Politics

[farmer_john]

Putin is not a conventional kinda guy.

Ive dealt with the russians. There hit or miss quality wise.
The avg russian soldier is trash.
And ukraine has bled them dry (not that they dont have alot left) Nukes are a non issue. Because everyone else has one. And its like a bunch of kids in a waiste deep pool of gasoline with matches. No one will light one off. So i wouldnt worry about that.

 

[Newboomer]

One nuke will start a chain

Ive dealt with the russians. There hit or miss quality wise.
The avg russian soldier is trash.
And ukraine has bled them dry (not that they dont have alot left) Nukes are a non issue. Because everyone else has one. And its like a bunch of kids in a waiste deep pool of gasoline with matches. No one will light one off. So i wouldnt worry about that.

One nuke will start a chain reaction and the world as we know it will cease to exist.

 

[spike.t]

There's an inflation wave coming. How worried should we be?

Economic consequences are an intrinsic aspect of the Iran conflict, writes BBC economics editor Faisal Islam.

www.bbc.com

 

[VertigoBE]

Even with a clear mission statement from the US, destroying Iran’s leadership, nuke facilities, navy and mayor military installations, things that the US military is very likely to achieve in a relatively short period of time, I do wonder how the US military can “extricate ” itself from this, if it will be possible.

The biggest card Iran has to play, is threatening the economic flows through the Strait. We could see months if not years, of sporadic attacks on passing vessels until a new, more pro-US Iranian government has a sufficiently strong hold on power to prevent it from the mainland. That would mean a very long time of volatility on oil, commodities, EU economies, and everything that comes with this.

@Red Leg, do you believe a short, intensive (primarily) air borne campaign would be enough to remove the threat permanently from the shipping through the Strait? Let alone threats to oil supply chain installations (refineries, crackers, ports, pipelines, etc)

 

[fourfive8]

BS on the analogy about kids with matches in a pool of gasoline. I have zero trust in kids making good decisions.

 

[fourfive8]

We’re hearing this same story yet again. US administrations, guided by politicians and “expert” advisors and generals and retired generals making fat retirement “bonuses” in the military-industrial complex. History clearly shows how poorly (wasteful and disastrous) this guidance with accompanying rationalizations has worked in the following factual examples. Roughly ten years, in Vietnam, 1964-74, primarily under Kennedy and Johnson. Similar experience repeated itself for 20 years and still continues to some degree to this day in Iraq beginning under Bush 2. Similar repeated itself for 20 years in Afghanistan, also beginning under Bush 2. We’re over 4 years into Ukraine and counting… beginning under Biden. Recent history finds only a couple of short, in and out, US military operations that ended up more or less as promised/advertised- the relatively small, very short Granada liberation under Reagan and the very short duration, large overwhelming force ratio used for the 1st Gulf War/Kuwait liberation under Bush 1.

OK cheerleaders for the blind or lazy on Iran, go ahead and deny or rationalize your memories all you want about factual history, even fairly recent history. That memory seems pretty short or has been ignored or massaged for purposes of rationalization. I hope I’m wrong on Iran but we’re barely in the first word of the first sentence on the first page of the first chapter of the book on Iran. This recent Iran crapstorm began in 1979-80 thanks largely to Carter and our MSM with huge money boosts and cryptic support along the way by Obama.

I’m reading and listening to all kinds of predictions of certainty on the future of this Iran war. I’ll remain cautious and skeptical yet hopeful. Everone has the right to blindly, brainlessly follow any advice they like.

 

[Marine 1]

You might want to debate that with Red Leg who probably knows more about that than anyone here.
A country with at least a couple thousand Nukes is not exactly what you would call weak.

The deterrent to any country using nukes is that it would mean the end of the country. Russia has been at war with Ukraine for four years! Look at their numbers on military strength.

 

[farmer_john]

The deterrent to any country using nukes is that it would mean the end of the country. Russia has been at war with Ukraine for four years! Look at their numbers on military strength.

