Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
That's why I put a "maybe" in there. It is in any case the best estimate we have, and centrifuges are hardly peak scifi tech to begin with.
If I start that entence with "it's unclear what effect the bombing campaign had, but experts estimate...", do you feel like that makes a significant difference?
Also, we really should begin with the fact that we don't even know wtf Fordo was all about. It seems extremely convenient that the western public is given the name of exactly one place we're told is Very Special but needs the US to get involved, then That One Place is hit and it's now "mission accomplished". Extremely basic media literacy should tell you that if the narrative is that clean and simple, it's probably covered in at least some amount of BS.
Not that any of that really changes anything.
"It is unclear whether the campaign made it more likely that Iran will eventually nuke up, or less" is really the factually accurate summary that matters.
Edit:
Pointman, I sympathize with you, I really do. I don't think k you're a bad person or dumb. What little I know about you makes it very easy to understand why you can't think straight when it comes to any of this.
But it's still very obvious that you can't think straight about any of this, and you clearly consume more than a healthy amount of propaganda. Which again is very understandable.
But still, there is clearly no point in debating with you.
|
How comes it is not clear? Is a country with nuclear facilities in tact more or less likely to produce a nuke than a country with nuclear facilities bombed out? Do you imply, that those facilities were a net negative?
I neither consume nor post propaganda. Everything I post is either a fact or some straight - forward common sense logic. In fact, what I post about Gaza civilians is quite similar to what you posted about Russian civilians.
