Iran probably gets added to Russia’s nuclear umbrella, NATO continues to dissolve, and the oncoming energy crisis accelerates. Hundreds of thousands to even millions of innocents in Iran will likely die.
80 points to Cowbee.
If the US drops a nuke, it would probably be an experiment to see if it can make it through a missile city. I don’t expect it could.
For hundreds of thousands to die, they would need to directly hit a population center. This would be more likely if Israel drops the nuke.
Fair points, though I do think the likelihood of the US Empire using it on population centers is higher because of how ineffective the US Empire has been in destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities. Nuclear bunker-busters on missile cities aren’t confirmed to work, and at this point it seems the Empire is in dire need to “send a message” through terror.
The USA was never shy of mass killing civilians to pressure their government (ie textbook definition or terrorism) … except in regards how to manage that news/sentiment at home.
Eg they needed Pearl Harbor for the war, otherwise the gov wouldn’t have survived (and then they fire bombed more civilians per day than they nuclear bomb civilians in civilian cities per day … which is hard to comprehend how it’s even possible).
The scary thing atm is that they skipped the pre-amp step with sentiment at home & are scrambling managing it now bcs USA citizens woke up en masse (not bcs of 1000s innocents dead, millions affected for life, etc … but bcs of the gas prices …).
This combined with the dollar in actual danger, and a leader with nothing to lose (and a purged military chain of command) … is not good.
(and then they fire bombed more civilians per day than they nuclear bomb civilians in civilian cities per day … which is hard to comprehend how it’s even possible).
The first two nukes were very low yield compared to later designs, and Japanese architecture heavily favored wood structures with paper walls because that was a) more earthquake-resistant and b) easier to clear and rebuild after an earthquake, making their cities even more vulnerable to uncontrolled fires from firebombing than German cities were (and firebombing campaigns on those were also extremely deadly).
The main distinction between nuclear and conventional bombs early on was how with nuclear weapons it meant one single plane getting through air defenses could do the work of a hundred conventionally armed planes against soft targets and could hit hardened targets harder than a thousand conventionally armed planes: they made effective defense impossible as they could be sent en masse at high altitude and their accuracy and attrition rate wouldn’t matter as long as a few got their payloads onto a city or in the vicinity of a base. You could wipe out 99% of incoming planes and it would still leave you worse off than if you’d let WWII bomber flights operate completely unopposed (and we can see how deadly those were when they were opposed and prevented from operating at maximum effectiveness through AA fire and interceptors that inflicted extremely heavy losses on them).
And then of course higher-yield nuclear bombs and the development of long range missile systems made the problem exponentially worse.
Exactly.
Just to add (bcs I didn’t before) Germany (that was equally aerial-war-crimey fubarded) had a bit more segregated industrial parts of cities in comparison to Japan. And bombers at the time just got accurate enough to carpet selectively (in clear weather that is).
And USA dropping several nuclear bombs on Iran in one raid is now something that I can’t but consider as one of the actual options.
It’s all so stupid.
There are already actual cities next to the missile cities.
The message would be sent regardless.
It’s a matter of hitting the core of a city or its outskirts.
Fair point.
It’s all speculation, but I don’t think the people in control of the US’s nuclear arsenal would be shy about dropping it in a medium or large population center, either because they believe mass death would bring down the Islamic republic because of a breakdown in public order, since the IRGC couldn’t keep the public safety end of the bargain, or because it would redirect resources from defense into emergency response.
Either scenario, the strait would open or at least be less heavily guarded.
Or they could just drop it for no strategic gain at all. Just for cruelty and spectacle. The US wouldn’t face any serious consequences it’s not already facing.
I don’t believe nukes would open the strait, it would turn the war into an existential one for Iran and make them go full-scale escalation.
I doubt there is a single centralized leadership capable of opening the strait post-nuke. The military is somewhat decentralized as it stands, and a nuke I think would be sufficient to motivate small militias to keep the strait closed for decades.
Yep, spot-on. It doesn’t take that much to keep the strait closed, and can meaningfully be kept closed if need be even by militias.
I agree. And any rational person would see that. I just don’t think the people in charge of the nukes would see it the same way, since the only war they know is WWII, and that one ended with nukes on civilian centers (don’t mention the eastern front). Not to mention they love bloodshed and spectacle, at the expense of the rest of the world.
Also want to consider the religious undertones being set by Hegseth. Some of these people in power feel ordained by god to carry out this destruction.
They want to “light the beacon” or some shit.
This is what scares me the most. The US is losing badly at galvanizing the Iranian populace against continued conflict and for regime change, which is where the US needed to be winning the most. The only action I could even fathom that would generally change the mood at this point is some kind of mass casualty event, like you’re also suggesting. What scares me the most is that we both know it has at the very least been considered in US military strategy by now. Tons of high ranking military firings and resignations in the past few weeks really chills me to the bone as to why. I can only imagine it’s about an invasion or nukes.
If the US drops a nuke, it would probably be an experiment to see if it can make it through a missile city. I don’t expect it could.
They won’t do it with a ICBM, that has the danger of triggering a response from other nuclear powers. Instead they’ll use a bomber to drop it, it’ll be somewhere they’ve already established bomber flights.
You mean that like a big ballistic one (Trident)? Or cruise missile style W80 delivered via AGM-86?
Not simply one bomb like B61 (or B83) delivered via regular fighter (15, 35) or bomber (1, 2, 52) planes?
(I think this is more likely, has lower chance of getting intercepted, and it’s already “done” before any other nuclear countries respond. With this admin it’s only about using the nukes for the sake of using them & “being cool”, not really how effective or how they get delivered.)
Probably more nukes. Once the band aide is off, why stop at one?
Only the nuclear umbrella of a country with missiles able to hit major US cities might stop them, so maybe Russia, China or DPRK (if Pakistan was willing, its missiles won’t launch that far. I guess there’s a really really outside chance that France extends its nuclear umbrella).
will hopefully be seen as the only reasonable approach to foreign policy to be safe from the US by all non-NATO nations
bad stuffNuke the strait until all the water is vaporized
make it wider and deeper so moar ships get through.
Trump makes a mean post
Funy
