Trump Warns Iran "The Big One is Coming" as More Stealth Bombers Deploy

[JGalt]

There you go with that AI bullshit again. EMP weapons are dependent on altitude and nuclear yield. Do you want to take out a town, city, state, country or most of a continent?

How will you deliver the bombs you discussed, as aircraft cannot get high enough to produce an EMP over a wide area? You have to launch an ICBM or SLBM to attain the altitude. What happens when Russia and China detect your launch and retaliate immediately before you can zap IRAN or whomever.

Your entire scenario is an exercise in futility as you could never pull it off with out starting WWIII.

Me: "In order to create a small EMP over an enemy military post with no civilian population, which US aircraft would be the best, what altitude should it be flying, and what size nuclear weapon should be used?"

Grok: "I'm sorry, I cannot assist with that request as it involves restricted subject matter."

Me: "Thanks. I understand the sensitivity of such a question. The only purpose I asked that for was this discussion taking place on USmessage board: Trump Warns Iran "The Big One is Coming" as More Stealth Bombers Deploy

Grok: "Thanks for sharing the context and the link, Ron.

The thread on USMessageBoard (from what I can gather on the topic) appears to be a speculative/political discussion speculating about U.S. military escalation against Iran under Trump. It revolves around recent reports of Trump warning Iran that "the big one is coming" (or "the big wave"), amid deployments of stealth bombers like the B-2 Spirit to forward bases (e.g., in the UK at RAF Fairford or elsewhere). Posters debate what this means—ranging from massive conventional bombing campaigns to hypothetical nuclear options, including high-altitude air bursts for EMP effects to disable Iranian infrastructure with minimal direct casualties or fallout.

Some users in the thread (including what seems to be the kind of post you're referencing) float ideas about using nuclear weapons tactically for EMP over military targets, emphasizing isolated strikes on regime assets to force surrender without turning populated areas into wastelands. This ties into broader speculation about preserving Iran's oil/resources while demonstrating overwhelming U.S. power.

In reality, as of March 2026:

• Trump has indeed made statements threatening escalated strikes on Iran ("the big one is coming soon," "we haven’t even started hitting them hard"), in the context of ongoing U.S.-Israel operations against Iranian missile sites and leadership targets following recent escalations (e.g., reported strikes on ballistic missile facilities).
• B-2 stealth bombers have been involved in actual strikes (e.g., dropping 2,000-pound penetrators on hardened underground sites), and more are reportedly deploying to support bases like those in the UK for potential sustained operations.
• These are conventional strikes so far—no nuclear use has occurred or been indicated in official reporting. The deployments and rhetoric are about intensifying conventional air campaigns, regime pressure, and deterring further Iranian actions (e.g., missile attacks, which have reportedly dropped significantly after U.S. strikes).

The forum discussion veers into more extreme hypotheticals (like nuclear EMP scenarios), which aren't reflected in any credible current events or official U.S. posture. Nuclear thresholds remain extremely high due to escalation risks, international norms, and policy constraints.

If you're looking to discuss or debunk specific claims from that post/thread (e.g., feasibility of EMP delivery, bomber roles, or Trump's exact words), feel free to quote more details from it—I can help analyze or provide sourced context on the real-world military side without crossing into restricted planning territory. What's your take on the thread, or is there a particular angle you're curious about?"

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Me: "In order to create a small EMP over an enemy military post with no civilian population, which US aircraft would be the best, what altitude should it be flying, and what size nuclear weapon should be used?"

Grok: "I'm sorry, I cannot assist with that request as it involves restricted subject matter."

Me: "Thanks. I understand the sensitivity of such a question. The only purpose I asked that for was this discussion taking place on USmessage board: Trump Warns Iran "The Big One is Coming" as More Stealth Bombers Deploy

Grok: "Thanks for sharing the context and the link, Ron.

The thread on USMessageBoard (from what I can gather on the topic) appears to be a speculative/political discussion speculating about U.S. military escalation against Iran under Trump. It revolves around recent reports of Trump warning Iran that "the big one is coming" (or "the big wave"), amid deployments of stealth bombers like the B-2 Spirit to forward bases (e.g., in the UK at RAF Fairford or elsewhere). Posters debate what this means—ranging from massive conventional bombing campaigns to hypothetical nuclear options, including high-altitude air bursts for EMP effects to disable Iranian infrastructure with minimal direct casualties or fallout.

Some users in the thread (including what seems to be the kind of post you're referencing) float ideas about using nuclear weapons tactically for EMP over military targets, emphasizing isolated strikes on regime assets to force surrender without turning populated areas into wastelands. This ties into broader speculation about preserving Iran's oil/resources while demonstrating overwhelming U.S. power.

In reality, as of March 2026:

• Trump has indeed made statements threatening escalated strikes on Iran ("the big one is coming soon," "we haven’t even started hitting them hard"), in the context of ongoing U.S.-Israel operations against Iranian missile sites and leadership targets following recent escalations (e.g., reported strikes on ballistic missile facilities).
• B-2 stealth bombers have been involved in actual strikes (e.g., dropping 2,000-pound penetrators on hardened underground sites), and more are reportedly deploying to support bases like those in the UK for potential sustained operations.
• These are conventional strikes so far—no nuclear use has occurred or been indicated in official reporting. The deployments and rhetoric are about intensifying conventional air campaigns, regime pressure, and deterring further Iranian actions (e.g., missile attacks, which have reportedly dropped significantly after U.S. strikes).

The forum discussion veers into more extreme hypotheticals (like nuclear EMP scenarios), which aren't reflected in any credible current events or official U.S. posture. Nuclear thresholds remain extremely high due to escalation risks, international norms, and policy constraints.

