Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
I'd like to say it's a line that he'd never cross.
European leaders are facing considerable pressure from Washington to open the strait of Hormuz militarily-NYT
Not going to happen .
European leaders aren’t going to clean up Trumps mess .
That is not the reason. The issue is there is no purely military way to open the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the Americans haven't done it.
That would take a ceasefire or peace agreement between Iran, Israel and the USA, which Britain or Europe cannot impose.
Where Keir Starmer could but China will earn some brownie points is in reminding Iran it is not in its own interest to cut off trade, so Iran should guarantee safe passage but charge for it. China could also take a swipe at Lloyds of London and American insurers by offering tanker owners cheap insurance.
Unfortunately there is a military way to achieve this. Nuke Iran until it totally surrenders
Enter Russia. Enter North Korea. Goodbye World.
In practice, Trump's biscuit would be soggy and have no effect.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
European leaders are facing considerable pressure from Washington to open the strait of Hormuz militarily-NYT
Not going to happen .
European leaders aren’t going to clean up Trumps mess .
That is not the reason. The issue is there is no purely military way to open the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the Americans haven't done it.
That would take a ceasefire or peace agreement between Iran, Israel and the USA, which Britain or Europe cannot impose.
Where Keir Starmer could but China will earn some brownie points is in reminding Iran it is not in its own interest to cut off trade, so Iran should guarantee safe passage but charge for it. China could also take a swipe at Lloyds of London and American insurers by offering tanker owners cheap insurance.
Unfortunately there is a military way to achieve this. Nuke Iran until it totally surrenders
Enter Russia. Enter North Korea. Goodbye World.
In practice, Trump's biscuit would be soggy and have no effect.
Why would they get involved to help Iran? Against the power of the US, especially a US willing to hurl nuclear weapons?
Like the rest of us they would stand well clear and look on in horrified amazement
I am a staunch atheist but it does seem strange to me that the head of the Church of England should be happy to release messages for Eid and Ramadan but not for Easter.
Counterintuitively it's mainly non Christians, and I regret to say those interested in creating division and trouble, who are exercised by the lack of an Easter message from the King.
He released a bland message about Ramadan on his Instagram channel, which is surely appropriate for a major religion amongst his subjects. He talks quite a lot about his Christian faith on social media and there were several posts about the traditional royal activities for Maundy Thursday. He gives an address to the nation at Christmas.
I suspect his Christian faith is the main reason for him not traditionally giving an Easter message. Easter is the most solemn festival in the Christian calender, so he should let it speak for itself.
He has given one every year since he became king
I don't think so. He's issued Maundy Thursday messages each year including this year. I just checked. Last year's "Easter" message was issued on Maundy Thursday.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
The war with the goal of stopping a rogue regime gaining and ultimately using nukes unprovoked in the Middle East being ended by a different rogue regime using nukes unprovoked in the Middle East?
If they do, we should immediately sanction the US akin to those we have in place for Russia. Fuck the consequences.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
He wouldn't even have to do that. B61 into the middle of the Lut Desert. It's over.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
He wouldn't even have to do that. B61 into the middle of the Lut Desert. It's over.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Finally got around to listening to In Our Time to see if the new host was any good at it (he's fine).
Melvyn could be crotchety though, I miss that.
Give Misha a couple of hundred episodes...
A bit pally at the moment. If you listen to the extended episodes he offers them tea at the end.
I remember Melvyn offering tea etc in some of the extended ones.
Yes, the "tea or coffee" bit is a long-standing feature of the podcast extended section.
I've been going through some of the early episodes from the archive: it started as a somewhat different feeling programme, with two guests, who often had some recently published book and somewhat opposed viewpoints, and Melvyn doing more injection of his own viewpoints. Not sure when it will settle down to the "three academics discuss a topic" format.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
I am a staunch atheist but it does seem strange to me that the head of the Church of England should be happy to release messages for Eid and Ramadan but not for Easter.
Counterintuitively it's mainly non Christians, and I regret to say those interested in creating division and trouble, who are exercised by the lack of an Easter message from the King.
He released a bland message about Ramadan on his Instagram channel, which is surely appropriate for a major religion amongst his subjects. He talks quite a lot about his Christian faith on social media and there were several posts about the traditional royal activities for Maundy Thursday. He gives an address to the nation at Christmas.
I suspect his Christian faith is the main reason for him not traditionally giving an Easter message. Easter is the most solemn festival in the Christian calender, so he should let it speak for itself.
He has given one every year since he became king
I don't think so. He's issued Maundy Thursday messages each year including this year. I just checked. Last year's "Easter" message was issued on Maundy Thursday.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
They might not.
