Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Kellhound]

The time between the end of the war and MAD was filled with fatigue and demilitarisation, not escalation.

MAD wasn't in place until the 1960s.

[Slant]

It's not cowardly, it's being dishonest and/or blind, really.

There's nothing dishonest or blind about it. That y'all don't accept a European viewpoint is essentially meaningless, but it's there. Accept it or not. It makes no difference to the rest of the world. This, my friend, is what losing influence feels like.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the US base, one MOAB n it would be dust...but iran has old tech..

Just to make this clear, there is nothing high tech about the MOAB. It's a 10 ton bomb, that's it. If you can build a GBU-12, that is a 500lbs bomb with laser guidance (or the JDAM variant of it), you can build a 10-ton version of it. Do Iranians use precision guided ordnance? Probably not, since they seem to rely on Russian tech. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it.

- - - Updated - - -

And I will add that this philosophy is what made the US the strongest & most influential country in the world.

I don't see anything wrong with patriotism & nationalism of the things you are proud off. Japan, China, Russia adopt exactly the same kind of philosophy and look at the weight they add to the world.

Nationalism is what made WW2 happen. Just saying... Be patriotic, no problem. Be nationalistic? Eh, 50/50 chance shit's going to hit the fan eventually. And the way Skroe and other Americans are posting here... I'd say the US is on the wrong path. If you don't give a shit about anyone but your own selfish imperialism, you're gonna cause problems for everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's hardly an unreasonable possibility.

We've had two World Wars. One of which was kicked off with the assassination of a single political figure; the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary was not a global superpower, nor was Serbia. Their conflict still triggered a World War. It isn't about how significant the fuse is, when it's lit. What matters is how many global powers kick in and take a side in the brewing conflict.

If Iran v. USA becomes a "thing", and Russia and/or China kick in on the side of Iran, that's all it would really take to start the ball rolling.

Nah, it isn't. See, NATO isn't a factor in this. The US is the clear aggressor here, Article 5 does not apply and you can bet your polite Canadian ass that Europe would not participate in this just like they did not participate in Iraq. If the US wants to take on Russia, China and Iran on their own... well, so be it. Good luck and I'll be sitting here enjoying the show from far, far away. There is ZERO political will to even move one soldier in that direction.

And if the US continues to piss us off, they might even lose access to their airbases here. A major logistics hub for them. Yeah, that's right... as much as they jerk off to their super carriers, the Air Force and Army do not have such things and they actually go through Germany. All of them. And that access is not something the US own. It's granted to them as NATO allies. And that can be revoked if we get the feeling they're trying to drag us into a conflict.

[Jessicka]

MAD wasn't in place until the 1960s.

And in those 15 years, US was incapable of mounting a land war against the Soviet Union, it wasn’t a threat that kept the peace. Nobody, not even the Soviets wanted to fight a ground war in Europe as their nations were too devastated from the conflict. Britain, Manchester, right here still had visible bomb damage right through to the sixties. And we got off lightly compared to the south and mainland Europe, never mind what the fuck happened on the Eastern Front.

Demilitarisation began almost as soon as the war ended, troops were sent home, weapons, planes, tanks got scrapped. It was slow at first but there was no need or desire to maintain those WW2 levels of equipment or production because of the Russian threat.

If the policy of superior firepower meant anything, the post war demilitarisation after both world wars would have never happened.

[Slant]

Good read.

Here is the problem. You are very optimistic that world problems can be solved by diplomacy.

Sadly, in the real world. There are always assholes & heartless people who will beat you & spit on you for your resources.

So the only thing left is by intimidating assholes into submission. You see this in the judicial system as well, "listen! if you break the law: We are going to fuck you up!" This is to prevent people from committing murder or steal.

Yeah, we call them Americans these days...
[Infraction]

[Endus]

Nah, it isn't. See, NATO isn't a factor in this. The US is the clear aggressor here, Article 5 does not apply and you can bet your polite Canadian ass that Europe would not participate in this just like they did not participate in Iraq. If the US wants to take on Russia, China and Iran on their own... well, so be it. Good luck and I'll be sitting here enjoying the show from far, far away. There is ZERO political will to even move one soldier in that direction.

And if the US continues to piss us off, they might even lose access to their airbases here. A major logistics hub for them. Yeah, that's right... as much as they jerk off to their super carriers, the Air Force and Army do not have such things and they actually go through Germany. All of them. And that access is not something the US own. It's granted to them as NATO allies. And that can be revoked if we get the feeling they're trying to drag us into a conflict.