Losing 30-40k a month

 

[Red Leg]

Even with a clear mission statement from the US, destroying Iran’s leadership, nuke facilities, navy and mayor military installations, things that the US military is very likely to achieve in a relatively short period of time, I do wonder how the US military can “extricate ” itself from this, if it will be possible.

The biggest card Iran has to play, is threatening the economic flows through the Strait. We could see months if not years, of sporadic attacks on passing vessels until a new, more pro-US Iranian government has a sufficiently strong hold on power to prevent it from the mainland. That would mean a very long time of volatility on oil, commodities, EU economies, and everything that comes with this.

@Red Leg, do you believe a short, intensive (primarily) air borne campaign would be enough to remove the threat permanently from the shipping through the Strait? Let alone threats to oil supply chain installations (refineries, crackers, ports, pipelines, etc)

The barrier to shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz is Lloyd's of London and its Joint War Committee not Iran. CENTCOM declared the Strait open to commercial traffic three days ago. Iran has no capability to lay mines, its fast boat fleet has been destroyed, and whatever real threat its surface drones ever represented was also eliminated. Yes, there will remain a threat of a leaker drone attack, but that is a risk anywhere in the Gulf.

The US has offered mitigation in the form risk insurance and and other guarantees to help resume trade. That would take the form of inexpensive government-backed insurance as an alternative to the Lloyd's product, aiming to bypass the high premiums. I assume this is also an effort to goad Llloyd's to move before the US actually takes market share. And as we did in previous confrontations, convoying vessels is also an option. To be fair, I do not know if an insurance offer has actually hit the desk of Maersk as of yet.

Yes the US could seize the east bank of the Strait if it wanted to do so, though it would not be an airborne assault. We own the skies from twenty-thousand feet on up, but Iran has lots of shoulder fired MANPADS air defense systems and a C-130 is a rather large target at 800 ft. I think I would rather simply get the risk insurance house in order and get the ships moving.

 

[Red Leg]

........ but we’re barely in the first word of the first sentence on the first page of the first chapter of the book on Iran. This recent Iran crapstorm began in 1979-80 thanks largely to Carter and our MSM with huge money boosts and cryptic support along the way by Obama.

I'll try to ignore the angry bitterness, but you do make two excellent points. One is the cacophony of "why haven't we won yet," which plays directly into the hands of the Iranian propagandists, anti-administration left, and isolationist Israel hating right, may be the most blatant public display of ignorance and lack of understanding of warfare that I have seen in my lifetime.

Second, The first chapter was written in this conflict with Carter's policy and military failures to confront the revolution in its infancy. Every successive administration, republican or democrat, has kicked this can into the future. It is now 2026, and I defy anyone with half a brain to deny that Iran has not been a growing and ever more dangerous threat to both our and frankly all of Europe and the Arab East for nearly fifty years. I defy even the most ardent America first Tucker Carlson enamored zealot to explain to me how an Iran with intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons is not an imminent threat to this nation and its interests.

You rolled out your list of failures, well let me offer you one that actually parallels the situation in Iran and the Gulf region. For fifty years (sound familiar?) following the Korean war, we watched North Korea steadily develop nuclear capability and long range ballistic missiles and did nothing. In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 03, and tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. They likely have a dozen weapons capable of reaching Hawaii and the West Coast, and a fat murderous lunatic in charge of them. And we did nothing, and now can not.

Due to its location and the imminent threat the current regime in Iran represents to regional Western economic interests, doing nothing this time represents a concession to eternal blackmail at best, and growing instability as Iran pushes its hegemonic ambitions and religious zealotry across the Middle East. More existentially, does anyone really believe the zealots in Tehran would not find a means to deploy such a weapon against Israel and/or the United States?

The worst case scenario on which to conclude this war will be the Theocracy still in place, the Iranian people still in bondage, but the ability of Iran to pursue nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles curbed for a generation. Even that limited success will be infinitely better than staring at the smoking radioactive ruins of Tel Aviv , New York, or London, or attempting to deal with an Gulf region under control of a hostile religious cult with unlimited resources.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

One nuke will start a chain

One nuke will start a chain reaction and the world as we know it will cease to exist.

