Taking out Iranian nuclear facilities is a starkly clear issue that tells you if someone is really anti-war or just reflexively hates the west. Preventing a country that wants to destroy America (and Israel) from getting the bomb —with 0 US casualties! — is unambiguously good

Zak Kukoff

https://x.com/zck/status/1936590199170982176?s=46

There is no such thing as “unambiguously good” in war though. We don’t know what reactions and consequences this will bring

politics

here’s why a preemptive strike on iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not only a justified, but necessary, act of defense to prevent an irreversible threat:

1. the iranian regime has explicitly and repeatedly called for the destruction of israel and the united states

2. the regime is actively developing nuclear weapons capabilities

3. nuclear weapons would give the regime irreversible destructive power

4. the regime’s stated intentions, combined with such power, pose an existential threat

5. deterrence is ineffective once a hostile actor gains nuclear capability

6. a preemptive strike can materially delay or disable this capability

there’s nothing ambiguous about a regime that openly calls for our destruction gaining irreversible power

waiting to see what happens next is effectively a surrender

building @emptyblock / prev director of research @coinmetrics

there’s nothing ambiguous about a regime that openly calls for our destruction gaining irreversible power

waiting to see what happens next is effectively a surrender

https://farcaster.xyz/zd/0x1c7cefcb

I said there is no such thing as “unambiguously good,” not that there is no such thing as “unambiguous”

War is not black and white, no matter how you want to twist it

I understand how *IF* US action in Iran drew the US into some giant conflict then that would be bad

But *IF* the US can destroy Fordow from the air *AND* it doesn’t escalate significantly from here

Then how is that possibly a bad thing for America?

Shaun Maguire

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1936640868359811261?s=46

? 

Is this supposed to support your argument?

Yes. Not sure if you’re trolling 

My whole point is that there is no way to know what the reaction and consequences will be at this point

You can make up *IF* scenarios all you want. It does not change the fact that we do not know what the chain reaction will be, and that there is no such thing as unambiguously good in war

i hear you on war not being black or white, and my claim isn’t that all preemptive strikes are good

it’s that *this one is*, given iran’s explicit goals and nuclear ambitions; if a regime like that gets the bomb, the game changes forever

you asked where this ends

i’d invert it: where does inaction end?

letting a hostile nuclear power emerge isn’t peace imo, its a slow walk into deterrence failure

so if you agree a nation can defend itself from obliteration, then preventing that scenario before it becomes inevitable is precisely the moral gray worth acting in

no. respectfully, I feel like we’re talking past each other 

I think I’m being pretty clear that what I’m saying is that war is not black or white. The original tweet you quote casted was saying that this was an “unambiguously good” move 

If a country is facing obliteration then yes, they can and should defend themselves 

But where do you draw the line? What happens if Iran starts attacking US military bases? Where does this end?

not trolling

war is unpredictable - that’s obvious

but inaction in the face of a regime gaining irreversible power is also a choice with its own risks

saying “we can’t know the consequences” doesn’t make all choices morally equivalent

when a hostile actor says it wants to destroy you, then builds the tools to do it, waiting is not morally neutral; its effectively a surrender

are you saying we should wait until they have a nuke before we act?