50 years to the day

[jono]

jono: I get your point, but I ask again how this was different Biden's or Trump's or Obama's drone strikes? Trump's cruise missile attacks in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people, not the US? Or Clinton blowing up a chemical factory in Sudan? I could go on for paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages.

A sworn enemy, that is engaged in ongoing hostilities and terrorism against the US and US interests, imminently getting nuclear weapon... how is that not a clear an present danger?

Because as clear as it might have been it was not present. Is not present. That's why it requires taking the minimal time needed to get congress to perform their constitutional duty and weigh in: that could have happened weeks ago and would have if there was any seriousness behind negotiations.

I think the strongest justification I've seen for the US launching an unprovoked* attack on Iran is that the regime had been saying they were going to keep enriching, even if that meant war. Those are words they said and we believe their rhetoric so much that we started bombing. Ironic that words matter when spoken by Iran, given our own government.

Less ironic that Trump predicted poor negotiating would lead us here 12 years ago.

*I know they're a state sponsor of terror, but this was not a retaliation so don't bother telling me about past actions, it's still a purely preemptive attack.

[jono]

Also different in that there has been a standing congressional justification (good or bad) for the GWOT and droning, while often a poor strategy with questionable effectiveness, had targeted the actors most likely to be engaged in "present danger" attacks, whether planning or tactically.

[summit]

Jono: What in the world does clear but not present mean? Are you saying they have to test a nuke and then threaten to use one? I don't think you'd argue that but I'm confused by your couching of terms?

I'll point to the WPR and what it requires: what did other presidents do in the past in less dire and urgent situations I started to enumerate that included drone strikes, air strikes, cruise missile strikes? Nothing substantially different? Why is this different then?

[Cono Este]

Bevause it’s Trump, because they have no principles, make no sense, are spoilt, and stand for nothing.

[riser4]

14 MOPs and 60 TLAMs - per CJCS BDA still pending. That is the big big big question... IAEA, the UN agency who declared Iran's program was no longer peaceful immediately before this whole thing kicked off, said no radiation released to the external world at Fordo from wherever they have their monitoring equipment, but then UF6 is 4x denser than air and reacts like crazy.

So far, Iran has responded with angry words and threats, some GPS jamming in Hormuz, and 27 ballistic missiles & 30 drones fired into Israeli cities destroying many buildings and injuring 86 civilians.

That is a tragic result for Israeli civilians, but for Iran it shows how disabled their capability is at this point.

The US is in touch with Iran offering peace and ceasefire.

I guess what I am confused as fuck by is this: we have repeatedly done one-off disarming strikes against many terrorist regimes over the years that have been just that and not more. They are almost too many to list and every president has done them, 130 reports, from the WPR's inception in 1973. So why is this one, which is the clearest damned justification against the clearest foe, the prevention of a terrorist nuclear state, so controversial? I'd say 3 reasons:
1. Russian/Iranian IO are attempting to dominate isolationist restoring in the MAGA camp.
2. Trump is a fucking Narcissistic cancer who is grossly abusing his executive power, even if this case was not that, and so a default reaction from left politicians to oppose anything even when the stuck clock is right.
3. Same kneejerk from politicians who are angry with or don't like Israel: if Israel is involved right or wrong, take the opposite position of Israel.

Israel recovered the bodies of 3 hostages killed by Hamas.

Its option 2 for me personally. Plus the optics are that Bibi took advantage of the chaos at the top in the US to force our hand and do something he personally has wanted to do and have us do for 30+ years. I dont see this as option 3. I can disagree with something Israel does without being anti-israel.

[jono]

Jono: What in the world does clear but not present mean? Are you saying they have to test a nuke and then threaten to use one? I don't think you'd argue that but I'm confused by your couching of terms?

I'll point to the WPR and what it requires: what did other presidents do in the past in less dire and urgent situations I started to enumerate that included drone strikes, air strikes, cruise missile strikes? Nothing substantially different? Why is this different then?

Present means the threat is so immediate that there is no time to consult congress before action must be taken right now to prevent an attack. Not to prevent the threat from moving closer to reality, but an attack itself. Terrorists, if they really are terrorists, are working on immediate attacks at any given time. This is not that.

Evolving threats are for congress to decide about, not POTUS to act unilaterally.

You haven't argued that congress couldn't have taken up this issue in time. We both know they could have. It's obvious that a congressional authorization would have been the strongest threat we could have created to push Iran to negotiate. You can argue that they wouldn't have negotiated in good faith or that they would have tried to evade IAEA inspections or whatever, but history will remember that we didn't do everything we could to negotiate out of this. And our detractors will always remember Iraq and WMD alongside that. If they have to--maybe fascism continues to bloom and this becomes a minor stepping stone.

[MultiVerse]

It was a pressing present danger because Iran was actively moving equipment and enriched uranium from its various enrichment sites. This is a requiem for decades of failed nonproliferation negotiations

Source: NYT

[jono]

So, again, the danger was that a threat would eventually exist, not that there was any present danger of an attack. Sounds like we agree this was not constitutional.

[MultiVerse]

No, the threat already exists. The Mullahs in Iran make that quite clear

[jono]

They have a bomb and they are going to use it tomorrow or next week? The week after that? No. There's plenty of time for a willing congress.

[MultiVerse]

Arguing there's plenty of time is like suggesting a football team on the 1-yard line would not attempt to score

[summit]

Extremely good read on Iran's retaliatory options. Basically, they are limited, and the most likely ones will be proxy attacks in Iraq and via the Houthis, plus some cyber ops. Maybe they'll seize some tankers, but closing Hormuz will kill their economy and anger the Chinese.
https://x.com/DanLinnaeus/status/1936771421880848579

While Iran's legislature approved a measure to close Hormuz, they have no real power. It requires the Supreme Leader's direction his IRCG are reportedly opposed to it because suicide and economic suicide without any sizeable win attached aren't their style. IRGC is happy to die with purpose.

