A thought: Boots on the ground lowers the risk of nuclear escalation

[Another Jackalope]

Assuming that the combatants don't want to nuke their own guys.
Ironic, isn't it?

[gab13by13]

1. Better tell that to Israel

They have been bombing near nuclear facilities.

[Another Jackalope]

12. The risk of conventional bombing near a nuclear facility

isn't on the same scale as lighting off a tac.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Oh. Really?

[Another Jackalope]

4. Assuming the Americans don't want to nuke their own troops.

Maybe a poor assumption, though.

[Blues Heron]

3. Trump doesn't care, more martyrs for his arch

[Another Jackalope]

5. That's an easy dismissal.

Real life is more complex.

[Blues Heron]

8. Trump really doesn't care about human life, everybody should know that by now.

[durablend]

11. They're just "Suckers and losers" according to Trump

He doesn't give a damn

[Johnny2X2X]

14. Agree that Trump doesn't care about human life

Including the "suckers and losers" that serve our country. He'd care if it made him look bad, but human life having value doesn't figure into his equation.

I think Trump would nuke an America city in the blink of an eye if he thought it would help him.

[hay rick]

6. Not really.

Boots on the ground is an escalation. If it turns into another, greater disaster, the next available escalation is tactical nukes, which should not be a direct threat to our troops. Trump's bruised ego is always looking to unleash the next bigger outrage. One hopes there is somebody rabies-free in a position to stop him but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

[Another Jackalope]

7. That's why I said "lowers the risk".

It never eliminates the risk. There's always the possibility that someone will take a calculated risk. Or be insane.

[Ilikepurple]

25. The reply was an argument that it is not obvious that feet on the ground lowers the risk

It seems to provide reasons to assume it might raise the risk. Iran is not the size of Manhattan. Troops don’t have to be near the nuke. Tactical nukes are designed in part to help with troop deployment. Yes, there’s always a risk, especially with insanitary at the helm, but that really wasn’t the point you were responding to. You talk of the “calculus” of war and the “complexity” of life yet I see no complex analysis of the situation. I just see they don’t want to drop nukes on our troops heads, assuming that they have to drop them on their heads and that our commander doesn’t buy into the escalate to de-escalate nuclear military strategy. Moreover, they must already be considering the precedent that using a nuke again would mean to a nuclear armed world or that they even care at all I agree that troops on the ground has some value as a deterrent to the use of a nuclear weapon, but I’m not sure it is greater than the expected response to such an action by allies, enemies, and our voting population itself. The world has been a deterrent since 1945. I feel that unless an actual argument can convince me otherwise, the change in degree of risk troops on the ground brings is up for debate.

[Jilly_in_VA]

9. You wanna send your kid?

Mine went to Iraq twice. Came home with massive PTSD and a TBI that I could see but the VA wouldn't/couldn't diagnose (incompetent, uncaring bastards! If I'm a nurse and I can read the signs, why couldn't they?) and ended up dying by suicide 5 years later. You really want that for your kid or someone else's? I SURE AS HELL DON'T!

[Another Jackalope]

13. Nope, don't want to send anyone's kids

Just making a theoretical observation of the calculus of war. I've been utterly anti-military for 70 years.

[Ilikepurple]

23. I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a nephew who has never recovered from his multiple tours.

He started out with an increased sense of esteem. He seemed worse after each tour and pretty much aimless after the end of the conflicts. He now has lost everything including his family and will to engage the world. I hope at some point he gets the help he needs, but it’s a lot to come back from. Although, the word “casualty” in war generally refers to those killed, there are many “casualties” of war that are uncounted, undercounted, or not given the proper attention. Again, I hope my comment serves to support your comment rather than detract from the sacrifice that you and your child made for W’s needless war. It makes my heart heavy which I believe is needed when we just start thinking about the numbers in war.

[walkingman]

10. Even the consideration of using modern nuclear weapons is insanity.

What could possibly be worth the risk?

These religious nuts worry me because they have lost touch with reality.

[Another Jackalope]

15. Sanity is a dangerous assumption.

Especially when religion enters the picture.

[fujiyamasan]

16. I think the problem is the assumption

That Israel and/or the US doesn’t want to use nukes.

[haele]

17. Boots on the ground means death regardless.

Any nation that does a nuclear first strike nowadays loses. Everyone else in the world will consider them a f'ing rabid dog rushing the neighborhood pack of curs; an immediate threat to the world, a global enemy to be taken out.

That's why Bibi wants *rump to nuke Iran. He's got visions of being the next King Saul, and he still has too much work to do.
Our time as an empire is pretty much over, thanks to Bush and our "global" Oligarchs.

[Wounded Bear]

18. trump probably thinks that a nuke is just another, bigger bomb...

and I think a lot of repubs/MAGAs think the same. No concept of radiation or fallout, let alone retaliation from other nuclear armed nations.

I happen to live in a target rich environment for nukes when they fly. With any luck I'll be vaporized in the first couple of hours. I don't think I want to survive WWIII.

Like Einstein said: I don't know what they'll fight WWIII with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.

[Miguelito Loveless]

19. Not really...

If the US suffers a mass casualty event (such as getting barraged by artillery and drones while taking Kharg island) Trump will see that as an excuse to nuke Tehran.

The longer this goes on, the more inevitable it becomes.

[Prairie Gates]

24. Exactly right...the use of nukes will be justified on the basis of saving troops from costly invasion

As it was in Japan. Literally the only parallel case example we have directly contradicts the OP's argument.

[JI7]

20. Trump doesn't care

[Torchlight]

21. I'd think additional targets invites a disproportional reponse.

And as there appear to be little zero rational actions, reactions and responses in this conflict from anyone (except from those nations not playing this for-profit game), I simply don't trust any one of them to err on the side of rational caution or to look at the long game.

Two feckless and irrational leaders in a hot conflict will most certainly consider responses no one of sound mind would consider.

[RockRaven]

22. Not really, considering who is making that decision.

One cannot count on typical decision making from a decidedly atypical decision maker.

[Hope22]

26. Or does it?

He seems to hold all Americans with contempt!