Whimsicalchristian posted,
'It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.'
I feel for you, but - and this is crucial - you haven't been arguing at all. You simply state your views and then, as has been pointed out, resort to 'Bulverism' finding causes, not reasons for others' appraisals of the situation (s).
Nothing any poster has said to you appears to have made you, as Luther once said, 'consider in the bowels of Christ, that you may be wrong'.
Is there any action of Mr Trump and his administration that would make you change your mind about him? The use of nuclear weapons? Cutting health care provision and research?
Oh, hold on, he's done that.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
@WhimsicalChristian Thank you for your considered response to my replies. It's no doubt been quite frustrating to repeat a position over and over again, without feeling like you have been heard.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called Estonia’s defense minister on Monday with some bad news: Because of its own needs in the war with Iran, the Pentagon would have to delay delivery of six units of a high-tech weapons system that Estonia had contracted to buy from the United States government.
@WhimsicalChristian I think it's interesting (meant sincerely) that you view being anti-Trump as being anti-Western, or that they are at least aligned viewpoints. Surely Trump himself is anti-Western? To me being pro-Western would mean being aligned with Europe and Canada and opposed to Russian interests, which Trump is very clearly and blatantly not. How is supporting Russia and opposing Ukraine a pro-Western stance? Trump doesn't care about quote unquote "Western values", he cares first and foremost about lining his pockets.
I can appreciate why China would feel like a threat from an Australian perspective. Nobody here is denying China's human rights violations for eg. But it's not like the Trump administration has much room to talk on that issue.
“Whimsical” according to the online dictionary means “playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing or amusing way”.
So I hope you stick around and get something positive out of your membership. There’s certainly a good deal of the playful, quaint and fanciful stuff in Heaven and The Circus. I’ve a lot of amusement there. Purgatory is much more about serious exchanges of ideas and opinions.
Which is why one of its Guidelines is “Expect to be disagreed with”. Folks will agree with you if they do! But it’s not a comfortable environment. Quite Purgatorial in fact. But not Hell.
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
@WhimsicalChristian : I think our president has sewn some serious doubt in that department. He's treating every foreign policy commitment like a protection racket for the personal gain of "his" people (as he understands that concept.)
Plus, and here's a free link, all of the munitions he's throwing at Iran are munitions he won't be able to use to intimidate China and Russia, and I imagine they're aware of this situation.
And I repeat, I do not like our president, but if you know me (and some folks here have known me for a long time,) I am not a man given to hatred. I think he's making some terrifyingly bad decisions that we are going to be paying for for a long time.
You mean for protecting Taiwan?
It is in the US interest, Australia's and the world. From the National Security Strategy page 19.
A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of
strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of
Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan
provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and
Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Given that one-third of global shipping
passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the
U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving
military overmatch, is a priority. /I]
I do agree there's a lot of munitions that might be growing low to deter China. That's a worry. But if they're stopping their primary source of oil then, as I've said, the subtext is weakening China.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions Bullfrog. I just think the National Security Strategy is good.
@WhimsicalChristian Thank you for your considered response to my replies. It's no doubt been quite frustrating to repeat a position over and over again, without feeling like you have been heard.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence.
But it doesn't really seem to matter does it if it's one person against a whole thread.
Unlike you I grew up in a very liberal tradition, but your comments could easily apply to both sides of the divide couldn't they?
In our polarised world, it seems rational discussion is a thing of the past.
Whimsicalchristian posted: 'Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence'
No, you made statements but didn't argue, gave no evidence for for their veracity.
@Barnabas62 I didn't know what assertions you were referring to. Re Iran's readiness for nuclear weapons? Some evidence suggests it could be pretty quick.
.
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
And I replied with different evidence.
Was it picked up? No.
Let me deal with this point. The assertion of imminent risk came from Donald Trump. I think you do support it based on your first quote. I haven’t checked whether you alluded to it before. I asked what evidence was, AFF posted a link, Alan Cress-well posted a refutation. Did you read it? See his posts of 17 and 18 April.
Re your “quick” link I am no nuclear physicist but I can see two or three things.
Firstly Alan Cresswell’s post addressed in detail all the assembly issues mentioned in your link. Secondly, Alan addressed the challenges Iran would face in that assembly (which are very different to those faced by China in the link you mentioned.)
Thirdly, and ironically, the “quick” link contains the following comment.
“The first Trump administration left the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May 2018, significantly reducing the constraints on and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.”