While that’s certainly something to be concerned about, it’s also not a Russian victory.

Putin wants to rule a reborn Russian empire, not a graveyard. Which is exactly what Russia would be after an all out nuclear war.

He may survive is a bunker but when he comes out what will he have? His cities ash, his armies laid waste. Who will march in his parades or teach their children about his greatness? Who will build statues to his glory?

I don’t believe that is a victory scenario for Putin even if his enemies are all dead as well.

 

[John Wasmuth]

.

 

[Brent in Az]

The deterrent to any country using nukes is that it would mean the end of the country. Russia has been at war with Ukraine for four years! Look at their numbers on military strength.

That's man power only. If it wasn't for other countries supplying the Ukraine with weapons cash, aircraft, and intelligence ,it probably would have been overrun a long time ago if it stood alone.
You have to wonder why no other countries have stepped up to help with troops on the ground ?
Many reasons no doubt, and one of which is the crazy man in the Kremlin with his fingers on the launch buttons

 

[steve white]

There's an inflation wave coming. How worried should we be?

Economic consequences are an intrinsic aspect of the Iran conflict, writes BBC economics editor Faisal Islam.

www.bbc.com

Yeah, I have a lot of credibility reading an article by a guy named Faisal Islam.....

 

[VertigoBE]

The barrier to shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz is Lloyd's of London and its Joint War Committee not Iran. CENTCOM declared the Strait open to commercial traffic three days ago. Iran has no capability to lay mines, its fast boat fleet has been destroyed, and whatever real threat its surface drones ever represented was also eliminated. Yes, there will remain a threat of a leaker drone attack, but that is a risk anywhere in the Gulf.

The US has offered mitigation in the form risk insurance and and other guarantees to help resume trade. That would take the form of inexpensive government-backed insurance as an alternative to the Lloyd's product, aiming to bypass the high premiums. I assume this is also an effort to goad Llloyd's to move before the US actually takes market share. And as we did in previous confrontations, convoying vessels is also an option. To be fair, I do not know if an insurance offer has actually hit the desk of Maersk as of yet.

Yes the US could seize the east bank of the Strait if it wanted to do so, though it would not be an airborne assault. We own the skies from twenty-thousand feet on up, but Iran has lots of shoulder fired MANPADS air defense systems and a C-130 is a rather large target at 800 ft. I think I would rather simply get the risk insurance house in order and get the ships moving.

I'm quite aware of the US military declaration that shipping lanes are open, and it is rather Lloyd's that is currently taking their sweet time in updating the insurance policies, so ships can start moving again.

Should I understand that from your point of view, Lloyd's is basing their current policy on nothing but hot air? Just a bunch of buffoons pontificating, not knowing what they are talking about on risk pricing and that there is zero risk for shipping?

If so, Trump's offer to have a US state backed insurance policy, is indeed brilliant, to move the epicenter of insurance and risk modelling towards the US.

 

[tinktink12]

 

[Tanks]

If so, Trump's offer to have a US state backed insurance policy, is indeed brilliant, to move the epicenter of insurance and risk modelling towards the US.

He'd have to make that offer in writing as otherwise it is not worth anything.

 

[steve white]

View attachment 751283

Buc-ee's with that head dress--now THAT'S funny, made my day.

 

[Brent in Az]

Can't trust what Iran says ....

 

[Tanks]

Well, Iran might be promising, but as usual not following through.

Pezeshkian made the apology during a prerecorded televised speech on Saturday after Iran launched repeated strikes on Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman.

Despite the vow, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Defense said on Saturday that the country's air defense systems intercepted 16 ballistic missiles, 15 of which were destroyed while one fell into the sea.

From article here:

Iran warns European countries will be 'legitimate targets' if they join conflict

Iran warns European countries could become "legitimate targets" if they join conflict against Tehran, as deputy foreign minister threatens retaliation.

www.foxnews.com