Not an entirely unexpected outcome. Iran and Israel realized that they haven't fulfilled the status quo on bombing each other so they decided to catch up.
De-escalation, like escalation, has diplomatic rules to save face. If one side's strike is significant in perception (even if not in actuality), you can't just ignore it, because that's humiliating. You make a similar gesture which you can trump up yet the other side can downplay, by ensuring it looks scary yet is mostly harmless. Then, both sides call themselves the winner and go back to doing their normal stupid shit.
Right, bombing a consulate was definitely a step up in escalation from drone factories or whatever Israel usually bombs. Some Iran simps think that launching an enormous missile strike against Israel directly is a "restrained response" but I doubt Israel thinks that and is going to just allow Iran to claim that the "matter is concluded" on their terms.
Seems like Israel now blew up an airfield, my guess is that Iran won't like to "conclude matters" at that either.
E: Wait, I'm hearing that Iran is now pretending it was some internal sabotage rather than Israel bombing them? lmao.
Man this turn-based strategy war shit sucks bad. I wanna see Elite Eagle Warriors pouring out of those barracks, desperate villagers chopping down entire forests to sell the wood at their market at an 80% loss, fast castling, *anything*.
It's maddening. Turn 1, wait three days, publish the reaction, reaction to the reaction, and reaction to the reaction of the reaction. Turn 2, repeat ad nauseam. Until Iran decides that nothing happened, it was all just a misunderstanding and an episode of spontaneous combustion in Syria.
It's mentality's like this that imho got WW1 started over the assassination of an Austrian Arch-Duke. A cascade of consequences where backing down is seen as a defacto loss ... until the cost of pride proves to high afterward.
Interesting counter i must admit, there is perhaps a number of ways to debate over its significance to diplomatic relations and stances but its fair to say that appeasement can prove to be not an ideal policy either, so perhaps the more ideal approach lies somewhere in between.
Theres a book by Barbara Tuchman called "The march of Folly" which describes a number of historical events where leaders or nations acted really naive or unwise to the detriment of their interests. Though it does not take WW1 so much as an example the guiding impression of it can pretty easily be applied to it too. The point of the book is that more often than not world leaders and governments are pretty stupid and naive in such matters, for being just humans afterall either, but then with far more dire consequences as a result that mainly hit the population. They can apply guiding principles to their era that in retrospect turn out to be folly indeed. Like in WW1 there were these fanciful ideas of "armed peace" and "balance of power", supposedly every nation being strong enough to hurt another practically equally would guarantee peace in that time ... well we know what happened later. And do take in mind, it was part the heavy toll put on Germany in terms of war reparations and demobilization that greatly aided the rise of Hitler, another concept of some punishment thought to be just backfiring in the face of the victors. In contrast, the way the US dealt with japan and Germany post WW2 in retrospect proved wise, and that was a rather mild and thoughtful policy in retrospect that did a lot good. I dont know if i can easily turn that into a lesson for contemporary diplomatic policy, As in that policy of the US post WW2 might have been something that prevented another war down the line but it's not necessarily a diplomatic victory just for being able to secure future peace if already you did have to fight a war over it. Its almost more like that if you have some belligerent regime you better smack it down quick under the idea that war is inevitable but then present a very soft peace afterwards. But given the horrors of modern warfare, one certainly would hope that if nations have to come to blows that they rather opt to assassinate and remove dangerous regimes trough stealth and clinical operations than via the bloody forced method. heck, perhaps world leaders would be more de-incentivized to it all if they first people likely to loose their head over it would be they themselves.
That's not anyone else's explanation of what started WW1. The only major power attempting to deescalate that conflict was Britain. *Everyone* else thought there was more to be gained by a fast, decisive war than through negotiation.
I dont know if i can just accept that so easily on face value. Afaik there were more players within various nations diplomatic corps that thought it unwise, but in many cases suffered from serving under somewhat dimwitted monarchs who thought differently. I also wonder if the question can be raised that if your claim is true, did it truly require the assasination of an Austrian Arch duke to trigger it, rather than just opportunistically declaring war. Though perhaps the argument can be made that it required a catalyst of than nature for the system of alliances to trigger fully, idk, Had Russia made a move it might eitherway have been logical for France to follow out of a will to restore prestige and lost territory that came from loosing the Franco-Prusian war.. However, i was of the impression that in the case of Austria declaring war on Serbia it was principally for revenge and restoring prestige than that there would have been great territorial gains to be had from it.
The Russian intervention was less about Serbia itself and more about who would fill the void left by the collapsing Ottoman Empire. The Balkans were falling out of Istanbul's grasp and it was an open question of which empire would satelite the region. Additionally, Austria had a broken out in a bad case of Serb nationalists and felt some brutal suppression would solve it.
It's not that the leaders at the time were dumb, necessarily, they were being told by their generals that the war could be won in months. Remember that no-one expected the war to wind up on the scale it did. Based on their experiences in the post-Napoleonic conflicts everyone thought that the war would be fast and decisive, not realizing that the current state of technology was biased to the defender.
that isn't true, the Entente very much wanted de-escalation, Serbia agreed to all but one of Austrias intentionally outrageous demands.
both the Russians and the French knew they would be in a better position in a few years time when the Russian army had completed its modernisation program after the Russo-Japanese war.
meanwhile the German general staff pushed for the war as aggressively as possible since they feared that in a few years time the Russian mobilisation would be too large and rapid for the Schlieffen plan to work(of course they discovered that was already the case by 1914, though mismanagement on the Russian home-front eventually lead to Russian defeat anyways)
And yet Russia was the first of the powers (other than Austria and Serbia) to mobilize, did so prior to the Serbian rejection of the Ultimatum, and with no formal treaty requiring they defend Serbia, there by escalating the conflict from a regional to continemtal war. The Russian general staff did not think they were fully prepared for war with Germany, sure, but they decided to fight one anyway because of how important the Balkans were to them geopolitically.
