UN watchdog group says US strike on Iran fell short of destroying core nuclear capabilities

[hadit]

Trump said Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated.’ So why is he looking to strike again?​

8 months means he didn’t totally obliterate anything. We were right. You wrong again. But that won’t stop you

If he didn't, why didn't Iran strike us with their mighty sword? Are you not acknowledging that they had something to obliterate?

 

[sealybobo]

If he didn't, why didn't Iran strike us with their mighty sword? Are you not acknowledging that they had something to obliterate?

Oh stop. All I remember is last year we argued that Trump lied when he told us he "totally obliterated" iran's nuke capabilities. You guys said you set them back years. We called bullshit. You guys seemed to suggest we were being unpatriotic by not going along with Bush's, I mean Trump's lies.

See where this is headed? Seems just like when Bush lied us into Iraq. Now it's Iran. And Canada and Great Britain will NOT be going along this time. Can we do it with just Poland? Are you idiots sure? Because it seems like you guys are doing the exact opposite of what the American people want.

 

[hadit]

Oh stop. All I remember is last year we argued that Trump lied when he told us he "totally obliterated" iran's nuke capabilities. You guys said you set them back years. We called bullshit. You guys seemed to suggest we were being unpatriotic by not going along with Bush's, I mean Trump's lies.

Which means you accept that they did have and continue to have nuclear capabilities. Should those be destroyed?

See where this is headed? Seems just like when Bush lied us into Iraq. Now it's Iran. And Canada and Great Britain will NOT be going along this time. Can we do it with just Poland? Are you idiots sure? Because it seems like you guys are doing the exact opposite of what the American people want.

Sounds like something you should ask about in the next meeting.

 

[sealybobo]

Which means you accept that they did have and continue to have nuclear capabilities. Should those be destroyed?

Sounds like something you should ask about in the next meeting.

No they should not be destroyed. No America should not go to war over this. Let someone else worry about it. Or let them have their nukes. It seems like the only countries we don't bomb or **** with are countries that have nukes. Now I see why Iran wants them. They don't want to be the next Venezuela.

Nothing you say will get me to go along with another war you Republicans want to lie us into.

Send your kids to fight in it please.

 

[hadit]

No they should not be destroyed. No America should not go to war over this. Let someone else worry about it. Or let them have their nukes. It seems like the only countries we don't bomb or **** with are countries that have nukes. Now I see why Iran wants them. They don't want to be the next Venezuela.

Nothing you say will get me to go along with another war you Republicans want to lie us into.

Send your kids to fight in it please.

One thing about allowing nukes to proliferate, it doesn't end well, and I simply don't care if it's fair or not, I don't want our enemies to have them and I want our allies to have them.

 

[sealybobo]

One thing about allowing nukes to proliferate, it doesn't end well, and I simply don't care if it's fair or not, I don't want our enemies to have them and I want our allies to have them.

Well they don't want us to have them either. I don't like China having them.

Do you want North Korea to have them? What cha gonna do about it?

Did you hear that when AI is asked to play war games it launches nukes 95% of the time?

So we should ban AI.

AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher​

Remember Chaney said even if there is a 1% chance Saddam has nukes? Well then I guess we better slow down on the AI because there's a 95% chance they'll destroy the human race.


Did you know that any civilized species that has nukes has a 99% of destroying itself in 10,000 years?

The probability of a nuclear-armed civilization destroying itself within 10,000 years is high due to the cumulative nature of low-probability risks over long timeframes. While a total extinction-level event is considered relatively unlikely (estimated at

), a catastrophic collapse of modern civilization from nuclear war is considered a significant, long-term risk.

• Cumulative Probability: Over 10,000 years, even low-probability events (like a nuclear war) become almost inevitable.
• Existential Threat Levels: Estimates suggest a 20–50% chance of a major nuclear event within the next 100 years, and while the chance of total human extinction is lower (
  
  ), the risk of civilization-ending collapse is non-zero.
• Weapon Capacity: While current arsenals are significantly reduced from Cold War peaks, they still hold enough power to cause global, long-term climatic and societal disruption.
• Survival Factors: Some analysts suggest that while nuclear war might not result in complete human extinction, it could destroy industrial civilization, with only certain, isolated, or well-prepared nations surviving, as mentioned in discussions on Brussels Morning Newspaper.
  Wikipedia +5

Although some analyses suggest that a total, extinction-level event is not the most likely outcome, the 10,000-year timeframe represents an extremely long period for a technological society to manage the risks of its own advanced weaponry without a catastrophic, potentially civilization-ending, incident.
80,000 Hours +1

• Problem profiles: Nuclear weapons | 80,000 Hours
  Jun 14, 2024 — We think the chance of a nuclear war in the next 100 years is something like 20–50%. Estimates of the existential risk from nuclea...
  
  80,000 Hours
  
  
  
  
• Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction - LessWrong
  Nov 7, 2020 — Extinction Unlikely: A full-scale nuclear exchange is unlikely (estimated at <1%) to cause human extinction, based on analysis of ...
  

 

[hadit]

Well they don't want us to have them either. I don't like China having them.

