Why should they? There’s no app called “web browser” on the phone. But there may be “Safari” or “Google Chrome”. Do they know what those are?

If you told them “go to <some web address>”, could they do it?

As are apps, as this submission demonstrates. Websites at least have quick methods of recovery by changing domains or servers.

By Apple, because it's Apple that a) refuses to implement advanced PWA features in WebKit and b) refuses to allow apps to use other browser engines.

1. Decent storage API. Last time I checked, there were serious limitations on the amount of storage you can use, especially in iOS

2. Mechanism for the user to save a certain . Analogous to saving and running a .exe and being able to compare the file hashes and run different versions of a file without the app developer's intent. This would include the ability to write and edit web apps from your device.

3. Some way of sending TCP/UDP packets directly, and doing port forwarding through UPnP.

4. Mechanism to run processes in the background, and for inter-app communication.

For example, you could not make a decent bittorrent app as a PWA. This is an example of an app which is prohibited on the app store despite having Apple having no legal basis for doing so.

I've often wondered if it would be possible to make some sort of "PWA Browser" that would give web apps hooks to some of this functionality, but it would probably get banned (There are no real rules on the app store, they can just ban you for whatever they want).

There's also mention of a GPS fallback which doesn't sound like something you could do in a PWA.

As a side note, when Apple finally gets their shit together WebTransport is excellent for most socket like use cases.

Don't get me wrong, I wish this were not the case, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough?

Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.

I see both arguments, but I’m curious what others think

We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.

It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.

[1] https://archive.is/IcLBh

Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.

You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.

It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.

This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use.

Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.

Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.

Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.

If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.

I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.

> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...

It's not a suggestion. It's a well-supported historical fact.

The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.

The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many.

The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context.

  > It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” 

Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.

The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so.

When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own.

Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost.

Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc.

The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons.

But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude.

Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument.

As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs.

I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not choosing random quotes. I chose Eisenhower since I was surprised to learn his opinion on the subject, and actually read the quote out of a paper copy of his autobiography. So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.

Until a few years ago, I believed what I had learned in school - that the bombs were necessary to end the war more quickly, and that they actually saved both American and Japanese lives by hastening the surrender. If invading the home islands was the only way, and if there was a fight to the last person, then that would be a reasonable conclusion.

A few counterarguments I heard over time were not easy to dismiss:

1. Why did the surrender come on August 15th? Since no more bombs arrived after August 9th, what changed? In particular, if the US had more nuclear weapons to use, where was the August 12th bomb, since there was apparently a 3 day cycle. From the perspective of the Japanese military leadership, one explanation would be there were no more ready, so the urgency to surrender before further bombs would be lessened.

2. Why did Operation Meetinghouse (March 10th, 1945) which caused a similar amount of destruction with only conventional weapons not precipitate a surrender?

3. How important were the other reasons to use the weapons, such as: a. Testing out their effectiveness against a real enemy target. Conducting such a test initially seemed hard to believe, but in context of the firebombing of cities in Japan (e.g. Tokyo) and Germany (e.g. Dresden) may have made this test plausible to Allied military leaders. The fact that two different types of bomb were used bolsters the argument that this was in part a test. b. Deterring the Soviet armies from continuing to take territory because they had the conventional means to doing so. In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon. c. Making sure that the huge expense of developing the weapons wasn't "wasted" by not using them against an enemy.

I've read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (which I just re-read now) since it's the most concise yet persuasive argument I've encountered in favor of using atomic weapons to save lives. If I knew of a similar writing making the opposite case, I would share it here. If you know of such a thing, please let me know.

My current understanding of the situation is that the accumulation of damage inflicted against Japan helped cause the leadership to surrender. The proximate tipping point was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. That meant the end of their peace treaty with the Soviets, the foreclosing of the possibility of the Soviets facilitating peace negotiations with the Allies, and increased the likelihood of an invasion of the home islands by the Red Army before an American invasion could happen. This is the event that finally brought the Japanese government to their senses.

I didn't meant to imply I was questioning that he wrote what was quoted and I apologize if I did so. It was just that he was but one person in an excruciatingly complicated political dynamic and neither the United States nor Japan had perfect information. I'm not sure we knew that Japan would surrender, and even so I think we forget the utter insanity of World War II and how that drove nation states to do, what seem like in hindsight, to be crazy things or at least take suboptimal actions. With respect to some of your questions regarding various dates, my understanding is that you can chalk some of that up to the fog of war, lack of instantaneous communication, and more. It takes time to send a message to Washington from the Pacific, etc.

> In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.

I have little doubt that this was a factor (as were other items mentioned), though I don't think it was the primary reason of course - i.e. testing.

Given how absolutely abhorrent the Soviet Union was to become and even today the situation we find ourselves in with a nuclear armed Russia, Churchill and Patton (among others) made sincere, if not perhaps flawed arguments for taking the war immediately to the Soviets but we simply did not have enough nuclear weapons I think at the time.

