USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
you think that there is any realistic scenario where a truck crosses into the US with a nuke?the possible situations I saw don’t reflect that at all, do you have a source naming this as a potential scenario? this is without us doing really that much to try to prevent a nuke being smuggled into the US (although it’s not zero). if we thought Iran was close to a nuke I
wdym you sneak it in and you make it go boom. There's a movie about it from like 20 years ago. not all nukes are huge.
"The Sum of All Fears is considered moderately plausible in its premise of nuclear terrorism and brinkmanship,"
But why does it have to be the united states that gets hit..? anyone getting hit is bad I guess you don't see the jews as people.
Just because its difficult does not make it impossible. when you deal with nuclear terrorist attacks even 1% chance is too much
Plus there is the fact that no amount of help could reopen the straight. It's militarily impossible if Iran doesn't want it open and everyone but Trump and probably him too knows that. So it would be suicide missions he's asking for
Consistent with past practice, I won't pretend like I am qualified to opine on that topic. I would have assumed that such a thing would be possible with enough money and resources, but I don't really know, and even if it is possible, it could be the case that it would require such a huge commitment of resources as to be impractical.
0.001% chance is too much
As more and more IRGC and Basij are assassinated, it will be interesting to see how long the regime will stay propped up.
The working assumption among some people seems to be that the collapse of a bad regime will lead to something stable and less bad. But it seems just as like that it will lead to something that is unpredictable and chaotic.
bc from what I can tell, your framing is not accurate. they didnt just fire on a bunch of peaceful protesters. in fact, there were weeks of peaceful protest and the government agreed that the grievances were legit and claimed to be working to address them. then violent Western backed thugs started attacking civilians, police (who dont carry guns btw), mosques, and civil buil
It seems your framing is completely different than everything I read as well.
I didn't mention 30k killed, official statement from Iran was 3.1k confirmed .
Do they have the right to suppress protests?
Sure I guess, you seem very fine that suppressing= killing.
Very weird take.
I haven't read anything about police not carrying guns, there are plenty of photos with Iranian police carrying guns.
Haven't heard the same as well concerning the violent Western backed thugs started attacking civilians, police (who dont carry guns btw), mosques, and civil buildings.
Backing a movement with money isn't the same as a direct strike obviously, otherwise you could argue the same for your beloved russia or china (which you never do btw).
Now even on the ''backed by the west thing'', I'm sure the protesters really fell the love when Trump told them to go ahead followed by crickets.
Consistent with past practice, I won't pretend like I am qualified to opine on that topic. I would have assumed that such a thing would be possible with enough money and resources, but I don't really know, and even if it is possible, it could be the case that it would require such a huge commitment of resources as to be impractical.
I don't know that America can actually project power into the region in this way.
It's not Gulf War times anymore.
yes its super weird that I think violent suppression of foreign controlled mobs that were going around shooting innocent people, burning people alive, beating people to death, firebombing mosques is necessary.
and this coming a few months after sleeper cells set off drones all over Iran to suppress air defense systems and assassinate civilians.
It seems your framing is completely different than everything I read as well.
ya no ****. its not my fault that you are incurious and fully propagandized to believe in Wester Superiority.
yes its super weird that I think violent suppression of foreign controlled mobs that were going around shooting innocent people, burning people alive, beating people to death, firebombing mosques is necessary.and this coming a few months after sleeper cells set off drones all over Iran to suppress air defense systems and assassinate civilians. ya no ****. its not my fault tha
Finally you're back!!
Jumping to conclusions again.
How is it possible that you are the only person in this forum with these claims , do you really think everyone here is out to get you?
For awhile the US has been ordering Israel to keep specific officials alive, in hopes for diplomacy, that never really materialized. And there isn't a lot of confidence right now it will in the near future. Maybe they are exaggerating for leverage, and this isn't completely true. But Israel has announced they have been given full carte blanche to hunt and assassinate IRGC offi
Between which parties?
wdym you sneak it in and you make it go boom. There's a movie about it from like 20 years ago. not all nukes are huge. "The Sum of All Fears is considered moderately plausible in its premise of nuclear terrorism and brinkmanship,"But why does it have to be the united states that gets hit..? anyone getting hit is bad I guess you don't see the jews as people.Just because its diff
This seems like a very juvenile analysis. I woud be shocked, absolutely shocked, if concerns about a first strike nuclear attack are close to the main reason why the U.S. wants to prevent the Iranian theocracy from having a nuclear weapon. The U.S. doesn't want the Iranian theocracy to have nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are **** you leverage in a lot of ways. For obvious reasons, the U.S. government doesn't want a hostile (and objectively terrible) government of a large, strategically important country to have **** you leverage.
