For the record, you're definitely not mentioning all of the US losses there - the US lost or suffered damage to lots more aircraft (including even some that Iran managed to shoot down despite what seems to me to be a pretty anemic air defense performance, and others they hit on the ramp with missiles) and Iran seriously damaged or degraded a lot of American military facilities.
I actually tend to think that the facilities isn't a big deal, especially if Trump Venezuelizes Iran (what are we gonna use them for?) but it's not like Iran didn't get in a few solid punches.
Shrike
4hr ago
The ability for Iran to project power has not been meaningfully reduced in any way that is testable
From Wikipedia:
Power projection (or force projection or strength projection) in international relations is the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how the term is used, but when it comes to power projection Iran's navy (which I don't think anyone seriously contests was "meaningfully reduced") is much more relevant than their ballistic missile arsenal (which was also "meaningfully reduced," if only because they launched off such a large portion.)
they still possess the naval/missile capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz
"Shut the Strait" is self-contained motte/bailey inasmuch as it suggests that Iran has much more complete control over the Strait than they actually do (nobody denies that cargo ships successfully passed through the Strait under the nose of Iran, do they?), thus successfully spreading a misleading idea, but if challenged the person using it can always say that they mean Iran has the ability to threaten traffic there (which is also true), not that Iran actually shut the strait, making it tedious to address, even though it may mislead the underinformed.
For this reason, I wish you (and everyone else on here) would stop using the phrase and switch to more precise language instead.
Shrike
6hr ago
clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective
This assessment seems very far from defensible to me.
Trump on February 28 in his speech articulating the rationale of the attacks [excerpts]:
Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.
It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular, my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon.
They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message. For these reasons, the United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs or roadside bombs, as they are sometimes called, to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans.
And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.
Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government.
From the MOU:
The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA.
I think it's completely reasonable to:
- Question whether the objective of preventing Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon will actually succeed
- Interrogate the degree to which the United States accomplished all of its objectives; there seems to be (at best) mixed or conflicting evidence that the US succeeded in anything that might be characterized as "raze[ing] [Iran's] missile industry to the ground" or "totally...obliterat[ing]" Iran's military or preventing their proxies from acting.
- Suggest that the cost/benefit ratio was not in the favor of the United States, insist that the war went poorly for the United States, or otherwise criticize the decision to go to war or the outcomes or assess that they indicate US weakness relative to Iran
I criticized going to war with Iran before it happened on here. I still think it's too soon to tell how things are going to fall out, so I've been withholding judgment, but my preliminary assessment probably wouldn't be viewed as exactly a pro-Trump gloss.
However, I think you are badly mistaken if you to look at a US declaration of war that emphasizes "no nuclear weapons," look at an MOU where Iran agrees "no nuclear weapons" and then claim that the MOU is "clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective."
Shrike
9hr ago
...you can still own a cannon of the type used back then (at least under federal law).
Shrike
1d ago
Let's test your hypothesis. When specifically do you mean by "today"? and why?
Shrike
1d ago
And what difference does that make to anything?
I think it makes your argument worse, not better. Sure, maybe as measured by the stingy metric of financial balance in the general treasury, the benefits of gay men as a whole outweigh the costs, but "[w]hen their lifestyle does turn harmful" the (financial) cost isn't almost entirely borne on the group of people who opted in; it's disproportionately likely to be borne by society.
(To be clear, from what I can tell, realistically the group of people opting in to HIV risk can be diced finer than "gays.")
The hard numbers I've quoted (with citations) are fucking chump change. A few hundred billion dollars? Then we'd be talking real money. Or a nice week in Tehran. Where exactly are the additional costs that are being imposed on the general populace? I'm sure they exist, but I don't think they sum up to very much
You're shifting the goalposts here. It's as if you said "the horrible impact of dragons being able to breathe fire is almost entirely limited to dragons" and then I pointed out that no, dragons mostly don't fight each other, they are more likely burn down people's homes and steal their gold, and you said "well they mostly avoid populated provinces and steal from monasteries, so the general treasury is not really impacted" which I am sure is a relief to our lord the king (supposing for the sake of illustration that we're court wizards or something I guess) but doesn't really mean you were right to say that dragons breathing fire is mostly something that isn't a human concern now does it?
