(03-07-2026, 05:15 AM)EndtheM Wrote:
1 of only 2 boats modified for Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) support (now discontinued), the "Silent Stinger" now can claim the only submarine torpedo kill this century. USS Charlotte (SSN-766), a 32 year old Los Angeles-class apex predator. What a career.

To my knowledge there are now two warships in service in the U.S Navy that have sunk another warship in combat: USS Charlotte (SSN 766) and USS Constitution (the one in Boston Harbor). I'm assuming the other IRIS sinkings were by aircraft, and Houthi boats don't count as warships.

For an idea of what things looked like onboard USS Charlotte during its attack on IRIS Dena, this Navy video shows some of the procedures to man battlestations and conduct a torpedo attack. This is for a submerged target but many of the steps are the same.

(03-07-2026, 11:53 AM)727Sky Wrote:  Evidently many soldiers (maybe one third of their army) are buried along with their missiles.

Quote:Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as “countries that could be involved” in all three kinds of threat. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

(03-07-2026, 04:25 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: US will use nuclear weapons if it starts losing or is surprised by a military outcome ?


Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable

Quote:Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as “countries that could be involved” in all three kinds of threat. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

(03-07-2026, 05:43 PM)Moon68 Wrote: One should probably find a more updated article when doom porn posting.

That's from 2002.

(03-07-2026, 05:57 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 05:43 PM)Moon68 Wrote: One should probably find a more updated article when doom porn posting.

That's from 2002.

I dunno if the idea ever gets old - we used to say, in reference to Iran, way back in the early 1980's, "NUKE their ass and TAKE their gas!"

I even had it on a t-shirt!

Yeah, we were a little pissed off about the whole hostage ordeal... and I don't think I ever got over it. Just shows I can hold a grudge for a really long time...

.

(03-07-2026, 05:43 PM)Moon68 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 04:25 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: US will use nuclear weapons if it starts losing or is surprised by a military outcome ?


Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable

Quote:Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as “countries that could be involved” in all three kinds of threat. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

One should probably find a more updated article when doom porn posting.

That's from 2002.

Quote:"Consistent with prior reviews, our nuclear strategy accounts for existing and emerging non-nuclear
threats with potential strategic effect for which nuclear weapons are necessary to deter. We
concluded that nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow
range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks. This is a prudent approach given the
current security environment and how it could further evolve"


"United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend
the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners."

"Achieve U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails. We will maintain a safe, secure, and effective
nuclear deterrent and flexible nuclear capabilities to achieve our objectives should the President
conclude that the employment of nuclear weapons is necessary."

(03-07-2026, 06:54 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 05:43 PM)Moon68 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 04:25 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: US will use nuclear weapons if it starts losing or is surprised by a military outcome ?


Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable

Quote:Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as “countries that could be involved” in all three kinds of threat. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

One should probably find a more updated article when doom porn posting.

That's from 2002.

I think the newest Nuclear Posture Review is 2022 .

It is not as agressive wording as 2002 , but if i undersstand what the wording in it say , it still has room for use nuclear weapons if needed .

2022 national defence strategy     ( includes 2022 NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW )

some points :

Quote:"Consistent with prior reviews, our nuclear strategy accounts for existing and emerging non-nuclear
threats with potential strategic effect for which nuclear weapons are necessary to deter. We
concluded that nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow
range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks. This is a prudent approach given the
current security environment and how it could further evolve"


"United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend
the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners."

"Achieve U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails. We will maintain a safe, secure, and effective
nuclear deterrent and flexible nuclear capabilities to achieve our objectives should the President
conclude that the employment of nuclear weapons is necessary."

 
IMO the situation now with Iran is close call , but depends also what Iran does next .

(03-07-2026, 08:00 PM)Moon68 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 06:54 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 05:43 PM)Moon68 Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 04:25 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: US will use nuclear weapons if it starts losing or is surprised by a military outcome ?


Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable

Quote:Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”

Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as “countries that could be involved” in all three kinds of threat. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

One should probably find a more updated article when doom porn posting.

That's from 2002.

I think the newest Nuclear Posture Review is 2022 .

It is not as agressive wording as 2002 , but if i undersstand what the wording in it say , it still has room for use nuclear weapons if needed .

2022 national defence strategy     ( includes 2022 NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW )

some points :

Quote:"Consistent with prior reviews, our nuclear strategy accounts for existing and emerging non-nuclear
threats with potential strategic effect for which nuclear weapons are necessary to deter. We
concluded that nuclear weapons are required to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow
range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks. This is a prudent approach given the
current security environment and how it could further evolve"


"United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend
the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners."

"Achieve U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails. We will maintain a safe, secure, and effective
nuclear deterrent and flexible nuclear capabilities to achieve our objectives should the President
conclude that the employment of nuclear weapons is necessary."

 
IMO the situation now with Iran is close call , but depends also what Iran does next .

The purpose of the NPR is to denote the circumstances that would require the use of nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be outlined in the report?

(03-07-2026, 06:54 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote:  
IMO the situation now with Iran is close call , but depends also what Iran does next .

(03-07-2026, 08:15 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(03-07-2026, 06:54 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote:  
IMO the situation now with Iran is close call , but depends also what Iran does next .

I don't think it's nearly as close as the reporters on the Left are wishing it was,nor as close as they are trying to convince people it is.

Iran is, currently, just not that big a threat... and as times goes by, what threat they can muster is dwindling.

Some of us here lived through the Cold War, when nuclear strikes were actually on the table and a real threat. Coming from that background, the current situation is not even close. I can't really think of anything that Iran is really still capable of that would justify a nuclear strike.

They may still have some fissionable material, but they won't be refining any more any time soon, and even with the fissionable material, they no longer have the capability of building a war head or a system to deliver it.

The only other thing I can think of that might justify it would be a biological warfare release, and that would kill off as many Iranians as it does the rest of us, so they might want to rethink it if that is even a consideration. It's difficult to claim dominion over people who are so dead they no longer care, so the power of the regime over their own people would die right along with those people, which is not an ideal situation for the power-hungry.

.