I agree that no one was as enthusiastic about the war as the Prussians, but that doesn't mean they were opposed.
i mean, when has someoen do that inthe middle east? that's a policy of european standarts, in the region it's much easier to scale into full war, i mean oct 7th was also relatively small in porportion compared to the intifadas and prior wars...
but tbf israel and lebabon's hezbollah have been on this tip for tap since the start, but isn't like they can actually enter at north with the reinforcement of the border
It all comes down to what people want. When people want to avoid war, they respond with de-escalating strikes. When they want war, they escalate. And Netanyahu wanted war, it was an easy distraction from his domestic troubles.
i mean most nations want it, seriously annoys me when people look at "western" doctrine and apply it over the world
africa to is full of warlords, middle east is full of terror groups and institutions that often hold more power than entire nations
to say that people want descalation and peace is what is sought after is ridiculous honestly...
tbf you do have the india and china region that mostly stopped with the expansionist ideology so there's hope outhere
and eitherway that ends up implying that iran is somehow more peaceful and less expansionist, the only nationt that can possibly claim they are involved in more civil wars and foreign wars than russia and america...
if people trully believe israel is the warmonger and everyone else wants peace i really recommend at looking at the history of iran, iraq, afghanistan isis al-quaeda etc
When I said "when people want peace they deescalate" I meant people = leaders of government.
Netanyahu wanted war. Netanyahu is not all of Israel, but he's the part of Israel that gets to make that decision, by their system of governance.
Iran obviously has an agenda, and is using proxies for asymmetric warfare because it lacks the capacity to fight the militaries of countries it opposes 1:1. It does not want direct conflict with Israel because it's not ready (no Iranian armies in a position to attack Israel), and because it would lose. Saying Iran does not want war isn't implying it's peaceful, it's making a distinction between proxy conflicts and war between two states. As for expansionist, I don't know of any Iranian contested territory, so I think it's primarily interested in expanding its idealogical influence. Not actually expanding the territory of Iran.
Israel is unquestionably expansionist. It just took a huge chunk of Palestinian territory this month.
China did not stop being expansionist. They took Tibet in the last 100 years, and their One China policy is explicitly expansionist. They also have a public plan of facing the US in kinetic warfare in the next 10 years. So...
Pakistan would probably disagree that India is not expansionist.
Involvement in wars and expansionism is not the same thing. There are non-expansionist wars. These are wars where the winning nation simply exerts influence over the conquered state, but does not take the territory. Expansionism is territorial expansion.
It really annoys me when people argue at me for things I didn't say.
Iran has a military bigger than saudis, and a very comparable probably slighty stronger military compared to israel (worse weapons much bigger army)
the thing is that they learned from the nazis that starting a world war will drag in NATO, specially the americans, if europe and america were turned into a lake tomorrow iran would attack either saudi or israel lol
and i am curious what land has india taken, i mean they have been in a constant "terrorist throwing" into a few rivals but what land took from pakistan? and tbf russia also calls ukraine expansionist so eh
> Iran and Israel realized that they haven't fulfilled the status quo on bombing each other
I also always hate when my opponent is [ahead on MilOps](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle). Those VPs add up quickly!
Pakistan already did their part, extremely based!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Marg\_Bar\_Sarmachar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Marg_Bar_Sarmachar)
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's the magic of "either we get enough conventional supplies or nukes are gonna fly"
>[October, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4 Phantom II, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[5] their preparation was made easily detectable, likely as a signal to the United States.[6] Kissinger learned of this threatening nuclear escalation on the morning of 9 October. On that same day, Meir issued a personal appeal for military assistance, which European nations declined. Nixon, however, ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, to replace all of Israel's materiel losses.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass#Background)
Iran probably doesn't have nukes. They didn't say the end of the Obama administration when the testing was put into place, and it wouldn't have been until the next administration shredded it that they would have been able to resume work on their weapons program.
As far as the public knows, Iran is still working on refining uranium to a high enough concentration for use in a fission device. They haven't yet cracked the problem of fission detonations just yet. And even once they do, fission is "kids stuff" compared to what Israel likely has, so they'll need to further develop their nuclear weapons to create a fusion bomb.
And my guess? Israel goes ham on Iran's entire nuclear program - and potentially their entire leadership - before Iran even creates enough uranium of a high enough concentration to create a fission device. They won't even risk Iran becoming a nuclear power, because nuclear powers are permanent powers.
Or russia has given them some and the personell to launch them. Why would Iran have to develop anything when all of their friends against the west are nuclear armed?
Brother... The United States quite famously admits that they don't even know where all of their own fucking nukes are. 6 confirmed missing. That's the number they give the public. Russia is speculated to be "missing" at least 100. *I'm sure the U.S. has a tight lid on it.*
But hey. Why do it secretly? What's the point? Make headlines. Tell the whole fuckin world. Scream it from the roof tops. **Russia sells Iran nuclear weapons.** What are we gonna do? Fucking sanction them?
You're being very misleading about the six unrecovered American nukes. The first two are the only truly missing nukes, and were lost at unknown locations somewhere over the pacific ocean. The 2nd two are just unrecovered and their locations are known in US territories and are monitored. One is somewhere off the coast of Japan and is why we're no longer allowed to station our nukes there, and the last is in the wreck of the USS Scorpion, which is in a known and monitored location. To summarize, four of the six are accounted for, and the remaining two are somewhere at the bottom of the pacific ocean.
