this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
235 points (98.4% liked)
World News
32316 readers
942 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not opposed to this one honestly, it's defensive and Israelis are quite literally holding the world hostage in a way that every other nuclear power simply implies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
This defense enables and emboldens Israeli aggression.
It removes, or significantly reduces, the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles.
That means, it removes, or reduces, any deterrent effect they have, on moderating Israel.
This is not good, but less because of the risk of American KIA, and more because of how it changes the Israeli calculus.
Not really. Iran wants an excuse to sit it out and they just got it.
What it will do is give the us more intelligence agents in the ground figuring out what the actual duck is going on.
We don't care about isrealis killing ours. Neither attacking a ship nor running a civilian over with a bulldozer raised too much issue.
I'm quite aware of THAAD's capabilities, including its tracking radars, at least as far as publicly disclosed information goes.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about this reducing, or removing, one of Iran's primary means of deterrence against Israeli attacks.
If Israel doesn't have to worry about the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, it frees them up for an even more aggressive course of action.
Unless you're suggesting that this means Israel can, and should, continue to directly attack Iran...?
No I mean they can intercept Israeli missiles and they aren't Israeli controlled.
These will not be used to shoot down Israeli missiles...