(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

[OnePeppyFatball]

Part 5

Anything said by Trump must take into account his inability to tell the truth and also the numerous reports of his cognitive decline where he unironically compares himself to Ghengis Khan. His current psychological profile and behaviour shows that 2026 Trump is not the same as 2016 or even 2020 Trump.

The discussion about nuke use by America or Israel (especially tactical nukes) is happening in political and military circles. Those names I mentioned are just a few that are discussing it openly in the hope that there will be such a public backlash Trump won't do it.

Unfortunately the military under militant evangelical Pete "Hegsdeath" Hegseth has been purged and can no longer reign in Trump.

I'm currently watching this interview with Professor Peter Kuznick, Profile:
https://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/kuznick.cfm

Bio
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, is author of Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists As Political Activists in 1930s America (University of Chicago Press), co-author with Akira Kimura of Rethinking the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Japanese and American Perspectives (Horitsu Bunkasha, 2010), co-author with Yuki Tanaka of Genpatsu to hiroshima - genshiryoku heiwa riyo no shinso (Nuclear Power and Hiroshima: The Truth Behind the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power (Iwanami, 2011), and co-editor with James Gilbert of Rethinking Cold War Culture (Smithsonian Institution Press). A New York native, he received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University in 1984.

s

Sorry @RedTagAlan will post a summary of what they discuss.

Video Summary /Subtitles here
https://sharetext.io/huf3s26q

Discusses
-American nuclear posture revision
-Russia and China
-Group that thinks they can actually win a Nuclear war, Eldridge Colby and others.

• The Prof lobbying the Pope to get Russia, China and USA to sit down and talk before this escalates.

-Trump’s narcissism and willingness to put the World at risk. -Putin also under pressure in Russia to escalate to tactical nukes.

@BelleHathor listening to that interview and Prof Kuznick's explanations and analysis was eye opening. I had no idea that the limited use of nuclear weapons was even a serious consideration given the gravity of the consequences to the world.
20:42 - 21:21 On Trump, "I don't know what he's capable of....his grasp of reality is limited ... Trump shouldn't have the ability to end life on the planet."

How interesting too, that in US war game simulations, China always wins.

Yesterday I posted that Trump appeared to think he is some sort of Messiah. And he posted a vid on his Truth Social, also yesterday. Screenshot att. The vids on that site sometimes play for me. This one did, so I transcribed the captions. Mad as a March hare who works as a hatter. Would he use nukes ? I reckon yes.

"And on June 14th 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, I need a caretaker. So God gave us Trump.

God said, I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, fix this country, fight the Marxists, eat supper, then go to the Oval office and stay past midnight at a meeting of heads of state, so God made Trump. I need somebody with arms, strong enough to rustle the deep state, and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody to ruffle the feathers, tame cantankerous World Economic Forum, come home hungry, have to wait until the first lady is done with lunch with friends, then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon. And mean it.

So God gave us Trump.

I need somebody shape an axe but wield a sword, who had the courage to step foot in North Korea, who van make money from the tar of the sand, turn liquid to gold, who understands the difference between tariffs and inflation, will finish his forty hour week by Tuesfay noon, but then put in another seventy two hours.

So God made Trump.

God had somebody willing to go into the den of vipers, call out the fake news for their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s. The poison of vipers is on their lips, and yet stop.

So God made Trump.

God said, I need someone who will be strong and courageous, who will not be afraid of the wolves when they attack. A man who cares for the flock, a shepherd to mankind who won’t ever leave or forsake them. I need the most diligent worker to follow the path and remain strong in faith, and know the belief of God and country, who is willing to drill, bring back manufacturing and American jobs, farm the lands, secure our borders, build our military, fight the system all day, and finish a hard week’s work by attending church on Sunday. And then his oldest son turns and says, dad, let’s make America great again. Dad, lets build back a country, to be the envy of the world again.

So God made Trump."

Thank you for posting this @BelleHathor. I have had a listen.
What a knowledgable and sensible man. I share his anxieties.
Unfortunately, the war mongers do not listen to those speaking sense.

More and more insanity. I expect whoever is pulling the strings above Trump is rejoicing at the insanity of the man. I would say that the risk of Trump using nukes is still low but not impossible. If events do not go his way and he is put under tremendous pressure and made to feel stupid and like a failure, the risk is there, given his malignant narcissism. I only hope that those tasked with actually releasing any weapon have far more sense.

@trumpredcard ,

Back to nukes then….

I listened to the video and it is plain bonkers.

Kuznick is saying that the U.S is considering a pre-emptive strike on China, Russia and North Korea, simultaneously. How on earth would that work? How would they not see the nuclear launches and have time to respond?

