Mmmmm, yes, amphibious landings and assaults are traditionally known for their very low casualty rates 
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
12
@TrevorGoodchild Isnt Iran like one giant mountain range? Unless zog wants to sacrifice a few million White man(they do) its retarded idea.
Catgirl Kulak wrote an interesting strategy document, how to invade Iran in the least horrible way possible...
Grab the coastline as fast as possible and then take the edge of the mountains so that the Iranians need to attack through mountains, and transporting things through mountains is hard.
He also pointed out that this is almost certainly NOT what the US is going to do because they're dumb, and they'll be attracted to ideas that cannot possibly work but look really good on paper.
Grab the coastline as fast as possible and then take the edge of the mountains so that the Iranians need to attack through mountains, and transporting things through mountains is hard.
He also pointed out that this is almost certainly NOT what the US is going to do because they're dumb, and they'll be attracted to ideas that cannot possibly work but look really good on paper.
I fail to understand how the military that can't occupy it's own bases thinks it's going to occupy a beachhead in Iran.
It's not strictly impossible... Those bases were for two things:
1. Put down and possible revolt against the (installed) royal family
2. Be a Big Swinging Dick vis-a-vis USSR "look how many bases we have"
They were NOT meant to be used in a serious war - if that makes any sense.
That said, I think the US will goof up an invasion for other reasons.
1. Put down and possible revolt against the (installed) royal family
2. Be a Big Swinging Dick vis-a-vis USSR "look how many bases we have"
They were NOT meant to be used in a serious war - if that makes any sense.
That said, I think the US will goof up an invasion for other reasons.
Maybe not impossible, but to me it looks like a logistical nightmare with no strategic upside.
They'd be under constant siege with an extremely tenuous supply line.
>US will goof up an invasion for other reasons.
Yeah, I'm guessing the "Saving Private Hernandez" script is in the works.
> with no strategic upside
The problem is they're up against the wall regarding the petrodollar. As long as Iran controls its coasts, it can control the strait, and as long as the strait is closed, the GCC is closed, and without the Saudi money, the whole bullshit tech bubble is over - and at this point, that's basically The Financial System.
The problem is they're up against the wall regarding the petrodollar. As long as Iran controls its coasts, it can control the strait, and as long as the strait is closed, the GCC is closed, and without the Saudi money, the whole bullshit tech bubble is over - and at this point, that's basically The Financial System.
@cjd @GoodComradeLolaDaviet
Yes.
If the Amerifats can outlast the Persians then the AI bubble is staying for the foreseeable future.
Yes.
If the Amerifats can outlast the Persians then the AI bubble is staying for the foreseeable future.
Yeahhhh, but lets be serious here.
Somewhere in the Pentagon, someone is prompting ChatGPT to write the battle plan because he's in a hurry to get it submitted so he can make it to his Grindr date.
> make it like D-Day and in the end we have to win
The US is not on a path to "winning"
Somewhere in the Pentagon, someone is prompting ChatGPT to write the battle plan because he's in a hurry to get it submitted so he can make it to his Grindr date.
> make it like D-Day and in the end we have to win
The US is not on a path to "winning"
@cjd @GoodComradeLolaDaviet
>Pentagon
>Grindr date
kek
>not on a path to "winning"
True, but I highly doubt that's the goal. Everything just has to suck long enough until the word "Petro-Yuan" is erased from memory. The reward is boomer pensions/401k's are safe. The cost is American hegemony dying a little sooner.
TL;DR, the Americans are doing a heckin brinkmanship (many such cases)
>Pentagon
>Grindr date
kek
>not on a path to "winning"
True, but I highly doubt that's the goal. Everything just has to suck long enough until the word "Petro-Yuan" is erased from memory. The reward is boomer pensions/401k's are safe. The cost is American hegemony dying a little sooner.
TL;DR, the Americans are doing a heckin brinkmanship (many such cases)
> The reward is boomer pensions/401k's are safe
But they are not... Even as we speak, the strait is closed, KSA has no income, so the market is getting no cash infusions. They're currently able to keep it covered with Enron Accounting, but this is not going to hold out forever, they NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED that strait re-opened or else it's 2008 all over again.
But they are not... Even as we speak, the strait is closed, KSA has no income, so the market is getting no cash infusions. They're currently able to keep it covered with Enron Accounting, but this is not going to hold out forever, they NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED that strait re-opened or else it's 2008 all over again.
When the dollar loses hegemony, we get hyper inflation in the states. Those 401k's won't be worth a loaf of bread here.
This has become existential for all major players involved.
The theory of victory for Iran is to survive long enough for the empire to break it's own back.
The theory of victory for the empire is, I have no fucking clue at this point.
Everyone can see that it's naked.
Israel will probably go nuclear eventually, but to what end?
Replies
1
> The theory of victory for Iran is to survive long enough for the empire to break it's own back.
It doesn't even have to "survive" in the sense of continuing to have a single cohesive government that controls the territory.
Even if there are 20 or 30 regional commanders all loosely collaborating with one another around "what the Ayatollah would have wanted", that strait isn't gonna open any time soon. In fact it's even worse, because NOBODY has enough power/respect to be able to call a ceasefire. If you say "hey why don't we stop fighting" the next guy is gonna say "they give you 7k to say that?", and you look like a jackass.
> This has become existential for all major players involved.
Yes.
> Israel will probably go nuclear eventually, but to what end?
Yes. It will just legitimize use of nuclear weapons - which are pretty useless against a giant mountain hellscape, but would be VERY effective against Israel...
It doesn't even have to "survive" in the sense of continuing to have a single cohesive government that controls the territory.
Even if there are 20 or 30 regional commanders all loosely collaborating with one another around "what the Ayatollah would have wanted", that strait isn't gonna open any time soon. In fact it's even worse, because NOBODY has enough power/respect to be able to call a ceasefire. If you say "hey why don't we stop fighting" the next guy is gonna say "they give you 7k to say that?", and you look like a jackass.
> This has become existential for all major players involved.
Yes.
> Israel will probably go nuclear eventually, but to what end?
Yes. It will just legitimize use of nuclear weapons - which are pretty useless against a giant mountain hellscape, but would be VERY effective against Israel...