> 2. You've wiped away the incentive for getting-big mentality which drove some of the billionaires to innovate which advances society to this point. Think - discouraging a future Jobs from making another iPhone-like device.
Am I meant to believe that we wouldn't have iPhone-level innovation if inventors couldn't become billionaires?
This makes no sense. We have so much more innovation than we have billionaires, always have. Ability to become a member of the 0.001% is not a barrier to innovation, not in America, not anywhere, and never has been.
No one serious is claiming there should be zero wealth inequality. Inequality is ineradicable. The claim is that wealth inequality can reach a degree that becomes corrosive to society as a whole and severs the link between innovation and profit, because it becomes more profitable to hoard wealth and collect capital gains and interest than it does to innovate and create things in the real world.
It's entirely possible to preserve (and in fact would actually strengthen) the profit motive if we changed incentives to get rid of the wild capital hoarding we see today.
That of the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 [1], all but Broadcom and Berkshire Hathaway give generous stock options, and also that of the top 10 in 2000 [2], only one (Microsoft), maybe 2 (Cisco) did. If you look at change in index composition, or even total earnings by company, you'll see a very steady and dramatic replacement of companies that did not spread the wealth through stock options & RSUs with companies that did.
> i don't think you're wrong necessarily...but rust, golang, zig, mojo, etc are gaining popularity and imo they wouldn't be if they were JVM languages.
> understood, i'm just pointing out that people seem to prefer the apple over the orange.
This is kind of like saying that fewer people are drinking Coke every year and are choosing other beverages. It might be objectively true but it glosses over the fact that literally billions of people drink Coke daily and will continue to do so for decades to come.
The JVM is the same. Some people and organizations might be using zig or mojo (and I have absolutely nothing against zig or mojo, to be clear, I hope they succeed) but many multiple orders of magnitude more individuals and organizations run JVM stuff in a given year and will continue doing so.
At this point, the JVM is a civilizational technology. If it went away tomorrow, multiple banks would fail, entire countries would no longer be able to administer social services, millions of people would die. The JVM is in everything.
Developers on HN using zig, mojo, etc. aren't really a representative sample.
> Developers on HN using zig, mojo, etc. aren't really a representative sample.
Agree. A lot of manipulation and astroturfing goes on, from many different groups, that affects what appears to be popular on a particular site. The bubbles formed at a site can become self-reinforcing.
The more time one spends at a particular site, the more likely to fall for the illusion or become to believe that what is being presented, is representative of everyone or everywhere else. Kind of like if a person only watches Fox News or PBS News.
Clojure is easily the most boring, stable language ecosystem I’ve used. The core team is obsessed with the stability of the language, often to the detriment of other language values.
This attitude also exists among library authors to a significant degree. There is a lot of old Clojure code out there that just runs, with no tweaks needed regardless of language version.
Also, you have access to tons of battle tested Java libraries, and the JVM itself is super stable now.
I won’t comment on or argue with your other points, but Clojure has been stable and boring for more than a decade now, in my experience.
What I meant by that is the metaprogramming capabilities that often get cited for allowing devs to create their own domain specific "mini languages". To me that's a "creative" way to write code because the end result could be wildly different depending on who's doing the writing. And creativity invites over-engineering, over-abstraction, and hidden costs. That's what I meant by the "opposite of boring".
You linked me to this comment from another one and I have to agree with this sentiment.
Creating these mini DSLs is something that requires a lot of thought and good design. There is a danger here as you pointed out sharply.
But I have some caveats and counter examples:
I would say the danger is greater when using macros and far less dangerous when using data DSLs. The Clojure community has been moving towards the latter since a while.
There are some _very good_ examples of (data-) DSLs provided by libraries, such as hiccup (and derived libraries), reitit, malli, honeysql, core match, spec and the datalog flavor of Clojure come to mind immediately (there are more that I forget).
In many cases they can even improve performance, because they can optimize what you put into them behind the scenes.
In practice, though, most developers don’t do that.
There’s a rule of thumb: write a macro as a last resort.
It’s not hard to stick to it. In general, you can go a long, long way with HOFs, transducers, and standard macros before a hand-rolled macro would serve you better.
> 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 any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution.
Having difficulty projecting force from the air with fighter bombers launched from air craft carriers and refueling caravans from the Indian Ocean or Mediterranean Sea against a determined enemy that has been preparing for this eventuality since 1979 is one thing. Being able to fly non-stop B-52 and B-2 sorties from home air bases with single-digit-hour flight times is a different thing entirely.
It is so rich hearing that America can attack anybody, but godforbid an attack on the "homeland" is an unforgivable act that will invoke nukes immediately.
That's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity.
The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them. It's impossible to predict how traumatizing it would be for them if that belief is proven wrong. They could absolutely reach for nuclear weapons if that threshold is reached.
Basically, I think the most optimistic possible outcome from of this is returning to something like the nuclear deal, but with way better terms for Iran.
I don't see any realistic path for this fuck up to be unfucked. Aggressive foreign policy is seldom reversible, there is no way to get back to the previous save game.
The fundamental issue in dealing with Iranians was that they were strongly ideological and not very realpolitk - this is exactly what drove them into a conflict with US in the first place, a series of ruinous foreign policy moves - the hostages crisis, the Beirut bombing, proxy wars - that served no strategic long term purpose for Iran other than signaling ideological commitment within the regime.
So whatever you negotiated with Iran, you could only extract at gunpoint threatening their destruction (which even they understand is bad for their ideological goals), and you could never fully trust them to see their own-self interest and follow through. Their nuclear program was, in this context, more of a bargaining chip than an ideological regime goal, a way to put something on the table while maintaining their ideologically-mandated tools for power projection in the region, missiles and drones programs, various proxy fronts etc. This was a state of affairs that Israel was strongly opposed to, so they applied lobby pressure to kill the deal.
Well, having now actually attempted to destroy the regime and failed, whatever leverage you had for a non-nuclear Iran is gone. You have demonstrated to the Islamic republic that the only way to continue to exist is to obtain nuclear weapons, that no negotiated compromise can exist. You have also replaced the older, conservative, nuclear skeptic Ayatollah with his son, who's entire family was hit: father, wife, teenage son, sister and her toddler son and husband were all killed. Does he sound like a man who accepted to succeed his father's because he wants to correct the late Khamenei's mistakes and make a bid for peace?
The refreshed Islamic republic might sign various treaties or truces and accept nuclear deals, but they will surely break them because obtaining nukes has become existential. My expectation is that, if the regime does not collapse, either as a result of a ground invasion, internal uprising, or some combination (civil war etc.), then they will get nuclear weapons in the next decade. They are too easy to procure and the regime has now too little to lose.
No, Iran started helping the US against Taliban only to be put on the axis of evil list by Bush. Signed a deal with the US only to be torn and Trump placed maximum pressure.
US foreign policy in the Middle East is run by Israel.
This is an english speaking tech forum, so it’s safe to assume most people here live in a country that has nukes like the US, UK, India, probably decent number of people who came from China and Russia too.
If thats important its counter intuitive to show that agreements about not getting any nuklear arms is worth nothing, and wont stop you getting invaded.
Ukraine is different and did the reverse, giving up their nukes. They said it was too expensive to keep them, which is only partially true. Ukraine could have deconstructed them and created new Permissive Action Links (PALs) in Dnipro although this process would have taken years and carried a high risk of accidental detonation or radioactive mishaps during the reengineering phase.
Barring an attack on the US itself, the US under the current regime will never attack Russia. Whatever the kompromat happens to be, the President is completely bound by it.
The "kompromat" is the world's largest nuclear arsenal, some five thousand and change warheads, along with a delivery system that includes an HGV MIRV payload that can deliver a multi-megaton warhead at ~mach 20-something.
Their video recordings of Trump doing God-only-knows-what, on the other hand, appear to be working great. Ditto, the unreleased files hacked from the Republican National Committee's email server in 2016.
Honestly, I thought part of MAD was how, once a nuclear missile was launched, it would be better for other nuclear states to decimate the country of origin than to wait and figure out where it would hit.
> It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, never something others bring to them
Spot on. As an American who is quite critical of the imperialist dynamic, I still catch myself thinking this way. Like "what if Iran actually attacks something around me?" But it's war, shouldn't one expect that an enemy might attack at any point?! Except, we just don't think of war as something that might have direct repercussions for us personally, which is why most of us vote for chucklefuck leaders who start them so readily.
This is interesting. Even though its many years ago most of Europe have a big open wound from WWII. That might be a missing ingredient for the american people to be less trigger happy when it comes to bombing other countries. The act of bombing a school full of children would have turned everything on its head in my country.
Your "big open wound" is my country's stepping into what was still mostly an elective war, saving the day, coming out as the head of a global economic empire, and being lauded for all of it - including well after the war itself for being the alternative to the more direct-subjugation-based empire of the USSR.
I'm not saying this to brag or something, but to drive home how radically different the perspectives are. Even our stories that are fundamentally tragedies (eg Saving Private Ryan) are still tales of distant heroic sacrifice, rather than the nihilistic smothering of helpless humans that war actually is. And to that above-it-all entitlement, we've mixed a cocktail of religious fundamentalism to help with the rationalization.
