Yet another war, this time with Iran

[DrZoidberg]

This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever

While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?

Because one comes without the collateral damage, is much cheaper and safer, impacts the globe while acting locally.

The initial impact isn't remotely as drastic, however, the impacts add up and after a period of time, can have a substantial impact on the global economy. Best yet for the Iranian Theocrats, it becomes like a waterway filibuster, where merely threatening it can provide leverage because the follow-through isn't remotely as drastic as a nuclear weapon. It isn't called out as a bluff like a nuke because they've done it before, can easily do it again.

Hormuz doesn't make Iran a "global player", but it does increase their prominence and influence substantially, where as nuclear weapons merely protects the regime from incursions. Nukes provide leverage for staying in power, not mitigating things like sanctions. North Korea has had nukes for a while now, and are still heavily sanctioned. Hormuz is a weapon Iran can use now, thanks to the awful incompetence of Trump and Netanyahu.

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

I don't see any troops in Iran either.

Ehe, what? I guess it proves the point. When the agressor has nukes then other countries are hesitant to deploy troops in defence. Is that the logic of your argument?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever

While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?

Because one comes without the collateral damage, is much cheaper and safer, impacts the globe while acting locally.

The initial impact isn't remotely as drastic, however, the impacts add up and after a period of time, can have a substantial impact on the global economy. Best yet for the Iranian Theocrats, it becomes like a waterway filibuster, where merely threatening it can provide leverage because the follow-through isn't remotely as drastic as a nuclear weapon. It isn't called out as a bluff like a nuke because they've done it before, can easily do it again.

Hormuz doesn't make Iran a "global player", but it does increase their prominence and influence substantially, where as nuclear weapons merely protects the regime from incursions. Nukes provide leverage for staying in power, not mitigating things like sanctions. North Korea has had nukes for a while now, and are still heavily sanctioned. Hormuz is a weapon Iran can use now, thanks to the awful incompetence of Trump and Netanyahu.

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

I don't see any troops in Iran either.

Ehe, what? I guess it proves the point. When the agressor has nukes then other countries are hesitant to deploy troops in defence.

Not familiar with the term "proxy war", the 1950s - 1970s, or the collapse of a nuclear weapon superpower in the early 90s, are you? Nuclear weapons help a lot to keep a desired status quo, but they aren't magic.

Is that the logic of your argument?

My argument is quite easy to understand. Nuclear weapons for Iran present some upside, however, control over the Hormuz Strait provides a massively less catastrophic way and scalable way to impact their adversaries than a nuclear weapon ever could. It gives them leverage because unlike nukes, they can blockade the Strait.

 

[laughing dog]

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

It’s the fear of soldiers returning in body bags, not nukes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

It’s the fear of soldiers returning in body bags, not nukes.

None of the ex Warsaw pact countries have an issue with that. They understand the importance of stopping Russia. The only reason they're not sending troops to Ukraine is because Putin has thrratened with nukes.

For the rest of Europe its a mixed bag. Basically, the more they feel threatened by Russia because of geography, the more they are willing to sacrifice. Be it weapons, money or troops.

Personally I think we should commit troops. Stop being pussies. The more the nuke threat works, the more it'll be used. So in order to make that threat to not be used, we need to ignore it. I think its the least dangerous option, long term

 

[laughing dog]

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

It’s the fear of soldiers returning in body bags, not nukes.

None of the ex Warsaw pact countries have an issue with that. They understand the importance of stopping Russia. The only reason they're not sending troops to Ukraine is because Putin has thrratened with nukes.

For the rest of Europe its a mixed bag. Basically, the more they feel threatened by Russia because of geography, the more they are willing to sacrifice. Be it weapons, money or troops.

Personally I think we should commit troops. Stop being pussies. The more the nuke threat works, the more it'll be used. So in order to make that threat to not be used, we need to ignore it. I think its the least dangerous option, long term

No troops yet from anyone suggests other countries have a problem with it.

 

[Toni]

Good luck. Not only is antisemitism not racism (Jews are not necessarily a race)

I understand why some people refer to Jewish as a race, but that idea largely comes from historical antisemitism, where Jews were deliberately racialized. In reality, it’s more accurate to describe Jewish identity as an ethnic or ethnoreligious group rather than a race, and that distinction is exactly what antisemitism has historically blurred.

