Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

No you forgot the wasted spending on Social Security, Medicaid, and other subsidies! See, other people can throw in snide remarks too.

There's room to debate military spending, but if you view the world as a dangerous place and that the US should not become isolationist, we have to spend the money and have equipment ready and capable whether that's in Europe or in Asia. Alternatively we can disband much of the military, stop paying for this stuff, withdraw from NATO, remove overseas bases in countries like Japan and South Korea, and leave the world to deal with its own problems.

View on HN

Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and indeed seeing the world as a dangerous place.

But let's not make some bullshit up about a million dollars wasted on some non-sense, when we have real problems with the DoW, which can't even audit itself, sucking up almost a trillion dollars.

> Most of that money is wasted on keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, it's not going into soldier's pockets. And I say this being pro-US and indeed seeing the world as a dangerous place.

Hi former active duty soldier here - I'm all for generally increasing pay, but you're just making claims here without any basis for them. It cost a lot of money to maintain the industries capable of producing weapons. We can stop the spending, but then they go out of business and now that capability is lost. Look at Europe. Depends on the details. What specific waste are you talking about? Here's [1] an article that came out recently highlighting how much of our explosives and munitions manufacturing is reliant on just a few locations - cut the DoD budget, and then these are the kinds of things that happen.

Secondly, you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money - whether that's too little or too much, without additional specific logic or factual claims. When you say the DoD is sucking up a trillion dollars you're implying that it's all waste - sorry don't think that's true. And when you look at the performance of equipment that other countries provide versus the US, you know our stuff actually works as advertised. Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware?

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/western-powers-race-to-brin...

It's funny you go within a single paragraph from

> you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money

> Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware?

But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income.

You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage.

By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired.

> It's funny you go within a single paragraph from

You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending, I questioned your claim based on what you wrote. That's all. I wouldn't read in to it more than that.

> But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income.

Sure but then we can just cut in other areas that aren't the military, if that's what we decide to do. You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending.

> You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage.

Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force.

> By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired.

Yea true enough in some cases. I'm not sure I'd disband the US military, withdraw from NATO, relocate US personnel from overseas bases supporting allies in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere under the assumption that maybe we can win a war without any weapons. But I'm certainly interested in your view here.

> You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending

I didn't do anything, that wasn't me.

> You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending.

This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree.

> Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force.

According to [1], 23.5% is owned by foreign investors. That's a minority of the total, but you don't need a majority to cause a big problem because trust is all that matters (see 2008).

You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that.

> But I'm certainly interested in your view here.

The US military is there in all of those countries for influence, more so than for actual defense. The US can defend every NATO country simply by reaffirming article 5, you don't have to be present.

Not even Russia would attempt an attack, they've been in a war of attrition for years now with a non NATO country with no end in sight for limited gains in territory.

They've done this for the past 70 years, starting from 1945. Whether this is something the US has benefitted from can be debated, I think they certainly have.

The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined.

1: https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdow...

> I didn't do anything, that wasn't me.

Ok you're defending it.

> I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree.

Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending.

> You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that.

Not worried at all - those dollars become worthless in a fire sale. The strength of the dollar is because of the actual physical reality and capabilities of the United States.

> The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined.

You're directionally right but also wrong w.r.t America. What you've shown here isn't a weakness of the US, but a strength of the US. Unlike Russia we spend and that spending (overspending according to some) ensures that our equipment works. That's why when Iran went and bought Russian and Chinese air defense for example, we blew it up with impunity.

Iran is of course hard because we have some political considerations which would only get worse over time as we would have continued to do nothing, Iran would build more missiles and drones and then seize control of the Strait of Hormuz and then it would be too costly to do anything to stop them from doing that or continuing their nuclear weapons program.

Specifically in the case of economic warfare, Iran is losing badly. The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas. Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz). I'd rather pay extra at the pump (well I drive an EV but w/e) then have like 80% of my economy held hostage.

But this also reinforces the need for a higher military budget and the need to spend more to acquire more arms and capabilities. By the way, the military budget isn't actually that high as a percentage of GDP. You're welcome to do that comparison yourself.

> Specifically in the case of economic warfare, Iran is losing badly. The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas. Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz). I'd rather pay extra at the pump (well I drive an EV but w/e) then have like 80% of my economy held hostage.

