Thread

US tells France and Germany to release diesel stocks or face US export ban

97 points · 151 comments · geox

Ekaros · 1790938890 · focus · HN ↗
Every day I think it would be so much simpler just to let Iran have nukes and stop the sanctions. Letting everyone have nukes would solve so many issues.
1. GJim · 1790955967 · focus · HN ↗
  > I think it would be so much simpler just to let Iran have nukes and stop the sanctions
  You are falling into the trap of believing Iran was anywere near buliding a nuclear weapon..... Even the security services in the USA said they were nowhere near, and that Iran was complient with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA).
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
  On the other hand, Netanyahu has been spouting off for 30 years that Iran is X days away from building a nuclear weapon; and Trump chose to believe him!
  1. classified · 1790963097 · focus · HN ↗
    > Trump chose to believe him
    Not necessary. Trump wanted a war (any war) and Israel was eager to give him one. Plus he could still pretend that "he didn't start it", or so he thought.
  2. hunterpayne · 1790992974 · focus · HN ↗
    Hate to break it to you, but the science says that's not true. The rate of time enrichment takes is a negative logarithm. That's a fancy way of saying that it takes far more time to enrich 2% to 5% than it does from 40% to 90%. They were at 40% (I think). The rest of the work is actually not so hard to do and doesn't take that long. Also, the JCPA would have allowed Iran to have a nuclear weapon in about 5 years from now (sometime in the 2030s, I don't remember exactly when) if it was followed all the way through.
    So Iran probably was a relatively short amount of time away from having a bomb. They probably just feared what would happen if they tested it.
    Another important detail, there are basically 2 different ways to make a bomb...the U-235 way and the Pu-239 way. The first takes lots and lots of time but a bit less technical skill. The second takes far less time but a bit more skill. Its likely the Iranians had the skill to do either.
    There are probably 2 dozen countries that were 30 years ago, today and will be in the future about 6 months from having a bomb. They have all the pieces but won't do the final assembly unless they fear a nuclear exchange involving them. They don't do those final steps because of the negative consequences to doing them.
    PS Remember, we built two different types of bombs with less computing power than a pocket calculator.
    PPS Your understanding of these issues is completely wrong. The JCPA was more of a stop gap than anything. Saying Trump is handling everything correctly is wrong but so is saying that leaving the JCPA in place was a good idea. It was just the best Obama could negotiate because nobody thought he had the guts to invade Iran.
    GJim · 1791023024 · focus · HN ↗
    > Hate to break it to you, but the science says that's not true.
    I'll type this slowly for you as you clearly didn't read it properly, or perhaps you are practising revisionist history:
    The security forces IN THE USA (!) stated Iran was nowhere near building a nuclear weapon.
    If you think you have better sources of information than their scientific expertise, intelligence sources and inspectors on the ground, then please tell us.
2. classified · 1790962794 · focus · HN ↗
  Until some crackpot wants to wipe out a country. Bin Laden only had a few planes. Imagine he could have stocked each of them with a nuke.
  1. beAbU · 1790972052 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that's the point of MAD. Bin Laden and his whole country would have been deleted off the face of the earth by everyone else's nukes if they tried shit like that.
    JKCalhoun · 1790978150 · focus · HN ↗
    I think MAD only works for the super-powers that have too much to lose.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.