User Controls
5000 rockets hit Israel
-
2024-10-08 at 12:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by 🦄🌈 MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING - vaxxed and octoboosted 💉 (we beat covid!) 👬💕👭🍀 (🍩✊) They won't bomb the oil, it's too much like what Saddam did. But they will pretend like they will as a feint. The oil is good for keeping Iran rich,and rich people don't want war and have lower birthrates. If you hate somebody, make them rich.
Obviously they're going to be going all in on attacking the nuclear program, since that is actually a threat.
iran is relatively rich and has been so since like 2016, -
2024-10-08 at 12:05 PM UTC
-
2024-10-08 at 4:29 PM UTCmuh iranian nucular test
muh end of days -
2024-10-08 at 4:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Elbow muh iranian nucular test
muh end of days
maybe, it does seem likely.
major, unexpected seismic activity under Iran's western deserts
airspace above closed for weeks according to NOTAMs
Government is officially walking back the 'nuclear weapons are forbidden' edict, effectively saying that they're evil but may be necessary to prevent greater evils -
2024-10-08 at 4:47 PM UTCI still don't see the point though, having one or two nukes isn't going to stop israel from chimping out and trying to wipe them before they can get into serial production
-
2024-10-08 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas I still don't see the point though, having one or two nukes isn't going to stop israel from chimping out and trying to wipe them before they can get into serial production
Yeah Israel has wiped out Iranian nuclear production before.
What's different this time is that, besides the whole war thing, Iran's new facilities are under mountains. You can drop bunker busters on the entrances, but even with salvos of GBU-57's (which I'm not sure if Israel has even 1) they would have to penetrate through so much earth to get there.
Not even to mention Iranian AA knocking down the slow bombers needed to carry bunker busters. -
2024-10-08 at 7:12 PM UTCIn 2020 there was a bipartisan effort to supply Isreal with the MOP. Isreal has the US GBU- 57. Officially it can only be delivered by the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, or B-21 Raider bombers. However Isreals' fleet of C-130s could easily be modified for delivery. Also there are credible rumors that they have heavily modified a limited number if F- 15s to carry a single GBU-57.
But let's say Iran had say two viable nuclear warheads hidden deep in an unreachable bunker. They can't deliver them without first exposing them. Launch sites, guidance facilities, power logistics, and all manner of necessary infrastructure required to deliver a successful nuclear strike other than the actual warhead are quite vulnerable.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-10-08 at 7:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes Yeah Israel has wiped out Iranian nuclear production before.
What's different this time is that, besides the whole war thing, Iran's new facilities are under mountains. You can drop bunker busters on the entrances, but even with salvos of GBU-57's (which I'm not sure if Israel has even 1) they would have to penetrate through so much earth to get there.
Not even to mention Iranian AA knocking down the slow bombers needed to carry bunker busters.
pretty sure they spent like 20 of them killing Nasrallah
Originally posted by Speedy Parker In 2020 there was a bipartisan effort to supply Isreal with the MOP. Isreal has the US GBU- 57. Officially it can only be delivered by the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, or B-21 Raider bombers. However Isreals' fleet of C-130s could easily be modified for delivery. Also there are credible rumors that they have heavily modified a limited number if F- 15s to carry a single GBU-57.
But let's say Iran had say two viable nuclear warheads hidden deep in an unreachable bunker. They can't deliver them without first exposing them. Launch sites, guidance facilities, power logistics, and all manner of necessary infrastructure required to deliver a successful nuclear strike other than the actual warhead are quite vulnerable.
it's not even really about the nuclear weapons themselves; having them at all is more effective as a deterrent than a practical weapon, and since one or two aren't going to kill a country it opens the door to israel, the US or even some other nuclear country pre-emptively attacking before they can properly arm themselves -
2024-10-08 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker In 2020 there was a bipartisan effort to supply Isreal with the MOP. Isreal has the US GBU- 57. Officially it can only be delivered by the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, or B-21 Raider bombers. However Isreals' fleet of C-130s could easily be modified for delivery. Also there are credible rumors that they have heavily modified a limited number if F- 15s to carry a single GBU-57.
But let's say Iran had say two viable nuclear warheads hidden deep in an unreachable bunker. They can't deliver them without first exposing them. Launch sites, guidance facilities, power logistics, and all manner of necessary infrastructure required to deliver a successful nuclear strike other than the actual warhead are quite vulnerable.
Yes.
On another note, the biggest payoff Israel can possibly have in this situation is crippling Iranian nuclear production capabilities. Destroying other infrastructure would be useful, but there is a gambit that Israel has to take when destroying anything in Iran:
Outcome 1: If Iran chooses to not repair infrastructure, then Israel wins, and does not have to escalate the immediate situation any further.
Outcome 2: If Iran does choose to repair this infrastructure, then Israel has to risk further escalation of the immediate situation, spent resources, and diplomatic dunce status in order to further prevent Iran from acquiring/ using nukes. -
2024-10-08 at 7:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas pretty sure they spent like 20 of them killing Nasrallah
Yeah his bunker got blown to smithereens. Israel really had it out for him.