Vietnam was seemingly the only time since that there has been serious society-wide anti-war sentiment, and that's because people were being forcibly conscripted against their individual will. They fixed that by (effectively) removing the draft, while the economic treadmill was turned up such that more people "volunteered".
That was my first thought too, but I think it's overly pedantic. If we're reaching all the way back to 1812 then I think parents point is true in spirit if not letter
It was fought on US soil but did they really get invaded in that war? They declared war on Great Britain. They even invaded Canada themselves. It just doesn't seem to match the conflicts the USA brings upon other nations.
What was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apart, on practical level that’s typical asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.
"Military action", perhaps, but that is a very vague term. You replied to someone about "fighting foreign troops on own soil" which describes a ground invasion. 9/11 was something else.
It is USA did not respond with any military force. The response, if any, was behind closed doors and we may never know the details. The only thing we know is that relationships with the Saudis are closer than ever. Journalists aren't even allowed to question why they chop up their regime critics in small pieces and put them in a box because that is considered "impolite".
The public response was largely within domestic policy. New laws, new government agencies, more money spent on the military. It was also alluded to when fighting the continuation war with Iraq, but nothing was ever said explicitly about that.
it's indeed a distinction without a real difference, but terrorism is specifically targeted at civilians to produce some political outcome.
It's wild to suggest that terrorism against the US should not be responded with by military action - it's only the degree and targets that should be under debate.
This is foolish nonsense. An organized foreign army directing improvised missiles against your cities is very definitely conducting 'military action' and is a valid target for a military response.
There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. That country is deluded and everyone falls off eventually and trump may have actually accelerated the country out of it's golden age
> There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15.
It would depend on their patience.
The insurgency in Iraq was eventually suppressed (American COIN manuals were updated). The insurgency (?) in Afghanistan outlasted the patience of the invaders.
So how long do the 'gun nutters' want to keep at it compared to the opposing force?
Further, it's worth asking how effective, on average, is violent disobedience. Generally speaking a movement has about double the odds of success by not using violence:
I don’t feel well educated in modern military actions- are you saying that civilian gun owners in America would contribute meaningfully to the national defense (maybe because of things like civil resistance in other modern conflicts?), or am I misunderstanding? Do you have any suggestions for how I could start to broach the topic? It’s so broad and fast-moving that it’s hard to know where to start.
Yes absolutely they would and insurgencies are not the same thing as two nations fighting each other. America has twice as many gun owners as there are people in Afghanistan, a large chunk of them have combat experience.
Civil wars happen all of the time. Not only is propaganda effective, but militaries have ways to mitigate this, like moving soldiers far away from home to fight in places they don't have familial/cultural/economic/etc ties, which also makes it more likely that the propaganda will work.
The thing that makes the large quantity of American gun owners potentially useful in that sort of scenario is not that they possess guns. That matters a little, but usually most of the equipment a resistance uses is captured and/or supplied by allies. The thing that would be useful is these individuals' skills with firearms. It's theoretically kind of an alternate route to a similar (but lower) background proficiency level that some countries achieve with mandatory military service.
Note however that America is not only not unique in having that background proficiency -- but unlike mandatory military service, this approach has not really been tested. It's far from a certain proposition either way.
The hardware still matters because it lets you execute suspected collaborators and force the occupiers to incur cost hardening their logistics train (i.e. insurgency 101 type stuff) without waiting for the bureaucrats in whatever foreign country wants to fund your insurgency to prepare your arms shipments.
If you're in a situation where the thing you're doing can be meaningfully called an "execution", a firearm is a convenience, not a necessity. There are also plenty of effective attacks on logistics trains that don't involve firearms, though I will grant that they are at least sometimes a force multiplier there. Hence "that matters a little".
Exactly the type of gunnut I'm talking about. You lot couldn't handle being asked to wear a COVID mask, you wouldn't be able to handle actual war against a state armed with ya assault rifle and tinned food
I think you misunderstand me. I have never owned a gun, fired one exactly once more than 20 years ago (Boy Scouts), and advocate for more gun control (not less). I would be totally useless in any realistic fight. The argument has some merit though, in that it is as yet unclear how much it would matter.
I don't think that unclear merit outweighs the very clear and data-driven drawbacks. I just prefer to engage subjects like this in a charitable manner.
What makes you think the us army would unite against them? Sure a few nut militials would be suppressed, but if gun owners in mass are raising up that means a large controversy that the military will be aware of. The us military is not full of 'yes men' who will follow orders that blindly on home turf, a lot of them will follow.
> What makes you think the us army would unite against them?
I'd turn that around and ask, "What makes you think the people would accept the gun nuts rebellion?"
Many would be celebrating in the streets if the military showed up with tanks and started blasting. Furthermore, there's enough people in the military from far, far outside whatever state is being threatened to care that much about the locals.
Again, you are assuming a small rebellion - of course those will be put down. Texas has enough gun owners to put down a small rebellion without the military (they would let the military/police do it). However if things got so far that the majority of gun owners were willing to go to war that implies the US is at least very divided and the military is going to at least partially be on the side of the rebellion.
The 2nd amendment types are a little too impressionable for their guns to be of much use. They were soundly defeated in 5th generation warfare without the need to fire nary a shot. Less gullible americans tend to not own guns, so they were also defeated without firing nary a shot. Now America is just a big dumb worm that Netanyahu has his hooks in and uses to cruise around the desert with.
Guns are not only for counter-insurgency on invasion/warfare. For most people I know who own guns, that's not even on their top 10 list of reasons. But if you don't think they'd be a factor, then you disagree with some of the top generals around the world.
Civilian guns (armament generally, not just guns) aren't for going toe to toe with a trained military in the field.
They're for putting a bullet in you and/your your family if you act as a collaborator, taking potshots at the logistics train, and all the other nasty stuff you have to do to make occupation costly in terms of both life and dollars. Every cent spent on putting bullet proof glass in the camera installation van and drone cages on the police station and using those cameras and drones to track down the guy who shot you for collaborating is a cent that must be extracted from either the occupied population or the population that's financing the occupiers and not spent in direct pursuit of the political goal.
All the more reasons for Iran to drop their self imposed fatwa on nuclear weapons and get a few, to put an end to interference.
Iran has been on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction, that is, chemical weapons, by way of US sponsored Saddam Hussein and lost close to half a million of their people. Yet they never for once retaliated with such weapons which to them is against their Islam.
Those half a million dead are part of a still unhealed wound and that is felt and remembered in every city and town in Iran.
Except that it's a bit more complicated than that. Russia has nukes and is under attack from Ukraine, and while in the past they sabre-rattled that they would use tactical nukes if there was ever any incursion, they haven't done so because they know that would cause the whole world to retaliate.
Then there's nuclear defenses - if a country would have an effective anti-ICBM system (like Star Wars or whatever), it would make a nuclear counterstrike ineffective and end Mutually Assured Destruction. On paper anyway, in practice there are no perfect anti-ICBM systems, and they're effectively cluster bombs so in theory after the initial launch they can break up into half a dozen "dumb" nukes. Good luck hitting those.
No, it is not. Russia was attacked by Ukraine multiple times and nukes are still not used. India, Pakistan and China are in various stages of conflicts with each other for decades and all of them are nuke-enabled super-powers.
There are three points of having nukes:
1. Deter other countries with nukes from using them against you, or your military ally.
2. Prevent total annihilation in the war. You can lose the war, but not too much.
3. Burn the world to ashes. Very few countries can do it. It effectively forces the whole world to make sure that this scenario does not happen. So you can be sure that scenario where Ukraine conquers Russia and completely destroys it - will be prevented by the very Ukraine supporters. They don't want to live in the nuclear post-apocalypse, because there are scenarios where Russia fires every single nuclear missile on every major city on the Earth. As Putin framed it: We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will simply drop dead.
America lost several wars, recently they lost Afghanistan war and right now they're losing Iran war. They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table, they'll accept the lose.
How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes.
Another scenario is, he tries to invade, an Iranian drone makes it through and sinks a big US ship, hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers die in a very short period of time. Now everyone's upset and the American public screams "revenge".
> Just disable Microsoft/Google/AWS/Apple crap for them and they will be on their knees.
The dumb thing is that there are people in the US that actually believe this. Apparently including you. It would destroy the US as a trading partner and cause overnight implosion of the USD. If you thought brexit was an own goal this would be on another level entirely. But please, shout it around some more and prove the point that I've been making to every company that I've been involved with in the last decade: have a plan in case your cloud stuff isn't available anymore.
First, the US has recently done a lot of dumb shit and own goals. One never knows where is the boundary, especially if things escalate gradually.
Second, the spinelessness of 'the west' also seems unbounded (the failure to condemn Venezuela action, Iran war, or Israel's behaviour). Even after the Greenland fiasco. Carney's words at Davos seem very hollow, when one sees his reaction to Iran war. So, it might not even come to full stop of IT infrastructure, just 'a gentle warning'.
Third, the US has no problems screwing its partners, with those obediently bowing down; that is not a new phenomenon. Read on 1971 Connaly's statement "The dollar is our currency, but your problem."
