Nothing happens if Trump orders an air strike on Iran - Idea of Iran fighting a world war makes NO SENSE - Iran's jets can't even fly over its own capital city Tehran
This is a short debunk focused on helping people who are scared of a world war and to explain clearly why it is utterly impossible. From anything in the Middle East and utterly impossible for Iran. I won’t go into the broader picture - for that see my previous debunk.
video:
(Click to watch on YouTube)
Few of the panicking people I help seem to realize: The Israeli air control of Tehran means Iran's own fighter jets can't even fly over its own capital Tehran.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
The idea of Iran fighting the world in a global war makes NO SENSE
How can this "spiral out of control"?
It can't
Trump may be bluffing, with main aim to encourage Iran to negotiate, but if he does bomb Iran - it still CAN'T become a larger war - because it is so one sided with nobody going to help Iran
Israel has air control over Tehran
This means Iran's own fighter jets can no longer fly over its own capital city
Iran has a few hundred ballistic missiles that can reach Israel.
They can't reach Israel from the furthest away part of Iran.
Only a mutual non aggression pact with Russia.
No possibility of either army reaching the other on the ground.
Nor can either army fight in the sea, only air strikes
Background graphic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_View_of_Tehran_26.11.2008_04-35-03.JPG
Its jets are likely hiding in caves somewhere to avoid being shot down.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Iran’s jets are likely hiding in caves somewhere to avoid being shot down.
Graphic from: https://sofmag.com/iran-underground-fighter-jet-base/
Iran has mobile ballistic missile launchers but they have only a few hundred missiles to an upper estimate of perhaps 2,000 that can reach as far as Israel.
QUOTE “Most estimates I have seen put the number of Iranian missiles capable of hitting Israel closer to 2,000,” Dan Caldwell, a former senior adviser to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X this week.
They can't even fire anything at Israel from Eastern Iran. The Israelis then destroy the launchers if they see them. Iran has destroyed 120 or a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers by the night of the 15th to 16th and continues to destroy them.
QUOTE STARTS
The IDF said it had destroyed a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers by the fourth day of the war, June 16, stating it had hit 120 launchers. Later the same day, the IDF added that it had targeted several trucks carrying ballistic missile launchers. The Israel Air Force continued to focus on the launchers throughout June 16, and the IDF announced it had hit “surface-to-surface missile infrastructure in western Iran.” https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/06/israel-targets-iranian-ballistic-missile-launchers-and-infrastructure.php
Israel has also destroyed the tunnel entrances to many of their underground stores of missiles. This means many of those 2000 can’t even be used, if they have survived.
It also destroys many of the ballistic missiles before they can be fired:
QUOTE This dominance enabled the IAF to strike 20 ballistic missiles before they could be launched on the night of June 15–16. The IDF used 50 aircraft in the overnight missions.
Israel also destroyed all of Iran’s air defences - now there is little left except a few manpads that may be able to shoot down low flying fighter jets.
So Iran has
No fighter jets able to fly, all hiding in caves
Less and less launchers to fire ballistic missiles every day
Only 2000 ballistic missiles many locked up in depots it can’t reach
Nothing could possibly reach Europe or the Americas - they can only just barely reach Israel.
So what about their navy?
Iran’s navy is only 3 small frigates,
Israel could destroy the entire Iranian navy with one bombing raid if it wanted to.
Anyway they couldn't get through the Suez canal and no chance of getting to the US via the Cape of Good hope would take weeks it's ridiculous.
Also they have
a few diesel submarines
Those have to surface frequently and need frequent refueling, again would have to go around the southern tip of South Africa to avoid the Suez Canal - it’s absurd. They can't get to the USA. They can’t get there even if they were let through the canal.
What about it’s army?
Iran's armoured vehicles and soldiers can't even get through Iraq and Syria to Israel never mind somehow get to the US or Europe.
There is no way that Iran will ever try to attack Europe or US.
So why do politicians in Europe talk about it spiralling out of control?
It’s hyperbole. Nobody says HOW that could happen.
Russia will NOT help Iran - it only signed a mutual non aggression pact - a promise for instance not to supply US or Israel with weapons during an active war with Iran
Russia is not going to help Iran.
hat Iran needs urgently are air defences and it needs them RIGHT NOW and has wanted them for MONTHS.
Russia isn't providing them. When Russia won't even SELL Iran air defences when it is under attack by Israel, how does it make sense that Russia would enter the war itself on Iran's side if US joins in. It makes utterly NO SENSE.
Russia has very strong ties with Israel through the Russian jews in Israel. It has only a mutual non aggression pact with Iran. A promise not to attack Iran or to supply other countries with military supplies while they are at war with Iran. That’s all.
Russia never helped Assad against the rebels and it had a far closer connection with him.
But Russia was so caught up in the Ukraine war - that when Assad was losing against the rebels, Russia did almost nothing to help him. It focused on getting its own forces out of Syria before it collapsed It then evacuated the Tartus port losing Russia’s only port on the Mediterranean and only sea port outside of the former Soviet Union.
That was against rebels with no fighter jets, no missiles, mostly driving around in open top trucks though they had some armoured vehicles.
So Russia doesn’t have much capability to help Iran even if it wanted to as it can’t spare the forces from the Ukraine war.
So what about Iran’s treaty with Russia?
They don't have a defence treaty they have a mutual non-aggression pact, very different thing.
Russia agrees not to attack Iran and not to supply any country with weapons in the middle of a war with Iran.
So
Russia can't supply Israel or the US with weapons to attack Iran for as long as the conflict continues.
That's all that Russia has agreed to. It was never plausible that it would support Israel or US anyway so it was a rather pointless pact from Iran’s point of view.
This is the relevant clause:
QUOTE 3. In the event that either Contracting Party is subject to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would contribute to the continued aggression, and shall help to ensure that the differences that have arisen are settled on the basis of the United Nations Charter and other applicable rules of international law.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Comprehensive_Strategic_Partnership.pdf
Apart from that Russia raises issues in the UN Security council and says everyone must stop fighting - that's all it will do.