Biden is also just a genuinely pretty hardcore zionist, and has been his entire political career. He doesn't like the current governemnt in Israel, but not supporting them anyways, because after all they are still Israel, goes against his worldview.
The thing is, I don't think they actually have blackmail on Biden. I think he just likes Israel and doesn't realize what it's become under it's far right government.
And houthis (but you could make the case that Gaza, Houthis and hezbolla are Iran directed and Iran willingness to continue to fight until all gazans/ Lebanese / Yemeni die without themselves feeling any consequences is not great for Israel- so letting them have a taste of consequences by targeting missile sites and killing generals who directed Oct 7th makes some sense
Iran is certainly supplying these proxy forces, but it's a bit far to say they're Iran-directed. They each have their own beef with Israel and (for Yemen) the Saudis, so it's not like bombing Iran will resolve these conflicts
The Houthi movement in yemen ousted a Saudi-backed dictator, and they'll keep antagonizing Saudi and their allies for the foreseeable future because of it.
And of course the Palestinians have been fighting Israel ever since israelis colonized the territory and established an ethnostate, and continued colonization of the west bank, and blockade of Gaza, won't help things.
Israel has a lot of long-term problems and I don't think any kind of war with Iran will solve them.
It beyond sucks that Saudia Arabia was able to cozy up with the United States. They love oppressive theocratic dictatorships just as much as their neighbors. If I had to pick a middle eastern government to forcefully dismantle and wasn't allowed to say Iran, I'd pick Saudi Arabia.
With platforms that old, isn't it more about the upgrades and the armament than the airframe itself? Sure, vintage an F-14 and F-16 might not be that far apart in air-to-air capabilities, but a 2020s upgraded F-16 with the newest AMRAAM version could probably easily pop Iran's vintage F-14 before it really has a chance to engage.
Sorry to be credible here for a moment, but vintage F-14 and F-16 were miles apart in A2A. F-14 has very powerful radar, acompanied by long range missiles. It could fire upon the F-16 before it would even be picked up by F-16’s radar.
You\`re prolly talking about [AIM-23 Sedjil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile)) , a FOX-2 made from MIM-23 HAWK. Iran did later made FOX-3[ Fakour-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakour-90), a much proper replacement for AIM-54A Phoenix.
Sort of. Iran did receive AIM-54As alongside their F-14s (~150 if I remember right) and used them during the war. The missiles you mention were intended to fill the role of the AIM-54 as supplies dwindled and then to be a domestic replacement.
They reverse engineered HAWK airframe into a Phoenix wannabe called [Fakour-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakour-90) , its a development from experience gained from [AIM-23 Sedjil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile)). Still, an active seeker on HAWK airframe guided by AN/AWG-9 is potent enough to take out 4th gen fighters.
If Iran even have enough of flyable F-14As, that\`s it.
Now I want a video where Zelensky is asking for more ammo and the Cool Aid man burts through a wall carrying a few crates.
"I need more ammo to fire at Russia!"
#"OH YEAAH!"
It just passed out of committee. Now it has to go to the House floor, where it's open for amendments (I think they require a 2/3rd vote, so not too likely), and be voted on.
Then it goes to the Senate. I think the soonest the Senate will be able to vote is 2/26.
But hopefully the US is already shipping a big load of ammo. South Korea will lend us ammo to replenish our stocks so there's no reason to not send as much 155 as we can.
The key to friends is a common enemy
If the US declares war on the entire middle east, they will need to put aside their differences and work together against the invaders
This will either end in a middle east that tolerates each other, or the total end of humanity.
either way peace in the middle east
I think we could get the entire northeast to be just one giant star since state lines there are nearly non-existent... Shit's called "tri-state" up there for some reason.
Maybe then we can get our flag to look like [this](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/3/36/US_Flag.svg/revision/latest?cb=20190915112702)? And maybe then we can get our giant mecha robots from Japan with enough joint American/Japanese R&D... and then we can have Liberty Prime. 😎
On the one hand, it's probably politically detrimental for Israel especially in the current charged situation to further escalate things on a second front. On the other, it would be kinda nice if someone could teach Iran that its "for show attack" bullshit isn't really how international politics works and if you shoot someone with a rocket you better be willing to put your money where your mouth is no matter how intentionally ineffective your attack was. Shooting someone for fun and then expecting it to not be taken as an act of war isn't really a thing.
Bear in mind, and it seems to be being missed but Israel bombed Iran's consulate in Syria and killed 13 people including top Iranian generals...
Had Iran say... bombed Israel's consulate in another nearby country there would have been a far larger Israeli response.
Not saying Iran be innocent here but Israel did literally do that attack with no apparent need to, or gain, but just in a "Kill people we don't like, ignore any sovereignty"
>Not saying Iran be innocent here but Israel did literally do that attack with no apparent need to, or gain, but just in a "Kill people we don't like, ignore any sovereignty"
Iran isn't exactly just peacefully minding its own business though. It's not like Israel bombed, let's say, a Chinese consulate out of the blue, or something!
It's still a very questionable move but it's all part of an ongoing conflict.
Yes, but Israel carries a big stick. The issue I took was not so much with the unilateral fucking with other countries itself (I mean everyone does that, most of all the US), but with the assumption that they wouldn't get slapped back for it if they just went about it in an incompetent enough manner.
Countries like Israel or the US will punch someone in the face unprovoked, steal their lunch money, and then stand real close to their face saying: "Whatcha gonna do about it, bitch?" That's... I mean I don't wanna say that's "fine", but it is the way it is.