In addition, how many nukes would the U.S need to use? How are they going to avoid a nuclear winter even with no response?

I don’t believe a word of it. I also genuinely believe that, were Trump, out of the blue, to give the order for a preemptive strike, it would be disobeyed.

And Trump had once again explicitly denied any use of nukes in Iran saying he didn’t need them (obviously the corollary is quite scary, that if he did need them, he might use them….). But, I don’t think parsing what Trump says for subtle hidden meanings has any value at all.

'Kuznick is saying that the U.S is considering a pre-emptive strike on China, Russia and North Korea, simultaneously.'

Are you able to give the minute at which he make this statement please @Newbutoldfather? I've missed this statement entirely but he does answer all the other questions that you have posed above! Did you miss all those explanations?

@rainingsnoring ,

Sorry, I am going to use AI for this as I am not trawling through the video a second time, but it’s a summary of what I heard:

1. Two Schools of Nuclear Planning

The Old School: Grounded in traditional deterrence theory and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This school operates on the belief that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The New School: Driven by advanced technology, this contemporary school of thought believes that a nuclear war is winnable. They suggest that the United States can maintain global hegemony by launching a multi-theater first strike while retaining enough weapons in reserve. src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/iO3CprBPNPM&vl=en?start=165" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen> 1, 2]

1. Technological Enablers of a Preemptive Strike

Kuznick notes that advocates for this strategy believe modern technological advancements allow the U.S. to completely neutralize adversaries' retaliatory capabilities. Specifically, they rely on: 1] Artificial Intelligence & Advanced Sonar: Believed to be sophisticated enough to pinpoint and map the exact locations of all Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines in real-time. Targeted First Strikes: The blueprint relies on using advanced tracking to preemptively knock out mobile and siloed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) on the ground, while utilizing missile defense networks to intercept any remaining strategic bombers or stray retaliatory launches. 1]

Woah, I'm only agnostic but that video is all types of messianic idolatry. I can't imagine Trump as a spiritual redeemer.

It's a doozy and what you'd actually show someone to feed into their delusions. With Truth Social being so Bot heavy he'd actually think the people support this.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117452164793600610

But that's completely different to what you said before.

'Kuznick is saying that the U.S is considering a pre-emptive strike on China, Russia and North Korea, simultaneously.'

Did anyone else hear this @BelleHathor @trumpredcard?

I assume they put failure rate into these models ?

ICBMs do fail a lot. In fact, The last 2 tests the UK has done with Trident failed.

And here is a random US missile test fail.

ICBM Test Failure Puts Nuclear Modernization Effort Into Focus (airandspaceforces.com)

I was going to mention that re Israel using a Nuke. I don't think they can, or will, if they have them. Because assuming they are dropped from a plane, the bomb itself is untested. And if they dropped a bomb that did not work, they would be pretty much fucked, because MAD would be gone, and they had just tried to Nuke someone.

The US are ok I suppose, because they have thousands. But if they fired a missile at an enemy silo, and the missile failed, they would not be taking out that enemy silo.

I think it is one of the odd features of MAD. Because you can't really test them fully, and not often. Because if they fail, and they do, the other side will know.

@RedTagAlan ,

I basically agree with you, certainly with the idea of first strike. It would only take a couple of failures to lose, say, New York and Los Angeles.

I don’t agree about Israel though. They have nukes as bombs, traditional missiles and cruise missiles. They have enough redundancy for a second, or even third, try, in the event the first failed.

I still cannot imagine anyone using a nuke unless there were a genuine perceived existential threat, and even then it is hard to imagine.

How do you know what delivery systems Israel has when nobody even knows if they have a bomb ?

Note how I said I assume they would drop it from a plane, if they have them. I suggested that because it is the most reliable.

I think the Israeli nukes are something of an open secret. It’s unproven but it is pretty much proven that they have the nuclear material and the means to deliver it by air, sea and land.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9075/CBP-9075.pdf

Thanks for that info.

But hang on. Is there not a war going on just now with Iran over it supposedly developing secret nukes ? Wow. Lets hope Trump does not hear about this, or we will have another war to add to this thread. That is MAD.

@RedTagAlan ,

The nuclear ‘club’ is a strange beast!

I would much rather no one had nukes.

But, given that they do, I still think it is sensible to limit them. I think 9 countries now have them. I wouldn’t want to see that none become 90.

I know you can apply pure logic and say why is Israel allowed nukes but not Iran, but I don’t see it that way. I think every country added increases the probability of nukes being fired, and Iran would be a very dangerous addition to the nuclear club.

Kuznick is saying that the U.S is considering a pre-emptive strike on China, Russia and North Korea, simultaneously

What I heard was that ALL options were examined, as one would expect, on any governmental/defense meeting on the subject. Then possible moves, concurrent or subsequent (by other nations) come into play and MAD ends the chat. It included the recognition that any country willing to use nukes (w)could result in other nations eg Iran wanting one of its own as a deterrent.

Similar in a way to a risk analysis in my head as I'm on an eight hour journey on the motorway.
How fast can I really drive - 100+ mph
What are the chances that I'll be caught doing that speed, and the consequences
Traffic around me is already doing 75-80 mph, so that might be ok instead
Are there fixed speed cameras in the area
What about overhead bridges with police using mobile cameras

I don't think speculating on the options necessarily equates to seriously considering any.

And I don't think it's imperative to parse Trump's words on this topic because he talks so much sh**te nowadays.

Why is it more dangerous for Iran to have nukes than Israel to have secret nukes ?

And why does Israel keep them secret ?

Those are the questions no one is supposed to ask on other ME threads.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Why is it more dangerous for Iran to have nukes than Israel to have secret nukes ?’

I personally think that Israel is still a saner actor than Iran. We also have Israel’s history of not using or even threatening to use its nukes in close to half a century.

However, if you asked me whether I am happy with Israel being a nuclear power, I am not.However, the irony of nukes is that once you have them, it is very hard (if not impossible) to force you to give them up. If North Korea didn’t have nukes, they would never be talked about at all. Unfortunately, they acquired them.

Would you be happy for Iran to get nukes? If yes, would you be happy if plenty of other countries became nuclear powers? Where would you draw the line?

I think we need to be encouraging nuclear disarmament, not letting new countries become nuclear powers.

This was in the WSJ:

“But, first, is there even a nuclear taboo? A recent survey by an array of academics and a serving military officer found that U.S. voters would be willing to use a nuclear weapon if 20,000 U.S. ground troops were threatened in a war with Iran. Many of those U.S. voters, the authors found, would also be guided by a morally punitive sentiment toward Iran.
This turns out not to be unusual among the American voting public even though, at least through the early 2000s, the taboo seemed to remain strong among U.S. leaders and presumably other world leaders.”
“But there are reasons to wonder how much longer. Today’s U.S. and Russian arsenals are estimated to be one-tenth in megatonnage those of the Cold War, which can’t help but allay the former picture of an uncontained, spasmodic nuclear war endangering all life on the planet. Today’s greater targeting precision also allows designers to make weapons of ever smaller yield, blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear, between point strikes and city busting. Take the Russian ballistic missiles that routinely fall on Ukrainian ports. Lately NATO has acquired a new worry, given Russia’s declaration late last month that Western Europe is a legitimate target as part of Ukraine’s supply chain. If a missile appeared to be headed toward a German port, its type of warhead would be known only on impact.”
“What do nuclear weapons deter? Russia’s possession hasn’t stopped Ukraine forces from crossing into Russian territory. It hasn’t stopped Kyiv from striking inside Russia, even attacking its irreplaceable nuclear bomber fleet. On the other hand, Russia’s arsenal clearly caused the U.S. and Europe to restrain support for Ukraine. The U.S. is widely also thought to have used conventional threats to deter Russian tactical nuclear use early in the Ukraine war. Russia’s nukes, like those of North Korea and Pakistan, give outside powers an increasing stake in regime stability. After all, the only real threat a nuclear-armed authoritarian state may face is from its own people. Recall Team Biden’s hastening to let Vladimir Putin know the U.S. wasn’t involved in Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutiny.”

Excerpt From
“Opinion | Donald Trump and the Nuclear Taboo”
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
The Wall Street Journal
https://apple.news/Agd-_tRfiSryvgOM8kNbAsw
This material may be protected by copyright.

I doubt any country which has a nuclear weapon is ever going to give them up.

Quote "I think we need to be encouraging nuclear disarmament, not letting new countries become nuclear powers."

I agree. And I don't see why not go for the low hanging fruit. That is, our supposed allies.

South Africa gave up Nukes I recall. South Korea and Germany are talking about acquiring them, because of Trump. And round the circle we go again. An ever-decreasing circle at that.... one that seems to center on Trump as being the major issue.

I've been reflecting on the firing under warrior Kegsbreath, of so many experienced military leaders, and come to the conclusion that I've been too optimistic in thinking the US will not use a nuke.
Shit can easily happen when incompetence + inexperience + over convidence is at the helm. It'll be 'whoops!'