Shrike
2d ago
I'd presume that if you found an actual logical flaw in my argument you would have pointed it out.
You said "[w]hen their lifestyle does turn harmful, the fallout lands almost entirely on the people who opted in" during your assessment of the damages of HIV in this specific context of gay men. I think that's misleading: the fallout of HIV is very expensive, and society picks up some of that tab. And furthermore (as you doubtless also know) HIV is not randomly distributed across the population (nor is it distributed evenly across the population of gay men). People who get HIV are more likely to be materially disadvantaged, not less, so the taxpayers are more likely to pick up the tab.
I don't consider this a logical or process flaw in your argument so much as a factual or directional mistake.
Shrike
2d ago
These are a lot of words to say that "spreading HIV actually costs the taxpayer a ton of money and even the best way that we know how to reduce the costs still costs a ton of money and all things considered it would be better for society if people didn't engage in risky behaviors that spread HIV."
And yes, this is also true for a lot of other things - simple overeating is a much larger drain on the taxpayer than HIV, and you shouldn't pretend like that doesn't have negative externalities either.
Shrike
2d ago
When their lifestyle does turn harmful, the fallout lands almost entirely on the people who opted in. A virally suppressed person on antiretrovirals transmits HIV to sexual partners at a measured rate of zero.
Who pays for these antiretrovirals and other PLWH costs?
Shrike
2d ago
Maybe I did a poor job of communicating.
I think the government coming out and saying "we have a crashed non-human craft, any of you eggheads want to come look at it?" it would generate a lot of research interest, don't you? Even saying "yeah okay UFOs are real and we don't know what they are, but we need help figuring it out" would probably garner some interest from boffins, right?
The government sources OP are referring to have been conducting a coordinated pressure/PR campaign that can be interpreted in a few different ways, but one possible goal of the campaign is to get the government to admit to the above (and they basically succeeded on the second half, and have gotten some corresponding interest from boffins, which has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread).
Shrike
2d ago
Just pointing out for the sake of thoroughness that this is an argument against interstellar visitors, which =! UFOs.
Shrike
2d ago
Neither KH-11 nor Topaz are stealth satellites of the low-observable Misty line, although objects believed to be stealth satellites have been tracked by amateur astronomers.
Atomic Rockets (on the page you linked to) has a pretty good write-up by Matterbeam on stealth in space, but I recommend reading up on his treatment of a hydrogen streamer.
It's certainly true that, given sufficiently proliferated sensor technology, "there's no stealth in space." But it's also true that, given sufficiently proliferated sensor technology, there's no stealth anywhere, whether it's submarines or stealth aircraft. Keep in mind the question for stealth is not "can remain invisible at any arbitrary range," it is "can you disrupt the hostile kill chain enough to gain an advantage?"
In the real world, sensors aren't sufficiently proliferated, which is why there are submarines, stealth aircraft, and yes, stealth satellites.
Shrike
2d ago
you can do many things in space, but not hide.
This is entirely wrong btw, the US government has stealth satellites in orbit right now.
(Atomic Rockets is a great resource though).
Shrike
2d ago
Adding into the mix something that the government sources themselves have suggested, which is, basically, "our research/reverse engineering efforts are hitting dead ends because we have the program buttoned up too tight and we need to open the programs up to more minds."
Shrike
4d ago
I doubt this is necessarily true, but even if it is true, I don't think that such a treaty is necessary to end the war conflict high-intensity ceasefire between Iran and the United States.
Shrike
4d ago
That only means that the wolf and a few sheep will decide on tax rates for the farm. Sovereign rights of coastal states reads like code for 'Oman can hustle in on the racket too'.
I think you could just as easily read it as "lol no toll but you guys can have a therapy session with your neighbors to make you feel better."
negotiations have already broken down as you predicted
I would strain myself patting myself on the back for this prediction if it hadn't already happened dozens of times in the past month.
Shrike
4d ago
Yep, it seems quite plausible to me that exactly this occurs. Frankly I'm not sure that either the Iranian or the American governments are all on-the-same-page enough to commit to anything that will stick at the moment.
Shrike
5d ago
FWIW to me it kinda looks like to me that Trump is attempting to Venezuelize Iran (this seems extremely under-discussed in this thread, which I suppose is my fault for not chiming in sooner) and getting shall we say "varying degrees" of support from Iranian factions for this.
