Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

 

So then you guys see the dilemma.

Talks, sanctions, plans (e.g. The Obama and to a lesser extent the Biden way) doesn't work because Iran is disingenous.

Threats and Sabre-Rattling (e.g. The Trump way) doesn't work, it incentives and speeds up development (which is already sped up over years past due to advancements)

Nothing works, so we will fight over them or with them.

Is there a seperate ledge for nuclear war / WWIII or is it shared with the Fall of the American Republic ledge?

You say Iran is disingenuous, and I'd agree with you.

But I'd argue everyone is disingenuous. The United States certainly is on all sorts of things. Sometimes purposefully, and sometimes by making promises they end up not having the political will to fulfill. 

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? What are the consequences to a ruling regime compared to the benefits? Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

If one doesn't want nuclear proliferation to occur then the only way to slow it down is to make the consequence for pursuing it so painful that it's unthinkable to do so. Since what I mean by that is abhorrent, we're left with a world where more people will have access to nuclear weapons. It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You got a source for this?

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? ... Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

See Ukraine....

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You say Iran is disingenuous, and I'd agree with you.

But I'd argue everyone is disingenuous. The United States certainly is on all sorts of things. Sometimes purposefully, and sometimes by making promises they end up not having the political will to fulfill. 

How important is having possession of nuclear weapons for state sovereignty? What are the consequences to a ruling regime compared to the benefits? Why would we ever expect a nation state that has embarked on possessing nuclear weapons to genuinely give up that pursuit?

If one doesn't want nuclear proliferation to occur then the only way to slow it down is to make the consequence for pursuing it so painful that it's unthinkable to do so. Since what I mean by that is abhorrent, we're left with a world where more people will have access to nuclear weapons. It would also be helpful if we'd do a better job of guaranteeing the sovereignty of countries that do give up possession of nuclear weapons. 

I agree with you 100%.

In general we are seeing (in my view) the natural end result of when human civilization and societies come together for a tenuously held and sued-by-the-threat-of-force peace golden era.

History is littered with the ebbs and flows of such periods and it's generally great for mankind when we can prolong it, due to all the advancements and qualities we can focus on versus when societal growth grinds to a halt for the tactical-- armament, re-armament, having babies to repopulate the young men slaughtered in wars, replacing slain kings/leaders, fighting against internal infighting that undermines military and political strength, etc.

We seem to be plummeting towards the end of a great era. I'm so on the ledge you can call me Heath Ledger

Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You got a source for this?

i'm going to laugh so hard when he says it is from an email newsletter he gets and still claims to not be animaltobacco.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

It wasn't very successfully done. After the US, the former Soviet Union, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and South Africa developed nuclear weapons. South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine gave them up after possessing them. 

I'm saying countries have a lot of incentives to develop a nuclear weapon, and the disincentives are wholly inadequate. But adequate discincentives are likely horrifying. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I agree with you 100%.

In general we are seeing (in my view) the natural end result of when human civilization and societies come together for a tenuously held and sued-by-the-threat-of-force peace golden era.

History is littered with the ebbs and flows of such periods and it's generally great for mankind when we can prolong it, due to all the advancements and qualities we can focus on versus when societal growth grinds to a halt for the tactical-- armament, re-armament, having babies to repopulate the young men slaughtered in wars, replacing slain kings/leaders, fighting against internal infighting that undermines military and political strength, etc.

We seem to be plummeting towards the end of a great era. I'm so on the ledge you can call me Heath Ledger

While I certainly agree with you, I'm also reminded of all the times throughout human history when contemporaries felt like they were living in the end times, and it turned out not to be that way. Of course, sometimes it really was, at least from their perspective. 

It's inherently impossible to have genuine historical perspective on the times you're currently living in. Nonetheless, we can all see trends, and the trends do not feel very good right now. I think my biggest fear is we seem to be collectively leaning into the basest aspects of our humanity - especially in the United States - and I'm not sure what arrests that other than really negative outcomes. On a selfish level, I don't particularly want to live through those really negative outcomes. 

I hope for a George Washington/Thomas Jefferson/Abraham Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt/FDR/Reagan type. I voted Republican all my life (for presidential elections) until 2016. Given where the party has gone, I don't see how someone like that wins the Republican nomination in the future, much less a general election. 

Honestly, at the foundational level my biggest fear is that in the near future our votes aren't going to matter any more. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, sidis said:

i'm going to laugh so hard when he says it is from an email newsletter he gets and still claims to not be animaltobacco.

