9 minutes ago, brabus said:

That’s a hell of a way to put it. Read a book, get in a vault - inform yourself.

Quibbling. We took it from a bad situation to a much worse situation in which our adversary has significantly more geopolitical influence than they did a year ago.

And now they know that we don’t have the capability or intent to do what is necessary to stop them.

Edited Friday at 04:14 AM4 days by frog

14 hours ago, dream big said:

Words...

We just finally had an administration willing to do something about it. Words...

Thats the key here.. Trump et al just did something, not the full measure. Either they didn't know what that was or didn't have the ability/means and thought they could take short cuts, issue threats, and mean tweet to victory. They ended up making a shit sandwich.

Just in time for you to celebrate our 250th. How's that beer tasting now?

Edited Friday at 06:46 AM4 days by disgruntledemployee
grammar

22 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If our president wasn't obsessed with using the stock market as his favorite indicator of his administration's success, we could end the Iranian problem forever. Just a few sorties to Kharg Island and it won't matter anymore.

We keep trying to avoid a global economic catastrophe that is unavoidable, but the longer we push it off, the weaker our allies become through their own suicidal policies.

It’s funny you guys always act like just a little bit more bombing will do the trick without any source to support it whatsoever.. You talk like we tripped 100 yards from the end of a marathon, and we have to just get up and finish the job. Come on guys it’ll be so easy. We’re sooo close. Just finish the job. Cmon bro. Trust me bro.

Except you have no idea how close or far we are from the finish line. I saw zero credible intel at any point that the IRGC was about to collapse or some other moderating force was about to take over. We’re not 100 yards from the finish line.. we’ve run a 5k and we don’t even know how long the race is.

If I had to bet, the admin probably didn’t think we were close to the finish line either. That’s why they took a ceasefire and are now eating Iranian dick on the global stage. Trump already launched the war.. you think if it was as simple as a few more targets and this thing is game over he wouldn’t have done it?

Midnight hammer obliterated them but then we just needed a little more. Then epic fury obliterated them but we just needed a little more. Then the blockade of their blockade was totally gonna bring them down but we just need a little more. And shocker, all of the Israel first neocon war hawks agree! Always just a little bit more

Edited Friday at 05:38 AM4 days by Pooter

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

It’s funny you guys always act like just a little bit more bombing will do the trick without any source to support it whatsoever.. You talk like we tripped 100 yards from the end of a marathon, and we have to just get up and finish the job. Come on guys it’ll be so easy. We’re sooo close. Just finish the job. Cmon bro. Trust me bro.

Except you have no idea how close or far we are from the finish line. I saw zero credible intel at any point that the IRGC was about to collapse or some other moderating force was about to take over. We’re not 100 yards from the finish line.. we’ve run a 5k and we don’t even know how long the race is.

If I had to bet, the admin probably didn’t think we were close to the finish line either. That’s why they took a ceasefire and are now eating Iranian dick on the global stage. Trump already launched the war.. you think if it was as simple as a few more targets and this thing is game over he wouldn’t have done it?

Midnight hammer obliterated them but then we just needed a little more. Then epic fury obliterated them but we just needed a little more. Then the blockade of their blockade was totally gonna bring them down but we just need a little more. And shocker, all of the Israel first neocon war hawks agree! Always just a little bit more

We're making two different points. I agree with you entirely that focusing only on military targets will not destroy the regime, because the regime is not motivated purely by a capacity of the wage war.

Assuming that we are not going to occupy the country and implement regime change that way, which we aren't, then the only other option is to create the conditions by which the Iranian people overthrow the current leadership. Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

So that leaves the only other means by which the Iranian people can be "motivated." Economic catastrophe.

Bombing Kharg Island effectively ends the economic capacity of Iran. Whether or not the irgc is overthrown at that point is irrelevant. Iran has no way to generate money outside of its production of fossil fuels. No money, no government. It's happened many times in the past and it will happen happen many more times in the future. We could do this by continuing the blockade indefinitely, but that leaves the strategy up to the whims of the politicians. Destroying something that can't be rebuilt for years is rather final.

