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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#471

Post by scoofy »

goda90 wrote: post #463
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…

In January, the youtuber Technology Connections did a whole rant about how ridiculous it is that we're not rushing as quickly as possible to get off of non-renewable energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

It really is crazy that environmentalists were like, "hey look, free energy," and suddenly everyone started screaming "No, boo! We like the way things are!" I have a friend who has never used an induction range before that is dead set that he never wants one. I just don't get it.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#472

Post by surgical_fire »

sysguest wrote: post #191
usrbinbash wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iran's dickhead move... Remind me again, which country started this whole mess? > what choice do the gulf nations, or even all the asian+european (strait users) nations have? They can go "yeah, you know, the US has been less than reliable as an ally recently, what with absurd tariffs, saber rattling around greenland, belitteling NATO, etc., and they seem unwilling to change, so we're just gonna pay the piper, and g…

> which country started this whole mess? what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move? > NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers. of course it said no BEFORE IRAN started the $2M toll (and other countries don't like trump due to tariff-for-everyone) if the current iran regime was strategically w…

> iran's "making new enemies"

Those countries were already enemies of Iran by virtue of housing US bases, military installations, etc.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#473

Post by JumpCrisscross »

1minusp wrote: post #280
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…

I'd love to believe this, but very recent history has shown (in the US at least) that we are moving backwards and trying to resist renewable energy.

> very recent history has shown (in the US at least) that we are moving backwards and trying to resist renewable energy

A longer view of history shows a clear pattern: "After a gasoline price shock, households respond in the short run mostly by reducing travel, although estimates from the literature suggest the response in the short run is quite low (e.g., Hughes, Knittel, and Sperling 2006). Over long horizons, households adjust their vehicle technology and reduce further their consumption of gasoline.

...

The market share of full-size pickups, utility vehicles, and vans fell more than 15 percentage points between its peak in 2004 and early 2009. Small cars and the new cross-utility vehicle segment picked up most of this market share" [1].

[1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086%2F657541#...

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#474

Post by standardUser »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #356

The blog post said that the Iran war costs the US at least 1 billion USD per day. The US is incredibly rich and can afford the cost. What I don't see being discussed: What if the US (and Israel) does not put troops on the ground in Iran, but continues relentless, daily aerial bombing... forever (1/2/3 years)? I am not saying that you can control a country from air superiority only (this has been widely discussed by m…

The second the first bomb hit, the Republican Guard went from a standing military force to a guerrilla army, similar in a lot of ways to what the US faced in Iraq, just vastly better-trained and better-equipped. The US couldn't subdue Iraq with hordes of troops on the ground for years, so why would anyone imagine an air-only campaign would have better results against a stronger and larger opponent?

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#475

Post by tomjakubowski »

WarmWash wrote: post #417
watwut wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel does not want functional moderate goverment in Iran. It would bomb and kill anyone who tries that. Israels plan is to periodically bomb and keep Iran failed state. It is working on making itself larger cleansing whole areas around it and settling it.

Israel doesn't want delusional theocrats running Iran.

It may not be in Israel's national interest having an aggressive Islamist government in Iran, but political incentives and national interest aren't always aligned.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#476

Post by Hikikomori »

spwa4 wrote: post #419
Hikikomori wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah they should. Netanyahu and Israels leaders should report to the ICJ. You don't really care because you don't have a valid argument. Fact is Iran was complying with JCPOA, as all US intelligence agencies agreed on. It was working. But it had one flaw, Obama signed it and the orange baby couldn't deal with that, and likely Israel/Netanyahu influencing Trump back then as well as they were opposing the deal from the…

Like I said you cannot make a reasonable argument that Iran respected international treaties and is now being treated unfairly. That's utterly and completely ridiculous, regardless of the specific treaty. Iran's government organizes massacres, inside and outside of Iran. Could you illuminate further to me which treaties that little practice follows and how unfair it is it causes bad things to happen to them?

>>Like I said you cannot make a reasonable argument that Iran respected international treaties

> Iran was complying with JCPOA, as all US intelligence agencies agreed on.

??? I'm not even the one making the argument.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#477

Post by andriy_koval »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #458
andriy_koval wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they'll form a coalition against iran and do what?

> and do what? Bomb shit. The Saudi and UAE militaries aren't anything to sneeze at. (The area cross the Strait from the UAE is majority Arab [1].) I think it's generally good strategy to not provoke new belligerents against oneself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran

Saudi and UAE has less air power than US+Israel, whatever could be bombed already bombed.

But Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#478

Post by JumpCrisscross »

leonidasrup wrote: post #427
dalyons wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have to go to absolutes? If 90% of countries can be 80+% self sufficient, that’s still an amazing thing

These 20% will still make you dependent on foreign country. For example Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels.

> Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels

There is merit to putting one's energy policy on autopilot by doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#479

Post by scottLobster »

scoofy wrote: post #471
goda90 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In January, the youtuber Technology Connections did a whole rant about how ridiculous it is that we're not rushing as quickly as possible to get off of non-renewable energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

It really is crazy that environmentalists were like, "hey look, free energy," and suddenly everyone started screaming "No, boo! We like the way things are!" I have a friend who has never used an induction range before that is dead set that he never wants one. I just don't get it.

To be fair induction ranges aren't without issues, not due to the concept itself but failures in implementation.

Touch screen controls are rife and not only become impossible to use when, say, grease is splattered on them or your hands are wet/wearing gloves (common when cooking on a stove top), they can even be falsely activated by such things. Cold spots can also be a concern depending on your cookware.

Unfortunately a lot of promising technology has matured in a time of consumer product enshitification, and there is no established track record for people to be nostalgic for.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#480

Post by riffraff »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #422
bluealienpie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never about nuclear weapons, Netanyahu has been saying Iran was one week away for over 30 years. Europe goes along as an excuse to support politically unpopular war to maintain US support for Ukraine.

No, he hasn't been saying that, despite what you may have read in a random reddit comment. In the 90s he was saying 3-5 years. In 2010 it was 1-2 years. The first time any kind of claim measured in weeks was immediately before Rising Lion last year, and guess what, the IAEA agreed with him.

In 2015 he said weeks. I think we can agree a few weeks passed before that and bombing Iran ten years later.

https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd

Post reply on HN