No. of Recommendations: 4
But why not also do the escorting? Because we don't have a big enough Navy, as I've pointed out on this board a zillion times.
After all, you've also pointed out the diminished state of Europe's naval forces for the past several years. Surely if this is something that can reasonably be done by the European navies - which haven't had the benefit of mobilizing massive numbers to the region in anticipation of the war - then surely we could do it as well.Not while conducting offensive operations at the same time.
You're also making my point for me that the europeans have allowed their military readiness to slide beneath the waves to a point where they might as well not have any Navies at all.
I mean, I ask the question, but I know the answer. Because that's the really dangerous part of the mission, in terms of potential casualties to actual service members. Firing missiles and bombs from far away has its risks, but you're far less likely to start having a lot of coffins than if you're running ships within one or two dozen miles of the Iranian coast.Erm, okay.
With respect to their nuclear capabilities? We haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program, which is what I was talking about. We blew everything up last year, and Iran didn't rebuild any of it. That's why Gabbard had to dodge so much at her hearing. Iran hadn't done anything to reactivate their enrichment program. So there was nothing to blow up.https://www.msn.coam/en-in/news/other/watch-huge-e...How do you know we "haven't really been blowing anything up with respect to their nuclear program"? Are you getting briefings on the strike packages?
It's not a bluff or something - but they have deliberately chosen to remain below breakout even though they've had the capacity to do so for at least a half dozen years.And yet:
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202506078822Iran has formally defended its enrichment of uranium to 60% purity in a public statement, insisting the activity is not prohibited under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).And how much do you need, anyway? You can build the bomb with as low as 20% enriched uranium. The higher the level of enrichment you have, the less physical mass of uranium you need to create fission. The bomb at Hiroshima was ~80%.
You also don't need sophisticated implosion type initiation systems either - all you need is a small gun to fire a uranium "bullet" into another chunk of uranium. Boom. (Some lib on this board will doubt that, I invite you to study nuclear weapons design history).
So the Iranians are already in possession of everything they need to make a crude nuclear weapon.
But even if it did, Iran's economy doesn't cease to exist if you seize Kharg - oil exports are about 12% of their GDP. More like 23%, and several of their industries tied to oil (and/or were dependent on oil revenue) would take a massive hit. No, they don't have the ability to recover from losing a quarter of GDP instantly.
Again, no one disputes the downsides to Iran having a nuke.Then that makes the strategic inaction and inability to game scenarios where they do have one pretty inexcusable.
