SkoomaDentist
The Greater Finnish Empire
No bio...
User ID: 84
You'd have to pay me rather more than ten bucks to read more than a summary of any remotely modern Scott article. He's a prime example of a writer who spends 95% of the words on completely pointless waffling and even the remaining 5% only very occasionally contains something of value.
If the Iranian regime comes out the other side of this without being removed from power, the regime will spin it as a credibility win because they held together and the United States couldn't dislodge them. So hopefully there is an effective plan in place to dislodge the regime because the alternative is much worse.
Or to put it another way, "Kill lots of people" is not a viable war goal even though Hegseth seems to think it is.
Mean Girls was supposed to be a satirical comedy, not a how to guide.
Thank you for giving me "proper" justification to continue my teen movie binge.
But I don't get why people would want a location marker to correlate people's opinions on this question.
Christianity is one question where location marker would be quite helpful. A commenter claiming to be a Catholic from the US is going to have some very different opinions, outlook and rhetoric compared to a European (or South American) Catholic.
Alternatively, do they have bands playing which sound like a third rate copy of U2?
Can you even be A Real American if your ancestors didn't move there at least 10000 years ago?
IIRC, the university lab I worked at 20 years ago was trying to apply for funding to become one. Yes, they used that exact English language term even though it was in Finland.
You have to admit that "Operation Epstein Fury" does have a certain ring to it.
That's modern administration for you.
"Center of excellence" has been a common naming method for over two decades for all sorts of things in many parts of the western world.
I suspect you'd get away with a lot more if you wrote in some other language than english.
Nonetheless the Japanese fought tooth and nail and the Allies had to spend significant troops to win ground (with 12k killed and 40k wounded) and couldn’t simply bomb Japan to submission. Mainland or not made no difference to that.
Do you see US being willing to deal with even a fraction of that number in Iran? I sure don’t.
Japan notably was still invaded on the ground in WW2. See the Battle of Okinawa which was the bloodiest battle of the pacifiic war. ”Mainland” makes rather less of a difference when the entire nation consists of islands.
It’s easy enough: Only get into politics in languages other than English.
How does college make it so "you are still surrounded by the same set of people every day, forced into constant, recurring proximity"?
Certainly there are many easy socialization opportunities in college but those are very self selected, at least after the very beginning. Hell, I barely even bothered attending classes after the first semester (except for a few mandatory ones and those related to my later masters studies specialization). In comparison in high school the course selection is much more limited, there are at most a couple of different tracks and you have to actually be there every day.
There are definitely people who enjoyed their high school years more than their adult life, because the paradigm of ‘teenager’ as a category that exists creates an impulse in authority structures to incentivize the ‘fun’ parts and not the ‘becoming a grownup’ parts. That’s what this is corresponding to; people remembering their fun as the important part of life, not their responsibilities.
I can't help wondering how much of this is North America specific and created by the pop culture. I'm sure there are some people who enjoyed their high school more than anything later around here too, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone take that position publicly. The trope here is that your university years were the best time in your life (for some people), although that might have changed in the recent years (or not - I haven't seen much talk of that lately). There is certainly a lot more partying in university for those who want it.
It's hardly surprising that countries with significant Serbian minority would have anti-NATO sentiment after NATO struck Serbia. That doesn't reflect the rest of the Europe at all at the time.
Though we were all retarded teenagers at the time
Which is rather different than ”a lot of Europeans”. It’s like trying to seriously claim that ”a lot of people are lizardmen” because a bunch of edgelords put a mark there on a survey.
Eh, what?
The main perceived problem with the Serbian bombings for a layman on the street was that NATO took forever to actually start doing them. Certainly not that NATO bombed Serbia in the first place (outside niche edgelord or old communist far left circles).
In fairness, I don't remember a lot of Europeans openly celebrating, but there certainly were a lot of Europeans saying, in so many words, that we had it coming, and the real tragedy would be if we retaliated against poor innocent Muslims in any way.
Were there? Because I don’t recall any of that and I’m European and old enough to have watched the second plane hit WTC live on BBC at work.
What reason would Europeans even have had to dislike US en masse outside the pseudo-communist far left circles back then? Clinton era US was generally liked and GWB was a somewhat bumbling but seemingly largelt irrelevant president until after 9/11.
East Germany
I don't think East Germany is a good comparison given how thoroughly Stasi had infiltrated every aspect of life in East Germany.
This has historically been the case, but I have heard rumblings from Ukraine that mass production of drone interceptors for Shaheds has actually pushed the price of those to below that of the attack drones.
This may have effect on future wars but has no effect on the current war on Iran or even other near term wars the US participates in, particularly given how slow such procedures change in the US military.
For the moment the attack side has significant cost advantage.
If you need skilled workforce for manufacturing you fucked up royally during the design phase.
You can't build modern high tech equipment (which interceptors definitely are) with 70s low skilled manufacturing methods. The failure rates would approach 100%.
this is why stuff needs to be able to be produced at scale, with untrained personnel, sometimes under terrible conditions.
You can do this. The inherent tradeoff is that you're going to be stuck with Vietnam war era designs. If you want things to be buildable with only a hammer and screwdriver, you're going to be limited to things that can be built with such crude tools and no skills.
Consider this: Any high reliability electronics using BGA or QFN parts need x-ray inspection to filter out boards with short circuits caused by uneven solder flow. A shitload of components are only available in BGA or QFN packages and many are fundamentally impossible to build in any other packages (simply too many pins). That means you need highly skilled labor to build them or beyond state of the art automation which is only viable at massive cost which in turn means massive production amounts. The same goes for modern passive components that can be literally the size of small sand grains. And that's just one small part of the entire supply chain.
- Prev
- Next

No, it very much isn't.
"Kill people required to achieve this strategic goal" is a valid war goal. Same with "Kill these specific people". Even "Kill or drive away everyone in this area" might be. But just "Kill lots of people" isn't because it doesn't achieve anything useful.
More options
Context Copy link