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

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Let's bomb the people we claim we want to liberate!

Great idea!

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

Learn to read. You're little talking point misses the mark.

I'm not the one pretending that in our foreign policy of intervention, we have been benevolent angels. What did the Iranians do to us in 1953?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet they would do so in a second if they had the capability. That's the difference you people ignore.

Give Hamas the military capability of the IDF. Is Israel still around?

Iran has had that capability for years now, but it's our "Greatest Ally" carpet bombing all her neighbors

 

[martybegan]

Let's bomb the people we claim we want to liberate!

Great idea!

You know we did that in France in 1944, and the Philippines as well, right?

 

[martybegan]

Iran has had that capability for years now, but it's our "Greatest Ally" carpet bombing all her neighbors

What "carpet bombing"?

The IAAF has B-17's using a Norden bombsight over Gaza?

 

[westwall]

My Q is, when do the Iranians say 'uncle', and meet OUR terms?

~S~

When the IRGC is eliminated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know we did that in France in 1944, and the Philippines as well, right?

This isn't France in 1944, this was a despicable sneak attack against a nation that us granting every concession during "negotiations"

But the good thing about your idea is that it will bring Regime Change to Western Civilization

 

[martybegan]

This isn't France in 1944, this was a despicable sneak attack against a nation that us granting every concession during "negotiations"

But the good thing about your idea is that it will bring Regime Change to Western Civilization

Maybe we should go back to that way of war. It would stop pissant countries from performing the low grade dribble of civilian attacks over decades they get away with now.

**** Iran.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What "carpet bombing"?

The IAAF has B-17's using a Norden bombsight over Gaza?

What's the difference?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

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.

Here’s the thread author himself yesterday, killing this thread:

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.

Here’s the thread author himself yesterday, killing this thread:

 

[martybegan]

What's the difference?

Time and use of controllable munitions?

Hamas could have just surrendered. They didn't. They started this whole cycle with the October 7th attacks.

**** Hamas along with Iran.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe we should go back to that way of war. It would stop pissant countries from performing the low grade dribble of civilian attacks over decades they get away with now.

**** Iran.

Maybe the USA with a $1 Trillion military budget needs to stop looking to pick fights all over the world

 

[martybegan]

Maybe the USA with a $1 Trillion military budget needs to stop looking to pick fights all over the world

You think the US likes having to waste time, treasure and lives on idiots like Iran?

Maybe the rogue states gotta stop playing out of their league.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

It's not a war, it's a "bitchslap."

The thread author disagrees:

 

[justoffal]

How many surrounding nations has Iran attacked ?

~S~

All of them by proxy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You think the US likes having to waste time, treasure and lives on idiots like Iran?

Maybe the rogue states gotta stop playing out of their league.

It's a bottom line force multiplier for the MIC while building Bibi's vision of Greater Israel.

There's no other explanation that fits the facts

 

[martybegan]

It's a bottom line force multiplier for the MIC while building Bibi's vision of Greater Israel.

There's no other explanation that fits the facts

JOOOOOOOSSSSS

Right now most of the Arab States are coming around to accepting Israel.

Iran is a far worse threat to them.

 

[g5000]

It's not a war, it's a "bitchslap."

It's theater for you rubes. A diversion away from Trump's total domestic failures and from his Epstein coverup.

Iran has never been a threat to the US.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JOOOOOOOSSSSS

Right now most of the Arab States are coming around to accepting Israel.

Iran is a far worse threat to them.

It's just a coinky-dink that the wars we've started the last 30 years have all been on Bibi's hit list, right?

Supposedly Saudi Muslims crashed planes into the WTC, so......we invade Iraq and Afghanistan, really?