The war you're watching isn't a war. What unrestricted US warfare actually looks like.

Not sure what your point is.

You do quite effectively spell out why nations such as Iran want an ICBM so badly. The US would behave quite differently if Iran could nuke Atlanta
Really?.... This is not apples and apples.... It's not even apples and oranges.... This is sanity versus lunatic ↔️ raving ↔️ drooling ↔️ madness....that doesn't even come close to resembling anything like a thought process. There simply is no equation here.... The only travesty that I can see is that a pretty good percentage of the Iranian people are high-minded intellectuals who want nothing to do with the fundamentalist state. How to separate them from the others without killing everybody???? God only knows.
 
Last edited:
My Q is, when do the Iranians say 'uncle', and meet OUR terms?

~S~
The extremist Islamists that run their government might be willing to resist to the last man. The question is, at what point do the Iranian people tire of it enough to overthrow their theocratic leadership?
 
The US does not need to behave differently. When left alone, the United States is one of histories most benevolent nations to have ever existed.

Hell, we tolerated a nation waging war on us for 47 years before saying, "Enough."

Wow...47 years...long time to be at war and no know it. I would ask you why your blob didn’t attack in 2017-2020 or in 2025 for that matter if the danger was so grave...but we both know you have no answer that is this side of lunacy. So I won’t bother.
 
I agree about “winning”. Not sure that paying $3.87 a gallon for gasoline is winning when they weren’t much of a threat to us though. And when the Arabs start rolling out their next wave of terrorism in response to this it will be interesting to see what remaining freedoms are taken from us (i.e. getting on airplanes without removing your shoes). You DO realize that blowback is coming our way for this, right?
I'm not somebody that wants war. I was just trying to clarify reality.
 
I agree about “winning”. Not sure that paying $3.87 a gallon for gasoline is winning when they weren’t much of a threat to us though. And when the Arabs start rolling out their next wave of terrorism in response to this it will be interesting to see what remaining freedoms are taken from us (i.e. getting on airplanes without removing your shoes). You DO realize that blowback is coming our way for this, right?
They have always been a threat to us. The left doesn't really care though. After all, it's just a few Americans dying and as long as they don't harm the illegals who vote for Democrats, then it's all good with them.

BTW, the high gas prices will be coming back down soon enough.

It seems that the left have finally bred out of America the willingness to tolerate a few bad weeks for a greater outcome. It is the "I want it now" childish mentality of the Marxist/Maoists.
 
The extremist Islamists that run their government might be willing to resist to the last man. The question is, at one point do the Iranian people tire of it enough to overthrow their theocratic leadership?
The ugly answer here is that there's no way out of this without massive suffering and bloodshed of Innocents. It's a pretty horrible situation
 
Wow...47 years...long time to be at war and no know it. I would ask you why your blob didn’t attack in 2017-2020 or in 2025 for that matter if the danger was so grave...but we both know you have no answer that is this side of lunacy. So I won’t bother.
No, YOU didn't know it. Or YOU didn't care. But we have lost resources and lives to these mullahs and ignoring such a threat u ntil they drop a nuke on a city is the very epitome of stupidity.
 
No, YOU didn't know it. Or YOU didn't care. But we have lost resources and lives to these mullahs and ignoring such a threat u ntil they drop a nuke on a city is the very epitome of stupidity.
I definitely would not trust the current Iranian government with nukes. I don't trust any authoritarian dictatorship with nukes. One person should never be allowed to make a decision like that. Individuals are too prone to impulsiveness and short-sightedness.
 
You know what? I take that back.

High gas prices are a good thing when the Dems are creating higher gas prices to alter behavior of Americna citizens.

After all, high gas prices during the 4 years of Biden wasn't an issue at all for the left, was it?
 
No, YOU didn't know it. Or YOU didn't care. But we have lost resources and lives to these mullahs and ignoring such a threat u ntil they drop a nuke on a city is the very epitome of stupidity.
Yes Iran can be identified as the root cause of about 80% of the terrorism that has been taking place over the past 25 years in that area.

Jo
 
Last edited:
I definitely would not trust the current Iranian government with nukes. I don't trust any authoritarian power with nukes. One person should never be allowed to make a decision like that. Individuals are too prone to impulsiveness and short-sightedness.
Yep. And we now know that the Iranaians lead the negotiations with, "We know we have the equvelent of 11 nukes and you can't do anyting about it because we have the inalenable right to enrich uraniaum to weapon grade level.
 
I agree it's not a good option. The point is to illustrate the contrast between what we could do vs what we are doing.

If you want to see what the US is capable of, look back to WWII. In particular the fire raids on Japan in Spring/Summer 1945.
 
If you want to see what the US is capable of, look back to WWII. In particular the fire raids on Japan in Spring/Summer 1945.
Yes, and that was 80 years ago. Hell, the military has shit we don't even know about. It probably gets worse than B-2 bombers.
 
Yes, and that was 80 years ago. Hell, the military has shit we don't even know about. It probably gets worse than B-2 bombers.

