US has the power to prevent entities from developing nukes. Itâs reasonable for them to use it, wonât you say?
Discussion
US reserves the right to first strike; Russia claims a second-strike posture but allows first use if the state is threatened.
I still donât 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 ...đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
But it most definitely does matter as we saw todayâŚ
Lmao you think bunker busters can penetrate military grade bunker made of concrete 8 mts thick and 8meters below mountain? Cute
I donât know. But it seems like you know. Youâre a military expert?
"Youâre a military expert?"
Lmao apparently it just takes a Twitter account and zero conscience. Youâre halfway there, General Clownissimo.
What exactly are you saying? Be more specific. That the nuclear capability of Iran hasnât been damaged? That US doesnât have the capability to damage Iran nuclear capabilities in general?
Letâs break it down, General Clownissimo:
1. Iran's nuclear program is decentralized
Itâs not one bunker, itâs 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 canât touch it.
2. You canât bomb knowledge
Nuclear capability isnât hardware â itâs scientific know-how. Iran has thousands of trained physicists and engineers.
Even if you vaporized every centrifuge tomorrow, theyâd rebuild in months, angrier and more justified than ever.
3. US tried this already â didnât work
Israel assassinated scientists. US cyberattacked with Stuxnet. Still didnât stop enrichment.
Every strike only strengthened Iranâs resolve, popular support for the program, and regional alliances against the US.
4. Iran is now backed by a multipolar alliance
China, Russia, BRICS â all tacitly or openly support Iranâs 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 donât buy it anymore. Morally bankrupt warmongering doesn't buy air supremacy in 2025.
---
TL;DR:
You canât 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 itâs necessary.
the nuclear capability of Iran hasnât been damaged? Thatâs 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 wonât even seek nuclear weapons
I would say fuck around and find out đ¤ˇ
As of mid-2025:
â No â the U.S. does not yet have fully operational hypersonic weapons deployed at scale.
â But â itâs developing them aggressively:
Programs in progress:
ARRW (Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon) â Cancelled after failed tests.
Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) â Navyâs submarine-launched hypersonic missile, still in testing.
LRHW (Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon) â Army program, expected fielding soon but still behind schedule.
đ 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
đ§ 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. doesnât have them deployed yet â China and Russia are ahead. But Washingtonâs scrambling to catch up, with multiple programs in development and fielding likely within 1â2 years.
I have the power to gouge someone's eyes. Is it reasonable for me to use that power?
I donât 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. Thatâs 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 wonât escalate in a bad way. For now, it seems like Iran doesnât have the capacity to retaliate and nor its allies want to.