No, the worst outcome is Iran continues to mess up everyone else in the region until there's nothing left to damage, leading to:

  • $300+/barrel for a sustained period
  • US GDP falling 10%
  • 10-15% inflation overall, mostly in fuel, but also up to 30% in food
  • Unemployment reaching 12%
  • The Strategic Petroleum Reserve hits engineering limits (which happen well before "running out") in 1-2 months

I don't expect this to happen, because the US has allies who are not impotent. However, right now Iran seems to have the strategic and weapons (no really*) advantages vs. the USA that Ukraine has vs. Russia, so it is a risk worth taking seriously.

Also in the "however" list: you may hit the limits of the SPR anyway, just from the reduced supply through Hormuz. And the situation between Ukraine and Russia may do something like that to food all by itself that this would compound on top of.

* really cheap, making it possible to saturate target's defence

> * really cheap, making it possible to saturate target's defence

Which is precisely the reason to attack now before this problem becomes much worse and then Iran adds in nuclear weapons too.

> However, right now Iran seems to have the strategic and weapons (no really*) advantages vs. the USA that Ukraine has vs. Russia, so it is a risk worth taking seriously.

I just disagree. Even in your scenario for example the US GDP falling 10%, well, we can stomach that. If we can't, we should pack up the military because any war is going to threaten GDP and we won't be able to defend NATO against a Russian attack (nor can Europe because GDP will fall) nor can we defend Taiwan. I think you and many others are confusing "I don't like this war" with "we can't tolerate temporary disruptions and price shocks".

But in any case Iran's GDP falls 90%, that's much more devastating. Their unemployment rate goes close to 90%. They are already blockaded and we control the Strait of Hormuz too (in order to control the Strait they have to be able to allow access as well, not just deny - we deny too so technically either neither party controls it or we both do).

You're certainly right to point out additional potential damage to regional partners and allies (which further proves the point that this problem must be resolved else Iran can threaten this at any time), but if Iran were to attempt to execute such an attack, it would create a global problem necessitating a global response, troops on the ground, the actual Iranian regime dead - don't forget they do have lives they want to live and we can ensure they and their families don't have that privilege. Iran just the other day struck a ship in the Suez Canal - these global chokepoints can't live hostage to an Iranian regime just because whoops they decided they don't like that the US sold Patriot missiles to Ukraine which they're using to defend against Iran's buddy Russia so you better stop or we'll attack the Strait and the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We simply cannot and will not live under threat.

Separately I wouldn't liken Russia vs Ukraine to Iran vs America. They're not at all similar outside of a small discussion about the increasing important of drone warfare which the US is already well aware of.

> Which is precisely the reason to attack now before this problem becomes much worse and then Iran adds in nuclear weapons too.

Perhaps. However, there are many alternatives to "attack" besides "do nothing".

> Even in your scenario for example the US GDP falling 10%, well, we can stomach that. If we can't, we should pack up the military because any war is going to threaten GDP and we won't be able to defend NATO against a Russian attack (nor can Europe because GDP will fall) nor can we defend Taiwan.

You can't defend Taiwan, full stop. If and when China decides to attack, they're smart enough to make sure to use the right weapons for the conflict, and that any allies Taiwan has won't get involved.

Right now, the US is making this even easier for China by depleting the only weapons it does have, though this is only of minor relevance as what the US has is not even a good match for a China conflict in the first place. The best Taiwan can hope for in the near-term is a mix of promising it will be pyrrhic, and possibly surprising everyone with some anti-drone solution that has yet to be demonstrated.

> I think you and many others are confusing "I don't like this war" with "we can't tolerate temporary disruptions and price shocks".

> But in any case Iran's GDP falls 90%, that's much more devastating.

With this, you are making the same mistake as with Vietnam, "We thought we were winning because we killed more of them than they killed of us", or whatever the quote was.

Iran's a dictatorship, they DGAF. You're not a dictatorship (not yet, and long may it remain so), your government answers to the people, and the people repeatedly demonstrate they can't tolerate temporary (though in this case I mean "a year or two") disruptions and price shocks.

This issue in your nation has been made worse by the piss-poor comms from the White House, that seems to simultaneously want everyone to think they totally wiped out all possible threat from Iran in the previous strikes, and yet also simultaneously Iran remains a threat requiring further and more expensive military expenses and action.