Clownshoes wasn't really making an argument though, he was just adorably fishing for a reaction, and got a bite he lacks the fortitude to reel in.

Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples. It’s an archaic term used to group together a number of peoples originating from the Middle East and Horn of Africa and broadly encompasses peoples speaking Semitic languages.

I’m only mentioning this because it seems people are so very fond of sticking up for either Arabs or Jews and crying anti-semitism. Culturally, at least traditionally, they are quite similar, and follow very similar dietary restrictions, for one thing.

The notion of race is a fairly recent human construct to provide excuse or cover for treating others badly, in many cases as less than human. Sometimes as livestock. And sometimes as completely disposable.

Surely we have progressed beyond this. If not, we should surely aspire to do so.

 

[aupmanyav]

They understand the importance of stopping Russia.

Why do they think that Russia is going to attack them? The presence of NATO worries Russia, US sanctions worry Russia. If there was no NATO or sanctions, Russia would have lived in peace and so also Europe. The cause of turmoil is the ganging up against Russia. US has made gangs all over the world (India is a part of it when it comes to China and South China Sea).

 

[laughing dog]

They understand the importance of stopping Russia.

Why do they think that Russia is going to attack them? The presence of NATO worries Russia, US sanctions worry Russia. If there was no NATO or sanctions, Russia would have lived in peace and so also Europe. The cause of turmoil is the ganging up against Russia. US has made gangs all over the world (India is a part of it when it comes to China and South China Sea).

Russian history is inconsistent with your view. Putin disputes your view because he has said he wants to reconstruct imperial Russian territory.

So the Baltic states, Poland and Finland have pause to agree with you.

 

[bilby]

This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever

While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?

It takes many thousands of nuclear bombs to make "the entire planet a barren wasteland". Iran is looking to have similar leverage to that of North Korea, with her sixty or so warheads, not to that of the USA or Russia with their ~5,000 apiece.

A few dozen nukes are in the "Invade us and we will hurt you bad" degree of severity, not the "Invade us and we will destroy half the world" degree. And yes, the former is of similar magnitude to closing the Strait.

The only effective retaliation to a nuclear strike is another nuclear strike. The worry is that alliances will quickly widen any conflict escalate and trigger a third world war. It'll be like WWI except that it really will be over by Christmas.

Its not an unreasonable scenario. Anyway... that's the worry.

It's a scenario that had a lot of facts behind it in the 1980s, but really not so much in the 2020s, for all that the decision makers of today grew up with the ideas of forty years ago.

Generals are always ready to fight the last war all over again. Politicians even more so.

Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective peacekeeper in a world where two superpowers dominated everything. Now that Russia has ceased to be even a plausible great power, things are much less simple, and nuclear doctrine has changed, whether we recognise the fact or not.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

It’s the fear of soldiers returning in body bags, not nukes.

None of the ex Warsaw pact countries have an issue with that. They understand the importance of stopping Russia. The only reason they're not sending troops to Ukraine is because Putin has thrratened with nukes.

For the rest of Europe its a mixed bag. Basically, the more they feel threatened by Russia because of geography, the more they are willing to sacrifice. Be it weapons, money or troops.

Personally I think we should commit troops. Stop being pussies. The more the nuke threat works, the more it'll be used. So in order to make that threat to not be used, we need to ignore it. I think its the least dangerous option, long term

No troops yet from anyone suggests other countries have a problem with it.

Its Putins threat of nuclear war. Its just that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They understand the importance of stopping Russia.

Why do they think that Russia is going to attack them?

Because Russia has historically been imperialy expansionist and never stopped. Imperialism is out if fashion in the rest of the world.

They have continually kept threatening their neighbours. Russians are often butthurt about that Gorbachev dismantled their empire and want it back.

The presence of NATO worries Russia, US sanctions worry Russia. If there was no NATO or sanctions, Russia would have lived in peace and so also Europe. The cause of turmoil is the ganging up against Russia. US has made gangs all over the world (India is a part of it when it comes to China and South China Sea).

NATO is a defence pact that countries have to apply to join. It costs money to join. Countries need to be well motivated to join.

The idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is absurd. If Russia stopped attacking other countries NATO would just disappear

 

[barbos]

NATO is a defence pact

Tell that to Yugoslavia and Libya.

that countries have to apply to join.

