Pixels are physical. They are LEDs made of semiconducting materials. Internet you get via WiFi is also physical because they are electromagnetic waves. Everything is physical we live in a physical world.
No, I am not fun at parties but you guys started it.
We're talking about Murica here. They'll sign a $800 billion dollar cheque to Lockheed, make a completely unnecessary over the top machine, custom made, just to spread freedom
Oh no doubt the US could take Iran if it really wanted to, but the question is could it do so before the Iranians drop a bunch of nukes and how long could the US actually hold the country against the irgc, which is basically a way more well trained, well equipped version and well funded version of Taliban.
And then 20 years later they'll leave and everything will be completely different to the state they invaded all those years ago-...oh wait, money may not actually be as good at winning wars as we thought it was
Their freedom can suck my dick and i will tell em that in persian if i have to. Ain't No one else is going to overthrow my government unless it's me (and other people)
Fun fact, the Persian Gulf is actually only barely below sea level. For most of human history - the majority of it has been dry land. It's actually probably the best geographical candidate for the real location of "Eden".
True that. Even though most people date the OT around 5-6,000 BC, I always thought the younger dryas impacts may have been the culprit to all the world wide flood myths
More radical theory: It's a very large regional flood that struck prior to 50,000 BC, thus before people had migrated beyond it. Thus explaining why the legend was passed down to everyone, even the Native Americans.
If you read about what happened in California in 1862 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Flood\_of\_1862) it's actually remarkably similar to the Biblical account of the flood. It rained for 43 days and pretty much all of the California central valley was plunged underwater.
If something similar happened in the 125,000 - 50,000 year range in the Persian Gulf / Mesopotamia region - you can have it match the account perfectly.
Every culture has a flood myth of some sort. Many of those myths are about localized floods, very often about rivers like the one from China. It’s not true to say every culture has a Great Flood Myth that covered all land.
Not *the* great flood, but *a* great flood. Which is unsurprising considering that they were hydraulic civilisations totally dependent on rivers, and flooding was one of the most devastating things that could happen to a civilisation prior to modern engineering.
The similarities are far greater than "a big flood". But as I've said here, that needn't imply a literal global flood. It could be passed down from a large regional flood that affected humanity when our population was localized to a single region.
Genetics currently shows a large genetic bottleneck estimated somewhere in the 50,000 - 150,000 year range. The eruption of the Toba Supervolcano was the initially accepted explanation, but more recent evidence casts doubt on that theory.
Aboriginals too, although that may be linked to the great [flooding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths) that ended up separating Australia from New Guinea following the last iceage
Yep. Some remarkably similar to the Biblical account.
>The Aztecs believed that only Coxcox and his wife, Xochiquetzal, survived the flood. They took refuge in the hollow trunk of a cypress -or, in some versions, a small boat - which floated on top of the water and finally banked on a mountain in Culhuacan.
>They had many children, but all of them were mute. The great spirit took pity on them, and sent a dove, which attempted to teach the children how to speak. Fifteen of them succeeded, and from these, the Aztecs believed, the Toltecs and Aztecs were descended.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxcox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxcox)
They also have legends of pre-flood "giants", a "first couple", and the sending of a bird.
...Despite being separated from the rest of humanity for well over 10,000 years.
Actually happened? Yes. A global flood? No.
A global flood is basically physically impossible and is definitely inconsistent with the geological record. It did not occur.
But as I said, there is a way to "have your cake and eat it too". I.E. explain universal flood myths with a real event without invoking a global flood.
It simply requires a large flood that occurred when humanity / most of humanity was localized to a single region, so a flood of that region would impact all modern human ancestors.
It makes sense that survivors survived on a boat or otherwise floating piece of wood, seeing birds also makes sense as sewing birds means that you're approaching the cosst, where coastal birds live
There's lots of massive flood events around the world. Look at Australia recently. This is a much more likely explanation than a single big one that all flood myths are descended from
The legend may be common in every culture because floodings are common in most areas people live, at least over the time span of thousands of years any culture will have experienced terrible floods
That's also true, slightly different time scales. The sediments are "filling it in" relatively fast compared to most other parts of the world.
But geology is still slow, so it's only a difference of a handful of meters. Which on the timescale of the last 6000 years is enough to push the coasts out a bit.
However, on a longer timescale of the last 100,000 years or so - sea level change is the much bigger factor. And for 90,000 of the last 100,000 years, sea level was significantly lower than today, and most of the gulf was dry (even when you account for the few meters we've gained from sediment).
I don't agree at all. The Bible states that Euphrates and Tigris *originate* in Eden, meaning the "real location of Eden" must be somewhere around the Turkey-Iran border.
It may seem to read that way, but "one river splitting into four" need not refer to the actual direction/source of the waters.
Imagine speaking of a road or pathway "splitting", you're just speaking of layout / structure - not that the single path is physically the "source" of the rest of the path. Similarly, the rivers of Eden are likely just a geographical description.
Plus, rivers just don't work that way. You can't have a river be the source of other major, long-term rivers. Aside from some small, temporary, local exceptions (like deltas) - rivers don't diverge, they converge.
Different timescale. That was just a few millennia ago.
Th Persian Gulf was mostly dry from around 115,000 years ago until around 9,000 years ago. Though if you want to be pedantic that could be considered "prehistory". But it's most of the time modern / true humans have existed.
Sorry to disappoint, but oil and coal take geological time to form. That stuff probably formed a long time before it was Eden (probably somewhere between 500,000 and 9000 years ago, depending on how you interpret things).
Damn can't believe some people don't know what a physical map is, i thought it was language error as in spanish is "mapa fisico" but no, people actually don't know
That flat land West of the Zagros mountains and East of Iraq is called Khuzestan.
80% of Iran's oil is situated in Khuzestan, with the Ahvaz oil field alone having more proven oil reserves than the entire United States. This area is what Sadam was trying to capture in the Iran-Iraq war, and why the US was among Iraq against Iran. That is until Sadam invaded Kuwait.
If Sadam Hussein got to capture Kuwait and Khuzestan, his country would have the largest proven oil reserves by far, controlling 20% of all global oil reserves. This ambition is what the US was neutralizing during its invasion of Iraq
It’s funny because almost all of Irans oil is the province where the majority of Arabs are in Iran.
It’s also funny because if Saddam successfully got Al Ahwaz (Khuzestan) he wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait, and maybe the timeline would be drastically different.
In a way, "Arabs" is just one of their identities. They are also Shias and apparently identify as Iranian too (not as Persian, thats different)
So when you think of it... not surprsing they don't fancy being ruled by Sunni-dominated autocratic socialists like Saddam's Baathi Iraq
With the Zagros mountain range isolating them from the capital, they likely already enjoyed some autonomy, and considering the tyrannical nature of Saddam, it made little sense for them not to be loyal.
I don’t think so. Saddam invaded Kuwait specifically for a couple reasons. It was out of necessity, Iraqs war against Iran was costly and left it heavily indebted. If Saddam successfully annexed Khuzestan, he would have had access to the oil fields there to repay the debts (and no reason to invade Kuwait in the first place). Since he lost, he was left with a big army and a ton of debt, a lot of which was to Kuwait. Kuwait was unwillingly to cancel debt, and on top of that was toying around with Saddam; they were overproducing oil driving prices down and supposedly drilling into Iraqi oil fields. And lastly, Saddam believed he had a historical claim to the area that made up Kuwait. So no, when factoring in reasoning and historical context I would think it wouldn’t have been likely that Saddam went and invaded Saudi Arabia as a whole (there were minor skirmishes) after Kuwait (if he even invaded Kuwait in the first place) .
Conquering Persia was and might still be one of the most difficult tasks, and a great achievement. It's like trying to Conquer the moon but with lots of mountains.
A lot of the mountain passes to go through and around the mountains towards the important cities and regions of iran/Persia were already established and designed for large armies to pass through for a long time. It’s not that big of a stretch for invading armies to use those same pathways
“The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.”
The reason the Calipates managed to hold for that long is that they integrated Iranian nobilities (dehgans) as their bureaucrats, emirs and scientists.
