|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24922 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 05:38 Vivax wrote:
Stopping nuclear proliferation should be a no-brainer. I don‘t know if a bunch of nuclear scientists had to die for that but it‘s sort of reasonable to assume the attacking party was sure it would be necessary ? They incur a risk for what they do.
That‘s how much I can know from the reported.
Israel would have good reasons if the news are true because as it is in Ukraine, international aid isn‘t easily possible against an aggressor with icbms. The core problem with stopping nuclear proliferation is that we gave such good reasons to get nukes to basically everyone. The Ukraine war shows that you are not save without being protected by some sort of nuke, and North Korea shows that if you have a nuke, people are a lot more willing to accept whatever bullshit you are doing. If you are a dictatorship, don't want the US to invade you, or if you are neighbouring a dictatorship and are not in Nato, getting a nuke sounds like a very, very good idea. We could have prevented that. But we didn't. So now getting a nuke is kinda risky, but also basically the only way to have long-term sovereignity.
Pretty much. We could have gone with many other options, in some multifaceted way but did not, so we’re kinda stuck.
How do you compete with the US military machine? I mean, you just don’t. I mean obviously not in a ‘US versus the world’ scenario like some Americans think they could win, but versus one singular nation.
As technology advances, so too grow the gaps at the bleeding edges of what military hardware can do, and what those who have it can do versus those who don’t.
With a sufficiently large gap, well, your opponent basically can’t do shit. To the extent you can win a conflict while conceivably never putting any boots on the ground at all.
It just serves to remove one further barrier to intervention, a sizeable cost in the lives of your countrymen and women to do so. Never especially popular at the best of times, especially worth considering if you’re in power in liberal democracies.
If you have a sufficiently high tech gap, it also invalidates a lot of things that used to be rather important in warfare to one degree or another. Population size, and thus numbers of military personnel, logistic chains, supplying over geographical obstacles.
Now, you could probably donate a bunch of bleeding edge hardware to like, Monaco and it could wreak havoc
These are somewhat new developments, relatively speaking. And they just don’t seem something you can feasibly close and be protected if you’re a developed, but small nation, or less developed but large.
Shit WombaT analogy incoming as per! If the military superiority of a top-tier player like the US going against some middling nation is akin to a giant maxed death push moving towards you, while you’re like 100 supply down. Getting nukes is you warping in DTs only to discover they’ve no detection. Game ends in a draw with floating buildings abound.
Does it feel glorious dirty, you’d love to rather not make a DT Hail Mary play in an ideal world? Sure, but if it’s legit the only possible play you can possibly make outside of just saying GG when you see the push, you gotta take it.
Everyone needs DTs on the board, lurking menacingly in mineral lines while perpetually sheathing their vorpal blades (or whatever they’re called), or a teammate doing that to be safe, for now.
I guess the next stage is going to be, ‘what happens when someone develops detection?’
Doesn’t feel to me imminent, but certainly doesn’t feel like it’s completely impossible. The Iron Dome is already approaching the realms of what I’d have considered sci fi as a kid. That on crack, with genuine (non-Jewish) space lasers for your ICBMs and I think it’s conceivable someone will take the M out of MAD one day. What then does that look like? Especially as whoever does hypothetically pull that off will also in all likelihood have a conventional military force that could smack all comers if nukes are off the table.
Nice positive thought to end the post haha
|
Northern Ireland24922 Posts
On June 19 2025 09:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 08:50 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 08:02 Razyda wrote:On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (11) 58% Yes (8) 42% 19 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it? I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags. I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. "I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags." what they had in common with Iran and various other countries though, was the fact that there was dude with better army, who decided to impose his values on the other country. "I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. " - you cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders. "Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. " 1 - Iraq and Afghanistan 2 - Former Warsaw Pact "What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. " What Mohdoo is proposing is basically bomb the shit out of them and leave it at that.
Most of what you’re saying appears to actually be in agreement with what I previously said. So I dunno if I was just unclear previously. To clarify:
If you’re Israel, or the US or some outside observer with clout and skin in the game, regarding Iran. What are your aims?
1. Neutering it as a military threat.
2. Enabling some kind of regime or political change that, even if it had the military power to do so, it wouldn’t desire to be a hostile actor.
Mohdoo has mentioned both these things in some form in his prior postings. (1) is completely doable, arguably totally justifiable.
