American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

North Vietnam possessed a capable guerilla airforce and air defenses that gave the US military pause about carefree bombing runs, whereas the US air force has been operating over Iran with impunity after 3 days of targeted attacks. A real invasion of Iran would involve heavy tactical air bombardment to neutralize Iranian artillery - the initial results of the war show that this is effective, if nothing else.

[BING_XI_LAO]

North Vietnam possessed a capable guerilla airforce and air defenses that gave the US military pause about carefree bombing runs, whereas the US air force has been operating over Iran with impunity after 3 days of targeted attacks. A real invasion of Iran would involve heavy tactical air bombardment to neutralize Iranian artillery - the initial results of the war show that this is effective, if nothing else.

Is that really practical, even if the US has to fly in from outside the region using strato-tankers (wish this unit was in TBS 4x) assuming the airfields in the region are too bombarded?

[greenline]

Airfields themselves are pretty 'hard' targets, often repairable in hours. The scale of Iranian bombardment has also not been large or overwhelming, with there being less strikes day by day and generally focused on hitting civilian infrastructure and slow moving ships. I don't foresee the US having any problems continuing to run missions out of Bahrain, the UAE.

[Charr Babies]

North Vietnam possessed a capable guerilla airforce and air defenses that gave the US military pause about carefree bombing runs, whereas the US air force has been operating over Iran with impunity after 3 days of targeted attacks. A real invasion of Iran would involve heavy tactical air bombardment to neutralize Iranian artillery - the initial results of the war show that this is effective, if nothing else.

The US carpet‑bombed three countries during the Vietnam War and caused the deaths of millions, dropping over five million tons of bombs - more than in all of WWII. Yet, you are saying the carpet bombing in Nam wasn't effective enough, praising Russia’s air defense as if that somehow explains why we lost in Vietnam!?

Never mind the humanitarian moral issue of CAREFREE bombing civilians.
A nation that carpet‑bombs other countries and slaughters multitudes of innocent civilians commits atrocities so brutal and dehumanizing that they tear lives apart, families wiped out, children buried under rubble, entire communities erased in seconds. This isn’t strategy or necessity; it’s suffering inflicted on people who had no voice, no choice, and no chance! 

And we still pretend to be humanitarian, even as our actions inflict suffering so immense that no claim to morality can survive it. 

---

Let say we wipeout a huge chunk of their population and bomb Iran into submission. But the real question is this, 

what do we actually win? A Victory That Costs Everything!

Human Loss (Hide your sons and daughters. Don't let them die for some bullshit unjust war of choice) 
Economic Damage
Domestic Instability
Military & Strategic Costs
Global Trust & Reputation

When a nation inflicts massive suffering abroad, it risks creating the kind of resentment and extremism that can come back in devastating ways - like that of 911

---

[BING_XI_LAO]

Apparently there has been a strike affecting civilians in Dimona, but let's consider:
-there were weapons depots and terror tunnels underneath the buildings
-the civilians were human shields
-Iran has a right to exist

[Charr Babies]

For those who doesn't know Dimona

Iran’s strike on Dimona is such a big moment because Dimona isn’t just another Israeli town. It’s where Israel’s main nuclear research center sits, the symbolic core of its whole nuclear posture. So when Iran hit the area right after the USI strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, it wasn’t random. It was Iran saying, “If you hit our nuclear sites, we can put yours under threat too.” But even in this escalation, they still avoided hitting the actual reactor.

What stands out is that this fits a broader pattern of Iran trying to respond forcefully without tipping things into a full regional war. Even in that earlier Gulf incident in Qatar, they notified the US ahead of time before firing back - basically signaling, “We’re responding, but we’re not trying to start a war.” It’s not that the pattern is identical now, but you can still see the same instinct for restraint, even in these dire circumstances. That’s what makes the Dimona strike both escalatory and controlled at the same time.

Iran’s restraint stands out - and we mistake restraint for weakness.

Got to give Iran the credit, its strategy, has been remarkably effective. 

---

[greenline]

I don't know why people are obsessing over Dimona. An Iranian strike a few days ago knocked out one of Qatar's LNG fields that represents around 20% of the world's total output. That's a far bigger deal for Iran's strategy than any attacks on Israel.

[Charr Babies]

Although it most likely cannot produce a nuclear bomb type explosion (most likely - who knows what else is hidden there since they are exempted from inspection), it can surely cause heavy structural damage that releases radioactive materials and contaminates the surrounding area, effects that resemble the fallout of a nuclear weapon.

It’s a deterrent to Israel’s nuclear arsenal without using nukes themselves.... because they’re still weeks away from acquiring their own, perpetually. 

---