Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.
To the dozens of Mossad agents posting in this very thread, please tell Bibi to false flag Pakistan instead of the UAE next time but use many, many more Shaheds and Iranian missiles.
"For you, the day the United States graced your local bridges and power plants was the single most important day of your life. But for us, it was Tuesday."
Pakistan is 340,509 square miles in area. A 20 kiloton bomb such as those dropped on Japan during WWII destroyed a 10 square mile area in each city. In order to "glass" Pakistan, it would require 34,051 of the bombs dropped during WWII.
Do we have bigger bombs now? Yes, we do, but we simply don't have enough in stock to do the job. On top of that, the larger the bomb, the higher the mushroom cloud goes into the air, and the further the fallout will spread. There is a reason (other than Cold War reasons) that no country, no matter how angry or bloodthirsty, has attempted such a thing after WWII. The price tag for total nuclear annihilation is simply too high, in both dollars and in worldwide environmental consequences. Regular bombs such as incendiary bombs are much cheaper and have less of a detrimental effect on surrounding countries, so that is why they're still our go-to bombs in modern warfare. It would still be very expensive and impractical to "glass" even the smaller countries like Pakistan with incendiary bombs. That's why it hasn't happened already.
But for real, the reason Trump looks like he's cucking out is simply because he is like most geopolitical actors, he wants to go through the path of least resistance over getting what he wants, he wants the most results with the lowest cost, The United States is not invulnerable from the effects of the war, it is incurring substantial costs even in just the 5 weeks of active war, both economic and political, and has the potential to become worse over if it goes hot again, it's why he's so insistent over negotiations and blockade - low cost, high potential results.
this is the trump playbook, make a show of strength and beat his chest, and hope it could force concessions or he quietly scales back the rhetoric for some compromises, it happened over tariffs, and it happened with Greenland.
But for real, the reason Trump looks like he's cucking out is simply because he is like most geopolitical actors, he wants to go through the path of least resistance over getting what he wants, he wants the most results with the lowest cost, The United States is not invulnerable from the effects of the war, it is incurring substantial costs even in just the 5 weeks of active war, both economic and political, and has the potential to become worse over if it goes hot again, it's why he's so insistent over negotiations and blockade - low cost, high potential results.
this is the trump playbook, make a show of strength and beat his chest, and hope it could force concessions or he quietly scales back the rhetoric for some compromises, it happened over tariffs, and it happened with Greenland.
Pakistan is 340,509 square miles in area. A 20 kiloton bomb such as those dropped on Japan during WWII destroyed a 10 square mile area in each city. In order to "glass" Pakistan, it would require 34,051 of the bombs dropped during WWII.
Do we have bigger bombs now? Yes, we do, but we simply don't have enough in stock to do the job. On top of that, the larger the bomb, the higher the mushroom cloud goes into the air, and the further the fallout will spread. There is a reason (other than Cold War reasons) that no country, no matter how angry or bloodthirsty, has attempted such a thing after WWII. The price tag for total nuclear annihilation is simply too high, in both dollars and in worldwide environmental consequences. Regular bombs such as incendiary bombs are much cheaper and have less of a detrimental effect on surrounding countries, so that is why they're still our go-to bombs in modern warfare. It would still be very expensive and impractical to "glass" even the smaller countries like Pakistan with incendiary bombs. That's why it hasn't happened already.
Just for the sake of argument, if you hit the 10-12 major cities and ports then the country stops functioning. Without external inputs the population will return to its natural stone-aged state.
A couple of points about the potential effects:
- The nearby countries are all enemies.
- Chernobyl gave us real downwind radiation data and there was no militarily significant issues in downwind countries.
- "Nuclear Winter: The Human and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War" was (arguably) disproved, fake, and gay. It's politically motivated science from a simpler time when people still believed what the government and media told them. "Computer modeling proves ...", lol, no it doesn't.
Shit like this reminds me of that scene in LotR when Gandalf starts talking about the fall of Gondor. "...and the rulers held the names of their ancestors dearer than the names of their sons."
Probably because gas is $5 a gallon and nobody likes the appearance of stagnation or indifference from the top down. Pain is one thing if the wheels are in motion; pain when the wheel is frozen is another.
Placing trust in Pakistan again and being willing to put things on ice indefinitely is a half measure that will not be appreciated. These savages should have been indefinitely bwown to widdle bits weeks ago to keep the pressure on until you get leadership willing to negotiate.
Trump posted his Project Freedom pause announcement while Watters was in the middle of delivering his opening monologue praising the operation.
Watch him try to reconcile his prewritten script with the new info at 7:20 lol.
Trump also doesn't want to hit Iran while their FM is in Beijing: Ver archivo adjunto 8963591Ver archivo adjunto 8963592
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has arrived in Beijing, China, for talks with his Chinese counterpart.