Obviously Trump pulling the same routine with Iran that he pulled with Venezuela (decapitation strike, pivoting immediately to "we're their new best friends" and economic partnership) would be a big coup for the Trump admin. I don't think it's "all gone according to plan" and I certainly think it's too soon to tell if this routine will work. But I think the "300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran" details tbd is the tell here.
And keep in mind the MOU provides explicitly that Hormuz will be governed according to international law (point 5) and (point 8) the downblending of Iran's enriched uranium. This doesn't seem like a big W for Iran to me, although it certainly might be a case where the US blustered and blundered its way to a salvageable situation.
Either way, I still think it's too soon to tell, there's still plenty of time for negotiations to break down.
Shrike
5d ago
As regards the that topic, Spiegel did a follow-up suggesting that the US had some forewarning of the attack but ultimately was not involved in supporting the Ukrainian operation.
It seems plausible at the minimum that the US is not being forthright, but one might actually see that as being in solidarity with Germany, which itself has, as far as I know, declined to officially point fingers.
Shrike
6d ago
the result is, well, all the things that Trump has done.
Press conferences and speeches?
it's also obvious that you can't just achieve a neat split where both commit to doing their own thing without the other - the recent events have made clear that whatever US does globally will in any case have a huge impact on Europe
Almost any sovereign nation-state can do things that have a huge impact elsewhere; it does not follow then that all nation-states must be part of a military alliance.
I actually do tend to favor either NATO-but-with-division-of-labor or a slow, coordinated split, but the mere fact that Europe and the US impact each other isn't necessarily an argument for NATO, and it certainly isn't an argument that NATO is necessary.
Regarding Greenland, it's odd to argue for Greenlandic independence aims (without anything concrete about the details vis-a-vis relations to the Western alliance, or anything else really, on the table), considering that Trump admin itself attempted to present itself as some sort of an opponent of Danish colonialism on the island and what have you.
I am not sure what argument you're making here. Certainly it seems quite plausible that the US would be a better colonial overlord (or partner, or whichever term you prefer) than the Danish, so I don't see anything particularly odd about the argument. That's different from saying the argument is convincing - the devil is in the details, and the people of Greenland would be ill-advised to simply jump ship without looking before they leap.
Shrike
6d ago
Yes, Der Spiegel did a very in-depth story on how Ukraine did it, which seemed to at least pass the sniff-test.
Shrike
6d ago
Now I'm imagining Star Wars as rebel propaganda to explain why having Alderaan completely obliterated was actually a huge rebel victory! when in real life there is zero reason to believe that the Death Star was in fact destroyed by a small team of X-Wings, it's borderline impossible and even the rebel copium-huffers have to insist that it only happened due to literal magic.
Are the things Trump claims when he is justifying his actions trustworthy or not?
That's...why I'm here.
The context of the conversation had to do with achieving war aims which is a separate-but-related question, since achieving war aims can actually be really bad if your war aims are strategically stupid. The ability to achieve war aims is a question of military capability, and whether or not military capability is exercised successfully is a different question from whether or not it is being exercised wisely.
So: there's a difference between the economic considerations of Iran's ability to threaten transiting ships and their military capabilities to threaten ships. In a discussion about Iran's military capabilities Iran's military capabilities matter. And their military capabilities are sufficient to credibly threaten ships passing through the strait, but insufficient to reliably follow through on that threat. This indicates that they have imperfect ability to complete the kill chain required to strike ships transiting the strait, which is more directly relevant to a discussion of Iran's military capabilities than the degree to which civilian shipping is willing to take on the risks of a transit. For people who think about conflicts in terms of things like kill chains, sensor webs, and material capabilities, that's an important distinction that tells you something about the military capabilities of Iran (and the United States).
It's the difference between saying that German U-boats targeted Allied shipping, imposing a grievous economic cost, and saying that they "closed the Atlantic for the duration of World War Two." It is entirely possible to point out the success of unrestricted submarine warfare without exaggerating its effectiveness.
I did not claim otherwise. You said things that were either untrue or, I am arguing, misleading. I think you can make your case without doing that.
More options
Context Copy link