I'm not saying it's likely, or even all that plausible. But neither was the setup to WWI. That basically happened because the various major powers were itching for a war, and took that opportunity to get one on. It's easy to see the chain of events in retrospect, not so much proactively.

I'm just disputing the idea that just because this started out small, it will necessarily remain small. That's not how things actually work.

[Slant]

I'm not saying it's likely, or even all that plausible. But neither was the setup to WWI. That basically happened because the various major powers were itching for a war, and took that opportunity to get one on. It's easy to see the chain of events in retrospect, not so much proactively.

I'm just disputing the idea that just because this started out small, it will necessarily remain small. That's not how things actually work.

Well, there is that, but the events leading up to WW1 had a very interesting network of alliances that ended up being perfectly designed to drag the entire continent into a war, if a war ever happened. I mean, sure the big nations were kinda antsy, but they usually had little wars all the time, so that wasn't it entire. What made it so devastating is that it dragged everyone in at the same time. Before WW1, if you had a conflict between two nations, a third nation with some vested interest could step in and tip the scales one side or the other. That results in a quick peace, because imbalance was obvious and that was that. In WW1, everyone was fighting. So who was there to end the war decisively?

There's a reason why everyone in Europe actually expected the war to end less than a year, two years tops. Germany and France have had wars as kind of a national hobby before, not a big deal. Lothringen probably changed hands more often than the world cup trophy in football.

[Zython]

Good read.

Here is the problem. You are very optimistic that world problems can be solved by diplomacy.

Sadly, in the real world. There are always assholes & heartless people who will beat you & spit on you for your resources.

So the only thing left is by intimidating assholes into submission. You see this in the judicial system as well, "listen! if you break the law: We are going to fuck you up!" This is to prevent people from committing murder or steal.

Ok, but what leads you believe that those people are the Iranians, rather than us? After all, we're the country that says that defending oneself against fascism is wrong. Not Iran.

[Slant]

The same applies to russians, iranians, chinese.

Someone is bound to take the wheel. I would rather it be americans.

I'd rather everyone fucked off to their respective homes and let everyone else be themselves for a change. The ME needs time to fix itself. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They need to sort themselves out, without outside influence. For centuries we've disturbed them and their nations' evolutions... mind you, the people in the ME far surpassed European culture and science at certain points. And ever since colonialism, we're holding them back. They're kind of like modern colonies, except nobody actually colonizes them. The US just keeps conquering shit and then leaves. Until they are, rightfully, angry and cause some shit to give the US another reason to come back, use them as target practice and then go home again.

[Zython]

Honestly, It's terrifying watching people parrot shit they saw on TV to justify another forever war based on a guy that they didn't even know existed a week ago. State propaganda is a helluva drug.

[Shadowferal]

this isn't a utopia. In the real world, it's either dominate or be dominated.

If US chose not to intervene in the ME, Russia would intervene and would invade (or systematically change regime to their favor) gulf countries and have the resources to themselves. This would ultimately leads to the downfall of the US.

The very fact that you think we can live in a utopia is hilarious. trust me I have been fucked on my career soo many times in my life that I always assume the worst because they happen more often than you might think.

Sure good guys are plenty, but so are bad guys.

I think his point was for everyone, including Russia to back off and let the ME...be.

[Slant]

this isn't a utopia. In the real world, it's either dominate or be dominated.

If US chose not to intervene in the ME, Russia would intervene and would invade (or systematically change regime to their favor) gulf countries and have the resources to themselves. This would ultimately leads to the downfall of the US.

The very fact that you think we can live in a utopia is hilarious. trust me I have been fucked on my career soo many times in my life that I always assume the worst because they happen more often than you might think.

Sure good guys are plenty, but so are bad guys.

I didn't talk about Utopia. I am talking about the US being the bad dudes, betraying every Western ideal they pretend to uphold. The US is a terrorist nation right now and personally I am re-evaluating if NATO is worth it. Why not let China and Russia buttfuck the US? Since y'all don't give a fuck about Western ideals anyway, you're worth nothing to me. See, this... is how you lose influence.

[Kellhound]

And in those 15 years, US was incapable of mounting a land war against the Soviet Union, it wasn’t a threat that kept the peace. Nobody, not even the Soviets wanted to fight a ground war in Europe as their nations were too devastated from the conflict. Britain, Manchester, right here still had visible bomb damage right through to the sixties. And we got off lightly compared to the south and mainland Europe, never mind what the fuck happened on the Eastern Front.

