Trump: Iran has agreed to hand over its uranium

[konradv]

Simply a moronic statement as the economy sets records, with only higher growth projected when Kevin Warsch gets in as Fed chair.

 

[Zavulon]

Looking at it from the other side, Iran's population has been waiting for the opportunity to get rid of the theocracy and get a more modern less suicidal government.

It was quite controversial issue what is more suicidal - "to acquire nukes" or "to not acquire nukes", but now it's quite clear - "not to acquire nukes" is definitely suicidal.
And no, not all Iranians love Islamic theocratic government, but absolute majority of them hate American Evangelists, Satanists and Zionists (as well as their puppet Shah) and ready to fight to defend their country and their people.

 

[kyzr]

It was quite controversial issue what is more suicidal - "to acquire nukes" or "to not acquire nukes", but now it's quite clear - "not to acquire nukes" is definitely suicidal.
And no, not all Iranians love Islamic theocratic government, but absolute majority of them hate American Evangelists, Satanists and Zionists (as well as their puppet Shah) and ready to fight to defend their country and their people.

So how do they counter Trump's naval blockade?

Saying "nice doggie" during negotiations doesn't get anywhere when Iran has no oil income.

Even if they are ready to fight, how do they counter the oil blockade?

Eventually Iran needs to "drink from the poison chalice" like at the end of the Iraq war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I do know a lot about both Russia and America. And I've read some books from Herman Kahn's "On the thermonuclear war" (1960) to Trenin's "From Deterrence to Intimidation" (2023).

And what I do know, that with few nukes you can only play game of "Minimal Deterrence" -

"If you attack us endangering our very existence, we'll nuke you, and you'll suffer significant, but survivable losses. If you don't attack us, we won't attack you. But we do understand that if we are doing something really provoking, like attacking your valuable allies, you may prefer to suffer that damage, but destroy us".

That's the very reason why North Korea is not attacked by the USA - all their REMs doesn't worth even 50% chance of one destroyed American city. And that's why Northern Korea didn't invade Southern Korea - they do know that South Korea is very important for America, and, to defend it, America may decide to take 50% chance of losing one or few American cities, but eliminate North Korea.

That's what is called "The steady balance of fear" and "Strategic uncertainty".

Minimal deterrence is bullshit for nuclear terrorism, and you know it. The US had no interest at all in attacking North Korea until it began producing nukes and then the US was deterred by South Korea from destroying the North's military capabilities. If having nukes made you safer then no one would be attacking Israel. North Korea and Iran want nukes only to support their imperialist ambitions.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Get some new material.

Not until Maga and Trump stop lying.

 

[Zavulon]

Minimal deterrence is bullshit for nuclear terrorism, and you know it.

Of course no. Read, for example, Herman Kahn, "On Thermonuclear War". He explained what is Minimal Deterrence quite well.

The US had no interest at all in attacking North Korea until it began producing nukes and then the US was deterred by South Korea from destroying the North's military capabilities.

It's plain lie. North Korea was in American "to kill" list from the very beginning. It was actually marked as part of "axis of evil".

If having nukes made you safer then no one would be attacking Israel.

Nuclear weapons are just tools, alongside with other tools, like conventional weapons, economy, diplomacy, etc...
And Minimal Deterrence, like what Israel posses, gives you insurance only against total destruction of the state. "If you attack us in a large-scale war, when the very existence of our state is endangered, we'll use nukes. If you attack us with low-scale attack, we won't use nukes".
And yes, looks like the nuclear weapons is the only thing why Israel is still exists.

North Korea and Iran want nukes only to support their imperialist ambitions.

As if Israel, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan need it for some other reason. We all believe that having nukes is more safe that not having them.

But, of course, if you want give up American (or, for starters, British and French) nuclear weapons - it might be a good example for others (but more likely, soon after it the USA will cease it's existence).

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course no. Read, for example, Herman Kahn, "On Thermonuclear War". He explained what is Minimal Deterrence quite well.


It's plain lie. North Korea was in American "to kill" list from the very beginning. It was actually marked as part of "axis of evil".

Nuclear weapons are just tools, alongside with other tools, like conventional weapons, economy, diplomacy, etc...
And Minimal Deterrence, like what Israel posses, gives you insurance only against total destruction of the state. "If you attack us in a large-scale war, when the very existence of our state is endangered, we'll use nukes. If you attack us with low-scale attack, we won't use nukes".
And yes, looks like the nuclear weapons is the only thing why Israel is still exists.


As if Israel, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan need it for some other reason. We all believe that having nukes is more safe that not having them.

But, of course, if you want give up American (or, for starters, British and French) nuclear weapons - it might be a good example for others (but more likely, soon after it the USA will cease it's existence).

