Well Russia has nukes... you don't see them strategizing to hit Russia🤷
Discussion
Russia *already* has nukes. Iran doesn’t. What is your logic exactly? Should every country be allowed to develop nukes?
Who the fuck yous to decide ? #PermissionLessWorld
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?
The US has no moral authority to decide who has nukes.
Why not? Who decides who has moral authority?
Building nukes is not moral. Therefore the US has no moral authority. Pick another reason for why the US is justified in bombing yet another country.
I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong with building nukes per se. The fact that the U.S. has nukes simply disproves that their original stated pretext for these attacks had any validity or solid principle whatsoever.
I like your gun analogy however I think it doesn't fully transfer. Nation states in my opinion are immoral and nukes are their progeny. Morality is pretty subjective, but building things that serve no real purpose except to turn the planet into an uninhabitable moonscape seems to be a reasonable line to draw when considering what is moral.
Is that the purpose they serve? Purpose is subjective, isn't it? Natural law is objective. And by that, objectively, yes, nation states are immoral, and everything they own, they own illegitimately and will weild toward the destruction of what is good, including nukes.
Nukes kill people not zombies
Just for fun, y'know? By the way, I don't think they could use nukes because they just make the air a murderer, except for the rotten ones. But we have opinions, don't we?
What’s immoral is lying about their existence.
“Building nukes is not moral” - According to who?
They already used nukes and turned a bunch of Japanese into not-people
Yes. It also led to ending the war. It’s complex. Try to understand that there are complexities in those things. There are complexities in war
It did not end any war. The purpose of US entering the war at the end when Germany was being defeated by the Russian winter and Japan had no (oil) resources was to establish an empire, complete with a simplistic "good defeats evil" fairy tale.
what were the effects of nuking Japan on the war in your opinion? It had none?
The war was already over before that
As far as I know Japan surrendered after the nuking.
If you understand the passage of time, that also implies they surrendered after the war was over, which makes sense given how dedicated they were to never surrendering
Simplify it for me. your claim is that the nuking had no effects on the war whatsoever?
"War was already over" doesn't have much room left for simplification dawg, I don't even see what word can be removed anymore without losing the meaning
How do you infer when exactly the war was over. Share your process of thinking. Most people understood that Japan surrendered only after they declared it. Maybe you are smarter though.
Nothing like mass wiping civilians off the earth to end a war. Worked like a charm 🎁
It did though 🤷♂️
Maybe try suggesting your ideas of better ways for ending a war next time
Japan had no resources to continue the war. The US was the major supplier of oil globally at the time, all they had to do was cut off Japan, which they never did though. The war ended with Hitler's army spread thin and freezing to death in the Russian winter, just like Napoleon's a century earlier.
Japan was never a threat to the US. If you read well documented history outside of the Western indoctrination school system, you will see that Pearl Harbor was a 9/11 to galvanize the American population into the late entry into the war, getting thousands of Americans killed and maimed in the process. It's the OG not-their-war that they butted into for the usual spoils of money and power, not muh democracy.
Explain it to me simply. How should America have responded to Pearl Harbor?
By evacuating civilians fast enough to save them all, killing the American "war profiteers" who caused the pearl harbor attack, and allowing Japan to receive oil again
Interesting strategy. I prefer the one that pursues stopping dictatorial murderous regimes though🤷♂️
That should be a separate project, not a response to an attack you provoked, dumbass
Provoked is barely even the right word, more like engineered
Said who?
Sanity
Well. I don’t see it that way. Maybe you should go live with people who share this kind of sanity
That's the plan, Digit willing 🙏
Cool. I’ll keep pursue stopping dictatorial murderous regimes. Like we did today in Iran.
Oh, we'll still be trying to kill you, just because we get our own land doesn't mean we let you kill us
Just don’t develop nukes and chant death to America and we won’t try to kill you
You are already trying to kill me. Stop lying about it and earn a place among the survivors of what you've done if you don't want to die
If you’re developing nukes while chanting death to the west then I am already trying to kill you
Didn't ask
Try again
Wasn't trying to ask
I know. We are beyond your intellectual capabilities right now.
Nope
Take it easy. Read it slow. Your tiny ego is too invested to allow you to think clearly right now.
Already answered
Yes. You have. As intelligently as you can. Which is not that much unfortunately
Do better
Nice one. Keep it coming
How are you doing today anyway? Did you get the news?
Ok. I’ll leave you be. You did have some bad news today
No bad news so far today
Good. Glad you are also happy to see Iran nuclear capabilities being damaged
No news on Iran war since last night
You suck at knowing stuff
Oh. Share the news from last night then
Yes, and it's a good wager that if nukes fly, they will be launched by trigger-happy USA before anyone else. USA has the biggest precedent of bombing people and using nukes on people. And even now, there are commanders within the ranks that believe they can "win" a nuclear war as long as USA initiates it. I can provide sources.
No one does really. It's another case of gun control.
"What are you insane? They have nuclear weapons!"
Of course not, they have nukes.