| |
| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Iran has been buying and building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people Iran spends about 2.5% of its GDP on defense, compared to USA at around 3.5%. How much should they be spending? https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... | | |
| ▲ | 01100011 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that reliable? The IRGC basically runs the economy and takes a significant cut. The IGRC is also separate from the military. The nuclear program, quite obviously for military use, may also not be included. What about support for proxy groups? Hezbollah alone gets support above $1B per year. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was aware of the IRGC graft. I tried to check the amounts normalized for % of GDP. Conservative estimates put them at half of the 2% GDP military spend. However, the IRGC's tentacles are also estimated to siphon off something like +50% of the GDP.[0] Not all of that money's going to military hardware, but they have a substantial slush fund and use the Iranian resource base as a military piggy bank. [0]https://fortune.com/2026/03/02/iran-islamic-revolutionary-gu... | |
| ▲ | brohee 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | $1B per year for Hezbollah is like $1 a month per Iranian.I doubt it changes the Iranians living conditions much... |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They should probably be closer to 0 or more in line with European countries but these numbers aren’t accurate and don’t tell the full story. They don’t, for example, include money paid to and missiles transferred to Houthis to launch from Yemen. Nevermind Hamas and Hezbollah, rebels in Iraq and so forth. | | |
| ▲ | azernik 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | EU countries spend about 2% of GDP on their militaries. It's not at the high US levels, but it's closer to Iran's number than it is to zero. | |
| ▲ | craftkiller 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Europe is just under 2% of their GDP spent on military. Where are you getting this "0" figure? https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS | | | |
| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They should probably be closer to 0 or more in line with European countries Expand on this logic please. European countries are protected by NATO and a nuclear umbrella. Why would you expect a nation state to not invest in its military? | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > European countries are protected by NATO and a nuclear umbrella. Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time, which is the ideal thing, but it seems like maybe we can't live in that ideal world, anyway... I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one. Today its military is used for sending missiles at Gulf States, funding Hezbollah, and oppressing its people. So for it to have little to no military practically speaking would be a good thing. Second at 2.5% GDP (again these figures are highly questionable) that's plenty to have defensive capabilities versus neighbors. There's nobody there to really worry about because who outside of the United States is going to invade Iran? And even then the US is only doing it because they won't stop doing crazy shit and launching missiles at everyone. | | |
| ▲ | Peritract 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one. Well, they're currently being attacked. "Defending against attackers" is a pretty important purpose for a military. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They wouldn't be under attack if they weren't being run by the regime that is running their country. Notice how it's just Iran that's being attacked? And even so, what good did that military to them? They still got attacked, and their military assets were still significantly/mostly destroyed. What's the point of a military if the military you're buying just gets obliterated by the only country that is going to attack you for things you did in the first place and didn't have to do? | | |
| ▲ | craftkiller 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Notice how it's just Iran that's being attacked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war | | |
| ▲ | newAccount2025 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Like, this very second? It’s been ones of months since USA attacked Venzuela. We are openly musing about invading Greenland. We are actively embargoing and threatening to invade Cuba. We are the unhinged aggressor in all of this. | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy who has, in violation of UN actions and against Lebanese government wishes seized and held territory in Lebanon from which to launch rockets into Israel lol. If you're going to use that as such a loose category than the list of countries that have been attacked expands quite a bit. Israel has attacked Iran, while Iran has attacked Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, USA, and maybe one or two others that I'm not thinking of. | | |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no civilization on the planet that would accept full disarmament under the logic that they should just trust that you won’t attack them if they weren’t armed. | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let's be fair, if someone bombed trump right now, most of the world would be happy, including a lot of americans. Does that mean that someone should bomb US because of your regime? I mean... you have more homeless people living in tents than most cities post some natural disaster, your people can't afford education, healthcare nor (as above) homes, and you guys are spending money to bomb a place half a planet away that is in no way endangering you... and that after you've bombed it once before and "completely destroyed the nuclear program"... and before that and before that. I mean... i understand americans are well... americans, but you guys can't even imprison pedos running your country, why should you decide who to bomb? I mean.. what's next? Iranian special forces will eventually start destroying stuff in US, and you guys will claim "terrorism" or something again... well, it's not terrorism if you're in a war. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mittensc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time, UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges. Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable. Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges. I like to think this is true, but how many French soldiers coming home in body bags defending Lithuania will it take before they say enough? Are they going to just resort to nuclear weapons against Russia immediately? I don't think the nuclear umbrella is the trump card that it you might be portraying it to be. It's really difficult to say who would use those and when. There are some obvious cases, but there are also some not so obvious ones. But nukes aren't enough. You're not winning the Ukraine war with your nuclear umbrella for example - that's being won on the ground with Ukrainian blood. > Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable. Combined command of a military like this is incredibly difficult, and while I'd certainly agree that some specific militaries are quite capable of [1], I think the political and organizational system in Europe really poses a challenge. But even so those militaries lack power projection capabilities and lack in some other key areas. [1] In order probably Ukraine -> UK -> France -> Poland and then nobody else registers. Ignoring Russia because they're not really European IMO. > Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that. Nah, we actually have money to easily afford both we just have a bunch of morons in charge (Democrats and Republicans) who, particular to healthcare, have gotten us the worst of both worlds. Education we're #1 there's no question about that. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | France trained the most efficient recon crews, and the most efficient Ukrainian sniper units (some of them led by ex french soldiers. At least with a french passport, or on the verge of getting one). Caesar MK1 are the most efficient howitzer by a large margin in Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine have half the French number, and first MK1 units, when France is starting to get Caesar MK2. Our MBTs is so much better than Ukrainian tanks it isn't a comparison, and French rafales are not a joke, unlike su57s. When it come to boots on the ground and artillery support, nobody can beat Italy in Europe, though Finland probably can give it a run, and both countries would have defended Russia aggression easily. Special units are not even a consideration tbh, both French and Italian winter units are incredibly better trained than Spetnaz it appears (and they have the advantage of like, not being dead), and even they are less well trained and equipped than those in Finland/Sweden/Norway/Denmark or UK. If you're talking about global capabilities, including power projection, then the ranking have to start with France, and have Italy very, very close to the UK if not ahead (if we don't take into account nukes), and then Spain should be slightly above Poland and Ukraine, maybe with Finland and Sweden in the mix (gripe3 and CV90?). German have the Gepard which seems to be the best response to drones, but their army is too new. The only thing Europe truly lacks is a strong IFV with reactive armor like the Bradley, maybe the Lynx would qualify but the quantity is clearly not enough. And here I didn't talk about military doctrine and how well both French, Italian and German equipment fit their own, which to me is a huge advantage right after the early days of a conflict, because even when no one really know what to do and improvise, at least the whole army group improvise in the same direction. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | logicchains 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Almost half of the economy is controlled by the IRGC: https://fortune.com/2026/03/02/iran-islamic-revolutionary-gu... | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is a logical result of decades of sanctions, allowing only the insiders to profit from the country's ressources while the common man is bared from providing an alternative. Sanctions do not work and only entrench regimes, as we see in Russia, Cuba, North Korea and now Iran. | | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've just been at a conference where some high-up guy from germany was talking about the effect of sanctions... russia used to sell wood pulp to germany, german factories would produce paper products and then sell a lot of them back to russia. Then sanctions came, no more very cheap wood pulp for the german industry, and after a year of sanctions, the russians built (i think) 4 large paper factories, so even after the sanctions end, that business is not coming back to germany. | | |