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
"The US" would end the war it wouldn't have started, tomorrow.
We're talking about what Trump might, or might not do.
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
European leaders are facing considerable pressure from Washington to open the strait of Hormuz militarily-NYT
Not going to happen .
European leaders aren’t going to clean up Trumps mess .
That is not the reason. The issue is there is no purely military way to open the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the Americans haven't done it.
That would take a ceasefire or peace agreement between Iran, Israel and the USA, which Britain or Europe cannot impose.
Where Keir Starmer could but China will earn some brownie points is in reminding Iran it is not in its own interest to cut off trade, so Iran should guarantee safe passage but charge for it. China could also take a swipe at Lloyds of London and American insurers by offering tanker owners cheap insurance.
Unfortunately there is a military way to achieve this. Nuke Iran until it totally surrenders
Enter Russia. Enter North Korea. Goodbye World.
In practice, Trump's biscuit would be soggy and have no effect.
Why would they get involved to help Iran? Against the power of the US, especially a US willing to hurl nuclear weapons?
Like the rest of us they would stand well clear and look on in horrified amazement
More likely Russia will anticipate this possibility and provide Iran with a nuclear response. But Iran would have declare possession of it for it to be an effective deterrent. Same goes for the the West providing Ukraine with a nuclear response. It makes sense.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
If Trump is thinking of using nukes, why is he building up military assets in the Gulf?
He seems more likely to be considering an invasion.
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
"Near zero? Zero would be nice!"
Yes. But it can't be absolute zero if there's war involving people who have WMDs.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
That rather ignores the fact that on a smaller scale that's already happened to a number of IRGC, along with their families.
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
"Near zero? Zero would be nice!"
Yes. But it can't be absolute zero if there's war involving those who have WMDs.
Hence why CND have it right.
The only reason we are talking about this is because Iran can't respond in kind.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
If Trump is thinking of using nukes, why is he building up military assets in the Gulf?
He seems more likely to be considering an invasion.
That's insane, but it's logically insane.
I agree. But there is always a worry. There's not much sign of logic in the White House.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
They might not.
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Not pretty to contemplate.
Not only that it would jeopardise my upcoming foodie road trip with free spa days
The fact that Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz and that gasoline in the US is now more than $4 a gallon is a very clear indicator that Trump's Folly in attacking Iran has failed. Lots of pain for little gain.
Now, Trump never accepts that he has lost, and so this has to be someone else's fault. And the someone else he has chosen is Europe, and Britain in particular. That's the only reason he keeps on going on about Europe reopening the Strait.
Now, normally, I would say that Trump has a very good chance of making this stick, because blaming other people for his fuckups is a core Trump competency. But the fly in the ointment this time is that gasoline is more than $4 a gallon, and if Trump could reopen the Strait and bring the price of gas down, why doesn't he get on and do it, instead of blaming the Europeans for not doing so?
He doesn't accept that the gas price is to with Hormuz as the US doesn't need their oil (in his words).
More interesting is whether pre-war Trump listened to US oil interests who might quite like higher prices for no more effort.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
After Nagasaki the Japanese Cabinet was split 50-50 on continuing to fight. It was only because the Emperor's casting vote was for surrender that they did.
Are the Mullahs more or less likely to surrender than the Japanese were?
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
"Near zero? Zero would be nice!"
Yes. But it can't be absolute zero if there's war involving those who have WMDs.
Hence why CND have it right.
The only reason we are talking about this is because Iran can't respond in kind.
And why Putin is desperate that Ukraine loses control of it's nuclear power plants.
Because of what's in the cooling ponds.
Fun fact I discovered not long ago. During Soviet times, the Soviet Union was experimenting with military plutonium production in all the "civilian" power plants. So they did large scale testing of low burn up. During the 1990s handover, the test fuel rods were left in the cooling ponds. So Ukraine has large quantities of "military grade" plutonium - extracting it is a just chemistry.
Mind you, the US detonated a bomb from 20%+ Pu 240. And the Ukrainians will have *tons* of plutonium in that category.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
They might not.
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Not pretty to contemplate.
Not only that it would jeopardise my upcoming foodie road trip with free spa days
I think you were correct to write that off. There seems little prospect of this being sorted in the next week.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
If Trump is thinking of using nukes, why is he building up military assets in the Gulf?
He seems more likely to be considering an invasion.
That's insane, but it's logically insane.
Somebody had to go to Japan to accpet the surrender and police it.
Nuclear ought to be a near zero chance but with an evil befuddled losing maniac in charge it's a touch higher. To put it at its absolute mildest, let us hope not.
"Near zero? Zero would be nice!"