But countries like Iran will sneak up on someone's unattended duffel bag with all their inbred friends watching, take a big dump in it while pounding their chest and yelling what a big player they are, streaming the whole thing live on TikTok... and then afterwards when the cameras stopped rolling they'll sneak back in, scrape all the poop back out, take the bag to dry cleaning and secretly beg the owner not to be mad about it because it was just a prank bro. That's just not a very cash money attitude and sooner or later they're bound to fuck with someone who doesn't agree that they're too pathetic to retaliate against and kicks their fucking teeth in.
Point being: fuck with whomever you wanna fuck but make sure you're actually prepared to throw down.
They are basically at war for a while already. It’s just that Iran has a lot of proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas and Israel does not, so they need to do everything themselves.
What would israel do?
If you think about it and they didn't attack back, it shows other groups and proxy that they are scared of iran and can escalate further knowing that iran will back them and Israel would be scared to escalate against the proxies because iran gets involved
Except it really wouldn’t. Iran’s attack failed to inflict essentially any damage, so Israel can spin it into “Iran is so useless there isn’t even justification *to* retaliate”. That makes it clear that any actual damage to Israel will be met with force, while de-escalating the situation back to the level it was before Israel bombed the Embassy.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arthur "bomber" Harris:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They have sown the wind, and so they shall reap the whirlwind.
I guess its time for a remix thx Iran
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why? This is a pro-military, pro-defense subreddit... Biden seems to be a 'dove' in my opinion and Netanyahu is the 'hawk'. Yes, the online, populist right sucks but overall, defense, military Enjoyers do lean conservative.
I just hope both sides have fun
I just hope the Defense Contractors have fun.
The NCD way
not really, IRAN as the real war criminals they are attacked on a saturday, made everyone do extra time
I hope they at least got paid time and a half.
My portfolio is ready.
[Iran in the post game lobby](https://youtu.be/F2FuOb8cCbg)
Come down Tehran! Ask for Ali K! I'll come out my house and get fucking sword missile'd!
never bring a sword to a international conflict tho
Thank you for that video
The posh voice saying, "No, you won't kill me. Because I'm a gangster" is just too hilarious.
Pretty much sums up the emotion they had when they made the last bit of their "This matter is concluded" statement
Yeah I mean Iran is basically a less shit version of Smethwick
Dancing in the desert, blowing up the sunshine
The Russell Westbrook mindset
Not an entirely unexpected outcome. Iran and Israel realized that they haven't fulfilled the status quo on bombing each other so they decided to catch up.
De-escalation, like escalation, has diplomatic rules to save face. If one side's strike is significant in perception (even if not in actuality), you can't just ignore it, because that's humiliating. You make a similar gesture which you can trump up yet the other side can downplay, by ensuring it looks scary yet is mostly harmless. Then, both sides call themselves the winner and go back to doing their normal stupid shit.
Right, bombing a consulate was definitely a step up in escalation from drone factories or whatever Israel usually bombs. Some Iran simps think that launching an enormous missile strike against Israel directly is a "restrained response" but I doubt Israel thinks that and is going to just allow Iran to claim that the "matter is concluded" on their terms. Seems like Israel now blew up an airfield, my guess is that Iran won't like to "conclude matters" at that either. E: Wait, I'm hearing that Iran is now pretending it was some internal sabotage rather than Israel bombing them? lmao.
Man this turn-based strategy war shit sucks bad. I wanna see Elite Eagle Warriors pouring out of those barracks, desperate villagers chopping down entire forests to sell the wood at their market at an 80% loss, fast castling, *anything*.
It's maddening. Turn 1, wait three days, publish the reaction, reaction to the reaction, and reaction to the reaction of the reaction. Turn 2, repeat ad nauseam. Until Iran decides that nothing happened, it was all just a misunderstanding and an episode of spontaneous combustion in Syria.
It was a Russian with a cigarette the entire time!
Eagle Warriors belong in the Central Americas, don't they?
I mean yeah but anyone who knows the right guy can hire 'em for cheap.
That was my impression as well
It's mentality's like this that imho got WW1 started over the assassination of an Austrian Arch-Duke. A cascade of consequences where backing down is seen as a defacto loss ... until the cost of pride proves to high afterward.
Sure, but then the opposite happened leading to WW2...
Interesting counter i must admit, there is perhaps a number of ways to debate over its significance to diplomatic relations and stances but its fair to say that appeasement can prove to be not an ideal policy either, so perhaps the more ideal approach lies somewhere in between. Theres a book by Barbara Tuchman called "The march of Folly" which describes a number of historical events where leaders or nations acted really naive or unwise to the detriment of their interests. Though it does not take WW1 so much as an example the guiding impression of it can pretty easily be applied to it too. The point of the book is that more often than not world leaders and governments are pretty stupid and naive in such matters, for being just humans afterall either, but then with far more dire consequences as a result that mainly hit the population. They can apply guiding principles to their era that in retrospect turn out to be folly indeed. Like in WW1 there were these fanciful ideas of "armed peace" and "balance of power", supposedly every nation being strong enough to hurt another practically equally would guarantee peace in that time ... well we know what happened later. And do take in mind, it was part the heavy toll put on Germany in terms of war reparations and demobilization that greatly aided the rise of Hitler, another concept of some punishment thought to be just backfiring in the face of the victors. In contrast, the way the US dealt with japan and Germany post WW2 in retrospect proved wise, and that was a rather mild and thoughtful policy in retrospect that did a lot good. I dont know if i can easily turn that into a lesson for contemporary diplomatic policy, As in that policy of the US post WW2 might have been something that prevented another war down the line but it's not necessarily a diplomatic victory just for being able to secure future peace if already you did have to fight a war over it. Its almost more like that if you have some belligerent regime you better smack it down quick under the idea that war is inevitable but then present a very soft peace afterwards. But given the horrors of modern warfare, one certainly would hope that if nations have to come to blows that they rather opt to assassinate and remove dangerous regimes trough stealth and clinical operations than via the bloody forced method. heck, perhaps world leaders would be more de-incentivized to it all if they first people likely to loose their head over it would be they themselves.