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

Obviously the Trump administration doesn't want this, maybe because of the mid terms, maybe because they have other international ambitions. I don't know and it's possible they don't even know. Trump is mercurial at best .

Edited Friday at 03:42 PM4 days by Lord Ratner

11 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Thats the key here.. Trump et al just did something, not the full measure. Either they didn't know what that was or didn't have the ability/means and thought they could take short cuts, issue threats, and mean tweet to victory. They ended up making a shit sandwich.

Yep, pretty much. The major, unforced error was starting the ceasefire back in April, stupidly thinking diplomacy would “totally work this time” with Iran, then combining that effort with, as you put it: short cuts, threats, mean tweets. Turns out none of those things worked worth a damn with Iran. The momentum was solid, the ass beating was large, and then we just stopped and have subsequently created the proverbial shit sandwich. As someone said earlier, tactical ass whooping without the foresight/capability to see it through to a strategic victory.

Bombing's back on the menu - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2222408/trump-launches-new-strikes-iran

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

Has this ever worked without deep intel assets ready with a replacement, a la our forays into S. America?

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

We just need to burn the rest of the world's economies to the ground and ours will be fine. K.

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Bombing's back on the menu - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2222408/trump-launches-new-strikes-iran

Has this ever worked without deep intel assets ready with a replacement, a la our forays into S. America?

We just need to burn the rest of the world's economies to the ground and ours will be fine. K.

Not quite. But yes, ours will be most insulated.

It would be more appropriate to say that the mismanagement of their own economies at the shrine of globalization has put most of these countries in the position that any disruption can be a catastrophe. Because of this, we can't just smash the country that has been a sworn event for decades.

Well, we can, but it'll be ugly.

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

We're making two different points. I agree with you entirely that focusing only on military targets will not destroy the regime, because the regime is not motivated purely by a capacity of the wage war.

Assuming that we are not going to occupy the country and implement regime change that way, which we aren't, then the only other option is to create the conditions by which the Iranian people overthrow the current leadership. Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

So that leaves the only other means by which the Iranian people can be "motivated." Economic catastrophe.

Bombing Kharg Island effectively ends the economic capacity of Iran. Whether or not the irgc is overthrown at that point is irrelevant. Iran has no way to generate money outside of its production of fossil fuels. No money, no government. It's happened many times in the past and it will happen happen many more times in the future. We could do this by continuing the blockade indefinitely, but that leaves the strategy up to the whims of the politicians. Destroying something that can't be rebuilt for years is rather final.

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

Obviously the Trump administration doesn't want this, maybe because of the mid terms, maybe because they have other international ambitions. I don't know and it's possible they don't even know. Trump is mercurial at best .

So I guess the obvious follow up question here is.. is Iran such an existential threat to the US that we need to bomb Kharg island, setting off a global economic crisis and potential war with China?

You just listed some pretty gnarly side effects of your silver bullet solution to this war so I’m just wondering.. is a world where Kharg island is blown up but now we have a global depression/energy crisis and China wants to go to war with us somehow better?

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

So I guess the obvious follow up question here is.. is Iran such an existential threat to the US that we need to bomb Kharg island, setting off a global economic crisis and potential war with China?

You just listed some pretty gnarly side effects of your silver bullet solution to this war so I’m just wondering.. is a world where Kharg island is blown up but now we have a global depression/energy crisis and China wants to go to war with us somehow better?

If it sets off a war immediately, probably not.

If it doesn't start an immediate war, but forces Europe into regaining control over their energy resources before the inevitable war comes (and it neutralizes the largest destabilizing force in the middle east), then probably so.

On 6/27/2026 at 6:25 AM, Lord Ratner said:

If it sets off a war immediately, probably not.

If it doesn't start an immediate war, but forces Europe into regaining control over their energy resources before the inevitable war comes (and it neutralizes the largest destabilizing force in the middle east), then probably so.

.. so we need to escalate in order to.. encourage Europe to recapitalize their energy independence, so that in some future hypothetical war that’s a foregone conclusion (in your head) our allies will be stronger?

Guys these justifications are getting more and more convoluted and nonsensical.

