Is an attack on a overseas US military base an attack on the US?

The issue isn't as cut and dry as some here would like it to be.

Yes, it is. If they've had nuclear plants this long and haven't done what North Korea did, they have religious or other reasons not to.

Tel Aviv is being flattened because Nuttyyahoo was about to lose an election. Nothing more.
 
Yes, it is. If they've had nuclear plants this long and haven't done what North Korea did, they have religious or other reasons not to.

You don't know that and you don't have any reason to know that. Leaderships change. Governments change.

I'll acknowledge that the current government of Iran is unlikely to do it. But again, I don't know that.

If Iran truly has no intention of building nuclear weapons then they should comply with the terms that they agreed to for IAEA oversight.

Nuclear weapons are one of basically a few things that are existential threats to humanity.

Again, it's a FAFO situation.
 
If Iran truly has no intention of building nuclear weapons then they should comply with the terms that they agreed to for IAEA oversight.

They did. According to Gabbard, there was an inspection within the last year.

The only thing that changed anything was Israel.
 
They did. According to Gabbard, there was an inspection within the last year.

The only thing that changed anything was Israel.

The existence of "an inspection" does not satisfy the terms of the IAEA agreement.

The IAEA has had serious warnings and concerns for a while that haven't been addressed. The below Jun 9 article lists them:

The IAEA formally declared Iran in breach on Jun 12. The IAEA does not declare breaches lightly.

 
Last edited:
Nuclear weapons are one of basically a few things that are existential threats to humanity.

Then shouldn't we get rid of our nukes?

It's the law of diminishing returns. Each time another country gets a nuke the benefit of preventing the next one is lessened. Once again the lesson from this is if you don't want to be attacked, get a nuclear weapon.

It's easy to be pro war for us, it's just a video game. At some point that's going to end.
 
Then shouldn't we get rid of our nukes?

1000% yes.

It's the law of diminishing returns. Each time another country gets a nuke the benefit of preventing the next one is lessened. Once again the lesson from this is if you don't want to be attacked, get a nuclear weapon.

Yes it is a very slippery slope which is why it has to be taken seriously.

It's easy to be pro war for us, it's just a video game. At some point that's going to end.

It's either war now or war later. But it's a lot more manageable to do it now.

I would never ask anyone to fight or fund a war they don't believe in. But I can also be glad there is a volunteer based military willing to take up this cause.
 
1000% yes.



Yes it is a very slippery slope which is why it has to be taken seriously.



It's either war now or war later. But it's a lot more manageable to do it now.

I would never ask anyone to fight or fund a war they don't believe in. But I can also be glad there is a volunteer based military willing to take up this cause.
I agree it's a tricky question but I suppose if the US gets rid of it's nukes, then we'd have some standing in forcing others to do the same. The problem is we're not doing that, and in fact the only country in the middle east that has nukes is Israel and we're helping them.

Maybe we should make a deal with Israel. Join the non-proliferation treaty and we'll force Iran to do the same.
 
It is, but we did nothing the last time they launched missles at our bases.

Don't be so naive that you believe any of this is a "surprise". It's all shared ahead of time through back channels. Iran knew the bombs were coming and moved the uranium. Israel knows when the missles are coming from Iran. We knew the last time when the missles were coming and will know this time. A few empty buildings will get blown up and that would be the end of it.
 
Back
Top