likely will end up in prison.
edanm
This is not true of Bibi. No law limits how much he can serve. The only legal block for him remaining in power is that he's undergoing various criminal trials, which may or may not end with him being found guilty.

There is, of course, a lot of pressure for him to resign or for various other things to happen that he is currently managing to put on hold due to the war, but that's legal, and doesn't require wartime.

Absent all that, he faces elections in 2026.

leptons
It is true of Bibi that he should be in prison instead of leading Israel, for many reasons. There's speculation that he knew about Oct 7th before it happened, and let it happen so that he could maintain his power. Now it's war with Iran. I'm really not sure how far he would go to stay in power.
cosmicgadget
Bibi, yes. Trump is in the clear. The immunity decision means that successfully prosecuting a president will take years.
ToucanLoucan
I genuinely think hell will freeze over before we see an American president face justice.
leptons
Trump has been suggesting he deserves a 3rd term. The codified limit is 2 terms.
cosmicgadget
He says he deserves a lot of things.
deepsun OP
Another quagmire war is underway, you forgot Russia. Tortures, genocidal propaganda, cutting body parts. And the soldiers doing that are not prosecuted, but awarded.

I feel about Iran war the same way: yes it's going to happen whether we want it or not, there's nothing we can do. If you persuade everyone to not interfere, Iran would just drop nukes on other countries, so there will be nothing to interfere into later.

Saudi Arabia always declared that if Iran gets nuclear, they will do too, and they have unlimited money to do that.

perihelions
> "radiation is easily detectable even in minuscule quantities. Just transporting radioactive materials leave a detectable trace"

This is quite untrue. Uranium is only marginally radioactive.

gh02t
Indeed it is not, however it's quite difficult to scrub anything sufficiently to hide them from IAEA environmental sampling (most of which is chemical based, primarily micro scale spectroscopy). Enriching uranium is a nasty, dirty process at all steps that leaves a lot of sticky, messy, and hard to get rid of traces, and IAEA has access to some of the most sophisticated analytical laboratories on the planet and a lot of practice.

If the inspectors are given sufficient access to do their inspections.

timewizard
> they denied inspectors, blatantly lied on the reports for many years.

For many years the IAEA vacillated between praising and and admonishing the Iraqi's for their cooperation or lack thereof.

> It was all way too suspicious

Yea, for _both_ sides. There was clearly more politics being played in these deals than anyone let be known.

> Who knows, maybe there were really no WMDs

There really were no WMDs. They have a shelf life. They expire. There was some evidence they did exist but were likely long gone. Hans Blix was pretty clear on this. This angered the CIA so greatly they made him a target to undermine him. It didn't work.

This is recent history and how quickly it is forgotten.

This item has no comments currently.