Hacker News Reader

Comment by sva_ | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Iran's military spending (as percentage of GDP) is fairly similar to that of the U.S. and European countries. The most recent numbers I could find (from 2024) indicate that they spent 2.0% compared to 3.4% in the U.S. [1], although there have been reports that military spending has increased significantly in the most recent budget.

I agree with the sentiment that the humanity should focus on producing something more useful than bombs, but bringing it up specifically when talking about Iran comes off as a bit disingenuous, especially when they have been recently bombed by both the U.S. and Israel. [2] Imagine the roles were reversed: How would we react to an Iranian or Russian citizen suggesting that the U.S. or an European country should focus on infrastructure instead of building an army?

[1] https://milex.sipri.org/sipri

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/22/satellite-images-sh...

In Iran one of the armies (IRGC) controls most of the economy, including agriculture, dam building and exports, three areas which are very linked to the water mismanagement. Add the fact that their generals are getting rich through corruption you can imagine the situation is a bit different than the US army

Regardless the budget you are quoting does not include the billions that are invested yearly on Hezbollah, Hamas, PMF and Houthis which are strategically considered and used as an extension of their armed forces

What are talking about? Iran attacked Israel with ballistic missiles ( before the 12 day war) , not to mention funding the proxies ( ring of fire). If it invested the money in water infrastructure instead of nuclear weapons or Hizbollah they would not be in such dire situation.

They're building nukes? Awesome, looks like you have more information than the IAEA. Unless of course you're talking about the same Ayatollah bomb that Iran almost has since 1984[1].

The drones are produced by Russia btw. You know, kinda how you guys keep saying that you'll punish China for supplying components for them. Meanwhile every single drone that Ukraine uses is built with either Chinese components or is a modded Chinese drone to begin with.

[1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/04/24/Ayatollah-bomb-in-pr...

I don’t think Iran is hiding the fact they are building nuclear weapon tech and long range ballistic missiles capable of MIRV.

People dismissed North Korea’s ability to do so for a long time. They thought they were too poor and isolated.

None of which is true of course. Not even the North Korea claim. NK applied to leave the NPT immediately after they deemed the US untrustworthy in 2003, The only country to ever withdraw from the NPT. I would hardly call that hidden.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003-01/news/north-korea-qui...

> NK applied to leave the NPT immediately after they deemed the US untrustworthy in 2003

They started the Korean War by launching an unprovoked invasion of the South (after securing Stalin's reluctant blessing), and continued to wage a campaign of terror against them in the decades after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimpo_International_Airport_bo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858

And they got caught digging infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, in violation of the 1953 armistice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone#Incu...

And they're known to have kidnapped thousands of South Koreans, and scores of other foreign nations, including Japanese citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Sou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Jap...

Yet it's the US that's untrustworthy? And why do they supposedly even care what the US thinks, considering that China already intervened militarily once (during the Korean War) to preserve their independence and has been pretty clear that it will do so again if needed?

> more information than the IAEA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-report-says-iran-ha...

Yes. They want to build nukes. I'll never understand how the Iranian bot campaign[1] managed to convince so many people.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz8whKktkQg

Iran supplies Shahed long range drones to Russia for years now. They became their staple of terror bombings since.

They are also deployed domestic production of them in Russia but a substantial amount of components (foremost motors) still delivered from Iran. If you look at the chart of Russian Shahed launches you can see a lagging dip in early August after Israel's bombing of Iran in June.

Israel also said Pakistan was trying to build nukes, but they were stopped by the Indian PM in the 1980s from launching a preventive attack.

The silver lining is that we don't have to suffer the internet commentators saying "Pakistan has been weeks away from nukes for fifty years!"

You can choose to put your head in the sand about a theocracy that enriches uranium to 60%, holds up mushroom clouds in their protests, and repeatedly violated the NPT with clandestine facilities. Others won't be so naive.

Iran can of course build a nuke in a relatively short timespan if they want to, but for a range of reason they have made the decision not to. Perhaps they should have built a nuke, if they had one Israel and the US wouldn't have bombed them.

> if they had one Israel and the US wouldn't have bombed them

If Iran had one nuke we’d bomb them relentlessly.

Their delivery mechanisms and ground infrastructure aren’t advanced enough to guarantee launch, and a single Fisher Price nuke is not game over. Iran with the capacity to build a bomb can be dealt with now or later. Iran with an actual nuke has to be dealt with now, or else be accepted as a regional nuclear power. (Which would mean a Saudi nuke. Which would mean a Qatari nuke, and probably also Emirati nuke.)

It's really amazing how a bunch of politicians in the US including can just repeat a claim and Trump can just prime a statement like "the JCPOA was a terrible deal" and people that should be smart will gradually start believing it without ever reading a single word of the JCPOA document.

No they can't. Canada can. Japan can, SK can. But Iran poured concrete into the rods of its only, then completed heavy water reactor that would have been able to produce the plutonium needed right after they signed the JCPOA before actually receiving any of the concessions they were supposed to get which would have actually given them leverage.This was also detailed in Wendy Sherman's book.

The entire airspace around Iran is controlled by the US's allies and Iran's enemies. Iran would never be able to fly a bomb anywhere close to Israel. They would need a ballistic missile delivery mechanism which's research was confirmed by the US to have been stopped in 2003.

So what was Iran shooting at Israel then, paper rockets? It was huge ballistic missile.

Honestly I don't see why any country would ever enter a long-term agreement with the US. The Constitution says that the president negotiates international agreements but that Congress must ratify them. Due to procedural rules basically making it impossible for Congress to pass legislature, any agreements that don't go through Congress are simply executive agreements that can be terminated with a stroke of a pen by a future president. This means that any remotely controversial agreements can't be expected to last beyond the current president's term.

When you build all the technology needed to actually build a nuke, when you enrich uranium to near weapons-grade, but you never actually assemble the nuke, are you trying to building a nuke? Or are just messing with everyone, trying to make them think you're building a nuke when you're totally not building a nuke (pinkie promise)?

Either way, if you are threatening to annihilate another country, I wouldn't gamble on the latter.

> if you are threatening to annihilate another country, I wouldn't gamble on the latter.

you mean what Israel is doing and saying every single day? Doesn't seem to bother anyone.

In the Iran-israel conflict it's pretty clear cut who started the rhetoric of annihilating the other side first (spoiler, it was Iran)

Anyway, I cant comprehend why anyone would try to defend the actions of the Iranian regime, it's just a horrible regime.

Iran is the "principal-agent" problem embodied.

The governing mullahs' interests are brutally divergent from those of the people in whose name they pretend to govern.

Hence, the nuclear weapons program and all the cozying up to Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com