Do you want North Korea to have them? What cha gonna do about it?

Did you hear that when AI is asked to play war games it launches nukes 95% of the time?

So we should ban AI.

AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher​

Remember Chaney said even if there is a 1% chance Saddam has nukes? Well then I guess we better slow down on the AI because there's a 95% chance they'll destroy the human race.


Did you know that any civilized species that has nukes has a 99% of destroying itself in 10,000 years?

The probability of a nuclear-armed civilization destroying itself within 10,000 years is high due to the cumulative nature of low-probability risks over long timeframes. While a total extinction-level event is considered relatively unlikely (estimated at

), a catastrophic collapse of modern civilization from nuclear war is considered a significant, long-term risk.

• Cumulative Probability: Over 10,000 years, even low-probability events (like a nuclear war) become almost inevitable.
• Existential Threat Levels: Estimates suggest a 20–50% chance of a major nuclear event within the next 100 years, and while the chance of total human extinction is lower (
  
  ), the risk of civilization-ending collapse is non-zero.
• Weapon Capacity: While current arsenals are significantly reduced from Cold War peaks, they still hold enough power to cause global, long-term climatic and societal disruption.
• Survival Factors: Some analysts suggest that while nuclear war might not result in complete human extinction, it could destroy industrial civilization, with only certain, isolated, or well-prepared nations surviving, as mentioned in discussions on Brussels Morning Newspaper.
  Wikipedia +5

Although some analyses suggest that a total, extinction-level event is not the most likely outcome, the 10,000-year timeframe represents an extremely long period for a technological society to manage the risks of its own advanced weaponry without a catastrophic, potentially civilization-ending, incident.
80,000 Hours +1

• Problem profiles: Nuclear weapons | 80,000 Hours
  Jun 14, 2024 — We think the chance of a nuclear war in the next 100 years is something like 20–50%. Estimates of the existential risk from nuclea...
  
  80,000 Hours
  
  
  
  
• Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction - LessWrong
  Nov 7, 2020 — Extinction Unlikely: A full-scale nuclear exchange is unlikely (estimated at <1%) to cause human extinction, based on analysis of ...

My cynical side expects nukes to be used at some point, I think it's inevitable. Until that day, however, I want the fewest nations possible to have them, especially nations that are hostile to us. So no, I don't want Iran or NK to have them.

 

[sealybobo]

My cynical side expects nukes to be used at some point, I think it's inevitable. Until that day, however, I want the fewest nations possible to have them, especially nations that are hostile to us. So no, I don't want Iran or NK to have them.

Well no shit but you want another Iraq war? Remember we had SOME allies helping us back then. No one will help us today. So boots on the ground?

At least Bush sold us on going to war and went to Congress and fooled Hillary into signing on. Trump hasn't done NONE of that.

 

[hadit]

Well no shit but you want another Iraq war? Remember we had SOME allies helping us back then. No one will help us today. So boots on the ground?

At least Bush sold us on going to war and went to Congress and fooled Hillary into signing on. Trump hasn't done NONE of that.

Yeah, that was a bipartisan effort, for sure. The democrats looked like idiots trying to campaign against it after voting for it.

And TRUMP!'s not likely to go to Congress, as the democrats have so poisoned the atmosphere that I would not be surprised they would vote in unison to surrender if we were invaded if TRUMP! wanted to use the military for protection. Orange Man Bad and TDS are deadly afflictions.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, that was a bipartisan effort, for sure. The democrats looked like idiots trying to campaign against it after voting for it.

And TRUMP!'s not likely to go to Congress, as the democrats have so poisoned the atmosphere that I would not be surprised they would vote in unison to surrender if we were invaded if TRUMP! wanted to use the military for protection. Orange Man Bad and TDS are deadly afflictions.

No Bush lied to us all. Even I wanted to go kick Saddams ass for 9-11. Oh wait. That was propaganda. He had nothing to do with 9-11. But they suggested he did. THey lied just like Trump said when he was a common sense Democrat. Before a black man won the presidency and sent him to a rage. He said "if a black man can be POTUS so can I". And damn it he did it. Through the GOP first because you all knew Bush lied us into Iraq. That's why you didn't like Jeb remember? I do.

 

[hadit]

No Bush lied to us all. Even I wanted to go kick Saddams ass for 9-11. Oh wait. That was propaganda. He had nothing to do with 9-11. But they suggested he did. THey lied just like Trump said when he was a common sense Democrat. Before a black man won the presidency and sent him to a rage. He said "if a black man can be POTUS so can I". And damn it he did it. Through the GOP first because you all knew Bush lied us into Iraq. That's why you didn't like Jeb remember? I do.

I wasn't worried about Jeb. He never did anything to hurt me.

 

[sealybobo]

I wasn't worried about Jeb. He never did anything to hurt me.

No his brother did. And you could finally admit it by going with Trump the outsider.

Don't forget Trump first took over the GOP. Our only mistake was running Hillary against him. Then Kamala. The only two people he could beat. Women. Piggies.

