Operation Midnight Hammer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Josh_TN said:
This is true; Asian in general and China in particular would be hardest hit. I think it would have been better for the administration to not mention anything and just let China’s natural interests take over; who ever runs Iran is always going to sell oil to China. The only thing that really hurts the PRC is if the flow of GCC oil stops.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, China could wear the pain of less oil or higher prices, the US would feel the hit at the pumps in less than a week.

www.cnet.com

Gas Prices Hold Steady After Iran Ceasefire Despite Dubious $8/Gallon Warnings in California

Early panic pushed crude oil past $81 but prices have since fallen as traders bet the Strait of Hormuz will stay open.
www.cnet.com www.cnet.com


Hence the treat in all caps.

Regards,
 
Halcyon66 said:
Not so sure about that, China could wear the pain of less oil or higher prices, the US would feel the hit at the pumps in less than a week.

www.cnet.com

Gas Prices Hold Steady After Iran Ceasefire Despite Dubious $8/Gallon Warnings in California

Early panic pushed crude oil past $81 but prices have since fallen as traders bet the Strait of Hormuz will stay open.
www.cnet.com www.cnet.com


Hence the treat in all caps.

Regards,
Click to expand...

The U.S. is far less dependent on foreign oil imports and specifically gets very little from the Mideast. But market forces would have both eating the same shit sandwich.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Iran tried that in the 1980s.

It didn't work so well.
Click to expand...

It worked excellent actually, because Iran beat Iraq, though?

The American escort just wandered into a mine only a seven years after the tanker war began. That was only a year after the United States was asked by Kuwait to escort the tankers, and itself half a decade after the anti-shipping operations had began. It was a rather different scenario. Leaving aside the United States simply watching from the sidelines, which it may do, there is the issue of actual capability.

Civil traffic has increased and escorts have decreased in total number. MCM capacity is much lower than it was in 2003, much less 1988, and the combination of this means that the USN can barely escort shipping against a violent drug cartel armed with ballistic missiles, much less an industrial opponent capable of asymmetric attacks.

They probably don't even need to actually mine it. We're a bit beyond that with AIS transponders nowadays. They can just use USVs targeted with commercial IMINT constellations. Even flying a Shahed into the side of an oil tanker would be lethal.

quellish said:
Launching missiles to de-escalate…. Um, OK?
Click to expand...

Their VFX aren't quite advanced enough to do it virtually. They needed to film the shots on location in order to achieve the required visuals suitable for domestic media consumption. They told America and Qatar a few hours ahead of time they were going to launch as many ballistic missiles as the US launched MOPs.

Some decent TikTok footage was generated, and is presumably being streamed constantly on the Persian Internet, to show Iran's power. I'm not sure if you'd even call it de-escalating. It's not even aimed at the United States. I mean figuratively aimed. It's literally aimed, of course.

If THAAD wasn't so good now this would be a totally different story I suppose.
 
While many expect Beijing to do just that, some suggested a blockade of the chokepoint could be favorable for China, as it stands better prepared to absorb the blow than the U.S. and European Union, and that China could easily turn to other alternative oil sources.

According to the Energy Information Administration, China’s primary oil sources are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iraq and Oman, although a sizable portion of Malaysia’s exports are actually relabeled or transferred from Iran.

Robin Brooks, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said “China will be happy to see a big spike in oil prices if that destabilizes the U.S. and Europe.”

Echoing that view, Andrew Bishop, global head of policy research at Signum Global Advisors, said: “China may not be that irate at paying more for oil from other sources, if it means the U.S. suffers even more.”
Click to expand...


The difference is that any spike at the bowser in the US will quickly cause a backlash for the current administration.

China's economy is in a slowdown currently so initial effects would be somewhat muted.

Regards,
 
EmoBirb said:
The Shah was overthrown by the Iranian people. Something called the Iranian (or Islamic) Revolution happened, as the Iranians thought the Shah was a pretty shitty ruler. So Islamic, Democratic and Socialist movements joined together to overthrow the Shah and the Islamic faction ultimately superseded the other two and took power for themselves. If anything, it's on the Iranians to force change if they consider it necessary by the means of a new, presumably democratic, nationalist or socialist revolution. Neither of these orientations in Iranian politics are looking favorable at Israel though, especially the nationalists and socialists. Who view them as an existential threat, an enemy of the people and in case of the latter a (and I'm going to quote sentiment of socialists in the middle east for context here) an "imperialistic apartheid state".

