d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Iran War Soon?
Prev15859606162143Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 12 2026 11:40am
I can only explain the definitions and meanings of these words I can't understand them for you.

But I agree the USA is responsible and needs bear a measure of accountability. Instead of double down on incompetence narrative.


Or even for yourself, obviously.
Member
Posts: 92,902
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 12 2026 11:42am
The fact that your prediction includes a time span of 5-10 years is, I think, optimistic.

Regime change would be great. No one rational disputes that's absolutely ideal.

But the bare minimum accomplishment is setting their nuclear weapons program back years. If you think it's reasonable to leave them within weeks or months of developing nuclear weapons, you are insane.


we already did that, we bombed the nuclear refining sites. that was over. done. and if they restarted we could have done it again.

so why are we at war again? or that's right, they pivoted so quickly from nuclear weapons to ballistic missile stockpiles that you apparently didnt even notice. the regime change war we're in right now isn't about nuclear arms, per the white house themselves and Israeli govt. its about the missiles they have. so we bombed them to goad them into launching missiles at Israel and all of our ME allies, so that we can expend 5 interceptors to shoot down every 1 missile. which we're rapidly depleting.

nothing about my post said regime change is bad, or that i dispute it. its about 2 other more important things. cost to accomplish it, and likelihood we're successful. one is high, the other is low. take a guess which is which.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 12 2026 11:43am
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 12 2026 11:50am
we already did that, we bombed the nuclear refining sites. that was over. done. and if they restarted we could have done it again.

so why are we at war again? or that's right, they pivoted so quickly from nuclear weapons to ballistic missile stockpiles that you apparently didnt even notice. the regime change war we're in right now isn't about nuclear arms, per the white house themselves and Israeli govt. its about the missiles they have. so we bombed them to goad them into launching missiles at Israel and all of our ME allies, so that we can expend 5 interceptors to shoot down every 1 missile. which we're rapidly depleting.

nothing about my post said regime change is bad, or that i dispute it. its about 2 other more important things. cost to accomplish it, and likelihood we're successful. one is high, the other is low. take a guess which is which.


What makes you think that's done?

That's not a rhetorical question.

What information do you have that suggests that their stockpile of HEU was destroyed to the point of being impossible to salvage?

Have all of their centrifuges been damaged irreparably?

Are they out of UF6?
Member
Posts: 92,902
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 12 2026 11:55am
What makes you think that's done?

That's not a rhetorical question.

What information do you have that suggests that their stockpile of HEU was destroyed to the point of being impossible to salvage?

Have all of their centrifuges been damaged irreparably?

Are they out of UF6?


the end result of this logic is "we can only confirm if we invade and turn over every last stone in the country to check".

we knew where the main sites were, we bombed them into nonfunctioning condition, and could do the same again at any time with a B2.

can i say that we have 100% without a doubt stopped them forever? of course not. but it's moot, the whitehouse and israel aren't even harping on the nuclear aspect anymore. they want all the missiles gone, and they want a new leader. not to prevent any future nuclear creation, but for it's own sake. 1 bombing run with a B2 was dirt cheap compared to even a single day of intercepting missiles.
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 12 2026 12:01pm
the end result of this logic is "we can only confirm if we invade and turn over every last stone in the country to check".

we knew where the main sites were, we bombed them into nonfunctioning condition, and could do the same again at any time with a B2.

can i say that we have 100% without a doubt stopped them forever? of course not. but it's moot, the whitehouse and israel aren't even harping on the nuclear aspect anymore. they want all the missiles gone, and they want a new leader. not to prevent any future nuclear creation, but for it's own sake. 1 bombing run with a B2 was dirt cheap compared to even a single day of intercepting missiles.


If we leave them close to creating nuclear weapons it is not moot.

We bombed their enrichment sites into a currently non-functioning state. I agree with that.

It is entirely possible(and most likely the case) that a few months of digging and repairs will see some of those centrifuges running again, and it is almost certainly the case that all or almost all of the HEU they already had at near weapons grade is salvageable.

You're relying on an intelligence service you just pointed out is far from perfect to be perfect in this instance.
Member
Posts: 92,902
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 12 2026 12:13pm
If we leave them close to creating nuclear weapons it is not moot.

We bombed their enrichment sites into a currently non-functioning state. I agree with that.

It is entirely possible(and most likely the case) that a few months of digging and repairs will see some of those centrifuges running again, and it is almost certainly the case that all or almost all of the HEU they already had at near weapons grade is salvageable.

You're relying on an intelligence service you just pointed out is far from perfect to be perfect in this instance.


you've been doing this thing for a month or so now where you agree with me that Iran wanted a near-weapons grade level of enriched Uranium, as a deterrent. then at other times you state they want a nuke made from far more enriched uranium.

which is your honest opinion? did the pre-war Iran want a nuke? or near weapons grade deterrent uranium? now, in present time, they would love a nuke. it would stop the war in an instant. so unless we prevail and completely change the regime they're almost certainly racing to a nuke.
Member
Posts: 17,031
Joined: Jan 29 2007
Gold: 6,316.32
Mar 12 2026 12:31pm
you've been doing this thing for a month or so now where you agree with me that Iran wanted a near-weapons grade level of enriched Uranium, as a deterrent. then at other times you state they want a nuke made from far more enriched uranium.

which is your honest opinion? did the pre-war Iran want a nuke? or near weapons grade deterrent uranium? now, in present time, they would love a nuke. it would stop the war in an instant. so unless we prevail and completely change the regime they're almost certainly racing to a nuke.


