This headline format makes me irrationally annoyed.

They shouldn’t be making assumptions about what the reader thinks. It almost feels like they’re planting a bias first and then presenting the facts - instead of just laying things out and letting people make up their own minds.

However, two wrongs don’t make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If “we” want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just “right of the strongest”, we can’t accept these kind of violations of international law.

Legally speaking, I agree. I’m speaking strictly from a strategic or game-theoretical standpoint. I see this as a binary situation: either we physically stop them from building a nuke, or they will build one. I’d much rather we strike preemptively now - so long as it actually stops them - than have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran in the future, especially given their history of threatening violence, using violence, and funding violence.

Nukes never should’ve been invented in the first place. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so this is the best we can do given the current situation. They don’t have to pursue one - they’re choosing to, knowing full well the potential (now actual) consequences. I’d argue that the tragedy of a nuclear detonation in a major city far-outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the human and geopolitical cost of preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I’d be against it too if the facility were in Sweden or Finland - but it’s not.

Okay, well let me clarify. I think they were justified in doing so. I don’t want them or their proxies obtaining nukes because unlike Russia or even North Korea, they’re actually suicidal enough to use them.

Many. Yet they’re still justified in striking a nuclear bomb-making facility in a nation that has more or less said it plans to use it.

unprovoked attack on their energy infrastructure

That’s one way of putting it.

Who said it was “totally annihilated”?

It’s a tunnel system over 70 meters beneath a mountain. To totally annihilate it, you’d need more GBU-57s than exist in the world - or a nuke.

Not desperate enough, apparently. I’ve yet to see any of the people who were absolutely certain yesterday that a nuke was going to be dropped admit they were wrong.

The only voter demographic that saw a decrease in the last election compared to 2016 was white men. If you’re going to cry “rigged election,” then you’re undermining democracy in exactly the same way the MAGA crowd does.

I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.

The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.

The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.

It would help to some extent, but they’d have to keep bombing the facility consistently - and indefinitely - to keep it out of service.

US Reportedly Assesses It Would Need to Drop Nuclear Bomb to Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility

Well, they did it.

No they didn’t. It was conventional bombs, not nuclear.

Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.

Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.

President Donald Trump is not considering using a nuclear weapon, The Guardian reported on Wednesday

There’s no need to lose one’s mind over this. The headline isn’t saying a nuke should be used - it’s simply pointing out that a nuclear weapon would be the only thing capable of reaching a facility buried that deep under a mountain. The next best option would be the GBU-57 bunker-buster, but the U.S. would need to use a significant portion of its stockpile, since you’d have to hit the same spot multiple times to drill that deep. And even then, you’d likely only damage one section of the facility, with other parts protected behind blast doors.

The ads-based business model is one of the main reasons so much of the internet sucks so bad. It should either be completely free or run on donations or subscriptions.

I don’t have an issue with YouTube ads because I’ve never actually had to see any - thanks to adblocking. But when they eventually figure out how to prevent that, I’d rather just pay a monthly fee than deal with ads. I think their pricing is completely reasonable, and I can’t morally justify blocking ads - I do it because it’s easy and free. Honestly, I’ve subscribed to services that cost more and give me less value than YouTube does.

“but both sides do it”

…which for the most part is true, isn’t it?

Should be pretty obvious. That’s just the reverse of Gemini’s black skinned nazis.

You don’t get notified if the channel owner deletes your comment.