Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran has the option of not inciting violence.
Of course, there would be no war if the other side would just surrender
Iran is a third side and they are enticing people who could learn to get along to not,.
Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
91–100 of 125 posts
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes and no. the difference in cost between the weapon and the countermeasure matters, but it's not the whole story. the value of the thing being defended also matters. in the absence of a viable alternative, it's easily worth burning $1-2mm per interceptor to prevent a mission kill on a $2bn destroyer or a strike on a major population center. not saying this is you personally, but people seem to view this kind of thi…
Deep pockets in the sense of "can print indefinitely or until the inflation leaks into Bitcoin", and shallow pockets in the sense of actual artillery shells and interceptors.
Why would "inflation leaking into Bitcoin" stop governments from printing money?!?
It's not as if the shady "crypto" tail wags the big dogs of the real economy, is it?
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#93This is a great article and an excellent breakdown of how what we hear on the news can be so off base. Just to nitpick, this part stuck out to me: >Fast forward two decades, and this outlook looks dangerously naive. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s attacks on Israel, and a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan or the Philippines show the importance of ballistic missile defense as a way of blocking attacks by invading…
> The US and Israel have assassinated targets in the country of Iran recently, while the reverse has not been true.
I presume you are referring to the US killing of Soleimani, and the embassy bombing, though neither of those were in Iran. But you're missing the point. Why did those killings happen?
Iran keeps arming proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, the Houthis, and maybe some others), and having those proxies attack Israel and the US. (In the case of Soleimani, he was meeting with militias in Iraq who were literally killing US military personnel.) Iran thinks this is a fun game of "we get to kill your people, and you don't get to kill us".
Eventually the US and Israel got tired of the game. The US killed Soleimani at a time and place that made it explicitly clear what he was doing and why the US wasn't going to keep putting up with it. Israel lost patience with Iran's game after the Hamas attack; they are in no mood to allow Iran to be stirring up trouble with Hezbollah on their northern border.
So I think it's rather unfair to point fingers at Israel and the US for killing Iranians, when the individual Iranians in question are deliberately trying to kill US and Israeli soldiers and citizens, and have been for quite some time.
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conclusion here is that American military might is definitely, definitely, definitely not on the wane, or engaged in asymmetric warfare the narrative class tricked us into believing to be backwards religious zealots with no hope of ever playing on the global stage, and that this new multipolar world is fake Russian news.
It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has be…
> It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh.
Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to.
> I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane.
AFAICS, the GP does.
> The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in...
AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is.
> But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars.
The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has be…
> It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at leas…
I genuinely didn't realize GP is being sarcastic. Thanks for helping me understand
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warf…
> You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? It's worth keeping in mind a few things. The world's public might be "getting sick of" the war, but most Israelis are united around wanting to…
> The world's public might be "getting sick of" the war, but most Israelis are united around wanting to see the end of Hamas. They'd like things done faster, obviously, but aren't "sick of the war".
The Israeli public is getting sick of the war, mass protests against Netanyahu and against prolonging the war and not bringing back hostages are growing from 0 right after the attack to quite populated right now in front of our eyes.
Getting sick is a process. It doesn't mean over 50% think the war should end right now. But the part of Israel which can vote is getting sicker of the war than they were at the beginning.
As for Iran gaining nukes. They will likely gain them if they haven't already gained them. Same as Israel. Israel cannot extrajudicially assassinate Iranians forever. What they should avoid, instead of Iran getting nukes, is losing so many world allies that nuclear armed countries abandon them or begin to oppose them.
Lastly, Hamas will not be "eradicated" or "eliminated" the same way no amount of American might and force could "eradicate" or "eliminate" the Taliban. Hamas is unlike ISIS or other defeated jihadist groups and far more like the Taliban in that they have a liberation struggle other jihadist groups don't have. That is going to sustain them beyond any kind of prolongedilitary conflict Israel or especially its allies can stomach. None of this is what I want to happen, it's just the facts on the ground. You can't eliminate people's desire to be free or to secure their homeland. Israelis understand this when it comes to their own land, but fail to comprehend it when it comes to other people's land.
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, everything you say is quite surprising to me. But thanks for sharing your perspective. I've certainly never heard most of these points before. It's pretty clear that Israel is stretching the extent it can take its conscripts to. Otherwise they wouldn't be debating drafting haredis (at great political risk). They wouldn't be pulling out of Gaza. Allies and the upper brass themselves wouldn't be saying the conscr…
> It's pretty clear that Israel is stretching the extent it can take its conscripts to. Otherwise they wouldn't be debating drafting haredis (at great political risk). Let me endorse the fellow commenter here - this is a misread of the situation. The army has pulled back most troops from Gaza, partially because they need rest, but also because they don't have anything to do right now. They're holding territory, but t…
It seems like we basically agree actually.
> The army has pulled back most troops from Gaza, partially because they need rest
Right they need rest because they are stretched beyond what they're meant to endure as a conscript army. They also can afford a rest they need.
> s being used now partially because at this moment, the importance of the draft is more obvious
Right because the current army needs rest and could use fresh reinforcements.
So what's our disagreement here?
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#98This is a great article and an excellent breakdown of how what we hear on the news can be so off base. Just to nitpick, this part stuck out to me: >Fast forward two decades, and this outlook looks dangerously naive. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s attacks on Israel, and a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan or the Philippines show the importance of ballistic missile defense as a way of blocking attacks by invading…
> It was definitely Israel who violated Iranian sovereignty first here, no? With the killing of IRGC commanders in a Syrian consulate. Neither country has attacked Israel recently. Iran funds Hamas, which attacked Israel on October 7th (and has attacked it many other times). It funds Hezbollah, which has been attacking Israel since October 7th, partially from Syria.
And the US funds Israel who has extrajudicially assassinated Iranian civilians in Iran in the past few years.
So can Iran then blow up an American embassy with justification?
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#99My gut is Iran wanted the missiles to be intercepted. They wanted to show they are not pushovers but don’t want to escalate too much. In some sense the whole thing was a fireworks display by the countries involved. Like a warning shot.
This is exactly it. The easy way to get past missile defenses is to overwhelm them. Missiles are cheap. Interceptors are incredibly expensive. The attackers will always be at an advantage. Just throw enough to ensure that there aren’t enough interceptors. This warning shot required multiple nations to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to push back an attack that cost a few million and came from a single source.
I’ve been looking for the prices of the missiles they launched and total cost of attack from Iran’s side. Since you seem knowledgeable, please post references.
Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense
#100This is a great article and an excellent breakdown of how what we hear on the news can be so off base. Just to nitpick, this part stuck out to me: >Fast forward two decades, and this outlook looks dangerously naive. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s attacks on Israel, and a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan or the Philippines show the importance of ballistic missile defense as a way of blocking attacks by invading…
> The US and Israel have assassinated targets in the country of Iran recently, while the reverse has not been true. I presume you are referring to the US killing of Soleimani, and the embassy bombing, though neither of those were in Iran. But you're missing the point. Why did those killings happen? Iran keeps arming proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, the Houthis, and maybe some others), and having those pro…
You presume wrong. I mean the killing of Iranian civilians such as Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
The US arms Israel who conducts such extrajudicial assassinations.
By your logic, this makes all American military personnel and proxy civilians fair targets for Iran