The Nuclear War Plan for Iran
The Nuclear War Plan for Iran

The Nuclear War Plan for Iran

I said a little bit ago that i had a feeling a nuke would be used within the next few years... i really hope i wasnt right.
The Nuclear War Plan for Iran
The Nuclear War Plan for Iran
I said a little bit ago that i had a feeling a nuke would be used within the next few years... i really hope i wasnt right.
I'm still personally certain that the first post-ww2 proliferator of nuclear warfare will be Israel. The US has too many international enemies to risk uniting them all at once, but Israel is proving that you can all but turn an entire society into glass and dust without provoking more than a concerned letter from the most "civilised" world leader.
EDIT: having read the article I can see he makes a very good, if concerning, argument towards Trump being the triggerman for this fucked up timeline.
Well in a way they would be but the US wants to be the one to actually field the weapons. The zionists have been saying they might resort to using their nukes and Trump and the US given the strategic situation are saying, "no, if they're used, we'll use them to assert our power and dominance and deterrence and enhance our credibility as an empire that can still fuck you up if you don't obey us". Plus the US doing it vs the zionist entity means less blow-back for the zionist entity directly. If the zionists do it, with the current climate against them through much of the world a BDS movement might build to a fever-pitch amid calls to completely isolate the outlaw state which would be a headache at least for the US requiring them to pour more resources in. But if the US does it, well the US is vital to world trade and though they're pissing people off with tariffs presently it's not practical to attempt to strangle them from a consumer point of view via buying choices and pressure campaigns given their size, reach, financial, economic, cultural, etc power.
And best of all with the US they have Trump in power who has been sold as an aberration. They can simply push him out or he'll die and then they paint his actions as too far, as being those of a dictator and that the US has changed(tm) and was like that then but has learned and is now better and a perfect angel.
Mostly the US fears its vassals nuclearizing and gaining independence from them that way. Very few strategic enemy countries to the US don't already have nuclear weapons already so the risk of proliferation is not really seen as a problem in using nukes. Vietnam still isn't likely to pursue a nuclear weapons program but even if they were they're important enough to China that the US couldn't invade without Chinese retaliation anyways. Other than that who is there? The AES alliance in Africa might have the raw uranium to make nuclear weapons possible but they lack the industry, the science, the knowledge, and the base to put them together and build ICBMs anywhere near fast enough to be able to create a credible deterrent (though they are close enough to Europe they could get by with shorter range missiles able to hit 2500miles away in say Berlin or Paris and use that to threaten the US into backing off, still even that would take a lot of work).
Importantly using nuclear weapons in defense of a vassal would the US may think re-assure other vassals like occupied Korea who have been murmuring about acquiring their own nukes, would re-assure them not to try and do that but that the US will use nukes in their favor if the time comes (hint: it won't as long as the DPRK can hit numerous cities in the US mainland in retaliation which it should be able to soon). So it would be a credibility building maneuver after Ukraine's humiliation.
I think the main thing it accomplishes is it basically sets in stone the lines for WW3. If you support the US after they use a nuke your on their side, and if you don't your anti-imperialist, and on that side. No more neutrality at that point.
France has been talking about making a european nuclear umbrella. Russia, and China may do the same for Asia if the US actually uses some.
Nuclear umbrella's are interesting to talk about but I think they're a bluff against any kind of peer power. Washington is not going to get LA, NYC, Dallas, Denver, San Diego, Boston, Washington DC and a hundred other American cities wiped off the map to avenge say Seoul getting nuked or Berlin getting nuked by the DPRK or Russia respectively.
Because nuclear war is hard to do in a limited way between nuclear powers. A nuclear power can nuke a non-nuclear power in a limited way because the non-nuclear power cannot respond with any nukes let alone a full barrage that completely destroys them. But once you hit back at a nuclear power that can wipe you off the map the doctrine states any limited strike is only an attempt to blind you and suppress your response before a full strike, you can't know what is or isn't coming in terms of more so protocol is launch a full response and at that point both parties are destroyed and those do no good to the umbrella party which previously was still intact and spared and could undertake other choices against the attacking party.
Likewise I'd have doubts if China extended a nuclear umbrella to say Iran that they'd be willing to hit the US with a nuke because the US hit Iran.
Certainly the US has a lot more to lose as does France in hitting back a big nuclear power than say China who is still a rising power, still does not have any kind of vassals, whose only interests in security are immediate neighbors like Vietnam/DPRK that they've assisted in the past militarily. But even there I think it would be a hard choice to make watching say the DPRK in flames but knowing if you hit the Americans back that Beijing and every other city in China will be in flames as well.
The US might buy such an umbrella for the DPRK and say Vietnam from China and not hit them but they wouldn't buy it for say Pakistan I think because of the dissimilarities there. Likewise the US probably buys Russia's threats to defend Belarus because well they've backed them into a corner, they know they've backed them into a corner and they have almost nothing left. The US on the other hand and France can stand to lose a lot, they have a lot of countries and/or ocean between them and enemy states like Russia/China.
I think it's easier to turn the other cheek unless you really think you can suppress the enemy's response.
I think the solution to this is taking it out of your own hands. Yes launching a nuke from China towards the US in response might not be the smartest move or very likely, but if Iran were to somehow mysteriously acquire 15 ICBMs that may or may not have the Russian or Chinese flag on them covered up by an Iranian flag sticker... well whose to say how that happened, and now Iran can defend itself.
Very good points, especially within the context that even the (retired) generals acknowledging the fear of the ZE nuclearising without US approval.
Well theyve actually been running drills with Israeli fighter jets being the ones guiding the US bomber in so... yeah you wouldnt be wrong really even in this case. Israel is very much pushing for this.
Don't forget their lovely Samson option... Yeah, I too don't think it'll be anyone else tbh.