Pakistan saying they would nuke Israel if Israel nuked Iran probably was the only thing holding Israel back from pulling the trigger. If there was ever a group of people who should never be permitted to have nuclear weapons, its the Israelis.
Well, they did it. Now Iran will lash out and close the straits of Hormuz. It’s the only threat that they can carry out now…
…and we’ll sink the ships, and have dogfights over the sea, and it will escalate, and hello World War 3!
I was hoping they could wait a few more years so I’d be too old to be drafted, but looks like I’ll be twerking in Tehran
No, resist the draft. Drafts are evil, do ANYTHING to avoid fighting a MAGA War. My son is the perfect draft age, and he is NEVER going to fight for MAGA. If they want it so bad, the MAGAs can sacrifice their own.
US Reportedly Assesses It Would Need to Drop Nuclear Bomb to Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility
Well, they did it.
No they didn’t. It was conventional bombs, not nuclear.
Sorry forgot about the nuclear bit of the bomb. Regardless, I want to be drafted into the psychic corps for the upcoming world war regardless of talent
Don’t worry guys we’re not going to war.
Bring your steam decks
Too late, we’ve been at war for a long time.
Well im not.
Seems to me, like there is EXTREMELY, next to zero, or perhaps zero reason to ever HAVE to use a nuke. Nuke’s should be a defensive deterrent, not a first choice. I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.
I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.
The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.
The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.
If you are not ready to use a nuke ever, it stops being a deterrent. Game theory.
But this situation is not the kind where a nuke is used as a deterrent. If Israel was saying they’re sorry and asking for ceasefire, while Iranians would be absolutely destroying what remains of it and not listening, then yes.
Or, if Iran had a nuke and Israelis were succeeding in destroying Iran.
But neither are true.
There are 13k ton bombs that can penetrate pretty deep dropped by B2 bombers, which might be headed to the ME right now.
The B2s will be flown into Diego Garcia. The only time they will be in the middle east is if they are over a target. Hopefully they stay in Diego Garcia.
Oh honey, read some of the norbert weiner type of nuke cult guys, and their Soviet counterparts.
This is a rabbit hole nobody wants anybody to ho down.
hole nobody wants anybody to ho down.
If this series of murderous far right zionist military adventures proves anything, its that American politicians will ho themselves down any hole.
And have before, but some of them are…
Dumbo with the big ears is pulling the strings of the empty-headed Scarecrow.
Trump is as dumb as a sack of hammers, and he’s looking for a nail. He just wants to treat nukes like playthings, a rich man’s flex. Just to say he did. Like a canned trophy hunt of a Lion from the safety of helicopters and trucks with everyone around him at his paid service. No risk, no personal jeopardy. Drop the bomb for lols just to experience the fact he did it and will brag about it.
If he drops a nuke, he instantly becomes the most dangerous man in history, they only guy willing to use a nuke for normal war purposes (for which there are nearly infinite alternative options), and to flex his ego (which has no limit). Now when he threatens a country, they will have to believe him, because he’s done it before.
With that in mind, I would think nearly every nation with a highly organized covert intelligence service would decide that it’s time to remove that threat from the planet.
Hey guys, how about we nuke the wind?
Yeah no hipocrisy and double standards whatsoever /s
It is so odd that this info being publicized…
they just want to test how much public outcry there would be
They are trying to scare Iran into giving into what they want.
He thinks this is a genius plan.
It’s stupid.
He will chicken out and give the nukes to them… And call it the most brilliant thing anyone has ever done
What if you bomb the entrances?
It would help to some extent, but they’d have to keep bombing the facility consistently - and indefinitely - to keep it out of service.
What a shitty country.
Trump cheated to win the election. Most Americans are against him.
edit: I’m not just saying this, there’s evidence to suggest it
However, yes, the country is shit right now. I agree.
Most Americans are against him.
I’ll believe it when I see it. What I see is Trump and his ICE Brownshorts running all over the place with almost zero resistance.
Most Americans might be against him, but the majority of those that voted voted for him. People’s apathy and the DNC continually being useless helped Trump win.
The only voter demographic that saw a decrease in the last election compared to 2016 was white men. If you’re going to cry “rigged election,” then you’re undermining democracy in exactly the same way the MAGA crowd does.
Lol. No. Fsce rey reality of your country, otherwise you’ll be unable to fix it.
Most Americans are against him
Most Americans should have showed up to vote, then. Or not protest vote for a limp-dick 3rd party. As far as I’m concerned, most Americans are in support of what he’s doing, because they didn’t show otherwise on election day.
