861–870 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq Sure, they're talking multiples of land area.
> Sure, they're talking multiples of land area. But then don't say "people"? Because if you say "has N people" and then "more than 2x Y", no-one is going to go "yes, that's 2x land area" when it was NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY CONTEXT.
Until Iran feels that their best card is valued correctly - either by being played, or made unplayable - reports on "negotiations" are meaningless fluff.
A big mistake here was simply underestimating the scale of Iran. Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq. More than any country in Europe. About 2/3 of Russia. Expecting to win a war on the cheap was a fantasy. Especially since Iran has been fighting Israel for years. On the naval front, Ukraine sunk the Moskva with a few truck-mounted missiles. That finally made it u…
> Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US. If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. After 9/11, there's no world in which an…
Ok, just follow through with the logic.
If the US 'flatteNed' Cuba (like Gaza) in response to a few drones - it would 100% make the US 'The Evil Empire' and turn the world 100% against America as a neo fascist entity.
The costs would be unthinkable, and probably the demise of the nation as a having a 'historical special place'.
It would not ever fully recover, and the 'New World Order' would be something really hard to imagine.
In reality - something else would play out ..
I think the response would be disproportionate, but probably focused, but it depends on the 'populist effect' aka what exactly Cuba attacked, and how it was provoked.
If the US attacked Cuba first, and responded with drones on a US military installation - I'll bet there is populist resistance to escalation.
Event that tussle alone would look really bad on US, would guarantee the DJT regime probably 'last place' for all US presidents, people would be calling for 25th Amendment and for new leadership, even at the same time as they might even support strikes in response.
It'll mean total political chaos until the Admin steps away, probably Congress/Institutions trying to put a 'bubble' around WH Admin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are ample indepentant sources for that estimate. We don't know an exact number but we know it is close to that.
To be charitable, it is prima facie weird that that this seems to be the one thing we do know for sure. Literally every other detail here seems to be trapped in a black box or uncertainty, except for this. First the US blew up all the nuclear last year, then it turns they were days away. They were out of missiles a week ago, and then they werent at all. We were so sure about "the appetite for rebellion" among the peo…
Iran likely was weeks away from a nuclear bomb - they had all the parts, materials and know-how. They just needed the final steps of enrichment, and hand assembly a bomb. They had been in this position of a long time without taking the final steps, but at any time they only needed a few weeks to the first working bomb if they wanted to take those steps. (if they wanted to do mass production that would take longer)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US can't just pull out, either. The enemy gets a vote on when it's over. Israel, Iran, and Yemen now all have to agree Is that really true? Just claim that Iran's Nuclear ambitions have been destroyed, and anyone who needs oil can "Buy it from the US or get it themselves from Hormuz" - mission accomplished! With the US withdrawing (or atleast not attacking), Iran can stop the drone attacks and open Hormuz - col…
How to get Israel to back down in that scenario? They seem pretty committed to keeping this going.
Bibi has been found guilty by his own court system of gross corruption. Bibi tried to neuter his country's court system as a result, which pissed off a lot of Israel's population. Everything from 10/7 onward has been done to encourage Israelis to rally 'round the flag and keep fighting the enemy. Bibi goes to jail if the perma-war stops. Bibi does not want to go to jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukrainian war is the way it is because neither side has a decisive advantage in air. There's barely any CAS - there are, however, lightweight drones. If Iran were to become a major ground war, one of the sides would have air dominance, and we know which one. How that would change things remains to be seen. But it wouldn't be the same exact trench war, that's certain enough.
I don’t think air dominance will hold up for long if a plane costs billions and a drone a couple thousand. Any interceptor rocket the US uses will set them back millions versus literal peanuts on the other side. Add that Iran is basically a mountain fortress and they’ll run out of money very quickly; disregarding that prolonging the war will be __very__ unpopular in the US. They really got themselves into an unwinnab…
Shaheds and quads offer no threat to US air superiority. Iran can fling them at the ground targets willy-nilly, sure, and that will inflict causalities on FOBs and ground forces. There's no ready-made solution to low end attack drones. But the sky is going to remain with the US. This allows US to dispense JDAMs at anything that pops its nose out into the open. Which doesn't play well with the notion of "positional trench warfare". Any "position" like this is a liability when the kill loops are tight and the sky speaks precision munitions.
If a major ground operation happens, I expect it to look closer to "2024 Gaza urban warfare hell" than to "2024 Ukraine open field war of attrition". Defending forces hiding from the air power in urban formations, causalities and collateral damage from the attackers trying to flush them out, humanitarian consequences from supply lines interdictions.
I very much agree that "the war is unpopular in the US" is a severe pressure on how much US can accomplish in practice. But what US sets out to do, how hard the US commits and how much can US actually accomplish there all remain to be seen. They could well purge the regime, destroy the key weapon facilities or grab-and-hold the oil fields before the domestic audience runs out of patience and pressures the politicians, or votes the decision-makers out.
Keep in mind: Iran isn't running off a pool of limitless resources either. The regime was already struggling a lot before US and Israel declared open season on the leaders - and the external pressure only buys you this much cohesion. Iran's military infrastructure is not in a tip-top shape, their income streams are dubious, they don't have many allies left after the proxy purges, they don't have reliable weapon suppliers overseas, and their own weapon stockpiles and production are unlikely to be sustainable in any way. They can sustain much more manpower losses and tolerate more hardship, sure - but there is no limitless tolerance. A regime that purges protestors by the thousands can't rely on its population being willing to suffer and die for it.
So there's nothing inherently "unwinnable" about this. It's a horrid mess of unknown war goals, questionable decision-making and dubious war sustainability, on both sides. Outcomes are very hard to estimate without some damn good intel.
Brightest minds of US were too focused on displaying ads and making teenagers addicted to tik tokies-like stuff instead of working security, defense, etc You couldve seen anti militsry industry sentiment on HN for years, which apparently worked for US adversaries, who knows who was behind that propaganda :) Inb4: im from eu
The brightest minds were systematically bullied out of position, called DEI hires or accused of random crimes. They might not have been the best, but lets not pretend we're sending our brightest minds herw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are ample indepentant sources for that estimate. We don't know an exact number but we know it is close to that.
[flagged]
Hamas is a few thousand people and the IDF are still fighting them after 2 years. There are about a million in the IRGC/Basij/Army in Iran.
A big mistake here was simply underestimating the scale of Iran. Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq. More than any country in Europe. About 2/3 of Russia. Expecting to win a war on the cheap was a fantasy. Especially since Iran has been fighting Israel for years. On the naval front, Ukraine sunk the Moskva with a few truck-mounted missiles. That finally made it u…
> Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US. If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. After 9/11, there's no world in which an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Should have worn a suit. The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides the point). Allies come to each others aid, the US ha…
This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.
Also, threatening Greenland was not just "taking a break". Lying about what allies did in Iraq and Afghanistan was not just "taking a break". Insulting Europe, quite grossly, was not just "taking a break". And tariffs were not just "taking a break" either.
For that matter, trying to make Europe more fascists is not "taking a break", it is "meddling in".