Would an Iranian-linked terrorist attack on U.S. soil increase or decrease support for Trump?

[pete6032]

Question in the title. Would Americans see the terrorist attack as a result of Trump's war and thus his fault? Or would they see it as Trump being "right" that Iran is a threat and increase their support for him?

 

[hal2kilo]

Question in the title. Would Americans see the terrorist attack as a result of Trump's war and thus his fault? Or would they see it as Trump being "right" that Iran is a threat and increase their support for him?

There's a poll option,

 

[eelw]

Nothing to do about him being right or not. People would want revenge if there is a terrorist attack

 

[ivwshane]

Iran and any other country would be foolish to support/allow any such attack in the US, especially seeing how Trump is already destroying the country more than anything they could possibly do. If bin Laden was alive and was contemplating an attack on the twin towers now, with Trump in office, he would have scrapped his plans and simply donated to Trump and considered his intent on bankrupting the US a success.

 

[HomerJS]

Iran knows anger would increase against them. That why I think a false flag attack by the Mossad is in the works.

 

[amenx]

I also expect false flag. Iran is smart. It knows such acts would not serve their interests in any way. And we know whose interests it would serve.

 

[balloonshark]

If I had nuclear material and was backed into a corner I know what I would be doing.

 

[amenx]

If I had nuclear material and was backed into a corner I know what I would be doing.

If I were to momentarily abandon my pacifist nature, so would I. Use it against the country that poses the greatest threat to my existence, Israel.

 

[feralkid]

Iran knows anger would increase against them. That why I think a false flag attack by the Mossad is in the works.

That's too bad, as they have actual competence, as opposed to the Smelly Guy administration's usual botched jobs.

 

[blankslate]

At this point my first instinct would be to believe a False Flag Attack has been perpetrated upon us.




______________________

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If I had nuclear material and was backed into a corner I know what I would be doing.

Problem is if they successfully test a bomb we would know immediately either from satellite or from seismograph, so they better have some proof they have the ability to launch MIRVs from a ballistic missile to plow at least one warhead right through the iron dome or it's suicide for them.

 

[balloonshark]

Problem is if they successfully test a bomb we would know immediately either from satellite or from seismograph, so they better have some proof they have the ability to launch MIRVs from a ballistic missile to plow at least one warhead right through the iron dome or it's suicide for them.

I was thinking they could use something more "dirty" and in the US. It would likely turn most Americans against them though. But when your fighting for your very existence you tend to seriously consider all options available to you. The longer this goes on the more likely they consider extreme options.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I was thinking they could use something more "dirty" and in the US. It would likely turn most Americans against them though. But when your fighting for your very existence you tend to seriously consider all options available to you. The longer this goes on the more likely they consider extreme options.

The smuggled in dirty bomb is a fantasy. They'd still have to test the implosion device and the implosion device becomes way harder to engineer for smaller bombs than for something you'd take out a city center with. Only way to know if you have the implosion device working is to use it in a real nuclear explosion. The gun type nuke that doesn't need testing would piss away all their enriched uranium. For instance the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained more than 90% of the world's U235 at the time. Vance is smart enough to know he's gaslighting Americans when he talks about suicide vest nukes, completely impossible even with American engineering where we have had nukes for more than 40 years much less for a nation that has never set off a nuke like Iran.

Furthermore, when you nuke someone unless you're aiming for a missile silo or an underground bunker you're exploding it a few thousand feet in the air, as a nuke is way way more destructive when airburst vs when groundburst since you don't have damping of the blast wave from the ground and structures on it and you get positive interference from the blast wave and its reflection off the ground if airburst at the right altitude for the given yield of the bomb.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If I had nuclear material and was backed into a corner I know what I would be doing.

Kind of depends what Iran's missile tech is like. They'd want a missile capable of deploying say 8 MIRVs (eg 8 independent warheads per missile). Then they'd want enough enriched uranium to make say thirty 100 kiloton thermonuclear warheads, one in each MIRV, so good luck Iron Dome. Of course they'd first have to test a standard nuclear bomb and once you have that implosion device probably wouldn't take too long to be able to turn that into an H-bomb, eg a thermonuclear warhead. But better announce your H-bomb plus reliable delivery system to the world quick after you explode that first test nuke because if you don't you're getting nuked.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

If I were to momentarily abandon my pacifist nature, so would I. Use it against the country that poses the greatest threat to my existence, Israel.

That's suicide for Iran as Israel has a well developed nuclear arsenal and Trump would unleash half our stockpile of B83s dropped from Stealth Bombers on Iran. Those could turn all of Iran's population centers into Gaza in the snap of a finger. The point of Iran having nukes is deterrence.