Yes. But it can't be absolute zero if there's war involving those who have WMDs.
Hence why CND have it right.
The only reason we are talking about this is because Iran can't respond in kind.
Well and because nuclear weapons have fallen into the hands of an evil maniac.
It's a conundrum.
In any war it's best (for armageddon avoidance) if neither side has them. Second best is if both sides have them - eg as you say if Iran did, the US and Israel wouldn't be doing what they're doing and we wouldn't be speculating about Trump going full tonto.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
They might not.
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Not pretty to contemplate.
Not only that it would jeopardise my upcoming foodie road trip with free spa days
I think you were correct to write that off. There seems little prospect of this being sorted in the next week.
Unless Trump flattens Iran completely in the next 48 hours, kills 60 million people, literally turns Tehran into Trinitite, forces the IRGC to instantly surrender and open the straits of Hormuz by Wednesday
Then my foodie road trip with free spa days would be back on. There’s always a silver lining. Got to think positive, @Nigelb
Isn't it really designed for Presidents in a coma?
It was prompted by Kennedy's assassination, and new President LBJ's heart attack, to clarify the procedures around transfer of power. I don't think they even began to consider the case of a President who might or might not be mad.
The VP and a majority of the cabinet could, theoretically, declare him incapable/incapacitated.
But do you really think the mixture of sycophants, manipulators, and inadequates like Hegseth are going to provide that majority ?
Although ironically it was considered for Johnson's successor on the grounds of insanity.
Instead, the SecDef just settled for ordering the military not to action a nuclear launch without the additional authorisation of either himself or Henry Kissinger.
Until I read the words “Henry Kissinger” I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson and Liz Truss which sort of fits.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
After Nagasaki the Japanese Cabinet was split 50-50 on continuing to fight. It was only because the Emperor's casting vote was for surrender that they did.
Are the Mullahs more or less likely to surrender than the Japanese were?
What worries me is that, in this case, Iran has the option of inflicting massive damage in response.
Futile, of course, but a different, and possibly more attractive form of futility to those who are facing oblivion.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
They might not.
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Not pretty to contemplate.
Not only that it would jeopardise my upcoming foodie road trip with free spa days
I think you were correct to write that off. There seems little prospect of this being sorted in the next week.
Unless Trump flattens Iran completely in the next 48 hours, kills 60 million people, literally turns Tehran into Trinitite, forces the IRGC to instantly surrender and open the straits of Hormuz by Wednesday
Then my foodie road trip with free spa days would be back on. There’s always a silver lining. Got to think positive, @Nigelb
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
After Nagasaki the Japanese Cabinet was split 50-50 on continuing to fight. It was only because the Emperor's casting vote was for surrender that they did.
Are the Mullahs more or less likely to surrender than the Japanese were?
What worries me is that, in this case, Iran has the option of inflicting massive damage in response.
Futile, of course, but a different, and possibly more attractive form of futility to those who are facing oblivion.
I can't recall what the Japanese religion offers to those who die in battle or as 'martyrs'. Islam offers martyred males dozens of perpetual virgins.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
Yes. That’s what unnerves me
I CAN see a logic that leads to nukes. A terrible and horrific logic - for Trump. He’s run out of better options
For clarity I still think it’s highly unlikely. 5%? 3%? Something small - but not vanishingly small
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
It is likely that the "army commanders" are refusing because they are no longer in storage, but have been illicitly sold for scrap...
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
I don’t think Putin would want to waste Kyiv as it’s not even a good look for him if he claims Ukraine is part of Russia and can’t even stand in its ancient capital and celebrate victory. I’m imagining somewhere where there is a build up of manufacturing which would destroy the Ukrainian war effort or somewhere where the Ukrainian military have a lot of assets.
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
I'm afraid you're coming across as wanking over the prospect. Hope that's just my sensors playing up. It could be. They're not infallible.
I would love to be a fly on the wall on the meetings in DC between the Trump administration and the military top brass. The stretched twig of (nuclear) peace is at melting point. For Trump and Hegseth at least.
I could believe they have asked for a list of targets at least.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
He wouldn't even have to do that. B61 into the middle of the Lut Desert. It's over.
What's over? Not a trivial question.
The Israeli/American policy has been to bomb, then bomb more and then bomb yet more. A strategic failure each time. I suppose a nuclear weapon would take the policy to its ultimate nihilistic conclusion.
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
I'm afraid you're coming across as wanking over the prospect. Hope that's just my sensors playing up. They're not infallible.