Again, minimal deterrence is just another name for nuclear terrorism which you have openly supported. If Iran were to acquire nukes, what would they do with them? Would they use them to target US military targets or to destroy the US's essential infrastructure? No, they would use them to destroy or threaten to destroy civilians, which is what they do with all their weapons. That's terrorism, and you have shown yourself to be an avid supporter of it, just as you have shown yourself to be an admirer of the ayatollahs' brutal, repressive theocracy and the ayatollahs' imperialism which is the source of nearly every conflict in the ME.

As you say, Israel and the US, and even Russia, have announced policies that would only allow them to use nukes against an existential threat, but you advocate the ayatollahs use nukes as terror weapons to advance their imperialist goals. This means the Arabs, and even the ayatollahs, have confidence Israel will use its nuclear weapons responsibly while the ayatollahs, with your support would use them as terrorr weapons.

 

[Zavulon]

Again, minimal deterrence is just another name for nuclear terrorism which you have openly supported. If Iran were to acquire nukes, what would they do with them? Would they use them to target US military targets or to destroy the US's essential infrastructure? No, they would use them to destroy or threaten to destroy civilians, which is what they do with all their weapons.

They will do the very same things as France, Britain, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. They say: "If you attack us, we'll attack your civilians, and you'll suffer significant damage". And usually it enough to prevent meaningless agression (like if POTUS just want to distract his people from another Epstain files) or for some minimal economic reasons.

That's terrorism, and you have shown yourself to be an avid supporter of it, just as you have shown yourself to be an admirer of the ayatollahs' brutal, repressive theocracy and the ayatollahs' imperialism which is the source of nearly every conflict in the ME.

In every conflict we should blame at least two sides. For Middle East those sides are Israel and America.

As you say, Israel and the US, and even Russia, have announced policies that would only allow them to use nukes against an existential threat, but you advocate the ayatollahs use nukes as terror weapons to advance their imperialist goals.

Ayatollahs also can use nukes only to prevent direct and existential threat.
With lesser than few hundred nukes, they won't have Deterrence Type II capability. How many Iranian nukes will survive first American counter-force strike? May be, few dozens. Most of them America will be able to intercept. And if Iran, say, attack Bahrain or Saidies (say nothing about Israel), America may decide that 50/50 risk of losing few American cities worth protecting Saudies and Bahrain.

This means the Arabs, and even the ayatollahs, have confidence Israel will use its nuclear weapons responsibly while the ayatollahs, with your support would use them as terrorr weapons.

Both Israel and Iran can use minimal number of nukes only in one possible way - as counter-value retaliation strike against existential threat.

There is only two countries on the planet, who posses Deterrence Type II (multi-stability) capability. Only Russia and America can say (to each other) something like: "If you do something extremely provoking, we'll be able to nuke your nuclear forces enough to degrade your retaliation strike capability to the level when your possible retaliation strike won't cause unacceptable damage." May be China will join this club in few years. May be not.

If Iran say something like: "We are going to conquer Bahrain, and if America determined to stop us, we are going to nuke America", (as Russia said about Ukraine) America can say: "Ok. If you nuke America - America will suffer some damage, but then we'll nuke you, and you won't survive." (And America can't say it about Russia, because Russia can destroy most of American nukes in her first counter-force strike).
Defending Bahrain (and the whole Middle East) may be worth the risk of losing few cities.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They will do the very same things as France, Britain, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. They say: "If you attack us, we'll attack your civilians, and you'll suffer significant damage". And usually it enough to prevent meaningless agression (like if POTUS just want to distract his people from another Epstain files) or for some minimal economic reasons.


In every conflict we should blame at least two sides. For Middle East those sides are Israel and America.


Ayatollahs also can use nukes only to prevent direct and existential threat.
With lesser than few hundred nukes, they won't have Deterrence Type II capability. How many Iranian nukes will survive first American counter-force strike? May be, few dozens. Most of them America will be able to intercept. And if Iran, say, attack Bahrain or Saidies (say nothing about Israel), America may decide that 50/50 risk of losing few American cities worth protecting Saudies and Bahrain.


Both Israel and Iran can use minimal number of nukes only in one possible way - as counter-value retaliation strike against existential threat.

There is only two countries on the planet, who posses Deterrence Type II (multi-stability) capability. Only Russia and America can say (to each other) something like: "If you do something extremely provoking, we'll be able to nuke your nuclear forces enough to degrade your retaliation strike capability to the level when your possible retaliation strike won't cause unacceptable damage." May be China will join this club in few years. May be not.

If Iran say something like: "We are going to conquer Bahrain, and if America determined to stop us, we are going to nuke America", (as Russia said about Ukraine) America can say: "Ok. If you nuke America - America will suffer some damage, but then we'll nuke you, and you won't survive." (And America can't say it about Russia, because Russia can destroy most of American nukes in her first counter-force strike).
Defending Bahrain (and the whole Middle East) may be worth the risk of losing few cities.

Israel and America and the UK and France, and even Russia have policies of not using nukes unless they face an existential threat but you are advocating using nukes in support of imperialism and that is terrorism and that is precisely why the ayatollahs will not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.