4 ms·

Bizarre in the sense of mostly performative tit for tat strikes instead of some kind of serious strategy to win and to win for good. And in the case of Iran, th

Bizarre in the sense of mostly performative tit for tat strikes instead of some kind of serious strategy to win and to win for good. And in the case of Iran, the strikes are telegraphed in advance in almost comedic fashion. “OK, we’re starting operation True Promise n. We’re launching missiles. We’re about to do it, guys. OK is everyone ready? For the missiles? These are the targets, but next time it could be more serious, OK?” This does not resemble what I would imagine a fight for civilization survival to look like. I’m talking about the stakes being you win or you, your family, and every man, woman and infant you know is going to be killed or starved in concentration camps.

bluealienpie 2mo ago
Israel has densely populated urban neighborhoods that would be completely wiped out in a conventional attack. Tehran would be destroyed with nukes but so would every major Israeli city. The scale of country size is immense. If Israel thought that nuclear weapons were a viable option, they would use them already. That’s the reason for the tit for tat. They both have capacity to attacks that would devastate each other countries. Smotrich would rather the US take the brunt of attack and losses their ME bases.
ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
It is really comedic! When the US sent over that bunker-buster bomber run, I noticed this for sure! The US and Iran's leadership basically choreographed this over X, and the misdirection, with one bomber's transponder flying in the opposite direction, was nearly adorable! And the later "retaliation" against local bases by Iran was in the same, choreographed public fashion. At this point it seems to be a very respectful gentleman's conflict. It's very unlike some of the wars we've got entangled in, for sure. It seems like both sides sort of acknowledge that if we don't play fair, if it's not choreographed, if we don't stick to the rules, we really possess the power for world-ending, horrific conflict.
- lukan 2mo ago
  "At this point it seems to be a very respectful gentleman's conflict." Was in your reality also the complete iranian leadership killed without warning, while they were discissing negotiations with the other side?
dredmorbius 2mo ago
If you're launching ballistics in a conflict where a local-theatre adversary has nukes, you might actually want to telegraph just what you're lobbing, when, and where, to avoid a Petrov-gone-wrong scenario. "We're only hitting Gulf neighbour US-adjacent targets" is less threatening than "we're aiming directly at Israel". (Though yes, Iran has struck Israel with > 200 missiles in a single attack: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...>.) Note that US attacks on Iran have been similarly loudly telegraphed in response. Though I suspect the rationale (if any) differs.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  For those unfamiliar with Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov of the Soviet Air Defence Forces, you can thank him for being able to read this comment today. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...>

bluealienpie 2mo ago

Israel has densely populated urban neighborhoods that would be completely wiped out in a conventional attack. Tehran would be destroyed with nukes but so would every major Israeli city. The scale of country size is immense. If Israel thought that nuclear weapons were a viable option, they would use them already. That’s the reason for the tit for tat. They both have capacity to attacks that would devastate each other countries. Smotrich would rather the US take the brunt of attack and losses their ME bases.

ButlerianJihad 2mo ago

It is really comedic! When the US sent over that bunker-buster bomber run, I noticed this for sure! The US and Iran's leadership basically choreographed this over X, and the misdirection, with one bomber's transponder flying in the opposite direction, was nearly adorable! And the later "retaliation" against local bases by Iran was in the same, choreographed public fashion. At this point it seems to be a very respectful gentleman's conflict. It's very unlike some of the wars we've got entangled in, for sure. It seems like both sides sort of acknowledge that if we don't play fair, if it's not choreographed, if we don't stick to the rules, we really possess the power for world-ending, horrific conflict.

lukan 2mo ago
"At this point it seems to be a very respectful gentleman's conflict." Was in your reality also the complete iranian leadership killed without warning, while they were discissing negotiations with the other side?

dredmorbius 2mo ago

If you're launching ballistics in a conflict where a local-theatre adversary has nukes, you might actually want to telegraph just what you're lobbing, when, and where, to avoid a Petrov-gone-wrong scenario. "We're only hitting Gulf neighbour US-adjacent targets" is less threatening than "we're aiming directly at Israel". (Though yes, Iran has struck Israel with > 200 missiles in a single attack: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...>.) Note that US attacks on Iran have been similarly loudly telegraphed in response. Though I suspect the rationale (if any) differs.

dredmorbius 2mo ago
For those unfamiliar with Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov of the Soviet Air Defence Forces, you can thank him for being able to read this comment today. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...>