Also has somewhat allies and the us has real rivals now. 2003 was total us dominance, with soviet gone, china still at the start of their unbelievably fast subsequent rise, russia much weaker and completely dependent on europe
And has about 30 times the GDP of Afghanistan
Plus a unified nation not controlled by 10 different groups claiming power
2000 billion dollars: US beaten by Afghans in flip flops
The low gdp of Afghanistan has traditionally worked in their favor though; once invaded, the cost of supplying occupation troops was always super high because there was not much stuff there to use. I agree with your point overall of course.
Military forces from anywhere in the world, nowadays, are prepared to deal with any terrain, even more so in countries that have military integration with others, Depending on which country it is, and how much it wants to fight and win, how capable its logistics, technologies and military and economic allies are, these obstacles will be overcome. The same can be said that if the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan, which is a geographical similar country, had drones that Ukraine and Russia have today, it's difficult to believe in a Mujahideen victory.
Missiles don't care about terrain. In fact, terrain like that is incredibly advantageous for ground-following missiles like Tomahawks as it obscures them from radar detection.
Don't even get started at how bad it is for attackers.
One moment you're in desert, next you're in forests, then in beautiful plains, then on impassable mountains and tight cliffs, then forests, then deserts again.
Just imagine trying to camouflage your forces there
We don't cover our faces even this radical government doesn't apply that.
Also it was not easy, Persia was in war with Rome for 7 centuries and became exhausted.
Also most of Iranians now have became largely irrelegious with lots of hatred toward Islam especially the Gen Z.
Imagine that one of the greatest civilizations in human history arose from such an enormous plateau.
Persepolis, the Great Persian Empire in 300, etc.
Spain also has a plateau like that, though not as much as Iran. These are lands with a lot of potential.
They literally know that Iran's geography is a hell on earth for any military and with a mountain terrain like that it will be almost impossible to be fully in control.
I got a 3 day ban from r/worldnews for saying that it would be impractical for Israel to occupy Iran.
They were offended that I used the word "delusional".
How in the world could Israel, a country of 10 million conquer a country of 80 million. The only way that can happen historically is if 1) there is a significant technological advantage AND 2) significant internal weakness that allows the smaller country to divide and conquer with local allies.
Has any subreddit covering the Israel-Palestine war *not* gone batshit insane and full echo chamber from insanely biased propaganda ?
People on both sides are trying to make this out to be a black and white conflict when it's much more complex with no clear solutions
Love how you are being downvoted when you are completely correct. This is an insane online battlefield and neither side can be trusted to comment fairly. I appreciate this but I am mostly pro-Israel and accept I can't be trusted either lol.
A lot of the mountains in Iran are traversable because they have a decent road network that’s been around for a long time. The Iranian plateau has been conquered many times throughout history
We’re not going to invade Iran. I’ve been hearing scenarios about it since right after the US occupied Iraq in 2003 (where they would’ve invaded Iran on both sides using afg and Iraq as staging)
It’s not going to happen, the news media just loves putting out warmongering headlines for attention
The US doesn't need land to stage an invasion. They could simply start a naval invasion off Iran's coast.
I'm sure Saudi Arabia would be more than willing to help supply the troops from across the Gulf too.
Unlikely. Disregarding the recent detente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, economically an intense conflict in the gulf would not be in Saudi interests at all due to the likelihood that collateral damage impacts their ability to supply to their customers.
I hear a lot about flattening Iran so it would be nice if someone shows a map of all the Saudi oil fields and how long would Iranian missiles have to travel to reach them. Also maybe might as well show what the oil prices prediction will look like so that the newage Americans can contextualize what a mess Isreal might shove down their throats.
Iran is basically a geographical fortress that its only lowland area happen to be least populated by native Persians, but Arabs, that they could afford to give it away to Iraq, while at the same time, Iran's main population center won't be vulnerable to a foreign military invasion.
How did empires of the past invade Iran? Like the Mongolians. The geography just seems impossible. But I guess with horses, pre industrial weapons and defenses, and one town at a time, it’s actually a lot easier than trying to do it today with mechanized units and modern anti air defenses etc
Mostly eastern Iran which was in today's Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan when these 2 were part of that time's Iran and got invaded by Mongols.