Russia’s official response:
"no matter what explanations those who planned, developed and carried out the attack on Iran may use to justify it, the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program cannot be resolved by military force and can be settled exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.
… We hope that this is the approach that will ultimately prevail. We call on the parties to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions and the region's slide into full-scale war. In this regard, we recall the US readiness to hold another round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program in Oman,
. Russia strongly condemns Israel’s attack against Iran — Foreign Ministry
Tass is accurate on Russia's own official statements.
Putin has close connections with Jews in Russia and there are many Russian Jews in Israel and there is no way that Putin would attack Israel.
Putin has close ties with Jews in Russia and Russia used to be strongly in support of Israel - as a result of Ukraine war moved to neutral status not pro Iran
Associated Press describe it like this:
QUOTE STARTS
During the Cold War, Moscow armed and trained Israel’s Arab foes. Diplomatic relations with Israel ruptured in 1967 but were restored in 1991. Russian-Israeli ties quickly warmed after the collapse of the Soviet Union and have remained strong.
Despite Moscow’s close ties with Tehran, Putin has repeatedly demonstrated his readiness to take Israeli interests into account.
He has maintained warm, personal ties with Netanyahu, who frequently traveled to Russia before the war in Ukraine.
Russia and Israel have built a close political, economic and cultural relationship that helped them tackle delicate and divisive issues, including developments in Syria. It survived a tough test in 2018, when a Russian military reconnaissance aircraft was shot down by Syrian forces responding to an Israeli airstrike, killing all 15 people aboard.
And even though Russia supplied Iran with sophisticated S-300 air defense missile systems, which Israel said were taken out during its strikes last year on Iran, Moscow has dragged its feet on deliveries of other weapons in an apparent response to Israeli worries. In particular, Russia has delayed providing advanced Su-35 fighter jets that Iran wants so it can upgrade its aging fleet.
Israel, in its turn, appeared to take Moscow’s interests into account by showing little enthusiasm for providing Ukraine with weapons in the 3-year-old war.
The Kremlin’s friendly ties with Israel has fueled discontent in Tehran, where some members of the political and military leadership reportedly were suspicious of Moscow’s intentions.
This is a summary of Putin’s close ties with the Jews in Russia:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: (NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO MATCH IMAGE)
Berel Lazar, chief rabbi of Russia.
Sometimes called Putin’s rabbi because of his close connections with putin. Putin was brought up friends with Jews next door and has a long and close connection with Russian Jews.
1.5 million Russian Jews + families in Israel. Russia was very pro Israel before the Ukraine war and is now resolutely neutra on Iran v. Israel.
Graphic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berel_Lazar_April_2021_(cropped).jpg
Russia used to be strongly in support of Israel and moved to a more neutral stance as a result of the Ukraine war where they are fighting a country led by a Jew, Zelensky.
But Putin has close ties with Jews in Russia, was brought up neighbours to a Jewish family in St Petersburg that his family was on close terms with
. A Surprising Story Behind Putin's Love of Jews
Putin has a close connection with a rabbi often referred to as Putin's rabbi, as Wikipedia puts it:
QUOTE Because of his connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin he is sometimes called "Putin's rabbi."
There are large numbers of former USSR Jews in Israel. About 900,000 or 1.5 milion if you also add non Jewish members of Jewish households from Russia.
China won’t help Iran nor will any other country in the Middle East
China has utterly no interest in what's going on. It's only interest is the oil exports from the Middle East and there are plenty of other oil producers.
Also none of Iran’s Arab neighbours will help. They are also neutral and many are traditionally opposed to Iran such as Saudi Arabia.
Syria used to be a kind of ally of Iran, it let Iranian soldiers have outposts in Syria and transfer weapons to Lebanon too - but not any more with Assad gone.
Hezbollah in Lebanon is essentially over and the Lebanese army won’t assist Iran
Hamas is no longer a significant threat
Iraqi insurrectionists have little by way of weapons
The Houthi rebels are even further from Israel than Iran and aren’t a significant threat to Israel.
None of these countries have any bases or capabilities beyond the Middle East
Israel possibly with US bombing a country that has almost no capability to fight back
So - it is the usual situation in the Middle East.
With Iraq it was 42 countries from all the continents except Antactica fighting Iraq with nobody on Iraq's side. and they fought on the land, in the sea and in the air in the Gulf war and a smaller coalition for the Iraq war. Iraq had no possibility to bring the war to any of those countries.
Here it is Israel possibly helped by the US and with air control of Iran and bombing it from the air. Not a ground invasion. The same limitations the other way. Israel could only get to Iran on the ground by driving through Syria and Iraq and that won't happen. The US in theory could mount a ground invasion by sea, it has the military capability, but in practice there is no way it does that either. There is no possible objective for that.
So it is just Israel plus possibly the US bombing a country that can't fight back.
That's it.
Trump’s hyperbole suggests he WON’T do anything - but if US joins in - by then Iran has no air defences, almost no ballistic missiles - and very low risk of even one American killed
What would the US do?
I think it's a bluff because the more hyperbole Trump uses the less he acts. He is preparing for it but I think it's juts a negotiating tactic. But if it is real it's not a big deal.
This is just the US doing air strikes on Iran AFTER the country's air defences are completely destroyed with pretty much zero risk to the pilots and all they have to do is to drop their biggest bombs on one particular spot over and over for several days until they go through - if he did it to attack Fordov.
That's it. With nothing Iran can do to stop them.
Nothing much is happening that affects anyone except Israel and Iran - nothing there can affect you in other countries.
In the 1960s this would have got very little attention in the news
When I was a kid in the 1960s, this would never have got the attention it does today. Few would even know about it - not about such details as the US president or the IDF warning Iranians to evacuate Tehran. It’s only in the present day always on 24/7 news and the click bait social media that such things seem to be personally important to citizens in countries that can’t be affected in any way whatsoever.
