| ▲ | annexrichmond 7 hours ago |
| > basically nothing So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then? They certainly have no problem purposely bombing civilians in non combatant countries. |
|
| ▲ | idle_zealot 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then? Fewer, because we would've been deterred from attacking them. Unless we decided to risk nuclear war, I guess. |
| |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | US doesn't have to engage for Iran to use nukes. But of course we should prevent that from becoming a realistic scenario? | | |
| ▲ | idle_zealot 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > US doesn't have to engage for Iran to use nukes Sure, in a purely physical sense, I suppose they could launch a nuke, triggering MAD and Israel's Samson Doctrine and ending human civilization for no reason. Currently I think Israel, the US, North Korea, and Russia have a higher (though still low) risk of doing that. In that order, by the way, though I could probably be convinced to bump Russia up higher. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tartoran 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nukes are not really for actual use but for deterrence so likely no lives would have been lost. Israel has nukes and they don't use them unless somebody attacks them with nukes. Same with other countries. Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. And even more ideal it would be if nobody had them but the cat's out of the bag already. |
| |
| ▲ | brightball 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Iran has repeatedly stated their intent to use them. | | |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They've also stated at various times that they believe first use or any use to be against Islamic law. I don't find any of these statements to be particularly credible, but I also don't think they're going to strap the first bomb they make to the closest missile they find and immediately send it at Tel Aviv when it surely means the total destruction of the Iranian state. | |
| ▲ | freefrog1234aa 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran has repeatedly stated they will not develop nuclear weapons. | |
| ▲ | vincnetas 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | do you remember what usa president stated just couple of days ago? to destroy whole country. didnt it sounded credible enough? |
| |
| ▲ | throwafffff 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | India, The biggest democratic country should not have nukes but its ok for a bunch of colonizers and authoritarian state like china to have. | |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tartoran 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, I'm not saying that, how do you extrapolate my position from there. It would good if Iran continue not to have nukes but also it would be a great example for the region if Israel didn't have them either. If we allow Israel to have them we're applying a double standard. Any unhinged country should not have them. | | |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's not much precedent to get a powerful, vulnerable country to willingly disarm their nukes. It's fair to say Israel shouldn't have them but I'd be far more uncomfortable with Iran All their leaders have repeatedly called for the elimination of Israel and t that must be "wiped off the map" or "erased from the page of time" They have a much more abhorrent track record of domestic repression, state-sponsored terrorism, and explicit elimination-ist rhetoric toward Israel makes an Iranian nuclear capability far more destabilizing. A nuclear Iran would likely embolden its proxies and heighten the risk of catastrophic escalation in a region where they have actively worked through proxies to encircle and attack Israel for decades |
| |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have it on good authority that Hitler didn't want Iran to have nukes. Are you siding with Hitler?? | | |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Is that really your best argument? | | |
| ▲ | albedoa 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is that really your best argument? (That is your argument.) | |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is "something something Hitler" your best argument? | | |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | OP basically said every country is the same, has the same motive, so therefore it's ok for them to have nukes if others have them. That couldn't be more naive, and the Nazi regime is a prime example. | | |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. I assume this applies to the big H as well! Their follow up was in the context of a very different world than that of WWII. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > we should have let Iran have nukes? What part of this war has made Iran less likely to get a nuclear weapon? There could have been a good war in Iran. A coalition of nations going in to secure the uranium. It would have been messy. But it would have had a clean objective. |
| |
| ▲ | tartoran 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | As objective yes but whose lives would be spared for this objective? Messy is relative to policies. Aren't other ways to attain this objective other than through war? I really think there were attempts and progress in that direction. |
|
|
| ▲ | albatross79 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If Israel can have them, yes. Ideally, neither Israel nor Iran would have them. |
|
| ▲ | tabiv 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought Iran's nuclear capability was destroyed in the June 2025 bombings? |
| |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | They were able to move and hide a lot of the enriched uranium ahead of those bombings. Not all of it was destroyed. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 8note 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| does iran even want nukes? they have a religious law against making or using them, and theyve been sitting at "they could make a nuke within a week" for the past 20 years or more it feels like people are falling for iran's bargaining chip - they want people to think they could make one, but not actually make one |
|
| ▲ | sali0 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There was zero evidence they were close to a nuke. In fact, they've been alleged to be weeks away from a nuke for over 20 years. And the accusations come from the ones with the illegal nukes themselves! |
|
| ▲ | slater 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do we "let" Israel have nukes? |
|
| ▲ | zhoujing204 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Iran shouldn't have nukes, but starting a war—burning billions of dollars a day, killing kids and innocent civilians, and leveling bridges and universities—is objectively the worst possible way to prevent it. The JCPOA under Obama actually did a solid job of constraining their nuclear development. That was the pragmatic approach, but Trump just unilaterally scrapped the deal. He doesn't have an actual strategy, maybe just "concepts of a plan". |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This regime has been around for half a century. We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? Come on. Don’t tell me you actually believe that shit. Unless we actually invade, all this war will do is demonstrate to Iran that obtaining nuclear weapons is an existential necessity for them, and kick the program into high gear. Oh, and provide them with plenty of funding for it due to their newfound ability to collect tolls for a vital shipping chokepoint. |
| |
| ▲ | annexrichmond 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. Not all of it was destroyed. A lot of enriched uranium was saved. The IAEA still could not verify the stockpile's location, size, or composition due to denied access. Iran refused full inspections post-strikes. The rest of your post is pure conjecture and nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's pure conjecture that they are now collecting tolls from ships that transit the Strait of Hormuz? You don't think they're going to sprint for nukes at any cost now? | |
| ▲ | wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The guy who said their nuclear program was destroyed last summer is the same guy who says we have to go to war to stop them from developing nuclear weapons now. Do I believe it was actually destroyed? No. Do I believe the guy who said it was? No. Do I start believing that guy now that he says there’s an imminent threat? Also no. | |
| ▲ | CapricornNoble 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. What news are YOU reading? https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nucle... "As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement," Gabard wrote in an opening statement ahead of the hearing. https://www.military.com/daily-news/headlines/2026/03/19/ken... Joe Kent, who made big news when he stepped down on Tuesday as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Wednesday that intelligence assessments did not show Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States or was close to developing a nuclear weapon, undercutting central justifications for the military action. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | saltyoldman 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Evil dictator who killed millions of people in his lifetime is also now dead. |
| |
| ▲ | platinumrad 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He was 86 and is now, unfortunately, a beloved martyr rather than the symbol of an old and decaying regime. | | |
| ▲ | dirasieb 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >beloved by whom? ROFL, good luck substantiating this claim are we ignoring the fact that he massacred countless people for protesting against him THIS YEAR? | | |
| |
| ▲ | mcphage 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Replaced by his son. | | |
| ▲ | tartoran 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Replaced by his son. Replaced by an enraged son whose whole family had been killed in front of him. Basically Iran's Ayatolah is now younger and angrier. Thanks to Trump and Israel's Trump. Iranian people were about to topple their own regime some months ago. Now the regime is cemented again since Iran was attacked indiscriminately. Again, thank the 2 Trumps. | | |
|
|