Ah hahahaha. Yeah... No. Contrary to popular belief, the 2-300 year old upstart that is the United States doesn't have a magical lynchpin it can pull to get the other longstanding nations of the world to acquiesce entirely. If the U.S. really pushes things, it will soon find itself on the shit list of everyone else on whom we rely for implementing key links in the supply chain. I honestly do not understand where the gung ho America ooh rah comes from anymore these days. People, we sold out our industrial base. We sold out how to make things. We sold out everything that wasn't nailed down chasing cheaper payroll to undercut the American worker. This country is not as on it's own two feet as we like to believe. One need only look at the supply chain disruptions of the last decade to understand that.
Perhaps I should have formulated my post more precisely.
1) So much goodwill gone up in smoke. Yes.
a) Will the US stop wasting its goodwill? Well, that would be a new thing, so no. b) Will it exploit the dependence on its IT infrastructure muscle? Who knows? It exploited the dependence on it financial infrastructure, despite obvious long term consequences on trust in this financial infrastructure.
c) Will it come to truly turning off IT infrastructure? Probably not, the threat of that is sufficient, plus see 2).
2) My main beef is not with the US (I am not from US), its with Europe, for its spinelessness and inability to break its US dependence.
> 2) My main beef is not with the US (I am not from US), its with Europe, for its spinelessness and inability to break its US dependence.
Silicon Valley has an 'unfair advantage' in terms of capital available and the talent pool (though the latter is changing). This means that if you're going to roll something out you have a very good shot at cleaning up the EU market besides your home market because you will have the ability to massively undercut any EU competitors to the point that it would have to be an existential risk (after all your other EU competitors can do the same) to not do business with the US tech giants.
That's not spinelessness, that's sheer survival in a world where the table is massively tilted.
Breaking US dependence means breaking SV dependence and that's not even something the other states in the US have been able to do (Seattle got a head start and still didn't manage).
The same goes for the rest of the world...
Now, as to whether or not the EU could do better: so far, not really, because the main reason the EU does what it does is because it is a strong subscriber to free market principles, both within and without (and for better or for worse). The US has now burned a number of bridges which for most people in the EU (present company apparently excluded) were beyond the pale not that long ago.
So the tide is finally shifting: doing business with the US for critical services is now seen as a massive liability. This opens the door to local competition but that local competition still has to deal with various realities: environmental laws, anti-competitive legislation (which is stronger than in the USA) and a fractured linguistic environment as well as a lack of available capital. Those are - each by themselves - massive challenges that will need to be overcome.
I'm too old to take the lead in any of this - assuming I even could - so I'm happy to stand back to see what is going to happen and to help people see what is to their advantage and what is not. But I'm going to reserve judgment because I think that if you want to solve a problem you're going to have to work with people rather than to blame them for any of the ruts they're in.
The tilted table facing the Silicon Valley: Yes, definitively. The US is screaming murder regarding the others (China...) subsidizing their industries to gain monopoly advantage. That is exactly what US (via Venture Capital) is doing regarding the SV startups -- the whole model there is burning cash to scale quickly to market dominance.
If China and Russia have been able to (at least somehow) insulate themselves from US IT dominance, so should had Europe, at least for the most critical things. Hiding behind 'free market' ideology when the other (stronger!) side is not playing by the same rules is sheer stupidity.
Yeah, yeah, nobody could have foreseen the level US would abuse its power... if you wholeheartedly believed the spiel about the common values and interests. In reality, the US has always been very transactional and aggressive. Its just that with Trump the mask has come off.
So, here you are with your successful EU startup. This time you'll do things right. So you go and raise some EU VC in order to be able to fight off the SV competition. And miracle: it works, you are successful. You consolidate your EU presence and get to the point where even the SV competitors can no longer compete.
Oh nice, tell me what legal basis you will use to stop a takeover bid. Have a look at NXP and a whole raft of other absolutely critical companies whose shares eventually wound up in the hands of countries hostile to Europe.
We have a whole department in the EU that would like nothing better than to be able to stop these kind of things from happening but time and again the business world finds a way around it. That's one of the main issues with the EU: we play by the rules even if the rest of the world does not. But that's a very expensive principle to let go and I for one am happy that so far they have not, even if you think it is 'spineless' it actually is the opposite.
This applies to incumbents (well maybe until it does not). Smaller countries facing destruction of their regime might actually use the nukes. Probably do the test first along with the warning
> What criteria are you using for this assessment?
We lost the moment we started because we went on a whim and without a cohesive strategy. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and the longer it goes on the more obvious it becomes that this administration has no idea what it is doing.
If we look at the stated goals (as inconsistent as they have been):
Unconditional surrender -> nope
Regime change via popular uprising -> nope
Destruction or removal of enriched uranium -> nope
Destruction of drones and ballistic missile capability -> nope
Final goal of getting back to the pre-war state (which is admitting loss in itself):
Reopen in the straight of Hormuz -> nope
So no objectives have been achieved, and although you could argue they will be in the future, this seems increasingly unlikely in the short timeline the Trump admin has given themselves. It any of them were possible at all, which seems doubtful.
Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better?
The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen.
The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US.
Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet).
These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.
Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.
Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks:
* Depose's Saddam government
Accomplished.
* Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs
Failed. They were never there.
* Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq
Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath.
* Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs
Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS.
* End sanctions
Accomplished.
* Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced
Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete.
* Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"
Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region.
* Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government"
Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.
> Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"
The cynical read of this statement (extract resources from the invaded countries in order to enrich the American capital class) is the primary aim for all these conflicts.
The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.
The Panama and Suez Canals charge fees because they are artificial passageways, created by the blood and sweat of thousands. Both were huge investments.
The Panama Canal had cost 400-500 million USD and 25-30k lives to construct, when it opened in 1914.
The Suez Canal cost around 100 million USD and 100-120k lives to build in 1869.
Charging for transit through man-made infrastructure is fundamentally different from charging for passage through a natural international waterway.
> fundamentally incompatible with customary international law
So is bombing countries on a whim.
If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.
Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war.
Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.
I can't find sources for "tens of thousands of rockets just since oct 7", can you help me? I see a few thousand as parts of exchanges after the Israel-initiated "12 Days War", and then a few thousand more after the (also Israel-initiated) current conflagration. Notably, the rocket attacks stopped during peace talks that US and Israel entered after starting the wars, only to resume after those peace talks were betrayed with bombing.
The 9,500 figure was for all fronts, not just Gaza. But true, it does include some Hamas rockets, most of which are not exactly "Iranian" (although Iran helped with training and smuggling some parts).
> Since the start of the war, 13,200 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. Another 12,400 were fired from Lebanon, while 60 came from Syria, 180 from Yemen and 400 from Iran, the military said.
So 12,400 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah, the vast majority of which are supplied by Iran at no cost. That's just in one year and doesn't include drones.
US doesn't have the cards as Trump likes to say. "International Law" is the last word coming out of mouth of Americans I want to hear. US kidnapped Venezuela's leader. It is currently blockading Cuba. It blockaded Venezuela recently. Where was the so-called "International Law" back then? Losers can't be choosers. US lost the Iran war strategically. Now pay the piper. There is no second option. Welcome to the "Might Makes Right" world that US opted in for.
Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and now all their enemies are gone (disarmed and Armenians expelled) which presumably makes their citizens better off once they move into the empty territory.
Two things to note there. One, many did make a peep; I have friends, coworkers who both ardently discussed and even pointlessly protested in small groups with signs.
The other - I don't pay taxes to the Azeris, every moment of my productive life doesn't support the genocide there, and my soul is in some way not as blackened by the atrocities there. I think people care about Palestine because they rightly feel complicity. Maybe Russian citizens - whose labor indirectly goes to supporting Azeri atrocities - are up in arms?
It hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end).
Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior.
The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.
One of the reasons to do a war is to simply show the enemy that you are able and crazy enough to go to war with them over whatever grievances you had. This is called strategic deterrence.
You are making the folly of thinking of war like lawsuits, where one side wins and the other side loses, and the losing side goes home with nothing. This is not so.
If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
You can both "win" or both "lose" if your goals are not in direct conflict (rare).
I'd argue that the most important thing when trying to win wars is to aim for realistic outcomes.
The first gulf war was arguably a win because of realistic goals (get Iraq out of Kuwait and stop them from invading it again), while most other interventions in the region were basically "designed to fail", and unsurprisingly never achieved anything of note (and the problem was not lack of military capability).
Yes but if you spend some billions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, you have only demonstrated that you are willing to make your own citizens suffer with diminished resources for no outcome.
>If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
In global politics, this tends to make you want to increase your defenses so it doesn't happen again, and find local partners for that defense. This usually comes at the cost of US influence, not its increase.
Like Iran is looking at its current situation and going "The literal only deterrence we could have to prevent this is to develop a nuclear capability. The US cannot be trusted to deal with, and it is pointless to try."
A nuclear Iran can now only be avoided by scorched earth. Scorched earth will now just cause an already partly US hating population to hate them more and create matyrs. Theres no possible upside to this conflict.
With Afghanistan, I think people fixate on the fact that the Taliban is still there and while that's true, Al Qaeda has completely been wiped out (except fringe groups that have adopted the name) and OBL, the person most responsible for 9/11, was successfully killed by an attack launched out of Afghanistan. The current Taliban and whatever terrorist groups remain in that region no longer have an interest in hurting the US directly. The current Taliban is also very different from the one in 2001, almost geopolitically flipped in some ways (allied with India instead of Pakistan, and almost certainly responsible for majorly disrupting China's OBOR project in that region, another win for the US.
