Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

[RaiGuy]

Israel can't send troops in?
Also, is it highly probable that it can be destroyed by bombing?

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

Of course. If we get directly involved then we're suckers, plain and simple. Not unlike what the South Vietnamese did during the Vietnam War - we did much of the fighting for them while they hung back. And when we finally left for good in 1973 and North Vietnam and the Viet Cong attacked, the South Vietnamese military, now forced to carry the burden of fighting on their own, mostly folded like a house of cards and the war ended rather quickly. And Israel isn't even like South Vietnam as they've shown that they are fully capable of defending themselves and taking out Iranian assets by themselves. And yet they want us to put our people at risk to try and end a war they started.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

It sure does sound like that is the case, and it doesn't hurt their wish that trump is such a fucking moron.

 

[Huh?]

Afghanistan is a more recent example than South Vietnam.

The only thing on the table that we can do that Israelis can't is to bomb Fordow from the air. I mean, we can do additional things that the Israelis can't, but they shouldn't be under consideration.

 

[Huh?]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

You can criticize Israel for many things, but their willingness to deploy their own soldiers isn't one of them. At least the non-Orthodox ones...

 

[gregh1]

We have business. The business is preventing Iran from acquiring nukes that could be used against us.

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

 

[Huh?]

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

 

[superrific]

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

For one thing, transportation. It's not as if those trade routes carry the big bales of marijuana so useful for nuke smuggling.

 

[Calheel]

Alpha radiation is much, much less energetic and harmful than gamma radiation.

But if you used a bomb full of gamma radiation, it would backfire because you’d end up creating a whole army of Incredible Hulks.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

I'm not sure what more the West could do to isolate Russia than they already have since their invasion of Ukraine, at least before Trump took office. Short of actually bombing or invading Russia somehow, that is.

 

[Huh?]

But if you used a bomb full of gamma radiation, it would backfire because you’d end up creating a whole army of Incredible Hulks.

Stop giving Anduril more ideas.

 

[gregh1]

For one thing, transportation. It's not as if those trade routes carry the big bales of marijuana so useful for nuke smuggling.

Nuke bombs don't have to be giant - at least that is what Ben Affleck said in The Sum of All Fears .

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

So honestly if we're talking about terrorists doing terrorism things, not much. If the goal is to prevent Iran from being able to nuke manhattan or drive an explosive boat into the US, we aren't fool-proofing this at all.

 

[ZenMode]

Not even remotely close. And an Iranian ship headed for the US would almost certainly hit Hawaii or Alaska, but that's neither here nor there.

Terrorists are very resourceful.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.

 

[superrific]

Terrorists are very resourceful.

Actually, most of them aren't. If they were, we'd be in much bigger doodoo than we are.

But more importantly, the problem with that ridiculous meme (aside from being a virtual replica of Iraq War propaganda) is science, not terrorists.

 

[RaiGuy]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

They might not shoot down that plane, but if the US gets involved, it will put all our troops that are in based in the Middle East in danger.

 

[mpaer]

Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.

Once we bomb
All bets are off on what happens next

 

[hedge]

Well maybe Lower Manhattan wouldn't be the right target. Or maybe I'm just full of shit about this. It seems plausible that the reaction to a dirty bomb would be less than the reaction to a nuke (if for no other reason than to disincentivize nuke production), but plausible isn't the same as true.

I misread your original post, I guess a dirty bomb isn't a nuke, but I think any type of bomb (whatever it's called) that released radioactive material that caused lower Manhattan to be shut down would be met with massive reprisal. Maybe not turn Iran into glass, but pretty fucking severe...

 

[gregh1]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

There are bases all over the middle east within striking range of Iran. There are embassies all over the middle east within striking range of terrorists with passports. There are shipping lanes, Straits of Hormuz, that will soon have military vessels, potentially at risk of mines, etc. And there are American tourists everywhere.