He has an almost 50% approval rating from Americans so while you’re technically correct, that’s still a ridiculous amount of Americans who like him
That’s not the statistic I’ve seen. It was in the 30s last I saw. Among Republicans it was still fairly high, like 60s, and higher among MAGA, but the general public was much lower. Can you cite a recent source for your number? Otherwise, I’ll bolo for some updated numbers.
These are the stats I found:
- According to the most recent Gallup poll, Trump’s job approval rating was 43% in May.
- The Economist shows that 41% of people are favorable of Trump and 53% are unfavorable of him, according to the latest update from June 20.
- Rasmussen Reports poll from June 20 showed 52% approval and 47% disapproval of Trump.
- The Morning Consult tracker poll taken mid-June has dropped to 46% approval rating and 52% who disapprove.
- A Reuters/Ipsos poll reported that, as of June 16, 42% of those surveyed gave him a favorable approval rating of his performance in office.
- An InsiderAdvantage poll taken between June 15-16 showed Trump with 54.4% approval over a 44.1% disapproval of his job performance.
From here
Nice work, mate. Good on ya! (I’m watching Bluey with my kids right now) Looks like I’ve been outdated.
Well, the rest of Americans need to wake tf up. It’s going to take most of us to right the ship. Fuck the rich, fuck the racists/sexists/homophobes/etc., and fuck any MAGAts who somehow aren’t covered by the previous.
Fuck the rich, fuck the racists/sexists/homophobes/etc., and fuck any MAGAts who somehow aren’t covered by the previous
100% agreed
Ffs, by what half baked metrics are people rating that guy?
Iran’s a shitty country.
Why?
(not who you replied to) We can be anti-zionists without being pro-Iran. They have a horrific history of human rights abuses. Their sovereignty is being violated, but their government is not a good one.
No no. Not pro-Iran government, just curious what the specific reason are for calling it a shit country.
Trump just desperately wants to nuke something. Anything’s fine, he just wants to drop a nuclear bomb on stuff. I mean, he was floating nuking a goddamned hurricane before.
He’s like a toddler that sees a big red button and just HAS to push it, because it’s just there and it’s so big and red and it will make things go boom!
Not desperate enough, apparently. I’ve yet to see any of the people who were absolutely certain yesterday that a nuke was going to be dropped admit they were wrong.
Just like the original video for Land Of Confusion where senile Reagan in a hospital bed pushing the NUKE button that’s next to the NURSE button.
While you’re not wrong, in general, I personally think this might be an excuse for us not to bomb the place. Trump has got himself caught in a civil war between his own cult members, and he hates not being at the center of attention and obeyed unconditionally. This might be a way to placate both sides. He can tell the pro-war side that he can’t use a weapon that’ll do the job, and he can tell the no-war side that he’s not gonna nuke it.
That way the Orange Jackass can wrench the conversation back to about how “he’s more peaceful than anyone’s ever seen before” or whatever bullshit he decides to vomit up.
This aged poorly lol
Not even a complete day later and we’ve used B2 bombers to bomb them
Tucker is only against this because he’s been paid by Putin right?
I assumed most of the Magats that are against the bombing Iran are paid shills. What’s Tim Pool’s take on it? (Disclaimer, I actually couldn’t give two shits what any of them think, we should be negotiating and solve this like fucking adults).
You’re giving him waaay too much credit.
All he does is rant and complain, while doing what the Heritage Foundation people tell him to sign.It isn’t anything more complicated than that.
This. His fan base thinks he’s playing 5D chess, while the liberals think he’s playing chess, but in reality he’s being allowed by his babysitters to throw checker pieces everywhere to divert attention.
He’s a psychopathic narcissist. He thinks he always needs to be at the center of attention. Wouldn’t call that complicated.
I don’t trust him not to nuke even NYC.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but I think NYC would be off limits because it’s his “home” where he “has the tallest building because of 9/11” and other dumbass beliefs. Basically, he wouldn’t want to harm his precious Trump Tower.
LA though? Yeah, he might just fuckin do it.
Yep, I know. But that’s my point. I don’t even trust him that far.
He should start a youtube channel that tests dropping nukes on various things
Project plow share the border?
If the United States drops a nuke, the world needs to unite against us.
Maybe we need to unite against ourselves too, can’t just hope on others to do the right thing, gotta pitch in.
The world should do that now.
They kinda already are, looking at Gaza vote in UN.
The West for the most part isn’t. Relations between Europe and America have gotten more antagonistic, but for the most part the former is toeing the latter’s party line.
