>Against non-nuclear nation, there isn't really much threat of retaliation.

There is from the rest of the world. Israel needs the west on its side. Using nukes would guarantee that support would end, which would make them extremely vulnerable.

Layman's impression, but it seems like Iran has been holding onto stockpiles and deliberately not going all the way to weapons grade, probably to navigate around the threat of us invasion or similar in the time between them getting that and credibly weaponizing it. Recent events may push them to rush it though, if they still have the facilities.

Because it would have catastrophic consequences on the world order. Normalizing nuking your opponent will invite Russia to nuke Ukraine, China Taiwan, and North Korea South Korea. The USA will not let Israel nuke anybody.

You do understand that there's a reason no one has used nukes in combat since World War II, right?

. . . right??

Lack of a nuclear response from the target country, if it could even be guaranteed, is not the same thing as lack of retaliation. Even the non-nuclear response from current allies would be devastating for Israel's security.

Iranian general said,

> Pakistan has assured Iran that if Israel uses nuclear weapons, Pakistan will retaliate with nuclear strikes as well.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/pakist...

But who knows if that's true or not.

Why would they escalate to nukes when they can already fly over Tehran and bomb things at will?

Because MAD works when people care about their life.

What's the point? Persians are friendly towards Israel, it's the religious loonies that hold the power, and they can't be eliminated even with many nuclear strikes. As an armchair internet analyst like myself, I'm 100% sure Iran has nukes just no good delivery mechanism. The few missiles they bought from NK that could have delivered a nuke, they used to randomly shoot at Israel.

The closest Israel came to using nukes was in `73 when it looked like it was about to be overrun by Arab armies on multiple fronts and also many suggested it should have dropped it on Gaza on Oct 7, but that would be seriously stupid even just for revenge, since you can't repopulate the area later.

The world of warfare sun tzu planned for is pretty different. Now the real war for western nations is maintaining public support for the war, not actually winning the war. Dropping fliers and tweets that you are about to bomb the area before you drop the bombs is pretty common

When you have total dominance over an opponent, you don’t need the rules of war.

What you need is someone who understands politics.

We have forgotten the advice of the great Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. There is no stick bigger than the US military and it’s been shoved up our own ass by our politicians.

Oh it's certainly knowable. It's a known unknown.

You could imagine all sorts of ways we could find out, from detectors to informants.

USA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. The Executive just continues to expand its power.

The president has broad authority to take military action without the requisite congressional authorization for up to 60 days (plus another 30 to allow for withdrawal of troops). It's been this way since the War Powers Act of 1973.

  —Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
  declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory 
  authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers 
  Resolution.

Maybe it's not a war, it's a special operation.

Congress has largely abdicated a lot of its powers to the President and (to a lesser extent) the Supreme Court.

Working together to solve problems makes you a target to primary voters back at home (i.e., the most hardcore people in your party), so the incentive to to do nothing and enjoy the perks as long as you can.

In theory. In practice every president since before I can remember (maybe Carter?) has sent the military out for something like this. Trumps' supporters pointed that fact out often in his campaign. Too bad it didn't last.

Article II of the constititution grants the president broad authority to direct military operations, deploy troops, conduct military strikes and respond to threats to national security.

Carter deployed troops to Iran without congressional approval, Reagan deployed troops or air strikes to Grenada, Libya and Lebanon without congressional approval. George HW Bush deployed troops to Panama and Somalia without congressional authorization using executive authority and broad interpretations of the 2001 AUMF. Clinton intervened in Haiti, bombed Bosnia and Kosovo, and performed air stikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. George W Bush conducted strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen without congressional approval. Obama used troops or Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and notably sent US troops into Pakistan to apprehend Osama, a sovereing country without congressional authorization. Trump hit Syria and conducted strikes in Iraq against Iran without authorization. Biden conducted strikes in Syria and Iraq and assisted Ukraine in many ways although supposedly not through direct military involvement without congressional authorization.

I’m not sure why there is a sudden argument over whether Trump should be hamstrung, delay opportunities and eliminate surprise completely by having a congressional debate over acts of war that are not declarations of war that have been performed by virtually every president in modern history. It’s just not how the US Government works and Trumps actions in this case are completely in alignment with our norms.

Every president you've lived under has sent Americans to kill and die in other countries, either with or without congressional oversight. Usually without. For reference, neither Korea nor Vietnam were ever declared wars by congress. For Vietnam Congress authorized LBJ to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States". Korea was never a war, and instead was undertaken solely at POTUS's discretion as a "police action" in response to a UN resolution and while Congress did support the effort to procure money and blood to spend in Korea, they never formally authorized any sort of aggression in Korea.

“We’re not at war with Iran,” Vance said. “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”

Maybe it's a legal loophole where the President can unilaterally wage war on specific concepts, people, and physical locations, as long as they keep saying it's not a war against a foreign nation.

Trump canceled the deal that included monitoring. The Iranians, as you’d expect, disabled those in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

What kind of monitoring are you thinking? Uranium is primarily an alpha emitter, and as such very easy to shield. I don't think it could be tracked from a distance.

I don't think you understand how small 400 kilos of U235 is. It's a cube about 11 inches on each side. That would be very difficult to track, specially in a shielded container.

That could have been part of the plan, if they thought the site was impenetrable then warning about an attack would encourage Iran to move the material somewhere more accessible to American weapons.

>the most telegraphed attack in history of warfare

Strictly speaking I think it was Signal'd. It may also have been WhatsApp'd if that wasn't banned yet.

Moving it would have exposed it as an easy target

"We have the ability to destroy things that people think were undestroyable. And so we think we did a really good job."

Truest thing ever said by a Trump spokesmodel!

Our intelligence didn't know that Iran was trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, so we had to do this attack, but now our intelligence definetly knows:

'They are claiming that they moved some material," Mullin said, referring to Israel and Iran, respectively. "Our intelligence report says they didn't," the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Doesn't that just mean American imperialism?

It's honestly incredible how we've learned absolutely nothing. I thought for sure that universally-agreed-upon catastrophe of Iraq would cause the lesson to stick, but no, we're running through the same playbook word-for-word. Including the goose-stepping support of the media: go to the homepage of "liberal" publications like The Atlantic right now and you can see full-throated support of the war and them discovering how much they love Trump now.

What you get is that you destroy their existing stockpile. They can rebuild, but it takes them longer after they rebuild.

"Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled," Trump told a National Guard Conference. "I’ll get it settled very fast. I don’t want you guys going over there."

Why end it? Ukraine is the most successful proxy war in the history of war. Ukraine has destroyed much of Russian ground forces and armor, and eliminated the only advantage that Russia did have, which was artillery. Now artillery accounts for only 20% of casualties on the battlefield. Even if the war ended today, Russia will not receive any of their funds frozen in Europe for decades, if ever. Russia has no military or technology advantage, and no way to rebuild it. Europe is safer than it ever has been.

It always hurts when people close to you get caught up in cults.

Because they never seen war comes to their mainland. They think it just game to kill millions of people and torture and rape others while they're sleeping in their houses in peace.

You mean the one Iran was constantly breaking and refusing access to inspectors?