So even if the Islamic Republic would be replaced by a Socialist Republic or nationalistic Iran, the foreign policies and goals wouldn't change. And the latter remains true throughout any shape of this discussion. Every attack on Iran simply reinforces the idea that only strategic weapons will safeguard Iran and it's people against hostile foreign powers who pose an existential threat to them. There are only two ways to solve this long term, either via diplomatic means, or by Iran gaining a nuclear deterrent to scare off the Americans and Israelis.

Edit: toned it down a bit
Click to expand...
I was wrong about the Shah, but Iran better get it together or they are F'd. The problem with Iran having nuke is that it turns it into a terrorist weapon and now we are back to square one and you want Iran to have nuclear deterrent, give me a break. Actually, the middle east will never stabilize, sorry for throwing in some politics, I apologize, but I am a realist unfortunately as well.
 
starviking said:
I’d say it would depend on the setup. Normal centrifuges are stopped by switching off power. Someone more knowledgable may refute this./

Semiconductor production, on the other hand, is very susceptible to power loss, due to the long-term production process.
Click to expand...
Updating myself. A little research shows that these centrifuges use magnetic bearings. So if power is cut - and they don’t have a quick reacting backup system, they are likely to suffer severe damage.
 
starviking said:
Updating myself. A little research shows that these centrifuges use magnetic bearings. So if power is cut - and they don’t have a quick reacting backup system, they are likely to suffer severe damage.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, yes, loss of magnetic bearings would catastrophically destroy those centrifuges. Ouch.

I'd been assuming mechanical bearings, so a loss of electrical power would simply mean the machine spends the next couple of days spinning down.
 
Hydroman said:
The problem with Iran having nuke is that it turns it into a terrorist weapon
Click to expand...

That's entirely besides the point here, but I don't consider a nuclear Iran any more of a threat to the world than the likes of Israel, Pakistan, India and to a degree North Korea. Perhaps France as well with their nuclear policy being an outlier (imagine having literal nuclear ALCM as 'warning shots')

We can all agree that despite personal biases that the US, Russia, China and UK are the most responsible nuclear nations, having been a part of "the game" from the start or very early on (Yes despite accidents and a handful of lost warheads during the cold war).

But anyone who thinks Iran would sell nuclear weapons or supply their proxies with them is just deluding themselves to be honest. That's not going to happen, even if they got the bomb yesterday.

In a way one could theorize that a credible deterrent would lead to a decline in proxy activity. Not ceasing but declining. As Iran wouldn't need to leverage multi front proxy wars to degrade opponents over time if perceived a threat to their interest.

Even from a US point of view it may actually have some upsides. Stockpile stewardship is extremely expensive. It would soak up large amounts of Iran's defense spending if they want to maintain a credible strategic deterrent (possibly TEL based). So they'd sink huge sums into that kind of insurance and as a consequence would have to cut back on conventional arms and supplies for their proxies.

Edit:

Lastly the presence of two opposed nuclear nations in the region, both mainly concerned with maintaining their own state first and foremost may actually cause a degree of stabilization to set in. MAD is one hell of a drug, without it the likes of the USSR and US or Pakistan and India would have gone to war several times over by now. It may prevent large scale exchanges and bombing campaigns in the future. It could establish a balance in the region that's currently not present. Obviously other players like Saudi Arabia or Egypt would seek proliferation too, I understand that. But this is a different topic and given that Israel and Iran both targeted Iraqi reactors repeatedly, they might actually work together to prevent further proliferation in the region. It's a lot of theory crafting that might be better to be moved elsewhere or really just deleted together with all the other political stuff here.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
That's entirely besides the point here, but I don't consider a nuclear Iran any more of a threat to the world than the likes of Israel, Pakistan, India and to a degree North Korea. Perhaps France as well with their nuclear policy being an outlier (imagine having literal nuclear ALCM as 'warning shots')

We can all agree that despite personal biases that the US, Russia, China and UK are the most responsible nuclear nations, having been a part of "the game" from the start or very early on (Yes despite accidents and a handful of lost warheads during the cold war).

