☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to news@hexbear.netEnglish · 2 months agoThe risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. The US fully expects Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes.www.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square26linkfedilinkarrow-up180arrow-down10cross-posted to: world@quokk.auworldnews@lemmy.mlworld@lemmy.world
arrow-up180arrow-down1external-linkThe risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. The US fully expects Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes.www.reuters.com☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to news@hexbear.netEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square26linkfedilinkcross-posted to: world@quokk.auworldnews@lemmy.mlworld@lemmy.world
minus-squareBanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·2 months agoWhy are nukes so much scarier than regular bombs and missiles btw? Gaza is flattened and no nukes were involved with that.
minus-squarejack [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 months agoBecause the US could do that with a single stealth bomber in one bombing run that can’t be defended against. To do the same with conventional bombs would take far longer and Iran’s air defenses and retaliation would make it too costly to maintain.
Why are nukes so much scarier than regular bombs and missiles btw? Gaza is flattened and no nukes were involved with that.
Because the US could do that with a single stealth bomber in one bombing run that can’t be defended against. To do the same with conventional bombs would take far longer and Iran’s air defenses and retaliation would make it too costly to maintain.