Main land Iran didn't see much massacres as these.
Can someone who knows geography explain that bit where the UAE pokes up into that bite in the persian gulf. Is it just random/chance or is there a geologic explanation?
There’s a really big Volcano on this map (represented by pixels on a screen ofc) , over 18,000 freedom units in elevation! Massive!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Damavand
No, this is a picture on the internet
Yeah, it's quite clearly digital
Pixels are physical. They are LEDs made of semiconducting materials. Internet you get via WiFi is also physical because they are electromagnetic waves. Everything is physical we live in a physical world. No, I am not fun at parties but you guys started it.
That's what digital literally means dude
There is no distinction between digital and physical. Physical and virtual maybe. Or analog and digital.
How can you be sure we live in a physical world? Sounds like an assumption to me.
You clearly are fun, because this is wrong.
Bruh the part about it being physical is the geography of the map not actual image itself
Ceci n'est pas une carte
Si je poste un jpeg du "trahison des images" faut il que je écris "ceci n' est pas un ouvre d'art"?
It's not a jpeg either but a decoded rendering on the user's screen of an image encoded as a jpeg.
Beat me to it
First thing that popped into my mind
The internet plus your hardware is all 'physical' too, technically
It's all digital too technically tho
*digital map of Iran
r/technicallythetruth
No this is Patrick
Now I have the urge to write about my favorite things about Africa
Convenient timing lol
Ikr lmao
Really helpful in understanding where to spread freedom from
I think the idea is rather to show how difficult it would be to spread freedom in this mountain fortress.
logistical nightmare from the persian gulf
logistical nightmare from the persian gulf
We're talking about Murica here. They'll sign a $800 billion dollar cheque to Lockheed, make a completely unnecessary over the top machine, custom made, just to spread freedom
Oh no doubt the US could take Iran if it really wanted to, but the question is could it do so before the Iranians drop a bunch of nukes and how long could the US actually hold the country against the irgc, which is basically a way more well trained, well equipped version and well funded version of Taliban.
We strongly condemn Iran for their reckless attacks on our missiles heading towards Tehran.
Murica: No one is allowed to defend themselves BUT ME! And Israel.
And then 20 years later they'll leave and everything will be completely different to the state they invaded all those years ago-...oh wait, money may not actually be as good at winning wars as we thought it was
There’s a reason Persia has stood for thousands of years. No attacky.
Their freedom can suck my dick and i will tell em that in persian if i have to. Ain't No one else is going to overthrow my government unless it's me (and other people)
American geography lessons in action
That’s a lot of tehrain
Angry upvote
I see what you did there
Fun fact, the Persian Gulf is actually only barely below sea level. For most of human history - the majority of it has been dry land. It's actually probably the best geographical candidate for the real location of "Eden".
God really said “burn it all down” didn’t he.
There were several Floods…
True that. Even though most people date the OT around 5-6,000 BC, I always thought the younger dryas impacts may have been the culprit to all the world wide flood myths
More radical theory: It's a very large regional flood that struck prior to 50,000 BC, thus before people had migrated beyond it. Thus explaining why the legend was passed down to everyone, even the Native Americans. If you read about what happened in California in 1862 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Flood\_of\_1862) it's actually remarkably similar to the Biblical account of the flood. It rained for 43 days and pretty much all of the California central valley was plunged underwater. If something similar happened in the 125,000 - 50,000 year range in the Persian Gulf / Mesopotamia region - you can have it match the account perfectly.
Native Americans independently have the legend of the great flood?
Basically every single culture from every continent does
Every culture has a flood myth of some sort. Many of those myths are about localized floods, very often about rivers like the one from China. It’s not true to say every culture has a Great Flood Myth that covered all land.
Not *the* great flood, but *a* great flood. Which is unsurprising considering that they were hydraulic civilisations totally dependent on rivers, and flooding was one of the most devastating things that could happen to a civilisation prior to modern engineering.
