you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 1 hour ago (15 children)

This would be a big gamble for him, because if he drops nukes in Iran and Iranians still somehow maintain control of Hormuz, the US is oficially dead as a global superpower.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 minutes ago

    I feel like we are already dead as a superpower thanks to conservatives. Conservatives have revealed that our "strength" was all talk and that most of our military spending has been grift and bribery.

    Conservatives ran out of resources in the first phase of a war they started and they can't stop lying about it. We're already dead as a superpower. We just haven't experienced the full effects of it yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    He's 80 and he probably has deals in Russia for his family to live safely, does anyone really think he cares what happens to Americans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

    Send a nuke, expect to get a nuke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 minutes ago

    I hope they at least target the parts of the population responsible for our descent into fascism. That would actually improve life for the normal people and give us an edge if we ever decide to finish Sherman's work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

    I doubt Russia or China would start a nuclear exchange with the US over Iran.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 58 minutes ago (2 children)

    That's fair of you to think that. I think, however, that russia has been waiting for an excuse to use their nuclear devices.

    China not so much. They are too fond of the economy and prefer to just supply both sides with components.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 53 minutes ago* (1 child)

    That’s fair of you to think that. I think, however, that russia has been waiting for an excuse to use their nuclear devices.

    Indeed, but they wouldn't attack the US, they would use the US usage of nuclear weapons in Iran as an excuse to use them in Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    I mean, nukes would guarantee nuclear fallout hitting at least one of the neighboring nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. That would set in stone our rank of dead last as a potential partner in all things military, trade, monetary, etc. The fallout would likely permanently fuck up the strait, so insuring tankers in the strait might be impossible at that point, so passage would be pointless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 40 minutes ago (1 child)

    Why would it guarantee such an eventuality?

    Strategic nukes - you know, the ones on ICBMs, the ones capable of such fallout scenario - are preventative. They’re MAD. Nobody wants to use them, everybody wants to have them. Their goal is total annihilation, maximum amount of radiation and destruction.

    Tactical nuclear weapons are the ones you actually deploy - small, targeted charges with minimal radiation, very specific radius of destruction, which can be as small as a city block. Hell, the smallest nuclear weapon, the W54, has a fireball radius of as small as 4 meters, with a blast radius of 100-120m (severe damage), and ~300-400m (window breaking damage). In fact the largest issue with such a nuclear device is the relatively large gamma and neutron radiation radius - even though the fireball itself is small, the prompt radiation at detonation would vapourise everything in a 100m radius.

    Basically if the US really wanted to play with nukes they could probably smuggle in maybe a dozen of these charges, and simultaneously vapourise the entire Iranian government as well as a handful of major landmarks in Tehran.

    Or, you know, since the capital IS on the other side of a considerable mountain range, they can just drop a 2-3 megaton warhead on Tehran, wiping out a good 2/3 of the city (airburst), killing about 7 million people, without having ANY kind of radiation effect beyond a 50km radius.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 19 minutes ago

    Which is why they should never have been allowed to be developed. You just showed what kind of rationale would be used to justify something that is still a nuclear weapon, but somehow fits past the MAD idea in some people's minds. Once we make that line gray, it can be shifted around to allow all sorts of things, and MAD fails.

  • source
  • parent