[_ncyj]

https://archive.is/20250623152635/https://www.nytimes.com/20...

I'm honestly surprised Israel hasn't used its nukes yet. Against non-nuclear nation, there isn't really much threat of retaliation. Given how much Iran has already suffered, they'd be stupid to not try & get nukes. If even North Korea can get them, it can't be that hard.

Also, I wonder if Iran really has that much uranium or if it's another Iraq WMD situation again considering the lack of radiation leakage and all

[foepys]

Because it would have catastrophic consequences on the world order. Normalizing nuking your opponent will invite Russia to nuke Ukraine, China Taiwan, and North Korea South Korea. The USA will not let Israel nuke anybody.

[axus]

So far the USA hasn't stopped Israel from doing anything.

[platevoltage]

I think we are past Israel really caring about catastrophic consequences.

[bediger4000]

That assumes a sane, well ordered USA. This particular attack falsified that hypothesis.

[khuey]

Why would they escalate to nukes when they can already fly over Tehran and bomb things at will?

[IAmGraydon]

>Against non-nuclear nation, there isn't really much threat of retaliation.

There is from the rest of the world. Israel needs the west on its side. Using nukes would guarantee that support would end, which would make them extremely vulnerable.

[VBprogrammer]

It's not clear there is anything Israel could do which would elicit more than strong, but carefully chosen, words of condemnation from the west.

Certainly Nuclear strikes against Iran would be a huge overreach. But no other country is going to retaliate with a Nuclear strike on Israel. If for no other reason than it would certainly lead the US deploying its nuclear arsenal. Especially with the current administration, no one would count on them choosing a path of de-escalation.

[throaway42df8]

Other than strong condemnation, there would be zero consequences and no effect on west's support to Israel, if Israel would to use nuclear weapons on Iran.

[platevoltage]

Zero chance that the USA would abandon them in this scenario. We couldn't even get a Democratic President to even stop funding them during a genocide. We watched the "left" cable news station get rid of their most progressive voice for speaking out against it, in the same way they did back in the Iraq war days.

[tantalor]

Iranian general said,

> Pakistan has assured Iran that if Israel uses nuclear weapons, Pakistan will retaliate with nuclear strikes as well.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/pakist...

But who knows if that's true or not.

[tonyedgecombe]

Any country that drops nukes on Israel is going to become the US’s next target. I can’t see Pakistan wanting that.

[zamadatix]

Lack of a nuclear response from the target country, if it could even be guaranteed, is not the same thing as lack of retaliation. Even the non-nuclear response from current allies would be devastating for Israel's security.

[nemomarx]

Layman's impression, but it seems like Iran has been holding onto stockpiles and deliberately not going all the way to weapons grade, probably to navigate around the threat of us invasion or similar in the time between them getting that and credibly weaponizing it. Recent events may push them to rush it though, if they still have the facilities.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> if they still have the facilities.

Wasn't the entire point of this that now they don't have the facilities?

[mensetmanusman]

Because MAD works when people care about their life.

[vidarh]

Mad requires both sides to 1) be rational, 2) believe the other side is rational. Neither is a safe assumption. It's fundamentally always been messed up. Even Reagan realised that.

[myth_drannon]

What's the point? Persians are friendly towards Israel, it's the religious loonies that hold the power, and they can't be eliminated even with many nuclear strikes. As an armchair internet analyst like myself, I'm 100% sure Iran has nukes just no good delivery mechanism. The few missiles they bought from NK that could have delivered a nuke, they used to randomly shoot at Israel.

The closest Israel came to using nukes was in `73 when it looked like it was about to be overrun by Arab armies on multiple fronts and also many suggested it should have dropped it on Gaza on Oct 7, but that would be seriously stupid even just for revenge, since you can't repopulate the area later.

[megous]

You're sick, if you think the only reason to not drop nuke on Gaza would be that Israel would not be able to steal the nuked land later on.

You're also full of it talking about Iran's rocket forces.

Lookup eg. "Deep Dive Defense" on YT.

[platevoltage]

Yeah totally. Have you seen Hiroshima lately? Total wasteland.

[psunavy03]

You do understand that there's a reason no one has used nukes in combat since World War II, right?

. . . right??

[platevoltage]

Are we really trying to make a point that Israel cares about civilian casualties?