Of course it IS personally relevant if right now you are sheltering in Tehran
Short summary of why there is no risk of a world war from Iran - Iran can’t fight the world and doesn’t want to
Perhaps I can help explain why there is no risk of a world war by sharing three graphics. I will assume you can see the graphics and read in English. Don’t worry if you can’t as I go through the graphics again with text later. I’ll do a short summary for each one.
This is the conflict (not really a war) that everyone is tweeting about etc today:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Not the remotest risk of a regional war or a world war!!
No Iranian proxies left near Israel
Approx. 1,500 Kilometers
Israel is NOT able to drive up to Iran on the ground
Iran is NOT able to fly to Israel
by the geography this can only be a VERY limited exchange
Iran's only proxy: the Houthis 2000 km from Israel to the South
Israel didn't have help of the US
didn't have in flight refueling
flew the short way over Syria and Iraq
only possible because of fall of Assad
used F-16 fighter jets with three external fuel tanks each and two bombs each
It couldn't fly over Jordan
Iraq also objected to the US but the US didn't stop the flightsNo help from the US, only weak involvement is that the US didn't prohibit flight over Iraq.
US did NOT authorize it.
US refuses Israel's request to destroy the high enrichment facilities in Fordow
Nobody will join Iran
US says it will only defend IsraelMap combines https://en.royanews.tv/news/60412 and Google maps
It’s Israel v. Iran, they can’t drive up to each other’s borders so the most can happen is that they fire missiles at each other from a distance until they decide to stop. Israel started it and Iran will stop responding when Israel stops.
This is the Gulf war in 1991.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Wars in the Middle East always STAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
1991 Gulf war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.
42 other countries from every continent except Antarctica fought against Iraq in the Gulf war - NOT A WORLD WAR
UK’s biggest foreign war since WW2. ALL THESE COUNTRIES fought Iraq - NEVER COULD BE A WORLD WAR.
Russia and China neutral.
Most fighting here: (arrow to Kuwait).
UK sent 35,000 soldiers and 13,000 vehicles.
Numbers of soldiers and vehicles from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Map of combatants from here: File:Coalition of the Gulf War vs Iraq.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Map of Iraq and Kuwait from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Background oil painting: British infantry vehicles advancing, Iraq, 1991 Oil on board by Captain Jonathan Wade, Royal Highland Fusiliers, 1992.
Imperial war museum IWM Non-Commercial Licence
42 countries from every continent except Antarctica fought Iraq on the ground, in the air and in the sea
And this explains why there can’t be any world war from Iran.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Mainland US is at no risk of being attacked by ANY Middle East countries - and Russia and China would NOT get involved.
Nobody in the Middle East opposed to the US or Israel is able to fire weapons to another continent. The longest range Iranian missile is 2000 km. It needs most of the range to reach Israel. Its diesel subs and three frigates are no threat to the US or Europe and its military planes can't get there either.
Why there is NO RISK EVER of a world war from yet one more conflict in the Middle East of many (basic geography few seem to know on social media)
Shortest distance from Iran to USA 8,400+ km.
Iran can't shoot further than here (2000 km)
Iran’s missiles can’t get here
Iran is NOT able to attack the US
US often fights in the Middle East - e.g. Iraq, Gulf war, Syria etc.
NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES CAN EVER HIT THE US.
Russia is resolutely neutral on Israel / Iran - it only agrees not to supply Israel with missiles to attack Iran.
This time the US is not even supporting Israel
Iran with its 3 frigates and a few diesel subs CANNOT REALISTICALLY TAKE ON THE WORLD IN A WORLD WAR and won't try.
Iran needs its 2000 km missiles just to hit Israel, closest point 1000 km
Iran and Israel are 1000 km away at their closest
Iran can (or could) put small satellites into orbit. What it can’t do though is the ICBM re-entry. If a satellite re-enters without an aeroshell it just burns up like a fireball with very little reaching the ground.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Iran does not have ICBM re-entry technology
Without re-entry technology anything fired at intercontinental range will just burn up on re-entry
Iran does have the ability to put small satellites in orbit
But they would just burn up on re-entry
(Image: Apollo capsule re-entering Earth's atmosphere)
Apollo 11 re-entry – skipping on atmosphere for controlled landing – comparatively simple to design
(Image: Minuteman III ICBM re-entry vehicle)
Minuteman III ICBM re-entry minimizes time in the atmosphere and maintains precise targeting – an extreme challenge requiring many tests and specialist materials
Iran hasn’t even developed aeroshell re-entry and it hasn’t got the slightest interest in ICBM re-entry – range is 2000 km to reach Israel from most of Iran.
Image credits:
Apollo re-entry capsule with aeroshell: NASA
Minuteman III ICBM: US Air force graphic
Iran simply doesn’t have the capability to attack Western Europe or the Americas even if that was its wish which it is not. There is no way for its planes, or its diesel subs or its missiles or its three small frigates to get to Western Europe or the Americas and it’s not even interested.
And Russia and China won’t get involved.
Iran is in the Non Proliferation Treaty and doesn’t have nukes
There’s a lot of confusion in the stories. None of the sources are saying Iran has WMDs. Israel claims to be acting pre-emptively to degrade its nuclear program so it can't develop a nuke quickly. Even Israel doesn't say that Iran is trying to make a nuke but it claims it is developing the ability to be able to make one quickly if it chooses to do so.
Iran is NOT keen on developing nukes either. Few in the media explain it properly.
Iran ALREADY has ratified the Non Proliferation Treaty and has atomic inspectors.
The problems recently with the IAEA are likely becaues of Iran wanting to protect some of its enriched uranium and centrifuges from Israeli strikes - not to hide them from the IAEA (except as far as Iran thinks the IAEA is not secure enough to keep some of its most highly classified secrets)
It's the other way around. It is Israel that refuses to even disclose to the IAEA that it has nukes, the only nuclear weapon state to refuse to disclose nukes.
Second, Iran would only have them for deterrence if it did develop them.
Third, however
Iran’s long standing position is that it wants all countries to give up nukes as fast as possible. Every year it calls on the UN General Assembly to arrange this.
[add cite]
In particular, Iran wants Israel to declare its nukes and give them up to establish a Middle East nuclear free zone.
https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/newsview/709290
In a world where Israel has nukes, Iran feels safer if it still has uranium enrichment capabilities to civilian levels - which it also sees as its right under the Non Proliferation Treaty since many other NPT countriers do civilian enrichment
HOWEVER, since that is not happening, it's getting no success so far, Iran wants to maintain the ability to enrich uranium because the Iranian regime sees losing that ability as the reason that a US led coalition destabilized the Libyan government leading to the horrible death of Gaddafi by a lynch mob.
That is the background that few seem to know. I explain in my latest debunk and need to expand that section in my next time period I have for working on it.
Iran has many politicians with differing views and some want it to develop nukes but this is their official position and the Ayatollah has the last word on everything and he clearly doesn't want to develop nukes with this background.
And they could also have got as far as the first demo nuke by now if they had wanted to and haven't. The US and IAEA are confident that it hasn't started work on a nuke yet. The concerns about transparency are about the future if it continues to hide its secret facilities from IAEA inspectors then in the future it will be impossible for them to continue to verify what it's doing.
If you understand that then Iran's apparently contradictory stances make more sense, of enriching uranium to 60% while simultaneously every year calling on the UN General Assembly to organize a conference to start the process to rapidly eliminate all nukes.
The largest country that won't sign the Non Proliferation Treaty is India but India for different reasons from Israel.
India declares its nuke and complies with all the provisions of the NPT for nuclear weapons states, and it wants to rapidly eliminate all nukes.
But the NPT only recognizes 5 countries as nuclear states. China, UK, Russia, France and the US. India can't sign it because it would have to join as a non nuclear weapon holding state which it obviously isn't. I.e. it's objection is to the arbitrariness that it only recognizes the five states that tested nuclear weapons before 1967.
Israel is the only nuclear power that won't even officially tell the IAEA whether it has nukes or not. Presumably if it did disclose it would still not ratify the NPT for the same reasons as India but it goes further and won't disclose that it has them.
North Korea is similar to India, it was in the NPT until it developed its nukes. Now it can't sign it. It doesn't let in weapons inspectors.
All the other states with the ability to develop nukes quickly, e.g. Germany, or Brazil or Taiwan, have no interest in developing nukes. They comply with the NPT and allow in IAEA inspectors.
Iran is believed to have hidden secret facilities it's not yet disclosed to the IAEA but the reason for that is because it suspects the IAEA of leaking its disclosures to Israel. It's not likely to be actually making nukes at present but may have more enriched uranium than disclosed. It may well keep some in a secret stash hidden from bombers along with some centrifuges.
Russia is neutral on Iran and Israel
Russia’s official response:
"no matter what explanations those who planned, developed and carried out the attack on Iran may use to justify it, the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program cannot be resolved by military force and can be settled exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.
… We hope that this is the approach that will ultimately prevail. We call on the parties to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions and the region's slide into full-scale war. In this regard, we recall the US readiness to hold another round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program in Oman,
. Russia strongly condemns Israel’s attack against Iran — Foreign Ministry
Iran’s nuclear material is just in the form of a very hot heavy gas that turns solid when cool
Their nuclear material is in the form of a gas called Uranium hexafluoride which turns solid when cooled to below 56.5 C.
This photo shows a vial of Uranium hexafluoride gas turning solid as it cools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Physical_properties
Iran's uranium hexafluoride is 60% enriched with Uranium 238. They could turn it into weapons grade Uranium Hexafluoride in a week using centrifuges. But that is NOT A NUKE. You can't make a nuke from uranium hexafluoride.
The gas itself isn’t even very radioactive. Not like e.g. cobalt 60 (used as an ionizing radiation source and dangerous to handle). You could hold it in your hands for hours and not be at significant risk.
What is special is it can sustain a chain reaction - if you get enough of it and compress it quickly then it will do a runaway reaction, turn very radioactive and explode. But you can’t compress it enough quickly enough to do that as a gas.
Here Elina Charatsidou a Ukrainian nuclear physicist handles natural uranium and nuclear fuel pellets with no special precautions. The fuel pellets have a few % of uranium 235. Her gloves are mainly to protect the pellets not her. Your skin can block out the alpha particles from even highly enriched uranium or plutonium and even a thin sheet of paper can stop them.
Queen Elizabeth was handed plutonium in a bag in 1935 and was invited to feel how warm it was. It was plated in gold. In 1945 Philip Morrison drove 210 miles with enough plutonium for the Trinity test explosion in two hemispheres on his lap and he lived to a very old age too.
QUOTE STARTS
On Thursday 12 July 1945 a US Army sedan drove Philip Morrison the 210 miles from Los Alamos to Alamagordo with the plutonium core of the world’s first nuclear weapon on his lap. At dawn four days later the priceless hemispheres the physicist had helped forge, then assembled, vanished in the highly successful Trinity nuclear test. The scientists who witnessed the test estimated the energy released equivalent to 18,600t of TNT.
,,,,
Morrison, like many intimately involved in the debut of this new metal, lived to a ripe old age. He died earlier this year, aged 89. Hans Bethe, who led the physicists who had conceived the new weapon, died in March, aged 98. Glenn Seaborg, the radiochemist who discovered plutonium in 1941 and wrote the rules for working with it, lived to 87. Edward Teller, who used plutonium to trigger a thermonuclear reaction for his H-bomb, died aged 94.
So prevalent was this mythology by 1977 that Mr Justice Parker, inspector at the Windscale Inquiry into an expansion of plutonium separation in the UK, listed seven “misunderstandings” in his report. Some prevail to this day.
As the late John Fremlin, professor of radioactivity at Birmingham University, famously advised that public inquiry, plutonium can be sat upon safely by someone wearing only a stout pair of jeans.