I suggest that you never read Alan Cresswell’s post before you posted your “quick” link. Further, you may not have seen it but the “ quck” link is critical of the policy of the first Trump administration which significantly reduced constraints and monitoring.
@WhimsicalChristian : I think our president has sewn some serious doubt in that department. He's treating every foreign policy commitment like a protection racket for the personal gain of "his" people (as he understands that concept.)
Plus, and here's a free link, all of the munitions he's throwing at Iran are munitions he won't be able to use to intimidate China and Russia, and I imagine they're aware of this situation.
And I repeat, I do not like our president, but if you know me (and some folks here have known me for a long time,) I am not a man given to hatred. I think he's making some terrifyingly bad decisions that we are going to be paying for for a long time.
You mean for protecting Taiwan?
It is in the US interest, Australia's and the world. From the National Security Strategy page 19.
A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of
strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of
Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan
provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and
Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Given that one-third of global shipping
passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the
U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving
military overmatch, is a priority. /I]
I do agree there's a lot of munitions that might be growing low to deter China. That's a worry. But if they're stopping their primary source of oil then, as I've said, the subtext is weakening China.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions Bullfrog. I just think the National Security Strategy is good.
But I doubt anyone on the ship has read it.
Forgive me, but when I went to the link posted here, I just went back to the last page of this thread.
I strongly recommend you visit Heaven and All Saints and get to know people.
But, back to the subject - will the Straits of Hormuz ever open again? Both sides are blaming the other for it remaining closed.
Will the world adapt to it being unnavigable? Maybe a huge push on renewable energy? That would be a positive outcome.
Yes, it would. We shall see...but we are perhaps beginning only now to appreciate the sheer folly in relying so much on Oil.
One might hope that all of this madness might show us, in the worst possible way, the necessity of not putting all of our eggs in the fossil fuel basket. And it also might teach us a lot of lessons in the importance of negotiation.
I strongly recommend you visit Heaven and All Saints and get to know people.
But, back to the subject - will the Straits of Hormuz ever open again? Both sides are blaming the other for it remaining closed.
Will the world adapt to it being unnavigable? Maybe a huge push on renewable energy? That would be a positive outcome.
Yes, it would. We shall see...but we are perhaps beginning only now to appreciate the sheer folly in relying so much on Oil.
One might hope that all of this madness might show us, in the worst possible way, the necessity of not putting all of our eggs in the fossil fuel basket.
China already learned that lesson. It is devoting substantial investment in "domestic energy," including solar and wind, to lessen its dependency on MidEast Oil.
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
And I replied with different evidence.
Was it picked up? No.
Was this your reply? If so it probably wasn’t picked up because it came a long way after @Alan Cresswell ’s post which it didn’t refer to and comes from an article which describes the situation as it was in January 2024. The organisation whose report you quoted is in the record as saying "we do know that a lasting, military solution to Iran’s nuclear program is not realistic. This leaves diplomacy as the best route to bring about a suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, regardless of who holds Iran’s presidency."
Their more recent reports show Iran to be in a rather different position following the ‘12-day war’.
I suppose it might have been that but I think it’s more likely to be the one in this quote from @WhimsicalChristian
@Barnabas62 I didn't know what assertions you were referring to. Re Iran's readiness for nuclear weapons? Some evidence suggests it could be pretty quick.
.
This was put on the Guardian's website a few minutes ago (their live blog on the US-Iran war is ongoing, of course):
Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said on Monday that Tehran was looking into US president Donald Trump’s request for negotiations, according to a post on the minister’s Telegram account.
He told reporters in Russia that Trump requested negotiations because the US has not achieved any of its objectives.
Trump scrapped a visit to Islamabad by his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner for talks on ending the conflict and said Iran could telephone if it wanted to negotiate.
My italics, but that's how it looks from this side of the Pond. Despite Trump's bragging about Total Victory, Iran still has a horse in the race, and a certain amount of clout in the Strait of Hormuz.
YMMV. Who is more trustworthy as regards news, the US or Iran?
Neither really. In war (or a military conflict) the first casualty is truth. And in any case, the present POTUS has a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to truth. To put it mildly.
When I’m desperate for information about the Middle East I find Al Jazeera news as reliable as any, and at least 12 hours ahead of the BBC.
Sometimes I find it just too depressing though ☹️
It's been said before - both here on the Ship, and elsewhere - that Al Jazeera is indeed a good and reliable source. I didn't know they were quicker than the BBC, though!
