No. We can keep bombing them every few years and set them back. Let them push the rock up the hill, then go in and knock it back down. Ad infinitum? No clue? Until their own people rise up and take the reins of power? Maybe. I've been asking these questions for as long as the war has been going on. I don't have the answers and I don't think anyone does.Will they? I don't know. Will they keep trying? Most definitely. Even if they sign a piece of paper that says they won't.This regime is not giving in to Trump’s demands.If that happens the war was a massive failure. Let’s hope it doesn’t.
It's already a failure. Cut our losses now and get out before the hole gets deeper.
And that would be beyond dumb. I'll go with they're going to continue to pressuring Iran until they give into their demands. They'll pull back and try to jawbone down oil prices when they trend too high and bomb them when needed. Iran is f#cked.
You think Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon then?
If they're not going to give into Trump's demands and they're going to keep trying, isn't the answer yes?
OK. That's an answer. I'm not sure they would agree to that, or at least abide by anything that we would think is acceptable.What do you think is a better option? More bombings? Boots on the ground invasion?If that happens the war was a massive failure. Let’s hope it doesn’t.
Keep all economic sanctions on and the blockade until they agree to at least the pre-war status quo, then negotiate the nuclear restrictions from there.
Anything less than open strait with no illegal tolls and no further attacks on US bases and partner nations is acceptable.
And I'm pretty sure that would turn the country over to the Dems in 26 and 28.
A unified home front would help negotiations .Around what would you have us unify? Specifics please.
@dbmhoosier Can someone explain this to me? reader's digest answer. we spend a trillion a year. every year. on the military. and we get into one little skirmish with a country that spends what 2 percent of what we spend, and we're already out of weapons? why? how? what are we doing with all the money. i know the pentagon has no idea. have they gotten a clean audit yet?
No idea but I remember Rumsfeld saying the Pentagon couldn't account for $3 Trillion right before 9/11.
The same thing we have talked about for decades: No nukes. If the Dems would publicly affirm that objective, and then negotiate with Trump about how to accomplish that, this mess could end.
@bar-down I had a buddy who insisted we learned the wrong lesson from WW2. The allies win because they could mass produce, us tanks and planes, the Soviet's men.
Germany tried for better, jet and Tiger tanks for example. Even if a Tiger could destroy 3 Sherman's we had 20 per Tiger. Even if a 262 was better than a Mustang, it wasn't better than the number we had.
And the Mustangs and Sherman's did not require highly specialized experts to repair them.
Iran uses ancient missiles and new, decent drones. We rely on precision weapons that cost oh so much more.
Our WW2 motto was "steel, not blood." The problem today is that it isn't just steel but hugely expensive tech.
Now ask a question, who profits by building hugely expensive weapons systems?
Sometimes the cost to have "the best" is too high.
@arthur-dent yeah interesting marv. that helps. as i just read boeing is getting some weapons contract here.
“the Islamic Republic is exerting political pressure that it can dial up on the US leader ahead of a national election.”
100% agree with this. If you don’t understand the political pressure is hard-wired from the Mullahs to US protesters, you are hopelessly naive. The price if an open society.
@bar-down I had a buddy who insisted we learned the wrong lesson from WW2. The allies win because they could mass produce, us tanks and planes, the Soviet's men.
Germany tried for better, jet and Tiger tanks for example. Even if a Tiger could destroy 3 Sherman's we had 20 per Tiger. Even if a 262 was better than a Mustang, it wasn't better than the number we had.
And the Mustangs and Sherman's did not require highly specialized experts to repair them.
Iran uses ancient missiles and new, decent drones. We rely on precision weapons that cost oh so much more.
Our WW2 motto was "steel, not blood." The problem today is that it isn't just steel but hugely expensive tech.
Now ask a question, who profits by building hugely expensive weapons systems?
Sometimes the cost to have "the best" is too high.
A Sherman and a Tiger are both still tanks the perform pretty much the same function. A Shahed drone and a Patriot Missile System perform completely different, even opposite functions. One is inherently more expensive than the other as it's function is much more complex.
A couple rhetoricals:
Has any country cracked the code on low cost drone and ballistic missile defense at scale?
Which country has the most companies at the forefront of solving this problem?
Efficiency matters. A handful of ground support fighters can do more damage than a squadron of B17’s with its hundreds of crew and ground support.
https://www.military.com/marines-just-added-ai-that-that-turns-m240-machine-guns-into-drone-killers
That’s all well and good, but American military doctrine values its soldiers lives to an extent that we don’t really want drones coming within machine gun range before employing defense measures.
Outer defense layers are inherently expensive. The munitions inherently artisanal and complicated. You can’t simply “ramp up” production any more than you could production of a Rolls Royce Phantom or Bugatti.
It requires a highly specialized labor force and single source components.
You can’t simply go to Ford Motors and ask them to start making THAAD batteries.
@carramrod missile defense is costly, no way around that. But compare a US cruise missile to a Ukrainian drone in cost. We are trying to make new cruise missiles at hopefully $800,000. Still double the Ukrainian drones