Yeah, Bush wrote an application for Ukraine to join NATO.

It costs money to join. Countries need to be well motivated to join.

Wrong too. First of all, smaller countries make money hosting US troops. Second of all, Countries do not need to be motivated, their "leaders" need to be "motivated", if you know what I mean.
But in general, yes, NATO is a money stealing vehicle to transfer tax payer's money into pockets of MIC.

 

[bilby]

Russians are often butthurt about that Gorbachev dismantled their empire and want it back.

Russians probably are mostly not too bothered, what with trying to make ends meet while avoiding being drafted and sent to die in Ukraine, and avoiding being suspected of disloyalty and sent to die in Ukraine, and avoiding missing a memo, and thus failing to parrot the latest Putinist line, and so being sent to die in Ukraine.

Putin, on the other hand, is absolutely gutted that the USSR went >poof< and disappeared, just as he was setting himself up to be a big player in its future. He was a big fan of Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact, and would not only like to see Poland, Finland, and the Baltics back under the Russian boot, but also feels entitled to East Germany as was (where he cut his teeth as a KGB officer in the '80s), and to Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary, too. Then it's on to tame Albania, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia, with the help of the Serbs.

Macedonia is next; both the FYR and the Greek bit. In fact, the whole of Greece and at least the European part of Türkyie. And once you have access to the Mediterranean, the Arab world and what's left of its oil starts looking very attractive. Iran can probably help out with taking Iraq - which probably means that the Asian part of Türkyie needs to be a part of the Russian Empire too.

And then there's Afghanistan, which Russia really should still be in charge of, if it wasn't for the CIA and Mujahideen being so needlessly mean to the USSR back in the '80s.

Manchuria clearly needs to be included in the Russian Empire, and if you are going to have East Germany, realistically you should probably have it all. But then, that leaves a problematic border with France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, so add them to the Empire too. The Swedes and Norwegians are clearly too dangerous to leave on the Northwestern flank of the Great Russian Empire, and if you have those countries, plus Germany and the Low Countries, leaving Denmark un-conquered would just be asking for trouble.

The problem, in the end, is that Putin wants Russia to be the imperial superpower it (and specifically, he) dreamed of in the mid-80s, with Putin as First Secretary, ruling over an empire bigger yet than that attained by Stalin. And there is no limit to such grandiose fantasies, while your empire has a border with any territory not yet annexed.

Sadly, his desires are being crushed under the military reality that Russia has been held to a standstill by Ukraine for longer than she fought the Great Patriotic War, and it is becoming increasingly clear that rebuilding even just the core of the old USSR is pure fantasy - The Russian Army just ain't up to the job.

And of course the former satellite states, and former Republics, all look at what Russia has to offer, look at what the EU has to offer, and say "When can we adopt the euro?".

 

[barbos]

They have continually kept threatening their neighbours. Russians are often butthurt about that Gorbachev dismantled their empire and want it back.

These russians are very old or already dead.
You keep excreting shit you propagan puts into your head.
Nobody really wants that reversed empire back.

 

[barbos]

Russians probably are mostly not too bothered, what with trying to make ends meet while avoiding being drafted and sent to die in Ukraine

You are remakably full of yourself if you think you know better than russians themselves.

 

[bilby]

Russians probably are mostly not too bothered, what with trying to make ends meet while avoiding being drafted and sent to die in Ukraine

You are remakably full of yourself if you think you know better than russians themselves.

Tell me something I don't know.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Russians are often butthurt about that Gorbachev dismantled their empire and want it back.

Russians probably are mostly not too bothered, what with trying to make ends meet while avoiding being drafted and sent to die in Ukraine, and avoiding being suspected of disloyalty and sent to die in Ukraine, and avoiding missing a memo, and thus failing to parrot the latest Putinist line, and so being sent to die in Ukraine.

I don't know about that. First off, opinion polls in Russia are worthless. So we can only guess.

I'm only basing my opinions on Russians that I know and what they have said.

Most like Putin. Russians like a winner. They like him less now because the war is going badly. Not because they think its immoral.

The Russians I know are all cynical to the extreme. They think its all just about power. Might makes right. Nietzsche and so on. They trust no politician. If all politicians are crooks then Putin isn't any better or worse.

They're also tough as fuck and think complainers are whiny bitches. They don't seem to care about suffering minorities. They think its woke tosh. They think people should just man up.

