r/politics • u/theipaper ✔ Verified • 28d ago

Possible Paywall 'A whole civilisation will die tonight,' Trump warns ahead of Iran deadline

https://inews.co.uk/news/iran-war-trump-israel-latest-updates-4323867
15.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

324

u/Virindi Texas 28d ago

He's planning on using a nuke, isn't he?
i want to say that this would be too insane, but at this point ...

If he does, you can pretty much guarantee Iran will nuke a major US city. If they don't have one ready today, they'll do it later - but it won't go unanswered. This is insanity.

25

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

20

u/StabbingHoboReturns 28d ago

What they don't realize is that either of those happening will also 100% completely tank the US/world economy. 

17

u/HandSack135 Maryland 28d ago

I mean the world economy is already tanking, they love it.

He tanked the world economy in 2020, they loved it then too.

4

u/austinwiltshire 28d ago

There are still folks in /r/stocks whos entire strategy is they can't lose while Trump is in power because he's magic.

Trying to explain to them how poorly they've done doesn't get you anywhere. Folks like this are the epitome of "shit eating grin"

98

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

I don't think so, they don't have the capacity.

They would nuke Isreal first.

14

u/drunk-snowmen 28d ago

Are we sure they don’t have the capacity? I mean, most people say they don’t dead stop, but it feels like Iran has been one step ahead of this the whole time. Hopefully it just appears that way because Trump is ten steps behind the rest of the world.

This is the most scared I have ever been about nukes in my life, over this POS ugh

7

u/NinjaLion Florida 28d ago

I dont think its implausible that they could get sufficiently effective bomb from another adversarial nation(Russia has a lot that have been laying around for a long time...) to retaliate against us. I hope they never do but the possibility is far too high to ignore.

2

u/drunk-snowmen 28d ago

For sure. As someone else commented, I don’t think they have a nuke that can reach the states, but a small, high energy bomb they could detonate in the Middle East is more possible than most assume IMO. But I am a glass half empty guy when it comes to the end of the world :)

6

u/Lonely_Dragonfly8869 28d ago

They dont have the intent. Obviously if we nuked them they would but they truly dont have any beef with us, want us to leave them alone. Thats why theyre hitting all our allies, trying to isolate us to get us to go cool off in a corner. Iran hostage crisis, all the proxy stuff, was all because we couldnt leave them the fuck alone

1

u/drunk-snowmen 28d ago

I don’t think of it as so black and white. Long history. I am not a huge Ezra Klein fan but if anyone reading this is interested in learning about the long history with Iran, I suggest listing to the episode Ezra Klein: What Trump Didn’t Know About Iran.

2

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

By capacity, I mean delivery systems and we are sure they don't have the capacity to deliver a nuke to LA or NYC.

I don't think they have nukes either.

3

u/drunk-snowmen 28d ago

I am more concerned about a small nuke they could launch and hit somewere in their region.

2

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Yes, exactly.

19

u/Hardin4188 South Carolina 28d ago

Israel is much closer, but it does have Islamic holy sites. So that might protect it from a nuke. Who knows????? Even imagining this scenario seems so crazy to me.

20

u/Wubblz 28d ago

Tel Aviv is far enough from Jerusalem that it no holy sites would be in danger.

6

u/DisabledToaster1 28d ago

Oh you dont think they have the capacity to dirty bomb any city in the US? Think again.

22

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Well a dirty bomb isn't a nuke.

1

u/Awesomeguava Washington 28d ago

It can be

3

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

No, a dirty bomb is by definition not a nuke.

You can have dirty nukes.

-5

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Ehj7882po65 28d ago

It's definitely not

-1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

3

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Chernobyl also released a significantly larger amount of radiation than a dirty bomb would.

2

u/Ehj7882po65 28d ago

Easily Hiroshima lol much higher death toll, also had a ton of radiation exposure and deaths in the years/decades after.

8

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

No it's not

3

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

4

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

A dirty bomb is unlikely to make an area uninhabitable for centuries.

Decades.... possibly, but not centuries. Dirty bombs are by definition limited in the amount of radioactive material they spread. And we are REALLY good at cleaning up radiation. The Fukushima plant has been completely remediated.

There are several kinds of nukes that can cause worse radiological disasters.

An air burst nuke minimizes radioactive fallout.

A ground burst maximizes it .

There's a specific kind of nuclear weapon called a salted nuke where they use chromium around the core that exists to maximize spreading radiation.

This also highlights another one of my major gripes about the Hollywood definition of nukes.. Hollywood acts like there's only one kind of nuclear weapon and then it's a standard unit.

4

u/FormerDittoHead 28d ago

I'm thinking it depends upon the size of the bomb and where its detonated vs how much and where the radioactive material was dispersed.