If you are a history buff and a reader, I suggest this book.

Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire

In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
 
The point is we're using so much restraint it's hard to quantify it. Even with conventional weaponry (no nukes) we could level their entire nation in a day. The idea that they can somehow win this conflict is so far removed from reality it's insane. There are people on this forum and other online places that are in complete denial about the reality of the situation.
Total war is a war crime.
 
15th post
The US does not need to behave differently. When left alone, the United States is one of histories most benevolent nations to have ever existed.

Hell, we tolerated a nation waging war on us for 47 years before saying, "Enough."
LMFAO!!!
 
Total war is a war crime.
"We'd be breaking the law and upsetting people!"

Not the point. We only follow those laws out of good will. Nobody could stop us if we made that decision.
 
When you see headlines about US strikes on Tehran, attacks on Iranian military infrastructure, or casualties from bombing campaigns, your brain categorizes this as "war" or "military conflict." That categorization is technically correct but functionally misleading. What you're actually watching is a demonstration of restraint, not capability.

What unrestricted US capability looks like:

The United States has 20 operational B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Each one carries 40,000 pounds of ordnance - typically 16 JDAMs or 80 smaller precision munitions. Iran has approximately 200 critical infrastructure nodes: power generation facilities, water treatment plants, oil refineries, major bridges, communications hubs, ports, government centers.

Five B-2s on a single mission could hit every single one. Iran cannot see these aircraft on radar, cannot track them, cannot intercept them. The current strikes prove this daily. They're penetrating Tehran airspace, hitting leadership targets, and leaving without engagement. Within 48 hours of unrestricted conventional warfare: no electricity grid, no water purification, no fuel distribution, no communications network, no functioning government buildings, no port operations. You'd have 88 million people in cities with no power, no water, no food supply chain. Mass casualties from infrastructure collapse alone before you count direct deaths from the strikes themselves.

That's conventional weapons. I haven't mentioned nuclear capability yet.

Each B-2 can carry 16 B83 nuclear bombs at 1.2 megaton yield each. Tehran has 9 million people. Mashhad has 3 million. Isfahan has 2 million. Shiraz has 1.5 million. Tabriz has 1.5 million. Those five cities contain roughly 20% of Iran's population. A single B-2 could hit all five in one sortie. The US could execute complete strategic destruction of Iran, every city over 50,000 population, all military installations, nuclear facilities, government centers, in under 90 minutes from decision to final weapons release. ICBMs from US silos reach Iran in 30-35 minutes. SLBMs from the Persian Gulf reach targets in 10-15 minutes. B-2s already in theater could complete full weapons release in under 2 hours.

Now contrast that with current operations. We're conducting limited strikes on military targets. Iranian infrastructure is mostly intact. Their power grid functions. Water runs. Hospitals operate. Food supply chains continue. The government still meets. The new Supreme Leader is in hiding but alive. Millions of Iranians go to work every day in buildings that still exist. We're watching a calibrated pressure campaign with massive restraint architecture, rules of engagement, target approval processes, proportionality calculations, diplomatic considerations, alliance management. Every single strike that happens is simultaneously evidence of dozens of strikes that didn't happen.

Here's where it gets uncomfortable. Iran's state ideology has been explicitly eliminationist toward the United States for 45 years. "Death to America" has been formalized state policy since 1979. Their leadership has openly called for the destruction of the United States and Israel as theological and political imperatives. If the capability differential were reversed, if Iran had 20 stealth bombers that could penetrate US airspace undetected, if they had 100+ strategic nuclear warheads, if they could destroy every US city in 90 minutes, what do you think they would do with that capability?

Would they conduct limited strikes on military targets while leaving infrastructure intact? Would they have rules of engagement protecting civilians? Would they worry about proportionality or international law? Or would they pursue maximum destruction in line with their stated ideological goals?

Iran is currently making demands for "war reparations" and "guarantees against future aggression" while unable to stop attacks on their own capital or protect their new Supreme Leader from going into hiding. They're making these demands from a position where they literally cannot defend their territory, cannot intercept our aircraft, and cannot prevent the systematic destruction of their military capabilities. This is like someone with a knife demanding terms from someone with their finger on a trigger. The only reason they still have a state to make demands from is because we're choosing not to end it.
Bullshit. The war in Iran, is a war. Specifically, a war by the choice (not of necessity) of one man, who offers no consistent reason for starting it.
 
My Q is, when do the Iranians say 'uncle', and meet OUR terms?

~S~
Which Iranians would be the first question. As long as none of the IRGC or the Mullahs are part of the national leadership, then we shouldn't be involved.

Give them a blueprint on how nations of the world are structured and the minimum they'd have to achieve to be welcome back into the worlds brotherhood of nations, then lets go home.

If Iran becomes a more benevolent country and stops funding terror, then Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran will usher in an era of peace in the area. Or, as near to peace as any Islamic country ever gets.

This will also have the strategic benefit of elminating any support to Russia and China, greatly weakening them.
 
Back
Top Bottom