For example, look how Americans feel about women. The women's hockey team, Trump HAS TO BEGRUDGINGLY invite them to the White House. Not that he wants to. If he doesn't invite them too, he'll get impeached. He really wanted the boys to come. But not the gals. That's our mistake running a woman. TWICE. America is not ready for that.

Gavin Newsom in 2028 Vs JD Vance or Rubio.

During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Senator Marco Rubio fiercely attacked Donald Trump, calling him a "con artist" and a "con man" who should not be allowed to take over the Republican Party

• "We are not going to turn over the conservative movement to a con artist, who is telling people one thing but has spent 40 years sticking it to working Americans and now claims to be their champion." — February 26, 2016
• "We're going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and the presidency of the United States, will never be held by a con artist." — March 1, 2016
• "Friends do not let friends vote for con artists." — February 26, 2016
• "I will make this promise to you today... Donald Trump, a con artist, will never get control of this party." — February 27, 2016

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My cynical side expects nukes to be used at some point, I think it's inevitable. Until that day, however, I want the fewest nations possible to have them, especially nations that are hostile to us. So no, I don't want Iran or NK to have them.

Israel might try too pop off a nuke in the middle of all the chaos.

Hopefully, the Aliens Trump mentioned will intervene and mindmeld common sense into our awful, Satanic, inhumane world "leaders"

 

[hadit]

No his brother did. And you could finally admit it by going with Trump the outsider.

Don't forget Trump first took over the GOP. Our only mistake was running Hillary against him. Then Kamala. The only two people he could beat. Women. Piggies.

For example, look how Americans feel about women. The women's hockey team, Trump HAS TO BEGRUDGINGLY invite them to the White House. Not that he wants to. If he doesn't invite them too, he'll get impeached. He really wanted the boys to come. But not the gals. That's our mistake running a woman. TWICE. America is not ready for that.

Actually, America is ready for a female president. What America is NOT ready for yet are:

1. A shrieking harridan that sounds like every guys' ex.
2. An incompetent giggling buffoon that can't answer a simple question without extensive preparation.

Gavin Newsom in 2028 Vs JD Vance or Rubio.

Hair gel guy? I don't see him doing much better than Cackles did. He might be the best you guys can come up with, but he's not a serious candidate. BTW, have you gotten your walking orders yet for how to hate on JD in '28? It's going to be a little difficult to pivot on a dime and suddenly discover that he's even more evil than Orange Man after decades of being instructed to vomit bile in his general direction.

During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Senator Marco Rubio fiercely attacked Donald Trump, calling him a "con artist" and a "con man" who should not be allowed to take over the Republican Party

• "We are not going to turn over the conservative movement to a con artist, who is telling people one thing but has spent 40 years sticking it to working Americans and now claims to be their champion." — February 26, 2016
• "We're going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and the presidency of the United States, will never be held by a con artist." — March 1, 2016
• "Friends do not let friends vote for con artists." — February 26, 2016
• "I will make this promise to you today... Donald Trump, a con artist, will never get control of this party." — February 27, 2016

I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is common for candidates to attack each other like cornered wombats in the primaries. Do we need to be reminded of how Kamala went after the racist Quid Pro Joe, only to be picked as his VP? Or be reminded of how Obama held Quid Pro Joe in contempt but still picked him as his VP?

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, America is ready for a female president. What America is NOT ready for yet are:

1. A shrieking harridan that sounds like every guys' ex.
2. An incompetent giggling buffoon that can't answer a simple question without extensive preparation.

Hair gel guy? I don't see him doing much better than Cackles did. He might be the best you guys can come up with, but he's not a serious candidate. BTW, have you gotten your walking orders yet for how to hate on JD in '28? It's going to be a little difficult to pivot on a dime and suddenly discover that he's even more evil than Orange Man after decades of being instructed to vomit bile in his general direction.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is common for candidates to attack each other like cornered wombats in the primaries. Do we need to be reminded of how Kamala went after the racist Quid Pro Joe, only to be picked as his VP? Or be reminded of how Obama held Quid Pro Joe in contempt but still picked him as his VP?

JD Vance once compared Trump to Hitler. Now, he is Trump's vice president-elect​

Isn't Trump murdering Americans with his secret service? Faceless untrained goons?

Didn't he arrest someone for just standing up at his State of the union? OMG what hypocrites. They yelled and walked out of Obama and Biden's sotu speeches. Now you have to be nice to the King or he will throw you in jail?

You guys are ******* nuts. Nothing you can say to me. Piss off notsee.

 

[hadit]

JD Vance once compared Trump to Hitler. Now, he is Trump's vice president-elect​

Isn't Trump murdering Americans with his secret service? Faceless untrained goons?

Didn't he arrest someone for just standing up at his State of the union? OMG what hypocrites. They yelled and walked out of Obama and Biden's sotu speeches. Now you have to be nice to the King or he will throw you in jail?

You guys are ******* nuts. Nothing you can say to me. Piss off notsee.

Like I said, if you're going to attack the big guy, you'd better kill him. You failed and only ticked him off. I predicted this in his first term, that he would come back on you, but you didn't listen.