It’s your sensors playing up. Stop being an idiot
The prospect of a nuclear war is fucking horrific. I’ve just realised I’m probably exempt from Making Tax Digital. I’ve got some epic travel gigs coming up. My kids seem relatively content. Life is nice right now. My flat looks like a psychedelic dreamworld
I’d quite like to enjoy this pleasant stretch without it being interrupted by global apocalypse
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
I don’t think Putin would want to waste Kyiv as it’s not even a good look for him if he claims Ukraine is part of Russia and can’t even stand in its ancient capital and celebrate victory. I’m imagining somewhere where there is a build up of manufacturing which would destroy the Ukrainian war effort or somewhere where the Ukrainian military have a lot of assets.
Yes I agree with this. Having been to Kyiv I can see why it is desired by Russia. It is the cradle of Russia. It is the ultimate mother city. The first tsars of kyivan rus are entombed in the golden, smoky, icon-encrusted cathedrals
Putin really cares about Russian history and culture (even if he is a maniac elsewhere). No way he’d flatten Kyiv. Ditto Odessa. It is a jewel built by Russians in “new Russia”
This is all part of his historico-political claim on Ukraine
He would indeed go for some industrial-military target
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
How does a defence system become morally obsolete, please? And how does extra funding solve a moral issue?
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
Though the counterpoint is that, having prised the wedge between Iran and the Other Arabs open quite a bit, nuking Iran would surely close it back again, and then some. That doesn't help Israel at all.
And whilst "the obvious retaliation is why you shouldn't do this" doesn't work as an agument on DJT, I'm pretty sure that the Israeli state isn't that dumb. Ruthless, which they have every justification to be, yes. Often crueller and nastier than is necessary, and too heedless of the views of others for their own good, unfortunately so. But not that dumb.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
He wouldn't even have to do that. B61 into the middle of the Lut Desert. It's over.
What's over? Not a trivial question.
The Israeli/American policy has been to bomb, then bomb more and then bomb yet more. A strategic failure each time. I suppose a nuclear weapon would take the policy to its ultimate nihilistic conclusion.
The Lut Desert would certainly live up to its reputation of being "one of the world's hottest and driest places", if only for a few seconds...
The willy-waving President of America is running out of options to get the "win". Nuking Iran would be a win in his book. Sod the consequences.
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
It is likely that the "army commanders" are refusing because they are no longer in storage, but have been illicitly sold for scrap...
Or, if you read the messages, people are claiming that they can restore ZSU-23 that are in terrible, terrible condition - rusted hulks. Think the kind of state that results after sitting, unprotected, in a field for decades.
Maybe the army commanders are thinking that this is a scam to get state money.
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
Though the counterpoint is that, having prised the wedge between Iran and the Other Arabs open quite a bit, nuking Iran would surely close it back again, and then some. That doesn't help Israel at all.
And whilst "the obvious retaliation is why you shouldn't do this" doesn't work as an agument on DJT, I'm pretty sure that the Israeli state isn't that dumb. Ruthless, which they have every justification to be, yes. Often crueller and nastier than is necessary, and too heedless of the views of others for their own good, unfortunately so. But not that dumb.
What? Many Arab states loathe and fear Iran. Lots of Sunnis would cheer the end of the biggest Shia power
And what’s this “other Arabs” stuff. Iran is not Arabian. It’s Persian
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
How does a defence system become morally obsolete, please? And how does extra funding solve a moral issue?
It has received a stern legal ruling that it is obsolete, from the Supreme Court. Since morality in law has been outsourced (by Starmer) to the UK Supreme Court, whatever they say goes.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
I don’t think Putin would want to waste Kyiv as it’s not even a good look for him if he claims Ukraine is part of Russia and can’t even stand in its ancient capital and celebrate victory. I’m imagining somewhere where there is a build up of manufacturing which would destroy the Ukrainian war effort or somewhere where the Ukrainian military have a lot of assets.
Yes I agree with this. Having been to Kyiv I can see why it is desired by Russia. It is the cradle of Russia. It is the ultimate mother city. The first tsars of kyivan rus are entombed in the golden, smoky, icon-encrusted cathedrals
Putin really cares about Russian history and culture (even if he is a maniac elsewhere). No way he’d flatten Kyiv. Ditto Odessa. It is a jewel built by Russians in “new Russia”
This is all part of his historico-political claim on Ukraine
He would indeed go for some industrial-military target
Everything that has been "liberated" by Putin in the Donbas has been utterly devastated.
Ukraine would have to fold. Putin would get the win that is otherwise going to elude him. In that, he and Trump are similarly boxed in.
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
I'm afraid you're coming across as wanking over the prospect. Hope that's just my sensors playing up. They're not infallible.