> Iran were to attempt to execute such an attack, it would create a global problem necessitating a global response, troops on the ground, the actual Iranian regime dead - don't forget they do have lives they want to live and we can ensure they and their families don't have that privilege. Iran just the other day struck a ship in the Suez Canal - these global chokepoints can't live hostage to an Iranian regime just because whoops they decided they don't like that the US sold Patriot missiles to Ukraine which they're using to defend against Iran's buddy Russia so you better stop or we'll attack the Strait and the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. We simply cannot and will not live under threat.

The global response so far has been "America caused this mess. Sure almost all of us think Iran's leadership is awful, but this is America's mess, America can damn well clean up after itself."

Quite a lot of us are even hoping you'll get stuck there, wasting your weapons and personnel, just so you don't make another threat against the sovereignties of technically-still-allies.

The allies in the region have the more immediate threat from Iran. But half of Europe already noped out in no small part because of Greenland.

> Perhaps. However, there are many alternatives to "attack" besides "do nothing".

Yes, and we've tried lots of different things.

> You can't defend Taiwan, full stop. If and when China decides to attack, they're smart enough to make sure to use the right weapons for the conflict, and that any allies Taiwan has won't get involved.

You're making the same mistake others do here by assuming that China can do things and the US can't respond or also strategize based on what they may do.

China's smart enough to use the right weapons for the conflict (when was their last war?).

Ok the US is smart enough to also use the right weapons for the conflict.

> Right now, the US is making this even easier for China by depleting the only weapons it does have, though this is only of minor relevance as what the US has is not even a good match for a China conflict in the first place. The best Taiwan can hope for in the near-term is a mix of promising it will be pyrrhic, and possibly surprising everyone with some anti-drone solution that has yet to be demonstrated.

Why? This is precisely the kind of conflict the United States is good at - air and naval power

And if you don't think the US can defend Taiwan then why concern is there about depleting missiles we can't and won't use to defend Taiwan anyway?

> With this, you are making the same mistake as with Vietnam, "We thought we were winning because we killed more of them than they killed of us", or whatever the quote was.

No, it's been, what, 60 years since Vietnam? We're not trying to stop an internal revolution. Circumstances are different. Internet exists. &c. - there may be loose comparisons but Vietnam isn't and has never been strategically significant to America, necessitating different calculations.

> The global response so far has been "America caused this mess. Sure almost all of us think Iran's leadership is awful, but this is America's mess, America can damn well clean up after itself."

I know, and unfortunately the globe has yet again had an immature and unrealistic response which is precisely why the United States is increasingly eschewing militarily useless allies and taking matters into its own hands.

> Quite a lot of us are even hoping you'll get stuck there, wasting your weapons and personnel, just so you don't make another threat against the sovereignties of technically-still-allies.

Well it's impossible for us to get stuck there. We can just like, leave if we want and then the rest of the world will have to pay Iran's tolls. You're lucky we even care to stop them. We should have attacked them for supplying drones to Russia in the first place.

> Yes, and we've tried lots of different things.

Until Trump came along and discarded those other things, several of those other things were working.

> Ok the US is smart enough to also use the right weapons for the conflict.

Demonstrably not today you aren't, but worse than that, the Trump-class battleship is clearly a step backwards. We don't yet know what a conflict with China (and anyone, let alone the USA) will look like because of the rapid changes we are seeing to drone warfare turning things from manoeuvre warfare to attritional warfare, but we do know China-vs-Taiwan would have a logistics chain of a few hundred kilometres while the USA entering theatre would need to cross the Pacific, so it would depend on either being there full time in sufficient numbers to deter (with necessarily very visible assets, which also makes the Chinese calculus very easy, even though the US calculus remains hard because a China that wants to invade will do the opposite of showing off), or having a lot of regional allies (who are currently all getting pissed off by US erratic behaviour).

(If I was Taiwan, I'd be doing three things right now: a novel anti-drone system, anti-ship drones, and actual literal nuclear deterrence).

> And if you don't think the US can defend Taiwan then why concern is there about depleting missiles we can't and won't use to defend Taiwan anyway?

Running out of even the wrong munitions for a fight against China, still means you've got nothing left even for other smaller conflicts where those weapons would have been useful.

> Why? This is precisely the kind of conflict the United States is good at - air and naval power

Before munitions started to get depleted, the 2023 war games I've seen said the US would lose a significant number of ships almost immediately, including 2 aircraft carriers in the baseline. That's a scenario where Taiwan is still successfully defended.

But 2023 was before Ukraine scaled drones to the level of saturation attacks. Unless you've got a much better anti-drone defence solution than anyone knows about yet, you'd likely lose every ship you send, and China wouldn't even need to be at sea to perform the attacks.

> No, it's been, what, 60 years since Vietnam? We're not trying to stop an internal revolution. Circumstances are different. Internet exists. &c. - there may be loose comparisons but Vietnam isn't and has never been strategically significant to America, necessitating different calculations.

You're trying to cause one (or at least Trump sometimes says words to this effect, who knows what's going on upstairs), Iran has a heavy hand on the internet, and Vietnam was seen at the time as of strategic importance WRT domino theory. You were in Vietnam for rather too long a time, and lost rather too many people, for it to be credible to claim "Vietnam isn't and has never been strategically significant to America".

All that said, "Circumstances are different" is both true and not hugely important to the argument I made: wars continue until one party reaches their pain threshold, and the US has a really low pain threshold compared to Iran.

The USA electorate's pain threshold could be higher, but (a) you're the aggressor, (b) your cobelligerent has been making itself wildly unpopular domestically for the last few years, and (c) Trump clearly prefers to punish his domestic opponents rather than bring them on board, even where it would help him.

> Well it's impossible for us to get stuck there. We can just like, leave if we want and then the rest of the world will have to pay Iran's tolls.

Nope, you're currently stuck there. You don't have to be, but you are.

If you let the world (and "the world" would include you too because of how the oil markets work) pay Iran's tolls, you tell the world that you can't beat small regional powers with control over important straits, so everyone does it.

Also, you've got Trump in charge, and his ego won't let him out.

Without Trump, you might be able to patch up the former with appropriate diplomatic arse-covering to get out without the downside, but right now, you're just as stuck as Russia is stuck with Ukraine.

Of course, Trump is the reason why the world wants you to be stuck in the first place, so that he can't use your armed forces to threaten us, which he's still doing e.g. the most recent comment I'm aware of from him about Greenland was last Friday.

> You're lucky we even care to stop them.

Stop them from what, exactly? The thing they only started doing in response to a coordinated strike from the US and Israel?

> We should have attacked them for supplying drones to Russia in the first place.

Ukraine did this all by itself, you will notice.

> Until Trump came along and discarded those other things, several of those other things were working.

Which ones were working?

> Demonstrably not today you aren't,

> Running out of even the wrong munitions for a fight against China, still means you've got nothing left even for other smaller conflicts where those weapons would have been useful.

That's not necessarily true and it's easy to demonstrate without getting in to specific numbers.

> Before munitions started to get depleted, the 2023 war games I've seen said the US would lose a significant number of ships almost immediately, including 2 aircraft carriers in the baseline. That's a scenario where Taiwan is still successfully defended.

Which war-games have you seen?

Separately, of course the US would lose significant amounts of military hardware if a conflict were to, unfortunately, unfold against China. Perhaps you and the Chinese now are under the childish delusion that they can bomb others and not be bombed back? What do you think will happen if China attacks, say, Kadena or Osan?

> But 2023 was before Ukraine scaled drones to the level of saturation attacks. Unless you've got a much better anti-drone defence solution than anyone knows about yet, you'd likely lose every ship you send, and China wouldn't even need to be at sea to perform the attacks.

What's the range on those drones? Talk to me about the US's anti-drone capabilities. Are you familiar with the specific weapons implemented on US naval ships? I think you're just making stuff up.

> All that said, "Circumstances are different" is both true and not hugely important to the argument I made: wars continue until one party reaches their pain threshold, and the US has a really low pain threshold compared to Iran.

I reject non-specific comparisons to Vietnam. I've already said as a matter of fact (not for debate) why those comparisons don't work.

You are right that the US has done a poor job of selling the importance of the war, but again you are mistaken in understanding the ability for the US to stomach higher gas prices versus the ability of people in Iran to not have an economy at all. It's only tolerable for so long.

> Nope, you're currently stuck there. You don't have to be, but you are.

We're not though we can just leave and give Iran control. We won't and shouldn't do that, but we can. So, factually you are wrong here.

> Stop them from what, exactly?

Supplying drones to Russia to bomb Ukrainians - that's reason enough in my mind. But stop them from building a nuclear bomb, stop them from increasing their missile and drone stockpiles even further so then we simply can't do anything when they decide to take over Hormuz, stop the funding of their proxy forces in Iraq, Yemen Syria, Lebanon, and other areas which are causing destabilization and death for no benefit. There are plenty of things.

The thing they only started doing in response to a coordinated strike from the US and Israel?

This is really either disingenuous or actively anti-historical in interpretation. Even if you wanted to discard every single event prior to 2022, you can look back at Iran's proxies and their attack on Israel as a continued chain of events. The war didn't just randomly happen in an isolated environment.

> Ukraine did this all by itself, you will notice.

Did what?

> Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending.

Yes, I think the question of whether or not the US is living above its means is settled. Where you cut is a political decision. I certainly think the US can reduce its military spending, with an emphasis on reduce.

> The strength of the dollar is because of the actual physical reality and capabilities of the United States.

I don't think this is true at all. It's value is a result of being the reserve currency of the world and as a result a lot of things being denominated in USD. The financial system will lose so much if the dollar devalues significantly that that's a bad outcome to almost everyone, not just the US.

I think the actual capabilities of the US have 0 influence there. Certainly military capabilities. That kind of stuff is true for drug cartels, not global financial stability. You cannot force anyone to buy dollars by force.

> You're directionally right but also wrong w.r.t America.

I think you're wrong here. But not in the sense you might expect.

You present your reading as a fact. I think how you read the current situation with Iran is a question of how you interpret the situation.

For example, you say

> Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz).

The US has never controlled the strait. The biggest win for Iran is that it has asserted being able to block it. The US can block any ships going to and coming from Iran's ports. It cannot and has never been able to guarantee safe passage through the strait. That last fact is Iran's biggest win of the conflict as it has now shown that even when the US goes full scale war, it can still shut off the strait for all intents and purposes.

The other miscalculation is that while you might have air superiority, it should be clear by now that the US can't win from the air alone. And Iran might have known/gambled that the US wasn't willing to commit to a ground offensive. As bad as it sounds to be bombed whenever your enemy wants, from a strategic point of view I think this makes sense. Horrible for the population but the regime doesn't care.

> The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas.

Uh no. The US lost quite a bit of respect I think for this intervention. We need to see what a final cease fire might look like but the whole world is essentially asking what the hell this whole endeavour was for. The whole world is paying higher gas prices and in a lot of other countries especially south east Asia there is a much bigger dependency on Middle East oil. Those people aren't happy about this at all. It might not even be higher prices but outright shortages. And wait for food prices to shoot up because of more expensive fertilizer for example.

The problem with a lot of this is that the American view doesn't extend past its borders. You see spending on bombs and some higher gas prices. Other countries see shortages and higher food prices. Just remember how pissed off America was when egg prices went up because of avian flu. Now imagine a foreign power being responsible. The decision makers can't even explain the actual goal, and when they try it seems to be shifting all the time.

> But this also reinforces the need for a higher military budget and the need to spend more to acquire more arms and capabilities.

In the end I think it comes down to one simple assumption. You seem to be convinced that with enough military spending the US can force a country to do what it wants. I think that that's not possible at all (see Russia and the Iran conflict right now) let alone at a cost that any country can bear. The US clearly is already struggling to pay for it all.

> By the way, the military budget isn't actually that high as a percentage of GDP. You're welcome to do that comparison yourself.

Sure, but I never said that. The problem is that you don't raise the money to pay for your spending. It's a significant chunk of the federal budget and that will need to be balanced at some point. Every US household knows this, they have to do it every month.

Just remember how pissed off America was when egg prices went up because of avian flu.

Tangent: The high egg prices were only partly because of avian flu, a significantly higher impact on the prices was price collusion between producers which ended with a small settlement for the culprits: https://apnews.com/article/egg-prices-collusion-settlement-d...

> Yes, I think the question of whether or not the US is living above its means is settled. Where you cut is a political decision. I certainly think the US can reduce its military spending, with an emphasis on reduce.

It's not quite settled. GDP can increase much more, inflation eats away at the debt, &c. But I am not sure cutting the military makes sense, unless you believe the US should retreat from Asia, NATO, &c.

> I don't think this is true at all. It's value is a result of being the reserve currency of the world and as a result a lot of things being denominated in USD. The financial system will lose so much if the dollar devalues significantly that that's a bad outcome to almost everyone, not just the US.

It's precisely true. That's what fiat currency effectively is. The USD is just one of many reserve currencies. The dominant one certainly, but it's just one currency held in reserve by banks, hence reserve currency.

> The US has never controlled the strait.

Sure, but neither does Iran. Just to be super clear.

> The biggest win for Iran is that it has asserted being able to block it. The US can block any ships going to and coming from Iran's ports. It cannot and has never been able to guarantee safe passage through the strait. That last fact is Iran's biggest win of the conflict as it has now shown that even when the US goes full scale war, it can still shut off the strait for all intents and purposes.

US isn't at full-scale war, also to be clear. Yes Iran can block the passage of ships. But the US blocks the passage of ships too. What I find interesting here though is this specific comment:

> The biggest win for Iran is that it has asserted being able to block it.

The US and learned people such as myself already knew Iran could block the Strait and the passage of ships. This is only news to the general populace who has not been following Iran's years-long buildup of missile, drone, mine, and other capabilities. In other words, did you not know this was happening? That would explain why you are not understanding why this had to be done as soon as possible.

> The other miscalculation is that while you might have air superiority, it should be clear by now that the US can't win from the air alone. And Iran might have known/gambled that the US wasn't willing to commit to a ground offensive. As bad as it sounds to be bombed whenever your enemy wants, from a strategic point of view I think this makes sense. Horrible for the population but the regime doesn't care.

I don't disagree with you besides calling this a miscalculation.

> Uh no. The US lost quite a bit of respect I think for this intervention.

Ultimately nobody in the US really cares.

> We need to see what a final cease fire might look like but the whole world is essentially asking what the hell this whole endeavour was for. The whole world is paying higher gas prices and in a lot of other countries especially south east Asia there is a much bigger dependency on Middle East oil. Those people aren't happy about this at all. It might not even be higher prices but outright shortages. And wait for food prices to shoot up because of more expensive fertilizer for example.

Right, and again this misunderstanding is precisely the problem. Iran is working toward at least these 3 things:

Nuclear weapons, double/triple/quadruple existing missile and drone and other capabilities as mentioned above, and expansion and further utilization of proxy forces to destabilize other Middle Eastern countries.

When the "rest of the world" is wondering what is going on or what this endeavor for, somehow they are missing that those 3 things mentioned above will not be tolerated. Since the world is unwilling (incapable) of solving this problem, the US has decided to solve that problem and now the rest of the world must just accept those consequences including higher prices.

> In the end I think it comes down to one simple assumption. You seem to be convinced that with enough military spending the US can force a country to do what it wants. I think that that's not possible at all (see Russia and the Iran conflict right now) let alone at a cost that any country can bear. The US clearly is already struggling to pay for it all.

We're not really struggling though. We should be weary of the debt being so high, but plenty of western or western-aligned nations have high debt too. It's not that the US needs to spend more to force a country to do what it wants, that just happens anyway for the most part, but it's to build out the capabilities necessary to shore up defenses. Look at US military spending as a percentage of GDP and compare that to other nations.

> Every US household knows this, they have to do it every month.

Household budgets don't work the same as government budgets.

> No you forgot the wasted spending on Social Security, Medicaid, and other subsidies!

Most of that money ends up being spent in communities (grocery stores etc) and hospitals. So at least that money flows back into a local community.

There's plenty wrong with the US healthcare system, but since the vast majority gets their healthcare through their employer you'll have to come up with something for when they retire or unable to work. That's just an outcome of how the system was set up.

> No you forgot the wasted spending on Social Security [...] See, other people can throw in snide remarks too.

No, snide and wrong is extremely different!

Social Security spending is already funded by a separate tax and currently running a surplus. It's what our legislators are are debt to when use the discretionary budget to let the President start a game of Battleship in the straight of Hormuz.

> No, snide and wrong is extremely different!

Snide and wrong! You must be talking about the OP then and not me.

> Social Security spending is already funded by a separate tax and currently running a surplus.

If someone doesn't want to pay in to it, what difference does whether it's fully-funded or not make?

> It's what our legislators are are debt to when use the discretionary budget to let the President start a game of Battleship in the straight of Hormuz.

Or when they enact a pet project you agree with and others disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com