Ritter: US and Israel Lose Without Nuclear Weapons

Ritter warns: without nuclear weapons, US and Israel lose the war

Can a military power like the United States lose a war against Iran without resorting to its nuclear arsenal? This is the thesis defended by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter in a viral video: it would take half a million ground troops to invade the country, the preparation has not been correct, and without nuclear heads, the conflict would become a years-long war of attrition, like the one in Ukraine. The analyst, a former Marine and intelligence analyst, also calls the US Secretary of War a blabbermouth and useless.

The reaction has not been long in coming. Some recall that these types of analysts have been predicting disasters for years that never arrive: "Were these the same ones who said 4 years ago that Ukraine had 3 days left?", asks a participant. Others argue that Ritter is not advocating for nuclear war, but stating that they cannot win with conventional war. And a third stream directly questions the messenger's credibility: he was convicted in 2011 for sensual offenses against minors, a record that, for many, invalidates any analysis he signs.

Half a million troops and a war of attrition

The core of the video is an operational estimate: to invade Iran, it would take half a million ground troops. This is not a small figure. The country covers nearly 1.65 million square kilometers, has mountainous terrain, and a population of over 85 million people. The comparison with Iraq, which was invaded with around 150,000 soldiers in 2003, is inevitable.

Ritter goes further and argues that the United States will run out of ammunition if it enters a prolonged conflict. The preparation, he says, has not been correct. And without resorting to nuclear heads, the scenario he paints is that of a war of attrition that would last for years, with Ukraine as a precedent. This is a thesis shared by other cited analysts, such as Douglas McGregor.

---

The Ukraine precedent: two million casualties and a lost Donbas

The comparison with Ukraine is the axis of the argument. According to the data handled by these analysts, Ukraine has had nearly 2 million casualties in 4 years, while Russia would have suffered one-tenth of that. This proportion, if true, would dismantle the narrative of a Russia on the verge of collapse.

The reasoning extracted is simple: if the Ukrainian president spends "every day crying for money and weapons," it is not because things are going well with almost all of Donbas lost. The implicit conclusion is that attrition works, but at a human and material cost that the West is unwilling to assume in its own territory.

Who is Scott Ritter and why his record conditions the debate

Scott Ritter is no stranger. He was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the nineties and became famous for publicly questioning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the country, a stance that put him at odds with the George W. Bush administration. His credibility as an analyst, however, was tarnished by a 2011 conviction for sensual offenses against minors.

This record is the main argument of those who flatly reject anything he signs. "He is like the toilet colonel but even more degenerate," summarizes one intervention. The criticism does not stop there: he is accused of having missed every prediction about Ukraine, where he once announced the fall of Kiev in 72 hours.

The counterargument: prognosticators have been failing for years

The most repeated objection is the record of failed predictions. "Were these the same ones who said 4 years ago that Ukraine had 3 days left?", asks a participant. This is a criticism that points directly to the reliability of the school of analysis to which Ritter belongs.

Some argue, conversely, that the message is being misinterpreted. Ritter would not be defending nuclear war, but stating that they cannot win with conventional war. This is an important distinction: one thing is predicting the use of nuclear weapons and another is pointing out that, without them, the result is lost.

The role of China and the global scenario

The conflict is not analyzed in a vacuum. One of the derivatives pointed out is that China could take the opportunity to invade Taiwan if the United States gets bogged down in the Middle East. This is the classic window of opportunity scenario: a rival distracted on one front is a weaker rival on another.

The underlying question is whether the United States can afford to open a second high-intensity front while maintaining support for Ukraine. The answer given by critical analysts is no, and precisely for that reason, the nuclear option ceases to be a taboo and becomes an option on the table.

Ammunition as a real bottleneck

Beyond the debate on nuclear heads, there is one fact no one disputes: industrial capacity. The United States will run out of ammunition, insists Ritter. The production of artillery and missiles has limits that cannot be resolved with an emergency budget.

The daily cost of the operation is another factor. It has been estimated at 1 billion dollars daily, an amount that, sustained over years, would put even the world's largest economy to the test. This is not just a military issue: it is an issue of economic resilience.

---

In the end, the question is not whether Ritter is right, but whether someone with his record should have a platform to say it. In an ecosystem where the messenger matters more than the message, the answer probably already has it.