• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

US - Iran - Israel | Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd-28th | Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
But it may violate the idea of proportional response
Will the US respond to the sinking of an aircraft carrier with nuclear weapons? Ehhh...I don't think
Dozens of lost nuclear weapons, lost triad platform, thousands dead, and God knows how much in military hardware? Nuclear response against military targets is proportional which is why it's almost an automatic 'on the table' response to an attack on our nuclear triad or the destruction of our nuclear weapons REGARDLESS whom it is.

I agree it's not guaranteed. But it will be on the table. It will likely be pushed on Trump imo. Trump could very well take that option. It would be proportional.
 
Plus, drop a bomb on Iran and where does that fallout go? You think Afghanistan or Pakistan will be happy about that?
Air bursting tactical nuclear weapons wouldn't produce enough fallout to reach anywhere unless it was right up on the borders. Also I'd assume we would not be hitting fireboxes/cities.

Strategic nuclear weapons wouldn't be proportional.

Tactical nuclear weapons are though, would be against military targets inside Iran in the event they somehow managed the miracle of sinking an aircraft carrier. At least the option will be presented. And I'm pretty sure Trump would take it. Just a guess though of course.

Play with fire, get burned by fire.
 
Here's a little insight on how difficult it is to attack and sink a US Carrier. 👇
This next one is where the US is light years ahead of any adversary. The F35 and B2 are NOT just stealthy weapons delivery platforms.
And finally, to put it all together. 👇
 
A nuclear response is an option to anything. It's just a matter of proportion. Some events are more likely to invite a nuclear response than others.

Will the US respond to the sinking of an aircraft carrier with nuclear weapons? Ehhh...I don't think so. Not when there are other options available. The geopolitical ramifications are too great for the US to respond with that kind of force.

Plus, drop a bomb on Iran and where does that fallout go? You think Afghanistan or Pakistan will be happy about that?
It's an area of debate with 2 opposing points of view. A very interesting thought experiment. Is it an idea for a video for the DWS YouTube channel?
 
Air bursting tactical nuclear weapons wouldn't produce enough fallout to reach anywhere unless it was right up on the borders. Also I'd assume we would not be hitting fireboxes/cities.

Strategic nuclear weapons wouldn't be proportional.

Tactical nuclear weapons are though, would be against military targets inside Iran in the event they somehow managed the miracle of sinking an aircraft carrier. At least the option will be presented. And I'm pretty sure Trump would take it. Just a guess though of course.

Play with fire, get burned by fire.
Ambiguity is key here. An adversary not sure how far or what the US would do. IMO
 
Here's a little insight on how difficult it is to attack and sink a US Carrier. 👇



This next one is where the US is light years ahead of any adversary. The F35 and B2 are NOT just stealthy weapons delivery platforms.

And finally, to put it all together. 👇
I think most of us agree Iran is unlikely to succeed in sinking a USN carrier. But "what ifs" are still fun to consider....
 
I suppose the question would be. Would it be easier and cheaper to use a couple tactical nuclear weapons or launch a all massive conventional assault/invasion AND most importantly would tactical nuclear use be as or equally proportional to a massive all out conventional assault/invasion.

I say yes, across the board, especially given our dwindling conventional stockpiles, in the very unlikely scenario they manage to sink a aircraft carrier. Which I feel my house is more likely to get struck by an asteroid than this for Iran to achieve such a thing.
 
Rumors are that Iran and Trump have reached a set of fundamental agreements that will be used to set up a deal. I wonder if this has anything to do with China and Russia deploying ships to the Strait…

Maybe that’s a rumor at this time, can someone verify that? Busy repping out back day at the gym.
 
Gonna thro this wrench out there, Olympics end, Hammerhead begin,
Assets built up the region…..
Maybe an isotope Iranian cargo carrier is blown danger close to a valued asset?

Anywhere in the theatres a little barren?

If you were Mr ping ,what a better time to go to action?

Helluva gamibit, but a good chess move…

Randem crazy thoughts😂
 
Gonna thro this wrench out there, Olympics end, Hammerhead begin,
Assets built up the region…..
Maybe an isotope Iranian cargo carrier is blown danger close to a valued asset?

Anywhere in the theatres a little barren?

If you were Mr ping ,what a better time to go to action?

Helluva gamibit, but a good chess move…

Randem crazy thoughts😂
As much as I love the Winter Olympics, I’m starting to think they’re bad luck for geopolitics.
 
From what I understand this is a pre-planned drill and has nothing to do with the current situation, also the ships are not in the theater at this point.
Its an annual (?) tr-nation drill held in March.

Rumour in ths part of the world is that if the Yanks are going to things off it will be the end of this week so keep an eye out for Friday / Saturday.
 
The State of the Union address is on the 24th. Think the president will announce a peace deal or the start of war? 🤔
Ooh great question. Let's not get overly partisan with responses so we can keep this thread unlocked.

If no military action occurs before SOTU, I think the President will announce a peace deal that is overly optimistic in nature. There may only be a framework for discussion in place, but President Trump will fall back on previous strategies to use power of positive thinking to try and shape a favorable negotiated outcome.

(I don't think it will succeed, but I think President Trump will give it a try ...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom