I know what nukes are, they aren't an effective weapon. . . A hypersonic guided missile is a much better weapon.
What do you mean "Israel won't get hit"? I know they have the Iron dome and laser defenses, but those systems can be overwhelmed. The Nuke threat is no longer a deterrent because too many people know the truth about them now.
Both the US and Israeli's militaries are somewhat archaic, current warfare is drones and missiles, not tanks and planes. Yes the US has good ISR capabilities, but that won't protect our ships from hypersonic missiles and our opponents generally don't have any high value targets to hit.
Can you use your head. I explained it already. Literally explained it. All of sudden it's the autism. Read my last reply.
The iron dome cannot stop every missile aimed at it.
It can stop a significant number. If one breaks through, it still needs a deterrent. It is an even larger payload.
The USA is rushing to add more defensive systems like Thaad etc. But there is still offense. It is returning any fire and stopping it firing.
In the case of Iran. What probability do you assume, if it fires directly at Israel?
In fact at the current rate of probability it makes no difference. Iran are attacking indirectly regardless. I am not suggesting the aforementioned odds. I am suggesting any conflict is becoming problematic. Whether the USA is dragged into striking them to prevent Israel causing that response, or if Iran attacks directly.
It isn't just Iran and the Hezbollah, it is Turkey, Syria, and possibly Egypt, Jordan, China and Russia. They will all support Iran if it is attacked.
If Israel has nukes they are a liability, because Russia and China will use theirs first against Israel at the first hint of Israel using nukes ( if nukes are real).
Israel lost their last war with Hezbollah and they are afraid of a pyrrhic victory over Gaza and committing genocide.
No. Not in a proxy war. Iran launch on a nuclear power. It nukes. Does everybody get involved? No, because everybody is involved.
There is zero point in speculating that. Because it's bullshit. There is no doctrine there.
What would happen is somebody else decides to use that logic and repeats it again somewhere else. Then it keeps reacting.
But I'd take that gamble. Because as I said the risk for Israel is more. Iran launches a figure of missile of various warheads, and they start beating defense. It hits a nuclear power station. It hits silos. Israel is potentially fucked by conventional means. So it launches nukes at Iran, and launches as Iran launches.
Sure there are Iranian allies. On the premises of war against it. Not on fucking idiotic martyrs.
Or I'd almost hedge surgical strikes disabling it. They talk bigger. However another flank will spill. Those allies of it will decide they'll attack somewhere else.
But Iranian shipping is fucked, anyway. It won't sail anywhere without another escort. And Gaza is gone regardless. At this rate it could also mean the Iranian coast. Hezbollah are also gone at this rate.
Iran might try to beat Isreal with Hezbollah that could be some bullshit. But there goes their nations. Collateral say this word. It is when a bigger force attacks a smaller nuclear power. What does it do. Collateral.
But according to you it's because a handful of Palestinian terrorists are worth tell me your logic?
I honestly don't know what would occur that's up to anybody making decisions and making a strategy. They've been so craven. Trump probably had his nuts squeezed, and now it's back there anyway. This time it's problematic. Again it's bigger talk, and dumber rats. But it needs something. Like Damascus gone. Hahaha.
However I am attempting a statistical analysis. Instead of listening to cravens and martyrs.
I am under the absolute impression you give an inch they take a mile. They're advancing on that notion. Whatever happens it will without these dumb words.
Let's run this without nukes. It means larger war. It draws everybody in. Nukes might. Or they could halt it. In a scenario they don't use nukes allies get involved.
Who knows who cares except it's getting real tedious this constant nuance. Collapse at this rate will cause a lot of shit and could lead to war anyway. Collapse occurs as oil soars. Oil will soar more whatever happens. As it happens it empowers extremists. War occurs. It is. It simply get bigger. In that collapse where food becomes scarcer and oil gets pricer. It brings conflict.