We didn't know for sure that Communism would fail, although it seems so obvious in hindsight given that it's a failed/flawed ideology. What was it that Teddy Roosevelt said? I don't recall the exact quote but something about the man in the arena. I think that's applicable here. Well, it's applicable to almost all of the wartime decisions that were made. We weren't there. It wasn't my son or daughter dying on some random island in the Pacific. It wasn't me taking a bullet to the chest, or losing an eye, or a leg. How dare I, or anyone else alive today judge the actions of those enduring such horror? An end to the war, by any means possible, seems appropriate to me, however, even if that means as some say unnecessarily killing "innocent" civilians to save American lives. If there were other benefits to using the atomic weapons, so be it.

We're so quick to judge the actions of our leadership at the time, but we shouldn't forget that in the end we came not to conquer but to liberate. And we helped to liberate both Europe and Japan, and of course the Philippines, China, and others from the yolk of despotism. I reject any and all cynical takes to the contrary as useless and corrupt.

> My current understanding...

I largely agree, but want to reiterate that the leadership of Japan wasn't sitting around some conference table saying "oh but please America let us just surrender!". To the very moment of surrender there were hardliners who stood against it. Only when the emperor, with what I have come to understand to be quite a bit of difficulty, issued an end to the war did it finally end. My memory may be incorrect but even after that the Imperial Army, or at least factions of it, wanted to continue to fight. As you mention and I understand currently, there are some historians who have argued that the Japanese did not want to surrender or did not have the political will to do so when the atomic bombs were dropped (assuming the Americans did not have more) but the Soviet invasion was the tipping point. Which I think goes to further show that dropping the bombs on the Japanese wasn't some wonton act of aggression but the United States continuing to take the fight to a determined and dangerous enemy.

I think also with respect to the Soviets, they partially entered the war with Japan for territorial gain and to make sure they had a seat at the table for the negotiation in the Pacific.

> Thank you for your thoughtful reply

Thanks to you as well. I hope I didn't come across too poorly, it's hard to convey over text. I do find it irritating when someone is like "here's a link, here's a quote, go watch this video or read this book" and instead of making a compelling argument for themselves based on what they have learned they want you to spend all of your time arguing with their quote, so you spend a lot of time picking a part a video or an article or something and they don't contribute much to the discussion themselves.

You are an evil and stupid person.

>Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.

No they didn't. They didn't want an unconditional surrender, they had sued for peace multiple times and it was ignored.

So instead of us negotiating with Japanese we completely destroyed two civilian cities to put them in their place.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

- Adm. William Leahy, President Harry Truman’s chief military adviser

"First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "

- Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

So we have the supreme allied commander, commander and chief of the pacific fleet, and the chief military advisor to Truman all on record saying the bomb was not necessary nor really saved American lives.

Then we have people like you on the internet saying otherwise, with no proof.

Really quite the contrast.

Anyway

Many people feel regret over various aspects of World War II, including veterans who only killed enemy soldiers in what was honorable combat against a violent and viscous enemy who attacked them. No reason to think military commanders wouldn’t also express regret over using destructive weapons, even if they would have made the same decision over again. There’s no moral difference between bombing a city and killing civilians and bombing a factory making ordinance and also killing citizens. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of warfare, and in particular Total War. There are no innocents. Unsurprisingly, the West were the only powers that gave even the slightest damn about minimizing civilian casualties. Which is why we are sitting here talking about western actions because we are a moral people by and large. Nobody in the former USSR has any regrets over raping and murdering Germans.

Same commanders ordered many gruesome, albeit necessary military decisions that resulted in the deaths of soldiers, women, and children.

Interestingly you aren’t quoting those who express regret over any number of those other decisions. Why is that?

Find us some quotes of Japanese commanders that survived the war and their regret over their heinous and disgusting acts. If not maybe you can find some Chinese friends or Filipino colleagues (or others) who can enlighten you.

Truman did not regret using the bombs and would have done it again, and as he said “at the snap of my fingers”, despite being sorrowful for the death and destruction caused. His opinion matters more than anyone else’s since it was his decision. And, your random quoting of people like “nuke them all “ Curtis LeMay shows you don’t even know anything about who you are quoting.

QED.

Nothing you've written is an argument or original lol; it's baseless conjecture. It's certainly as original as flat earth perspectives.

Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above? There's nothing affirmative. There's nothing to counter, I can't even being debate anything because it doesn't say _anything_ other than wild claims that are based on pure narrative.

>I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google

All of your posts are well, well, well below just rehashing quotes on Google. Try a little bit harder if you want to even being to critique other people?

Please say something substantive and supportable by evidence. Anything at all.

This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.

There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.

But hey, don't take my word for it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...