Not to mention, 20 years of no Taliban. An entire generation of Afghans grew up without being under a Taliban government.
“A Kourier has to establish space on the pavement. Predictable law-abiding behavior lulls drivers. They mentally assign you to a little box in the lane, assume you will stay there, can't handle it when you leave that little box.” - Snow Crash
Is it strategic deterrence, or just being so unreliably and inconsistent that insider information becomes more valuable?
Is it strategic to demonstrate a lack of planning or that you are a poor ally incapable of garnering support (either domestically or abroad)?
Being a superpower means being free of ethics or reason. 'We are the good' sufficently summarizes a regular US-born worldview.
You also shouldnt be too naive to think, US citizens would bring up ethics or reason when choosing their leaders or commenting on their own countrys aggression.
Why do you think, the world is unfair? Some decades ago, we had a world police.
How is this not just common sense? Why would we care more about foreigners' interests than our own? You're trying to apply a moral frame to a discussion of self interest and geopolitics. "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must".
To an otherwise defenceless country, it's really the same thing. Indiscriminately flattening buildings without notifying civilians to move, destroying industries, stealing their resources and reserves.
Who can recover from this, especially a small nation? You might as well declare everything to be radioactive.
So they'd react harshly even when they started it.
Back when North and South Korea were Korea, the US killed more than 10% of the civilian population and razed every building of what is now North Korea.
I don’t know what rich means here or why homeland is in scare quotes but that’s the way it is. An attack on the US will be met with unrelenting and unstoppable force. I see a lot of delusional posts that seem to indicate people think the US military capability is weak but I assure you it is not. Also, you do realize the Iranian people were pleading for the US to attack. All these people holding vigils are fir the Ayatollah are just embarrassing themselves.
> 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.
Yes that would be a typical US solution. Let's liberate the Cuban people! By flattening them.
Americans sure love their war crimes! Indiscriminately killing civilians is how they've gotten past, present and future terrorist attacks. I can't imagine the parents of the children they keep on killing (or maiming, or otherwise) standing by and watching. People wouldn't necessarily need to wait for their country's army to do something when they've got nothing significant left to lose.
What was the reason for those protests? Was it perhaps economic hardship brought about by US sanctions? How much is the US liable for the suffering of the Iranian people?
(A lot, is the answer)
That doesn't excuse the Iranian regime, but the US is not exactly helping, is it.
It was hardship brought on by not attempting to address the problems. Sanctions made things a bit worse but if Iran put effort into ensuring there was fresh water instead of funding terrorists and building missles things would have been a lot better for the people. (And likely no senctions for those things)
A bit worse? The sanctions directly brought about this. Scott Bessent admitted -- unprompted -- that the purpose of the sanctions was to destroy the Iranian economy.
I'm not saying the regime is good. It's not. It's terrible. But that does not change what the US has done.
The US has consistently made the suffering in Iran worse over the years. And let's not forget that the US and the British caused the Islamic revolutionaries to come into power by installing a puppet Shah that was deeply unpopular.
Why, that's why you don't do genocide half-heartedly, you need to go all in, roll up your sleeves and really get down to work! Can't get a swarm of radicalized people if there is no people left to get radicalized.
I'm not sure that you can have the moral high ground in a hypothetical scenario where Cuba conspires with Iran to attack the US. At that point both parties are banking on "might makes right".
Well, in this hypothetical scenario you can just as well say that Cuba is defending from the future threat from USA, the same way USA is now defending from future threat from Iran.
Not future threat though what US has put Cuba through the last 70 years any aggressive military from Cuba is probably justified. And no any attack from Cuba on US will still be morally ok if they attack US military and US banks etc.
> After 9/11, there's no world in which any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution.
Yes remember when they invaded Saudi Arabia? That taught everyone an important lesson on the consequences of terrorism on American soil.
The suggestion that Cuba would risk that for no obvious benefit is weird. Some wildcards in Cuba might be doing this unsanctioned. But any Cuban sanctioned/sponsored attack is very unrealistic.
Cuba is the easiest target the US could have. It's very close to the US and very far from any potential ally. The US has never shied away from committing acts of extreme cruelty, well into terrorist or war crime territory. From dropping nuclear bombs on civilians, phosphorus bombs, drone bombing innocent people, schools, hospitals, institutionalized torture, etc. even with far weaker reasons.
There is no scenario where a direct attack on the US wouldn't lead to an extremely violent response in complete disregard of Cuban lives. And get away with it.
The hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state, which is a staunch US ally. Which is why the US proceeded to (attempt to) flatten Afghanistan instead.
> the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state,
We do not know this. There are plentiful evidence to suggest direct involvement of the state itself, and the bin Ladin family is certainly hard to untangle from the Saudi state. That is just from what we can know from unclassified sources.
The current Taliban are an almost completely different organization despite there being continuity from then to now. A good comparison point is the church of England in 1520 vs 1620.
The real thought experiment is ~600m people in central/south American within ~6000km, i.e. IRBM range of US gulf coast, where ~50% of US oil refinery and LNG plant production are. Now that Iran has validated mid tier power can cobble together precision strike complex, it's only going to be matter of time before relatively wealthier countries realize only way out of M/Donroe is to build conventional strike against US strategic infra. This stuff going to get commoditized sooner than later with competing mega constellation ISR. It's pretty clear building up conventional airforce/navy etc will simply get overmatched vs US projection and only credible deterrence is PRC style rocket force. There's a fuckload of places to hide 8x8 missile launchers in the Americas.
E: 50% of PRODUCTION, not plants, as in a few plants responsible for 50% of US refinery / LNG production.
We're soon to have electric cars (and trucks) that cost less ICE ones, on top of the lower operating costs. Which in turn cost even less when more solar and wind are added to the grid because the "charge more when power is cheap and less when it's expensive" thing lowers their operating cost even further and reduces the amount of natural gas you need in the grid because periods of lower renewable generation can be offset by deferred charging instead of natural gas peaker plants.
Even without any purposeful efforts to do anything about climate change, the economics point to fossil fuels declining over time as a proportion of energy. Meanwhile the US administration flips parties every four to eight years and the next time they're Democrats they'll be trying to hasten that result rather than impede it. Which makes a long-term strategy of building the capacity to target petroleum infrastructure something that could plausibly be increasingly irrelevant by the time it would take to implement it.
Yes, refinery mismatch vulnerability something that can be built around, ~10-15 year horizon. US can also bring down oil as % of energy mix and distribute renewables. If US smart they would do this.
But at same time, extend IRBM range by 1000km, and replace refineries with hyperscalers, or whatever targets that worth deterrent value (energy at top of list). Refineries just most immediately very high value targets that happens to be closest to missile range.
But the assumption is less about US adaptability/smartness, as the way commodity conventional strikes is trending, CONUS _ will _ be vulnerable eventually. Fortress America is as much function of geography as technology. Just like how 20 years ago Iran couldn't hit Israel or many GCC companies even if it wanted to... now it can. The natural outcome of longer and longer range strikes is at some point US becomes in range of Monroe neighbours who doesnt want to be Monroed.
> But at same time, extend IRBM range by 1000km, and replace refineries with hyperscalers, or whatever targets that worth deterrent value (energy at top of list).
Hyperscalers are probably not a great example because a) they don't really benefit that much from being physically centralized (especially at the building level rather than the regional level) and b) data is one of the easiest things to keep redundant, and then even if you destroy a large facility, backups get restored to another facility or distributed set of facilities with no downtime at all if the target is well-prepared and only a short period of time if they've done even minimum diligence.
The critical ones can also do the "build it on the inside of a mountain" thing and then your capacity to take down grandpa's WordPress is mainly useful to the target for rallying opposition against you.
> whatever targets that worth deterrent value (energy at top of list).
If "energy" turns into solar panels on the roof of every house and widely distributed low density wind farms etc., that's pretty hard to target.
In general centralization is often done because it has economies of scale, but those same economies of scale have diminishing returns. One huge facility reduces certain fixed costs by a million to one (i.e. 99.9999%) over having a million small facilities, but a thousand medium facilities are much harder to target while still reducing them by 99.9% and the remaining 0.0999% is negligible because you're long since already dominated by unit costs. The target can also choose where to take the trade off based on how likely they expect to be targeted. And that's a broadly applicable principle rather than something that only applies to any specific industry.
Hyperscale/data just one example, f35 manufacturing, specialty feed stock production, transformers, gas compression etc, the list of currently centralized (as in have large target profiles) that will remain soft for decades is long with varying degree of disruption/dislocation, i.e. you don't restore hardware with multi year lead times.
Those are ridiculous / absurd economies of scale numbers, splitting piles up 20-50% per duplication inefficiency, especially in US context (expensive regulatory/physical buildout), splitting 1 hyper to 1000 medium is not marginal more cost, it's magnitudes / 1000%s more cost - costs private or public will not go for, and is prematurely self defeating because others can always build cheaper missiles than US can build infra (hence goldendome theatrics).