At Harwell in the 1950s the newly-crowned Queen Elizabeth was handed a lump of plutonium in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was. Morrison had been protected from alpha rays from his hemispheres by nickel plating. The Aldermaston scientists used gold foil.
https://www.neimagazine.com/uncategorized/the-drama-of-plutonium/?cf-view
It also produces a small amount of gamma radiation (penetrating light, like X rays but more energetic) and beta radiation (electrons) and a small number of neutrons (whch are what sustain the chain reaction in a bomb)
https://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html
But for a normal chunk of even enriched uranium none of that is enough to matter.
This doesn’t mean it is okay to go around eating or breathing in large amounts of uranium or plutonium, but short of that, there isn’t any risk from just handling the metals with the recommended precuations of a thin barrier for alpha particles, even if they are enriched.
We all ingest minute amounts every day as both are present in very minute quantities. You shouldn’t eat plutonium or uranium or breathe in the dust.
Chemical compounds of uranium are found naturally, in trace amounts, in air, water, rock, soil, and materials made from natural substances. Small amounts are consumed and inhaled by everyone every day. In the UK the average daily consumption is about 3 micrograms (1 microgram (µg) = 0.000001 g) although it does depend on what people eat and drink. In some parts of the world the natural uranium consumption is higher than in the UK because of the underlying rock is rich in uranium. Consumption in parts of Canada can be hundreds of micrograms per day. It is estimated that the average person worldwide inhales 0.5 µg (14 mBq) and ingests 700 µg (18 Bq) each year in food and water.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/depleted-uranium-du-general-information-and-toxicology
Low doses of radiation may even be beneficial, we were adapted and evolved in its presence. The idea is that they stimulate the cell repair responses. For instance low dose radiation improves the longevity of stem cells.
QUOTE STARTS
The results show significant potential for the use of low-dose radiation to improve stem cell therapy. While non- irradiated stem cells aged significantly, cells treated with low-dose radiation demonstrated improved proliferation, mobility and chondogrenic differentiation capacity. Overall, these results provide the first evidence of delayed aging and improved functional properties of these specific stem cells.
CNL is now undertaking further studies to better understand the mechanisms behind the performance improvements.
https://www.cnl.ca/health-science-2/low-dose-radiation-research/
More evidence here including evidence that exposure to low levels of the naturally occuring radioactive radon gas reduces your risk to lung cancer (after adjusting to show only non smokers)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2664640/
Anyway there is no risk even to people living right next to Fordov if the US was to blow up the enrichment facility.
Uranium and plutonium are chemically toxic in large quantities but harmless in minute quantities.
Trump is the opposite of a hawk - never follows through on his outlandish military hyperbole and is very cautious - in 26 military actions he ordered so far in his first and second term only the very first action had a US casualty - the other 25 had no US casualties - and max of 100 non US casualties
Trump has frequently made outlandish threats. He never follows through. The clear pattern is that he only follows through when there is a very low risk of escalation
He has done 26 military actions so far. Only 1 American casualty in his first ever ordered military action in January 2017. No Trump ordered action since then has ever involved US casualties. [This wouldn't include on going conflicts in his first term, like the war in Afghanistan that he didn't start]
Maximum of 100 non US casualties.
His most outlandish threats didn't lead to any military action.
https://ecfr.eu/article/the-bullys-pulpit-finding-patterns-in-trumps-use-of-military-force/
So far from being a hawk, historically he is extremely reluctant to do anything unless he is sure there will be zero US casualties. And low non US casualties.
Israel can’t destroy Iran’senrichment capabilities and even the US couldn’t do it for long
US says it "Could" get involved - IN THE FUTURE. The detailed story is that US says this is not the time to do it and it's not actively planning such an operation. But in the future the US could strike the Fordov underground enrichment facility to stop Iran getting a nuke.
However looking at more reliable sources such as RUSI, even the US couldn't stop the Iranian enrichment program with even its biggest bombs. It could only delay it slightly.
So it would be far more useful as a threat to force Iran to negotiations than as something to actually do which would achieve nothing except a short delay, likely not even as much as a year - didn't see any estimate of timescale but seems unlikely to do much, maybe a few months to a year or two from what I read. The longer timescales would need US help.
Israel can cause short delays by collapsing entrances to tunnels
Israel can do short delays by collapsing all the tunnels that lead into underground facilities but Iran likely starts digging the tunnels out again almost immediately.
I can't find estimates but based on other examples of collapsed tunnels that Perplexity AI found e.g. rescue operations after a collapsed mine entrance, if it is just the entrances blocked it's likely a delay of days to a week or two. Longer delays if it is partially collapsed of months to potentially years for a long tunnel fully collapsed.
Fordov is very hard to damage - only US has a chance and likely many strikes with its biggest conventional bomb with 15 metric ton of explosives - hitting the same spot over and over for days or weeks
It's far harder to destroy the facilities themselves.
Israel can’t get to the deepest enrichment facilities only US can
This is why the US might get involved, to bomb the deepest Uranium enrichment facilities in Fordov.
However it makes far more sense for the US to BLUFF about doing this than to actually do it.
The US bombs are the only ones that can penetrate to reach them.
Iran likely already has some secret deeper facilities for a stash of uranium / centrifuges
RUSSI says that there is no way for the US to enforce zero enrichment through military action as Iran would just bury the centrifuges deeper below the range of whatever missiles it uses.
Iran knows that it's Fordov facility is potentially vulnerable to repeated strikes by the largest US bomb and has likely already constructed secret facilities even more deeply buried. It wouldn't be difficult to build a facility hundreds of meters deep under a mountain - like building the underground railway tunnels through the Alps. Iran is very mountainous, many places it could do it. Mount Damavand, it's highest mountain, is around 5,600 meters high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Damavand
Also Iran doesn't depend on foreign expertise any more to restart enrichment. It's got all the knowledge it needs now, so the most could be done with even the US doing a bombing campaign is to force it deeper underground, after assessing how deep the US bombs were able to penetrate and then do a new campaign in secret facilities.
