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

Nowhere is safe

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 329 posts

Re: Nowhere is safe

#171

Post by TacticalCoder »

brianjlogan wrote: post #15

Hmm... Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. Despite the proxy wars we've had a relatively peaceful world since WW1/WW2. Please humor me here, I'm not saying the world is horror free. The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peac…

> Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict.

There have been wars ongoing since more than centuries. Since way before the US even existed. We could name names and point to movement that have enslaved people, conquered many countries and brought misery everywhere they went way before the european/american slave trade took place, for example. And countries in which slavery persisted long after that one slave-trade was stopped.

Even if you don't go to war, war and misery has a way to come to your country.

While in the US the current president is 2/3rd of his total terms (counting the eight years) and things may go better later on, there are beliefs and cultures in other parts of the world that make it so they are nearly always at war. And this won't stop even should the US "play nice".

Re: Nowhere is safe

#172

Post by jandrewrogers »

cryptonector wrote: post #162

Imagine the cost of a shahed drone being as low as $5,000, or less. Imagine the cartels south of the U.S. having tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of them. It could get painful fast. That's one thing this war is showing.

Those supply chains are highly visible and relatively limited. Building a vast number of Shahed-level drones is going to be noticed long before you actually build them.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#173

Post by brianjlogan »

ACCount37 wrote: post #55
poszlem wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason we can imagine conflict easier than peace is pretty structural. Wars usually happen because of disequilibrium, and we're sitting right in the middle of a big one. The world order we know was built by and for the US when it was the uncontested superpower. Thats just not the case anymore. Countries that spent decades being the West's cheap labor pool have risen up, industrialized, built real militari…

I don't think there are major unresolved economic tensions between US and Iran or the likes. US isn't, somehow, mad because Iran or Venezuela are suddenly very rich and prosperous and independent - that simply isn't true. The closest to your dynamic would be that between US and China, and those two aren't at war as of yet. Iran is vaguely supported by China, but it's a low level of support, and it isn't China's proxy…

The US relationship with China is fascinating. My entire life it has both been an economic boogeyman, the nation nipping at our heels, and yet also the manufacturing engine powering everything out companies were creating.

Ignoring the one sided benefits of that even though you shouldn't it kind of reminds me maybe of the US and Britains relations?

Not a 1:1 but the continental separation, the "greed" of external companies trying to exploit the natural resources and work force.

And yet we're allies today.

If you're interested in the topic I'd highly advise checking out Sarah Paine and her lectures. An interesting view point of Mao and the rise of China.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#174

Post by throw310822 »

some_random wrote: post #147
throw310822 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he didn't. His "letter to America" starts with the question: "As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." And proceeds to list all the ways the US are militarily attacking and oppressing Muslims in the Middle East. It's a long list. Homosexuality is mentioned only once in the letter, in the next section, where he c…

[flagged]

No, there is no "or else", you are plainly making it up. As I've said, this is the exhortation part of the letter and it's not listed among the reasons for the attacks. Regressive, certainly. Brought as a justification for terrorism, no.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#175

Post by neonsunset »

brianjlogan wrote: post #15

Hmm... Interestingly one does not look at the solutions to de-escalate conflict. Despite the proxy wars we've had a relatively peaceful world since WW1/WW2. Please humor me here, I'm not saying the world is horror free. The emphasis I would hope would also be for improved negotiation tactics, better resource sharing and goal alignment between groups of people. Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peac…

[dead]

Re: Nowhere is safe

#176

Post by kakacik »

cogman10 wrote: post #148
coldtea wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saddam was their man for a full decade prior to that war, to go against Iran. Even the Kuwait invasion was given the go ahead by the us with false assurances, until they sucker punched him for it. It's not as if they us gave a shit or two about Kuwait's freedom or not (which was partitioned from traditional iraq teritorry in the past anyway, and a monarchy itself). Then they'd let him mostly be after 1991 until we ma…

To add, the primary reason the US supported Iraq was because it didn't want Iran to send oil to the USSR. This was because the US didn't want a communist nation to have a good economy. That's the story of a bunch of the CIAs operations.

Iran itself in its current form is a continuous line of failures of CIA and MI6 that led to their revolution against highly unpopular shah that was undemocratically installed only by those powers.

Why do you think back then the us embassy situation evolved as it did. 'Embassy' my ass, full of cia folks regardless what shallow hollywood flicks try to propagate, meddling with internal affairs for profit and power of british and americans, while impoverished common locals suffered greatly.

As usual with cia it backfired tremendously, made huge mess for decades in entire region, killed gazillion of innocents but since there aint no us citizens its just some annoying background noise of some brown 'people', right.

Anybody with above-maga intelligence can piece together those few wikipedia articles, but egos got hurt so its highly emotional topic for americans. If at least you guys learned from your collosal mistakes...

Re: Nowhere is safe

#177

Post by esseph »

krisoft wrote: post #69
esseph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> struggling against Iran Idk what to tell you, but any target that seems to get marked in Iran blows the fuck up. > couldn't outproduce Russia on the battlefield ??? What does this even mean? It's not like the US is in a wartime economy.

> Idk what to tell you, but any target that seems to get marked in Iran blows the fuck up. I’m sure that is true. And yet, the oil is not flowing. We keep “winning” like this for a few more weeks/months and we lose. Not because we sudenly stop “blowing targets the fuck up”, but because we cripple our economies.

> I’m sure that is true. And yet, the oil is not flowing.

The comment was alluding to impotent tactical prowess, which is... silly, to say the least.

> Not because we sudenly stop “blowing targets the fuck up”, but because we cripple our economies.

This whole thing is extremely stupid, yes.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#178

Post by kakacik »

cicko wrote: post #97
TheGRS wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization offered the model for this. When the economy is globally linked there is more pressure for stability than conflict. I think that theory still holds. The fallout of the last 10 years is that the distribution of the wealth created in that system has not been even at all, and we are seeing huge wealth gaps. Jobs were redistributed to poorer nations and lost in a lot of wealthier markets. If nations can sol…

So the problem is that people in poor countries are finally not starving but not that the person with a chainsaw owns hundreds of billions of dollars?

The problem in my view is, once dirt poor countries that work for nothing in horrible sweatshops to make cheap trinkets skill finally up and entire region moves from horribly poor to just poorish, the not en-vogue parts of the rich world will suffer some decline if they dont adapt and refocus on whats needed now and in near future.

Sounds like it matches those 2 regions although I am not that familiar with Toledo story. Also, from poor countries perspective it certainly looks like first world 'problems' they wish they had.

If we lift whole world from poverty then our western wages wont buy us much. You can see this in more egalitarian societies like nordics or Switzerland, there are no dirt poor, big middle class but you pay a lot for stuff and services and dont hoard tons of wealth. State picks up the tab for healthcare and whole education though. Thats the price for well functioning modern society (nothing to do with socialism), it has benefits but this is the cost and it cant be avoided.

I personally like living and raising kids in such system a lot, way more than US one for example.

Re: Nowhere is safe

#180

Post by stickfigure »

brandon272 wrote: post #100
ACCount37 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Difficult to reconcile the justification of current efforts of "Iran can't have nukes" with the unequivocal claims made less than a year ago that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been "obliterated". https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa... https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/sunday-shows-pre...

It's possible for both of these to be true: The leaders of the US are incompetent, and bombing Iran was the right decision.

"Even a stopped clock..."

Post reply on HN