Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#331

Post by ReptileMan »

the_af wrote: post #322
ReptileMan wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. Edit: Sometimes the only answer to the weaker side claiming that something is impossible is Vae Victis. I am sure that there are enough powerful people in Iran that wouldn't mind secular state if they are the one to lead it. It is not as if their kids are not wild partying in europe anyway.

> Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. TFA explains why this is impossible for Iran.

Once again - it is impossible for a very select few. There are a lot of generals that could stage a coup. Or colonels. They just summary execute those above them and say new rules bitches.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#332

Post by the_af »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #233

This kind of amateur analysis is not worth being front page of HN. Its not that it doesn't make a few good points, but overall, it just isn't high grade strategic analysis because it lacks a lot of information by the post's own admission.

> This kind of amateur analysis is not worth being front page of HN.

The author is a military historian and professor with a PhD, so not an amateur.

If you think this isn't high grade, or that it is mistaken, please explain how and why.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#333

Post by brendoelfrendo »

pydry wrote: post #212
pphysch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a ring of incompetent yes men, but behind those yes men is a nefarious foreign influence operation. These guys didn't arrive at their bad decisions by accident.

When you listen to the director of counterterrorism explain what happened in the run up to him resigning it fits pretty well the theory that Trump is compromised (possibly with kompromat) by a certain Middle Eastern country.

I mean, Joe Kent resigning in protest over the war with Iran is admirable, but Joe Kent is also a vocal anti-Semite who was upset that US policy was being directed by Israel. And I don't mean that Joe Kent dislikes the Israeli government or its actions specifically, I mean he engages in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and associates with anti-Semites like Nick Fuentes.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#334

Post by MSFT_Edging »

BariumBlue wrote: post #310
somenameforme wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just this administration. Everything with the US military has been going clearly downhill since the Millennium Challenge 2002. [1] It was, appropriately enough, a wargame simulating an invasion of Iran. It was a major event involving preparation in years and thousands of individual operators. When it was carried out the invading force was defeated by unexpected resources and resourcefulness from the Iranian…

> When it was carried out the invading force was defeated by unexpected resources and resourcefulness from the Iranian side, not entirely unlike what Iran has done during our invasion. Are you saying that Iran is capably fighting and killing US personnel, aircraft, and invading infantry? I am a little confused about the universe you live in. The IRGC and Basij effectively do not have a chain of command and are effect…

> The IRGC and Basij effectively do not have a chain of command and are effectively moving and acting by momentum

This was by design via the mosaic defense tactic.

They know the US prides itself on decapitation strikes, "taking out the leader of x" was a monthly headline during our time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and during the events of ISIS/syrian civil war. It's how the special forces operated, taking out a "leader", collecting all the names they could find in their possession, and taking those guys out. In the later days of Afghanistan, they stopped even trying to find out who the names were. If you were some mid-level Taliban member's dentist, you'd be fair game.

So Iran built a defense for that, a military that does not need a central command to continue fighting. They have their orders and they'll continue to carry them out. Completely bypass the benefits of highly accurate munitions, cyber intelligence, etc.

That's the same reason the first round of the Millennium challenge won outright. The red-team leadership knew to not expect last year's war today, and used their brains to exploit the weaknesses of a highly mechanized and sophisticated military.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#335

Post by the_af »

amarant wrote: post #255

There are a few passages in there that in isolation are not very notable, but taken together are kind of interesting: >But countries do not go to war simply to have a war – well, stupid fascist countries do, which is part of why they tend to be quite bad at war – they go to war to achieve specific goals and end-states. >Again, it is not a ‘gain’ in war simply to bloody your enemy: you are supposed to achieve somethin…

> the author seems to be subtly implying that America is a "stupid fascist nation"

He does nothing of the sort.

I can clarify for you: the mention of fascist countries being bad at war is a link to another article by the author, which explains that fascist countries such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were very bad at a war even while they mythologized and romanticized it, and derived their "sense of nation" out of symbolic struggle and might. The article you linked to describes many fascist or fascist-like nations, like Putin's Russia, but does not mention liberal democracies such as the USA.