[Bunion 2020]

So I'd ask you: what do you propose?

A. Following our rules of law in the 1st place might be a good start.

[jono]

Arguing there's plenty of time is like suggesting a football team on the 1-yard line would not attempt to score

You argue it was clear and do not even contend that it was present. It's And, not Or. The risk to the world of Iran getting a bomb is not trivial. The risk of the United States abandoning our constitution is greater.

[MultiVerse]

Present in the sense that if Iran successfully dispersed its enriched weapons material there would be no way to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs

[jono]

You've already presented a bunch of evidence about how much WGU they might have and it didn't add up to "they already have enough for a bomb and it's presently located in one of these 3 locations."

[Bunion 2020]

Its not like you can take bomb grade fissile material and put it in boxes and store it in Mara-Lago coat rooms.

Safely storing enriched uranium requires a multi-layered approach involving robust physical security, specialized containers, and strict adherence to regulatory guidelines .

1. Physical Security: Secure Facilities: Enriched uranium is often stored in highly secure facilities like the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) at the Y-12 National Security Complex in the US. These facilities are designed with massive concrete and steel structures, advanced exterior and interior safeguards, and security systems to provide maximum protection. Restricted Access: Access to storage areas is strictly controlled and limited to authorized personnel. Constant Monitoring: Storage areas are monitored around the clock to detect any signs of unauthorized activity or potential criticality events.

2. Containment and Packaging: Approved Containers: Enriched uranium is stored in specially designed containers and storage configurations to prevent criticality, a condition where a nuclear chain reaction can occur. Multi-layered Protection: Containers typically consist of a sealed metal cylinder to contain the enriched uranium, enclosed within a metal or concrete outer shell that provides radiation shielding. Some designs utilize multiple nested containers to enhance security. Leak-tightness: Both inner and outer containers are rigorously tested to ensure they are leak-tight and prevent the release of any radioactive materials. Stabilization: Materials being packaged are stabilized to meet specific criteria, such as low volatile content, to ensure safe handling and storage. No Organic Materials: The containers and storage areas should be free of combustible or organic materials that could pose a fire hazard.

3. Criticality Safety: Subcritical Mass: The amount of enriched uranium in any single location is kept below the critical mass to prevent unintended chain reactions. Neutron Absorbers: Neutron-absorbing materials or other safety features may be used in storage configurations to prevent accidental criticality. Fixed Geometry: Fuel assemblies (for spent fuel) are placed in a fixed geometry and separated by neutron absorbers to ensure criticality control.

4. Regulatory Compliance: (probably not an issue....
Strict Regulations: Storage of enriched uranium is subject to strict regulations by bodies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safety Limits: Storage facilities must meet safety limits for the release of radioactive materials and dose limits, taking into account site-specific hazards. Regular Inspections: Facilities are subject to regular inspections to ensure compliance with safety regulations. 5. Handling Precautions: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Workers handling enriched uranium should wear respiratory protection, gloves, over-garments, and goggles. Handling Procedures: Avoid contact with skin and eyes and wash hands thoroughly after handling. Spill Response: Have established procedures for containment and clean-up in case of spills. Emergency Procedures: Emergency procedures should be in place to handle accidents or emergencies. In summary, the safe storage of enriched uranium depends on a combination of robust physical security, specialized containment and packaging, strict adherence to criticality safety principles, careful handling procedures, and compliance with stringent national and international regulations

Thx Google......

[MultiVerse]

Enriched Uranium to over 83-percent more than a year ago means we just don't know what they had. We do know with certainty that they've been capable for some time. More to the point there is no negotiation that could stop Iran's theocracy from developing nuclear weapons. They made that strategic decision decades ago. Secret, hunkered sites like Fordow serve that purpose only, nothing to do with nuclear energy

[summit]

The assessment is that they were a week or weeks away from a nuclear weapon. How much present edging do you need?

Clinton's Operation Infinite Reach 1998 and Trumps 2017 cruise missile strikes were much less clear and present threats to the US than the imminently nuclear Iran. Pelosi praised Trump in 2017. Trump was a narcissistic fucktard in 2017 and he is one today. But today Pelosi condemns the strikes.

[MultiVerse]

Its not like you can take bomb grade fissile material and put it in boxes and store it in Mara-Lago coat rooms.

An important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for. A senior Iranian source told Reuters most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's refined uranium had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there.

[jono]

Arguing the inevitability of a clear danger while thinking congress couldn't be readily convinced by those arguments fails a very basic smell test.

[MultiVerse]

To be clear I'm not taking a position on congressional notification. That's an unresolved decades long debate

[jono]

An important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for. A senior Iranian source told Reuters most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's refined uranium had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there.

The IAEA not detecting any radiation releases may not be the good news we'd like it to be.

[MultiVerse]

True. The uranium might have been moved or its buried under a mountain. The centrifuges however are probably destroyed

[highangle]

Its option 2 for me personally. Plus the optics are that Bibi took advantage of the chaos at the top in the US to force our hand and do something he personally has wanted to do and have us do for 30+ years. I dont see this as option 3. I can disagree with something Israel does without being anti-israel.

You give Bibi too much credit for buying a willing hooker. Moreover the limited nature and surgicality of the bombing amounts to diplomacy by other means.

De-nuclearizing Iran isn't some sort of whimsical personal project for BN as much as an Israeli priority since the black flag theocratic enrichment program began with the help of Allah's science to hold a scimitar of Damocles over the infidel world.