Originally posted by ner vegas it's not even really about the nuclear weapons themselves; having them at all is more effective as a deterrent than a practical weapon
Yes
See: North Korea, Russia (minus kursk), India/Pakistan. -
2024-10-08 at 7:31 PM UTCalso Iran has a credible air defence network, unless it could be destroyed or disabled in some way trying to bomb them with C-130s is hilariously retarded
-
2024-10-08 at 7:35 PM UTC
-
2024-10-09 at 12:04 AM UTC
-
2024-10-09 at 12:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas I still don't see the point though, having one or two nukes isn't going to stop israel from chimping out and trying to wipe them before they can get into serial production
but now the military planners would have to consider tel aviv becoming a wasteland with parts of it being uninhabitable for sometime.
its all about adding the unknowns into the equation for those who push buttons. -
2024-10-09 at 12:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas it's not even really about the nuclear weapons themselves; having them at all is more effective as a deterrent than a practical weapon, and since one or two aren't going to kill a country it opens the door to israel, the US or even some other nuclear country pre-emptively attacking before they can properly arm themselves
the problem with nukes as deterrence is that it doesnt work on those who cant perceive the threats of damage and destruction it brings.
the russians have nukes and yet someone in the US and UK still have considered attacking it, directly or indirectly. obvioulsy russian nuked didnt deter these people because nukes dont work on children,
putin should have threatened to kill bidens dog and strammers cat if russia was ever attacked instead. thats thr kind threat that works on children.
not nukes/ -
2024-10-09 at 12:34 AM UTCA massive, full-on nuclear attack from Russia would be a deadly first strike, if it was hundreds of ICBMs all fired at once and targeted to key areas, which would knock out America nationwide before they even had a chance to fire back, followed immediately by 5,000,000 in ground forces to blast them out of their hideyholes.
-
2024-10-09 at 1:44 AM UTC
-
2024-10-09 at 7:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A massive, full-on nuclear attack from Russia would be a deadly first strike, if it was hundreds of ICBMs all fired at once and targeted to key areas, which would knock out America nationwide before they even had a chance to fire back, followed immediately by 5,000,000 in ground forces to blast them out of their hideyholes.
Russia can't handle Ukraine lol. Russia currently has only around 1.5 million active duty troops. A great percentage of which are poorly trained, I'll equipped, and badly led conscripts with no moral. They also have around 2 million reserves equipped primarily with soviet era equipment including Mosin–Nagants.
Put inside conscription and military spending along with severe sanctions have crippled the Russian economy.
Were Putin to attempt to conscript, train, equipped, and deploy another 1.5 million conscripts and mobilize his entire reserve force the RRussian economy would implode.
But let's say the war fairy waved her magic wand and gave all that to Put in at no cost. How the hell is he going to get them out of the Back Sea, through the Mediterranean, and across the Atlantic. Or out of the Back Sea, through the Indian Ocean, and across the South Pacific. Or even across the Bearing Strait.
He has no Black Sea fleet left to speak of thanks to Ukraine and his Baltic fleet would never make it to the North Atlantic.
In other words he had no possibility of getting even 500,000 ground troops to the stores if North America yet alone 5 million.
If knowledge of what it takes to wage war was a finger yours wouldn't be big enough to pick a "Sea Monkeys" nose. -
2024-10-09 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Charles Ex Machina the problem with nukes as deterrence is that it doesnt work on those who cant perceive the threats of damage and destruction it brings.
the russians have nukes and yet someone in the US and UK still have considered attacking it, directly or indirectly. obvioulsy russian nuked didnt deter these people because nukes dont work on children,
putin should have threatened to kill bidens dog and strammers cat if russia was ever attacked instead. thats thr kind threat that works on children.
not nukes/
I don't think there is any nation that doesn't understand the destruction a strat nuke can cause, let alone 100's of them. -
2024-10-09 at 8:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Russia can't handle Ukraine lol. Russia currently has only around 1.5 million active duty troops. A great percentage of which are poorly trained, I'll equipped, and badly led conscripts with no moral. They also have around 2 million reserves equipped primarily with soviet era equipment including Mosin–Nagants.
Put inside conscription and military spending along with severe sanctions have crippled the Russian economy.
Were Putin to attempt to conscript, train, equipped, and deploy another 1.5 million conscripts and mobilize his entire reserve force the RRussian economy would implode.
But let's say the war fairy waved her magic wand and gave all that to Put in at no cost. How the hell is he going to get them out of the Back Sea, through the Mediterranean, and across the Atlantic. Or out of the Back Sea, through the Indian Ocean, and across the South Pacific. Or even across the Bearing Strait.
He has no Black Sea fleet left to speak of thanks to Ukraine and his Baltic fleet would never make it to the North Atlantic.
In other words he had no possibility of getting even 500,000 ground troops to the stores if North America yet alone 5 million.
If knowledge of what it takes to wage war was a finger yours wouldn't be big enough to pick a "Sea Monkeys" nose.
You should take a reading comprehension course.