@Barnabas62, I think from this quotation: from that article “How quickly could Iran make an atomic bomb once it has acquired enough weapons-grade uranium?” the part I’ve bolded is a telling phrase, and this comment about the best way forward
If the new Trump administration still hopes to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, its best bet is to resume direct bilateral talks—either privately or publicly. Military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities would not prevent Iran’s nuclear proliferation goals in the long term (unless Iran is occupied permanently or its regime changed) and could drive Iran even further toward the bomb—if it has not decided to build one already.
Fair enough. As I’ve said, and not for the first time, I thought @Alan Cresswell posted a very effective argument and I see nothing in either of those links to persuade me that the threat actually is imminent. Could be wrong of course. Who knows what is going on? Who knows whether all the supplies needed to make uranium metal are under tons of rock?
All I know for sure is there is a lot of misinformation about!
Do people assume that if a nation has nuclear weapons, they will therefore necessarily use them? Only the US has used such weapons. Is this assumption an indication that people believe nations such as India, Pakistan and Israel cannot be trusted?
Do people assume that if a nation has nuclear weapons, they will therefore necessarily use them? Only the US has used such weapons. Is this assumption an indication that people believe nations such as India, Pakistan and Israel cannot be trusted?
I do think there's an assumption in some circles that nuclear weapons should only be for "good guy" nations, which in some places generally means "the west," or "pro-American" "white" nations.
Another take is that if more countries have nukes, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction should make each country less inclined to use them. By that logic, giving only some countries nuclear weapons is rather horrifying.
I do think "trust" in international relations is a rather quaint idea.
I think the argument is simple enough and it’s not about use, it’s the threat to use as a last resort.
It’s true in Iran that the military currently hold the power along with the Shiite leadership. So the perception of existential threat and therefore the need to go down the last resort route is probably greater than with less military and more secular control.
That’s why the US doesn’t want Iran developing the bomb and wants regime change. The MAD theory doesn’t work if a potential nuclear aggressor really might be mad enough to act precipitately.
That’s why the US doesn’t want Iran developing the bomb and wants regime change. The MAD theory doesn’t work if a potential nuclear aggressor really might be mad enough to act precipitately.
Given that the US famously has a nuclear first strike policy there's an idiom about domestic properties made from refined silicates and the uncontrolled movement of less refined silicates that is appropriate here.
That’s why the US doesn’t want Iran developing the bomb and wants regime change. The MAD theory doesn’t work if a potential nuclear aggressor really might be mad enough to act precipitately.
How soon we forget. It was barely two weeks ago when we all went to bed wondering if Iran might still be on the map when we woke up.
We already live in that scenario and it isn't Iran that's the threat.
I agree and have not forgotten. What the present President and Commander in Chief sees as last resort might well lead him to order precipitant action.
I’m not sure the MAD theory is guaranteed to work with him. Which is why I hope there is some Mattis-like last defence against any precipitation action by the Donald.
I agree and have not forgotten. What the present President and Commander in Chief sees as last resort might well lead him to order precipitant action.
I’m not sure the MAD theory is guaranteed to work with him. Which is why I hope there is some Mattis-like last defence against any precipitation action by the Donald.
I'm simply pointing out the incoherence of the American position.
Sure. But even when it was more coherent, like under Obama, the US didn’t want Iran to get the bomb. Hence the treaty ( which Trump tore up).
The saddest irony of all of this dreadful aggression is that in the face of the assault of the very real threat of nuclear annihilation of their entire country, the Iranians will most certainly be procuring a bomb or bombs as a deterrent. If they weren't building one before, which all official reports from international bodies have confirmed, they most certainly are now.
@Barnabas62 : I've read up a bit on the original Americans who were the authors of MAD. They were quite mad themselves, and yet we survived.
I think I'm generally against nuclear weapons in general, but I think once we have them at all, it does seem rather dangerous to allow one faction to have them and not another.
Once we, in our august Caucasian arrogance, deem certain countries "rogue states" who are clearly too irresponsible to know how to behave, I think it's only predictable that they will sink to our expectations. Iranians, by and large, ain't that different than we are.
Without disagreeing, I think that the more people have said weapons the higher the odds that they will fall into the hands of someone evil, incompetent, or mad enough to use them. (Yes like the U.S. president)
Without disagreeing, I think that the more people have said weapons the higher the odds that they will fall into the hands of someone evil, incompetent, or mad enough to use them. (Yes like the U.S. president)
I would agree. I think it's hypocritical for Americans, especially under that administration to be pearl-clutching at the idea of Iran arming itself when we're all pretty sure Israel is similarly armed.
