I know this isn't new, but it needs to be repeated, this is naked admission to targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as punishment for wartime losses. This is not the tactic of a winning side, but a desparate loser. They can't stop Iran militarily, so they are hoping to crush them entirely.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm honestly surprised they haven't dropped nukes yet. The only reason i can imagine they haven't is either ChatGPT is telling them it'd be politically untenable or Russia or China or both have said "no nukes"

Edit: unless... posadist-nuke

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It’s Russia bro, and probably to a lesser extent China.

Think about those decaying old counter-strike systems that are keyed to launch when American nukes are detected in-flight, from the Cold War era. Even our idiotic Dept of War knows better than to test those by firing nukes in Russia’s general direction, because there’s a very good chance we’d get bombarded and we already blew our missile defense stockpile protecting greater Israel.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Think about those decaying old counter-strike systems that are keyed to launch when American nukes are detected in-flight, from the Cold War era. Even our idiotic Dept of War knows better than to test those by firing nukes in Russia’s general direction, because there’s a very good chance we’d get bombarded and we already blew our missile defense stockpile protecting greater Israel.

presumably they'd use a submarine-launched nuke given the circumstances

[–] WalleyeWarrior@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

That or a B-2 since that's what it was designed to do

[–] Vanilla987654321@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 months ago

Pakistan too, since they would not be receptive to nuclear fallout and millions of refugees.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

He's pretending people still care about what he says, after not following through on the last 80 threats.

Insurance prices will show how much the shipping industry believes that this tactic is working.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Also not new, but:

targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as punishment for wartime losses

i-am-adolf-hitler

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So... i guess with the shortened amount of strikes last night and this weird attempt at tit-for-tat, we're about to enter the "Iran is fully destroyed, but we're going to negotiate with them" phase of the conflict

Again

[–] thesilverpig@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am so tired. I just want a decisive victory by Iran where the US can just be done with this bs and we stop killing their school girls

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 31 points 2 months ago

Ah, war crimes.

[–] dead@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Marco Rubio says Iran doesn't have civilian infrastructure because Iran only spends money on its military. If Iran has no infrastructure, then what is the US attacking? The US attacked the largest civilian bridge in Iran, 'B1 bridge', which was constructed starting in 2015.

Pete Hegseth testified before congress yesterday to request $37.5 billion additional funding for the Iran war on top of the regular Pentagon budget. The proposed 2027 military budget is $1.5 trillion dollars, almost double the military budget of 2026.

The propaganda narrative doesn't make sense on face value. "We have to bomb Iran because Iran doesn't build any new civilian infrastructure" What are you bombing? "We're bombing Iran's new civilian infrastructure."

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I wanna know where all that money goes because it doesn't seem to go to soldiers, equipment, or munitions. I know the defense industry is the griftiest grift industry but like jesus christ lol the appearance is honestly like they turn on the money printer and dump it into a fire as if that's going to beat Iran

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

the appearance is honestly like they turn on the money printer and dump it into a fire

Major General Cameron Holt once said this of China: “In purchasing power parity, they spend about one dollar to our 20 dollars to get to the same capability.”

https://www.twz.com/china-acquiring-new-weapons-five-times-faster-than-u-s-warns-top-official

The US is absolutely just dumping all their money into a fire.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Honestly it just appears even worse than that. Like a 1:100 ratio or even worse. It really does seem like the U.S. just burns its entire treasury every year in some sort of sacrifice to mammon and every bit of actual military operation that happens squeaks by on a shoestring budget 1/15th of the stated spending

I know the pentagon keeps failing audits and it's the griftiest shit ever, it's still just staggering to see the scale and disparity between money spent and what the u.s. actually seems to get out of it

[–] WalleyeWarrior@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

The market is the state religion of the US. The government pours trillions into to keep stock prices happy, because the line going down is the modern equivalent of a comet coming by, signaling a great catastrophe.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Overpriced supplies and overpriced "services". It's an ecosystem of corruption.

Kind of like the local business with super overpriced stuff that makes its money by guilt tripping people into "buying local", only scaled up to the size and scope of the whole country.

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 10 points 2 months ago

It's simple. If you classify all bridges and power plants as military infrastructure, then both statements ("Iran spends only on it's military" and "We will bomb a bridge for every ship attacked") are not contradictory statements.

I mean, it's a monstrous position to take, but that hasn't stopped the whitehouse the thousands of times before from taking monstrous positions.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm curious what the treasonous Iranian diaspora have to say about this

[–] Chapo_is_Red@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago

Probably blaming Iran for not surrendering

[–] WalleyeWarrior@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago

They are probably furious that the Gusanos are trying to take the spotlight back to being on Cuba

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

Haven't they been doing this for a while now?

[–] ashenone@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago

I just shidded. Thank you for your attention on this matter