I recommend you read it.

So why did the author mention that article in this context? Because he wanted to explain that countries -- unless they are fascist countries -- have strategic goals for going to war, and so does the US in this case, and therefore it's warranted to look into those goals and whether they have a chance of being met.

Again, I recommend you read the article in question (the one about fascists being bad at war) before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#336

Post by amarant »

lxgr wrote: post #287
amarant wrote: post #278

A core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this…

> Wether it's wind, solar or hydro, a underappreciated property of renewable energy is the energy sovereignty they provide. If your sovereign territory happens to support them geographically. This is true for many, but not all countries. Also, without large storage capacity, you might end up being self-sufficient during sunny, windy days, but find yourself very dependent on your neighbor countries for imports on over…

More countries are able to produce renewable energy than are able to produce fossil energy. As such, renewable energy providers more energy sovereignty than fossil fuels which is what matters. If it's 100% or not is mostly irrelevant for the decision making. If we're being rational.

Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#337

Post by lambdasquirrel »

amarant wrote: post #278

A core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this…

There are still processes that we haven’t replaced petroleum for, like Haber-Bosch. China has already banned the export of fertilizer for this reason.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#338

Post by ericmay »

amarant wrote: post #278

A core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this…

Self-sufficiency is a myth. Even if you wanted to try and be energy independent, for the short and medium term (and maybe longer, who knows?) you will be dependent on China and all the baggage that they bring because of their dominance of rare earth mineral processing. Need a new solar panel? Don't make a certain country mad (whether that's your local Ayatollah or CCP official).

And that's just energy. What about pharmaceuticals? Financial markets? Who protects your shipping lanes? Who builds your semiconductors? Where do those factories get their energy from?

I support the diversity of energy sources because they all have strengths and weaknesses. We've got to figure out climate change. But we also can't have, even if you want to somehow "move off of oil" a single country run by lunatics who can decide whenever they don't get their way that they get to seize 20% of the global oil supply. We can't have China dominating rare earth processing either. For some others it may be a reliance on American military technology.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#339

Post by nearbuy »

pas wrote: post #126
user_7832 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tehran "spent" 2T USD on the nuclear weapons program, which they could have spent on water desalination for example. (Side note: That... seems like a very high figure to me?) For comparison the US spent close to $1 trillion in 2024 on the military. It could have saved lives and spent that money on healthcare. But that's not how govts work. Iran didn't get a drawstring bag with 2T in it and chose to throw it all on…

> It will act to save itself first, even if attacking the aggressor hurts itself too in the process. Of course, but as we see simply focusing on ground forces, drones, and anti-air defenses would be strictly better . (Because they wouldn't be this sanctioned, and they could even have a civilian nuclear energy program too.) > 2T USD It's a number coming from an Iranian trade official. I heard it in this video: https:/…

It can't be 2T USD. That's about 60 times the cost of the Manhattan project in today's dollars. It could maybe be 2T Iranian rials.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#340

Post by estearum »

ericmay wrote: post #338
amarant wrote: post #278

A core trait of my personality can be summed up as "always look on the bright side of life". To that end: This war seems more than likely to drive up oil prices not only in the near term, but in the medium and long terms too! In addition, petroleum usage seems likely to become dependant on sucking Iran's proverbial dick, a notion that very few people in The West will find palatable. Optimistically then, perhaps this…

Self-sufficiency is a myth. Even if you wanted to try and be energy independent, for the short and medium term (and maybe longer, who knows?) you will be dependent on China and all the baggage that they bring because of their dominance of rare earth mineral processing. Need a new solar panel? Don't make a certain country mad (whether that's your local Ayatollah or CCP official). And that's just energy. What about pha…

I don't think they said it will give you self-sufficiency, rather that it removes one (important) dimension of dependency.
Post reply on HN