I prefer disarmament overall. I don't want them to exist. I just don't see how that's feasible at this point in time. Pandora's box was opened before my dad was born. Nobody asked me.
Well, what do you know? Trump doesn’t need Congressional approval. Anyway he thinks the 60 day rule is unconstitutional.
Another case for SCOTUS? Or this a real TACO? And of course it doesn’t apply to Israel.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the price of oil remains over $100 a barrel. Will it go up, down, or sideways? I don’t think the US blockade has any teeth unless it’s prepared to attack the Iranian capability to keep the Strait closed.
To misquote T S Eliot
This is how the war ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper
The Master of “The Art of the Deal” chalks up yet another loss.
I agree, Gwai's stance is mine too. I frankly just don't want that risk to exist.
So is the US right therefore to continue its military and economic pressure on Iran until there is an acceptably low risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon?
Comments
'It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.'
I feel for you, but - and this is crucial - you haven't been arguing at all. You simply state your views and then, as has been pointed out, resort to 'Bulverism' finding causes, not reasons for others' appraisals of the situation (s).
Nothing any poster has said to you appears to have made you, as Luther once said, 'consider in the bowels of Christ, that you may be wrong'.
Is there any action of Mr Trump and his administration that would make you change your mind about him? The use of nuclear weapons? Cutting health care provision and research?
Oh, hold on, he's done that.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
Absolutely. Plenty of threads for that. Can’t guarantee that they don’t mention Trump, but mostly they don’t.
He just doesn't strike me as very pious.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
AFF
I can appreciate why China would feel like a threat from an Australian perspective. Nobody here is denying China's human rights violations for eg. But it's not like the Trump administration has much room to talk on that issue.
It’s a nice ID.
“Whimsical” according to the online dictionary means “playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing or amusing way”.
So I hope you stick around and get something positive out of your membership. There’s certainly a good deal of the playful, quaint and fanciful stuff in Heaven and The Circus. I’ve a lot of amusement there. Purgatory is much more about serious exchanges of ideas and opinions.
Which is why one of its Guidelines is “Expect to be disagreed with”. Folks will agree with you if they do! But it’s not a comfortable environment. Quite Purgatorial in fact. But not Hell.
And I replied with different evidence.
Was it picked up? No.
You mean for protecting Taiwan?
It is in the US interest, Australia's and the world. From the National Security Strategy page 19.
A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of
strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of
Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan
provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and
Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Given that one-third of global shipping
passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the
U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving
military overmatch, is a priority. /I]
I do agree there's a lot of munitions that might be growing low to deter China. That's a worry. But if they're stopping their primary source of oil then, as I've said, the subtext is weakening China.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions Bullfrog. I just think the National Security Strategy is good.
But I doubt anyone on the ship has read it.
Well said.
Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence.
But it doesn't really seem to matter does it if it's one person against a whole thread.
Unlike you I grew up in a very liberal tradition, but your comments could easily apply to both sides of the divide couldn't they?
In our polarised world, it seems rational discussion is a thing of the past.
I strongly recommend you visit Heaven and All Saints and get to know people.
But, back to the subject - will the Straits of Hormuz ever open again? Both sides are blaming the other for it remaining closed.
Will the world adapt to it being unnavigable? Maybe a huge push on renewable energy? That would be a positive outcome.
No, you made statements but didn't argue, gave no evidence for for their veracity.
Let me deal with this point. The assertion of imminent risk came from Donald Trump. I think you do support it based on your first quote. I haven’t checked whether you alluded to it before. I asked what evidence was, AFF posted a link, Alan Cress-well posted a refutation. Did you read it? See his posts of 17 and 18 April.
Re your “quick” link I am no nuclear physicist but I can see two or three things.
Firstly Alan Cresswell’s post addressed in detail all the assembly issues mentioned in your link. Secondly, Alan addressed the challenges Iran would face in that assembly (which are very different to those faced by China in the link you mentioned.)
Thirdly, and ironically, the “quick” link contains the following comment.
“The first Trump administration left the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May 2018, significantly reducing the constraints on and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.”
I suggest that you never read Alan Cresswell’s post before you posted your “quick” link. Further, you may not have seen it but the “ quck” link is critical of the policy of the first Trump administration which significantly reduced constraints and monitoring.