* https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912

Oh wait, we did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...

Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.

Otoh, ballistic missiles eventually become a western europe/NATO security issue.

Not exactly sure how close Iran would be to that, but that is an element of the situation.

What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.

Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.

What is the reason to trust Israel, who engaged in subterfuge to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, over Iran?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident

I think Hezbollah has done some truly disgusting things and I have no delusions about the ill deeds of Iran's regime. But I think it's extremely fair to say that Israel is an even more egregious perpetrator of murder, displacement, and apartheid and Iranians have every right and reason to see themselves in solidarity with Palestinians and the people of Lebanon.

I don't think "acts of war" mean much in real statecraft; there's no referee, things are what people say they are and outcomes are determined by military and economic power. But anyone going down that path has to recognize the hole Iran dug for itself here. They didn't have to do any of this.

But the people of Iran, for very obvious reasons, do not like the real leadership of Iran, and Iran does a lot of things just to keep that leadership structure intact.

Finally, and super-importantly: I think HN is just a weird place to have these kinds of discussions, and I'm very sure nobody who's angry at me about my takes on these things know what I actually believe about any of this stuff --- and why should they? What I believe about any of this is immaterial. Like every nerd, I'm motivated to comment when I see something I "know" to be wrong; that's all that's happening on these threads.

In this particular thread, I only appeared because I think the GBU-57 is a very goofy munition. I had previous to last week thought it was like some ultra-explosive "close as you can get to nuclear without being nuclear" kind of weapon. But nope, it's just a normal bomb strapped to a giant anvil. That's weird! Seems HN-y to comment on.

(But now I'm here and I see things like "the SL of Iran has declared nuclear weapons Haram" and, like, I'm not going to let that fly past! But also: not pretending there's anything useful about this discussion. If it's annoying to you, stop engaging! That's what I'm doing.)

I'll preface this by saying I understand fixating on a small detail, and as evidenced by this thread, I readily engage in that. I also think the thing about the fatwa against nuclear weapons is a little silly, it seems like there are incredibly obvious, rational reasons for Iran to want a nuclear arsenal.

To back up to Oct 2024 (to make a different point, I'm not trying to take us further down the rabbit hole), I think it's worth pointing out how arbitrary it is to choose this moment in time as a point where Iran "dug a hole for itself". Presumably a moment of intervening agency that breaks from what came before and after. It's a vantage point that has no real significance to the broader conflict, doesn't tie to the beginning or end of anything significant. It's unclear why that moment in particular is where Iran could have set us on a different course, and why we should consider jettisoning the rest of historical baggage that lead up to that moment. And it has the whiff of being chosen arbitrarily to exculpate (or sideline any notion of) the United State's involvement in this conflict. It's the kind of detail I expect to see fixated on CNN, without any mention of events like Israel's former invasion of Lebanon, the impact of the Nakba and the One Million Plan on the surrounding Arab states, the Dulles brother's lead coup in Iran that deposed a secular, democratic leader, etc. Not that you even really need to go back that far, there's plenty of events proximate to 10/1/24 that lead to Iran launching missiles, like Israel staging a land invasion outside Lebanon.

I don't think that's what you're doing (I'd rather not speculate on why that moment is significant to you, and would be curious to hear your own take), but I want to explain why discourse like this becomes touchy. For some of us millennials, our defining political experience was seeing the United States become an incredibly sore loser via a problem of our own making (and infuriatingly, we apparently learned nothing from the consequences of funding the Mujahideen). We are obviously, also a victim of our own circumstances, no less than Iran, but we are also an agent of incomparable power in world events. And for many of us it became clear how carelessly, callously, and selfishly that power is wielded and how quickly we victimized ourselves and were unwilling to tolerate criticism. Aaron Sorkin wasn't even able to make the movie that depicted how much of a problem of our own making this was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War_(film)#...

All this to say, if you feel ganged up on, I get it and sympathize. I think you have good intentions here, and I'm sorry if I came in too hot. Some of us are just nauseated by our position in the world and culpability for all this harm, and are constantly frustrated by the hegemonic political discourse that is adamant to deflect criticism and prioritize American exceptionalism above all.

Thanks for the detailed response! I could pick at it, but that's not the spirit of where we're at at this point in the thread.

Oh, by the way: Charlie Wilson's War --- the book is much better than the movie.

We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.

My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim.

Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke.

It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species.

Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.

It is possible that mistakes were made in the aftermath of WW2. It is possible that the victors have rewritten history in a favorable light -- in fact, that is the most reasonable expectation. This must not be used to justify genocide for if our society takes that path the victory against the Axis powers is meaningless and evil will have triumphed in the world.

Israel is more than Netanyahu and less than the Jewish people. Humanity must unite and destroy the power structures that incentivize the hyperscale atrocities we are currently manifesting.

Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.

