Hacker News Reader

Comment by h4ch1 | Hacker News Reader

Really hope this doesn't mean a ground invasion in the near future.

Surely this kind of murderous rhetoric is more in line with possible use of nuclear weapons.

If you're announcing that you'll kill surrendering Iranians, it seems to follow that you intend to kill lots of Iranians and are not particularly concerned with the ethical implications.

Not that Trump or his administration have two brain cells to rub together, but who would they even nuke? Teheran? Millions of lives lost, any Iranian support for the war evaporates, and US instantly becomes a pariah state. (Plus, leadership is likely hiding far away from the capital at this point.) The coastline? The Strait of Hormuz becomes an impassible fallout zone and IRGC attacks are decentralized anyway.

> US instantly becomes a pariah state

Aren't we already?

The current administration has torched relationships with essentially every allied country except Israel. From Toronto to Taipei, and across NATO and BRICS, people see the US as a chaotic bully to be dealt with, not a friend or role model.

I don't think that "other countries won't like it" carries any significance at all to the people in power.

By "pariah state," I mean immediate sanctions and closing of borders -- like Russia circa 2022 but more severe.

The US has already nuked a civilian population. Twice. It remains the only country to have done so. And somehow not poly is it not a pariah state, but people think of it as a leader of the "free world". In fact, all school age children have been brainwashed to accept the "the nukes saved lives" argument for a few decades. A bunch of them are going to show up here and downvote this, or argue how I am an idiot and nukes are good. They are always good for other people though, not themselves.

Nuking Tehran would be perfectly in line with stating on TV that you will summarily execute surrendering combatants!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com