[RC_ITR]

The criticism was about the need for a military strike.

When the narrative is that violence against you is a joke, it's easy to want to do anti-social/unambiguously bad things to protect yourself. [1]

But anyway, you're not supposed to post things like (nationalistic calls to violence) that on HN - I'd probably delete it while you still have the chance.

[1]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=968822...

[guykdm]

I would post the same during the appeasement of Hitler, particularly following the anschluss, which obviously was a grave mistake. The "pragmatic" west has a habit of believing others are as peaceful as it is, later waking up to a horrible reality. Same thing will happen with Iran if we don't wake up now.

[RC_ITR]

Wow, what a quick jump to Hitler.

I'm curious which military strike to since 1945 has, in your opinion, worked as planned.

[guykdm]

1967 saved us big time. Also we preemptively destroyed Saddam's and Assad's nuclear weapon reactors, someone thinks that was a mistake? a nuclear sadam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

[RC_ITR]

Interesting not to also link Operation Scorched Sword.

But saved whom from what? The US still invaded Iraq to the loss of 100's of thousands of lives. Israel has been subject to low-level war with its neighbor states for a half century.

I'm failing to see how any of this violence led to good outcomes.

[guykdm]

Ah, you wouldn't have carried out those "violent" operations? You would have let Syria which later fell into civil war have nukes?

[RC_ITR]

It's a tell of a weak argument to not answer questions directly and instead fear-monger with 'what-ifs.'

To answer your question, a nuclear weapon is an extremely complex system with an international supply chain and I think there are plenty of ways to keep states non-nuclear that aren't direct acts of war.

Now to play Devil's Advocate:

What if Iran strikes Israel's suspected nuclear sites? Would that be justifiable to you?

Because to your very point, there are plenty of people in Iran who see a nuclear Israel to be just as catastrophic as you see a nuclear Syria.

(Again, this is why this content shouldn't be posted to HN per the rules, because now what? We are going to argue about whether or not Iran is an inherently evil state?)