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

411–420 of 486 posts

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#411

Post by roncesvalles »

password54321 wrote: post #234
roncesvalles wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The alternative was not bombing them in the middle of negotiations.

Persia's only singular civilizational goal right now is nukes.

What's funny is, all nuclear engineering programs in US universities (undergrad and grad level) are disproportionately filled with Iranian/Persian students (even as far down as 3rd generation immigrants i.e. those whose parents emigrated during the Shah Pahlavi era).

It's unreal how determined that entire culture is to getting the bomb. It's a big hit to their ego that all the other great "academic" civs of the world (Western European, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Jewish) have it except the Persians.

And they'll get it eventually. The question is only under what regime.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#412

Post by solatic »

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.

Hypothetically, the amount of money that could be negotiated away is something like the sum of net incomes of US pharma/med device/insurance/healthcare, which is something like $100 billion annually. which sounds like a lot but it's only about 2% of annual $5+ trillion spend. You can't negotiate prices to be lower than the associated costs, the companies will just close up shop instead of being forced to take a loss.

At the end of the day, the fundamental drivers of high healthcare costs are (a) high labor costs of high-skilled doctors, pharmaceutical researchers, etc. (b) high cost of procuring land and construction of new hospitals in major metro areas. The first requires you to fix education first so that doctors etc. do not need to take out and later pay back what can now easily exceed $500k in combined tuition and living expenses. The second is politically unpalatable.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#413

Post by Jensson »

nielsbot wrote: post #218
edm0nd wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"terrorism" who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?

> who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?

Not the people they are attacking. Intentionally attacking people unrelated to those you have a grievance with is terrorism, Iran has a terrorist regime. Russia doesn't do that, Ukraine doesn't do that, and so on.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#414

Post by Jensson »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #348
tw-20260303-001 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's talking about Ukraine here. Have you lost your mind? The comment you replied to talks about Middle East shipping routes.

There's a war in the shipping lanes?

Yes, Iran sits next to one of the most important shipping lanes in the world.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#415

Post by Jensson »

enaaem wrote: post #254
rwyinuse wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about tens of thousands of peaceful civilians who have been killed by the Iranian regime during past decades? The alternative to this war is allowing the Iranian government to keep doing that, business as usual. In my opinion bombing people responsible for these atrocities increases the well-being of the world. Most Iranians seem to agree.

I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground? The US had air supremacy, troops on the ground and a friendly regime in Afghanistan and Vietnam, and it did not work. (I am not sure if Iraq was a success, but I am sure that people were super tired of it, and did not want something like that again) What is just bombing going to do? They just rebuilt their weapons and you have to bomb them again in 1…

> I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground?

Their goal is to kill the leaders until a sensible leader appears. They haven't tested that before, so we will see how it works out.

Installing a puppet regime doesn't work well, but killing them until they put forward a reasonable regime might work.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#416

Post by Jensson »

orwin wrote: post #385
irishcoffee wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. What is that threshold? I've heard anywhere from 3k to 300k. You can definitively answer this question?

300k? You mean 30k right? Iranian official numbers are 3.5k. the OSINT community say at least 15k in the 3 biggest cities (including peo-regime guardias of the revolution), and 'local' journalists (a lot with CIA ties though), not friend of the system say 30k. I wouldn't trust Iran with a butter knife, so I imagine between 15 and 30k, including 1 to 2k 'guardians'

> 300k? You mean 30k right?

30k was just the last protests, they talked about the entire regimes crimes which is much much more.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#417

Post by Jensson »

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.

That is a good reason to focus what you have on Iran since Iran is causing a lot of that demand for power projection. If you fix it at its source there will be much less demand for them in the future.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#418

Post by enaaem »

TemperaryT wrote: post #381
enaaem wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground? The US had air supremacy, troops on the ground and a friendly regime in Afghanistan and Vietnam, and it did not work. (I am not sure if Iraq was a success, but I am sure that people were super tired of it, and did not want something like that again) What is just bombing going to do? They just rebuilt their weapons and you have to bomb them again in 1…

You’re right that airpower alone will not change anything. But as you pointed out, putting troops on the ground does not automatically change the outcome either. If there is a lesson from the last few decades it is that the military is good at two things. Killing people and breaking their equipment. What it can do is create opportunities that political or covert efforts have to capitalize on. Any military campaign ne…

The issue is that no one is going to defect without protection. That is the reason you put troops there. Democracy building is nice, but that is not the real reason you sent troops.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#419

Post by cogman10 »

ikrenji wrote: post #135
hedora wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sentinel ICBM project (already at 2x initial budget, and set to balloon further) will be the most expensive project since the interstate freeway system was built. https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/02/the-air-forces-new-icb... So, an all-city high-speed rail network would certainly be achievable for a small fraction of the total US military budget.

well yeah. the pentagon wastes 1 trilly per year. a lot of stuff can be paid for with that kind of money.

Like Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.

The fact that all three are looking at cuts and reductions while this war is fully funded is the major problem with America.

Re: Iran War Cost Tracker

#420

Post by tw-20260303-001 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #348
tw-20260303-001 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's talking about Ukraine here. Have you lost your mind? The comment you replied to talks about Middle East shipping routes.

There's a war in the shipping lanes?

Yes, you have lost your mind. Or you're an LLM.
Post reply on HN