64
Casualties reported as rockets hit town in Israeli-controlled Golan Heights
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2321 readers
102 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Netanyahu cancelled the rest of his US tour and a direct confrontation with Libanon seems imminent
Damn, I wanted to give Netanyahu hell here in D.C.
Why'd he even go on tour, anyway? If you ask me, a leader pleading for funds, while their settler-state is at the risk of being spitroasted is a stupid move
Besides, they're getting most of the funds that would've went to Ukraine, what's the need?
He's reminding everyone in the US political apparatus that they are complicit. If he goes down, he's taking them with him.
In the docu Zero Days , about the US+Israeli Stuxnet attack on Iran (and the world), Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA, talked about how every time Israel does this, the US military starts wargaming out nuclear scenarios, with the plan of fully backing Israel with its nuclear arsenal. IE if Israel nukes another country, the US military knows it needs to "follow through" very quickly after Israel (meaning help nuke Iran and any other threat in the area).
They'd rather ride and die with Israel... to that extent that they'd prefer nuclear armageddon than ceasefire?
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons so it wouldn't be nuclear Armageddon.
China, Russia, other nuclear powers will wag their fingers at them, maybe slap some sanctions on, get really freaked out and bring their own arsenals to maximum readiness and start taking steps to prepare for such a conflict with the US and to dissuade the US from attacking them BUT they're not going to get nuked in turn just to avenge Iran or anyone else.
It would be the US as typical nuking a non-nuclear power, mass-murdering civilians to intimidate and neutralize a region to its enemies.
We can talk about how it would turn the entire global south against the US for decades but it seems that's a forgone conclusion so they in a way at this point post-Ukraine have even less to lose than usual though it would accelerate some things. It would also however give credibility to their threats. Once they nuke a non-nuclear power for the sake of a settler genocidal ally they can threaten credibly anyone without nukes to get in line or they'll do them the same and they'll be at a relations and PR low-point anyways so it'll just be this unhinged empire pressing a gun up against the temple of random countries allying with China/Russia and screaming "don't think I won't!". Before Ukraine I would have said doing this would turn Europe soundly against the US but in the position they're in, even if it makes the US incredibly unpopular among the populations of western Europe their leadership even without the obvious compromises and ideology driven subservience would have little choice given their energy situation but finger-wag, tut-tut and then move on while increasing NATO funding.
The problem with your thinking is, that you assume that other nuclear powers just assume the nuclear launches of the US are not intended for them. They can not assume that, ergo they will have to enact their second strike protocols and launch their own arsenals at the predetermined targets.
tl;dr nuclear armageddon 99% of humanity dies, if its lucky.
I mean if you're assuming the US does land-based launches from the continental US perhaps.
However most likely they'd use air deployed or sub launched weapons to avoid just that and to give Iran less time to react. Most likely launch locations for sub based weapons would be somewhere in the mid-south Atlantic, the med, or west pacific off Africa. The Russians are not capable of doing anything but satellite sensing about that, it wouldn't enter their early warning radars. They'd probably notice it, bring their forces to full alert (they're already nearly at it) but not presume anything and once they started landing in Iran it would be clear as if Isn'treal nuking them beforehand wouldn't make it clear.
Most likely the US would prefer air launched because they could then fly a plane from southern Europe loaded up with some on missiles, drop in the straits waters and turn away. Again Russia and China wouldn't see these things happening. They don't have some magical beyond the horizon radar systems.
The only things that they can react to are early warning radar systems which require the projectiles to enter within a certain distance of their airspace (and by the way you can calculate trajectory and something aimed at Iran, assuming it's fired from a respectful location (e.g. not the north atlantic where it could easily turn and hit Moscow) AND of course satellite imaging. Satellite imaging has trouble catching sub launches unless you already know where the subs are and are actively tracking them or are doing wide area sweeps.
It would freak both of them out and as I said they'd go to full alert, finger two inches from the button type situation but assuming the US isn't absolutely ridiculously incompetent and firing these things anywhere near those two there won't be an immediate reaction of "let's launch everything". The US would likely call Russia and perhaps China a minute before launch and tell them they're not firing at either of them but at Iran and that would further ease things. Russia would be more alarmed given their proximity and would have their missiles ready and would certainly be forceful in the aftermath of not wanting US/NATO occupation of Iran but again wouldn't stick their neck out for them most likely. Once the missiles are in the air nothing Russia can do, they can avenge them by nuking NATO bases but that won't undo Iran being wiped from the map or do anything but tempt the US to strike back.
They're running out of time...
If America ends up entering the war, I want a bigger tax refund next year. If it is a colony, and it is, it's a shitty one with shitty ROI.