Darya Dolzikova from UK military thinktank RUSSI says the US can usefully THREATEN to destroy Iranian facilities to encourage negotation - but it can’t accomplish much by destroying them
With that background - Darya Dolzikova from the UK military expertise think tank RUSSI says that
threatening to destroy the nuclear facilities could be a useful bargaining tool,
to actually do it would likely not achieve the US goal to stop the Iranian nuclear enrichment program
would just force it deeper underground
The threats of strikes so far have probably already pushed some of it deeper underground in undisclosed secret sites to protect it from precisely this scenario as a result of the build up of threats over the last several weeks. .
This is why Trump is likely just bluffing - unless we hear he actually has attacked Fordov.
If he does attack it, then it would be unlikely not to achieve much by way of diplomacy but it’s not going to lead to any kind of spiral!
Iran is rapidly getting weaker, fewer ballistic missiles evey day
Iran did nothing that even hit the news last night - its strikes on Israel led to no casualties and it is firing fewer missiles every day - never mind something that would be remembered for centuries. On Tuesday it did three barrages of missiles, the first fired 20 missiles, the second fired 10, the third fired 2. This is likely due to Israel destroying its ballistic missile launchers.
The total so far fired is 370 ballistic missiles.
It likely had from several hundred to 2000, various estimates. But an unknown number of those missiles have been destroyed and others are in underground silos with all the tunnels to the surface blocked by Israeli missile strikes on the entrances that would take days to a week or two to clear, longer if the Israelis managed to partially collapse the tunnels.
At any rate those stockpiles are out of action for the duration of the war.
So it has an unknown possibly small number of missiles it can use.
And whenever it fires ballistic missiles at Israel, then Israel is flying over Iran and it can detect the ballistic missiles being fired and destroy the launchers.
Iran fires several small missile barrages throughout the day, causing minor injuries
This also shows why NATO is very safe - if Ukraine had the NATO F-35 fighter jets it would quickly have air control over all occupied Ukraine, including Crimea and neighbouring regions of Russia - and Russia would likely decide to leave Ukraine in days
So as Iran continues to do these strikes it loses the mobile ballistic missile launchers - those are trucks with ballistic missiles on the back of them that can drive around and then stop somewhere and fire a missile at Israel and then drive off again. LIke HiMARS but with longer range.
But unlike the situation of the Russians in Ukraine, Israel has air control. https://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-missiles-impact-central-israel-in-morning-barrage-injuring-5/
This also shows why experts say the Ukraine war would end very fast if Ukraine had access to the NATO F-35 fighter jets - if its allies gave them a few dozen and ten gave them permission to use retired F-35 fighter pilots to fly them from the many countries globally that now have them.
If Ukraine had the F-35s it would quickly have air control as Russia has nothing like them. Not long after the Russians would have to leave Ukraine. Because they are not fighting for their own homes, they are fighting for a reason they don't even understand themselves and wouldn't stay and keep fighting if their army was destroyed from above.
Which is why Russia would never attack NATO because NATO would have air control as soon as it started fighting.
No risk of the conflicts joining up
There is NO RISK of the conflicts "joining up". Iran has no interest in attacking Ukraine it is just a commercial opportunity especially with the sanctions and an opportunity to improve its weapons. Russia has no interest in attacking Israel. China has no interest in either and neither of those have any interest in Taiwan. North Korea has no interest in Israel or Ukraine - it is a quid for quo exchange much like mercenaries with Russia. China is not close to Russia at all and gouges it for all it can economically.
None of these are allies with each other in the NATO sense. In theory Russia and Norht Korea have some kind of mutual defence pact but so also does North Korea and China, in reality neither woudl defend North Korea against South Korea and North Korea is only interested in South Korea.
None of these countries have navies or airforces able to operate at a distance thousands of miles away either. Russia lost its only port outside of the former Soviet Union in Tartus. China's only foreign port is in Djibouti a country it shares with many other bases from countries like Japan, US, UK etc.
This is not at all likely to become an all-out war between Iran and Israel. The main risk is of extended Israeli strikes as are already happening - and then Iran responding in some way to Israel. They used to talk about a regional conflict in the MIddle East. That meant Iran together with Lebanon, Syria, and some support from subversive militants in Iraq and the Houthi rebels firing cruise missiles from thousands of miles away - and minute contribution from teh Houthi regels. All fighting Israel with US supporting Israel.
Now it is just Iran exchanging missiles with Israel with 1000 km between their borders at the closest point and no way for the land army in either country to reach the other country. And Houthi rebels could join in with more missiles from even further away, greatly depleted. That is not a world war.
Iran has no force projectdion at all outside the MIddle East it would have to set off with three frigates, a few diesel subs that need frequent refueling on a quixotic mission to tryu to invade teh US or UK makes no sense. Russia and China woudln't join in.
So no there is no possiblity of a world war from any of this.
Russia can't fight a world war either it just doesn't have the military capability to do that. Only firing missiles at a distance which would turn out very badly for Russia not invade anywhere on the ground or from the sea or air. Except the Baltic States - but NATO is far too powerful for it to try that. Or Georgia. Once it is no longer totally caught up in Ukraien Georgia sadly may be at risk but that's about it.
And India and Pakistan can't fight a world war either.
The only country that plausibly could fight a world war is the US, with the help of UK and France. If they wanted to fight a war against the rest of the world they have the capability apart from the nuclear deterrents of Russia, China, and Inda but they have absolutely no expansive intention despite Russia's claims.
NATO's expansion has been through countries joining it voluntarily and they can only join after first ensuring they have no territorial disputes that NATO will need to enter into and support on their side.
Countries that have agreed never to develop nukes - and nuclear free zones
Many people I help have absolutely no idea that almost the entire global South is in a nuclear free zone or how many countries want to rapidly eliminate all nukes.
Only Israel votes against the resolution to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, and three minor abstentions
Iran would like to establish a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone on this map.
This is voted for regularly in the UN General Assembly.
ONLY ISRAEL VOTES AGAINST.
Three abstain: Argentina, Cameroon and the USA.
Several others don’t vote, small island states.
