- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
TRUMP ON IRAN: “I’d prefer not to destroy the rest of the country, but I may have to do that—you’ll know very soon... You’re going to see some BIG things in the next week, two weeks.”
So true. They have been used already in combat by the United States in Japan in 1945. So you're time line need not be that long....I've said this before and I'll say it again: The odds of a nuclear weapon being used in combat are 100% over a long enough timeline. As long as they exist, someone will eventually use one. The only questions are who, where, and when?
I'm starting the clock after August 1945 and referring to the next use, but yeah. We're setting aside money to travel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 2045 for the 100th anniversary. Problem is, I don't think we'll make it that far before some other idiot pops one off somewhere.So true. They have been used already in combat by the United States in Japan in 1945. So you're time line need not be that long....
That aside, you have a valid and frightening point....
Their seems to be a growing spllit in the WH and the midterm results mean that he either goes all in quickly or looks for a quick way out.Exactly. The only two ways to "win" would be a ground invasion (which would be a pyrrhic victory at best) or the use of nuclear weapons. I'm reading into Trump's statements to finish Iran "quickly" as implying the use of nuclear weapons.
And they all share some things in common they have varying degrees of severity.I'm starting the clock after August 1945 and referring to the next use, but yeah. We're setting aside money to travel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 2045 for the 100th anniversary. Problem is, I don't think we'll make it that far before some other idiot pops one off somewhere.
Even more frightening is you can apply that statistical analysis to just about anything. Asteroid impact, gamma ray burst, CME...
If you suspect Netanyahu will limit his actions to a lame duck PM you might be mistaken there. It’s not even 100% what the new gov will look like. Definitely modified but not necessarily likud out all together.Their seems to be a growing spllit in the WH and the midterm results mean that he either goes all in quickly or looks for a quick way out.
Given netanyahu's lame duck status also I think it very possible that the grown ups in the WH and military will advise vety strongly against it. He might get a way with another '3 day campaign', possibly heavily weighted towards targets that are in any way related to Iran's nuclear programme but I think that the chances of him using a nuke (which I think were lower anyay than the media would have you believe) are massively diminished.
I certainly agree with your final sentence.If you suspect Netanyahu will limit his actions to a lame duck PM you might be mistaken there. It’s not even 100% what the new gov will look like. Definitely modified but not necessarily likud out all together.
I pointed out Trump might go all in an air campaign which ever way the elections went.
That said nuclear? Seriously nuclear, do we have any definitive indication they’re leaning this way or is it just a WAG.
Irans oil terminals are still mostly undamaged. As far as I could tell this is one of the few significant infrastructure installations that haven’t been leveled. Obvious reason way. Boots on the ground are out aside from limited covert strikes that’s it.
My bet if anything would be the terminals but that carries a whole host of drawbacks as well. But it would separate the IRGC from any hope of close to immediate relief if and when sanctions are lifted.
I’m not defending any action because I don’t have all the data just as none of us do. Just looking at what’s left that would be a major blow to the ayatollahs and IRGC.
It’s not a nuke or boots on the ground.
Update on Iraq NOTAM: Flight paths changed slightly over routine AD drills conducted by the Iraqi Armed Forces, nothing related to Iran.
en.964media.com
