> I'm not American and I was not thinking from the perspective of an American inclined to join the US military.
I would have thought your first inclination would be to say you're not Russian and not thinking from the perspective of a Russian inclined to join in on the unjust invasion of Ukraine.
But you could also perhaps look at it from the perspective of someone who is a member of Hamas, bombing and attacking civilian targets, or the IRGC launching one of the hundreds to thousands of drone attacks unjustly.
> The positive aspect of drones is that maybe war will turn in a purely economic contest, drones against drones, until one side has exhausted their supply and are forced to declare defeat.
I think in an age of more deadly drone warfare and less human intervention you'll start to see more deaths and more destruction.
This is awful and perhaps what is most awful is that this is the headline folks see, then they have a gut-reaction that because this project is so fucked up that all transit projects must be like this. And of course, there's the fun fact that many highway and road construction projects come in way over budget too.
If you don't live in California, the lesson to take away here is to figure out what the transportation departments and highway lobby did to secure the space needed for highways, and copy those tactics, not to look at California's failure and believe that extrapolates to your state or area.
In Central Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to fund bus transit and dedicated lanes in high-density corridors in Columbus. Now the project is already being set back perhaps as long as a year and a half, because the Ohio Department of Transportation is concerned car traffic may be negatively affected and wants a new traffic study. Huge waste of time, the exact kind of thing you would have wanted a DOGE in its most idealized form to nuke. You have to imagine these kinds of tactics x1000 because once California and others see the success of rail the jobs programs that are most state DOTs are going to be in serious trouble.
We'll get there, it's just going to be a long battle against entrenched lobbying and special interest groups (highway departments, construction companies, auto manufacturers, &c.) which need to profit off of your requirement to have a car to participate in society.
By the way, I'm not "against" cars or anything. Have one and love it. But the primary mode of transportation in our more dense areas has to change.
Just requiring it for social media companies is probably enough of a win to not have to pursue any further. We require age verification for sports betting and things like that, I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same or some variation of that for other massively addicting products that we know as a matter of scientific study have a very bad impact on some number of kids.
That's the cynical view, yes, but we can see educational standards and performance going down in the United States, we have seen plenty of scientific and medical studies showing problems with children and more specifically teenagers using social media. I'm not one to want to want to limit someone's rights, but it seems like the trade-off here is in favor of requiring age verification at least for social media companies.
Separately I still don't fully agree with concerns raised regarding social media and identification for everyone. Bots, people who are online just stirring up trouble, &c. are causing pretty significant challenges and problems for society. If you spew a bunch of racist stuff for example I think people deserve to know who you are.
And you know we do this all the time. Folks want gun registries and things like that (and I agree, as a matter of practice, but not principal) so I'm not sure why we're ok with that form of requiring identification to exercise your rights and against this one other than political priorities.
Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.
We haven't even mentioned the censoriousness that already takes place in various online forums not because a user said something racist or was stirring up trouble, but because moderators were vindictive, petty, or lazy, or because the automated moderation tools in place were heavy-handed and unintelligent. I don't look forward to that kind of moderation spreading everywhere and made more efficient by reducing everyone to a single identity. (Maybe Joe Contrarian has some opinions worth listening to, but it's just easier for the moderator of a forum to see that he was already publicly blacklisted by another unrelated forum, and just blacklist him on this one, too.)
At the end of the day they are private websites and the owners get to decide all of that stuff. Start your own, or just stop posting and let such folks have their echo chambers. One of our problems in society is that folks seem to think there is a need to post on the Internet on some forum - stop giving others power over you. You’re just posting to a bunch of anonymous people. They may be bots for all you know. Who cares?
> Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.
Right we should analyze trade-offs. But you are quite focused on censorship which I am also generally concerned with. But are you really being censored by being identified and associated with what you say online? In public you aren’t anonymous - why must that extend to this digital public square?
It will spread to everywhere else if we allow it for social media. In Australia for example, mandatory age verification has already spread to video games.
Big social media companies are likely overjoyed to be able to get discrete, government issued info of a person's full legal name, date of birth, residential address (as is printed on US drivers licenses) for advertising and demographic profile targeting purposes. And then be able to correlate it with their existing social media history/clicks/profile, browser fingerprinting, IP address, daily usage patterns, geolocation. It's a massive gift to them.
I doubt they need that to identify you. There are also lots of other problems like algorithmic manipulation. But also just stop using these junky websites. Everyone always complains about Meta doing this, TikTok doing that, and it's like if all they do is make you mad, stop being their user/customers?
It's very hard to stop being their users/customers when they're the only platform where people are gathering for that particular purpose. The nature of walled gardens and network effects often mean that there isn't a viable alternative.
It's bad when the choice one has is between 1) using a platform that's significantly problematic or 2) being disconnected from everyone you'd like to connect with because they're only using that platform.
It’s pretty easy. I haven’t had social media besides LinkedIn since, I think 2013? I participate in all sorts of events, I know about things going on in my neighborhood and city, and I have quite a few friends. You don’t need this stuff and it’s just going to suck up more and more of your time and attention misleading you in to believing you need it.
