Who the fuck yous to decide ? #PermissionLessWorld
Discussion
Whoever has the power?
Xatly start counting nukes 💀☠️💀
US has the power to prevent entities from developing nukes. It’s reasonable for them to use it, won’t you say?
US reserves the right to first strike; Russia claims a second-strike posture but allows first use if the state is threatened.
I still don’t know what you suggest. You suggest US just allow anyone to develop nukes?
I don't think it matters if US don't like it lol ...🤣🤣🤣
But it most definitely does matter as we saw today…
Lmao you think bunker busters can penetrate military grade bunker made of concrete 8 mts thick and 8meters below mountain? Cute
I don’t know. But it seems like you know. You’re a military expert?
"You’re a military expert?"
Lmao apparently it just takes a Twitter account and zero conscience. You’re halfway there, General Clownissimo.
What exactly are you saying? Be more specific. That the nuclear capability of Iran hasn’t been damaged? That US doesn’t have the capability to damage Iran nuclear capabilities in general?
Let’s break it down, General Clownissimo:
1. Iran's nuclear program is decentralized
It’s not one bunker, it’s dozens of sites, some public, some deeply underground, some mobile.
Fordow? Buried under 80 meters of rock and reinforced concrete, deep inside a mountain. Bunker busters can’t touch it.
2. You can’t bomb knowledge
Nuclear capability isn’t hardware — it’s scientific know-how. Iran has thousands of trained physicists and engineers.
Even if you vaporized every centrifuge tomorrow, they’d rebuild in months, angrier and more justified than ever.
3. US tried this already — didn’t work
Israel assassinated scientists. US cyberattacked with Stuxnet. Still didn’t stop enrichment.
Every strike only strengthened Iran’s resolve, popular support for the program, and regional alliances against the US.
4. Iran is now backed by a multipolar alliance
China, Russia, BRICS — all tacitly or openly support Iran’s strategic autonomy.
Any serious strike could trigger multi-front escalation far beyond what the Pentagon PR team can clean up.
5. No moral legitimacy = no strategic victory
The US nuked civilians in WWII, funded WMD lies in Iraq, and now cries about nukes in Iran?
Even allies don’t buy it anymore. Morally bankrupt warmongering doesn't buy air supremacy in 2025.
---
TL;DR:
You can’t bomb a distributed, ideologically-fortified, knowledge-based nuclear program without becoming the exact villain you claim to stop.
You can only accelerate its success by proving why it’s necessary.
the nuclear capability of Iran hasn’t been damaged? That’s what you are saying?
It seems to me that they are further away from nuclear weapons than they were two weeks ago. And if Israel and US will also bring down the regime then maybe there is also the possibility that new Iranian regime won’t even seek nuclear weapons
I would say fuck around and find out 🤷
As of mid-2025:
❌ No — the U.S. does not yet have fully operational hypersonic weapons deployed at scale.
✅ But — it’s developing them aggressively:
Programs in progress:
ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon) – Cancelled after failed tests.
Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) – Navy’s submarine-launched hypersonic missile, still in testing.
LRHW (Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon) – Army program, expected fielding soon but still behind schedule.
🆚 Compare with:
Russia has deployed:
Avangard (intercontinental glide vehicle)
Kinzhal (air-launched hypersonic, used in Ukraine)
China:
Tested DF-ZF (glide vehicle)
Allegedly tested an orbital hypersonic weapon in 2021
🧠 Strategic Note:
Hypersonics matter less for deterrence (which ICBMs already provide) and more for first-strike advantage, conventional surprise, and anti-air/anti-ship roles.
TL;DR:
> No, the U.S. doesn’t have them deployed yet — China and Russia are ahead. But Washington’s scrambling to catch up, with multiple programs in development and fielding likely within 1–2 years.
I have the power to gouge someone's eyes. Is it reasonable for me to use that power?
I don’t know. It depends what you want to achieve.
It is reasonable for US to bomb fordow in regards to what they want to achieve
Then, by your reasoning, it is reasonable for me to claim that you will use your eyes to pinpoint me with a handgun and shoot me or someone else, the instant you develop a handgun (from which you are only two weeks away!) and proceed to gouge out your eyes so to avoid this aggression from you. I could then proudly congratulate myself for keeping the world safe from gun violence from a rogue aggressor like you.
The only point in your favor would be a history of aggression or clear aggressive intent. The tendency to initiate conflicts with weapons. It all hinges on that. And neither the U.S. nor Israel ever demonstrated successfully, never made a case, for why this was true. They just assumed it as a snuck premise.
Further, the Constitution forbids this kind of action from being done without an official declaration of war from Congress, as it is classified in the originally intended language as an act of war. If you have a standard that supersedes the Constitution, which I believe I do, it had better be consistent. The Natural Law provides such a standard. Consent. The American people did not consent to this use of their money.
No. That’s not my reasoning. What do you hope to achieve from gouging someone eyes? What would be the consequences for you for acting like that?
US wants to achieve Iran which is unthreatening to it. Bombing their nuclear sites seems reasonable strategy for achieving that. We yet to see if the situation won’t escalate in a bad way. For now, it seems like Iran doesn’t have the capacity to retaliate and nor its allies want to.
So what exactly you suggest? That US just let anyone who wants to develop nukes?