Maybe you haven't been watching us destroy all the various vehicles in Iran?
Few vehicles? I saw. And no, it's nothing compared with total destruction of all cars and trucks in Iran.
I hope Russia isn't dumb enough to launch a 1st strike.
As I said - it's safer than launch the second strike. And if you won't surrender (and I believe you won't) - you'll launch your missiles eventually.
I think we just showed that we can shoot down ICBMs from the two missiles Iran launched at Diego Garcia.
Tgose were not ICBMs. Even according US report those were medium range missiles, quite simple and just demonstrative
If we shoot down your 1st strike do we still launch, or just snicker a little?
If you didn't choose mutually acceptable peace terms before we launch first strike, you may accept peace solution only if our first strike is successful.
Russia and China won't get involved, and yes Iran would surrender before total destruction.
Wishful thinking. And shouldn't the USA surrender before total destruction?
Maybe you missed that threatening their powerplants got them negotiating?
Yep. I missed them negotiating. Actually, they said they are not negotiating. Highly likely, it's just Trump, trying playing the oil markets.
Problem is that they don't have an official leader, just "messages" from him.
The problem is than "official leaders" like Trump, Putin or Xi are just talking heads for their deeper states.
I don't believe Iran would target just an Israeli military base, they would obviously go for the maximum body count.
You don't believe they can act rationally? C'mon they are human beings. And they prefer to save their people to kill other people. And it means, that the first strike is almost always counter-force.
If Iran nuked a few Israeli cities, which is doubtful since most missiles get stopped by the "Iron Dome", Israel would retaliate with their arsenal of about 300? nukes.
Doesn't matter who many nukes they have in peace time - what is relevant is how many of them will survive first Iranian strike.
After that the war would be over.
Hardly. If Israel doesn't attack Iranian military targets and just try to kill some civilians, and if those civilians are prepared, they will destroy, say, ten largest Iranian cities and kill few million of civilians. It will hurt Iran enough to het really angry, but not enough to destroy them.
Your 1st strike gets shot down, like the ICBMs that went to Diego Garcia. Then what?
It hardly possible, but then we'll launch second strike. Mostly counter-value.
Lets not have a nuclear war to find out how bad the "nuclear winter" would be.
If you don't want find out if nuclear winter is a fake, you should f#ck off from our Hemisphere.
1816 was a horrible year for everyone.
Not that horrible. In history books they write about Napoleonic wars and Vienna congress. Those things were more important.
Fertilizer supply should be fine if Hormuz is reopened soon.
It won't. In the worst case they'll just put in water everything they have and make a great uncontrolled minefield in the Persian gulf.
Besides, US farmers can just plant crops that need less or no fertilizer.
Of course they can. So is about "nuclear winter" or "nuclear summer". But if you don't have enough of real food in your national reserves, you are in deep troubles.
Yep, Putin got a little extra cash from the Iran war, but the sanctions will be back in place shortly.
Only if the war is ended. And that is exactly why it won't ended.
Nope. Trump's most important demand is that Iran forego all nuclear weapons development.
And Iran already said him: "F#ck you, fat clown".
How he guarantees that limitation remains to be seen.
Are you aware that Trump is holding Iran's powerplants hostage? That is a lot of leverage.
And Iran keep holding Jewish and Arabic power plants and de-salination plants (say nothing about Hormuz strait) hostage. And it's even larger leverage.