It’s your sensors playing up. Stop being an idiot
The prospect of a nuclear war is fucking horrific. I’ve just realised I’m probably exempt from Making Tax Digital. I’ve got some epic travel gigs coming up. My kids seem relatively content. Life is nice right now. My flat looks like a psychedelic dreamworld
I’d quite like to enjoy this pleasant stretch without it being interrupted by global apocalypse
Ok, fair enough. Just wanted to check. Feel better now. At least if it happens I'll know there'll be nobody on here celebrating.
Oh hang on, I'd better ask Bart too. Mental note on that.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
I don’t think Putin would want to waste Kyiv as it’s not even a good look for him if he claims Ukraine is part of Russia and can’t even stand in its ancient capital and celebrate victory. I’m imagining somewhere where there is a build up of manufacturing which would destroy the Ukrainian war effort or somewhere where the Ukrainian military have a lot of assets.
Yes I agree with this. Having been to Kyiv I can see why it is desired by Russia. It is the cradle of Russia. It is the ultimate mother city. The first tsars of kyivan rus are entombed in the golden, smoky, icon-encrusted cathedrals
Putin really cares about Russian history and culture (even if he is a maniac elsewhere). No way he’d flatten Kyiv. Ditto Odessa. It is a jewel built by Russians in “new Russia”
This is all part of his historico-political claim on Ukraine
He would indeed go for some industrial-military target
Everything that has been "liberated" by Putin in the Donbas has been utterly devastated.
Ukraine would have to fold. Putin would get the win that is otherwise going to elude him. In that, he and Trump or similarly boxed in.
But the Donbas is just an industrial shithole isn’t it? Coalfields and grotty towns
It’s not Kyiv and it’s not Odessa
Putin wants both intact, as much as possible. Then the Russia of catherine the great is restored
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
It is likely that the "army commanders" are refusing because they are no longer in storage, but have been illicitly sold for scrap...
Or, if you read the messages, people are claiming that they can restore ZSU-23 that are in terrible, terrible condition - rusted hulks. Think the kind of state that results after sitting, unprotected, in a field for decades.
Maybe the army commanders are thinking that this is a scam to get state money.
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
It is likely that the "army commanders" are refusing because they are no longer in storage, but have been illicitly sold for scrap...
Or, if you read the messages, people are claiming that they can restore ZSU-23 that are in terrible, terrible condition - rusted hulks. Think the kind of state that results after sitting, unprotected, in a field for decades.
Maybe the army commanders are thinking that this is a scam to get state money.
If they think it is a scam, they will want in...
So they think that *other* oligarchs are running this one? Yeah, could see that.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
The US is not about to nuke Iran, except in the minds of some bored London flint-knappers.
In a normal world you’d be obviously right
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
You can see Trump's temptation of using tactical nukes, especially at the site of the enriched uranium.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
I don’t think Putin would want to waste Kyiv as it’s not even a good look for him if he claims Ukraine is part of Russia and can’t even stand in its ancient capital and celebrate victory. I’m imagining somewhere where there is a build up of manufacturing which would destroy the Ukrainian war effort or somewhere where the Ukrainian military have a lot of assets.
Yes I agree with this. Having been to Kyiv I can see why it is desired by Russia. It is the cradle of Russia. It is the ultimate mother city. The first tsars of kyivan rus are entombed in the golden, smoky, icon-encrusted cathedrals
Putin really cares about Russian history and culture (even if he is a maniac elsewhere). No way he’d flatten Kyiv. Ditto Odessa. It is a jewel built by Russians in “new Russia”
This is all part of his historico-political claim on Ukraine
He would indeed go for some industrial-military target
Everything that has been "liberated" by Putin in the Donbas has been utterly devastated.
Ukraine would have to fold. Putin would get the win that is otherwise going to elude him. In that, he and Trump or similarly boxed in.
But the Donbas is just an industrial shithole isn’t it? Coalfields and grotty towns
It’s not Kyiv and it’s not Odessa
Putin wants both intact, as much as possible. Then the Russia of catherine the great is restored
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
Using a nuclear weapon is a stretch too far even for the current craziness in the WH .
We’ll either get another delay as Trump makes up more imaginary talks with Iran or they’ll take out some energy infrastructure.
I hope you’re right. Indeed you probably are right
But this is Trump. Nothing is impossible
And it could be argued that nukes are the only way out now, for America, if they want to avoid a catastrophic ground invasion or a humiliating retreat leaving the Iranian regime intact and in control of the region
Using nukes will see the US become a total pariah state . I don’t see it .
Trump wants to enjoy his ballroom and using a nuke would surely even be too much for the current Congress !
