USA Threatens Nuclear War Against Iran

[Wandering Monk]

According to the article, although these nuclear subs are capable of carrying nuclear armament, they're not currently armed with nuclear weapons.

However, four of the submarines, including the one deployed to the Middle East, have been refitted to be armed with cruise missiles, which do not carry nuclear payloads, Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told McClatchy News.​

​

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article281486598.html#storylink=cpy​

Fingers crossed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still missing where it says the US threatens nuclear war with Iran.
Does it actually say that or is that just your take on it and it makes a good thread title?

Sending a submarine capable of
nuclear weapons is a message.
It arrives in the context of Israel's
threat of nuclear weapon use.

MSN

 

[Wandering Monk]

According to the article, although these nuclear subs are capable of carrying nuclear armament, they're not currently armed with nuclear weapons.

However, four of the submarines, including the one deployed to the Middle East, have been refitted to be armed with cruise missiles, which do not carry nuclear payloads, Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told McClatchy News.​

​

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article281486598.html#storylink=cpy​

Fingers crossed.

Sending a submarine capable of
nuclear weapons is a message.
It arrives in the context of Israel's
threat of nuclear weapon use.

MSN

According to a previous post, she is not equipped with nukes. CENTCOM is responsible for a large portion of the world in that region. It is more likely that this sub will be launching conventional Tomahawks at groups killing US soldiers, lately using drones.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fingers crossed.

According to a previous post, she is not equipped with nukes. CENTCOM is responsible for a large portion of the world in that region. It is more likely that this sub will be launching conventional Tomahawks at groups killing US soldiers, lately using drones.

I wonder about USA claims to have replaced
all the nuclear ballistic missiles with conventional
weapons. But remember that this is after Israel
clearly threatened nuclear weapon use. And USA
is the big dog on the planet with nukes. (Russia's
are numerous, but degraded due to age.)

 

[David1967]

The USA doesn’t support killing Palestinians. Ask any American.

Are you meaning The USA as a country, or as individual citizens?

 

[Revoltingest]

The USA doesn’t support killing Palestinians. Ask any American.

People will say they support (or not) something
when questioned about it in a neutral context.
But regarding an emotionally charged complex
situation, they might hold the opposite view.
Cognitive dissonance & lack of logical rigor
can create this disconnect.

 

[Jimmy]

People will say they support (or not) something
when questioned about it in a neutral context.
But regarding an emotionally charged complex
situation, they might hold the opposite view.
Cognitive dissonance & lack of logical rigor
can create this disconnect.

U shouldn’t say America supports killing innocence imo

 

[Revoltingest]

U shouldn’t say America supports killing innocence imo

USA does tacitly by supporting Israel's crimes
financially & militarily. Most voters approve.
So while there is dissent among us, as a whole
USA is culpable for Israel's crimes.

As a USA taxpayer, this really grinds me gears.

 

[Stevicus]

Fingers crossed.

According to a previous post, she is not equipped with nukes. CENTCOM is responsible for a large portion of the world in that region. It is more likely that this sub will be launching conventional Tomahawks at groups killing US soldiers, lately using drones.

I wonder about USA claims to have replaced
all the nuclear ballistic missiles with conventional
weapons. But remember that this is after Israel
clearly threatened nuclear weapon use. And USA
is the big dog on the planet with nukes. (Russia's
are numerous, but degraded due to age.)

There's been some nuclear saber-rattling going on lately, as we've also seen in past eras. But a national leader deciding to nuke another country is basically committing suicide - or at best, resigning from political office with no pension. Even if they don't have any scruples about killing others or sending others out to die, they don't want to die themselves - nor do they really want to rule over some kind of wasteland, which their country would be if they ever decided to launch nukes at someone.

If nukes are ever used, it might be more likely to come from a terrorist carrying a suitcase or driving a truck with a nuclear bomb. There would be no traces and no one would know who set it off, so there'd be no way of knowing whom to retaliate against.

 

[We Never Know]

Sending a submarine capable of
nuclear weapons is a message.
It arrives in the context of Israel's
threat of nuclear weapon use.