That's not anyone else's explanation of what started WW1. The only major power attempting to deescalate that conflict was Britain. *Everyone* else thought there was more to be gained by a fast, decisive war than through negotiation.
I dont know if i can just accept that so easily on face value. Afaik there were more players within various nations diplomatic corps that thought it unwise, but in many cases suffered from serving under somewhat dimwitted monarchs who thought differently. I also wonder if the question can be raised that if your claim is true, did it truly require the assasination of an Austrian Arch duke to trigger it, rather than just opportunistically declaring war. Though perhaps the argument can be made that it required a catalyst of than nature for the system of alliances to trigger fully, idk, Had Russia made a move it might eitherway have been logical for France to follow out of a will to restore prestige and lost territory that came from loosing the Franco-Prusian war.. However, i was of the impression that in the case of Austria declaring war on Serbia it was principally for revenge and restoring prestige than that there would have been great territorial gains to be had from it.
The Russian intervention was less about Serbia itself and more about who would fill the void left by the collapsing Ottoman Empire. The Balkans were falling out of Istanbul's grasp and it was an open question of which empire would satelite the region. Additionally, Austria had a broken out in a bad case of Serb nationalists and felt some brutal suppression would solve it. It's not that the leaders at the time were dumb, necessarily, they were being told by their generals that the war could be won in months. Remember that no-one expected the war to wind up on the scale it did. Based on their experiences in the post-Napoleonic conflicts everyone thought that the war would be fast and decisive, not realizing that the current state of technology was biased to the defender.
that isn't true, the Entente very much wanted de-escalation, Serbia agreed to all but one of Austrias intentionally outrageous demands. both the Russians and the French knew they would be in a better position in a few years time when the Russian army had completed its modernisation program after the Russo-Japanese war. meanwhile the German general staff pushed for the war as aggressively as possible since they feared that in a few years time the Russian mobilisation would be too large and rapid for the Schlieffen plan to work(of course they discovered that was already the case by 1914, though mismanagement on the Russian home-front eventually lead to Russian defeat anyways)
And yet Russia was the first of the powers (other than Austria and Serbia) to mobilize, did so prior to the Serbian rejection of the Ultimatum, and with no formal treaty requiring they defend Serbia, there by escalating the conflict from a regional to continemtal war. The Russian general staff did not think they were fully prepared for war with Germany, sure, but they decided to fight one anyway because of how important the Balkans were to them geopolitically. I agree that no one was as enthusiastic about the war as the Prussians, but that doesn't mean they were opposed.
i mean, when has someoen do that inthe middle east? that's a policy of european standarts, in the region it's much easier to scale into full war, i mean oct 7th was also relatively small in porportion compared to the intifadas and prior wars... but tbf israel and lebabon's hezbollah have been on this tip for tap since the start, but isn't like they can actually enter at north with the reinforcement of the border
It all comes down to what people want. When people want to avoid war, they respond with de-escalating strikes. When they want war, they escalate. And Netanyahu wanted war, it was an easy distraction from his domestic troubles.
i mean most nations want it, seriously annoys me when people look at "western" doctrine and apply it over the world africa to is full of warlords, middle east is full of terror groups and institutions that often hold more power than entire nations to say that people want descalation and peace is what is sought after is ridiculous honestly... tbf you do have the india and china region that mostly stopped with the expansionist ideology so there's hope outhere and eitherway that ends up implying that iran is somehow more peaceful and less expansionist, the only nationt that can possibly claim they are involved in more civil wars and foreign wars than russia and america... if people trully believe israel is the warmonger and everyone else wants peace i really recommend at looking at the history of iran, iraq, afghanistan isis al-quaeda etc
When I said "when people want peace they deescalate" I meant people = leaders of government. Netanyahu wanted war. Netanyahu is not all of Israel, but he's the part of Israel that gets to make that decision, by their system of governance. Iran obviously has an agenda, and is using proxies for asymmetric warfare because it lacks the capacity to fight the militaries of countries it opposes 1:1. It does not want direct conflict with Israel because it's not ready (no Iranian armies in a position to attack Israel), and because it would lose. Saying Iran does not want war isn't implying it's peaceful, it's making a distinction between proxy conflicts and war between two states. As for expansionist, I don't know of any Iranian contested territory, so I think it's primarily interested in expanding its idealogical influence. Not actually expanding the territory of Iran. Israel is unquestionably expansionist. It just took a huge chunk of Palestinian territory this month. China did not stop being expansionist. They took Tibet in the last 100 years, and their One China policy is explicitly expansionist. They also have a public plan of facing the US in kinetic warfare in the next 10 years. So... Pakistan would probably disagree that India is not expansionist. Involvement in wars and expansionism is not the same thing. There are non-expansionist wars. These are wars where the winning nation simply exerts influence over the conquered state, but does not take the territory. Expansionism is territorial expansion. It really annoys me when people argue at me for things I didn't say.
Iran has a military bigger than saudis, and a very comparable probably slighty stronger military compared to israel (worse weapons much bigger army) the thing is that they learned from the nazis that starting a world war will drag in NATO, specially the americans, if europe and america were turned into a lake tomorrow iran would attack either saudi or israel lol and i am curious what land has india taken, i mean they have been in a constant "terrorist throwing" into a few rivals but what land took from pakistan? and tbf russia also calls ukraine expansionist so eh
This one has the Logic.
