I can imagine. And so can they. They can wait until they hit. And then respond, how they like. Or they can fire as soon as attack detected, by Nukes. But if they attack by Nukes, they may expect a counter attack in kind.
When a country launches 1,000 bombers to attack your country... you don't wait to see what they will target and then decide how you will respond. With ICBMs it is worse because you really wont have time to do much more than launch any weapons you might have yourself before their weapons potentially destroy yours.
And common sense dictates that if you have a gun and they have a gun trying to shoot first to disarm them is very risky... you are talking the enormous risk that they wont just act on gut instinct and shoot you in the head... and only afterwards realise they were only trying to disarm you.
Of course you only try to disarm someone to be able to dictate the terms of their surrender...
What we are saying, is that America can not expect to attack Iran, without retaliation.
They are idiots and will not be bound by common sense... there was a story a while back from a US thinktank that suggested the Russians might be developing super low power nuclear warheads that could be used in conventional war. They pulled this idea out of their arse because it is stupid. It is something the Americans were thinking not long before because those super bunker buster bombs they are always bragging about aren't performing as they hoped, so plan B is nuclear warheads that penetrate into the ground before exploding... they will argue it minimises radiation because it will be totally localised... just like the French said with their testing in the Pacific... which was of course bullshit. Contaminating underground water which then delivers radiation all over the place and into the local food supply is the normal result.
Anyway this US think tank turned it all around and suggested the Russians were planning to use low power nukes as a way of being able to use nuclear weapons without needing to be attack with nukes in the first place. Ie it freed their hand so they could use it when they needed too.
The reality is that the Russians are not interested in low yield nukes... the opposite actually.
The US has suggested the Russians might want small nukes because they want them and suggesting the Russians have them is the easiest way of being allowed to make them for themselves.
It is how you correctly read western media... when they say Russian hacking and Russian meddling in US elections that means US hacking and US meddling in elections all round the world for the last century. When they say Russia is poisoning its enemies, then look carefully at the cancer related deaths of Chavez and Castro... and when they talk about mini nukes for bunker busting... granite boulders and sand piled on top of Iranian bunkers would probably be a good idea...
Even involving attacks on own soil. Something that they are not used to. American investment capital is risk averse. The Yanks are used to having a sense of security. Immunity from attack. This time they may have to wake up from their sweet dreams.
Very much agree.... a child that feels no pain will be happy to inflict it on others, but beware upsetting the spoiled child, they will kill themselves trying to hurt someone else...
Will they stand loosing one aircraft carrier , with 5000 hands lost at sea? Will they stand their beloved wall street, loosing it's walls? Because Iran sure has the capability, to inflict such loses. And as GarryB said, a kneejerk reaction : " we will Nuke them".
Personally, I would favour an electronic response... hack their power grid, or seriously damage wall street... hit the rich and powerful rather than the kids of the poor who man their aircraft carriers. Cost them billions in digital money... pretend to be jewish bankrobbers and the guards will help you carry the loot out to your truck so to speak... thinking you are entitled to the money...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Isos