Talk about a goalpost shift.. I thought this was about an “imminent nuclear threat” to the US homeland

Edited Sunday at 06:03 PM2 days by Pooter

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

.. so we need to escalate in order to.. encourage Europe to recapitalize their energy independence, so that in some future hypothetical war that’s a foregone conclusion (in your head) our allies will be stronger?

Guys these justifications are getting more and more convoluted and nonsensical.

Talk about a goalpost shift.. I thought this was about an “imminent nuclear threat” to the US homeland

Well to be fair, you're just here to scream into the void, so your questions are usually not particular consistent or honest. My "justifications" for this war are not going to be the same as the administration's, or Brabus's, or anyone else. What and who exactly are you referring to?

And yeah, I'm totally crazy for thinking that we just happened to be the generation that figured out how to solve war (just like every society felt right before total war broke out). We did it, team! No big wars ever again. Don't mind the 4 year long land war in Europe or the biggest manufacturing economy building out a humongous and advancing military, they're doing all that because of peace 😂🤣

Edited yesterday at 02:02 AM1 day by Lord Ratner

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Well to be fair, you're just here to scream into the void, so your questions are usually not particular consistent or honest. My "justifications" for this war are not going to be the same as the administration's, or Brabus's, or anyone else. What and who exactly are you referring to?

I’m referring to your assertion that we need to bomb Kharg island to intentionally set off a global energy crisis which will somehow be a good thing in the long run. I don’t remember this war ever being pitched that way (fair enough, you didn’t pitch it) but I also don’t remember you ever making this point before. It seems a lot like you’re starting with your conclusion (we just need to keep bombing and escalating) and working backward from there each week with whatever the new neocon strategy du jour is.

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And yeah, I'm totally crazy for thinking that we just happened to be the generation that figured out how to solve war (just like every society felt right before total war broke out). We did it, team! No big wars ever again. Don't mind the 4 year long land war in Europe or the biggest manufacturing economy building out a humongous and advancing military, they're doing all that because of peace 😂🤣

This is just a blatant straw man. No one here has ever claimed we figured out eternal world peace or that other countries around the world don’t act aggressively. Quite the opposite actually.. my argument is if we’re serious about deterring Russia and China this war has severely hampered that. We don’t have infinite money or resources and this stupid boondoggle on behalf of a foreign country pulled valuable assets away from other AORs that will take significant time to reconstitute.

Rebuilding U.S. Missile Inventory: A Multiyear Project

High expenditure of key munitions in Operation Epic Fury has created a window of vulnerability until inventories return to pre-war levels and then reach levels that war planners desire.

Article says TLAM THAAD and Patriot stockpiles will be reconstituted by sometime between 2029 and 2031. We retasked 2 carrier strike groups from PACOM to the Middle East. Bomber task forces to anywhere other than CENTCOM are nonexistent right now. 69% of our tanker fleet is sitting at BG/PSAB. But yeah it’s probably a good idea to bomb Kharg island and risk a possible China confrontation at the exact moment our force posture in PACOM is more on the back foot than at any point in the last decade 👌

Edited yesterday at 03:28 PM1 day by Pooter

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

I don’t remember this war ever being pitched that way (fair enough, you didn’t pitch it) but I also don’t remember you ever making this point before. It seems a lot like you’re starting with your conclusion (we just need to keep bombing and escalating) and working backward from there each week with whatever the new neocon strategy du jour is.

On 3/11/2026 at 12:24 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Agreed, but the same logic applies. Forecasts of doom and chaos are worthless when the doom and chaos never comes.

Your entire point is hypothetical. Maybe you'll be right. But so far the anti-interventionists have been wrong on basically every single Trump engagement, especially WRT Iran. And they can't spell out exactly how this goes sideways. What, we get another Islamo-fascist regime, but with no credibility or military might left by which to threaten the world? Oil goes up because the production of a country viral to our biggest enemy (China) was squashed and the American energy complex gets more money and power?

That doesn't mean you should keep quiet. It just means there's not yet any reason to believe the sky-is-falling crowd.

If we send in the infantry, I'll happily be the first to agree with you. As of yet there's no evidence we're planning that, and you can't hide troop movements like that. Too many people are still shell shocked from the failures of Afghanistan/Iraq that they are conflating all military intervention with nation-building.