Yes, it would. We shall see...but we are perhaps beginning only now to appreciate the sheer folly in relying so much on Oil.
Forgive me, but when I went to the link posted here, I just went back to the last page of this thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/26/no-headway-in-middle-east-peace-efforts-as-us-and-iran-refuse-to-yield
Something must surely give way soon...
One might hope that all of this madness might show us, in the worst possible way, the necessity of not putting all of our eggs in the fossil fuel basket. And it also might teach us a lot of lessons in the importance of negotiation.
China already learned that lesson. It is devoting substantial investment in "domestic energy," including solar and wind, to lessen its dependency on MidEast Oil.
Their more recent reports show Iran to be in a rather different position following the ‘12-day war’.
I suppose it might have been that but I think it’s more likely to be the one in this quote from @WhimsicalChristian
Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said on Monday that Tehran was looking into US president Donald Trump’s request for negotiations, according to a post on the minister’s Telegram account.
He told reporters in Russia that Trump requested negotiations because the US has not achieved any of its objectives.
Trump scrapped a visit to Islamabad by his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner for talks on ending the conflict and said Iran could telephone if it wanted to negotiate.
My italics, but that's how it looks from this side of the Pond. Despite Trump's bragging about Total Victory, Iran still has a horse in the race, and a certain amount of clout in the Strait of Hormuz.
YMMV. Who is more trustworthy as regards news, the US or Iran?
Sometimes I find it just too depressing though ☹️
All I know for sure is there is a lot of misinformation about!
I do think there's an assumption in some circles that nuclear weapons should only be for "good guy" nations, which in some places generally means "the west," or "pro-American" "white" nations.
Another take is that if more countries have nukes, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction should make each country less inclined to use them. By that logic, giving only some countries nuclear weapons is rather horrifying.
I do think "trust" in international relations is a rather quaint idea.
I think the argument is simple enough and it’s not about use, it’s the threat to use as a last resort.
It’s true in Iran that the military currently hold the power along with the Shiite leadership. So the perception of existential threat and therefore the need to go down the last resort route is probably greater than with less military and more secular control.
That’s why the US doesn’t want Iran developing the bomb and wants regime change. The MAD theory doesn’t work if a potential nuclear aggressor really might be mad enough to act precipitately.
Given that the US famously has a nuclear first strike policy there's an idiom about domestic properties made from refined silicates and the uncontrolled movement of less refined silicates that is appropriate here.
How soon we forget. It was barely two weeks ago when we all went to bed wondering if Iran might still be on the map when we woke up.
We already live in that scenario and it isn't Iran that's the threat.
AFF
I agree and have not forgotten. What the present President and Commander in Chief sees as last resort might well lead him to order precipitant action.
I’m not sure the MAD theory is guaranteed to work with him. Which is why I hope there is some Mattis-like last defence against any precipitation action by the Donald.
I'm simply pointing out the incoherence of the American position.
AFF
The saddest irony of all of this dreadful aggression is that in the face of the assault of the very real threat of nuclear annihilation of their entire country, the Iranians will most certainly be procuring a bomb or bombs as a deterrent. If they weren't building one before, which all official reports from international bodies have confirmed, they most certainly are now.
AFF
I think I'm generally against nuclear weapons in general, but I think once we have them at all, it does seem rather dangerous to allow one faction to have them and not another.
Once we, in our august Caucasian arrogance, deem certain countries "rogue states" who are clearly too irresponsible to know how to behave, I think it's only predictable that they will sink to our expectations. Iranians, by and large, ain't that different than we are.
Gwai nailed it.
I would agree. I think it's hypocritical for Americans, especially under that administration to be pearl-clutching at the idea of Iran arming itself when we're all pretty sure Israel is similarly armed.
I prefer disarmament overall. I don't want them to exist. I just don't see how that's feasible at this point in time. Pandora's box was opened before my dad was born. Nobody asked me.
Well, what do you know? Trump doesn’t need Congressional approval. Anyway he thinks the 60 day rule is unconstitutional.
Another case for SCOTUS? Or this a real TACO? And of course it doesn’t apply to Israel.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the price of oil remains over $100 a barrel. Will it go up, down, or sideways? I don’t think the US blockade has any teeth unless it’s prepared to attack the Iranian capability to keep the Strait closed.
To misquote T S Eliot
The Master of “The Art of the Deal” chalks up yet another loss.
So is the US right therefore to continue its military and economic pressure on Iran until there is an acceptably low risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon?