Title

  • Parzivus [any]
    ·
    4 months ago

    Highly doubt it. Iran isn't just Iraq 2.0, they have a large military. Better missiles than the US, even! Doubt the navy wants to see Kaliburs introduce a carrier to the sea floor.

    • jackmarxist [any]
      ·
      4 months ago

      Iran should actually cook up some nukes just in case.

      • operacion_ogro [he/him]
        ·
        4 months ago

        Remembering that interview with a lib podcast where matt-jokerfied said something to the effect of "Iran has a moral imperative to obtain nukes" to deter US invasion and it stunlocked the hosts

        • keepcarrot [she/her]
          ·
          4 months ago

          Libya didn't have nukes, it got fucked, north Korea has nukes it gets treated nicely, idk what you want Iran to take from that

        • newacctidk [none/use name]
          ·
          4 months ago

          It was this incredible interview with Yahoo News' podcast

          https://youtu.be/leDn52N1nr0?t=252

          It is a painful but funny listen, as well as the ep of chapo in which they listen back to and comment on the lib interviewers being insane. These are experienced even prolific lib journalists. The old guy broke a bunch of torture stories in the 2000s. But they are utterly cooked, they are more aghast at them insulting the west wing than the Iran nukes thing

        • ReadFanon [any, any]
          ·
          4 months ago

          Korean historian Stephen Gowans (sp?) essentially shared this take somewhat apologetically on RevLeft Radio at the end of the interview, saying that the DPRK having developed a substantial stock of nuclear arms is the best case scenario.

          My only point of disagreement there is that he said as much gingerly instead of with his whole chest. I suppose standing on business isn't conducive to being tenured in a shithole western country though.

        • SeekTheDeletion [none/use name]
          ·
          4 months ago

          I believe that was Felix on the pod Jon’s podcast, Lovett or Leavitt. It was a live recording but the pod Jon edited out a bunch of stuff Felix said for the official release. You can find the crappy raw audio files from the audience though if you look hard enough

          • miz [any, any]
            ·
            4 months ago

            that was a different incident— we got audio of Skullduggery, but the Pod John cowards cut Felix's comments out entirely

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        4 months ago

        There were rumours flying around that they are in testing phases for the blast charges. Once they have these it's just a matter of adding the enriched part.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
      ·
      4 months ago

      Iran has a top 5-10 military in the world. It depends on how much you weigh being a nuclear power and whether you think Iran has nukes.

      • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
        ·
        4 months ago

        Iran loves edging about the nukes; I think they actually don't have any, but have the materials and expertise to make them very quickly if the need arises. So if they think shit is about to go down they could prolly whip up a couple warheads and put them on whatever nuclear capable launch systems they have, or get some donated by Russia and China.

    • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube
      ·
      4 months ago

      It's not. But the US seems completely unwilling to rein in Israel/Bibi. I think there's a very good chance Bibi continues the escalations to war. Once Israel is at war on 4 fronts, I don't think there's any way the US doesn't put boots on the ground. Israel is already low on manpower (they've already expanded mandatory enlistment).

    • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you just say Iran has better missiles than the US? In what fantasy world are you living in?

      Edit:iraq = iran

        • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
          ·
          4 months ago

          Honest question, but anti missile defenses don't really work (see iron dome) against traditional missiles and there is no effective way to defend against ICBMs. So what's the value of a low flying, fast missile that can't be shot down compared to a high flying, slow missile that is cheaper and also can't really be shot down?

            • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]
              ·
              4 months ago

              I would say western anti missile defenses don't really work because their chief opponents have superior weapons

              The Iron Dome, the magnum opus of western middle defense systems regularly fails to intercept unguided, subsonic rockets that are incapable of taking evasive action. I would not say that the Iron Dome fails because Hamas has superior missiles, it fails because shooting a bullet with a bullet is a near impossible task. Also, ICBM interception is close to a fantasy right now. The GMD works around 40% of the time in tests, the arrow 3 does not work at all, the A-235 has only been tested a few times (not in real world conditions either), and China doesn't have an anti ICBM system at all.