Eeryone else votes in favour including all the Middle East states except Israel
https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf
121 countries joined India to call for a convention to prohibit all nukes in 2024 - majority vote for this every year - 49 against - 12 abstain
India has nukes but wants to very rapidly eliminate all nukes. Every year it brings a resolution to the UN to quickly eliminate all nukes globally as soon as is pracically possible and a majority of countries vote for it every time.
https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf
This shows most of those countries on a map (there are a few small ones the interface didn’t include):
Countries that voted in 2024 to hold a convention on the prohibition of nukes
It claims it’s countries I visited, but I haven’t visted these countries, I just did it in order to make a map with those countries coloured blue. https://map1.maploco.com/visited-countries/mine.php?c1=p152qsqrjv-kvwt9h8o45-eomktlq5gq-k1apl6nv7r-2skpgzm8ri
The complete list is a bit longer. See: https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com24/votes-ga/404.pdf
Nuclear free zones (in blue) - almost the entire global south
The ones shown as blue are in nuclear weapon free zones. Nobody can even bring a nuke into those zones. The ones shown in yellow are Non Proliferation Treaty states. They pledge not to make nukes themselves and have regular atomic inspectors to make sure they don’t produce them. But some of them are in nuclear umbrellas of other states, especially the yellow ones in NATO such as Canada, Norway, Spain etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-weapon-free_zone
Mongolia is the only single country nuclear weapon free zone. The other big blue area in the northern hemisphere is the central Asian nuclear weapon free zone.
The Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (CANWFZ) treaty is a legally binding commitment by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons. The treaty was signed on 8 September 2006 at Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan, and is also known as Treaty of Semipalatinsk, Treaty of Semei, or Treaty of Semey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Nuclear_Weapon_Free_Zone
It’s easy to remember, all the “stan”s except Pakistan and Afghanistan are in it. Stan is a Persian term meaning place.
Treaty on prohibition of nukes
Then there’s the treaty on the prohibition of nukes. Many but not all countries in nuclear free zones are in this treaty.
It also adds a few other countries not in those zones such as Ireland.
Some other countries in Europe such as Ireland also prohibit nukes but aren’t in a nuclear weapon free zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Hans Blix is a former nuclear weapons inspector, former head of the IAEA and chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.
He says that despite blips like Gaza Strip and the Ukraine war that
the world is moving in the direction of less conflict.
He foresees an end to all wars
As a species we are surely only fully civilized once war ends, replaced by non lethal competition such as the Olympics. We will find promising signs that this may even happen this century.
This century may end with us eventually:
scrapping not just most nukes but nearly all missiles.
I cover that here:
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
See also the contents list for that blog post (at the end of the blog post because it is a long one)
Previous post
Trump's Tehran evacuation warning is NOT about nukes - also for Israel's bombings not US - US remains defensive - Trump put forward a ceasefire proposal to both parties - no risk of world war ever
Trump has put forward a ceasefire proposal to Iran and Israel - and is NOT behind whatever is the reason for asking Iranians to evacuate parts or all of Tehran
SEE ALSO
Iran clearly does not want nukes - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got a…
also
Why Iran and Israel are fighting - about whether Iran can enrich uranium - and no possibility of ground war at all - not regional or world war - symbolic blows by Iran counter serious attack by Israel
This is taking a while to write. I expect it to take another couple of hours or more to finish it and meanwhile I thought I should share it “as is” as it’s difficult to find the time to finish it right now and even in its unfinished shape it will help some scared people. Do message me if you see anything to fix and I’ve disabled commenrs because there …
Also
Putin won't use nukes: would damage his regime - risk averse - only invaded Ukraine because sure (mistakenly) he'd win in 2 weeks - if there was a risk as in the Cold War we'd all know about fallout
For those who worry about world war - hopefully this fact check will help.
also
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
Why we are the only ones saying these things - because Doomsday debunked and my substack seem to be the only sources on the internet that help fact check WW3 claims for anxious people
I will do a new video today some time. For some reason nobody else is fact checking this for scared people but that's not new. It seems to be an unrecognized mental health issue that some people are seriously affected mentally by the false claims of world war.
I think many people just don't understand how words along can scare people so much without anything happening in their real life.
I don't know of anyone else doing what we do. There have been other facebook groups doing similar things, but they don't seem to be able to keep going. There was the Ukraine anxiety subreddit but it closed down.
There is nothing official that I know of that does what we do, fact checking click bait and hyperbole and false exaggerations like this FALSE claim that Iran could fight a world war and take the war to other countries globally like the US and when it can't even fly its own jet fighters over its own capital.
And even European politicians are claiming it can spiral out of control but it can't.
People who focus on the facts of the situation and reliable sources or people who have experienced numerous wars in the Middle East, older generation are less likely to believe such things.
While people I help who get very scared get persuaded by social signals. They see lots of tweets, they hear the politicians saying these false things, they hear the Ayatollah of Iran threatening impossible things, they read tweets and watch TikToks by random people who know nothing or who claim to have contacts in secret intelligence or in the military and say impossible things that would get them thrown out of any such organization - and they believe them for social reasons. Just because it seems to them that everyone around them is saying it.
Often the people we help are not scared by people in their real life, Often those close to them reassure them that there's nothing to be scared of.
They may have military friends or relatives or their parents or grandparents or older relatives who have lived through many wars in the Middle East reassure them
But for some people that’s not enough. They get constantly scared by online tweets, TikToks, videos, blog posts, politician exaggerations and so on which overwhelm the messsges they get from people in their real life.
Often they get this impression through social media algorithms that show them more and more of whatever they click on. If 1 in 1000 of those online say something that's millions of people out of billions.
This is a really clear case of that. The facts are so obvious that Iran can't fight a global war.
It's never fired as much as one missile at Europe or the USA or more than 2000 km. It may be able to fire one of its missiles 3000 km but that's it.
Russia has never helped Iran fight in any war against Israel and it is letting Israel take over the Iranian skies and not even sending it more air defences after all its air defences have been destroyed and says it's neutral on the situation and it has strong connections to Israel.