In principle, US can preempt CONUS physical vulnerabilities, where 100+ years of built up over assumption of CONUS not being vulnerable. In practice the chance of that happening approaches 0. Didn't even harden CENTCOM air shelters and planners have been noting vulnerability for years. Not just economies scale, but JIT and all other aggregate downstream optimizations US likes to make in name of efficiency. US simply not culturally PRC who does not mind (and is optimized for) some extra concrete for physical security. Not that PRC does not have huge vulnerabilities, just development has been made with mainland strikes in mind.
> splitting 1 hyper to 1000 medium is not marginal more cost, it's magnitudes / 1000%s more cost
It isn't. The primary costs of both the medium and enormous facility are the same: Server hardware and electricity, and server equipment and electricity don't have significantly lower unit costs when you're buying a million instead of a thousand. Also, you can still buy a million servers and then put them in a thousand different buildings.
It's only when you get down to very small facilities that things like staffing start to become significantly different, because amortizing tens of thousands of employees over millions of servers results in a similar unit cost as amortizing tens of employees over thousands of servers. It's only when you get to the point that you have only tens or hundreds of physical servers that you get scale problems, because it's hard to hire one tenth of one employee and on top of that you want to have more than one so the one person doesn't have to be on call 24/7/365. Although even there you could split the facilities up and then have multiple employees who spend different days in different locations.
> especially in US context (expensive regulatory/physical buildout)
This is another reason that "hyper economies of scale" don't actually do you any good. Which costs less, having dozens or hundreds of suppliers for the various parts of an aircraft, or one single Lockheed that should nominally capture all of these great economies of scale from being a single company?
It's the first one, because then it's a competitive market and the competitive pressure is dramatically more effective at keeping costs under control than a single hyper-scale monopolist that should be able to do it more efficiently on paper until the reality arrives that they then have no incentive to, because a monopoly is the only one who can actually bid on the contract and a duopoly or similarly concentrated market can too easily explicitly or implicitly coordinate to divide up the market. At which point they can be as inefficient as they like with no consequences.
This does mean you have to address the regulatory environment that tends to produce concentrated markets, but we need to fix that anyway because it's a huge problem even outside of this context.
> where 100+ years of built up over assumption of CONUS not being vulnerable
That's not true, there was a significant push during the Cold War to decentralize things to make them less vulnerable to nuclear strikes. The government pushed people into the suburbs on purpose:
There are obviously significant costs to that but Americans were willing pay them when there was a reason to and much of the landscape is still shaped by those decisions even now.
You also see this in the design of the internet, which came out of the same era and has a design that facilitates the elimination of single points of failure, and that sort of thing is as close as we've seen to an unmitigated good.
When I say hyper, I'm referring to hyper size vs distributed, not limited to data centers. It generalized reply to your insinuation of economies of scale is broadly applicable when it is absolutely not, i.e. 99.9999,99.9%,0.0999% which fantasy figures. The general economics of economies of scale is you split 1 facility in 2 you add 20-50% overhead due to duplication. The immediate cost of redundancy/resiliency is adding double digit overhead. The point is duplication doesn't happen when "only when you get down to very small facilities", it happens when you go from 1 to 2, incremental distribution increase cost disproportionately. Breaking economies of scale of 1 hyper facility int to 2,5,10,100 smaller facilities is possible on paper, but no one doing it in practice.
>don't actually do you any good.
Sure, economy of scale good for consolidator being net bad is valid, but this wasn't discussion on optimal macroeconomics, this discussion on what US politically able to do. There are things US should do, but systemically can't.
> Cold War to decentralize
Cold war dispersion for nuclear math and precise conventional strike math is different. Spreading 2 factories apart so they draw 2 nukes vs 2 factories get 2 conventional packages regardless of spatial separation.Circle back to feasibility, what is required for distributed / dispersed survivability. Is US going to dismantle gulf oil infra and move it inland. Most physical infra processes are not fragmentable or self healing like internet. How much are Americans willing to pay, coldwar was eating 15% of GDP. All this ultimately secondary to the point that doing all this costs US more (because everything in US costs more) vs adversaries simply getting more missiles, it's economically/strategically self defeating. Let's not forget Soviet answer to US disbursement was building more missiles while US still pays inefficiency tax on suburbs.
> The general economics of economies of scale is you split 1 facility in 2 you add 20-50% overhead due to duplication.
There is no general figure for this, it depends both on the type of facility and the size of it to begin with. At hyper-scale the incremental efficiency gains are much smaller because a medium-sized facility is large enough to have captured most of them already. Where you get 20-50% is where you have a single small facility and try to split it in two.
The general premise of economies of scale is that there are costs that don't depend much on scale, so at increased scale, the amortization of those costs over all units contributes less to the cost per unit.
However, at very large scales, three things happen.
First, many of those costs look like "you need this piece of equipment that can handle 1000 units per year" and then the facility that produces 1000 units can amortize it over 1000 units but the facility that only produces 100 units has to amortize it over 100 units. However, the facility that produces 100,000 units then has no advantage over the one that produces 1000 because they then need a hundred of those pieces of equipment and have no advantage in unit cost.
Second, some costs only have to be paid once regardless of the number of units. If you sell each unit for $1000 and have a fixed overhead of $10,000, at 100 units the over per-unit overhead is $100 (i.e. 10%), but at 1000 units it's already down to 1%, at 10,000 units it's 0.1%, etc. The incremental advantage of doing millions of units instead of thousands is thereby negligible because it was already under 1% of the unit cost by the time you were doing thousands. The number of industries where you need to be producing some double digit percentage of the entire national capacity of some product before those costs get down to a manageable percentage of the unit cost is extremely uncommon, to the point that it may well not even exist for a country the size of the US. Especially when you're talking about costs that specifically can't be amortized over more than one facility.
And third, some costs actually increase with scale, e.g. coordination costs. So once you pass the point that those costs exceed the diminishing incremental benefit from amortizing costs of the second type over more units, increased scale reduces efficiency even before you consider the consequences of reduced competitive pressure on incentives.
> Sure, economy of scale good for consolidator being net bad is valid, but this wasn't discussion on optimal macroeconomics, this discussion on what US politically able to do. There are things US should do, but systemically can't.
"Systemic" means that in order fix problem A, you first have to fix problem B. That is not a formal proof that A is permanently unsolvable, it's a just a dependency graph for the order in which they have to happen.
> Cold war dispersion for nuclear math and precise conventional strike math is different. Spreading 2 factories apart so they draw 2 nukes vs 2 factories get 2 conventional packages regardless of spatial separation.
Sure, but the first is the stricter requirement because "2" is an insufficient number in both cases. The USSR definitely had more than two nukes. And if you need 100+ facilities, in the second case it's fine to have multiple facilities in each of a handful of cities, whereas in the first case you need them to be in 100+ different cities, which is harder to do but effective against both.
> Is US going to dismantle gulf oil infra and move it inland.
The original premise was it would rely less on petroleum, so in that sense, yes.
> Most physical infra processes are not fragmentable or self healing like internet.
That's not actually that uncommon. Transportation networks, power transmission, etc. map to the same sorts of designs where in the common case the multiple independent paths increase capacity and efficiency and in the damage case they keep the system running for critical infrastructure by redirecting critical uses from the damaged route to the operating one.
Meanwhile most infrastructure is inherently fragmented. There is no single water treatment plant in DC that runs the whole country because you need them to be closer to the point of use.
> How much are Americans willing to pay, coldwar was eating 15% of GDP.
Starting from the status quo, getting to the scenario where there are a larger number of competing suppliers for various things would lower the costs people are paying.
> All this ultimately secondary to the point that doing all this costs US more (because everything in US costs more)
Which brings us back to, that's the real problem we need to solve. If your problem is that it's now easier for someone to blow stuff up and you've made it excessively expensive to build another one, the solution is to focus on lowering the cost of building things in the US, which would benefit people independently of this anyway.
> It's the stated goal of one of the parties to keep or increase fossil fuel usage, isn't it?
The stated goal of the same party is to have "cheap energy" and the way voters judge is by things like how much they're paying for electricity. Which means their incentive is to make a lot of noise about how much they hate windmills and love coal while not actually preventing data center companies from building new solar farms to power them. One of their most significant benefactors is also the CEO of the largest domestic electric car company.
> Magic 8 Ball says "yeah, in the past, 2028 isn't looking good though"
Two years is forever in politics. We also have the leader of the Republican party doing all the pandering he can right now because he's trying to sustain a majority in the midterms, whereas in 2028 he can't run, and what's Trump going to do in the intervening two years during which he has no personal stake in the next election?
> Which will be blocked and/or immediately overturned by the current/next Republic Congress/Senate/SCOTUS/President.
That's not what happened last time. The electric car subsidies were introduced in 2008 and sustained until 2025.
We're also at the point where these things are going to get rapidly adopted during any period without active resistance to them.
How many years of the majority of new vehicles being electric or plug-in hybrids would it take before there are enough in the installed base to cause a long-term reduction in petroleum demand, and in turn a reduction in the economic and political power of the oil companies? Also notice that this still happens if Asia and Europe adopt electric vehicles regardless of whether or to what extent the US does, since it's a global commodity market.
The problem for a would be attacker is that the US still has enough military power to give almost any country on the planet a very bad day every day for as long as the US cares to. Historically, the way to win against the US is to survive long enough for the US to get bored and leave. The last time that happened, it took us 2 decades to get bored.
The problem is they are not would be attackers, they're countries building up domestic defense that US would have to preempt ala Cuban missile crisis, and sustain preemption over entire continent, with each preemption legitimizing rational for more build up.
Of course US can try to coerce INF for conventional in Americas, but commoditized conventional precision strike are conventional... and commoditized, it's the kind of product where specialized dual use components may need to be sourced... among millions of TEU traffic, but otherwise local industries can build, like Iran.
There's also no global pariah status for proliferating conventional missiles for self defense and hence accessible to many players, coercion / enforcement would require trying to mow grass to keep capabilities out of 600m people...in perpetuity... tall task even for even US. Especially considering form factor of missiles... i.e. sheltered / hidden, they are not major battlefield assets like ships and planes that needs to be out to have wheels turned.
Ultimately it's not about winning vs US, it's about deterring US from historic backyard shenanigans by making sure some future time when US is tempted, and US always tempted, it would risk half of CONUS running out of energy in 2 weeks.
Like the Iran logic is extremely clear now, no amount of defense survives offensive overmatch, the only thing left is to pursue some counter offensive ability that can have disproportionate deterrence value. The thing about US being richest country is US has a lot of valuable things.
I think you underestimate how much of that 50% is just exports. And how much other plants can be scaled up quickly. And how the US can temporarily nationalize things, and ensure all the output goes domestic. Just a backroom threat of emergency, temporary nationalization, would ensure CEOs give the US priority.
IE, they'd get to retain higher profits.
What I think would really happen, is the rest of the world would suffer and run out of energy. Not the US.
Gulf coast PADD3 refineries = disproportionate production of diesel, aviation, bunker fuel for CONUS use. Something like 70% of all refined products used in US comes from PADD3, other refineries cannot replace PADD3 complexity/production levels (think specialty fuels for military aviation, missiles etc). US economic nervous system is EXTRA exposed to gulf coast refinery disruptions. PADD3 refineries (or hubs / pipelines serving east/west coast which more singular point failure) itself enough to cripple US with shortages even if all exports stopped. Gulf gas terminal is for export i.e. doesn't materially impact CONUS, it's deterrence conventional counter-value target. There's also offshore terminals. The broader point being gulf coast has host of targets along escalation/deterrence ladder.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing that there are lots of interesting things to hit on the Gulf coast. PADD3 is just another way to say "gulf" refineries, it's a location not a technical specification.
Other refineries can indeed take up the slack. Especially if the US stops exporting. Trains can deliver fuel, trucks. The US military would not be crippled, most certainly, and the domestic US would see primary production kept in-nation, not exported.
I'm not sure why you think that only Gulf refineries can make jet fuel.
NOTE: I'm not saying it wouldn't be a key attack vector, or non-disruptive. I'm just saying the US would do what it always has done, as any nation would do, it would ensure survival first, and so the rest of the world would suffer far more.
It's location, it's also recognizing refineries in PADD3 are, in fact, technically specific and different from other regional refineries which cannot pickup the slack. Light/sweet vs heavy/sour geographic refinery mismatch are not interchangeable, some products other refineries can produce with low yield, some can't be produced at all. Hence specific highlighting their complexity AND productive/yield levels. US has never tried to survive this level of disruption, which is not to say it couldn't, simply it will be at levels that will significantly degrade CONUS beyond any historic comparison, enough to potentially constrain/deter US adventurism in Americas.
Some specific products like SPECIFIC mixes of aviation fuel, only some PADD3 refineries are setup to produce or produce significant % i.e. IIRC something like 90%+ of military JP5/JP10 come from PADD3. That's why I said "specialty" aviation fuel, not just general aviation fuel. Or taking out out Colonial pipeline which ~2.5m barrels - US doesn't have 10,000k extra tankers or 5000 extra rail carts in reserve for that contingency. Turning off export has nothing to do with this, there isn't enough to keep in-nation due to refinery mismatch, or not enough hardware to move it in event of pipeline disruption.
Of course predicated on timeline/execution, i.e. US can potentially fix refinery mismatch and harden/redundant over next 10 years. We don't know if/when Monroe countries will start adopting their own rocket force. Just pointing out after Iran has demonstrated defense is useless for midtier powers and mediocre offense can penetrate the most advanced defense, the only rational strategic plan is go hard on offense for conventional counter-value deterrence. The logic like Iran, it matters less RoW suffers more, only specifically that US suffers as well, the harder the more deterrent value. And due to sheer economic disparity, could be trillions for US vs billions for others, even if trillions for US is relatively less.
The US was ensuring survival just fine when it was big on soft power. If you let go of soft power your remaining choices are diplomacy (which takes skill) and hard power (which takes a different kind of skill). If you go down the hard power road (which the US seems to be doing) you will end up with a very long list of eventually very capable enemies. It's a madman's trajectory and historically speaking it has never worked. I suspect it also will not work for the US.
The biggest effects would be economic, and would drive any sensible country away from a reliance on Gulf Oil.
The US is essentially a military/petro-oligarchy wrapped inside a republic pretending to be a democracy.
If the global oil economy is badly damaged, the US will be badly damaged with it.
This isn't about who can blow the most shit up. It's about global standing in the economic pecking order, which is defined in part by threat credibility, but also by control over key resources.
If some of those resources stop being key, that's a serious problem for any hegemon.
We're seeing a swing towards global decarbonisation, and this war is an ironically unintentional turning point in that process. The US has had decades of notice that this is inevitable, but has failed to understand this.
A petro-oligarchy? With all due respect, all this is so Internet-brained. Where do you all come up with this stuff. Many other posts are in heavy need of grass-touching as well but still. The US is not pretending to be a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. So, if I understand this right, all this is about something called “decarbonisation” and the US has been unable to realize this apparent but, of course, I’m sure any EU citizen is totally aware of all this right? I definitely give points for originality and not making it all about the people from that other small country.
Downvoting a description of a technical solution for smaller nations based on actual evidence from existing conflicts is silly. You might not like the politics you perceive from someone using particular vocabulary, but the proof is there. The USA's supremacy has been challenged in a meaningful way (along with every other major military power). The strategies of the large powers will have to evolve.
USA is good at bombing places. It just so happen that it usually looses the wars after that and usually creates a lot more probpems for itself in the long run.
Taliban is back in power, having stronger grap on power then before. Meanwhile, everybody knows what happens to those who cooperate with USA - they get abandoned and betrayed.
There are no incentive structures (besides possibly "posterity") to encourage anyone to see past their noses. In fact, hardly anyone at any level of any organization, public or private, is able to operate with a real longterm, sustainable outlook. They'd get shitcanned for trying to plan ahead, even if they were intellectually equipped for that.
With respect, this is such a terrible position. This view basically says that we should accept terrorists regimes to do what they want because if they don’t, they will commit terrorisk against us. That is not the right way to deal with bad actors.
Sounds more like he's saying killing civilians naturally makes people mad at you. We shouldn't avoid talking about this because of this fear of terrorism. In fact some would say when army kils someones family, they will look at us as the terrorists and demand it not be accepted like you
With respect, this is such a terrible position. This view basically suggests you should bomb civilians in terrorist countries, because that reduces terrorism somehow. Despite the whole GWOT making that lie obvious to everyone.
You should live up to your nick and do some of that thinking. I never said we should accept 'terrorist[s] regimes'. But there is a massive difference between actually doing something about terrorism and bombing large numbers of civilians in the hope that the problem goes away. That only results in more terrorists as has been amply borne out by history to date.
You don't deal with bad actors by becoming a bad actor yourself. If the US really wanted to deal with 'the terrorists' (by your definition) then they should start with ensuring that there is no risk of increasing their numbers as a result of the operations performed. Failing at that is an automatic own goal because now you've turned a problem into a larger problem.
Terrorism is the typical response of any group that isn't able to wage war in the preferred manner of the perceived enemy. But nicely declared wars between nation states are an imaginary thing, every nation that ever went to war pretended they had the moral high ground, brought a suitcase full of fig leaves and usually some holy scripture or some other book to prove that theirs was the just cause. Solving that takes unity, time, massive amounts of money and the ability to introspect. If you don't bring all of those (or even none of those) to the table then the only thing you will achieve is that you will end up in a (possibly much) worse place than where you were before.
Lumping everybody in Iran under the 'terrorists' banner is just as stupid as lumping everybody in Israel under the 'zionists' banner. Neither is going to lead to a resolution, all you will end up achieving is more war, more people dead and another century or so added to this conflict. But I'm not surprised. Trump & Co are categorically incapable of planning anything that takes longer than a news cycle, whether it is making changes to the White House or trying to grab some more oil.
People way underestimate what kind of mental fortitude you have to have to fight an overwhelming enemy. That's not something a tourism oriented country like Cuba has. At least I massively doubt that.
It lacks the ideology to fight such a war, since you have to be ready to die. That's why Yemen and Vietnam won, while Venezuela folded. This is also why US "culture" is so much more powerful as a weapon than the aircraft carriers.
The willingness to fight until the end, whatever the cost, is not something you rate a priori.
The thing with war is that once you have it for a certain amount of time, you create a generation of people whose kids died, wife died, neighbors and family died, you have nothing to loose anymore.
There is a critical mass of casualties upon which you effectively create a population whose sole purpose, for generations, will be to resist and harm you, and that is not dependent on culture or whatever "tourism orientation" a country is labeled.
>The thing with war is that once you have it for a certain amount of time, you create a generation of people whose kids died, wife died, neighbors and family died, you have nothing to loose anymore.
You... didn't learn history from before 1945 did you?
With incongruous premisses, one can conclude anything. How many cases of such a total annihilation/surrender goal have been attempted in human history, and how many actually achieved it?
I mean, the GP example about Venezuela and Cuba was totally on point. They are not at any degree comparable to the sentiment against the US and the west in general of some Middle-East countries. I mean, Palestinian are bound to hate to death Israel and the US for a couple generations more (and for good reasons). The same does not apply to Venezuela, even with all the Chavez/Maduro propaganda against the Evil Empire.
I don’t know if you are hiding a reasonable point underneath a misuse of the term “ideology”, but the idea that the fine differences between the Cuban and Vietnamese flavors of Marxist-Leninist ideology are critical differences on this point seems unconvincing without some argument clearly articulating the relevant ideological differences an how they produce the described divergence in capacity.
>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.
I sort of think it maybe is an exaggeration, you're evidently of the opinion that the U.S happens to have enough battle ready troops with the requisite hardware positioned within a few hours of Cuba so that they can invade and flatten in the time it takes to fly from Miami to Havana?
I don't know, but a Destroyer would take about 10 hours to get from Florida to Cuba.
It seems your definition of invade and flatten is just dropping bombs, but that definitely does not handle the invade part of things, and it remains to be seen as to whether, with drones, being able to fly non-stop is the great technological advantage it once was.
Some preliminary evidence from around the world suggests in a drone led conflict it confers the ability to have expensive hardware destroyed and pilots killed non-stop.
Assuming the scenario happened the first bombing runs would be over after 2h and would continue for the next 48h until amphibious assault fast response finishes landing, by which time it’s safe to assume there isn’t much left to defend (though rubble makes a horrible war zone for the attacking side).
Cuba simply isn’t Iran. They’re a blockaded island with not much military experience. Iran is a huge mountainous country preparing for war for the last 40 years with first hand experience of getting blown up from above and from the inside by USA allies and surviving just fine.
By at least some. The Americans I know who have traveled to Cuba (policy changes, it was possible a few years ago at least) report the people love Americans. Of course what you see as a tourist isn't reality but at least some is true.
For any country, really; wars cannot be won anymore unless you exterminate its inhabitants completely. At best you can force a regime change, but as Afghanistan showed, that's fragile and tenuous at best if it's not fully backed by the population.
Afghanistan and Iran are not the same. Afghanistan is filled with people that don’t know the Earth is round. Iranians or Persians are educated and largely do not support this regime at all.
Do they support the governments that started this by blowing up 100s of children at their school? Give me a break, even the left-wing Iranians who hate the theocracy also hate Israel. Hell nearly all left-wing young people in the U.S. despise the Israeli government's actions and U.S. support of said actions and that's only for things that have happened in the last year.
Please provide your source for opinions that are not generally accepted except among those with politically self-serving bias. A few seconds of research demonstrates that's false.
https://mei.edu/publication/new-polling-highlights-iranians-...
67 percent opposed to even normalizing relations with Israel.
61 percent of support Iranian proxies or Axis of Resistance.
70 percent agreed their military presence makes them safer at home.
We have no reason to believe any of these have decreased since the bombing campaigns have begun. While there are significant numbers of people who would protest the government and maybe attempt to overthrow it, there is no where near enough evidence to suggest it possible and the last half century has demonstrated this.
We already supported a major ground campaign against Iran with the Iran-Iraq war that caused millions of deaths and ended in Iranian victory after 8 years.
In this case it's especially depressing that the war's rationale exists only because Trump wanted to tank the deal made by Obama. Which was not a perfect deal but better than the status quo back then, and much better than any likely outcome of this war.
Politics will exist for as long as there are people.
Any country not able to or interested in waging occasional war will be destroyed by countries that can and do.
Simple as that.
But please I'm interested in hearing any utopia arguments that claim we can/should deprecate war. And remember - you have to convince your country along with every other country.
You haven't really made an argument of your own. You've just made a claim and presented no evidence. "Simple as that" is neither argument nor evidence nor rationale. This is no better than the people who fall back on "war is hell" to justify when they've fucked up and caused the deaths and suffering of a bunch of civilians for no good purpose.
You could at least say something like "we have to bomb the people so they can be free" or "don't you know the Iranians were seconds away from nuking new York, because they have no regard for their own survival".
We should "deprecate" offensive wars of choice based on lies because the opportunity cost is enormous (what could we have bought with the 200+ billion they're already looking to spend here?).
Every time we do this we create more terrorists (see the blowback incidents weve already had from this war), which results in more egregious government overreach on the domestic population (see patriot act and the experience of commercial flight in today's world).
And those are just some of the basic reasons. I don't have time to write them all.
> Having difficulty projecting force from the air with fighter bombers launched from air craft carriers and refueling caravans from the Indian Ocean or Mediterranean Sea
This is not to be underestimated. It is very rare to be able to project military power far from one's capital. That the US is able to do it at all is remarkable. We should not expect it to be easy.
We can remove them and do the isolationist thing as many have been clamoring for. Then we have no need for bases in Europe or the Middle East. Gulf States can figure out how to live with a nuclear armed Iran or one that has a repository of thousands of missiles to blow up gulf state infrastructure when they misbehave. We can remove the bases in Europe too, and when Russia invades Lithuania the Spanish and Germans can take care of it.
Or perhaps these bases aren’t just in allied countries “at their grace”. These alliance systems don’t just solely benefit America.
I mean, theres meant to be intangibles, and some financial support. Most of the financial support got cut by doge and the rest would go with leaving NATO. The intangibles literally never eventuate. Australia tried to invoke ANZUS with East Timor and got brushed off, despite the various US facilities in Aus being sold to the australian voter as insurance that the US would help if requested.
Honestly the US as a strategic partner is just a joke. its nothing but sigint.
I don't disagree with you, but just pushing back on this high-and-mighty "we let you be here" sensibility from the OP. For some reason folks seem to have become convinced the opposite way from MAGA that these bases only serve American interests which is certainly not the case. Likewise the bases also don't only serve the interest of others, they allow us to have more flexibility in our objectives and responses to issues that we see.
"Our government is so thoroughly rooted the US can just build whatever it pleases on our soil"
>these bases only serve American interests
Pine Gap does SFA for us. I don't think we have a need to let the US communicate with their subs through the WA antenna.
Like absolute best case we have painted a big "Nuke Here" target on the country, because we are actively a part of their nuclear communication protocols. Not to mention, this is a fact that our government intentionally hid from us for like a decade, when Pine gap was at its most contentious.
Can you quantify any benefit we have received, there's only been a single military invitation and they bailed on it.
Its equally misleading to pretend like the bases have just a couple small benefits for the US. Come on, please. You dont believe it either. Ah yes, the post world war doctrine has been so that the us can have more flexibility. Sure thing. What a waste it has been for European Nations to have sacrificed lives for Americas wars the last decades.
I agree with you, it is misleading. But there are two sides who are both being misleading - that's all I'm calling out here.
> What a waste it has been for European Nations to have sacrificed lives for Americas wars the last decades.
I personally don't support any comment suggesting that Europe hasn't at times been there for us in these conflicts or that their sacrifices weren't meaningful. But that's only part of the equation. We're in a different world from where we were in 2001 and things change and so you can't just hang your hat on this one thing, else we (Americans) get to hang our hat on any time period we want to as well where Americans sacrificed for Europe.
The whole "we did this then" is driving a lot of folks into lunacy, but there does seem to be material differences and that is concerning if you believe in these alliance systems which I generally do.
You have folks on this website who would tell you the US is actively working with Russia against Ukraine, and then in the same breath defend Iran from the US blowing up drone factories that Iran is using to manufacture drones for Russia to use to go murder Ukrainians! Kind of hard to have a conversation or an alliance if a population is being convinced of absolutely crazy things like this.
Their grace? Who powers NATO? People need to realize that just because you don’t like something like America, it doesn’t mean beliefs that are divorced from reality about it are true.
> Being able to fly non-stop B-52 and B-2 sorties from home air bases with single-digit-hour flight times is a different thing entirely.
I agree with you in principle, but I worry that the United States hasn't been stockpiling enough ordinance to keep that up for very long at all. We don't keep many munitions factories on a hot standby either.
> If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland,
Cuba is not stupid. They will attack the infamous Conquistador Torture Base on their soil and US ships that carry out high piracy of their trade vessels.
Why would they do that? They won't have any nukes (not after the Cuban missile crisis), and the island isn't big enough (plus closely monitored) to house any significant amount of weaponry. What would they shoot them at? It'd be superficial damage and / or civilian casualties at best, and the retaliation would be immediate and devastating.
> After 9/11, there's no world in which any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution.