Plus there is the fact that no amount of help could reopen the straight. It's militarily impossible if Iran doesn't want it open and everyone but Trump and probably him too knows that. So it would be suicide missions he's asking for
This is a gambling forum but youve said a straight like 10 times here.
I think we will be unfortunately talking about the strait a year from now but do you want to make a side bet on either the straight being open or who xontrols the strait a year from now?
We don't what would happen, and there is also the potential for proliferation or nuclear material ending up in even worse hands. Iran with nuclear weapons would be a disaster, and it would likely be a disaster also for Iran. For that matter, anyone with nuclear weapons is a disaster. It is just a bad idea. There is this myth of that nuclear weapons deter nuclear war, or even th
As I said earlier, this isn’t really an issue with most of the world. Outside a few cases, countries have generally worked to avoid nuclear proliferation for exactly the reasons you mentioned. A good example is Ukraine. They gave up the nuclear weapons they inherited after the Soviet collapse.
The problems start when when countries start moving towatds those line. Imagine how Russia would react if Ukraine suddenly started enriching uranium today. Or take Japan. They clearly have the technical capability, but imagine how China would respond if Japan started enriching to weapons-grade levels.
This is a gambling forum but youve said a straight like 10 times here.
I think we will be unfortunately talking about the strait a year from now but do you want to make a side bet on either the straight being open or who xontrols the strait a year from now?
If I we're willing to bet I'd say July-ish. Iran just doesn't have much by way of contingencies if they lose their skies or territorial waters, which they rapidly are. This isn't at all like Afghanistan where we're hunting down terrorist cells in the mountains. We know where their missle cities are. So once we can get the the jets in, it will all over for their coastal operations.
As I said earlier, this isn’t really an issue with most of the world. Outside a few cases, countries have generally worked to avoid nuclear proliferation for exactly the reasons you mentioned. A good example is Ukraine. They gave up the nuclear weapons they inherited after the Soviet collapse.The problems start when when countries start moving towatds those line. Imagine
That line of thought is over and dead.
Most nuclear deals have been abandoned or not renewed. Countries with nuclear weapons are renewing their programs. Ukraine is an example of a country which gave up its nuclear weapons for security guarantees - and was rewarded by being invaded by the one giving the security guarantee. As a result, there is no incentive for other countries to follow suit. Nor is nuclear weapons in sane hands. The country with the biggest arsenal of weapons, Russia, threatens nuclear war on a weekly basis - cycling through whichever capital they didn't like this time around.
Europe has pretty much abandoned nuclear disarmament and is looking for nuclear umbrella agreements or even pursuing nuclear weapons on the individual state level.
The world is skyrocketing towards greater levels of nuclear proliferation than we have ever seen before, while alliances are toppling, international organizations crumbling and diplomacy eroding.
Basically, we're in a time of mutually assured idiocy.
If I we're willing to bet I'd say July-ish. Iran just doesn't have much by way of contingencies if they lose their skies or territorial waters, which they rapidly are. This isn't at all like Afghanistan where we're hunting down terrorist cells in the mountains. We know where their missle cities are. So once we can get the the jets in, it will all over for their coastal operatio
Like a good bootlicker, you're good at regurgitating propaganda.
If I we're willing to bet I'd say July-ish. Iran just doesn't have much by way of contingencies if they lose their skies or territorial waters, which they rapidly are. This isn't at all like Afghanistan where we're hunting down terrorist cells in the mountains. We know where their missle cities are. So once we can get the the jets in, it will all over for their coastal operatio
My point is, and I thiknk LB of all people should understand this, is that the U.S. has interests in the region that go far beyond regime change - maintaining open trade routes, protecting oil flows and such. The longer this conflict continues, the more strategic pressure builds for the strait to remain open and for the US to effectively control shipping. Iran doesn’t have this same luxury
Whether it points to a mistake or pre planned, who are we to know, it's Trump. But the combo there on either scenario being the case points to the argument for the US doing just that.
The US is very talented at drawing out issues for a very long time to gradually assert dominance and the leader involved seems to have the perfect personality for it.
Edit: ... I really don't want to bet on this LB and I'm going to take it back.
And yet whatever argument is put in front of you, you inevitably come up with the same accusation aka believer of western superiority/genocidal white supremacist etc...
So it seems indeed either you can't read or you live in your own bubble.
I guarentee you would find a way to patronize a palestinan on his own turf if you ever happened to leave your own town.
This is a gambling forum but youve said a straight like 10 times here.
I think we will be unfortunately talking about the strait a year from now but do you want to make a side bet on either the straight being open or who xontrols the strait a year from now?
It's not even a straight strait.