(2) is just not going to work through, outside of my crude ‘you have two options’ formula. You either grind Iran into a fine paste, or you leave things to shift internally, while at times exerting certain pressure sure.
There isn’t an option 3, which is relatively bloodlessly forcing a regime change and hoping that works in your favour.
You actually summed it up very fucking well when you said:
You cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders.
Mohdoo is often on the money, but when he isn’t it’s because he doesn’t factor in things like pride, like spite. We’re a great spectrum of things as a species, from the beautiful to the heinous. But we’re certainly a prideful and spiteful one, even when it’s not really in our best interests to be.
There is basically one scenario where you could do this successfully. A nation is oppressed, but the real underlying sentiment across the population is like 40%ish down with the regime and its values, and like 60%, not just against the regime, but all are yearning for kind of the same thing.
This is not the case in Iran, it certainly wasn’t in Iraq. Nation-building in Iraq could absolutely have worked if that nation had a big majority yearning for liberal democracy or w/e, but were just subjugated by Hussein and the Baathist apparatus. Take away Hussein and boom, job’s done.
Obviously was not the case.
And Iraq had things in its favour that a potential Iranian deposing of leadership doesn’t have. Sure the US and its allies were plenty hated, it’s not on the same scale as Iranian hostility to Israel.
|
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I'd argue the real threat is the victim complex of Netanyahu and his entourage.
|
On June 19 2025 02:40 Silvanel wrote:
The downside is US has bases much closer to Iran than Israel is. And Iran has A LOT of short range drones and missiles which they could aim at them. Also, they have local sympathetic militias at their disposal. US directly striking Iran might provoke a response which could claim the lives of US soldiers.
I guess Israelis are fine with that risk. Probably some US citizens also, but families of soldiers stationed in those bases might not be thrilled by the idea.
On the other hand: Commander in Chief gets another parade with "heroes" that freed iran and died for it.
|
On June 19 2025 16:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I don't think its ignoring it to simply avoid drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from it.
The way the global politics of nuclear weaponry developed after WW2 simply means that to launch a nuke is to guarantee your own destruction, in pretty much every case.
|
On June 19 2025 16:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 16:22 Magic Powers wrote:
Statistically, nukes that have been used to destroy another nation's cities were 100% owned by the good guys of a conflict. Not once by the bad guys. And that's not because the bad guys couldn't have already, literally, sent hundreds of nukes. They've had millions of opportunities to destroy various cities, and not once have they actually done it. Doesn't matter how radical the bad guys are, they don't seem to ever pull the trigger. Why are we completely ignoring that statistic?
I don't think its ignoring it to simply avoid drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from it. The way the global politics of nuclear weaponry developed after WW2 simply means that to launch a nuke is to guarantee your own destruction, in pretty much every case.
Yes, perhaps that is the reason. The same applies to Iran's leaders, and nothing indicates that they're willing to destroy their own country by starting a nuclear war. They may be religious fanatics, but they're also thinking strategically. Destroying one or even a few Israeli cities in exchange for total eradication of Iran contradicts every single type of reason. Moderate agnostics aren't the only ones who see/understand the pointlessness of such a provocation, because if anything it would advance Israel's potential to expand (from Iran's point of view) rather than destroy it. It's not the same thing as suicide bombing, because that doesn't lead to the eradication of a Muslim nation.
|
If the only concern is actually that the country will get nuclear weapons to protect itself from being invaded, bombed ash, collapsed, or forced to become subordinate to a nuclear state, then can the attempt to get nuclear weapons be considered wrong at all? Are countries not allowed to protect themselves? Are they not allowed to decide what the threats to their security are? The current situation is showing that the threat from Israel and the USA to Iran is very real. Should we accept attacking other countries to prevent them from getting protection? If we accept that reasoning, Russia's invasion seems much more reasonable.
If we do not actually believe that someone is trying to get a nuclear weapon to use it offensively against their enemies, the stated values and principles start to seem very empty yet again.
|
What is Iran going to do, launch a nuclear missle because Israel doesn't leave them alone and then introduce MAD anyway?
I'm still wondering about that. It feels very... antagonistic to humanity as a whole all this nuclear proliferation stuff. If we can't get this sorted, we're doomed. Stupid humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