Now, if we send in the men with beards to capture and control Kharg Island, all the better. The message is pretty clear to anyone who is listening. Fuck with the US, and we will take your stuff and kill you.

I for one am a big fan of that message. If my neighbor woke up every morning and threw rocks at my wife and kids while they left for school, promising to rape and murder them when they got home, I'd light his house on fire and execute him as he fled the flames.

On 3/30/2026 at 7:15 AM, Lord Ratner said:

I also explicitly said that we should take Kharg Island. Try not to get an erection while you struggle with ways to make those two statements mutually exclusive.

On 3/30/2026 at 8:53 AM, Lord Ratner said:

They would. I would consider it materially the same as parking a bunch of warships around Iran. At a certain point you have to accept the semantic limitations, and get to the point. And for me, the point is we should not take over Iran and attempt to transform it in the way we did Afghanistan or Iraq. Taking Kharg Island is about taking resources with strategic geopolitical consequences and applying pressure. Kind of like taking Maduro. Outside of starving the regime of money, it does nothing to give the Iranian people a better future, something that I consider their obligation, not ours.

This was back in March, when we did not yet know whether or not the regime would collapse under the weight of a bombing only campaign. Now that that's clear, just blowing it all up is a more viable option.

That said, I still think taking the island over would be the best answer, but politically it would probably result in a few American deaths so outright destroying it is the easier, even though less correct answer.

So yeah, I've been pretty consistent.

As far as depleting military resources, countries at peace that are expecting further peace do not build up their military, and they do not maintain it. Some places let it collapse faster than others, but the trend is always downward. This is a point I've made before that many of the "obviously I believe there's going to be a war again I'm just remiss to say where or when or why or if it will happen while I'm alive or while my kids are alive or while my grandkids are alive" crowd just sees as warmongering, because ultimately they believe in something I do not. A peaceful world.

I want the inevitable war to start while America can still win it. There's a paradox there, because your enemies will not start a war when it is obvious that you can win. Obviously our capabilities/willpower have deteriorated to the point that some of our traditional adversaries have gotten feistier. That's not going to get better. We're not going back into the peace of the '90s. A chain of events has initiated that is going to eventually lead to a another Total war. If I had godlike powers and could control the timeline precisely, I would try to push that Total war off for about 10-15 years, while using a series of regional wars and catastrophes to continually Hammer the global supply chain in an effort to motivate Europe and the Americas to continue this brand new project of rapid de-globalization. We need to rebuild some level of industrial capacity, because that's where you make the drones and the missiles and the bombs and the ships and the planes, we need to secure enough chip fabrication capacity, which is still going to take another decade before we're caught up with Taiwan, and we need a mining Renaissance between Canada and the United States and Mexico, stripping every ounce of critical minerals that we can from the many many isolated and barren parts of our country. Then, send up the flare.

Many Americans (and Europeans) are doing with China what Europe did with Germany in the late thirties. Just squeeze your eyes shut and deny the obvious message being sent by those who are not even shy about calling you their enemy. America was in a very similar cultural and political moment back then, with the Americans completely uninterested in participating in foreign affairs and large swaths of the population sympathetic to the fascists and Communists who were by any objective measure immoral governments that created misery for their people. Unfortunately for Germany and Japan, the United States was the largest manufacturing center in the world at the time, so it didn't matter that we kept our head in the sand too long and joined the fight too late. We cranked out 300,000 planes and 50,000 tanks.

Who wins the war of production today? Anything that slows down the Chinese industrial machine is a win in my book.

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This was back in March, when we did not yet know whether or not the regime would collapse under the weight of a bombing only campaign. Now that that's clear, just blowing it all up is a more viable option.

That said, I still think taking the island over would be the best answer, but politically it would probably result in a few American deaths so outright destroying it is the easier, even though less correct answer.

So yeah, I've been pretty consistent.

As far as depleting military resources, countries at peace that are expecting further peace do not build up their military, and they do not maintain it. Some places let it collapse faster than others, but the trend is always downward. This is a point I've made before that many of the "obviously I believe there's going to be a war again I'm just remiss to say where or when or why or if it will happen while I'm alive or while my kids are alive or while my grandkids are alive" crowd just sees as warmongering, because ultimately they believe in something I do not. A peaceful world.

