They'd be pretty inept if they didn't.
They also probably thought about shit with Russia/Ukraine
I'd also not be surprised to see some more 9/11 shit in the US. They disassembled a lot of our security infra and put idiots in charge of things.
That's true, he stole our spy police and made them race police
All police are race police.
I'd also not be surprised to see some more 9/11 shit in the US. They disassembled a lot of our security infra and put idiots in charge of things.
I'm reasonably certain that was the goal. They need to manufacture a crisis so they can get as close to a full government bypass as possible. I only hope if it happens, it isnt nuclear or dirty... And if it has to be anywhere... Somewhere directly responsible for the renewed hate.
So much for nuclear proliferation... even as a Canadian I feel we should pursue nuclear weapons now. Then I know USA wouldn't just invade us one day when Trump gets mad about something petty.
Did you not get the message that nuclear proliferation was over when the U.S. toppled Libya or when Russia invaded Ukraine twice?
Using nukes and watching the radioactive fallout cover Israel would be classic Trump.
Huh.
You know, I was aware about how fucking stupid and awful things are but it never once occurred to me that yes Trump and his yes men are in office and they do have access to nukes.
Like yeah. I knew that, that's obvious. But it never once occurred to me that thier use would ever be in play. I never thought anyone, no matter how stupid and depraved would use them.
I'm not surprised. But at the same time. I am.
The threat has been there since Trump said he wanted to resume nuclear weapon testing even though every expert said it was an absolutely terrible idea.
He wants to order a nuclear strike on something. He's been trying to find the right excuse.
Tbf it could be Israel that drops a nuke, but same difference.
Honestly, unless they do it without Trump's knowledge, I don't think Trump would pass up the opportunity of being the one to press the button.
Obviously, geographically it would come from Israel. But Trump would definitely want to be given the "glory".
Cancer for you and I and malformities of our grandkids.
And 2 pariah states with legacies they will never outlive.
Im the opposite, it was the first thing i thought of when he made that speech in january, when he became president again. I hope there are powerful people in the military who will refuse to use nuclear weapons, because otherwise they are more insane than i realized.
I think if anyone is going to use a nuclear weapon, it'll be israel.
The US can pull out, president man-baby can write a fanfiction about himself winning the war, and all his thugs can turn their attention to some other debacle, but israel will always be within range of Iranian missiles.
Without US support (and many Americans, even some of the really evil ones, have had enough of israel at this point) it could end up facing an existential threat. They've shown again and again that they have absolutely no regard for human life, and they don't even seem to consider blowback most of the time. I believe israel going "Samson option" is by far the most likely nuclear scenario.
Nuclear weapons are great at leveling cities, but not so great at destroying military infrastructure. On a per-dollar basis they actually kind of suck as weapons of war. From a purely rational strategic perspective, they're most useful as a deterrent (which is how Israel has been using them). Netanyahu is an imperialist genocidal maniac but he's not dumb.
Whereas if and when Trump does get his wish to pop a nuke, it won't be for strategic gain but because he just couldn't be restrained anymore. This absolute moron wanted to nuke a fucking hurricane FFS. It's only a matter of time before he gets his wish since the US military has lost all ability to tell him no.
Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe "there are no innocents in Gaza", and that every child born is "already a terrorist from the moment of his birth".
Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.
So that's making a very critical assumption: that Israel's territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that. And Hamas/Hezbollah is not an existential threat to Israel's existence despite propaganda to the contrary. We've already seen the full extent of their military capabilities.
The Samson Option is a one time, last-resort deterrence option for when all other defensive and offensive mechanisms have failed. Israel's small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
If Netanyahu pops a nuke for any other reason, he fundamentally shifts his neighbors' calculus in favor of uniting and attacking Israel because nukes are explicitly not a last resort anymore, therefore Israel becomes an immediate existential threat to all its neighbors that must be dealt with accordingly.
That's the thing with nuclear deterrence: it works, but only if your enemies are clear on the lines they can't cross. Otherwise you're just a threat to be eliminated. And ultimately there's only so much that propaganda can help with there. Israel may have convinced a majority of their citizens that genocide is good, but they can't propagandize their enemies into believing that preemptive nuclear strikes are necessary. Netanyahu can whine about Iran's nuclear program all he wants, none of his enemies seriously believe they are close to having nukes.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble that very significantly (if not entirely) weakens nuclear deterrence... All for relatively little military gain. There's very little a nuke would do that Israel can't do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there's a whole lot that nukes don't do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
So that's making a very critical assumption: that Israel's territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.
Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel's nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran's missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.
Israel's small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.
There's very little a nuke would do that Israel can't do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there's a whole lot that nukes don't do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble
Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.
Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question. The rules of nuclear warfare aren't governed by morality but by game theory. From Israel's perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort for the reasons I outlined. Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally – which you will notice is not at all the same thing as acting morally or honestly. Using nuclear weapons is simply not a tactically rational option for them even if when their explicit goal is genocidal imperialism.
What's scary about Trump is that none of this applies to him. He is not a rational actor and he does not have everything to lose were he to launch a nuclear strike against Iran.
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question
From Israel's perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort
Correct.
Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally
Genocide isn't perpetuated by rational thinkers, is not an act of self preservation, and does not protect the wellbeing of it's perpetrators. The absurdity of this cannot be understated.
I am not making a moral argument. I am stating Israel has shown the depravity to use tactics of absolute destruction and barbarity, an established doctrine promoting the use of nuclear arms if Israel were to take heavy damage, and the fact that Israel is taking significant damage as their defenses continue to weaken as additional fronts open. These are all key requirements for the use of nuclear arms by Israel, and they are increasingly being met. Suggesting the US is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons from their position of relative safety is just laughable.