I can see it. Using a nuke would be popular with his base because it's cheap, ends the war and is a big dick baller move.
It would also give VVP licence to put Ukraine back in its (pine) box by threatening or using a nuke. "Win/Win" as BartyBobs is fond of saying.
And what if it didn't end the war (which is entirely possible) ?
It would end the war because Iran would surrender
Trump would presumably drop a couple of tactical nukes on military bases to encourage Iran to yield. With the clear implication that he will drop more and more bombs, on ever larger cities, until they DO surrender
They would surrender. As they don’t have nukes of their own and no nuclear power would come to their aid
It would be the same logic that applied to Japan. There is no point in fighting if all it means is certain defeat AND the deaths of many millions and the end of your civilisation
What the global consequences would be of Trump doing this - I have no clue. It would be a singularity. With an event horizon
Who is doing the surrendering?
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
Even the IRGC would surrender. It’s one thing losing a few leaders - or even your own life - it’s quite another seeing all of your family and friends and children and your hometown vaporised and melted
If surrendering means death, which it probably would, why worry?
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
After Nagasaki the Japanese Cabinet was split 50-50 on continuing to fight. It was only because the Emperor's casting vote was for surrender that they did.
Are the Mullahs more or less likely to surrender than the Japanese were?
What worries me is that, in this case, Iran has the option of inflicting massive damage in response.
Futile, of course, but a different, and possibly more attractive form of futility to those who are facing oblivion.
I can't recall what the Japanese religion offers to those who die in battle or as 'martyrs'. Islam offers martyred males dozens of perpetual virgins.
Ironically Trump is in exactly the same position that Putin put himself in when he invaded Ukraine. Both wanted and expected a quick gratifying victory. Both quite quickly got sucked into a horrible morass with diminishing options
We know that Putin seriously considered nukes when the Ukrainians started counter attacking successfully around Kharkiv
Or at least we know that the Biden regime FEARED he was about to use nukes
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
He owes himself a full blown wrath of God Armageddon. One for the history books.
I mean, what's the point of having nukes if you can't actually use them?
I doubt we have been nearer to people making the case since the Cuban missile crisis.
Castro and Kruschev didn't have an infallible God supporting their cause. Khrushchev had long held radical views regarding the abolition of religion. Castro was a Catholic, but Pope John XXIII clashed with Castro in 1962 after Castro suppressed Catholic institutions in Cuba. There were suggestions Castro was subsequently excommunicated, but that was probably apochryphal.
The Mullahs? Oh, I think they believe they are off to a better place than this one.
I am a staunch atheist but it does seem strange to me that the head of the Church of England should be happy to release messages for Eid and Ramadan but not for Easter.
Counterintuitively it's mainly non Christians, and I regret to say those interested in creating division and trouble, who are exercised by the lack of an Easter message from the King.
He released a bland message about Ramadan on his Instagram channel, which is surely appropriate for a major religion amongst his subjects. He talks quite a lot about his Christian faith on social media and there were several posts about the traditional royal activities for Maundy Thursday. He gives an address to the nation at Christmas.
I suspect his Christian faith is the main reason for him not traditionally giving an Easter message. Easter is the most solemn festival in the Christian calender, so he should let it speak for itself.
He has given one every year since he became king
I don't think so. He's issued Maundy Thursday messages each year including this year. I just checked. Last year's "Easter" message was issued on Maundy Thursday.
Do you have a link for this year's Maundy Thursday message?
Ironically Trump is in exactly the same position that Putin put himself in when he invaded Ukraine. Both wanted and expected a quick gratifying victory. Both quite quickly got sucked into a horrible morass with diminishing options
We know that Putin seriously considered nukes when the Ukrainians started counter attacking successfully around Kharkiv
Or at least we know that the Biden regime FEARED he was about to use nukes
Probably it was the restraining hand of Xi stopped him.
And if Putin used nukes to get his way - so could China.
Trump has just promised that “all hell will rain down on Iran in 48 hours”
Is he gonna do it? Is he gonna nuke them?
He owes himself a full blown wrath of God Armageddon. One for the history books.
I mean, what's the point of having nukes if you can't actually use them?
I doubt we have been nearer to people making the case since the Cuban missile crisis.
Castro and Kruschev didn't have an infallible God supporting their cause. Khrushchev had long held radical views regarding the abolition of religion. Castro was a Catholic, but Pope John XXIII clashed with Castro in 1962 after Castro suppressed Catholic institutions in Cuba. There were suggestions Castro was subsequently excommunicated, but that was probably apochryphal.
The Mullahs? Oh, I think they believe the are off to a better place than this one.