I want the inevitable war to start while America can still win it. There's a paradox there, because your enemies will not start a war when it is obvious that you can win. Obviously our capabilities/willpower have deteriorated to the point that some of our traditional adversaries have gotten feistier. That's not going to get better. We're not going back into the peace of the '90s. A chain of events has initiated that is going to eventually lead to a another Total war. If I had godlike powers and could control the timeline precisely, I would try to push that Total war off for about 10-15 years, while using a series of regional wars and catastrophes to continually Hammer the global supply chain in an effort to motivate Europe and the Americas to continue this brand new project of rapid de-globalization. We need to rebuild some level of industrial capacity, because that's where you make the drones and the missiles and the bombs and the ships and the planes, we need to secure enough chip fabrication capacity, which is still going to take another decade before we're caught up with Taiwan, and we need a mining Renaissance between Canada and the United States and Mexico, stripping every ounce of critical minerals that we can from the many many isolated and barren parts of our country. Then, send up the flare.

Many Americans (and Europeans) are doing with China what Europe did with Germany in the late thirties. Just squeeze your eyes shut and deny the obvious message being sent by those who are not even shy about calling you their enemy. America was in a very similar cultural and political moment back then, with the Americans completely uninterested in participating in foreign affairs and large swaths of the population sympathetic to the fascists and Communists who were by any objective measure immoral governments that created misery for their people. Unfortunately for Germany and Japan, the United States was the largest manufacturing center in the world at the time, so it didn't matter that we kept our head in the sand too long and joined the fight too late. We cranked out 300,000 planes and 50,000 tanks.

Who wins the war of production today? Anything that slows down the Chinese industrial machine is a win in my book.

Apologies I was not tracking you’ve been advocating for this very very bad idea for as long and as consistently as you have been.

Still you haven’t explained one key part. How, in an inevitable total war with a competing power that can out-produce us, is it a good plan to waste munitions on a middle eastern sideshow and then intentionally provoke that power while you are most vulnerable in their region of influence?

You’re convinced an inevitable global total war is coming. Sure I guess if we want to pretend mutually assured destruction doctrine just magically stopped existing then yeah I guess we’re gonna go to total war with China at some point. But you just said if you had your way you’d push it off 10-15 years.. so shouldn’t that mean we dont bomb Kharg island right now, since that could possibly set off the exact chain of events you want to delay?

Seriously, none of this makes any sense.

This is turning into you trying to out-realist everybody with apocalypse fantasies, but the arguments fall flat for two main reasons:

1. No one other than you conceives of this war in this way. Europe isn’t going to magically start producing oil again if we blow up Kharg island. They’re just going to be further weakened.

2. If you do think WW3 is coming, you can just say that and prep for it. Idk why it requires us to step on our own dick first

One saved round:

Remember that time I said we were heading down the road of irreversible stupid escalations and everyone called me a TDS libtard pussy?

Well now here we are talking about how we need to bomb Kharg island so that WW3 starts on our terms 🤷🏻‍♂️

Can’t make this shit up

IDF about to head into Iran. All part of the plan.

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

But you just said if you had your way you’d push it off 10-15 years.. so shouldn’t that mean we dont bomb Kharg island right now, since that could possibly set off the exact chain of events you want to delay?

On 6/26/2026 at 10:28 AM, Lord Ratner said:

It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

To be clear, this sentence, read fully, says that bombing Kharg Island wouldn't start a war.

You might call it:

17 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

a series of regional wars and catastrophes to continually Hammer the global supply chain in an effort to motivate Europe and the Americas to continue this brand new project of rapid de-globalization.

So... Anyways

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

How, in an inevitable total war with a competing power that can out-produce us, is it a good plan to waste munitions on a middle eastern sideshow and then intentionally provoke that power while you are most vulnerable in their region of influence?

Because it doesn't matter about what you do with the munitions you have right now. All that matters is how many munitions you can continue to produce/source.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need these wars and catastrophes to motivate future-oriented behavior. But we don't live in a perfect world, we live in a human world. If it hasn't become abundantly clear that the developed nations of the West will absolutely not maintain their industrial or military capacities, then you simply aren't paying attention. Jesus just look at what they've done to pilot training.