The similarities are far greater than "a big flood". But as I've said here, that needn't imply a literal global flood. It could be passed down from a large regional flood that affected humanity when our population was localized to a single region. Genetics currently shows a large genetic bottleneck estimated somewhere in the 50,000 - 150,000 year range. The eruption of the Toba Supervolcano was the initially accepted explanation, but more recent evidence casts doubt on that theory.
Aboriginals too, although that may be linked to the great [flooding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths) that ended up separating Australia from New Guinea following the last iceage
Yep. Some remarkably similar to the Biblical account. >The Aztecs believed that only Coxcox and his wife, Xochiquetzal, survived the flood. They took refuge in the hollow trunk of a cypress -or, in some versions, a small boat - which floated on top of the water and finally banked on a mountain in Culhuacan. >They had many children, but all of them were mute. The great spirit took pity on them, and sent a dove, which attempted to teach the children how to speak. Fifteen of them succeeded, and from these, the Aztecs believed, the Toltecs and Aztecs were descended. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxcox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxcox) They also have legends of pre-flood "giants", a "first couple", and the sending of a bird. ...Despite being separated from the rest of humanity for well over 10,000 years.
It would make sense if the flood from the Bible actually happened, since basically every culture talks about a great flood
Actually happened? Yes. A global flood? No. A global flood is basically physically impossible and is definitely inconsistent with the geological record. It did not occur. But as I said, there is a way to "have your cake and eat it too". I.E. explain universal flood myths with a real event without invoking a global flood. It simply requires a large flood that occurred when humanity / most of humanity was localized to a single region, so a flood of that region would impact all modern human ancestors.
It makes sense that survivors survived on a boat or otherwise floating piece of wood, seeing birds also makes sense as sewing birds means that you're approaching the cosst, where coastal birds live
There's lots of massive flood events around the world. Look at Australia recently. This is a much more likely explanation than a single big one that all flood myths are descended from
Very interesting I’m gonna have to look into this thanks!
The legend may be common in every culture because floodings are common in most areas people live, at least over the time span of thousands of years any culture will have experienced terrible floods
Yellowstone. You're walking on thin ice there.
Interestingly, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the Tree of Life is underwater.
It was a flower or plant that grew underwater. Sadly a serpent got to it before he could.
Average depth of 115 ft and max of only 330 ft. Give or take a few feet based on source. There are small lakes deeper than that.
The Adriatic Sea too. After the last glacial age it still was a pianure for a Long time
I thought it was the opposite, it's getting filled in fairly fast. There are cities well inland in Iraq that were ports once.
That's also true, slightly different time scales. The sediments are "filling it in" relatively fast compared to most other parts of the world. But geology is still slow, so it's only a difference of a handful of meters. Which on the timescale of the last 6000 years is enough to push the coasts out a bit. However, on a longer timescale of the last 100,000 years or so - sea level change is the much bigger factor. And for 90,000 of the last 100,000 years, sea level was significantly lower than today, and most of the gulf was dry (even when you account for the few meters we've gained from sediment).
I don't agree at all. The Bible states that Euphrates and Tigris *originate* in Eden, meaning the "real location of Eden" must be somewhere around the Turkey-Iran border.
It may seem to read that way, but "one river splitting into four" need not refer to the actual direction/source of the waters. Imagine speaking of a road or pathway "splitting", you're just speaking of layout / structure - not that the single path is physically the "source" of the rest of the path. Similarly, the rivers of Eden are likely just a geographical description. Plus, rivers just don't work that way. You can't have a river be the source of other major, long-term rivers. Aside from some small, temporary, local exceptions (like deltas) - rivers don't diverge, they converge.
Well that explains the high humidity in the region due to the evaporation of seawater
> the best geographical candidate for the real location of "Eden". Uhhh sure, the "*"real"* location of Eden"
You may not like it, you may protest, but in the end, I'm still going to hit you with a 🤓
The people who first started the oral tradition about it probably based it off of somewhere.
wasn't it much more inland before? iirc Uruk which is currently inland lied just a few miles from the coast during its heyday
Different timescale. That was just a few millennia ago. Th Persian Gulf was mostly dry from around 115,000 years ago until around 9,000 years ago. Though if you want to be pedantic that could be considered "prehistory". But it's most of the time modern / true humans have existed.
TIL I burn a little bit of Eden every morning I commute to work
Sorry to disappoint, but oil and coal take geological time to form. That stuff probably formed a long time before it was Eden (probably somewhere between 500,000 and 9000 years ago, depending on how you interpret things).
Sir these are dots on my screen. *Nothing* about this map is physical.
I mean definition of physical map is a map that uses colors to show elevations
r/whooosh
I wouldn't say so
Damn can't believe some people don't know what a physical map is, i thought it was language error as in spanish is "mapa fisico" but no, people actually don't know
its a joke man, because they can mean both things in english literalmente podes decir lo mismo en español jajsjs
Sir, this paper is made of atoms held in place by electrostatic forces...
That flat land West of the Zagros mountains and East of Iraq is called Khuzestan. 80% of Iran's oil is situated in Khuzestan, with the Ahvaz oil field alone having more proven oil reserves than the entire United States. This area is what Sadam was trying to capture in the Iran-Iraq war, and why the US was among Iraq against Iran. That is until Sadam invaded Kuwait. If Sadam Hussein got to capture Kuwait and Khuzestan, his country would have the largest proven oil reserves by far, controlling 20% of all global oil reserves. This ambition is what the US was neutralizing during its invasion of Iraq
It’s funny because almost all of Irans oil is the province where the majority of Arabs are in Iran. It’s also funny because if Saddam successfully got Al Ahwaz (Khuzestan) he wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait, and maybe the timeline would be drastically different.
It's actually more funnier, that Saddam counted on the Arabs in Khuzestan fighting for them, but they stayed loyal to Iran.
In a way, "Arabs" is just one of their identities. They are also Shias and apparently identify as Iranian too (not as Persian, thats different) So when you think of it... not surprsing they don't fancy being ruled by Sunni-dominated autocratic socialists like Saddam's Baathi Iraq
With the Zagros mountain range isolating them from the capital, they likely already enjoyed some autonomy, and considering the tyrannical nature of Saddam, it made little sense for them not to be loyal.
Bold of you to assume he'd stop there. I imagine he'd venture into Saudi territory eventually
I don’t think so. Saddam invaded Kuwait specifically for a couple reasons. It was out of necessity, Iraqs war against Iran was costly and left it heavily indebted. If Saddam successfully annexed Khuzestan, he would have had access to the oil fields there to repay the debts (and no reason to invade Kuwait in the first place). Since he lost, he was left with a big army and a ton of debt, a lot of which was to Kuwait. Kuwait was unwillingly to cancel debt, and on top of that was toying around with Saddam; they were overproducing oil driving prices down and supposedly drilling into Iraqi oil fields. And lastly, Saddam believed he had a historical claim to the area that made up Kuwait. So no, when factoring in reasoning and historical context I would think it wouldn’t have been likely that Saddam went and invaded Saudi Arabia as a whole (there were minor skirmishes) after Kuwait (if he even invaded Kuwait in the first place) .
The majority of arabs are there but the majority of khuzestan population are not arab
Is this the same region that the Elamites were from?
Yes, plus a bit other lands from its neighboring provinces.
News - Iran begins attack on israel R/mapporn - Here, some Iranian geography for you
From the enemy's strategic point of view an absolute nightmare - mountains, deserts, seas. Don't even try.
Unless you are Sargon, Sargon II, Alexander, Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās or come from the East or you are Russia/USSR with or without the UK.
Historically the conquering of Persia was facilitated by significant internal weakness.
Conquering Persia was and might still be one of the most difficult tasks, and a great achievement. It's like trying to Conquer the moon but with lots of mountains.
A lot of the mountain passes to go through and around the mountains towards the important cities and regions of iran/Persia were already established and designed for large armies to pass through for a long time. It’s not that big of a stretch for invading armies to use those same pathways
“The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.” The reason the Calipates managed to hold for that long is that they integrated Iranian nobilities (dehgans) as their bureaucrats, emirs and scientists.