Just to add to the drama
“Terrifying escalation. A top Russian official confirms a deadly strike just breached the Bushehr nuclear plant's protection circuit. He warns a catastrophic nuclear incident risk is skyrocketing as mass evacuations to the border begin.”
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes. https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective. https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
How does a defence system become morally obsolete, please? And how does extra funding solve a moral issue?
@LindseyGrahamSC I just had a great conversation with @POTUS. I totally support his ultimatum to the Iranian regime to open up the Strait of Hormuz and to do a peace deal.
A massive military operation awaits Iran if they choose poorly.
This regime has been severely crippled through Operation Epic Fury. Their reign of terror against the region and the world needs to come to an end, hopefully through a peace deal.
After speaking with President Trump this morning, I am completely convinced that he will use overwhelming military force against the regime if they continue to impede the Strait of Hormuz and refuse a diplomatic solution to achieve our military objectives. If it’s not clear to Iran and others by now that President Trump means what he says then I don’t know when it will ever be.
Comments
But that's all it is. I'd like to say that.
In practice, Trump's biscuit would be soggy and have no effect.
Like the rest of us they would stand well clear and look on in horrified amazement
If they do, we should immediately sanction the US akin to those we have in place for Russia. Fuck the consequences.
Brookes rowing program is in the toilet, after years of success. Google to find out why.
The regime thinks nothing of shooting its own people. Why worry about a few bombs?
I've been going through some of the early episodes from the archive: it started as a somewhat different feeling programme, with two guests, who often had some recently published book and somewhat opposed viewpoints, and Melvyn doing more injection of his own viewpoints. Not sure when it will settle down to the "three academics discuss a topic" format.
But in the last few days we’ve had a weird purge of many pentagon staff. We’ve had Trump promising to send Iran back into the Stone Age. Now he is saying “all hell will rain down in 48 hours”
At the same time we have a crazy regime in Washington which is now stuck in a terrible dilemma. Accept a wounding and humiliating defeat which leaves the Iranian regime in place and commanding the world’s energy. Or attempt a hideously difficult ground invasion which will surely fail
Or nukes
Think about the global consequences of the US using nuclear weapons, in a war it started, and the mad mullahs, rather than just surrendering, in response using their own doomsday option - an all out attack on Qatar's gas facilities.
A world facing five years of likely famine, grabs for resources in consequence, a massively lowered nuclear threshold, and the world's former policeman a pariah state ...
Not pretty to contemplate.
We're talking about what Trump might, or might not do.
But Iran would have declare possession of it for it to be an effective deterrent.
Same goes for the the West providing Ukraine with a nuclear response.
It makes sense.
Also by the "Iran would immediately surrender" crew.
If Trump is capable of ordering such a thing, then some Mad Mullah is capable of responding by doing the stupidest thing they can.
Go long on gas and oil...
He seems more likely to be considering an invasion.
That's insane, but it's logically insane.
Hence why CND have it right.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/peROzQsF-qc
Are the Mullahs more or less likely to surrender than the Japanese were?
Russian army commanders are reportedly refusing to allow stored ZSU-23-4 Shilkas mobile anti-aircraft guns to be refurbished and put back into service, despite Russia's desperate need for more defences against Ukraine's increasingly large-scale drone strikes.
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2040360707120669120
"Return Alive" modernized 16 ZU-23-4 "Shilka" anti-aircraft artillery installations!
This is an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 4 automatic cannons. Over time, its systems became morally obsolete, but thanks to 400 million hryvnias in charitable funds — it has returned to service: modernized, improved, and once again effective.
https://x.com/BackAndAlive/status/2001993529107599567
Because of what's in the cooling ponds.
Fun fact I discovered not long ago. During Soviet times, the Soviet Union was experimenting with military plutonium production in all the "civilian" power plants. So they did large scale testing of low burn up. During the 1990s handover, the test fuel rods were left in the cooling ponds. So Ukraine has large quantities of "military grade" plutonium - extracting it is a just chemistry.
Mind you, the US detonated a bomb from 20%+ Pu 240. And the Ukrainians will have *tons* of plutonium in that category.
There seems little prospect of this being sorted in the next week.
It's a conundrum.
In any war it's best (for armageddon avoidance) if neither side has them. Second best is if both sides have them - eg as you say if Iran did, the US and Israel wouldn't be doing what they're doing and we wouldn't be speculating about Trump going full tonto.
But then again you don't want them proliferating.
Then my foodie road trip with free spa days would be back on. There’s always a silver lining. Got to think positive, @Nigelb
Futile, of course, but a different, and possibly more attractive form of futility to those who are facing oblivion.