This all plays great for RTX. We need the world to burn if we wanna get good at war, without doing it ourselves!
5090 gonna bomb
Ray-traced nuclear explosions will look sick.
Please guys start the war after the 5090 drops. I need to upgrade 🙏
*overstressed engineers on already overdue projects sweating profusely*
We must not allow a "bombing each other" Gap.
> Iran and Israel realized that they haven't fulfilled the status quo on bombing each other I also always hate when my opponent is [ahead on MilOps](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle). Those VPs add up quickly!
When does Pakistan and Afghanistan join in on the bombing of Iran?
Soon as they finish bombing themselves
and each other, don't forget that
Pakistan already did their part, extremely based! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Marg\_Bar\_Sarmachar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Marg_Bar_Sarmachar)
why do these guys can have fun but when i throw IED into my neighbours' house i am called a "lunatic" and "crazy guy"
because they're already known to be crazy lunatics
welp but that strategy didn't stop me from passing the night in jail
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meanwhile in Israel: "I wonder how many different fronts I can open at the same time"
Netanyahu spotted playing HOI4 as Italy??
But how will this affect Lebron's legacy?
Is Tom Brady the GOAT?
The answer is "As many as I feel like since I apparently have Epstein-tier blackmail on the US"
That's the magic of "either we get enough conventional supplies or nukes are gonna fly" >[October, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4 Phantom II, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[5] their preparation was made easily detectable, likely as a signal to the United States.[6] Kissinger learned of this threatening nuclear escalation on the morning of 9 October. On that same day, Meir issued a personal appeal for military assistance, which European nations declined. Nixon, however, ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, to replace all of Israel's materiel losses.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass#Background)
Don't think the same game theory equilibrium holds when Israel's adversary is also (probably) nuclear armed
Iran probably doesn't have nukes. They didn't say the end of the Obama administration when the testing was put into place, and it wouldn't have been until the next administration shredded it that they would have been able to resume work on their weapons program. As far as the public knows, Iran is still working on refining uranium to a high enough concentration for use in a fission device. They haven't yet cracked the problem of fission detonations just yet. And even once they do, fission is "kids stuff" compared to what Israel likely has, so they'll need to further develop their nuclear weapons to create a fusion bomb. And my guess? Israel goes ham on Iran's entire nuclear program - and potentially their entire leadership - before Iran even creates enough uranium of a high enough concentration to create a fission device. They won't even risk Iran becoming a nuclear power, because nuclear powers are permanent powers.
Or russia has given them some and the personell to launch them. Why would Iran have to develop anything when all of their friends against the west are nuclear armed?
It would be next to impossible for them to do this secretly. The US makes it their business to know where all of Russia's nukes are.
Brother... The United States quite famously admits that they don't even know where all of their own fucking nukes are. 6 confirmed missing. That's the number they give the public. Russia is speculated to be "missing" at least 100. *I'm sure the U.S. has a tight lid on it.* But hey. Why do it secretly? What's the point? Make headlines. Tell the whole fuckin world. Scream it from the roof tops. **Russia sells Iran nuclear weapons.** What are we gonna do? Fucking sanction them?
You're being very misleading about the six unrecovered American nukes. The first two are the only truly missing nukes, and were lost at unknown locations somewhere over the pacific ocean. The 2nd two are just unrecovered and their locations are known in US territories and are monitored. One is somewhere off the coast of Japan and is why we're no longer allowed to station our nukes there, and the last is in the wreck of the USS Scorpion, which is in a known and monitored location. To summarize, four of the six are accounted for, and the remaining two are somewhere at the bottom of the pacific ocean.
There's no launch site.
Nuclear weapons on mobile launchers... So fifty years ago.
Ah, the "Give me military arms or I'm going to turn everywhere between the Golan Heights and the Sinai into glass" strategy: a Tel Aviv favourite.
Here's an idea: Stand back and let it happen.
The blackmail tape name? "gay jew blows nuke load in the sandpit"
Biden is also just a genuinely pretty hardcore zionist, and has been his entire political career. He doesn't like the current governemnt in Israel, but not supporting them anyways, because after all they are still Israel, goes against his worldview.
The thing is, I don't think they actually have blackmail on Biden. I think he just likes Israel and doesn't realize what it's become under it's far right government.
Apparently at least two.
Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran now
And houthis (but you could make the case that Gaza, Houthis and hezbolla are Iran directed and Iran willingness to continue to fight until all gazans/ Lebanese / Yemeni die without themselves feeling any consequences is not great for Israel- so letting them have a taste of consequences by targeting missile sites and killing generals who directed Oct 7th makes some sense
Iran is certainly supplying these proxy forces, but it's a bit far to say they're Iran-directed. They each have their own beef with Israel and (for Yemen) the Saudis, so it's not like bombing Iran will resolve these conflicts The Houthi movement in yemen ousted a Saudi-backed dictator, and they'll keep antagonizing Saudi and their allies for the foreseeable future because of it. And of course the Palestinians have been fighting Israel ever since israelis colonized the territory and established an ethnostate, and continued colonization of the west bank, and blockade of Gaza, won't help things. Israel has a lot of long-term problems and I don't think any kind of war with Iran will solve them.
It beyond sucks that Saudia Arabia was able to cozy up with the United States. They love oppressive theocratic dictatorships just as much as their neighbors. If I had to pick a middle eastern government to forcefully dismantle and wasn't allowed to say Iran, I'd pick Saudi Arabia.
Right now they look like they want to be bombed by the United States.
BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN
[put me in coach](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edi2Wkr5YI)
TIE ME TO A MISSLE AND FIRE ME AT TEHRAN
lol went back to watch the original if that guy is put on a missile to Tel-aviv it wont even leave Tehran YEAH DO IT
BOMB IRRAAAAAAAN
Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks Tell the Ayatollah, "Gonna put you in a box!"
*"Khomeini's in a box!"*
[Na-na, na-na, na-na, na-na-na-na naaa](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishTheMonarchy/comments/xbqrxn/lizzys_in_a_box/)
Damn I always heard went to hamas
BOMB BOMB BOMB
\*Happy McCain noises*
I miss that guy a lot. Lots of respect for him, especially now in this insane era.
Merkava femboy enjoyer? Bro must’ve loved my post from yesterday
I did now 😏
lmfaooo
IRAN??? IRAN SO FAR AWAAAAYYYY..
Put me in Joe, I'm ready to bomb.. *clap*-*clap* Iran, look at me, I can beeee.. a battlefield
Everybody, glhf and may the best fanatics win.
So I want Israel to take it to Iran heavy, it would be nice. That being said: An Iranian F-14 somehow taking out an F-16 would be something else.
Iran can't do that, only Tom Cruise can do that.
In reality, an F-14 takes an AMRAAM from an F-35I on the face.
what if they try spinning?
That's always a good trick. Especially when you have a 12-year-old piloting.
That's a good trick!
I saw a documentary about an f-14 taking down two fifth gen fighters
To be fair that was piloted by an American who’d already shot down three MiG’s flying F-14’s anyway
Three F-5s, you mean.
if a F-14 shoots down an israeli F 35 NCD needs to just close Nothing can top that
*snorts hopium*
Our own /r/thankeobama moment.
Thanke
With platforms that old, isn't it more about the upgrades and the armament than the airframe itself? Sure, vintage an F-14 and F-16 might not be that far apart in air-to-air capabilities, but a 2020s upgraded F-16 with the newest AMRAAM version could probably easily pop Iran's vintage F-14 before it really has a chance to engage.
Sorry to be credible here for a moment, but vintage F-14 and F-16 were miles apart in A2A. F-14 has very powerful radar, acompanied by long range missiles. It could fire upon the F-16 before it would even be picked up by F-16’s radar.
F-14 is redonculously OP for the time era. Gotta keep those carriers safe. F-16 was redonculously affordable.
Did Iran ever have any Phoenix missiles? I'm guessing not.
They did, and used them to good effect against Iraqi MiGs in the Iran-Iraq War.
You\`re prolly talking about [AIM-23 Sedjil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile)) , a FOX-2 made from MIM-23 HAWK. Iran did later made FOX-3[ Fakour-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakour-90), a much proper replacement for AIM-54A Phoenix.
Sort of. Iran did receive AIM-54As alongside their F-14s (~150 if I remember right) and used them during the war. The missiles you mention were intended to fill the role of the AIM-54 as supplies dwindled and then to be a domestic replacement.
They reverse engineered HAWK airframe into a Phoenix wannabe called [Fakour-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakour-90) , its a development from experience gained from [AIM-23 Sedjil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile)). Still, an active seeker on HAWK airframe guided by AN/AWG-9 is potent enough to take out 4th gen fighters. If Iran even have enough of flyable F-14As, that\`s it.
Wonder if they still have some aim54s
Everyone acting so dramatic, but a few hundred missiles in the middle east is like an email for us. They haven't switched to carrier pigeons yet.
Alexa play “Bomb Iran (1980)”
They turned off the Youtube comments.
Lol
why
Bro my Alexa doesn’t recognize that song, that cunt I swear, I have to spell the song letter by letter, why does voice recognition still suck in 2024
Can we get Israeli version of Desert Storm bois?! Is it noncredible enough?
Zelensky might be kicking empty ammo can for sure
So does that mean Zelenskyy is gonna make a video yelling at Biden and the EU for not getting his ammo like Pringles Man?
Oh god Pringles' ghost is trying to possess Zelensky! Call an exorcist!
Somehow Pringles returned.
BIDEN! URSULA! WHERE IS THE FUCKING AMMUNITION!?
Ursula? The antagonist from the little mermaid?
Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission
Von der Leyen? You know, the head of the european commission.
Van Der Lynn? As In Dutch Van Der Lynn from Red Dead 2?
I guess.
Naw I’m just fucking with ya lol
Now I want a video where Zelensky is asking for more ammo and the Cool Aid man burts through a wall carrying a few crates. "I need more ammo to fire at Russia!" #"OH YEAAH!"
God I hope so.
Didnt a new bill in the US just pass giving Ukraine some missiles and atacams and shid
Not yet, it's going to be voted on tomorrow but the trust is already broken. If it passes it'll be a miracle.
This aged well
Well I'm glad it turned out like this, honestly.
We are still waiting for Mike Johnson to fuck off. Super secret confidential note said we might get some aid passed by the end of the month.
It just passed out of committee. Now it has to go to the House floor, where it's open for amendments (I think they require a 2/3rd vote, so not too likely), and be voted on. Then it goes to the Senate. I think the soonest the Senate will be able to vote is 2/26. But hopefully the US is already shipping a big load of ammo. South Korea will lend us ammo to replenish our stocks so there's no reason to not send as much 155 as we can.
The key to friends is a common enemy If the US declares war on the entire middle east, they will need to put aside their differences and work together against the invaders This will either end in a middle east that tolerates each other, or the total end of humanity. either way peace in the middle east
How many stars is that, I think we're missing a few.
It's a bunch of states represented by stars, Jerry. How many could there be. What, like 10? Just put a bunch of stars. No one is going to count.