| ▲ | nradov an hour ago | parent [-] | | OK, so what? Obviously we shouldn't continue trading with enemies regardless of the economic impact. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why? If the objective is to weaken a regime, and the sanctions strengthen it, why should you help your “enemy”? The classic mistake here is to consider that dictatorships are like democracies—they aren't, and their power structure is different and more resilient to economic shocks. Even Bachar Al-Assad, who was much weaker, took 13 years to leave power. At some point, one should question if wide sanctions targeted at increasing the suffering of the civilian population are really worth it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | g8oz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Extensive domestic economic control by security forces is also a feature of Egypt and Pakistan. America does not complain about those examples of course, because those countries bend the knee. | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If by "bend the knee" you mean that they don't regularly chant "death to America", sure. | | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those countries, like Iran, are also quite poor because the army siphons off so much of their resources. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | culi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well there were also the 3 F-15's that were shot down in one day in Kuwait. CENTCOM said it was a "friendly fire" incident | | |
| ▲ | the__alchemist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correct. Kuwaiti Hornet pilot who likely thought he was shooting down weapons or aircraft from Iran. |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down. building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc. Iran's military budget as a % of GDP has historically been inthe low single digits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Iran | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down. Which makes them irrelevant here in this discussion but sure yea. Russia (those sneaky guys who invaded Ukraine and are being supplied by Iran) provide targeting information to Iran, Iran has missiles, we can't shoot them all down, and here we are. It's unfortunate but that's what happens in a war. Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war. > Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc. We can easily afford both, but we choose not to because our political system is full of morons and corruption, but instead of Iran being more like the US and being dysfunctional in this regard, it should be more like Norway (excluding population differences) and pump and sell the oil and do so for the benefit of their citizens instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense. > Iran's military budget as a % of GDP has historically been inthe low single digits: Figures provided here are inaccurate and don't account for spending on proxy groups, for example. | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war. This is an interesting take given that the US seems to have ignored many of the most important lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. As for "end up in another war", the language you chose is very revealing. You don't just "end up in...war". Wars don't start themselves. Someone starts them and in the case of the US, it's almost always the US. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is an interesting take given that the US seems to have ignored many of the most important lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This is a fun trope that's parroted but none of these wars were the same or even really close to each other in goals. Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace. Iraq - well they had Saddam and now they have a functioning parliament and things seem to be going a lot better for them. Was it worth $1.5 trillion of US spend to achieve that? That's a better question. Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses. Iran - We're not going to like invade and occupy Iran, though we could. We're just going to have to keep blowing up their military capabilities until they have a more reasonable government. > As for "end up in another war", the language you chose is very revealing. You don't just "end up in...war". Wars don't start themselves. Someone starts them and in the case of the US, it's almost always the US. It was just a figure of speech - Ukraine wound up in a war. The US usually starts the war because the US is the only country in the world actually trying to do anything about nefarious actors. Easy to criticize from the sidelines, which is why American foreign policy has shifted to - we don't care what militarily irrelevant countries think about our activities because, well, we don't and they don't matter and we don't really care what they think. It sounds bad, but if we just retreat to isolationism as the MAGA and far-left crowds want, well maybe Iran goes and builds 5x the missile capabilities we have now, then they close the straight, force the gulf states to capitulate, and now you've got a nuclear armed Iranian regime in control of 20% of the world's oil supply. Oh and now you have nobody there to save you because China isn't going to go sail boats over there and bomb Iran, and Europe certainly isn't. Now what do you do? | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > we don't care what militarily irrelevant countries think about our activities because, well, we don't and they don't matter and we don't really care what they think. Why is the US pleading and whining for help then? | |
| ▲ | stickfigure 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also, let's not forget that most of the people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters a few weeks ago are now dead. No matter what else happens in this war, that is an excellent precedent. | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thank you, it's always interesting hearing a USofAian PoV on the stupid things the country has done. | |
