Trump insults, abuses and disregards his allies, threatens to invade them, starts trade war against them, starts a bombing war without consultation...

blup said:
Its even more difficult than he thought then, as George Dubya found out when avenging his fathers earlier humiliation.
Click to expand...
While terrain, in Iran and Iraq, could be considered similar, Iraq didn't have any weapons grade uranium.
Whereas Iran does have sufficient potentially weapons grade uranium to easily construct a nuclear device.
As of early 2026, Iran possesses a significant stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60%, amounting to over 440 kilograms (roughly 970 pounds), which is considered a short technical step away from 90% weapons-grade, according to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. officials. While 90% is generally required for weapons, this 60% material is deemed easily convertible to weapons-grade, with experts estimating they have enough for multiple nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
A short range delivery system (tactical nuclear weapon) could be a decisive tactic, used against any ground force, with minimal internal effect in Iranian terrain.
It would be a very messy ground war, potentially triggering WW3.
NATO need not be automatically involved because it wouldn't be considered an attack on a NATO member.
 
SPLINE said:
Vinty the top war advisor!

Have you seen that film where Jim Carey lives a fictitious existence ? That's Vinty.
Click to expand...
Only trying to help you understand what's going on in the real world.
I warned in earlier posts that this war would cause economic damage to the UK , the full effects of which have still to manifest themselves.
If you want to support a war that is not in the national interest but which will cause economic harm to your country, that's fine.
 
mikehammer69 said:
What’s the logic for denying Iran the “bomb” ?
Click to expand...
Israel, being the only Middle East country, has the ultimate deterrent, but they don't want anyone else to have it.
That figures as they are the instigator of most of the conflict in the Middle East, either overtly or covertly.
 

Americans unhappy with Trump over Iran war, new poll indicates​

Two out of three Americans think Donald Trump has not clearly explained why he took the country to war with Iran, a new poll suggests.

No schít.
 
Vinty said:
If you want to support a war that is not in the national interest but which will cause economic harm to your country, that's fine.
Click to expand...
I bet the orange mórón thought that Iran would roll over and the war would be won in a week. No one is interested in his Epstein diversion follies, not even right wing leaders. Meanwhile, fellow murderous dictators are skipping with glee.
 
mikehammer69 said:
He might have plans to do a 3rd term someway
Click to expand...
He may be able to influence his base and this could have an effect on the incumbent. However, he will lose his Presidential immunity. He is busy trying to stock up on cash now, so that he has enough to stall and clog up any legal processes in the future.
 
King Billy said:
While terrain, in Iran and Iraq, could be considered similar, Iraq didn't have any weapons grade uranium.
Whereas Iran does have sufficient potentially weapons grade uranium to easily construct a nuclear device.

A short range delivery system (tactical nuclear weapon) could be a decisive tactic, used against any ground force, with minimal internal effect in Iranian terrain.
It would be a very messy ground war, potentially triggering WW3.
NATO need not be automatically involved because it wouldn't be considered an attack on a NATO member.
Click to expand...
Trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons is like when the Chinese tried to stop the spread of gunpowder.
They restricted the export of ingredients and kept formulas secret but it didn't work.
These days a tactical nuke can be as small as 10kgs.they are easily transportable and hard to detect.
You wouldnt need a ballistic missile to deliver it to the target.

The logic behind nuclear weapons is deterrence rather than using them to attack other countries, if you have nukes then other countries will think twice before trying to invade is the conventional wisdom.
Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon before the American/Israeli attack.
Their logic is now, would American/Israel have attacked if Iran was a nuclear armed state.
America should be trying to make friends instead of enemies in the Middle East.
They had a nuclear agreement with Iran and Trump tore it up, Iran is still in possession of a large amount of HEU all because of Trump, the Straits of Hormuz were open and now they are blocked because of Trump.The world economy is danger of collapse all because of f*cking Trump.
Like it or not , the days of a Western monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons is coming to a close.
It's like king Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.
 
Last edited:
Vinty said:
The logic behind nuclear weapons is deterrence rather than using them to attack other countries, if you have nukes then other countries will think twice before trying to invade is the conventional wisdom.
Click to expand...

It's never stopped Arab countries invading Israel.

Vinty said:
America should be trying to make friends instead of enemies in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

They are, Israel, UAE, Saudi, Jordan.
Iran is an outlier in the ME, the largest sponsor of State terrorism and a country sworn to the destruction of Israel and the USA.

Vinty said:
the Straits of Hormuz were open and now they are blocked because of Trump.The world economy is danger of collapse all because of f*cking Trump.
Click to expand...

If countries were concerned about the collapse of the world economy they'd do something about it, they're clearly not concerned, or certainly not as concerned as you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top