You must be a well adjusted person and don't follow his speeches or interviews a lot.
If you're as brain rotted as me you'll learn his "jokes" or "I'm not saying buts" are him testing responses to actual things he wants to do.
He has been talking about "the N word" (Nuclear) for awhile. He wants to be a president that is remembered. He doesn't view history as a person with morality would. He does not care if he's remembered as a Hitler. He definitely would drop a nuke if the opportunity presented itself.
The only thing stopping him is the restraint of people in his admin. Not the people we see on TV. But the actual military leaders. And these military leaders are not moral either. They are simply concerned with whether is it strategically helpful to use one. Nukes are really not useful in warfare. I think this is literally the last line of sanity that keeps it from happening. We are all relying on war crazed genocide supporting military leaders to not see it as a good strategic option.
However, Iran is different. Trump cannot admit it was a mistake. His ego will not let him. And the military cannot secure trade routes without boots on the ground and tens of thousands of American military deaths.
So, well, those military leaders are being put in a corner. My only hope is that a military coup would be much more reasonable to them than dropping nukes. Trump wants to drop a nuke. But he wants to drop "the best nuke". The "most strategic nuke". Something that he will make him a great figure in his mind. Not a good figure. Not a moral figure. But in anyway that will be remembered with importance.
Iran at this point is likely going to be forced to make a sprint for the bomb. What else are they supposed to do, just accept that Israel will periodically bomb them every few months and kill thousands of people each time? The only path Iran has to security is nukes.
At the same time, it seems now that Israel and the US really don't have a way of preventing Iran from getting the bomb. The US, let alone Israel, doesn't even have a military large enough to occupy Iran. And any attempted occupation of Iran would be Iraq times ten. Wave after wave of suicide bombers and IEDs.
Israel and the the US have put Iran in the position where it really needs to push for nukes. At the same time, Israel and the US really don't have any good way to prevent Iran from finishing their weapons program. They already have highly enriched uranium, and it's a giant country with countless places to hide centrifuges and bomb-making equipment. The US and Israel are really good at hacking communications and locating potential targets, but I imagine the Iranian regime is quickly moving entirely to analog methods of communication. Literally bringing out the typewriters. I really don't see how the US and Israel can really stop the Iranians from getting the bomb.
No way...except one. If Iran really wants to push for nukes, the only way to really stop them would be to use nukes against them. You might not be able to find a bomb program divided and scattered in a hundred locations across Tehran, but that doesn't matter if you simply make Tehran cease existing in its entirety.
That's what has me so worried about this. The US and Israel are simultaneously forcing Iran to rush for the bomb, while at the same time, the US and Israel have no real conventional method to prevent the Iranians from finishing their nukes.
I can think of an effective way to keep iran from getting nuclear weapons. Agree to and honor a treaty.
What do you mean we tried that and it was working until dipshit donny interfered
Trump has shown time and again that his agreements are worthless.
In fact this war was launched in the middle of negotiations that were going very well and we're likely to result in anti nuclear deal that was even better than the Obama one
I’ve been thinking they’ll use the nukes since they started this thing.
All they know is escalation, and eventually when they run out of other ideas that one is a pretty big escalation to try out.
Same. The rest of NATO would condemn it and kick us out, but they’re not going to retaliate. Russia and China aren’t going to retaliate. It’s a chance to do it and get away with it to the sounds of condemnation but no direct consequences to the people who order it. It allows them to project their power and willingness to go to the extreme. I don’t even think it would be a move of desperation as much as a “because we can”. They love to be perceived as intimidating and project strength.
If the US nukes Iran I want my government to sever all ties. No matter the amount of damage that does to us, you cannot let that shit pass.
I wish more nations would start severing ties currently, or at least sanctioning, imposing tariffs, refusing to do business with American based businesses. Hopefully people in other nations are already avoiding purchasing as much US product as they can. It won’t bankrupt the oligarchs but it’ll get passed on to the rest of us. Conservatives will abide all sorts of cruelty and injustice so long as people they don’t like are getting hurt. But you’ll never find a bigger “victim” than a conservative when the leopards arrive. His loyalists won’t turn on him but the ones who tolerated the hate because they thought it would benefit them will, and if they have to suffer business losses, foreclosures, and poverty as a result, good.
Here's the Politico article that this article from The Independent cites and takes the most sensational part of for its headline.
The nuclear threat that Balkhy talks about is mainly potential fallout from strikes on nuclear sites. She also mentions a nuclear weapon because both aggressors have them, but you can tell she's plainly focused on the former.
Both aggressors . U.S and Israel both have nukes. Iran does not.
But China does.
I think Trump will seriously threaten with nukes but he won't actually use them because Russia will MAD back Iran.
Otherwise they would genuinely consider using tactical nukes for instant victory.
I'm pretty confident Russia isn't going to launch nukes on the US if the US uses them on Iran, unless I misunderstood what you said.
Maybe not on the US but the bases it has surrounding Iran and definitely would use them in Ukraine.
I hope you are right. And it makes sense.
On the other hand, that orange child rapist has the temperament of an insane toddler, and wants to be remembered. At the moment he's remembered mostly for being in cahoots with Epstein and for protecting paedos etc etc, so what better way to change that than by using a nuke on Iran...
If history tells us anything that person is wrong. That was the same thought process in 1914.
Not boring. Like the sort of opposite really.
They’d be stupid not to prepare.
I just know the orange and the drunk clown would get hard from the thought of using nukes if they still could get hard.
I honestly would be shocked if herr trump didnt use a nuke
Nukes should be treated like fine China. You only break them out when you have visitors. The visitors needed for nukes are hostile aliens.
Spaceballs? Oh, shit. There goes the planet.
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world