If there are no casualties...

[Xolodno]

...then we got word ahead of time, like when we warned Russia...who no doubt informed Syria of a coming missile attack when we hit Assad. They wiped out a few million dollars of equipment...and that's it...and if that means a deescalation, I'll take it.

If that's the case, who wants to bet it was Putin that warned us of the incoming attack?

[GP6971]

1. I won't take that bet. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Not necessarily.

Malcolm Nance was just on MSNBC explaining that the military has a missile warning system that, if it had been used, would have given the troops at the bases enough time to take cover in blast-resistant shelters.

[cwydro]

3. Yes, I heard that too.

There’s also speculation that the Iranians did not want to cause casualties - that they were making an emphatic point.

[coti]

4. It could have been basically choreographed. I don't think so, though.

I think Trump had to change his pants. And, if he'd known, we would have seen something different from him than we did.

Besides that, I'm not totally convinced yet that we're actually hearing the truth, after how dramatically this escalated. There has been an odd lack of information, also. I hope it's true and this is over, though.

[RockRaven]

5. If there weren't any casualties, then why did Trump tweet that it was so?

This mother-fucker blurts out lies like breathing. He does it habitually and reflexively. He lies for no reason. He lies when he KNOWS the people listening know the truth. He lies about how many floors Trump Tower has, using different numbers, and has for decades.

If he said "no casualties," it is likelier that there ARE then it is that there ARE NOT.

[dewsgirl]

6. +1

[Flaleftist]

7. One news report said the radar saw the missiles incoming

and they had time to take cover.

[Still In Wisconsin]

9. It is 100% certain that ANY ballistic missile launch in that region would be detected.

These weren't little unguided rockets, and we were looking...very carefully.

[Xolodno]

10. Even if they took cover....a massive bomb exploding over your bunker is going to leave you a bit...

..shell shocked. And state, they didn't care if they made casualties.

These bases are also a bit large and spread out, Iran was making a point, they purposely targeted areas with no troops to make a statement...

...and given the tension, Iran looks like the adult in the room if they informed via back channels of the incoming attack. Why would they pass that up?

War isn't always won on the battlefield.

[Still In Wisconsin]

8. I think it potentially shows three things:

First, Iran was indeed trying not to inflict human casualties but needed for their own reasons to make something go "boom."

Second, if the above is true, Iranian ballistic missiles have indeed improved immensely in accuracy. They're no longer just lobbing ex-Soviet scuds.

Third, again if the above is true, another message has been sent: Basically Iran is saying "We didn't hit your personnel THIS time, but if we want to, we can.

[Xolodno]

11. That's the point I'm trying to convey...

...but since I'm taking the day off tomorrow...I've been drinking. So probably not explaining my point in words while my mind thinks its going to Einstein mode.

Again, I think you explained it best. They are trying to message us and make a point. That they are not a backwater desert tribe in the mountains fighting with rpg's...and I think Russia has helped them quite a bit in that regard..granted, probably "under the table".