But anyone who thinks Iran would sell nuclear weapons or supply their proxies with them is just deluding themselves to be honest. That's not going to happen, even if they got the bomb yesterday.
Click to expand...
No, I think that a nuclear-armed Iran would see the IRGC launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem within a few weeks of them getting a working nuke.

And then the whole world sees just how many nukes Israel actually owns, as Israel proceeds to delete Tehran, Baghdad, Mecca, Medina, Damascus...

And that this would happen whether or not the President of Iran wanted it to happen.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ever heard of Operation Praying Mantis?

Where the US deleted half the Iranian Navy in about 8 hours?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that would be possible in the modern era without a ground invasion, though. I guess you could drop anti-personnel mines on every Iranian beach and hit every corrugated panel warehouse that looks like it might be manufacturing drones.

The Iranian Navy of the future isn't the one of the past. It would likely be laying mines with civilian shipping, or it would simply use robots, because it has a demonstrated capacity to manufacture vast quantities of drone weapons. Something like those Ukrainian kamikaze USVs would be absolutely lethal to an oil tanker and more in Iran's wheelhouse. The drones could lay mines, deliver torpedoes, fire rockets, etc.

It would be an annoying target set for the USN since it isn't a fast airplane or a large combat ship and would demand every ship get an escort of some kind. This is something the USN hasn't been able to do with the much less developed and less capable Houthi threat.

Thankfully it doesn't seem to be a serious concern at the moment. I think Iran is trying to avoid a ground invasion.

edit: Never mind lol.
 
Dilandu said:
Agreed here. Even if the factory itself wasn't breached - which is not very likely, albeit possible - the shock from bomb hits likely disabled most of equipment. And with centrifuges such damage likely means "needed to be replaced".
Click to expand...
Iran suffers earthquakes frequently, I guess the most valuable facilities will be vibration-proof, such as the buildings on Cheyenne Mountain.
 
NMaude said:
Also wouldn't the sudden loss of electrical power if the facilities electrical substation is destroyed cause an uncontrolled shutdown of the centrifuges damaging and/or destroying them?
Click to expand...
Some guys build a underground facility to install distillery inside, they store a lot of wheat, they macerate it in water and then someone breaks the still, no one will drink Vodka for some time, but that doesn't solve anything. There are a lot of drunks in the world.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Mosaddegh was only better than the Shah in the sense that he was at the very least better, though.
Click to expand...
Ok - so, let's take this ONE. BY. ONE: *PLEASE* tell me if I either completely misunderstand or grossly misconstrue your statement above when interpreting it to indicate that *IN FACT* Mosaddegh was ***BETTER*** than Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, because according to your *very own* argument, he was "better than the Shah in the sense that he was at the very least better" - HUH??? I am not a native English speaker, but to me that sounds like what might be called "faint praise", or what in certain circles might even be perceived as a poor attempt at "gaslighting", or conversely, an obvious logical truism (DUH!) - perhaps you should look those up terms to maybe improve your influencer(?) craft... Because in general, BETTER is always the enemy of the GOOD, but *for certain* it is even much more strongly the enemy of the BAD, yeetmahboi...
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
Iran suffers earthquakes frequently, I guess the most valuable facilities will be vibration-proof, such as the buildings on Cheyenne Mountain.
Click to expand...
An argument. On the other hand -

Scott Kenny said:
There's a significant difference between earthquake shockwave form and explosive shockwave form.
Click to expand...

- perfectly valid point too. I'm afraid it's outside my area of knowledge to determine(
 
Dilandu said:
An argument. On the other hand -



- perfectly valid point too. I'm afraid it's outside my area of knowledge to determine(
Click to expand...
Let the *actual* USA based experts decide, as far as the current USG still funds them...
 
Kat Tsun said:
I'm not sure how that would be possible in the modern era without a ground invasion, though.
Click to expand...
In a pure, absolute theory - considering the utterly degraded state of Iranian air defenses, it might be just possible to land airborne invasion on Qazvin pass, and rapidly march 50 km on Tehran. With massed strikes agains military bases in town & surrounding area, this just might work.