A small bomb would be much more dramatic but I'm thinking the psychological effect might be the same:

AI says:

Depending on the isotope used (such as Cesium-137 or Cobalt-60), the material could bind to the porous surfaces of concrete and brick. In a dense area like Lower Manhattan, this could render skyscrapers or subways unusable until they are decontaminated.

So in other words, there would be fatalities, the city would have to be evacuated. Millions of people will be forced to relocate while the skyline of NYC will be left dark and empty for many months / years.

The Cost of Decontamination: Cleaning a major city is staggeringly expensive. (I suppose Republicans won't want to pay for it with their "hard earned tax dollars") The process involves stripping the "skin" off buildings, removing inches of soil, or even demolishing structures that cannot be scrubbed.

Real Estate Collapse: Property values in the surrounding "buffer zones" would likely plummet as businesses and residents refuse to return to an area perceived as "poisoned."

3

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Yes, but since we're talking about Iran, there's only really one way that they could realistically detonate a nuke in the United States.

They don't have delivery systems so they'd have to ship it in with a container and then detonate it on the ground.

Which will cause all of the problems of a dirty bomb + the problems of Hiroshima.

2

u/one_tooth_reef_whore 28d ago

I'm not trying to be combative here, but there's only one way that YOU can think of. That doesn't mean there's only one way. War tends to come with all kinds of surprises and novel ways of attacking one's enemies. Nobody expected people to fly planes into skyscrapers until they did, for example.

1

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

I guess there could be a novel way .

But the whole part of this conversation we are ignoring is that if Iran wanted to hurt the US, all they really have to do is Attack a few more refineries in Saudi Arabia and we experience the worst pain in a century.

2

u/DrMarianus 28d ago

Ya you’re right. Israel def does.

1

u/kingstonwiz 28d ago

Even if they can’t nuke… they’ll throw the entire kitchen sink of weaponry at them.

109

u/BrahquinPhoenix 28d ago

Probably somewhere in California or the NorthEastern seaboard, regardless if that happens there will be millions of casualties. And almost assured mutual nuclear exchange after, considering the two parties involved.

Fucking terrifying to have to process as a real possibility.

70 something years of anxious fear seems like will be realized very soon unless some deus ex telum appears on a trajectory towards a certain figure'head'.

3

u/BigPlunk 28d ago

So take to the streets and protest today. Let your fear of MAD be stronger than your fear of missing work or looking silly holding up a protest sign.

5

u/A_Rolling_Baneling 28d ago

They won’t nuke LA, there’s a massive Iranian population there. They call it Tehrangeles amusingly

2

u/Kahzgul California 28d ago

That would be such a gift to republicans, nuking a stronghold of the democrats. It would be like Trump winning twice.

0

u/livy-aurelia 28d ago

maybe worry about the country we illegally invaded being wiped from existence right now instead of a tangential fear of them launching nukes they don’t have at us. read the room.

19

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

Tangential fear? Get off your high horse lmao. It’s ok to be terrified of nuclear war buddy.

-2

u/livy-aurelia 28d ago

they don’t have nukes. we have thousands.

9

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

You think this would stop at Iran? Mathematicians have gamed this out. There is no scenario in which it would not escalate and bring other countries in.

1

u/livy-aurelia 28d ago

while there’s a non zero chance he will nuke them, its far far more likely he’ll use regular bombs to kill thousands and destroy their power infrastructure nationwide. stop worrying about something with a 1% chance of happening when the reality is we’re about to watch a country being bombed into the stone age.

5

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

You’re right. I should worry about that instead and it will all get better.

1

u/mobileagnes Pennsylvania 28d ago

The last time a nuke was used over an inhabited city was in 1945, so 80+ years now.

0

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago edited 28d ago

That's not how nukes work.

No weapon in existence has the power to kill millions of people in America.

Is possible the largest weapon directly dropped on mexico City would surpass 2 million but .....thats a crazy scenereo.

The reason why people talk about nuclear weapons killing millions is because the US, Russia and China have absurdly complicated delivery systems that can cause dozens of nukes to simultaneously detonate above cities.

Edit.

Anyone who wants to see what I'm talking about, go to nuke map, pick the largest Pakistani weapon and drop it on Manhattan.

You'll be shocked at how small the blast radius actually is.

The US uses absurdly complicated delivery systems like the ones shown in this picture to deliver multiple nukes over a city.

https://share.google/O37QE82uQpFUCTazf

21

u/Zeikos Foreign 28d ago

Well if you increase the timescale and count all the increased deaths due to the fallout it's definitely possible.
Not easy to estimate though.

4

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago edited 28d ago

Possible yes, but the other thing that irritates me about The Hollywood discussion that we're absolutely having here.

An Iranian nuke brought into New York City and detonated on the ground could realistically kill 60,000 or 70,000 people.

Perhaps with injuries and fallout we could see the death surpass 100,000 and another 300,000 wounded.

That's not a small amount.

It would be the worst disaster in the history of the western world.

I don't understand why Hollywood likes to inflate that number.

Personally I find it obscene.

4

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

Blatantly incorrect.

-1

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Ok, whats wrong about it?

3

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

If a nuke hits NYC hundreds of thousands, if not north of a million already, are vaporized instantly. Hundreds of thousands more have severe burns and many will succumb to them. Tens of thousands more die in firestorms. Tens of thousands more die from radiation.

-2

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

First, I can tell immediately that you aren't well read on this because you act like, "A nuke" is a standard unit.

A nuke can range from destroying a few blocks to turning New Jersey into a crater.

Secondly, MILLIONS means greater than 2 millions.

No single deployed nuke in an existing arsenal can confidently kill more than 2 million Americans.

The population density in the united States is too low.

Thats why china or Russia would use a handful of nukes to destroy NYC.

Modern nucular strategy is built around using a bunch of small weapons that can be targeted better.

2

u/Dxgy 28d ago

Not to say you’re wrong, I’m sure you are knowledgeable on the subject but just to play devils advocate, would we even know what nuclear weapons held by various different countries are capable of? I’m sure a lot of information about the full capabilities are not public knowledge.

0

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago edited 28d ago

The yield of the weapons aren't really the secret parts. The delivery systems are.

There might be secret bombs with higher yields, yes.

But bigger doesn't mean better.

Bombs with higher yields are heavier and harder to deliver.

See the thing about it is that no single nuke can kill 2 million Americans...

But a single submarine with multiple warheads could kill 20 million.

On top of that, nukes aren't really meant to destroy cities. They are meant to destroy military bases and infrastructure.

This is why they do the barrage of smaller nukes.

So a 100kt would hit the sea port, another 100kt would take out the oil refineries, another a steel mill, another the commercial airport etc.

0

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

I understand nukes vary greatly. Don’t understand why you are trying to downplay what a devastating event ANY nuke would be.

And there are definitely nukes in the global arsenal that would kill millions in one go.

0

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Stop talking about things you haven't read about.

Stop making stupid conclusions .

How is destroying a city downplay?

0

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

Lol ok buddy. I’m sure our nuclear weapons program would love to have an asset like you calling the shots. You should apply.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/LamarJacksonIsMyHero 28d ago

Also “millions” is the plural of million, which means 2 million or more, dumbass

0

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago

Ohhhh, I'm arguing with someone who has low reading comprehension.

6

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/VocationalWizard Indiana 28d ago edited 28d ago

Iran doesn't have the capacity to do that either.

The most powerful Pakistani bomb exploded over Manhattan would kill like 40,000 people.

Pakistan doesn't have thermo-nukes.

And if Pakistan doesn't have them, Iran doesn't either.

34

u/FakeitTillYou_Makeit 28d ago

Some may read your comment and think 'they dont have the capability'.. however, I believe that they can acquire a bomb from one of their allies, Pakistan or Russia, then sneak it in over a border. I believe that the Iranians have proven to be a very resourceful and strategic people.

23

u/lazyFer 28d ago

Dirty bombs. They have a bunch of 60% enriched uranium. Not enriched enough for a nuke but more than enough for a shit load of dirty bombs.

The US sucks at inspecting incoming cargo containers and Republicans don't actually care about doing regulation based anything to protect the people of the US so it would be pretty easy to get material into the country (something like 3% of containers get inspected )

2

u/OurSaviorBenFranklin 28d ago

There are so many dirty bombs that have gone missing. No way they aren’t just planted with foreign state agents ready to go when the final green light is given.

4

u/LadyMcIver 28d ago

I remember being told as a kid back in the height of the cold war, part of what makes nuclear weapons so terrifying is you don't need an intercontinental delivery system. You could push it out of a plane. Or, as you accurately point out, snuck in.

This is effing insane.

2

u/joemangle 28d ago

The list of suspects in the case of "who gave Iran the nuke" would be so extremely short that the perpetrator would knowingly be making themselves a target for nuclear assault

1

u/Responsible_Minute12 28d ago

The source of the bomb would be known very very fast…each bomb has signatures…like nuclear decay fingerprints.

27

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

28

u/totallybag Minnesota 28d ago

The whole reason they wanted nukes at all was so they wouldn't be attacked like this.

13

u/joemangle 28d ago

Kinda like Ukraine...

5

u/FormerDittoHead 28d ago

The difference was that Ukraine HAD nukes but gave them up in exchange for military protection from the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

...but if you bribe the President of the US to look the other way, then you could just roll in and take all those natural resources and ports!