If he does, you can say goodbye to Kyiv.
The biggest winner from a nuked, defeated and devastated Iran would be Israel. It’s probably their most ardent desire. Iran finished as an enemy forever
And Israel has a knack of getting the USA to do its bidding
I CAN see a logic that leads to nukes. A terrible and horrific logic - for Trump. He’s run out of better options
For clarity I still think it’s highly unlikely. 5%? 3%? Something small - but not vanishingly small
I could believe they have asked for a list of targets at least.
The Israeli/American policy has been to bomb, then bomb more and then bomb yet more. A strategic failure each time. I suppose a nuclear weapon would take the policy to its ultimate nihilistic conclusion.
The prospect of a nuclear war is fucking horrific. I’ve just realised I’m probably exempt from Making Tax Digital. I’ve got some epic travel gigs coming up. My kids seem relatively content. Life is nice right now. My flat looks like a psychedelic dreamworld
I’d quite like to enjoy this pleasant stretch without it being interrupted by global apocalypse
Putin really cares about Russian history and culture (even if he is a maniac elsewhere). No way he’d flatten Kyiv. Ditto Odessa. It is a jewel built by Russians in “new Russia”
This is all part of his historico-political claim on Ukraine
He would indeed go for some industrial-military target
And whilst "the obvious retaliation is why you shouldn't do this" doesn't work as an agument on DJT, I'm pretty sure that the Israeli state isn't that dumb. Ruthless, which they have every justification to be, yes. Often crueller and nastier than is necessary, and too heedless of the views of others for their own good, unfortunately so. But not that dumb.
The willy-waving President of America is running out of options to get the "win". Nuking Iran would be a win in his book. Sod the consequences.
Maybe the army commanders are thinking that this is a scam to get state money.
And what’s this “other Arabs” stuff. Iran is not Arabian. It’s Persian
Ukraine would have to fold. Putin would get the win that is otherwise going to elude him. In that, he and Trump are similarly boxed in.
Oh hang on, I'd better ask Bart too. Mental note on that.
Earthrise. Cut to credits.
It’s not Kyiv and it’s not Odessa
Putin wants both intact, as much as possible. Then the Russia of catherine the great is restored
If Trump nukes Iran, he has no moral case to tell China to leave Taiwan alone.
And skim 20% off the contracts.
Hiroshima looks lovely today.
Japan is definitely days. South Korea as well.
US agents arrest niece of Iran's Qassem Soleimani after Rubio revoked green card
“I’m for using tactical nukes if it means, they finally learned their lesson”
https://x.com/scottfu90305281/status/2040196078482477273?s=46
But once the nuclear taboo has been lifted, everyone has to have nukes. It's literally the only way to defend yourself.
We know that Putin seriously considered nukes when the Ukrainians started counter attacking successfully around Kharkiv
Or at least we know that the Biden regime FEARED he was about to use nukes
Unfortunately this seems way too high a bar on several counts.
I doubt we have been nearer to people making the case since the Cuban missile crisis.
Castro and Kruschev didn't have an infallible God supporting their cause. Khrushchev had long held radical views regarding the abolition of religion. Castro was a Catholic, but Pope John XXIII clashed with Castro in 1962 after Castro suppressed Catholic institutions in Cuba. There were suggestions Castro was subsequently excommunicated, but that was probably apochryphal.
The Mullahs? Oh, I think they believe they are off to a better place than this one.
Bit of a racist, though, Matt Goodwin imo. I'm standing by that.
And if Putin used nukes to get his way - so could China.
“Terrifying escalation. A top Russian official confirms a deadly strike just breached the Bushehr nuclear plant's protection circuit. He warns a catastrophic nuclear incident risk is skyrocketing as mass evacuations to the border begin.”
https://x.com/furkangozukara/status/2040429947492217303?s=46
Not sure if this tweeter is legit, but he has 200k followers
Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
I just had a great conversation with @POTUS. I totally support his ultimatum to the Iranian regime to open up the Strait of Hormuz and to do a peace deal.
A massive military operation awaits Iran if they choose poorly.
This regime has been severely crippled through Operation Epic Fury. Their reign of terror against the region and the world needs to come to an end, hopefully through a peace deal.
After speaking with President Trump this morning, I am completely convinced that he will use overwhelming military force against the regime if they continue to impede the Strait of Hormuz and refuse a diplomatic solution to achieve our military objectives. If it’s not clear to Iran and others by now that President Trump means what he says then I don’t know when it will ever be.
Choose wisely.
https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/2040441053388390597
Not sure what China would make of it, mind. Trump would probably have to give up Taiwan without a fight. And tell Taiwan to surrender first.