Or more likely not.
 
Dilandu said:
In a pure, absolute theory - considering the utterly degraded state of Iranian air defenses, it might be just possible to land airborne invasion on Qazvin pass, and rapidly march 50 km on Tehran. With massed strikes agains military bases in town & surrounding area, this just might work.

Or more likely not.
Click to expand...

Well, ground forces are ground forces, but it doesn't need to imply an occupation at least.

Unless Mossad has a list of street addresses and maps of facility grounds they're willing to share it'd be hard to find targets though.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Well, ground forces are ground forces, but it doesn't need to imply an occupation at least.
Click to expand...
My idea was basically a quick, unexpected invasion on Tehran in hopes that it would collapse Iranian C3 (both military and civilian) and ruin the regine credibility. Main problem here, such plan did not have much space to maneuver in case something would go wrong.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Well, ground forces are ground forces, but it doesn't need to imply an occupation at least.

Unless Mossad has a list of street addresses and maps of facility grounds they're willing to share it'd be hard to find targets though.
Click to expand...
In my view, it is not necessary to risk the lives of our soldiers and Iranian civilians with a ground invasion like the one that served to defeat Saddam.

I also don't think it is possible to force an internal revolution through propaganda and little else, the Iranian regime is strong and has at least three levels of resistance very well established for decades.

But if the U.S. Navy closes the strait, the most damaged power would be China, while the others could always buy oil and gas from the United States, such is the final bet of all this political theater.
 

Attachments

  • 8be0f39a-9ab1-4854-9c23-416e7e559e2f.jpg
    8be0f39a-9ab1-4854-9c23-416e7e559e2f.jpg
    219.1 KB · Views: 12
Justo Miranda said:
But if the U.S. Navy closes the strait, the most damaged power would be China, while the others could always buy oil and gas from the United States, such is the final bet of all this political theater.
Click to expand...
US could not export that much. Won't be able in foreseeable future, due to lack of export-oriented infrastructure.
 
Justo Miranda said:
In my view, it is not necessary to risk the lives of our soldiers and Iranian civilians with a ground invasion like the one that served to defeat Saddam.
Click to expand...

An invasion of Iran would be far more difficult than invading Iraq, while Iraq is mostly flat planes Iran on the other hand is very mountainous, it would be a nightmare on the level of invading Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
No, I think that a nuclear-armed Iran would see the IRGC launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem within a few weeks of them getting a working nuke.

And then the whole world sees just how many nukes Israel actually owns, as Israel proceeds to delete Tehran, Baghdad, Mecca, Medina, Damascus...

And that this would happen whether or not the President of Iran wanted it to happen.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem is home to one of the holiest sites in Islam, not going to happen. Israel is a nuclear armed nation, another reason it's not going to happen. It's furthermore doubtful the IRGC would be anywhere near the stockpile. They're just paramilitary goons. And even still, they wouldn't just nuke Israel out of the blue.

The last nuclear weapons deployment in history was Americans dropping weapons of mass destruction on two cities. Since then nothing happened. People are pretty averse to the usage of nuclear weapons. Even against people they really, really hate. The threat of nuclear retaliation is always far greater than the actual use. Every nuclear power is keenly aware of this, so is Iran.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, I think that a nuclear-armed Iran would see the IRGC launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem within a few weeks of them getting a working nuke.
Click to expand...
This is a weird assumption. IRGC never shown itself uncontrollable, nor is Iran known for launching attacks first. Supporting non-state militias, sure, but holding Tehran responsible always came from other side.

Moreover, after death of Soleimani, it seems it largely lost any grip and just wanted comfortable life. IRGC, I.e. was a reasonable, rather elderly force with additional political function (but mostly piece of pie for right people and lifelong employment program for their children).

Now, now Israel removed people who made it happen, and gave vendetta and certain...expectations about "calm life" to their replacements.
 