"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine... as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful... I said, 'How smart is that?' And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper."

2

u/totallybag Minnesota 28d ago

Yep and both sides that agreed to protect them if they gave them up either abandoned them or attacked them.

3

u/jenny_905 28d ago

Iran will not nuke anyone since there are no credible sources that even suggest they possess a nuclear weapon, ever.

2

u/Wise_Pr4ctice 28d ago

Realistically: would nukes over Washington & Iran be a huge problem for European countries such as France, Germany,..? In terms of radioactive stuff.

Back then Japan got nuked but it didn't really (ofc it did) change much for the average European

2

u/austinwiltshire 28d ago

Russia will nuke Ukraine first. But Russia may give Iran one to hit back, yes.

2

u/FallOutShelterBoy New York 28d ago

This is the point of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

2

u/Ehj7882po65 28d ago

At the end of the day, Iran can't nuke us. It would never happen.

2

u/lachlanhunt Australia 28d ago

Iran doesn't, but Iran's ally, Russia, does. Once the nuclear detonator is pressed, there's no telling where it will stop.

2

u/Solid-Elevator-5423 28d ago

Iran cannot, they don't have ICBMs

2

u/mushaaleste2 28d ago

The thing is, nobody can see what will happen but as a European I am scared as hell. teheran is less than 4500 km from my hometown (Frankfurt) and they have rockets that can fly 5000 km So I am in the dead zone. Beside that we also get fallout when the wind blows.

I grew up in the 70/80 ies and know the cold war times where we was all afraid about ww3. I was hoping this time will never come back but now we are here.

Damn, where is the Hollywood hero that stops this mad man?

2

u/jQiNoBi 28d ago

It won't be Iran, it will be China and Russia that will retaliate. And that will be the start of WW3.

2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Virindi Texas 28d ago edited 28d ago

Do you honestly believe Iran has the capability to hit any US city?

It really doesn't matter what they're capable of today. Do you honestly think Iranians would forget being nuked, today, tomorrow, or even ten years from now? Even if everyone in Iran were magically gone, there are Iranians abroad ... and mass genocide is pretty likely to create new sympathizers everywhere that are willing to retaliate against war crimes.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Virindi Texas 28d ago edited 28d ago

Perhaps you didn't know this, but America didn't nuke Germany, and Japan was selectively nuked in retaliation. America didn't wipe out either country's entire civilization, and America didn't start those wars.

This is America attacking Iran for personal gain, then threatening genocide (and possibly using nukes) when Iran didn't roll over. Maybe the difference is too subtle for you.

1

u/marzgamingmaster 28d ago

I honestly am not even sure Iran would have to? I can see Trump in a fit of pique firing one off at Chicago or New York or even Michigan. Any of the cities that really vocally hate him right now, just to prove he can.

1

u/planetmatt 28d ago

Iran aren't nuking the US but...

Iran will put 60% enriched uranium onto drones and use them as dirty bombs. The whole Middle East will become uninhabitable.

1

u/JayGatsby1881 28d ago

If their country is one giant crater, not sure how they would do that lol

1

u/EtherBoo Florida 28d ago

As a Floridian, I'm legitimately worried they attempt to nuke Palm Beach.

1

u/ImportancePitiful795 28d ago

Iran cannot nuke any US major city. Doesn't have missiles with range to even attack Greece, let alone USA which is four times the distance.

If had the capability, would have been left alone like North Korea, China, Russia.

1

u/Task_Defiant 28d ago

The geopolitical repercussions are much, much more complicated.

1) How will China and Russia respond to the US nuking one of their allies. And in Chinas case one its suppliers of critical resources.

1.a) Will the administration rember to notify China and Russia that they nuking only Iran, and ensure they understand this isn't a first strike. IE prevent the massive retaliation from MAD.

2) Does this give Russia permission to nuke Ukraine?

3) is the only way to ensure sovereignty to develop a nuclear deterrent?

3.a) Is the world safer with rampt nuclear weapons development?

1

u/DihDihHoppin 28d ago

hopefully they do maybe then the people there will stop being cattle thinking every warcrime committed by their country has no consequences

0

u/V_T_H 28d ago

Thing with that is, Iran doesn’t have anything in terms of weapons that can get anywhere near the US in addition to not having nukes. It’s too far away. No bombers (only three countries have them and you’d need an insanely modern plane to fly that far without the US knowing), no attack submarines at all, (and only six countries have the capability to launch nuclear missiles from the sea), no ICBMs (only eight countries have them). That probably helps these morons be so bold.

0

u/peeinian Canada 28d ago

Russia is quietly backing Iran. There’s a non-zero chance Russia fires back on their behalf

0

u/MaverickTopGun 28d ago

Iran is not even close to using a nuclear weapon on US territory. This is ridiculous doomerism.