Unless it's by a right-wing white male, obvs., in which case they get promoted / lauded / re-elected / etc.
> it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon
But it is, the US is no position to flatten anything.
Afghanistan? Lost
Vietnam? Lost
Ukraine? Lost
Iran? will be lost
And these are heavily embargoed 3rd world countries.
In the first days of the Israeli-US war in Iran (a country under decades of embargo by the way) the US, Israel and vassals lost 60+ planes (plus who knows what else they are not reporting.
Trump is not coming out of this, if he makes the grave mistake of sending troops to their demise this administration is done.
> But it is, the US is no position to flatten anything.
The US is certainly in a position to flatten (with conventional force) anything in the Carribean, whatever failures it had in long counterinsurgencies where the logistics tail wrapped nearly halfway around the world. (And however badly it would probably fail in occupation in many of the places it could easily flatten close by, for that matter; flattening is much easier than occupying.)
> Afghanistan? Lost Vietnam? Lost Ukraine? Lost Iran?
Lost Ukraine? Ukraine hasn't lost and the US was never a direct belligerent in that conflict.
This is pure propaganda. It should be flagged as misinformation. There is no true to this complete nonsense that 60+ planes were lost. You can hate the US or have any opinion you want like the Ayatollah was great or whatever but don’t spread pure social media propaganda, please. Do you know how big of a deal losing 60 actual planes for the US would be? I would just say, if you are quite sure about all this then I think you might hit it big on polynarket.
"After 9/11, there's no world in which any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution."
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.
> 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.
It has already happened. Even in west Europe politicians are discussing how to protect their nations from US imperialism. Every remaining alliance the US has is strictly quid pro quo, there's no trust left anywhere (Israel being the singular exception). Meanwhile 50% of the planet is completely fed up and can't wait to have China take over as leader of the international order.
The whole thing is stupid. The US wouldn’t flatten Cuba. Only leftists think the Cuban people support the communists. It’s like that Hasab Piker saying “the good Cubans are still in Cuba but the ones in the US that don’t like communism are crazy.” The reality is we would decapitate their regime, kill all their top brass, blow up their military installations, probably gave some collateral damages, and then in a year there would be reports, modern vehicles, and commerce.
"The reality is we would decapitate their regime, kill all their top brass, blow up their military installations, probably gave some collateral damages, and then in a year there would be reports, modern vehicles, and commerce."
I couldn't imagine a delusional statement, considering we are literally at the moment, failing to 'change a regime' in an active war, once again!
The lack of self awareness here is ... scary.
Iran? Afghanistan? Iraq? Vietnam? Venezuela?
How many more lessons do you need, beyond than the one literally on your TV set right now ?
Here are some historical realities:
Nobody thinks of 'Castro Inc' as 'Communist' other than young folks on Reddit, or people listening to Joe Rogan.
Every adult - those living there, here, and elsewhere - know that Castro Inc. are ruthless authoritarians - their 'nominal communism' is barely relevant. Ideology is barely cover for anything as it is with all regimes.
If they have any residual popularity at all - it's for 'Standing up to America!' and those who held up the ancien regime in Cuba that 'Kept the people down!' - which has at least some historic resonance.
Nobody liked Saddam, nobody likes the Taliban, and the Communists in Vietnam were not popular in the South, and unlikely in the North as well.
Chavizmo had popular support, but that waned, and nobody likes the current regime.
And yet - where is all of this 'modern vehicles and commerce' in all these places?
The lack of self awareness is shocking.
The US ended up killing 100's of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Almost 1 million peopled died in Saddam's US-supported invasion of Iran.
The Israeli government has now admitted that up to 70K Arabs were killed in Gaza.
Many in the US have no problem bombing the smithereens out of civilians, so long as there can be some kind of populist cover for it even if it's totally disproportional.
If Castro Inc. were so irresponsible that they sent drones into a US base, it's entirely plausible that Trump Inc. bombs Cuba with enormous civilian collateral damage.
Whatever happens, the regime will not fall, thinking as much is a dangerous insult to reality.
The only way Cuba could be liberated by force is a 'full invasion', which is technically very feasible but completely unlikely, or, a long, protracted movement towards detente. That's it.
All of those are different conflicts. There hasn't been change in Venezuela? Have you seen the political prisoners being released? Are you aware of Germany, Japan, or Panama? Every conflict is different. I thought the Iraq war foolish and the Afghanistan war did not have clear goals and too many different presidents. I think it is interesting that you know that no Cuban living in the US that does not listen to Joe Rogan and is not on Reddit doesn't think of Cuba as communist. It's a pretty unbelievable statement. I don't know if this some leftist No True Scotsman thing or what. You think because they are authoritarian, they are not communist? How do you think we ensure that I have a right to your labor if not by force? I guess we will just see what happens.
Cuba is a relatively small island, and (by area) it's mostly agrarian. Conventional bombing campaign on the industrial and urban centres would send them back to the Iron Age in a matter of days. Which is why this whole scenario is absurd, Cuban leaders aren't about to start a war.
That’s MAD. It’s much more likely that we just blockade and invade Cuba than we nuke it. Even Trump isn’t crazy enough to start a nuclear war (I hope).
This was amazingly common in the 2010s during the Big Data craze. I know, because I was the one slapping the bad queries together.
Most startups didn’t care (to a point) because at that point in their lifecycle, the information they needed to get from those queries (and actions they could take based on it, like which customers were likely to convert and worth spending sales time on, etc) was more important than the money spent on the insane redshift clusters.
The mantra was almost always some version of, “just do it now, as fast as possible, and if we’re still alive in a year we’ll optimize then.”
Unfortunately, having to mess around with a JVM is a tough sell for a lot of data analysis folks. I'm not saying it's rational or right, but a lot of people hear "JVM" and they go "no thank you". Personally I think it's a non-issue, but you have to meet people where they are.
I dunno, if you can slog through the Python ecosystem then the JVM is starting to look not so bad. Plus with Clojure you don't need to deal with the headache and heartache that is Maven.
I think that's true for only a limited subset of programs, though. The Clojure lib ecosystem is nowhere near the size of the broader Java ecosystem, so you frequently end up pulling Maven deps to plug holes anyway.
That is the goal of a polyglot runtime, and why Clojure was designed to be a hosted language that embraces the platform, unlike others that make their tiny island.
It's unfortunate, but people's associations with Java the lang bleed into their beliefs about the JVM, one of the most heavily-optimized VMs on the planet.
There's some historical cruft (especially the memory model), but picking the JVM as a target is a great decision (especially with Graal offering even more options).
Exactly, especially because there isn't THE JVM, rather a bunch of versions each with their own approaches to GC, JIT, JIT caches, ahead of time compilation.
Meanwhile, I find it very annoying to deal with the litany of Python versions and the distinction between global packages and user packages, and needing to manage virtual environments just to run scripts. That being said, I am not an expert but that's always been my experience when I need to do anything Python related.
idk, I don't think I've had to do anything beyond install the JVM to work with Clojure. I'm not really a fan of the clj commands flag choices though (-M, -X, etc. all make no sense)
It doesn't come off as unintuitive by my read. They had a bug that led to a massive performance regression. Rewriting the code didn't have that bug so it led to a performance improvement.
They found that they had fewer bugs in Python so they continued with it.
I think a lot of people (especially those who are only peripherally involved in development, like management) don't really consider performance regressions at all when thinking about how to get software to go faster.
Meanwhile my experience has been that whenever there has been a performance issue severe enough to actually matter, it's often been the result of some kind of performance bug, not so much language, runtime, or even algorithm choices for that matter.
Hence whenever the topic of how to improve performance comes up, I always, always insist that we profile first.
My experience has been that performance bugs show up in lots of places and I'm very lucky when it's just a bug. The far more painful performance issues are language and runtime limitations.
The leadership and product direction work are at least as hard as the code work. Astral/uv has absolutely proven this, otherwise Python wouldn't be a boneyard for build tools.
Projects - including forks - fail all the time because the leadership/product direction on a project goes missing despite the tech still being viable, which is why people are concerned about these people being locked up inside OpenAI. Successfully forking is much easier said than done.
I had a lot of trouble convincing people that a correct Python package manager was even possible. uv proved it was possible and won people over with speed.
I had a sketched out design for a correct package manager in 2018 but when I talked to people about it I couldn't get any interest in it. I think the brilliant idea that uv had that I missed was that it can't be written in Python because if is written in Python developers are going to corrupt its environment sooner or later and you lose your correctness.
I think that now that people are used to uv it won't be that hard to develop a competitor and get people to switch.
Am I meant to believe that we wouldn't have iPhone-level innovation if inventors couldn't become billionaires?
This makes no sense. We have so much more innovation than we have billionaires, always have. Ability to become a member of the 0.001% is not a barrier to innovation, not in America, not anywhere, and never has been.
No one serious is claiming there should be zero wealth inequality. Inequality is ineradicable. The claim is that wealth inequality can reach a degree that becomes corrosive to society as a whole and severs the link between innovation and profit, because it becomes more profitable to hoard wealth and collect capital gains and interest than it does to innovate and create things in the real world.
It's entirely possible to preserve (and in fact would actually strengthen) the profit motive if we changed incentives to get rid of the wild capital hoarding we see today.
reply