Forest Green said:
Israel says struck to 'obstruct access routes' to Iran's Fordo
www.spacewar.com

Israel says struck to 'obstruct access routes' to Iran's Fordo

Jerusalem (AFP) June 23, 2025 - The Israeli military said it had launched air raids Monday to block access to Iran's enriched uranium facility in Fordo which was bombed by the United States at the weekend.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
I like the strategy even build it into the ceasefire. We are allowed 24/7 drone coverage around “these nuclear sites” and if we see any movement/activity it will be eliminated.
 
No one has ever won a war with bombings, nor has he managed to liberate a country with propaganda. Israel's great military successes have always been achieved using the doctrine of combat with combined arms: motorized infantry, regular infantry, artillery, tanks, paratroopers and tactical aviation. The preparation of these offensives has always required prior intelligence work and operations by airborne or naval commandos.

When the Israeli high command attempted to break the dynamics of the War of Attrition between January and April 1970, the IAF carried out a series of strategic attacks deep inside Egypt and attacking military targets in the vicinity of the most populous cities. Despite achieving important tactical successes, the air-only offensive proved a strategic and political failure because it only achieved greater unity of the Egyptian people around their leaders.

Whoever wants to win this war is going to have to use something completely new or enter another long-lasting mousetrap.
 
Justo Miranda said:
No one has ever won a war with bombings, nor has he managed to liberate a country with propaganda. Israel's great military successes have always been achieved using the doctrine of combat with combined arms: motorized infantry, regular infantry, artillery, tanks, paratroopers and tactical aviation. The preparation of these offensives has always required prior intelligence work and operations by airborne or naval commandos.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define 'war' and objectives here. What Israel has made clear, is that it is willing to do a lot to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. And when it decides to do it, it can actually execute. I don't think the hastily arranged ceasefire changes that. Israel will attack again if they find a target of opportunity or if they see movement that moves Iran closer to a bomb. This is about survival for Israel (this is how its leadership sees it) so I don't think walking away from the ceasefire will be a bridge too far if such a move is in its best national interests.

Secondly, the IAF and later US seems to have exacted a significant cost on Iran when it comes to nuclear sites, missile production, launchers and other supporting infrastructure...To include scientist and leaders including regime leadership. This pushes those capabilities back months to years as well. I don't think there is or should be any doubt in the region that Israel is prepared to do this all over again in a year or two if presented with a similar tactical situation (Iranian nuclear capability and/or intent) with or without direct US involvement.
 
bring_it_on said:
Depends on how you define 'war' and objectives here. What Israel has made clear, is that it is willing to do a lot to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. And when it decides to do it, it can actually execute. I don't think the hastily arranged ceasefire changes that. Israel will attack again if they find a target of opportunity or if they see movement that moves Iran closer to a bomb. This is about survival for Israel (this is how its leadership sees it) so I don't think walking away from the ceasefire will be a bridge too far if such a move is in its best national interests.

Secondly, the IAF and later US seems to have exacted a significant cost on Iran when it comes to nuclear sites, missile production, launchers and other supporting infrastructure...To include scientist and leaders including regime leadership. This pushes those capabilities back months to years as well. I don't think there is or should be any doubt in the region that Israel is prepared to do this all over again in a year or two if presented with a similar tactical situation (Iranian nuclear capability and/or intent) with or without direct US involvement.
Click to expand...
The definition of war, in Israel's case is simply SURVIVAL at any cost, they cannot afford to wound an enemy who has sworn to annihilate them.

Israel will not have another historic opportunity like this, with a favorable US administration, a totally discredited and irrelevant European Union and both Russia and China with their own difficulties. The incredible mistake made by the Gazans was their Pearl Harbor and if they do not want to have a Hiroshima they will have to finish what they have started now... or never.

Europeans and Americans, safe from danger, are not mentally equipped to understand the depth of this situation, but if Israel falls, Europe will be next.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The definition of war, in Israel's case is simply SURVIVAL at any cost, they cannot afford to wound an enemy who has sworn to annihilate them.
Click to expand...

I don't Israel will necessarily stop or not use an opportunity to go after targets if they cross a certain threshold. They launched the offensive stating that this would take about two weeks so I don't think it was there intention to spend months trying to run a ground campaign there. One thing is clear, Israel will not allow its ability to fly over Iran to roll back..in a way similar to what it had done in Syria each time it saw Iranian activity against it there. Again, I don't think the broader ceasefire changes that. That is a new negional reality now and it would be wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
 
I know I'm harping on Jeffrey Lewis but the guy has some pretty good open source-ish chops when it comes to this sort of stuff. This time on the "Geopolitics Decanted" podcast, a sort of a provisional BDA on Iran's nuclear proliferation chain.