I am well aware of the water crisis hitting Iran, I'm not denying that it's a real, existential issue with major consequences if or when it becomes that bad, what I do have an issue with is that its going to happen this year, climate/environmental disasters very rarely will bring a nation down in one season, it takes years, possibly decades from now of the situation slowly getting worse to the point the state itself collapses.
Look at North Korea. 20% of their population died of starvation in mid 1990s, they were 100% dependent on food aid (what a faggotry), yet, at the same time, they were developing nukes.
Water scarcity is never a problem when your population is dead or a niggercattle and your leaders are a bunch of fanatic death cultists.
North Korea also has the advantage of being the most totalitarian mono-ethnic cult-state still in existence, with their internal propaganda portraying the Kim Dynasty as gods in human form, and the outside world as a hellish dystopia, the vast majority of the population are taught that life in North Korea is as best they can ever get (or alternatively, get you or your family sent to a labor camp for dissidence).
At least Iran occasionally gets protests when things get bad and used to be connected to the outside world (even if its heavily censored), have you even heard of someone in the DPRK protesting and holding up signs ever?
You've asked this exact question in the thread previously and got answers, Repeatedly asking the same shit disingenuously just makes you an insufferable faggot.
I know that, and the previous answers didn't convince me of his views, and since he was saying that once more, I wanted to ask him again to see if I get more answers this time.
He's not even the only person on this website you've engaged with who has this specific belief. And do you really need to have it explained to you why the Trump administration isn't yelling from the rooftops "we're hastening Iran toward a humanitarian disaster with food and water shortages", you're right, they stick to economic messaging, because that plays better on the world stage.
If Trump wants to send Iran into a humanitarian disaster, he would have already went all in on PP&B Day already instead of being so insistent on negotiations and blockades to see results, you're honestly just projecting your own personal bloodlust on the Trump administration more than anything, you think the people currently in charge of US foreign policy on Iran are as hungry for more violence as you are.
And I know this post was before his newest announcement, but look, he paused Operation Freedom simply because it looked like Iran was budging on something during negotiations.
It should be added, that the more time the US gives Iran, the more it can figure out how to strengthen its war machine and dig out missiles. Sure we can detect them, but the US is going to burn through more than if they just bombed Iran this weekend.
"In the spririt of negotiations at the request of Pakistan we are pausing this operation" makes Trump appear diplomatic even if it's done for practical reasons like you described.
"Because Iran has the power to render ships in the strait incapable of navigating the strait we are stopping this operation" grants the Iranians their much desired Izzat. 90% of what Iran is up to in recent weeks is intense posturing and chest pounding. and we're better off not playing into their delusions of power.
this is the trump playbook, make a show of strength and beat his chest, and hope it could force concessions or he quietly scales back the rhetoric for some compromises, it happened over tariffs, and it happened with Greenland.
This would hold more water if the ship escorting was a pressure tactic to seek concessions, which it really wasn't. Us ignoring Iran's demands in the strait doesn't put pressure on them to force concessions.
The blockade on the other hand does, and that has been maintained for weeks with no signs of removal.
you're honestly just projecting your own personal bloodlust on the Trump administration more than anything, you think the people currently in charge of US foreign policy on Iran are as hungry for more violence as you are.
Nigger you're actually retarded. Knowing Iran's ongoing water and infrastructure problems, as well as a dismal economic situation from years of sanctions, which contributed to the civilian protests that kicked this conflict off in the first place, and recognizing as well that a blockade further crippling their economy is going to exacerbate and hasten those issues isn't "my bloodlust" it's recognizing that putting gasoline on a fire accelerates the fire. It's an observation of reality.
I have always wrote like that when (trying) to be formal in online discussions years before ChatGPT 4.0 was unveiled, so there's a non-zero chance some of my online literary output was used as training data for these LLMs.
This is pure speculation, but I'm wondering if China is starting to get kind of concerned that they've let a rabid dog off the leash with Iran, and they don't know if they can control them anymore now that they've seen how easily the rest of the world bends over for them just by piloting a few speedboats with machine guns.
China's strategy was always to let Iran sell them cheap oil while destabilizing the rest of the region, convinced that if they ever got too uppity, they could just nuke them after the fact, once they had control of Taiwan, since they wouldn't have any scruples about deploying such methods if the situation called for it.
But between Venezuela and now this, they've likely lost a lot of confidence in their own military capabilities, even if they could easily still crush Iran if they really needed to.
Just for the sake of argument, if you hit the 10-12 major cities and ports then the country stops functioning. Without external inputs the population will return to its natural stone-aged state.
This is 100% true, and was our basic strategy against Japan. I don't think strategic strikes count as "glassing" a country though. Theoretically "glassing" a country means leaving it with nothing but a layer of melted topsoil or sand. "Glassing" implies total annihilation in a way that "strategic strikes" does not.
I'd be very surprised if any current nuclear power used its bombs even for a strategic strike tbh. They could just use incendiaries to achieve the same result much more cheaply and efficiently (see: Dresden, Germany, WWII). Nuclear bombs are just a political equalizer now. "You can't push US around, we have bombs too!"
