The next offensive must focus on decimating the IRGC.

[kyzr]

Russian counter-force strike was possible back in 1979, (and this is one of the reasons why American decision-makers suggested peace deal instead of war) and it's became even more realistic nowadays, with much fewer amounts of US missiles and Russian missiles getting much more accurate.

Fewer missiles is good. But nuclear war is still a very bad catastrophe for everyone.

And whom do you poll? Roaches in your head?

Copilot, you should ask it.

No even a single prove.

Enriching and developing ICBMs is proof enough for us.

And America, Britain and France are "states sponsor of terror" should Russia bomb them?

We're the good guys, Putin is the vicious dictator, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism via Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

It proves nothing. American naval reactors use 93% enriched Uranium.

Iran doesn't have naval reactors, their navy was sunk.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not true. At least one F-35A was damaged by Iranian air defence. And it was during carefully planned operation, avoiding possible losses. If you want to attack heavily defended targets (especially now, when Iran is better prepared) be ready to lost much more planes without achieving any meaningful result.

Iran is about as much a problem as my mother-in-law. The only reason Iran isn't a big, black, smoldering hole today is because we are trying to spare innocent civilians. And wasn't that an F-18 Eagle? If Iran damaged one of our F-35s, it was purely a lucky shot, one plane does not win you a war. Probably the last SAM they had.

I can't wait until we smash Iran and shut both them and you up. Soon, you'll have no more Iranian trading partner to buy from or sell to, and then your transvestite president Putin will have even one less country to turn to.

Tell Putin to stop wearing girl's dresses.

 

[Zavulon]

Fewer missiles is good. But nuclear war is still a very bad catastrophe for everyone.

It definitely will be a catastrophe for you. Not so necessary for us, given the alternative possibilities. If we survive and you not I'd call it victory.

Copilot, you should ask it.

As I said, roaches. Copilot has no acces to raw data, and LLMs are very vulnerable to fake data.

Enriching and developing ICBMs is proof enough for us.

By "us" you mean fan-club of Bibi and Trump? Because even for US intelligence it's definitely not enough, say nothing about the rest of the world.

We're the good guys, Putin is the vicious dictator, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism via Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

Neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah, nor Houthis are "terrorists". They are national-liberation movements and legal parties. Ukrainian GUR is officially recognised as a terroristic organisation and you sponsor them.

Iran doesn't have naval reactors, their navy was sunk.

May be, they will take few of your carriers and submarines as reparations. May be, they will make a nuclear tanker or an icebreaker. Anyway, if they want to enrich uranium to 93% to make fuel, it's their right. And you had attacked them without not only "legal", but even "logical" reason. If we don't count as a logical reason Trump's desire to distract public opinion from Epstain files.

 

[MarathonMike]

The latest defiant messages coming from some IRGC commander remind me of Jeff Dunham's puppet Achmed. SILENCE I KILL YOU!!!!!

 

[Man With A Plan]

Yes. Kievan regime, controlled by ressurected European Nazism, had started genocide of Russians, and they had attacked two independent states (recognised by us, and allied with us) - Lugansk and Donetsk People Republics.

It wasn't just Ukraine we were concerned about. The root of problem is NATO expansion, it should roll back, and the question is NATO a "weaker neighbour" is quite discutable. And least numerically NATO countries outnumber Russia as seven to one.


Wow. Can you read thoughts? Really? Hey, Russia started this whole operation because of NATOs involvement, it would be silly to suppose that NATO won't get involved one way, or another. Right now we playing the realistic scenario, close to optimistic, and it's war of attrition.


May be. But your laughter doesn't sound joyful for some reason. I would even say, that this laugh is kind of sad and perplexed, sometimes even with a hysterical tinge.

And what is more important, this thread about American illegal and unprovoked war on Iran. And the world really laugh at it:

We'll be wrapping up our war in a matter of a few months, Zavulon! You've been at yours for FOUR YEARS and it's going worse for you now than at any time since the start! Putin looks like a putz. The Russian military looks like bumbling idiots. The only question now is, how can Vladimir Putin get his tiny little ass out of the crack that he's gotten himself stuck in!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Iran is about as much a problem as my mother-in-law. The only reason Iran isn't a big, black, smoldering hole today is because we are trying to spare innocent civilians. And wasn't that an F-18 Eagle? If Iran damaged one of our F-35s, it was purely a lucky shot, one plane does not win you a war. Probably the last SAM they had.

I can't wait until we smash Iran and shut both them and you up. Soon, you'll have no more Iranian trading partner to buy from or sell to, and then your transvestite president Putin will have even one less country to turn to.

Tell Putin to stop wearing girl's dresses.

F-15 Eagle and F-18 Super Hornet.

 

[kyzr]

It definitely will be a catastrophe for you. Not so necessary for us, given the alternative possibilities. If we survive and you not I'd call it victory.

Yeah, okay you think you can actually win a nuclear war...

As I said, roaches. Copilot has no access to raw data, and LLMs are very vulnerable to fake data.

Your typing loses to Copilot.

By "us" you mean fan-club of Bibi and Trump? Because even for US intelligence it's definitely not enough, say nothing about the rest of the world.

I mean Iran admitting to it. Enough enriched uranium for 11 bombs.

Iran claimed to have enough uranium for 11 nuclear bombs, US envoy Witkoff says

Iranian officials told their US counterparts at crunch talks in Switzerland last week that the Islamic Republic possessed enough enriched material to build 11 nuclear bombs, President Trump’s…

nypost.com

Neither Hamas, nor Hezbollah, nor Houthis are "terrorists". They are national-liberation movements and legal parties. Ukrainian GUR is officially recognised as a terroristic organisation and you sponsor them.

Both wrong.

Israel, Australia, Japan, UK, US, others have officially designated Hamas a terrorist organization

There are numerous countries throughout the world, including the United States, that have officially designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

www.foxnews.com

Based on available authoritative sources, no country or major international organization officially designates Ukraine’s GUR (Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine) as a terrorist organization.

May be, they will take few of your carriers and submarines as reparations. May be, they will make a nuclear tanker or an icebreaker. Anyway, if they want to enrich uranium to 93% to make fuel, it's their right. And you had attacked them without not only "legal", but even "logical" reason. If we don't count as a logical reason Trump's desire to distract public opinion from Epstain files.

If we take their enriched uranium they can focus on their oil business and work for their citizens instead of as terrorists.