| ▲ | greedo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | the_af 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace. They won the peace (and the war). You didn't win shit. You lost, badly. The wound in the American psyche by this defeat will never heal, to the point we have to witness claims such as yours. > Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses. So you lost. Mainly because you went on a military adventure, with unclear goals, with a population you didn't understand. Much like in Vietnam! And here you are, in Iran. I think the one lesson you did learn is to heavily control the media and the narrative. Body bags and mission failures are bad press. Lesson learned. | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace. Ironically, I used to teach English in Vietnam and my wife is Vietnamese. The US didn't win anything. What Americans call the "Vietnam War" was and is called the American War in Vietnam. The country was absolutely decimated and left with scars that are still healing today (see for instance Agent Orange). After the US fled the country, it continued to wage what amounted to an economic war against Vietnam, excluding it from the global economy. Into the 90s, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in the world. My wife's parents had relatives who survived the war only to starve to death after the war. Vietnam, largely because of its geography, is a very smart and pragmatic country. It's the only country in the world that has comprehensive strategic relationships with the US, China and Russia. Relations between the US and Vietnam are good because Vietnam's "bamboo diplomacy" policy allows it to leverage its unique position to extract benefit from all of the superpowers. Relations are not good because of US exceptionalism. > The US usually starts the war because the US is the only country in the world actually trying to do anything about nefarious actors. The good old, "I had to beat my wife because she wasn't acting right!" > Iraq - well they had Saddam and now they have a functioning parliament and things seem to be going a lot better for them. An estimated 300,000 to 1 million Iraqis died as a result of the war. But yeah, they have a parliament and "things seem to be going a lot better for them." > Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses. Do you actually believe anything you write? The US went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden and attempt to eliminate Afghanistan's role as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Ironically, through Operation Cyclone, the US directly supported militant Islamic groups during the Soviet war, and where do you think the Taliban came from? > Iran - We're not going to like invade and occupy Iran, though we could. We're just going to have to keep blowing up their military capabilities until they have a more reasonable government. Iran has about 4 times the land area and double the population of Iraq. Given the amount of debt the US has and Trump's ecstatic destruction of Pax Americana by defecating on all of America's most important alliances, I think the most optimistic scenario is that the cost of making the Persian Empire again would be the collapse the American Empire. |
|
| |
| ▲ | greedo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Good lessons. Like ignoring previous military plans that showed how tough a nut Iran would be to crack. Lessons like the value of AWACs. Now we're down to 15 and the availability rate is like 50%. So 8 or so WORLDWIDE. Yeah, that's a good lesson. And we've cancelled its replacement after someone (probably Elon) whispered BS into Trump's ear about space based sensors. I'm sure China is watching with a notepad out about all these lessons. Thucydides is rolling in his grave. | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US is providing targeting information, weapons and money for ukraine... it seems totally fair that russia is providing the same info for iranians, hopefully they (and china) will send them some weapons too. > instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense. After US and israel bombing them.... again... what do you think, will there be more or less "death to US" chants? Also, considering the number of dead people in iran, lebanon, palestine and other countries, the next step is probably special force work in US... the ones you guys call "terrorists". | |
| ▲ | benjiro3000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | bijowo1676 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | riffraff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you completely miss the disaster of DOGE in the first year of this administration? | |
| ▲ | Goronmon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US welfare system seems to contain a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board, so this will be a good chance to cleanse the system of fraud. Taking money from social programs and piling into the military which contains "a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board", certainly is a choice. Sort of the opposite of a smart choice, but definitely a choice for sure. | | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uh huh. Do you have any confidence that this administration will do a competent job of that inspection? I don't. I mean, they could surprise me... |
|
| |