You’re not connected with anyone. It’s a surrogate activity.
Be careful saying you don’t use social media or soon you’ll have a wholly off-topic sub-thread about whether or not HN is social media too, even though we’ve all read the same tired arguments from both sides about a billion times in other threads.
You're right, and if someone wants to say I have social media because of this forum that's totally fine. I just mean I don't use any of the major social media platforms, well, except LinkedIn. And I just haven't gotten over the hump yet on deleting that one too.
> the US petrodollar promise to protect UAE states from aggression in exchange for trade in USD could not be upheld
Well the war is still ongoing, and Iran's regime is already feeling the pain of the blockade [1]. Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either. The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something. Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?
I swear I read this same story over and over again. There's always just an accusation "thing happened, here's how the US is now in a state of being screwed" and there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too. Hypersonic missiles? US Navy is done for, no possible counter. Iran has drones? Boom. US is done for no way they can spend Patriot missile money on $30,000 Iranian drones. Nope, nothing anyone can do at all. Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything. Now they are "embarrassed" and "slammed".
> OPEC cartel membership didnt gain it access to Hormuz
> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.
It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.
> The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something.
The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.
> Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?
the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.
> there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too.
This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace. All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change. Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks. We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.
> It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.
sigh No, it's not. There are 3 aircraft carriers parked in the region, plus US air bases. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE alone. The US destroyed much of Iran's military, the only thing they have left is the ability to launch missiles and drones at ships or do terrorist style attacks.
But if you want to suggest that the US is a paper tiger here, that just makes everyone a paper tiger. Nobody can stop Iran. Ok.
> The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.
Then we would react with export controls, additional weapons shipments to allies in the region, work with Japan and South Korea to start weapons programs, blockade Chinese trade, there's a million things we can do too.
> the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.
And yet, UAE wants the US in the region and in UAE soil. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE, including civilian targets. Not sure your comment here reflects reality.
> This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace.
Things change. US is the #1 energy producing country in the world in terms of oil, gas, &c. We're less dependent on the Middle East, plus we've basically secured the Venezuelan oil supply. Seems to me that what was once geopolitical suicide is no longer the case. We're here today, and life in the US just goes on as normal.
> All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change.
TBD
> Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks.
Yes, Iran, who is supplying Russia with drones and such for its war against Ukraine is an ally, as is China.
> We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.
We have not burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones. We can build our own cheap drones and are working on scaling production, and just because you don't understand the political or military objective doesn't mean that there isn't one, however poorly or well-thought it may be.
The US has very much escalated and sits now at the top of the escalation ladder. Iran has been trying to get the US to the negotiating table due to the blockade. Iran can launch its missiles as it likes to at civilian targets in the Gulf. We + allies will just get better at shooting them down. Who cares? If Iran wants to try to escalate we'll just escalate further, blow up more stuff, keep the oil from flowing if we decide. It doesn't really hurt us much.
people tend to forget the exorbitant privillege of the US. originally this idea applied to USD being the global reserve currency. but it goes so much further. critics of american foreign policy simply lack a sense of proportion. there is so, so much leverage the US has. which they use to do things that wouldn't make sense for any other country. while still coming out on top. i'm glad to see specifics being provided in support of this idea
> Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything.
Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.
The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.
> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.
At this point, China is more predictable and crucially, more likely to keep their word. Not exactly entirely predictable and not exactly truth teller, but the difference here is huge.
> The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.
They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way. You're falling in to the same trap I mentioned "country does X, end of analysis".
> Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it.
Any country is incapable of preventing it then. Iran could always just mine the straight and threaten to launch missiles and go hide in the mountains. If Iran wasn't doing all of these awful things in the region, none of this would be happening.
> They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way.
I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.
The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.
The US didn't do the world any favors by getting it out of the way sooner or something, that's just absurd apoligism for a poorly planned war of choice that has obviously been a net negative for basically the entire world.
It would be like if the US nuked China and then shrugged after they predictably retaliated saying it just proved the threat from their stockpile that had always existed.
> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.
Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for an advantageous offensive or defensive position? Countries do this too. If we were playing a game where my actions would provide some advantage or victory over you in some area or a broad area, why would I announce what my intentions were to you so you could react or anticipate my actions?
Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? Why isn't Singapore stockpiling missiles, or perhaps Portugal, or Panama, or Morocco? Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and more, building up these missile stockpiles, continuing to pursue a nuclear bomb, helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, we wouldn't be here. At some point you just have to look at their actions and their actions suggest implementing a plan.
> The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.
They don't have control over the Straight of Hormuz. It's a bit of semantics, but control would mean they can allow or disallow ships to pass based on their own decision making. They can disallow ships, but the US can also disallow ships. If Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz because they can fire missiles at ships, the US also controls the Straight of Hormuz because of that very same capability.
> Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis
I think the first step of thinking about war objectively is to consider how each side sees it. The US POV is no less circular, from Iran’s perspective - they could list any number of provocations from the US to justify arming themselves, none more obvious than the war itself.