And the only way that it could have been done without war/disaster was with international trade policy that incentivized "reshoring" and "friendshoring," But everybody lost their fucking minds when Trump tried to put just a fraction of the tariffs that will be required to get it done. So instead, we're going to use government spending and the inflation tax to end up with the very same effect. To be fair, Trump went about that tariff policy about as stupidly and childishly and erratically as you could possibly imagine, but stupid childish erratic leaders are just a fact of life these days (Gavin Newsom, Ken Paxton, Mandami, MTG, etc).

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

No one other than you conceives of this war in this way. Europe isn’t going to magically start producing oil again if we blow up Kharg island. They’re just going to be further weakened.

I did not invent the Fourth Turning framework. Ray Dalio calls it the Big Cycle. Niall Ferguson says it already started as Cold War II. Even Jaime Dimon is calling for rearmament. Anyways.

After Russian oil and gas was permanently disrupted thanks to the war in Ukraine, the Europeans reclassified nuclear power as green energy after decades of championing decommissioning. They adapt like everyone else, they just do it slowly and they lie through their teeth about the justification.

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

If you do think WW3 is coming, you can just say that and prep for it. Idk why it requires us to step on our own dick first

I've said it plenty 🤷‍♂️. Look I wish anything you would do was possible. I'd love to see America stay out of messy wars, increase spending on military readiness, ensure that critical business sectors like drug production, semiconductor manufacturing, and resource mining were domestically stable, control unproductive spending on social programs for the elderly, enforce immigration policy without rioting and chaos, stop spending at deficit levels measured in trillions rather than billions, etc. As I've said before, I can't wait to see your candidacy for public office. We need someone who's smarter than Trump and knows exactly how to fix all this. Please, we need you.

But that's not the world we live in. We live in the one where we will destroy ourselves for cheap TVs and the dream of global peace. Removing Iran from the chess board would be a solid enhancement for Team America.

And it hasn't escalated yet, despite your suggestions. It has simply dragged-on. It definitely hasn't gone the way the administration hoped (or how I hoped, for that matter), but there's been no escalation.

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because it doesn't matter about what you do with the munitions you have right now.

… uh what? yes it absolutely does. What is this argument? If you piss away your stockpile which will take years to replace, you are measurably weaker, right now.

Can’t believe I have to actually spell this out, but your current inventory and your ability to produce more… both matter.

If current inventory was irrelevant how can we maintain a nuclear deterrent even though we haven’t built a new ICBM since 1978 and we haven’t manufactured a new nuke since 1992.

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'd love to see America stay out of messy wars, increase spending on military readiness, ensure that critical business sectors like drug production, semiconductor manufacturing, and resource mining were domestically stable, control unproductive spending on social programs for the elderly, enforce immigration policy without rioting and chaos, stop spending at deficit levels measured in trillions rather than billions, etc.

We can literally do all of this without needing to bomb Kharg island 😂 idk why common sense national defense/fiscal policy and bombing Kharg island are suddenly and inextricably linked in your mind.

And as I’ve said many times before, I don’t know why you do this weird thing where you say “well if you’re so smart why don’t you run for office and fix everything.”

We’re debating in a forum. The onus isn’t on either of us to fix the whole world. But if you do want my policy prescription that badly it’s basically: do all the smart stuff you listed in your comment but don’t do all the really stupid parts.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Pooter

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

We can literally do all of this without needing to bomb Kharg island

This is really the Crux of the whole thing. No, we can't. We hypothetically can do all of those things without doing the things you find illogical, but history and reality suggest otherwise.

You still seem to be in the part of your ideological journey where you think societies and the politicians they produce will make hard choices without going through hard times. I do not.

I don't think it's a coincidence that as the generation that endured world war II started to lose political power, we started making all the same mistakes that lead towards the conflict I believe to be inevitable.

This isn't some wacky theory I came up with on my own. You've heard it before in one of its many various wrappers. Soft times create soft men. Soft men create hard times. Hard times create hard men. Hard men create soft times. Soft times create...

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Lord Ratner