Demilitarisation began almost as soon as the war ended, troops were sent home, weapons, planes, tanks got scrapped. It was slow at first but there was no need or desire to maintain those WW2 levels of equipment or production because of the Russian threat.

If the policy of superior firepower meant anything, the post war demilitarisation after both world wars would have never happened.

Right, which is why the USSR build 35,000 T-54s between 1946 and 1958 and the US built over 21,000 Pattons between 1948 an 1961. To put that into perspective, only a bit more than 10,200 M-1 Abrams MBTs have been built in total. Then there are the tens of thousands of new fighters built by both sides during this period. Yes there was a massive draw down post WWII, but this was followed by a significant build up pre MAD.

[Slant]

I think his point was for everyone, including Russia to back off and let the ME...be.

Precisely.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, which is why the USSR build 35,000 T-54s between 1946 and 1958 and the US built over 21,000 Pattons between 1948 an 1961. To put that into perspective, only a bit more than 10,200 M-1 Abrams MBTs have been built in total. Then there are the tens of thousands of new fighters built by both sides during this period. Yes there was a massive draw down post WWII, but this was followed by a significant build up pre MAD.

Yes, that was when the US understood the military to be the weight behind diplomacy. These days, the US thinks diplomacy is how you get an excuse to fuck shit up.

Put it another way... if this had been the Cuba crisis? Y'all would be toast already.

[zealo]

And in those 15 years, US was incapable of mounting a land war against the Soviet Union, it wasn’t a threat that kept the peace. Nobody, not even the Soviets wanted to fight a ground war in Europe as their nations were too devastated from the conflict. Britain, Manchester, right here still had visible bomb damage right through to the sixties. And we got off lightly compared to the south and mainland Europe, never mind what the fuck happened on the Eastern Front.

Demilitarisation began almost as soon as the war ended, troops were sent home, weapons, planes, tanks got scrapped. It was slow at first but there was no need or desire to maintain those WW2 levels of equipment or production because of the Russian threat.

If the policy of superior firepower meant anything, the post war demilitarisation after both world wars would have never happened.

Regarding "what the fuck happened in the east" and to emphasise it some more just how much the soviets paid for it in blood, the soviets were dealing with demographic stats after the war such as e.g an estimated 60-70% of every male born in the soviet union in 1923 being dead by 1946.

No one in their right mind would have been howling for another major war with entire generations like that nearly being destroyed, and it still being fresh in memory.

[Kellhound]

Precisely.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, that was when the US understood the military to be the weight behind diplomacy. These days, the US thinks diplomacy is how you get an excuse to fuck shit up.

Put it another way... if this had been the Cuba crisis? Y'all would be toast already.

No, that was when the US understood that diplomacy could not rest on military power alone.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was heavily in the US' favor. We already had missiles that could hit the USSR based in Europe while the USSR could only hit Europe.

[Slant]

No, that was when the US understood that diplomacy could not rest on military power alone.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was heavily in the US' favor. We already had missiles that could hit the USSR based in Europe while the USSR could only hit Europe.

That's literally what I was saying. Are you just repeating me out of spite now? :P

[Jessicka]

Right, which is why the USSR build 35,000 T-54s between 1946 and 1958 and the US built over 21,000 Pattons between 1948 an 1961. To put that into perspective, only a bit more than 10,200 M-1 Abrams MBTs have been built in total. Then there are the tens of thousands of new fighters built by both sides during this period. Yes there was a massive draw down post WWII, but this was followed by a significant build up pre MAD.

It was logistically impossible for either side to actually mobilise those forces against each other.

[Draco-Onis]

Nuclear weapons and liquid fuel rockets are WWII tech. In conventional warfare, technology is very important.

Good thing Iran isn't interested in conventional warfare then.

[Kellhound]

That's literally what I was saying. Are you just repeating me out of spite now? :P

You: "Yes, that was when the US understood the military to be the weight behind diplomacy."

Me: "No, that was when the US understood that diplomacy could not rest on military power alone."

There is a significant difference those statements.

[Slant]

You: "Yes, that was when the US understood the military to be the weight behind diplomacy."

Me: "No, that was when the US understood that diplomacy could not rest on military power alone."

There is a significant difference those statements.

Ok, I don't really care enough to discuss semantics with Americans. You believe whatever you want.