That's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity.
The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them. It's impossible to predict how traumatizing it would be for them if that belief is proven wrong. They could absolutely reach for nuclear weapons if that threshold is reached.
Basically, I think the most optimistic possible outcome from of this is returning to something like the nuclear deal, but with way better terms for Iran.
I don't see any realistic path for this fuck up to be unfucked. Aggressive foreign policy is seldom reversible, there is no way to get back to the previous save game.
The fundamental issue in dealing with Iranians was that they were strongly ideological and not very realpolitk - this is exactly what drove them into a conflict with US in the first place, a series of ruinous foreign policy moves - the hostages crisis, the Beirut bombing, proxy wars - that served no strategic long term purpose for Iran other than signaling ideological commitment within the regime.
So whatever you negotiated with Iran, you could only extract at gunpoint threatening their destruction (which even they understand is bad for their ideological goals), and you could never fully trust them to see their own-self interest and follow through. Their nuclear program was, in this context, more of a bargaining chip than an ideological regime goal, a way to put something on the table while maintaining their ideologically-mandated tools for power projection in the region, missiles and drones programs, various proxy fronts etc. This was a state of affairs that Israel was strongly opposed to, so they applied lobby pressure to kill the deal.
Well, having now actually attempted to destroy the regime and failed, whatever leverage you had for a non-nuclear Iran is gone. You have demonstrated to the Islamic republic that the only way to continue to exist is to obtain nuclear weapons, that no negotiated compromise can exist. You have also replaced the older, conservative, nuclear skeptic Ayatollah with his son, who's entire family was hit: father, wife, teenage son, sister and her toddler son and husband were all killed. Does he sound like a man who accepted to succeed his father's because he wants to correct the late Khamenei's mistakes and make a bid for peace?
The refreshed Islamic republic might sign various treaties or truces and accept nuclear deals, but they will surely break them because obtaining nukes has become existential. My expectation is that, if the regime does not collapse, either as a result of a ground invasion, internal uprising, or some combination (civil war etc.), then they will get nuclear weapons in the next decade. They are too easy to procure and the regime has now too little to lose.
No, Iran started helping the US against Taliban only to be put on the axis of evil list by Bush. Signed a deal with the US only to be torn and Trump placed maximum pressure.
US foreign policy in the Middle East is run by Israel.
This is an english speaking tech forum, so it’s safe to assume most people here live in a country that has nukes like the US, UK, India, probably decent number of people who came from China and Russia too.
If thats important its counter intuitive to show that agreements about not getting any nuklear arms is worth nothing, and wont stop you getting invaded.
Ukraine is different and did the reverse, giving up their nukes. They said it was too expensive to keep them, which is only partially true. Ukraine could have deconstructed them and created new Permissive Action Links (PALs) in Dnipro although this process would have taken years and carried a high risk of accidental detonation or radioactive mishaps during the reengineering phase.
Barring an attack on the US itself, the US under the current regime will never attack Russia. Whatever the kompromat happens to be, the President is completely bound by it.
The "kompromat" is the world's largest nuclear arsenal, some five thousand and change warheads, along with a delivery system that includes an HGV MIRV payload that can deliver a multi-megaton warhead at ~mach 20-something.
Their video recordings of Trump doing God-only-knows-what, on the other hand, appear to be working great. Ditto, the unreleased files hacked from the Republican National Committee's email server in 2016.
Honestly, I thought part of MAD was how, once a nuclear missile was launched, it would be better for other nuclear states to decimate the country of origin than to wait and figure out where it would hit.
> It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them
Spot on. As an American who is quite critical of the imperialist dynamic, I still catch myself thinking this way. Like "what if Iran actually attacks something around me?" But it's war, shouldn't one expect that an enemy might attack at any point?! Except, we just don't think of war as something that might have direct repercussions for us personally, which is why most of us vote for chucklefuck leaders who start them so readily.
This is interesting. Even though its many years ago most of Europe have a big open wound from WWII. That might be a missing ingredient for the american people to be less trigger happy when it comes to bombing other countries. The act of bombing a school full of children would have turned everything on its head in my country.
Your "big open wound" is my country's stepping into what was still mostly an elective war, saving the day, coming out as the head of a global economic empire, and being lauded for all of it - including well after the war itself for being the alternative to the more direct-subjugation-based empire of the USSR.
I'm not saying this to brag or something, but to drive home how radically different the perspectives are. Even our stories that are fundamentally tragedies (eg Saving Private Ryan) are still tales of distant heroic sacrifice, rather than the nihilistic smothering of helpless humans that war actually is. And to that above-it-all entitlement, we've mixed a cocktail of religious fundamentalism to help with the rationalization.
Vietnam was seemingly the only time since that there has been serious society-wide anti-war sentiment, and that's because people were being forcibly conscripted against their individual will. They fixed that by (effectively) removing the draft, while the economic treadmill was turned up such that more people "volunteered".
That was my first thought too, but I think it's overly pedantic. If we're reaching all the way back to 1812 then I think parents point is true in spirit if not letter
It was fought on US soil but did they really get invaded in that war? They declared war on Great Britain. They even invaded Canada themselves. It just doesn't seem to match the conflicts the USA brings upon other nations.
What was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apart, on practical level that’s typical asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.
"Military action", perhaps, but that is a very vague term. You replied to someone about "fighting foreign troops on own soil" which describes a ground invasion. 9/11 was something else.
It is USA did not respond with any military force. The response, if any, was behind closed doors and we may never know the details. The only thing we know is that relationships with the Saudis are closer than ever. Journalists aren't even allowed to question why they chop up their regime critics in small pieces and put them in a box because that is considered "impolite".