MSN

Its like NK always testing rockets without nukes. Its nothing but saber rattling.

 

[anna.]

The story behind my erroneous link.....
She is what @icehorse calls a "man".
I offered her up to him as a trans woman
to ban from women's lavatories, & to
require that "he" use the men's room.
Do you still like those "big guns"?

I saw that exchange early this morning. I have to admit I did a reverse image lookup and it was only then that I realized she was a trans woman, I wouldn't have known otherwise. Your point was well made without me even seeing where you used it elsewhere.

 

[Audie]

Albert Pike in the 1870’s said the Third World War would be Islam against Christian Zionism to destroy both. I would not be surprised to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth.

If they are it won't be before their
own nuclear weapons are used.

AND, who thinks Taiwan is not
capable ( see Japan too) of
producing, (and keeping quiet about)
their nukes.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There's been some nuclear saber-rattling going on lately, as we've also seen in past eras. But a national leader deciding to nuke another country is basically committing suicide - or at best, resigning from political office with no pension. Even if they don't have any scruples about killing others or sending others out to die, they don't want to die themselves - nor do they really want to rule over some kind of wasteland, which their country would be if they ever decided to launch nukes at someone.

If nukes are ever used, it might be more likely to come from a terrorist carrying a suitcase or driving a truck with a nuclear bomb. There would be no traces and no one would know who set it off, so there'd be no way of knowing whom to retaliate against.

I fear nukes less than biological weapons.

 

[We Never Know]

I wonder about USA claims to have replaced
all the nuclear ballistic missiles with conventional
weapons. But remember that this is after Israel
clearly threatened nuclear weapon use. And USA
is the big dog on the planet with nukes. (Russia's
are numerous, but degraded due to age.)

The United States has not produced a new nuclear weapon in a decade, and it will take nearly a decade and a large investment of money before we would be in a position to produce a new nuclear warhead. We refurbish some and destroy others.
However because of manufacturing and technology problems that limit the lifetime of Russian warheads to 10-15 years and because of stockpile management practices that emphasize routine rebuilding of nuclear warheads, the Russian complex also maintains high levels of production.

A Breakdown of Breakout: U.S. and Russian Warhead Production Capabilities | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

 

[Revoltingest]

There's been some nuclear saber-rattling going on lately, as we've also seen in past eras. But a national leader deciding to nuke another country is basically committing suicide - or at best, resigning from political office with no pension. Even if they don't have any scruples about killing others or sending others out to die, they don't want to die themselves - nor do they really want to rule over some kind of wasteland, which their country would be if they ever decided to launch nukes at someone.

If nukes are ever used, it might be more likely to come from a terrorist carrying a suitcase or driving a truck with a nuclear bomb. There would be no traces and no one would know who set it off, so there'd be no way of knowing whom to retaliate against.

Emotions can override reason.
So I'm concerned about heightened
risk of nuclear weapons being used.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its like NK always testing rockets without nukes. Its nothing but saber rattling.

Sabers rattled can inspire sabers used.
Remember....we almost went to war
with USSR multiple times when heightened
tensions coincided with erroneous info.

 

[Jimmy]

USA does tacitly by supporting Israel's crimes
financially & militarily. Most voters approve.
So while there is dissent among us, as a whole
USA is culpable for Israel's crimes.

As a USA taxpayer, this really grinds me gears.

So where responsible for what they do with there money? Didn’t they pull in millions from selling diamonds

 

[Revoltingest]

So where responsible for what they do with there money? Didn’t they pull in millions from selling diamonds

I don't understand this.

 

[Jimmy]

I don't understand this.

So Israel’s not allowed to have a military? And the USA is responsible for what their military does? Something doesn’t add up

 

[Stevicus]

I fear nukes less than biological weapons.

Biological weapons could be quite devastating as well. Humans just keep coming up with new and advanced ways of killing each other. Fortunately, I live near a primary target, so I expect I'll be incinerated quickly. I'd prefer that than to live on for days or weeks in the aftermath. But biological weapons sound even worse.