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

Iran War Cost Tracker

iran-cost-ticker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 486 posts

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#291

Post by lukan »

Jtsummers wrote: post #230
tzahifadida wrote: post #224

What would have happened if the US dis not get involved in WWII. We would probably not be here... Not everything is short sighted bean counters. Having major cities explode by nuclear devices in the US will surely cost more.

Iran has been weeks away from a nuke for decades. What evidence is there that they were any closer this time, or that this war was necessary to delay or block their progress?

I vaguely remember a similar situation last year, where Trump said, Irans nuclear program is now destroyed for years to come.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#292

Post by Amezarak »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #231
ineedaj0b wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked into this for work and no way. You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. Some very smart people have looked at fixing the system, and there's no golden goose (except ozempic maybe). We'll need pharmacological breakthroughs. Also, regrettably - A LOT of medical care is unnecessary but we love grandma.

> You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. But they don't. This is clearly a pro-insurer talking point. Europe just negotiates on a state based level so therefore is able to negotiate better prices.

Medicare also negotiates on a state based level and represents more people than most European countries.

Right now the US governments collectively spend more than most European countries per capita on health care. The states and Feds. Totally exclusive of the private market spending. Expanding Medicare/Medicaid may be great for other reasons but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#294

Post by richardfeynman »

nprz wrote: post #290
hereme888 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That news piece was officially dismissed after investigation by the IDF and CENTCOM. I would bring to your awareness that you're using an emotional argument with no substance, and it discounts the decades of complex history in the region.

The IDF has burned through all credibility during their assault on Gaza. I do not think the US and Israel waging a war on Iran will result in a positive outcome for the Iranian people or the region. The end result will be chaos, misery, and suffering. The latest news is the US attempting to foment some sort or civil war[0]. I sincerely do not understand how anyone could advocate for this. [0] https://www.itv.com/news…

A falsifiable prediction. Thank you.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#295

Post by karmakurtisaani »

lm28469 wrote: post #283
throwaw12 wrote: post #87

This doesn't include generational damage in sentiment: * Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas * Japan is in trouble because Middle East supplies its 75% of oil, which is blocked now * Ukraine is in dilemma, because US giving every support to Israel, but not to Ukraine * Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain is asking questions, if US can't defend us and is moving all defensiv…

> Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas 60% of it comes from the US, a lot from northern Africa too, not much comes from the middle east

The price of oil has skyrocketed because of the dumbfuck war. Doesn't matter where the oil comes when it costs too much and causes massive inflation once again.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#296

Post by [deleted] »

state_less wrote: post #136
lefstathiou wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.

The strait of hormuz is the opposite of protected right now. Insurance companies aren't willing to cover ships if they enter the strait to pick up a load of oil, so little commercial traffic is occurring. The real cost should include the spike in oil prices, the world consumes about 100 million barrels a day, so every $10 increase costs the world a $1 billion a day. We're already up ~$10, and it might continue to ris…

[deleted]

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#297

Post by lukan »

bdangubic wrote: post #285
lukan wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize most Israelis were born there? Having a right to live where you are born is a pretty fundamental one.

President Trump would hard disagree with you on that one

Fortunately he is not undisputed king of america, yet.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#298

Post by Retric »

nradov wrote: post #247
Retric wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have surplus carriers specifically to allow them to average a large percentage of their time at home unlike container ships who spend the vast majority of their time in service. Many systems that are both bespoke and complex means lots and lots of maintenance issues. Sure the Navy can Airlift in parts etc, but that’s obviously very expensive and less obviously more dangerous.

We don't have a surplus of carriers. We have a shortage , at least relative to their current tasking. They're overstretched and behind on maintenance. This is unsustainable so the civilian leadership will have to either cut back on missions or build more.

There’s always an argument for more equipment, but you need to start building them long before they enter service and need to set budgets long before any specific crisis.

Funding for Nimitz was authorized in 1967 they started construction the next year and it was in service in 2025. The US has a very large and very expensive carrier fleet today because people decided it was worth having X boats a long time ago and they calculated X under the assumption that a significant number would be spending time docked / on the other side of the planet from where the conflict is.

Obviously, part of that equation was based around warfare and the likelihood of losing some / extending deployments etc, but what we want today has no barring on what we actually built as all those decisions happened a long time ago.

TLDR; Having more than strictly needed for normal operations = having a surplus when something abnormal occurs.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#299

Post by Jtsummers »

lukan wrote: post #291
Jtsummers wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has been weeks away from a nuke for decades. What evidence is there that they were any closer this time, or that this war was necessary to delay or block their progress?

I vaguely remember a similar situation last year, where Trump said, Irans nuclear program is now destroyed for years to come.

Yep, the Iran chicken hawks can't keep their stories straight.

Trump's chicken hawk fanboys:

- Iran is weeks away from nukes, but our bombing runs last year were so successful they're now years away. But now they're weeks away again, got to attack!

- We're not the world's police, but Iran killed 30k of their own citizens, we need to help them and be the world's police!

- The Iranians were going to attack US bases because of an Israeli attack, so to prevent those attacks we attacked first. Thus giving them no reason to bomb our bases. Oh god, they're bombing our bases! The fiends!

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#300

Post by keybored »

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #56
tw04 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal. Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to eventually be at risk of the US attacking you, you better be nuclear armed.

because enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?

Giving up their nuclear weapons did not work out well for Ukraine.
Post reply on HN