Quote

 

From Semafor (below) that confirms that when unofficial negotiations between Biden’s team and Iran collapsed, U.S. officials cited Iran’s refusal to cooperate on UN nuclear inspections. Specifically, Iran resisted addressing uranium traces found at undeclared sites and blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. This lack of transparency led Western nations to pass a censure resolution against Iran at the IAEA.

https://www.semafor.com/article/06/05/2024/iran-west-tensions-nuclear-transparency-uranium-inspections

 

 

Get a life, nerd.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, sidis said:

go spend $2,000 on chickfila this month.

wtf are you talking about? Is this AI hallucinating?

Posted
4 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Which was very successfully done by the US with it's political stability on protecting foreign allies for decades. We managed to be a part of convincing Ukraine to cease it's nuclear weapons pursuit, and look what that got them. 

Donald Trump and Republicans turning their backs on allies signals the US is no longer reliable as an ally, and it has single handedly erased decades of US diplomacy by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. It's now a global arms race to ensure you're a country with a dead man's switch to keep other countries like the US, China,  and Russia from invading you. 

 

4 hours ago, Tonesky said:

See Ukraine....

We all got it guys

Posted
24 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Seems like the Air Force is practicing bombing runs on the roads in and around Shreveport/Bossier City. 

20250401_164147~2.jpg

Bombing Louisiana?  If Senator Kennedy is back in state ...

mmm-ill-allow-it.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Seems like the Air Force is practicing bombing runs on the roads in and around Shreveport/Bossier City. 
20250401_1641472.thumb.jpg.53de4555b7c8acadacd333c1b36b79a0.jpg

Tell me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed without telling me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed.

I’m old enough to remember seeing this same sight- a BUFF on final in its unique nose down attitude- all the time in Fort Worth.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


Tell me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed without telling me you don’t know where the B-52s are stationed.

The Love Shack? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted

With this administration, we're probably going to see orders to make a bombing run sent by WhatsApp, with a fat-fingered typo, and just like that....we'll bomb this place:

iraan_texas.jpg

...and Rankin will take its rightful place as the big dog of one of the most desolates stretches of W. Texas.

  • Haha 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Huh, interdasting. Still fuck Mike Waltz though. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html

 

Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike After Divisions Emerged in His Administration

Israel developed plans for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities that would have required U.S. assistance. But some administration officials had doubts.

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

...

Initially, at the behest of Mr. Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort that the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft.

But Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Mr. Netanyahu wanted it carried out more quickly. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have also required American assistance, according to officials briefed on the plan.

Some American officials were at least initially more open to considering the Israeli plans. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, both discussed how the United States could potentially support an Israeli attack, if Mr. Trump backed the plan, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

Image

The aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was repositioned from the Pacific to the Arabian Sea for operations against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, but also to potentially support an Israeli strike on Iran.Credit...Linh Pham/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

With the United States intensifying its war against the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, General Kurilla, with the blessing of the White House, began moving military equipment to the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, is now in the Arabian Sea, joining the carrier Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

The United States also moved two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, known as a THAAD, to the Middle East.

Around a half-dozen B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bombs essential to destroying Iran’s underground nuclear program were dispatched to Diego Garcia, an island base in the Indian Ocean.

Moving additional fighter aircraft to the region, potentially to a base in Israel, was also considered.

All of the equipment could be used for strikes against the Houthis — whom the United States has been attacking since March 15 in an effort to halt their strikes against shipping vessels in the Red Sea. But U.S. officials said privately that the weaponry was also part of the planning for potentially supporting Israel in a conflict with Iran.

Even if the United States decided not to authorize the aircraft to take part in a strike on Iran, Israel would know that the American fighters were available to defend against attacks by an Iranian ally.

There were signs that Mr. Trump was open to U.S. support for Israeli military action against Iran. The United States has long accused Iran of giving the Houthis weapons and intelligence, and of exercising at least a degree of control over the group. On March 17, as Mr. Trump warned the Houthis in Yemen to stop their attacks, he also called out Iran, saying that it was in control of the Houthis.

...

There were many reasons that Israeli officials expected Mr. Trump to take an aggressive line on Iran. In 2020, he ordered the killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s most elite military unit. And Iran sought to hire hit men to assassinate Mr. Trump during last year’s presidential campaign, according to a Justice Department indictment.

But inside the Trump administration, some officials were becoming skeptical of the Israeli plan.

In a meeting this month — one of several discussions about the Israeli plan — Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that said the buildup of American weaponry could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.

A range of officials echoed Ms. Gabbard’s concerns in the various meetings. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance all voiced doubts about the attack.

Even Mr. Waltz, frequently one of the most hawkish voices on Iran, was skeptical that Israel’s plan could succeed without substantial American assistance.



×
×
  • Create New...