I think we could get the entire northeast to be just one giant star since state lines there are nearly non-existent... Shit's called "tri-state" up there for some reason. Maybe then we can get our flag to look like [this](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/3/36/US_Flag.svg/revision/latest?cb=20190915112702)? And maybe then we can get our giant mecha robots from Japan with enough joint American/Japanese R&D... and then we can have Liberty Prime. 😎
now kisth
as long as the US doesn’t get involved, I don’t really care. However, I think it’s a mistake on Israel’s part.
On the one hand, it's probably politically detrimental for Israel especially in the current charged situation to further escalate things on a second front. On the other, it would be kinda nice if someone could teach Iran that its "for show attack" bullshit isn't really how international politics works and if you shoot someone with a rocket you better be willing to put your money where your mouth is no matter how intentionally ineffective your attack was. Shooting someone for fun and then expecting it to not be taken as an act of war isn't really a thing.
Iran: Its just a prank, bro, chill! Israel to the rest of the ME: Ha-ha-ha don'tcometoschooltomorrow
Bear in mind, and it seems to be being missed but Israel bombed Iran's consulate in Syria and killed 13 people including top Iranian generals... Had Iran say... bombed Israel's consulate in another nearby country there would have been a far larger Israeli response. Not saying Iran be innocent here but Israel did literally do that attack with no apparent need to, or gain, but just in a "Kill people we don't like, ignore any sovereignty"
>Not saying Iran be innocent here but Israel did literally do that attack with no apparent need to, or gain, but just in a "Kill people we don't like, ignore any sovereignty" Iran isn't exactly just peacefully minding its own business though. It's not like Israel bombed, let's say, a Chinese consulate out of the blue, or something! It's still a very questionable move but it's all part of an ongoing conflict.
Yes, but Israel carries a big stick. The issue I took was not so much with the unilateral fucking with other countries itself (I mean everyone does that, most of all the US), but with the assumption that they wouldn't get slapped back for it if they just went about it in an incompetent enough manner. Countries like Israel or the US will punch someone in the face unprovoked, steal their lunch money, and then stand real close to their face saying: "Whatcha gonna do about it, bitch?" That's... I mean I don't wanna say that's "fine", but it is the way it is. But countries like Iran will sneak up on someone's unattended duffel bag with all their inbred friends watching, take a big dump in it while pounding their chest and yelling what a big player they are, streaming the whole thing live on TikTok... and then afterwards when the cameras stopped rolling they'll sneak back in, scrape all the poop back out, take the bag to dry cleaning and secretly beg the owner not to be mad about it because it was just a prank bro. That's just not a very cash money attitude and sooner or later they're bound to fuck with someone who doesn't agree that they're too pathetic to retaliate against and kicks their fucking teeth in. Point being: fuck with whomever you wanna fuck but make sure you're actually prepared to throw down.
It was the guy who planned Oct 7. He was a dead man walking. And please with the sanctity of Iranian embassies. Like what a joke.
They are basically at war for a while already. It’s just that Iran has a lot of proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas and Israel does not, so they need to do everything themselves.
What would israel do? If you think about it and they didn't attack back, it shows other groups and proxy that they are scared of iran and can escalate further knowing that iran will back them and Israel would be scared to escalate against the proxies because iran gets involved
Except it really wouldn’t. Iran’s attack failed to inflict essentially any damage, so Israel can spin it into “Iran is so useless there isn’t even justification *to* retaliate”. That makes it clear that any actual damage to Israel will be met with force, while de-escalating the situation back to the level it was before Israel bombed the Embassy.
It’s the ayatollah’s birthday today right?
Once again I learn something breaking from NCD.
Isfahan is half the war
Everybody knows Iran won't do shit so why not bomb them?
49...50...51. There are 51 stars on that flag. HMMMMMMMMMM...
The state of Freedom
Pretty reasonable, Iran should get their own US if they think it is unfair.
Iran is the USA of the Muslim world (except they suck)
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But Iran has US at home! (It's Russia btw)
Me who puts all my spare money into defense contractors: 😈
Operation Fuck Around and Find Out
Arthur "bomber" Harris: The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They have sown the wind, and so they shall reap the whirlwind. I guess its time for a remix thx Iran
Iran: “Hey man, this is just. A self defense (UN Article 15) Response to you bombing our embassy, okay? Israel: MORE BLOOD!!!!
Can we go back to the good old times where Iran and Israel cooperated for the nuclear strike during the Iran-Iraq war?
More air kills for the F-16 F-15 and F-35 coming soon TM
Based Israel. Good hunting!
And wishing the Iranian people safty 🇮🇱💚🦁
Promise???
[Mood for WWIII](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6miHkrMHrigJQFLdOGQ59I?si=VxfVHtp7SF-BLRPaYIiyeA&pi=u-y63MeOgoTbut)
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a time to be alive.
dog disagreeable ripe upbeat plough point carpenter connect grey weather *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never understood the logic of bombing a country right after they threatened to use a nuclear bomb against you if you attack them.
based
The misuse of this meme bothers me to no end.
Biden = cuck Netanyahu = Alpha male with BDE
i refute you with [lol](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urspubn1pmw) and [lol](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwYVKptqH_o&t=1s)
That was then and this is 30+ years later
NETANYAHU IS GOING 9/11 RESPONSE EXTREME. biden is based as fuck not budging on ukraine aid trashing biden is ass geopolitically
Congratulations, it's the worst comment on the post.
Why? This is a pro-military, pro-defense subreddit... Biden seems to be a 'dove' in my opinion and Netanyahu is the 'hawk'. Yes, the online, populist right sucks but overall, defense, military Enjoyers do lean conservative.
ah yes, de escalation