| ▲ | mathgradthrow an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't know if any have completed runs yet, but supposedly we're using B-52s... | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ajross 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign. "Good sign" of what, though? Air superiority? I guess, sure. But we've constructed a strategic situation for ourselves where mere air superiority is losing. The straight remains closed. Because let's be blunt: if we can't reliably fly a F-15E or A-10 in the region, there's no way an oil company is going to bet its crew and cargo. Honestly the best situation here is that Iran merely decides to toll the straight. That's "losing" too, but at least one with a merely "large financial overhead" on international energy traffic instead of a disastrous 15% off the top cut in capacity. Iran is winning. This is the difference between tactics and strategy. | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m reading one of those Blackhawks was shot down. An A-10, F-16, and a refueling plane, in addition to the F-15 so far today. Which, if true, is not a good sign. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | We'll have to wait and see what comes out but I don't think this is a bad sign. In war you lose equipment and aircraft. It's silly to think the US wouldn't lose some during the course of the war. After all, the OP to this thread highlighted all of the advantages Iran has. Yet we've wiped out quite a bit of their military infrastructure and have complete control over the skies. Russia can't say the same though for their little adventure ;) | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Yet we've wiped out quite a bit of their military infrastructure and have complete control over the skies. How can you believe that the US has "complete control over the skies" given today's events? | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We must be using different definitions for ‘complete’. I think Iran is using loitering anti-air missiles with IR seeking which seems to be effective. Maybe this sudden spike is reflective of receiving new equipment from China. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Could be. I guess my definition is “US can do whatever it wants without contest” and that seems to be the case here. What fighter jets does Iran have that are not destroyed? Do they have significant anti air defenses that we can’t attack and that limit our operations? Not to my knowledge but maybe there are parts of the country where that’s true, for now. Of course in any war someone can fire back at and sometimes hit your aircraft even if you have complete airspace control. | | |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I guess my definition is “US can do whatever it wants without contest” and that seems to be the case here. Whatever it wants, as long as that doesn't include flying aircraft or going through the strait. | | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would term it; the US has air dominance but the airspace is still contested as evident by the recent losses. Also, I think the US is still predominantly using standoff munitions instead of switching to dumb munitions because the airspace is still contested. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't view it as contested because there aren't to my knowledge limitations on US operations. There's no aircraft for the US to worry about, nor are the SAM capabilities unknown. Guys get rockets and shoot them at aircraft, that makes it dangerous but not necessarily contested. Yes the US probably is still using precision weapons because, well, unlike the Iranian government we don't want to use so-called dumb munitions and indiscriminately bomb civilians or civilian targets. And of course in general, why even fly into the airspace if you don't have to - malfunctions happen too. | | |
| ▲ | bijowo1676 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | US did murder 170 girls in Minab school, and hit many civilian targets, including a water desalination plant. Yes US is using precision weapons, but not because they want to avoid indiscriminate bombing. It's because US wants to precisely bomb specific civilian targets | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Yes the US probably is still using precision weapons because, well, unlike the Iranian government we don't want to use so-called dumb munitions and indiscriminately bomb civilians or civilian targets. Are you referring to the "precision" weapons that hit the girls' school? | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The us has air dominance but not air supremacy, which is why missiles are mostly used rather than bombs with gps kits, requiring to get much closer. And the US has been very keen to bomb civilians and civilian infrastructure, along with Israelis, since the start of the war [0]. The US-Israelis are guilty of war crimes. The recent bombing of an unfinished bridge is another example of the US-Israeli actions, especially since they did a double-tap to kill rescuers. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Qeshm_Island_desalination... [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/firestorm-for-hegseth-a... |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | voganmother42 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh yeah, its going great, so much achieved for only 30B and untold human lives, the winning! | | |
| ▲ | conception an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well we’re talking about Iran instead of the President’s “dealings” with a bevy of children so mission accomplished! |
| |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > have complete control over the skies. If we had complete control over the skies, we wouldn't be losing aircraft, would we? | |
