So that’s making a very critical assumption: that Israel’s territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.

Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel’s nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran’s missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.

Israel’s small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.

Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.

There’s very little a nuke would do that Israel can’t do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there’s a whole lot that nukes don’t do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.

Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.

Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble

Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.

Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.

Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe “there are no innocents in Gaza”, and that every child born is “already a terrorist from the moment of his birth”.

Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.

We can’t be giving the people what they want, now can we?

We say end the war

Yeah, but here’s the thing… Dem leadership is not saying they want to end the war.

Thanks for reading the article.

deleted by creator

Is there a time besides maybe the 2010s where people had more disposable income ?

Yeah, bud.

It was called 1940-2007.

Line go down, rent go up. What do?

This is just not true for many people. A home is an asset. When paying a mortgage, you build equity that can be recouped if you decide to sell, or which can be used as collateral for another loan. When renting, you are still paying a mortgage, except is the landlord’s and you own nothing. Rent prices can also change at any time and by large amounts, forcing renters to move. The cost of owning a home is much more stable and predictable.

Homes are also typically bought with a loan and a relatively small down payment, making them a leveraged asset. Eg, if you put down 30k on a 300k house and prices increase 5%, the value of your home just went up 15k. If you instead just put 30k in stocks, you would need an increase of 50% to get the same result.

Regardless, when it comes to housing, your primary concern should always be stability and not “profitability”.

Private money cannot replace public funding of science

Ftfy

Front page isn’t too bad though, most of the time

Lmao

Yeah, Western broadcasters should instead use Chinese characters and not do any translations when covering China.

I am very smart.

Dozens of countries host US military bases. While currently unlikely, the individual host nations could absolutely forcefully overtake or otherwise expel the bases within their borders while the US flounders about in Iran.

The US has just shown it can’t protect it’s bases, and their presence only invites more conflict.

The US frequently attends these exercises, and finished with this one around Feb 25, 2026.

They knew, because they were there.

Did someone say Blowback?

Mission accomplished.

Did you not read the fucking source linked?

Ironic.

If you had read the source I linked, you would see that it contradicts your point.

10+ years at minimum, is not “very recent”. A majority supported single payer healthcare before 2016.

In February [2016], a Harvard University survey discovered that a majority of 18-to-29-year-olds, did not support capitalism, and preferred socialism instead.

Horseshit.

Data for Progress released survey results late last month showing that 65% of likely US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—either strongly or somewhat support “creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans.”

Elected democrats consistently vote against massively popular propositions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a Senate committee the situation in Iran is far more complex than Venezuela as no one knows who would take over if the supreme leader were removed.

They tried, and now they’ve married their LLMs.