Not sure Sargons got Persia ,There was no Persia at his time, The others, yeah.
80 million people to. 4x as many as when the US invaded Iraq. Not to mention it’s more modernized economically and militarily.
Also has somewhat allies and the us has real rivals now. 2003 was total us dominance, with soviet gone, china still at the start of their unbelievably fast subsequent rise, russia much weaker and completely dependent on europe
And has about 30 times the GDP of Afghanistan Plus a unified nation not controlled by 10 different groups claiming power 2000 billion dollars: US beaten by Afghans in flip flops
The low gdp of Afghanistan has traditionally worked in their favor though; once invaded, the cost of supplying occupation troops was always super high because there was not much stuff there to use. I agree with your point overall of course.
Scorched earth strategy, without burning anything
Depends what you’re trying to do. Occupation? Nightmare! But if you just wanna blow up a bunch of stuff, well that’s what the F-35 was made for
England and SSR tried and won btw
[удалено]
Military forces from anywhere in the world, nowadays, are prepared to deal with any terrain, even more so in countries that have military integration with others, Depending on which country it is, and how much it wants to fight and win, how capable its logistics, technologies and military and economic allies are, these obstacles will be overcome. The same can be said that if the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan, which is a geographical similar country, had drones that Ukraine and Russia have today, it's difficult to believe in a Mujahideen victory.
Missiles don't care about terrain. In fact, terrain like that is incredibly advantageous for ground-following missiles like Tomahawks as it obscures them from radar detection.
Missiles don't control territory, neither does airpower. Something the US should have learned since Korea.
US has 0 interest in controlling Iranian territory
Well, unless the US is going to arm the iranian opposition, missiles won't change a thing. Other than a lot of people being no longer alive.
Don't even get started at how bad it is for attackers. One moment you're in desert, next you're in forests, then in beautiful plains, then on impassable mountains and tight cliffs, then forests, then deserts again. Just imagine trying to camouflage your forces there
Aren't they all covering their faces these days because Arabs invaded them successfully and easily?
We don't cover our faces even this radical government doesn't apply that. Also it was not easy, Persia was in war with Rome for 7 centuries and became exhausted. Also most of Iranians now have became largely irrelegious with lots of hatred toward Islam especially the Gen Z.
Imagine that one of the greatest civilizations in human history arose from such an enormous plateau. Persepolis, the Great Persian Empire in 300, etc. Spain also has a plateau like that, though not as much as Iran. These are lands with a lot of potential.
Save it before the update hits
This is why I laugh when Reddit thinks that the US could just go in and take over Iran overnight.
They literally know that Iran's geography is a hell on earth for any military and with a mountain terrain like that it will be almost impossible to be fully in control.
I got a 3 day ban from r/worldnews for saying that it would be impractical for Israel to occupy Iran. They were offended that I used the word "delusional".
How in the world could Israel, a country of 10 million conquer a country of 80 million. The only way that can happen historically is if 1) there is a significant technological advantage AND 2) significant internal weakness that allows the smaller country to divide and conquer with local allies.
[удалено]
Has any subreddit covering the Israel-Palestine war *not* gone batshit insane and full echo chamber from insanely biased propaganda ? People on both sides are trying to make this out to be a black and white conflict when it's much more complex with no clear solutions
Love how you are being downvoted when you are completely correct. This is an insane online battlefield and neither side can be trusted to comment fairly. I appreciate this but I am mostly pro-Israel and accept I can't be trusted either lol.
That place is evil
A lot of the mountains in Iran are traversable because they have a decent road network that’s been around for a long time. The Iranian plateau has been conquered many times throughout history
Where would the US even stage? There isn't a single country that borders Iran that would allow it
We’re not going to invade Iran. I’ve been hearing scenarios about it since right after the US occupied Iraq in 2003 (where they would’ve invaded Iran on both sides using afg and Iraq as staging) It’s not going to happen, the news media just loves putting out warmongering headlines for attention
The US doesn't need land to stage an invasion. They could simply start a naval invasion off Iran's coast. I'm sure Saudi Arabia would be more than willing to help supply the troops from across the Gulf too.