Yet I get people saying over and over that hif the US joins the war, Russia will help Iran.
That makes utterly no sense.
Russia didn't help Assad against rebels in open top trucks. And that is a regime it was actively supporting unlike Iran where it has never supported the regime directly just sold it weapon systems.
Russia lost the Tartus port in the Mediterranean, a major military asset, because it couldn’t support Assad against an insurrection mainly by rebels in open top trucks who had no fighter jets and almost nothing by way of armoured vehicles.
It makes utterly no sense that Russia would help Iran if the US joins in to drop more bombs on Iran.
And then there’s the history of Putin’s close connection with Jews and the many Russian jews in Israel as I explain in my blog posts.
All this is easy to fact check to see to be false using reliable sources.
But nobody is out there fact checking this except our debunkers in our Facebook group and as far as I know mine is the only blog that fact checks these so obviously false clalims.
If anyone else knows of another group or blog that does this do say.
Warning about people who seem to be fact checking but falsely claim to be secret agents etc - and then turn out to have political motives to get you to vote a particular way - or from time to time claim there will be a world war to retain their audience
There are some people sadly who seem to be fact checking for scared people but aren't.
They tell them there is no risk of a world war but they do that with no evidence and no use of sources, and then after they get a big audience they start saying that there is a risk if you vote Democrat, say, and turn out to have a political reason for theri claims.
Or they flip flop and say there isn't a risk then there is then there isn't in order to boost their audience figures.
I mean proper fact checkers who use reliable verifiable information and don't claim to be secret intelligence or to have special secret insights. Those are very unreliable.
A real secret service agent wouldn't say such things. And if they really had contacts in the military that trusted them to keep a secret, then those contacts would stop saying anything to them after the first video.
That genre of videos is very clearly BS if you stop and think about it but scared panicking people are vulnerable to believing them sadly.
No other fact checking group that does what we do as far as I can tell - therapists help people with war anxiety but don’t fact check the false claims
I don't know of a fact checking group that does the job properly apart from us.
That includes fact checking Putin's many lies. There are numerous fact checkers that will fact check Trump or Kier Starmer or Western politicians. I don't know of fact checkers that fact check Putin's lies. Very very rare for one of the fact checking websites to factcheck some particular thing he says, nobody fact checks them as a matter of course like I have to for scared people. .
If anyone knows of any such do say.
To check that see my list here of obviously false things that Putin says over and over that never get fact checked, I don't know of anyone else who fact checked them.
BLOG: For scared people: many things you may believe about the Ukraine war and Putin are EASILY SHOWN to be false or unsupported - example list of claims I fact check because nobody else seems to
.jpg){kind=link}
Again - I simply don't know of anyone else who fact checked these obviously false things Putin said that scared people.
I will link to any that are reliable. I won't link to the ones that claim to be secret agents, obviously falsely, and don't do proper sourcing of their claims. I did link to Ukraine Anxiety when it was functioning.
Search for any groups we don’t know about with Perplexity AI with a special template I use for deep searches turns up nothing
Just in case there might be a group that fact checks false WW3 claims for anxious people, I haven't come across and that nobody I've talked to knows about, I tried a very deep thorough search with Perplexity AI. Ours seems to be the only one in the world. There are fact checkers that sometimes fact check false claims about wars. But not in the way we do.
I have asked Perplexity AI to do a search for other groups like ours. It found nothing at the level of official organizations. I tried many searches and eventually when I did a deeper search of social media and blog posts it found my substack and our Facebook group - and those were the only ones it found in the entire internet that do what we do.
It concluded:
QUOTE There is a notable absence of active, supportive online communities dedicated solely to fact-checking war-related anxiety, with Doomsday Debunked being one of the few exceptions. The closure of r/UkraineAnxiety has further limited the available spaces for those seeking both factual information and emotional support.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarizecites-fact-checking-f-7wHpDi28RwWMXbz1xFkRJQ#4
This matches my own experience. So I do think we are likely the only group in the world that does it at present.
That is why you don't find anyone else saying what we say. But if you look in our Doomsday Debunked group we have multiple people who know how to fact check from different backgrounds which may help you to see that what we say is correct.
I know that chatbots often make stuff up. But Perplexity AI's cites all exist. Also the particular template I used there works very well with Perplexity AI to get reliable summaries of sources.
It doesn't work so well with Chat GPT. I don't know why it is but Perplexity AI is far better for fact checking than Chat GPT but you have to be careful how you use it to get summaries of what humans write rather than made up chatbot word patterns.
I used my SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)
This is my definition of those two templates:
When I write "SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)" or "SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ)", follow these templates exactly:
**For SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. Summarize each source with a key quote
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
**For SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. For each source: summary + quote + bias/credibility + date
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
In both cases end your response with the text of the template (for transparency for the reader)
I highly recommend these two templates or similar for getting much more reliable results for fact checking than if you ask the chat bot to give its own summary - because it is just a word pattern generator and can make the most bizarre mistakes if you leave it to its own devices without asking it to summarize particular sources.
With Perplexity AI or any chat bot that can give accurate cites then it also means you can click through to each one, check the quote is genuine and not fabricated and check it summarized it accurately. Often the sources add extra content that is important to a human that it left out but it does seem to be far more reliable this way and it is easily verifiable too. And you see the range of what experts or reliable media sources are saying rather than a single view selected by a chatbot.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks for this. We know that Trump was not hawkish in the first place. Though I do wish he'd handled Aghanistan a lot differently than he did in the fall/winter of 2020. Even still, he even realizes that Americans have no appeitiite for conflict, and the Middle East has had these wars for centuries. However, a proposition has come up that is interesting. That is, what if the Iranian people had enough and forced a regime change? I realize that right now it's going to happen quickly, but given what we've seen in Syria, it's possible.
I feel like this is a stupid question but this thing something thats been going around causing a fright and you seem to have good answers...is there any chance North Korea could get involved to defend Iran..?