View: https://youtu.be/iCfMfoaUaMA


Here's my (possibly faulty) tl;dw summary (I'd rather if you watched anyway):

There doesn't seem to be damage to Iran's mines but when it comes to uranium hexafluoride at least their industrial scale capacity is destroyed. When it comes to centrifuges, it's a mixed bag with unknowns. Above ground centrifuge production facilities are gone but Natanz's underground one is deeper still than even Fordow. Centrifuges are hard to evacuate in an expedited manner but under the circumstances the Iranians may have tried anyway; there may be stockpiles as well.

Natanz's aboveground enrichment is destroyed and Fordow is at least MOP'ped fwiw; there's very likely an undeclared (edit: declared the day before bombings to the IAEA) underground facility as well (which, I inferred, remains untouched) but it's unknown at what stage of readiness it is. Isfahan's aboveground conversion facility, the next link in the chain towards weaponization, is destroyed. Parchin was bombed as well but some of the production was already parcelled out.

Iran's reconstitution capacity depends heavily on their preparation, at least some of which is evident in satellite images. The 400 kgs of 60% enriched uranium would've been easy to move. If they have the requisite centrifuges available, a Fordow-scale facility takes a minimum of 18 weeks to install. Supposing extensive damage and the loss of HEU, the timescale is around a couple of years. As the whole process is pretty industrial, top level assassinations are more a matter of organizational culture, resilience and psychology than loss of know-how.

There's a lot more nuance and information to the whole discussion. Let's just say it's not the best of times to make predictions.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
I don't Israel will necessarily stop or not use an opportunity to go after targets if they cross a certain threshold. They launched the offensive stating that this would take about two weeks so I don't think it was there intention to spend months trying to run a ground campaign there. One thing is clear, Israel will not allow its ability to fly over Iran to roll back..in a way similar to what it had done in Syria each time it saw Iranian activity against it there. Again, I don't think the broader ceasefire changes that. That is a new negional reality now and it would be wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...



The Germans only stopped firing rockets and cruise missiles at London when the Allied troops occupied the launchers, the bombing raids did not succeed.

The same has happened in the two wars in Gaza and in the two wars in Lebanon, only the presence of ground troops definitively ends the threat of rockets.

Geography prevents the IDF from operating on Iranian territory. No matter how much the enemy is bombed, he will not abandon his purpose of destroying Israel. The soft power solutions of encirclement and economic sanctions have not managed to put an end to no surviving dictatorship of the Cold War. Nor will they achieve regime change in Iran no matter how much suffering they cause to the civilian population.

If over the last twenty years new technologies have been developed to dissolve these remnants, now would be a good time to reveal them.
 
Last edited:
UpForce said:
The 400 kgs of 60% enriched uranium would've been easy to move. If they have the requisite centrifuges available, a Fordow-scale facility takes a minimum of 18 weeks to install.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey is fixated on that, as are others, and for understandable reasons. Though reading between the lines, the silence from Israel and the US on this point raises some interesting questions on whether there might be other things at play here. If there are 900 lbs of highly enriched uranium stored in a top secret storage site..that would have been a pretty big red flag for Israel to acecpt a ceasefire..no matter how much pressure the Trump administration or Trump personally applied. Perhaps there's something that we do not yet know about this.
 
bring_it_on said:
I don't think there is or should be any doubt in the region that Israel is prepared to do this all over again in a year or two if presented with a similar tactical situation (Iranian nuclear capability and/or intent) with or without direct US involvement.
Click to expand...

The issue I see for them is that each time the Iranians will be better prepared. Installations more hardened, operations further dispersed, dug in deeper yet again.

There is a rule of diminishing returns, which delays only the inevitable but has no real possibility of stopping it. Two countries that view each other as an existential threat will be locked in a nuclear stand off and engage each other through proxies. A pocket cold war in the sandbox, ugh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom