No_one
Underemployed Slav. Likes playing Factorio.
User ID: 1042
No_one
9hr ago
No, you can't 'provide a bomb'.
It'd be obvious from the fallout where the bomb was from and you would end up being treated the same as if you had fired it yourself.
No_one
9hr ago
Good, didn't know about this.
Great way to promote ambiguity, though only very naive people will fall for it.
No_one
9hr ago
That's what I am saying.
But the only way to do it is thermonuclear weapons.
20*20 kilotons on Israel would be catastrophic but it'd be survivable for Israel.
It'd not be survivable for Iranian government.
100*400 kilotons would destroy Israel, possibly even partially prevent retaliation.
That's the moment when Iran would have true deterrence and MAD with Israel.
Being able to wound the enemy and then assuredly die is not deterrence.
No_one
1d ago
Iran has everything to lose and nothing to gain by declaring nuclear capability.
Reaction to this top-level post on Iranian nukes.
Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
It's very possible Iran ALREADY has the weapons in their arsenal.
But the weapons are militarily and strategically useless for Iran in this particular situation.
Because every current adversary already has nuclear weapons, and more of them, and could retaliate forcefully.
Why they probably have them:
Between how much time they've had to develop them, and that the half-ton of 60% HEU could have be easily boosted to weapons grade by removing the third of lighter uranium atoms from it (it'd only take days), it's nonsensical to believe Iranians do not already have nuclear weapons or couldn't have them. Making an detonating an implosion uranium bomb is something the Chinese managed in 1963 or so. Today, with supercomputers and more mature nuclear physics knowledge out there, it's not hard at all.
The 15 bombs Iran could have if we take IAEA at their word, which if used, would result in destruction of Tehran and other major cities, could kill perhaps 300-500k Israelis. It'd not destroy the country, cause it to be overrun etc.
Iranians know that if they nuked an Israeli air-base, Israelis who have more bombs would H-bomb all of their major military sites and production facilities. They're probably working on hydrogen bombs, but have not conducted a test yet. So, there are no useful targets for these bombs at all. There's no reason to say you have something you cannot even use.
Israelis do not have the resources for a sustained campaign, so why strike them? They were going to give up their campaign sooner or later.
So, in conclusion:
Obviously, even if they had the bombs, they'd keep them secret, locked up in a bunker and work on producing hydrogen bombs and ICBMs and enough of a tunnel network to guarantee survival of a second strike capability.
Announcing that they have the bombs would
- feed Israeli narrative
- not actually provide them with the required capability to deter anyone
- cause normies in Israel/West to demand an actual end to Iranian nuclear program
the only upside would be boosting national pride.
Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
It's entirely possible Iran ALREADY has the weapons in their arsenal.
But the weapons are militarily and strategically useless for Iran in this particular situation.
Why they probably have them:
Between how much time they've had to develop them, and that the half-ton of 60% HEU could have be easily boosted to weapons grade by removing the third of lighter uranium atoms from it (it'd only take days), it's nonsensical to believe Iranians do not already have nuclear weapons. Making an detonating an implosion uranium bomb is something the Chinese managed in 1963 or so. Today, with supercomputers it's not hard at all.
This is obvious but it's obviously not talked about because then the normies would get hysterical, even though a nuclear bomb is not particularly destructive, and even the maximum of 15 20kt bombs isn't particularly destructive either. (Israeli cities are not made out of wood nor would burn as readily as Japanese WW2 ones). Nor are so dense. If Iranians wanted to have their country H-bombed, they could gravely hurt Israel by killing ~20,000 people with each bomb, tops.
Something tells me they're not the wholly irrational frothing at the mouth fanatics we're being told the are.
But they, probably correctly, calculate that if they nuked an Israeli air-base, Israelis would H-bomb all of their major military sites and production facilities. They're probably working on hydrogen bombs, but have not conducted a test yet.
No, really, what do you think they could do with these bombs if they declared they have them?
Militarily, the only possible 'clean' target are US carrier groups. US doesn't want to invade, nor could it invade. Unless it were attempting a full scale conquest of the country, this wouldn't happen.
Israeli airbases are mostly in populated areas areas, each strike would cause collateral damage. Israelis do not have the resources for a sustained campaign, so why strike them? They're going to give up. If Iran used them on Israeli military infrastructure, their own military installations would get glassed much more thoroughly.
Obviously, even if they had the bombs, they'd keep them secret, locked up in a bunker and work on producing hydrogen bombs and ICBMs and enough of a tunnel network to guarantee survival of a second strike capability.
Announcing that they have the bombs would
- feed Israeli narrative
- not actually provide them with the required capability to deter anyone
- cause normies in Israel/West to demand an actual end to Iranian nuclear program
the only upside would be boosting national pride.
No_one
3d ago
I'm skeptical of the accuracy and/or probative value of the psychoanalyses of the people involved, more generally, and it's unclear if it's Psmith's own interpretation or him relaying that of the original author
A foreign policy guy I sometimes reply to recommended to me that I read this book. So I picked it up. Couldn't finish it.
The whole thing seems like an exercise in exculpatory back-scratching, ..all these fine people, operating on the best intentions, reasonably well informed fucked up.. a story they really need now because the then neoconservative view - that Americans have the right to intervene whenever they need to preserve US primacy and interests - came to dominate the entire foreign policy establishment and it'd simply not do to allow the monumental failure of the conquest of Iraq to keep spreading bad smell.
What I remember about the time seems different. More along the lines of 'the war was a pet project of very specific people (PNAC alumni), they were saying they'd invade Iraq in october of '01 before they even got the dodgy evidence they needed to sell that war.
No_one
3d ago
Only ever saw one guy using it. Young guy, 20-something. A place where I worked part time, one of the temp workers loading the containers. He stank, literally stank so bad I could smell him - I have somewhat impaired sense of smell. Apparently he washed very rarely.. and this was summer.
Later I learned he was homeless, living in a tiny garden colony hut he broke into and even though he could have washed, he didn't. Everyone hated him because he acted aggressive, sometimes talked to himself, kept pacing all the time, was unreasonable... and stank. About every hour he'd mix a kratom drink using a lot of various powders he had there and then drink it. I guess because the labor force situation being what it is, he kept working there for several months.
Once caused a fire alarm because he lighted up a joint or cigarette in the toilets, but the place was so shoddily run they didn't know who was the culprit and he got away with it. Not sure what caused the company to blacklist him eventually.. probably got in a fight with someone.
I really don't think his was 'initial high'. As far as I know, he was persistently agitated this way, which, even more than the smell, caused others to hate him. Maybe he was mixing something else into those drinks though.
No_one
4d ago
I doubt most even know that- mostly they just hate her because of where she got and how she looks.
No_one
4d ago
Mackenzie looks odd. She's got a very long neck, her hips are narrow. If she had a nice figure like Sanchez, even a less bouncy natural one and a proportional neck she'd be pretty attractive, but she's really a scarecrow.
No_one
4d ago
Cooking is simple. Just read the instructions, then do it. 2/3rds of recipes can't really be messed up in a truly bad way either.
I keep hearing about these guys I can't cook, but looking at my parents I'm pretty sure "can't cook" is just calculation. "If I never learn to cook she can't ask me to cook."
I started cooking for myself as soon as I lost access to subsidized meals. It wasn't difficult at all. Pretty much every single guy I've ever lived with could also cook. Not that big a sample, sure, and they were mostly engineers, but still..
No_one
4d ago
What if NEET preferences are just born from someone jerking off to sexy NEET photos as a kid? Or maybe their mother was untidy and a bit of a slob? Maybe some of them really just want desperation, but I'd not underestimate the variety of male ideals that seem to range from furries, thru catgirls to robots. Someone being into girls who are a little slobby seems .. reasonably normal.
No_one
4d ago
Christ, women must hate her with a burning passion. @Sloot is hitting the nail on the head there. They envy her because she, despite her manifest flaws, age, and rough looks, she locked down the second richest guy in the world. Who is, by most accounts of people who reported to him, one of the most terrifying, ruthless and capable nerds out there. No doubt he smells fakers and gold-diggers before they round the corner. Yet this plastic bimbo somehow got him.
least comfortable in his marriage
Going by the charities his ex-wife keeps donating to, she must be either trying to get back at Bezos or is a liberal NPC. I'm not sure how happy one might be with
No_one
6d ago
Alcohol is way too widespread to really ban, in addition relatively easy to make at home.
No_one
7d ago
Drug prohibition is a crime against humanity!
I see people out there getting absolutely wasted on kratom, acting like lunatics, wasting huge amounts of money on it, not washing, being aggressive, getting in fights. Maybe drugs should be legal for people who are not idiots.
No_one
7d ago
Tar & chip seems like a good method, if properly done. Tar should prevent weeds from taking root easily, also waterproof so if there's soil being created in there (and it will be getting created in there), you can poison the crap and not risk much getting into the soil. Ofc, bad contractors can fuck it up easily.
I spent three days this week paving a 10x10' area with flagstones at the dacha. The old outdoors table was mostly rotten. Just the bloody stones, about 1000 lbs of them cost us €120, but there's nothing like those in the ground around here and we didn't want just a concrete slab.
Digging the ground level, putting in sand, buying, moving and placing the not that even flagstone to be at most +- 1/8" off the sloping horizontal plane, at most and then filling the gaps with concrete took like three days total. Hopefully it'll last at least 30+ years like other similar flagstone-paved paths at the dacha. Maybe 2-3 pros would've done it in 8 hours, I think.
No_one
7d ago
Has anyone ever described the motivation for watching fights, or what people get out of it ? I greatly respect anyone who is crazy enough to get into such a fight, unless they're obviously crazy and unprepared.
But watching the fight itself is completely different to being in a fight, which to me is a very exhilarating experience judging by serious grade school fights or some kinetic sparring I've done a few times.. but that's sadly too risky and I generally prefer to avoid doing it- especially the 'real' fights with hot blood. There's just nothing there, sure it's somewhat more interesting than the fake fights in films, but it's only a very 'academic' interest.
Clearly, that's not other people's attitude so I'm wondering what's going on.
If people healed like in computer games, I'd probably be very much into MMA, but we sadly don't.
No_one
7d ago
Yeah, pretty much. But there's no peak nor end to cinephilia or any other arena of art-snobbery. I'm sure among cinephiles you'd find those who look down on people who think Tarkovsky's 'Nostalghia' isn't actually self-indulgent artsy trash and a true person of taste and discernment likes some more obscure indeciphrable film with better cinematography.
No_one
8d ago
Iain McGilchrist comes across to me as a religious mystic and obscurantist. Yes people find it exceptionally easy to delude themselves for entirely explicable reasons (see e.g. Hanson & Simler's book) and science is hard, but entirely mechanical phenomena can create incredible complexity without major problems.
McGilchrist is very ready to make sweeping conclusions that veer into outright hallucinations (metaphysics etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matter_with_Things
In Part III, "What Then is True?", McGilchrist asks and attempts to answer the question "what is truth?", before turning to a wide-ranging exploration of the nature of reality: the coincidence of opposites (the idea that at a deeper, higher or transcendent level, apparent opposites may be reconciled or find union); the one and the many; time; flow and movement; space and matter; matter and consciousness; value; purpose, life and the nature of the cosmos; and the sense of the sacred. McGilchrist further argues that consciousness, rather than matter, is ontologically fundamental.[5]
That all seems like someone who doesn't understand that 'believing you are the center of the universe and somehow matter' is an adaptive psychological mechanism you'd expect to find in any vital organism, but unlikely to be actually true in the sense that 'the universe came into being to create humanity'.
No_one
8d ago
Nobody is saying that. Nobody can even alter fifty places in the genome safely today, certainly not in a human embryo.
No_one
8d ago
So... even though the twin studies can't really be proven, despite two decades of intensive, worldwide research focus and ungodly amounts of funding, he still argues they are "mostly right."
80% of the people whose job theoretically is to determine the validity of twin studies are psychologically invested into finding them not true.
If twin studies are correct and most outcomes are due to 'lack of abuse' and 'genetics', as theorized by people such as fascists or authors of the 'Nurture assumption', then the bulk of policies liberals like are going to be found wanting. Scientists are generally left of center (won't punch left) and sometimes hard left (Gould, for example, who probably falsified evidence in the Morton case or was deliberately sloppy)
I have little confidence that these studies are being carried out by impartial parties and in good faith.
I'm pleasantly surprised that Scott said this much.
No_one
9d ago
IRGC helped put down ISIS and unlike Americans,never provided CAS for them.
They're not friends of 'jihadis',they have their own league.
No_one
11d ago
Iran's victory condition is avoiding civil war, preserving their strategic forces and forcing Israel to accept that Iran also has nukes.
Israel isn't Russia or US, it has limited resources. Iranian victory is possible.
No_one
11d ago
I note with dismay the link was written using chatGPT's default slop style.
No_one
11d ago
My interpretation is that Israel is short on interceptors, Iranians are short on missiles bc Israelis almost certainly bombed exits of tunnel storages and possibly generally short. Rumor is Iranian air defenses rallied and made striking Tehran harder.
Both sides have refrained from truly damaging strikes so far. E.g. Israel didn't hit oil terminals at Kharg island, Iranians didn't hit turbine halls of the five Israeli power plants.
American bombing effort, if it wasn't fake (smaller yield bombs dropped) almost certainly failed to destroy Fordow enrichment facility which was engineered to absorb such damage.
Iranians want to withdraw from the NPT and are reportedly more avid than ever for a nuclear program. So, if Israelis are truly dead set on dismantling that, they're going to have to continue bombing until Iran turns into a failed state.
Can they? Do they have the munitions, spare parts etc?
None of these animals are enemies of their predators, they're merely snacks. Those features you listed exist to induce the predator to choose another snack.
Nothing in my original post implies Israelis do not know this. Obviously they, the HOG are certain to know Iranians have nukes, or are right at the threshold. They're probably hard at work trying to get high-res photos of said nukes because accusations without proof aren't that interesting today.
More options
Context Copy link