That could be or could not be true...If they had a nuke Israel would act like a scared cop and fire first ...Even if just holding a phone instead of a gun... Israel would start a nuclear war ? I think Iran knows this is why they never had a nuclear weapon program all these years...But now a son from a assassinated farther/spiritual leader is the new boss. Who knows what he is going to do? A complete unknown With reasons to act in revenge, and desperation as if fighting satan.. A fanatic calling hiss sheep to go all out? or still holding onto hope there is some kind of deal to be made?
They probably tired of that sword hanging over their head?
Regime in I ran getting stronger while rest of the middle east regimes getting weaker? The ones we count on for bases and such are the regimes getting hurt by Trump's actions?>


This post was edited by doomchaser on Mar 12 2026 12:43pm
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 12 2026 12:51pm
you've been doing this thing for a month or so now where you agree with me that Iran wanted a near-weapons grade level of enriched Uranium, as a deterrent. then at other times you state they want a nuke made from far more enriched uranium.

which is your honest opinion? did the pre-war Iran want a nuke? or near weapons grade deterrent uranium? now, in present time, they would love a nuke. it would stop the war in an instant. so unless we prevail and completely change the regime they're almost certainly racing to a nuke.


Yes, obviously they always wanted nuclear weapons.

They thought pushing past 60% would trigger an immediate and overwhelming attack. They thought building a stockpile of near weapons grade uranium would serve as a deterrent and give them the option of acquiring nuclear weapons very quickly whenever the opportunity arose.
Member
Posts: 92,902
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Mar 12 2026 01:01pm
Yes, obviously they always wanted nuclear weapons.

They thought pushing past 60% would trigger an immediate and overwhelming attack. They thought building a stockpile of near weapons grade uranium would serve as a deterrent and give them the option of acquiring nuclear weapons very quickly whenever the opportunity arose.


so to summarize, they wanted one (who wouldn't), but knew if they pushed towards one they'd get attacked. so they pushed towards 60%, intending to stay at 60%, unless an attack was imminent, at which point they'd try and get to full power.

so we attacked them, giving them the motivation to go to a full nuclear warhead. and the previous tactic of embargo, sanction, isolate. which was starting to cause internal protests in the country, is now impossible. we can never negotiate ever again with the current regime. and internal protests are basically done, we've galvanized centrists behind the regime because we just blew up shit all over the country (including schools) give the regime the best PR win in decades.

its almost like Net and Yahoo knew this would happen when he asked us to use the B2. bomb the nuke sites, claim we cant say if they're done, so we must bomb more, then invade. the B2 was a massive mistake, there was no off ramp from that point. when i stated that months ago i was called an alarmist and told this is a 3 day war, by idiots. you seem to realize its a decades long project, at best. there we agree. i just lean more towards it being not a project, but another utter failure akin to Iraq and Afghanistan. we'll get nothing, spend trillions, and wont even topple the regime.
Member
Posts: 17,253
Joined: Dec 5 2007
Gold: 2,087.80
Mar 12 2026 01:13pm
so to summarize, they wanted one (who wouldn't), but knew if they pushed towards one they'd get attacked. so they pushed towards 60%, intending to stay at 60%, unless an attack was imminent, at which point they'd try and get to full power.

so we attacked them, giving them the motivation to go to a full nuclear warhead. and the previous tactic of embargo, sanction, isolate. which was starting to cause internal protests in the country, is now impossible. we can never negotiate ever again with the current regime. and internal protests are basically done, we've galvanized centrists behind the regime because we just blew up shit all over the country (including schools) give the regime the best PR win in decades.

its almost like Net and Yahoo knew this would happen when he asked us to use the B2. bomb the nuke sites, claim we cant say if they're done, so we must bomb more, then invade. the B2 was a massive mistake, there was no off ramp from that point. when i stated that months ago i was called an alarmist and told this is a 3 day war, by idiots. you seem to realize its a decades long project, at best. there we agree. i just lean more towards it being not a project, but another utter failure akin to Iraq and Afghanistan. we'll get nothing, spend trillions, and wont even topple the regime.


No, it's more likely they would have pushed to weapons grade at their earliest opportunity--that is, when they thought America was too busy solving some other crisis to notice/react in time.

I think you are seriously misinformed about how close 60% enriched uranium is to weapons grade on account of you said "at other times you state they want a nuke made from far more enriched uranium"

At 60% enrichment over 95% of the work is already done. That's not an exaggeration, it's actually a lot over 95% done.

They were ready to make ten nuclear bombs the moment we let our guard down. Are you seriously here to say we should have allowed that to go on indefinitely?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev15859606162143Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll