Experiment No one seems to realise a nuclear war is now winnable by the side who strikes first.

[Knajjd]

Recently, Israel successfully defended against a ballistic missile attack from Iran.

This will embolden military planners to consider that a nuclear war can be won by a first strike at an enemies nuclear assets and then use an Israeli type missile shield to defend against any of the missiles that survived the first strike.

Therefore, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is no longer valid.

 

[jackhanma]

Iran's temu rockets couldnt go fast enough

 

[frmentalcel]

its over for lowIQcels

JoinedJan 9, 2024Posts587

 

[Cryotron]

Very risky, still some retaliatory strike warheads may reach their targets.
US+UK+France is capable to disarm Russia in a first strike scenario theoretically. Russia can't do it to West.

 

[McFlurryCel]

nothing will happen

 

[Knajjd]

nah it wont, us wont support israel

The US might consider a first strike against Russia because now they have practical experience that an anti-ballistic missile shield works and therefore a nuclear war is winnable.

 

[Mistake]

nothing will happen

 

[Knajjd]

Very risky, still some retaliatory strike warheads may reach their targets.
US+UK+France is capable to disarm Russia in a first strike scenario theoretically. Russia can't do it to West.

Surely the risk is now very very low since Israel has proven a missile shield is effective?

A first strike could target nuclear assets and any remaining missiles, if any, are taken care of by the missile shield.

 

[lazy_gamer_423]

Recently, (((Our Greatest Ally))) successfully defended against a ballistic missile attack from Iran.

FUCK

 

[SandNiggerKANG]

 

[Knajjd]

nothing will happen

Something did happen, and something big; Israel proved it is possible to defend against ballistic missiles.

Mutual Assured Destruction is no longer valid. Whoever launches a first strike and has an Israeli type shield will win.

 

[Knajjd]

Very risky, still some retaliatory strike warheads may reach their targets.
US+UK+France is capable to disarm Russia in a first strike scenario theoretically. Russia can't do it to West.

The US or Israel are probably the only two nations who could win a nuclear war because of their missile shields.

 

[Knajjd]

dont think they care enough about russia and they probably knew before too much risk

Now that a first strike leads to victory there is more pressure not to launch a first strike.

 

[Emba]

They aren't real.

Nukes are a fraud

 

[Cryotron]

Surely the risk is now very very low since Israel has proven a missile shield is effective?

some cruise missiles or supersonic missiles (Iran claims they have it) penetrated Israel's air defence. I doubt that other Western countries have such good air defense systems and keep in mind that Israel is very small country with a high density of defence systems per square kilometre.

 

[antipode]

since nukes will be detected before they even drop the entire planet would be wiped out at the same time
nobody wins

 

[Knajjd]

missile shields have been a thing if they attack a superpower nation they will risk nuclear war

That's what I'm saying. Nuclear war is winnable and low risk if a side strikes first and lets an Israeli type defence mop up any missiles the first strike failed to destroy.

 

[Knajjd]

since nukes will be detected before they even drop the entire planet would be wiped out at the same time
nobody wins

First strike will destroy an enemies missiles and surviving missiles are destroyed by an Israeli type shield.

 

[Knajjd]

theres no pressure, also what victory we dont know, and no one is going to risk it

The planners will consider the risk to be minimal given an effective anti-ballistic shield. Also a nation is vunerable unless they strike first.

 

[Knajjd]

a nation is also vulnerable if they attack when theres no need to, russia isnt iran it will be far worse

Submarine launched nuclear missiles can reach their target very quicky as the submaries are positioned off the course of the enemy. Mobile and fixed ICBM's are vunerable. Any that survice are mopped up by the missile shield.

They used to be an Anti-Missile Shield Treaty but it got scrapped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

Someone with a sword and shield against someone with just a sword is more likely to strike first.

 

[Puppeter]

Iran's temu rockets couldnt go fast enough

 

[Knajjd]

and keep in mind that Israel is very small country with a high density of defence systems per square kilometre.

That's a good point.

Does it mean Israel is the only country who can launch a nuclear strike against a nation and defend against retaliation? It's getting that way.

 

[CopingForBrutality]

Iran's attack was a symbolic gesture to go further than big talk but not enough for a full scale war, I don't think they intended for a 100% hit rate

 

[Julaybib]

nothing will happen

 

[Fancy Alcoholic]

Iran's temu rockets couldnt go fast enough

 

[Fancy Alcoholic]

Iran's attack was a symbolic gesture to go further than big talk but not enough for a full scale war, I don't think they intended for a 100% hit rate

Exactly this.

Iran is too based sometimes. Why bother at this point ? Attacking Israel was 100% legitimate. Israel should be punished one way or another.