I believe you're referring to the former prime minister of Pakistan? If so, truly a derail. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

I think the Shia-Sunni relationship is rather more complex than the post-WW2 anglosphere, quite frankly.

It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.

Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.

By making that statement you are implying that I am being misleading. The reality is quite the opposite.

In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.

It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.

Innocent children are being maimed, starved, and murdered and it is being done with materiel produced with my tax dollars and provided with the bipartisan endorsement of my government.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not perfect, they have promulgated many evils within their society. The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran, but even that pales in the light of the disgusting atrocities being committed today by the traitorous US government. Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty.

Humans who have retained their ability to process information in an adversarial environment do not struggle to identify such obvious moral failures.

https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...

The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what." And yeah, if that's your starting place, you've figured out where that path ends up. You're never going to be satisfied with anything Iran says because your fundamental premise is that they can't be trusted to not pursue a nuclear bomb.

By walking away from the deal, we gave Iran a clear message: "you might as well pursue a bomb because we are always going to act like you are, no matter what you actually do."

No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.

After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.

Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.

Most theocracies do not declare themselves sovereign over God. If it's truly a religious duty than it exists independently of anything in our world.

>The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them.

I meant that the fatwa proves nothing until it is publicly published. Bombing was due to the nuclear program and no other reason.

>capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium

The agreement had sunsets, it would have very soon expired. It's better to actually solve problems and not leave them to successors.

>illegally starting another US war of choice

Every modern President violated the War Powers act. It's unworkable.

>Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA

The way some people talk, very likely not.

Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.

Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases.

"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...

"The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."

You are aware the deal was entirely dependent on Russia, and the follow-on Biden wanted to sign (but couldn't since Iran wouldn't fully cooperate with IAEA) involved Russia even more heavily? There's no other place that both sides accept can store the enriched Uranium or supply fuel rods to Iran.

>Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns

It's the other way around. Going from 3 to 20 percent is much harder than 20 to 60 which is harder than 60 to 90. Going to 99.9999% would be tough, but is unnecessary even for nukes.

>"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres

They were allowed to enrich to that level under the deal starting in 2031, inspections would have tested if the enriched material was diverted.

Even if they could be effective at such short notice, it would have taken the US being distracted by some other crisis and being unable to act in the short period between detection and weaponization to lead to a nuke.

> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.

0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...

https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...

Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google:

    > According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.

Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.

Off to the races!

10,000kg down to 300.

Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. The deal worked great. Bibi and Trump failed.

>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.

Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.

Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?

You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?

As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”

> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings

Say more. What's the relevance?

The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).

>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich

They could just give up.

>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?

I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.

>Say more. What's the relevance?

Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.

"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"

The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."

> They could just give up.

Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.

>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.

That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.

Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.

Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.

> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal

What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.

Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.

On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.

You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.

I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.

Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.

Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...

https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...

Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?

Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?

Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.

I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.

- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)

- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)

But the US has also at times been a positive force.

I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.

But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.

This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons.

[0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...

I also don't understand how they're used to locate items around the house. Is there some sort of GPS? Or do you mean it helps by virtue of seeing (e.g. prescription)?

AR glasses will be a hit, no doubt, but I don't see what's so special about glasses with a mic, camera and speaker on them. Seems especially for an older person that it would be more useful getting a phone with a screen and pointing at things and seeing it on a display.

A phone you have to hold in your hand whereas glasses you don't. Therefore glasses are superior for these use cases.

I’m very curious what this person did before these glasses were released.

The glasses have a camera, and small speakers near your ears. They also have a microphone, so you can give them voice commands. Like Amazon Alexa, but in the glasses.

Hey Meta, read the text on this label and tell me what it says.

Hey Meta, do you see the keys on the counter?

Hey Meta, can you tell me what is in front of me?

It projects the sound into your ear.

It’s always been authoritarian for those that don’t look right

America also made efforts to recognize that those events counted as screwups and failures of their own value systems, and struggled against the forces that allowed such situations to happen.

This isn’t to say they succeeded, or that these situations wouldn’t happen again.

Its to say that theres a difference between pushing against the current, and flowing with it.

  A member of Spirit Lake Nation was elected to North Dakota’s legislature for the first time last fall thanks to a redistricting lawsuit filed by Jackson-Street’s tribe, alongside the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. The suit claimed that the districts drawn by North Dakota in 2021 violated the Voting Rights Act, and the tribes’ initial success in court triggered a new map and increased representation in 2024.

  But last month, a federal appeals court tossed out their victory and declared that only the federal government can sue over violations of the Voting Rights Act, a devastating blow to the ability of these tribes—and others in the region—to seek legal recourse. 

* https://boltsmag.org/threats-to-voting-rights-act-section-2/

There are numerous other examples but an increased inability to complain about unfair and discrimmanatory voting practices highlights the present direction of 'progress'.