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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#431

Post by markdown »

watwut wrote: post #379
Dig1t wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: >Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time. >It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the sometimes unpredictable junior partner in a security relationship can unilaterally bring the senior partner into a major conflict is an enormous strategic error, precisely because it means you end up in a war when it is in the junior partner’s interests to do so…

Israel is entirely dependent on USA. If USA says they cant attack, they wont.

But most US politicians are dependent on Israel-aligned donors, so the US isn't going to say they can't attack. They'll do what they need to in order to keep the money flowing in so they can get re-elected.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#432

Post by californical »

r2_pilot wrote: post #412
mememememememo wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A country that goes all in renewable is in a stronger positon. UK power grid doesn't give a fuck about this war. Sure China. But unless they send in an army to retreive previously sold panels, or block the sun they can only harm future increases to supply.

Or wait 20 years for the panels to degrade...

Two things

1. It’s closer to 50 years, and even a partially degraded panel will work, just with less output

2. Even if we say 20 years, that means that you only need to buy panels once every 20 years! Not continuously. A complete and total interruption of solar panel production lasting 4 years will only mildly interrupt current output. How long can we last with a total disruption to oil supply chains?

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#433

Post by ericmay »

littlestymaar wrote: post #375
ericmay wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't though, it's the illusion of removing of a dependency which is rather dangerous. You're not only swapping one dependency for another in this specific case, but you're ignoring the rest of the global economy and its own dependencies and how they affect you.

You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest. When Russia invades Ukraine or Iran cuts the straight of Ormuz energy prize go up instantly, chocking the entire world economy in the course of a few weeks. Even if China stops exporting rare earths, it would take years before it affects the energy market. It's absolutely incomparable. Cuba is a…

> You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest.

That's not the entire point. You still rely on global supply chains. Those semiconductors in your MacBook Pro are made in Taiwan - many steps (perhaps most) in that supply chain to go from raw material to MacBook Pro, or EV, or fresh produce rely on oil. When Iran holds 20% of the world's oil supply hostage then prices go up for you too. Even if you are 100% renewables you are still dependent on oil for your economy.

Even the renewable power grid relies on fossil fuels for maintenance and service, many parts and components are built using materials made from oil (hello plastic), &c.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#434

Post by FrontierProject »

the_af wrote: post #259
daemoens wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Millennium Challenge 2002 is discredited because it had motorcycle couriers that moved at light speed handling all communications and 10' speed boats launching 19' missiles.

> The Millennium Challenge 2002 is discredited because it had motorcycle couriers that moved at light speed handling all communications and 10' speed boats launching 19' missiles. This is not what Wikipedia's summary describes. Now, maybe Wikipedia has the wrong summary, but according to it the challenge wasn't "discredited". By that point the exercise was over, but 13 more days were budgeted for, so the analysts req…

From Wikipedia:"Such defeat can be attributed to various shortfalls in simulation capabilities and design that significantly hindered Blue Force fighting and command capabilities. Examples include: a time lag in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information being forwarded to the Blue Force by the simulation master, various glitches that limited Blue ships point-defense capabilities and error in the simulation which placed ships unrealistically close to Red assets."

It definitely seems like there were issues with RedFors achievments. But the response is still ridiculous. I would have also resigned in ReFor's shoes.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#435

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

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…

> without large storage capacity

That's like saying without gas stations good luck getting gasoline to the people. It goes without saying that batteries are an essential part of most renewable solutions.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#436

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

dotancohen wrote: post #270
klipt wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the US government diverted the billions spent on this war into building out green energy infrastructure. If everyone had electric cars charging from solar then Iran's strait gambit would be much less effective.

American citizens have known since 1973 that their dependence on oil puts them at the mercy of every Middle East dictator. The governments have known this clearly since the 1940s - see the Barbarossa operation. The US had literal generations to reduce their oil dependency and yet chose to remain dependent. It has nothing to do with the current war.

The US succeeded in reducing their oil dependency and the country is now a net exporter. That doesn't solve the environmental concerns, nor hermetically seal the country from trends in global oil markets, but the US's energy independence agenda has definitely been successful on its own terms.

Unfortunately, it hasn't diminished the number of American foreign policy experts who think it's very important to fight lots of wars in the Middle East.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#437

Post by estearum »

ericmay wrote: post #433
littlestymaar wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest. When Russia invades Ukraine or Iran cuts the straight of Ormuz energy prize go up instantly, chocking the entire world economy in the course of a few weeks. Even if China stops exporting rare earths, it would take years before it affects the energy market. It's absolutely incomparable. Cuba is a…

> You're swapping a dependency which hits very quickly if disturbed, for one that would take a much longer time to manifest. That's not the entire point. You still rely on global supply chains. Those semiconductors in your MacBook Pro are made in Taiwan - many steps (perhaps most) in that supply chain to go from raw material to MacBook Pro, or EV, or fresh produce rely on oil. When Iran holds 20% of the world's oil s…

Nobody said that a modern economy can be completely independent, but that doesn't mean all levels and types of dependency are equal.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#438

Post by andriy_koval »

Pay08 wrote: post #363
samus wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gulf states are not any more willing than the USA at invading Iran with ground troops. The only thing that changes by making them angry is that slightly more missiles fly into Iran. Which is already accounted for and won't magically reopen the strait.

Actually, Saudi Arabia might get involved.

they couldn't defeat much smaller and weaker Yemen.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#439

Post by markdown »

rurp wrote: post #288
sysguest wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I did expect US to know all those things... but what I did NOT expect, is how Iran regime would choose strategically suicidal options just to "feel good" missile-rambo even on non-combatant countries? that'll trigger self-defense attacks... $2M per voyage? woah... the stait-users don't have a choice, but "make an example out of" iran... I mean, iran should have just shot israel with all its missiles (select and…

I disagree. Even though I think the Iranian regime has been extremely incompetent overall their war strategy has been surprisingly lucid. They aren't actually risking much more by attacking neighboring countries that are already cooperating with the US. How much is Qatar's military involvement going to move the needle when you're already facing a full-on war with the US and Israel? Raising the overall costs to the US…

Yup, Iran is threatening regime change by targeting the financial stability of American voters.

It's their only play, really.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#440

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

Oil is disposable, solar panels are not. If you have solar, and then piss off the CCP to the point where they attempt to stop you from acquiring more of it, you don't lose the solar you already have. Those solar panels will continue generating energy for years, if not decades, afterwards.

It's also important to note that the US also produces oil[0]. There are some quirks of the market and refineries that make it difficult to consume our own oil, but we could potentially build more domestic processing. The real problem is that pesky global market that puts costs on the state's ambitions for power. To put it bluntly, American oil is expensive. We can survive an oil crisis iff we are willing to pay astronomical prices at the pump; but if we are doing this assuming we can just enjoy cheap gas while the world burns, we are going to get a rude awakening.

Think about it this way: buying your energy in the form of oil is like exclusively using streaming services for your entertainment needs. It's cheap, easy, convenient - until the plug gets pulled and it suddenly stops being those things. Buying solar is like buying physical media - you have to pay up front and it's more of a hassle to get started, but it can't be turned off on a whim.

[0] It also used to produce rare earths, too. The mines closed down because they were too expensive to operate - not because rare earths are actually rare.

Post reply on HN