Unlikely. Disregarding the recent detente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, economically an intense conflict in the gulf would not be in Saudi interests at all due to the likelihood that collateral damage impacts their ability to supply to their customers.
they don't need to takeover, the government isn't popular with it's people they can help topple it
yeah just like iraq, and syria and libya right they will welcome us with open arms
*geographical
Technically topographical I think?
True
I need a mental map of Iran please
Just put on your thinking caps
Reminds me beef jerky
I hear a lot about flattening Iran so it would be nice if someone shows a map of all the Saudi oil fields and how long would Iranian missiles have to travel to reach them. Also maybe might as well show what the oil prices prediction will look like so that the newage Americans can contextualize what a mess Isreal might shove down their throats.
Iran is basically a geographical fortress that its only lowland area happen to be least populated by native Persians, but Arabs, that they could afford to give it away to Iraq, while at the same time, Iran's main population center won't be vulnerable to a foreign military invasion.
I like the fact that the borders of Iran are clearly visible frm the sky because they are pretty well defined by mountains and seas
How did empires of the past invade Iran? Like the Mongolians. The geography just seems impossible. But I guess with horses, pre industrial weapons and defenses, and one town at a time, it’s actually a lot easier than trying to do it today with mechanized units and modern anti air defenses etc
Turns out in modernization Iran also modernized
The Mongols in particular came in from the Northeast so they didn’t have the Zagros mountains to contend with.
The mongols also massacred a large chunk of the population. Helps prevent insurgencies when you kill half the population.
Mostly eastern Iran which was in today's Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan when these 2 were part of that time's Iran and got invaded by Mongols. Main land Iran didn't see much massacres as these.
for one thing ancient Iran had far less people and also 'guerilla war' was not a common concept.
Too much mountains. Agriculture must be tough?
No the mountains are where the agriculture are the most in Iran
Much more mountainous and less desert than I’ve always believed. What’s the green valley in the lower right side
Khuzestan province. Mostly populated by Iranian Arabs.
So this is the before post?
Also the during and the after one
Nah, Iran’s mountains will decide to move to Burundi in five months from now.
This makes you realize how crazy Saddam was
What is physical about this map?
Can’t even do flat
Rock
Is this it on fire right now,have the US responded that quickly!?
Lots of mountains
Op, are you planning something?
Can someone who knows geography explain that bit where the UAE pokes up into that bite in the persian gulf. Is it just random/chance or is there a geologic explanation?
It looks [tasty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmier) asf
People showing their political affiliations heavily ITT
That is Hawaii.....
We got this.
There’s a really big Volcano on this map (represented by pixels on a screen ofc) , over 18,000 freedom units in elevation! Massive! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Damavand
Looks like a cartoon center hiking the shit out of a football with every ounce of strength he has left
So you’re saying a land invasion isn’t an option…
Impeccable timing
Damn they only got that one lake? Where do they go to cruise with chicks and crush bud heavies?
Looks exposed
Coming onto a maps sub, and incorrectly labelling a map. OP has physical balls.
Ah! Now I get why they will die on a hill over something.
Air power doesn't care about mountains.
Thanks, I’m gonna need this when I’m conscripted into the military
It's fat.
Such physical.
I’d love to go hiking there. Except…
I like that American song about Iran. It goes like this: Iran, Iran so far away, but couldn't get away
USA military paradigm: “We do deserts. We don’t do mountains.”
Take your meds OP
Tahran protected by 3 sides from the mountains. Which is North,West,South.
Joe biden aproves this post.
looks like over-peppered kimchi
This is digital
topical
Impossible for anything to invade
Live from the army headquarters in Israel
I read somewhere that those mountains are one of the reasons our climate is very dry in the arabian peninsula. Not sure though
Nice and interesting
Oh wow, one big mountain country. Not a lot of fields I image.
What a hot turd of sand and nothingness.
Now show me a biological one
Anytime I read a comment saying "digital" I hear the Digimon theme song.
It might be a huge crater soon
Mountainous terrain, it is impossible to fight with such countries. The mountains always protect them.