Its a different culture.

Putin, on the other hand, is absolutely gutted that the USSR went >poof< and disappeared, just as he was setting himself up to be a big player in its future. He was a big fan of Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact, and would not only like to see Poland, Finland, and the Baltics back under the Russian boot, but also feels entitled to East Germany as was (where he cut his teeth as a KGB officer in the '80s), and to Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary, too. Then it's on to tame Albania, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia, with the help of the Serbs.

Macedonia is next; both the FYR and the Greek bit. In fact, the whole of Greece and at least the European part of Türkyie. And once you have access to the Mediterranean, the Arab world and what's left of its oil starts looking very attractive. Iran can probably help out with taking Iraq - which probably means that the Asian part of Türkyie needs to be a part of the Russian Empire too.

And then there's Afghanistan, which Russia really should still be in charge of, if it wasn't for the CIA and Mujahideen being so needlessly mean to the USSR back in the '80s.

Manchuria clearly needs to be included in the Russian Empire, and if you are going to have East Germany, realistically you should probably have it all. But then, that leaves a problematic border with France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, so add them to the Empire too. The Swedes and Norwegians are clearly too dangerous to leave on the Northwestern flank of the Great Russian Empire, and if you have those countries, plus Germany and the Low Countries, leaving Denmark un-conquered would just be asking for trouble.

The problem, in the end, is that Putin wants Russia to be the imperial superpower it (and specifically, he) dreamed of in the mid-80s, with Putin as First Secretary, ruling over an empire bigger yet than that attained by Stalin. And there is no limit to such grandiose fantasies, while your empire has a border with any territory not yet annexed.

Sadly, his desires are being crushed under the military reality that Russia has been held to a standstill by Ukraine for longer than she fought the Great Patriotic War, and it is becoming increasingly clear that rebuilding even just the core of the old USSR is pure fantasy - The Russian Army just ain't up to the job.

And of course the former satellite states, and former Republics, all look at what Russia has to offer, look at what the EU has to offer, and say "When can we adopt the euro?".

Its actually a bit simpler. Jeltzyn was corrupt as fuck and let western diplomats dictate terms as long as he got paid. He had zero interest in democracy. But he was afraid he'd be removed if he didn't play along with the US diplomats who were hellbent on weakening Russia.

Eventually he got outmaneuvered by team Putin who wanted to push back on, what they saw, as Jeltzyn's capitulation to the west.

And that's the story. It is remarkable how USSR under Gorbachev just let all the countries ruled by then gain indipenence without much of a fight. Its a fascinating story. But that's what many Russians are butthurt over

 

[barbos]

It's mind boggling how the west argue between themselves about what Russians think instead of simply asking said Russians.
....
Since you are incapable of asking I will answer anyway.
Most Russians who lived through 90s (myself included) are pissed off at the west because you were largely responsible (released documents say so) for all the shit of the 90s.
You were fucking responsible for me being homeless and starving while having a job.
I fucking slept on a row of chairs at work because of assholes like Bush Sr. and then Clinton.
You fucking responsible that I was living on sugar and water for a month while again working.
You were fucking responsible that I threw up in a mouth when I finally got money and stupidly ate too much solid food. I fucking swallowed it back.
So fuck you and your theories!

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's mind boggling how the west argue between themselves about what Russians think instead of simply asking said Russians.

Know any with a good and just moral code willing and able to speak freely about the Russian condition?

 

[laughing dog]

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason

It’s the fear of soldiers returning in body bags, not nukes.

None of the ex Warsaw pact countries have an issue with that. They understand the importance of stopping Russia. The only reason they're not sending troops to Ukraine is because Putin has thrratened with nukes.

For the rest of Europe its a mixed bag. Basically, the more they feel threatened by Russia because of geography, the more they are willing to sacrifice. Be it weapons, money or troops.

Personally I think we should commit troops. Stop being pussies. The more the nuke threat works, the more it'll be used. So in order to make that threat to not be used, we need to ignore it. I think its the least dangerous option, long term

No troops yet from anyone suggests other countries have a problem with it.

Its Putins threat of nuclear war. Its just that.

The fact as NATO members, any attack (especially NATO) would be responded to with force by NATO, including nuclear weapons, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their decision-making or safety from Russia. Your insight into their thinking is certainly illuminating.