| ▲ | seanw444 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It is completely expected to lose aircraft in an operation of this scale, against an opponent with this level of sophistication. People put way too much stock in all of these modern stealth systems and whatnot. Stealth, for example, is a buzzword. It will give a slight edge, but it's not going to make your aircraft completely invisible and unshootable. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Iran war is going exactly to plan and this isn’t a bad day for the US administration? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nutjob2 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It'll probably come in the form of permanent $5+/gal gas. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We got through it in 2022. We can get through it again. Though unfortunately Americans will learn the wrong lesson from this which should be to reduce dependency on oil for every day life. We should be aiming to have fewer cars and abandon car-only transportation as policy, and more sidewalks, trams, bike lanes, and better medium density mixed-use development. But if folks want to have Ford F-250s and drive 15 miles for a loaf of bread, you have to care about the Straight of Hormuz which Iran could threaten to shut down anytime and as they continued to strengthen their military capabilities increasingly likely to shut down in the future. -edit- Also to be clear EVs aren't the answer either. Can't be dependent on China for rare earth mineral processing, still doesn't solve c02 emissions, still have traffic and all the negative externalities. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The rare earth dependency on China is very much overblown. The U.S. has very significant natural reserves of rare earth minerals. The problem is the same with all mining - it's uneconomic to mine minerals in the U.S. because the job of "miner" is unattractive to Americans (both the laborers and the governments that sign environmental permits) when there are cleaner, safer, and more highly paid jobs available. They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are, i.e. it depends on the fuel source for the local electric grid (which today is overwhelmingly solar in most of the places where EVs are popular). | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're dependent on processing and refining, not the minerals themselves. Takes, from what I understand, 10-15 years to stand up that capability. Overall EVs are great and all and that's what I have, but they're not addressing the underlying concerns and sticking with car-only or car-based infrastructure whether that's ICE or EV is a losing proposition. > They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are, No, you need fewer electric trains to move much more people plus you don't replace the trains as often, &c, and then add in all the miles and miles of paved roads you need, parking lots, you name it. There's no way around this, if you care about the environment or care about human wellbeing you have to move away from car-only infrastructure like the US has and move toward more European models. And no, the geography isn't a challenge, most people live in urban areas in the United States, China is big too, and so forth. |
| |
| ▲ | Arubis 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Another good lesson could potentially be that going to war as a sideshow to distract from a news cycle that threatened people in power is not the best choice for the world at large. | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The people who are benefiting from that distraction are not the same who are being harmed by the distraction. The leaders seem to be quite okay with these turn of events. |
| |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree that we should abandon car-only transportation and instead move cars much further down the transit hierarchy. Ideally we would be relying on trains, bikes, and buses for most daily movement, using cars as needed instead of by default. But, > still doesn't solve c02 [sic] emissions This is incorrect. It doesn't magically make the entire grid carbon neutral but it does let us use much more efficient forms of power generation to make the electricity, and electric cars themselves do not emit CO2 (Carbon with 2 Oxygen). Effectively, switching to electric cars would remove cars themselves as a source of CO2 and make decarbonization much much easier. | |
| ▲ | slackfan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I remember 4 dollar gas in 2011.... So that was nearly 6 dollars in modern money. |
| |
| ▲ | praptak 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oil is still underpriced wrt to its environmental cost. It is good to see at least the political cost being accounted for. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Oil is still underpriced wrt to its environmental cost. This may well be true, but we still haven't found a better fuel. Sure, we have electric cars, but they are still too expensive for the masses, or impractical, e.g. for apartment dwellers. Besides, oil has countless other uses besides as fuel for vehicles. | | |
| ▲ | praptak 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no incentive to find a better fuel as long as the price of oil doesn't have the externalities priced in. | |
| ▲ | saulpw 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, and, the world would be better off if the price of oil were higher. We would produce less plastic crap and take fewer frivolous airplane trips and take more public transit. Our petroleum consumption is based on underpriced oil. | |
| ▲ | happysadpanda2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though. Which would also likely result in a fair increase in public health from moving a bit more and possibly less polluted air going in an out of the lungs of the populace. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though. Public transit is impractical outside of big urban centers. And even there, it's nearly always a nasty experience. This is why people who can afford it still drive or use taxis in cities. |
| |
| ▲ | malfist 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > but we still haven't found a better fuel We have. It's electric. | |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China makes them cheaply enough. |
| |
| ▲ | nutjob2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From my point of view, this incredibly stupid war has only positive externalities. The costs of oil are legion and unaccounted. |
| |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a good start, but maybe toss a "1" in front of the "5". |
|
|