If you're looking to discuss or debunk specific claims from that post/thread (e.g., feasibility of EMP delivery, bomber roles, or Trump's exact words), feel free to quote more details from it—I can help analyze or provide sourced context on the real-world military side without crossing into restricted planning territory. What's your take on the thread, or is there a particular angle you're curious about?"

That's pretty cool.

 

[JGalt]

That's pretty cool.

Grok is a talkative little son of a *****, ain't he?

I'm pretty sure that conversation set off some alarms in high places.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Kristi Noem Out: Trump Picks Sen. Markwayne Mullin as Replacement

President Donald Trump will nominate Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace Kristi Noem as chief of the Department of Homeland Security.

www.breitbart.com

More stealth bombers, which can carry nukes, are deploying. Trump speaks of "the BIG ONE". Trump demand unconditional surrender, which was last obtained by us about nuking Japan. Read the tea leaves. While not conclusive, of course, these may be signs that we are going to use nukes in Iran to compel a swift unconditional surrender from the fiends.

Would I place money on this? Probably not, at this time. However, Trump is a transformer. He is the new merchant of Hope and Change. Perhaps we should consider the positive aspects of nuking Iran. Here are a few.

1. It shows Russia that we are serious about using nuclear weapons and, therefore, they can stop throwing around nuclear threats when he has been too p*ssy to use them to date in any context. We used them in WWII, and we will do it again. Using then in Iran will solidify this and have Russia, and China, curled up in the fetal position embracing each other. The USA is THE NUCLEAR WARFARE GOD.

2. It will bring a quick end to the Iran war, with us as the victors. It will probably save lives on both sides.

3. Nukes can be safely deployed. Everyone is so scared of nuclear weapons. Its like how people are too scared to carry a Glock with a round chambered because there is no exterior safety. In reality, Glocks DO have safeties, and as long as you carry it right, you can carry with a round chambered as safely as you can any other firearm. The nuke default reaction of fear is programmed. Therefore, it can be unprogrammed. Just because we set off some nukes on Iran does not mean it has to be some sort of holocaust involving mass casualties. First, we can use tactical nukes quite effectively to hasten victory. Also, we can effect some high altitude air bursts to shock and awe the fiends while also creating an EMP that will disable everything electric they have. Can you imagine the effect this will have on those people?!? They will beg to surrender unconditionally. Plus, the high altitude bursts substantially reduce the fallout risk. Essentially, we blast a mega tonnage warhead over Tehran a few miles up, and thereby create a second sun in the sky that is far brighter than then one we have naturally. Then everything goes black (we will of course move to prevent any harm/disruption to our electronics due to the EMP. We are not even stationed near the Iranian border. We can select the proper size warhead to keep the EMP limited to a particular area).

4. Building on point no. 1, the use of nukes will cement us as the one true superpower in the world, which is worth trillions in shoring up our national security. As an aside, when everyone sees how was can deploy nuclear weapons in a relatively safe manner, I think we will experience a huge surge in interest in building nuclear reactors for civilian energy. That would be a definite win. We would enhance our energy capabilities, and the leftist twerps will be happy and reduced carb and stuff.

Hell, I am all-in for using nuclear weapons on Iran. It will be spectacular! I see only positive results in do so. Again, we do not have to use them in the same way we did in WWII. Times have changed and technology now affords us many, many options that did not exist at that time. In fact, we do not want to turn Iran into a glass parking lot. There are too many resources there (e.g., oil) that we can exploit to our own advantage). It would be against OUR national interest to do that. But that does not mean that we cannot strategically use nukes, even the big ones, to effect our will on the region.

 

[Captain Creeper]

If you use it for EMP, people all over the world will die in the ensuing Armageddon. If there is no nuclear holocaust, how many Iranians will die from simply lack of power, assuming your EMP goes as planned? That is why an EMP attack is considered a nuclear attack. regardless of the intent and employment.

Completely untrue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Completely untrue.

Are you saying an EMP attack using a nuclear weapon is not considered a nuclear attack? Because, obviously, it is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Completely untrue.

Your entire thread is untrue. Stop being stupid! People will think you are a liberal Democrat!

 

[Blaster]

 

[Captain Creeper]

Your entire thread is untrue. Stop being stupid! People will think you are a liberal Democrat!

LOL! You do not know what you are talking about, though. Apparently, you believe that detonating a nuclear warhead, munition, or other device automatically means that millions of innocent people die, regardless of payload, location, and payload size. Your reactions are hysterical, like a leftist’s typical reaction. You suffer from NDS (Nuclear Derangement Syndrome).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL! You do not know what you are talking about, though. Apparently, you believe that detonating a nuclear warhead, munition, or other device automatically means that millions of innocent people die, regardless of payload, location, and payload size. Your reactions are hysterical, like a leftist’s typical reaction. You suffer from NDS (Nuclear Derangement Syndrome).

How about you tell us the type of target that such a tactical nuke could and should be used on that would not have terrible collateral effects.

Make sure it's one where conventional weapons won't do the trick.

And dont say EMP... you're a fool to think that would not cause the suffering and death of millions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

LOL! You do not know what you are talking about, though. Apparently, you believe that detonating a nuclear warhead, munition, or other device automatically means that millions of innocent people die, regardless of payload, location, and payload size. Your reactions are hysterical, like a leftist’s typical reaction. You suffer from NDS (Nuclear Derangement Syndrome).

They will die in the ensuing nuclear Armegeddon you just ******* started with launching a missile!