I’ve recently seen a pic with election results in Germany, and it’s spectacular - one block leading in former FRG, another block leading in former GDR (AfD), and it’s very clean.
If you think about it, “Europe” has lots of political stability. No democratic uncertainty whatsoever. AfD pretends to be that, but really after that map I can’t think so.
And the elites are fine with the way US is choosing. They’ll just be the next on it, tinker a bit with the new stuff for their own convenience, soften some sharp bits.
It’s rather that the rest of the world should unite against the west until it’s too late. Pakistan and DPRK should share their nuclear toys so that everyone had a nuke.
The coalition of anti-western states, mostly totalitarian and not very nice, would in some bits work like Curtis Yarvin’s (I know it’s mostly wrong people dreaming of it) idea of paradise - the right of exit (changing a country among them) would de-facto exist, and every such state having nuclear deterrence would mean that those more attractive for immigrants won’t be pressured to stop, which will mean slow evolutionary change for more liberty.
I personally think that (at some point) open immigration is what made the USA more democratic (except racism). Getting more and more different people of non-elite background willing to build a new life is a powerful source of constant hardly predictable change.
It’s sad that I can’t explain these ideas to people closest to me in their worldview, they are just a bit too conserved in their understanding, and for them I’m picking cannibals over “imperfect civilization” for some abstract benefit. But how is that different from “white man’s burden”, I’m not sure, except “white man’s burden” implied some responsibility for what you’re doing, and Kipling was kinda sad the British empire didn’t find that responsibility in itself. I think it’s the same or worse and the more cynical people understood this earlier.
Dude what are you on about? The previous German government collapsed.
That map you are talking about only represents which party was the strongest in that particular area. It does not specify by how much. In total 5 parties (ignoring that one Nordic minority party seat) made it into the federal parliament and two more parties came close to it.
This is the current federal seat distribution. Note that in Germany constitutional changes require a 2/3 majority. The far right CDU/CSU is extremely hostile to the Left party but so far does not want to embrace working directly with the AfD Fascists although they have done so “accidentally, wink wink” in the past.
Germany is not politically stable. The current government is running around largely headless, on most points directly opposing what they had said just before the election which was solely aimed at blowing everything up politically speaking. There is no long term strategy except for more racist and authoritarianism and a respectful and peaceful transition of power becomes less and less likely while Trumpist tactics are embraced.
The minister of the interior has announced to defy the courts to continue illegal deportations of asylum seekers, claiming that a recent court ruling would only apply in the specific case, despite that evidently not being the case.
“Stable” doesn’t mean “good”.
It’s neither. That’s the point.
Eh, if threatening nukes and vetoing Gaza ceasefires in the UN is all the justification we need, then we all should have united against China and Russia. That’s the real crux of the issue, here, is that even as the USA is spiraling it’s really only as bad as the other two top military powers at worst.
The right has been talking about nuking the Middle East for decades. They now have “one of theirs” (a “common man” who believes in the things the common MAGA believes), who is just stupid enough to actually do it. I’m taking things day by day.
Nothing like nuking a part of the world you don’t know shit about. They probably think it’s a piece of desert with Disney characters (mostly centered around the capital of Agrabah and capable of hiding) and evil terrorists hurting our good Israel.
Beyond parody (for nearly a decade at this point).
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that. To be fair if they really have this itch to bomb a city, let it be Agrabah.
That magical energy they are developing can’t be only for peaceful uses. They must be stopped! We should oust the current government and help Mr. Jafar be Sultan, I hear he’s a very modern and business-friendly guy.
deleted by creator
Sorry the be pedantic, but why not link the original source?
Since it’s their inside sources.
Especially, because the original article states „Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.“ while the linked article here implies that this option is considered.
Exactly. Hence the importance of linking the original source…
Did you even read the article you linked? The fuckin “source” you got your panties in a bunch over arent even cited beyond, “according to people familiar with the deliberations.” They dont even say its their own source in their own article you dolt.
“according to people familiar with the deliberations.”
Afaik that is synonymous/how journalist say “inside source”.
To expand on Shrubbery, you can read the Guardian’s editorial standards and the base ones they follow: https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/08/EditorialGuidelinesAug2011.pdf
according to people familiar with the…
In journalism, this is common lingo for “our journalists personally communicated with sources (more that one) that wish to remain anonymous.” It’s the guardian’s legwork and integrity for shielding anon sources here, not them copying it from some other site (which they’d link if they did).
I checked if this was the onion after reading the title