I know what nukes are, they aren't an effective weapon. . . A hypersonic guided missile is a much better weapon.
What do you mean "Israel won't get hit"? I know they have the Iron dome and laser defenses, but those systems can be overwhelmed. The Nuke threat is no longer a deterrent because too many people know the truth about them now.
Both the US and Israeli's militaries are somewhat archaic, current warfare is drones and missiles, not tanks and planes. Yes the US has good ISR capabilities, but that won't protect our ships from hypersonic missiles and our opponents generally don't have any high value targets to hit.
Can you use your head. I explained it already. Literally explained it. All of sudden it's the autism. Read my last reply.
The iron dome cannot stop every missile aimed at it.
It can stop a significant number. If one breaks through, it still needs a deterrent. It is an even larger payload.
The USA is rushing to add more defensive systems like Thaad etc. But there is still offense. It is returning any fire and stopping it firing.
In the case of Iran. What probability do you assume, if it fires directly at Israel?
In fact at the current rate of probability it makes no difference. Iran are attacking indirectly regardless. I am not suggesting the aforementioned odds. I am suggesting any conflict is becoming problematic. Whether the USA is dragged into striking them to prevent Israel causing that response, or if Iran attacks directly.
It isn't just Iran and the Hezbollah, it is Turkey, Syria, and possibly Egypt, Jordan, China and Russia. They will all support Iran if it is attacked.
If Israel has nukes they are a liability, because Russia and China will use theirs first against Israel at the first hint of Israel using nukes ( if nukes are real).
Israel lost their last war with Hezbollah and they are afraid of a pyrrhic victory over Gaza and committing genocide.
No. Not in a proxy war. Iran launch on a nuclear power. It nukes. Does everybody get involved? No, because everybody is involved.
There is zero point in speculating that. Because it's bullshit. There is no doctrine there.
What would happen is somebody else decides to use that logic and repeats it again somewhere else. Then it keeps reacting.
But I'd take that gamble. Because as I said the risk for Israel is more. Iran launches a figure of missile of various warheads, and they start beating defense. It hits a nuclear power station. It hits silos. Israel is potentially fucked by conventional means. So it launches nukes at Iran, and launches as Iran launches.
Sure there are Iranian allies. On the premises of war against it. Not on fucking idiotic martyrs.
Or I'd almost hedge surgical strikes disabling it. They talk bigger. However another flank will spill. Those allies of it will decide they'll attack somewhere else.
But Iranian shipping is fucked, anyway. It won't sail anywhere without another escort. And Gaza is gone regardless. At this rate it could also mean the Iranian coast. Hezbollah are also gone at this rate.
Iran might try to beat Isreal with Hezbollah that could be some bullshit. But there goes their nations. Collateral say this word. It is when a bigger force attacks a smaller nuclear power. What does it do. Collateral.
But according to you it's because a handful of Palestinian terrorists are worth tell me your logic?
I honestly don't know what would occur that's up to anybody making decisions and making a strategy. They've been so craven. Trump probably had his nuts squeezed, and now it's back there anyway. This time it's problematic. Again it's bigger talk, and dumber rats. But it needs something. Like Damascus gone. Hahaha.
However I am attempting a statistical analysis. Instead of listening to cravens and martyrs.
I am under the absolute impression you give an inch they take a mile. They're advancing on that notion. Whatever happens it will without these dumb words.
Let's run this without nukes. It means larger war. It draws everybody in. Nukes might. Or they could halt it. In a scenario they don't use nukes allies get involved.
Who knows who cares except it's getting real tedious this constant nuance. Collapse at this rate will cause a lot of shit and could lead to war anyway. Collapse occurs as oil soars. Oil will soar more whatever happens. As it happens it empowers extremists. War occurs. It is. It simply get bigger. In that collapse where food becomes scarcer and oil gets pricer. It brings conflict.
I am sorry but I can't follow your stream of unconsciousness, you don't seem to be saying anything.