The public response was largely within domestic policy. New laws, new government agencies, more money spent on the military. It was also alluded to when fighting the continuation war with Iraq, but nothing was ever said explicitly about that.
it's indeed a distinction without a real difference, but terrorism is specifically targeted at civilians to produce some political outcome.
It's wild to suggest that terrorism against the US should not be responded with by military action - it's only the degree and targets that should be under debate.
This is foolish nonsense. An organized foreign army directing improvised missiles against your cities is very definitely conducting 'military action' and is a valid target for a military response.
There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. That country is deluded and everyone falls off eventually and trump may have actually accelerated the country out of it's golden age
> There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15.
It would depend on their patience.
The insurgency in Iraq was eventually suppressed (American COIN manuals were updated). The insurgency (?) in Afghanistan outlasted the patience of the invaders.
So how long do the 'gun nutters' want to keep at it compared to the opposing force?
Further, it's worth asking how effective, on average, is violent disobedience. Generally speaking a movement has about double the odds of success by not using violence:
I don’t feel well educated in modern military actions- are you saying that civilian gun owners in America would contribute meaningfully to the national defense (maybe because of things like civil resistance in other modern conflicts?), or am I misunderstanding? Do you have any suggestions for how I could start to broach the topic? It’s so broad and fast-moving that it’s hard to know where to start.
Yes absolutely they would and insurgencies are not the same thing as two nations fighting each other. America has twice as many gun owners as there are people in Afghanistan, a large chunk of them have combat experience.
Civil wars happen all of the time. Not only is propaganda effective, but militaries have ways to mitigate this, like moving soldiers far away from home to fight in places they don't have familial/cultural/economic/etc ties, which also makes it more likely that the propaganda will work.
The thing that makes the large quantity of American gun owners potentially useful in that sort of scenario is not that they possess guns. That matters a little, but usually most of the equipment a resistance uses is captured and/or supplied by allies. The thing that would be useful is these individuals' skills with firearms. It's theoretically kind of an alternate route to a similar (but lower) background proficiency level that some countries achieve with mandatory military service.
Note however that America is not only not unique in having that background proficiency -- but unlike mandatory military service, this approach has not really been tested. It's far from a certain proposition either way.
The hardware still matters because it lets you execute suspected collaborators and force the occupiers to incur cost hardening their logistics train (i.e. insurgency 101 type stuff) without waiting for the bureaucrats in whatever foreign country wants to fund your insurgency to prepare your arms shipments.
If you're in a situation where the thing you're doing can be meaningfully called an "execution", a firearm is a convenience, not a necessity. There are also plenty of effective attacks on logistics trains that don't involve firearms, though I will grant that they are at least sometimes a force multiplier there. Hence "that matters a little".
Exactly the type of gunnut I'm talking about. You lot couldn't handle being asked to wear a COVID mask, you wouldn't be able to handle actual war against a state armed with ya assault rifle and tinned food
I think you misunderstand me. I have never owned a gun, fired one exactly once more than 20 years ago (Boy Scouts), and advocate for more gun control (not less). I would be totally useless in any realistic fight. The argument has some merit though, in that it is as yet unclear how much it would matter.
I don't think that unclear merit outweighs the very clear and data-driven drawbacks. I just prefer to engage subjects like this in a charitable manner.
What makes you think the us army would unite against them? Sure a few nut militials would be suppressed, but if gun owners in mass are raising up that means a large controversy that the military will be aware of. The us military is not full of 'yes men' who will follow orders that blindly on home turf, a lot of them will follow.
> What makes you think the us army would unite against them?
I'd turn that around and ask, "What makes you think the people would accept the gun nuts rebellion?"
Many would be celebrating in the streets if the military showed up with tanks and started blasting. Furthermore, there's enough people in the military from far, far outside whatever state is being threatened to care that much about the locals.
Again, you are assuming a small rebellion - of course those will be put down. Texas has enough gun owners to put down a small rebellion without the military (they would let the military/police do it). However if things got so far that the majority of gun owners were willing to go to war that implies the US is at least very divided and the military is going to at least partially be on the side of the rebellion.
The 2nd amendment types are a little too impressionable for their guns to be of much use. They were soundly defeated in 5th generation warfare without the need to fire nary a shot. Less gullible americans tend to not own guns, so they were also defeated without firing nary a shot. Now America is just a big dumb worm that Netanyahu has his hooks in and uses to cruise around the desert with.
Guns are not only for counter-insurgency on invasion/warfare. For most people I know who own guns, that's not even on their top 10 list of reasons. But if you don't think they'd be a factor, then you disagree with some of the top generals around the world.
Civilian guns (armament generally, not just guns) aren't for going toe to toe with a trained military in the field.
They're for putting a bullet in you and/your your family if you act as a collaborator, taking potshots at the logistics train, and all the other nasty stuff you have to do to make occupation costly in terms of both life and dollars. Every cent spent on putting bullet proof glass in the camera installation van and drone cages on the police station and using those cameras and drones to track down the guy who shot you for collaborating is a cent that must be extracted from either the occupied population or the population that's financing the occupiers and not spent in direct pursuit of the political goal.
All the more reasons for Iran to drop their self imposed fatwa on nuclear weapons and get a few, to put an end to interference.
Iran has been on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction, that is, chemical weapons, by way of US sponsored Saddam Hussein and lost close to half a million of their people. Yet they never for once retaliated with such weapons which to them is against their Islam.
Those half a million dead are part of a still unhealed wound and that is felt and remembered in every city and town in Iran.
The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them. It's impossible to predict how traumatizing it would be for them if that belief is proven wrong. They could absolutely reach for nuclear weapons if that threshold is reached.