The debate around who started the hostility is ultimately pointless, the question is what to do about. Ideally the answer isn’t “arm for obliteration because the other side started it”
So let's say Iran stops building up massive amounts of missiles, funding these terrorist groups, stops pursuing a nuclear weapon, stops mass killing of its own civilians, and stops helping Russia prosecute its war against Ukraine (we can even leave this optional just to not introduce additional complexities).
What will the United States now have to do on its side as it pertains to Iran?
are you implying that the US share in the hostilities is only direct military intervention? because that's not correct. through their alliances, they are additionally responsible for more
It is not a game. And this war happened because Israel and USA assumed Iran is weak.
This had squat zero with acute danger of military buildup. This happened because Hegseth thought Iran will fold and found it super unfair they did not.
> Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place?
To protect themselves when America starta Another war. It cant go without war for long. As brutal as iran is, there was no imminent threat of expansion
It is israel who just displaced millions of people.
Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?
Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable.
> To protect themselves when America starta Another war.
Yet, only Iran has to protect themselves. Why is that? Well it's because they're doing bad things, and they know that we may do something about it. Why isn't Peru stockpiling missiles, or Thailand, or Iceland? It's because Iran's government was seized by an authoritarian regime that hates America and decided we would be the enemy forever and has continued to attack, and take other violent or non-violent actions that destabilize the region and global trade. If they just stopped doing this stuff, there wouldn't be a reason to "attack".
> It is israel who just displaced millions of people.
I don't think so. But Iran is responsible for Syria and those millions of people too. Like Maduro is responsible for the 8 million + refugees from Venezuela.
Your point of view of the world does not match reality. Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.
> Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?
Well you believe in nuclear non-proliferation, right?
> Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.
this style of argument really falls flat in 2026 tho. at least for a global audience. it seems you don't appreciate how much america's image as a champion in good faith of freedom, democracy and prosperity has been shattered. not least because the old neoliberal guard has been busy undermining it (see carney's speech at WEF, where he started by pointing out that not only was the rules based order a lie, but that it is no longer acceptable to pretend otherwise). but now also because US aggression is perceived as directly responsible for the global energy crisis, which is affecting everyone else. america simply doesn't have a high horse to get on anymore
Part of the problem here is that folks have become so angry about Donald Trump that they've forgotten the broader picture. Taking out Maduro, taking action to stop Iran's regime, and more are unambiguously good things from the prospect of "freedom and democracy". There's a lot of conflict and anger and whatnot regarding trade and Trump's general idiocy, but if all of the world order, all of the good faith, all of that stuff is shattered so quickly? It wasn't very strong or valuable to begin with and so I don't mourn its loss.
If we no longer have a high horse, that gives us much more flexibility to act in our own self-interest since we no longer have to focus on taking losses to placate an image.
as i mentioned elsewhere. i don't disagree that america is in a strong position, relatively to everyone else. and has the means to achieve its interests. even without the superficial image of acting in good faith. but the old messaging ("america's tide is lifting all boats" etc) comes across uncalibrated
agreement on fundamental principles at a global level was the american (liberal) context. stepping outside of it leads to discovering a diverse world that you didn't account for before. as an example, even among iranians there doesn't seem to be enough support for the attack on their regime
Those states could export oil entirely reliable. They had tourism and finance industries dependent on them being safe.
Iran did not mined strait until USA and Israel bombed it twice during negotiations, threatened civilisation destruction, murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure.
You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.
Iran threatens to erase Israel and the United States off the map pretty much daily. So I just don't care that Trump did the same back to them. If they don't like threats like that, perhaps they should stop issuing them yea?
> murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure
What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked? We do know that Iran deliberately attacked civilian and military infrastructure. Did you mix the two up?
> You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.
Who started the war isn't an easy question to answer. I can easily and obviously argue that Iran started the war when they attacked Israel through their proxy forces. Ultimately though who "started" the war doesn't matter that much. Both sides have had grievances for quite a long time and things are just finally coming to more direct conflict.
> What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked?
Its clear you have only been getting your information from a certain set of sources. a lot of civilian infrastructure has been destroyed in Iran.
One of Israel's goals is to cripple the economy of Iran.
"Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, have ordered the military to carry out strikes on targets that cause economic blows to the Iranian regime."
"This included a strike on major Iranian gas infrastructure in the country’s south nearly two weeks ago, and strikes on two of Iran’s largest steel factories on Friday. "
"Missiles also struck one of Iran’s biggest state-run pharmaceutical companies, Tofigh Darou, destroying its production and research and development units, state media said on Tuesday, blaming the strike on Israel. It’s a major producer of anti-cancer drugs and anesthetic in Iran"
"A century-old medical research centre (Pasteur Institute) set up to fight infectious diseases like plague and smallpox has been heavily damaged in strikes on Tehran"
In addition, one of my friends who lives in Iran reported that a dialysis center, a refrigerator factory, a public park (that had "police" in the name),
a popular chicken restaurant, and an entire apartment building full of people were each separately targeted and destroyed (apartment building was double tapped,
killing rescue workers)
the above is just a small selection, universities, factories, bridges, oil infra has all been targeted as well.
would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
> would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?
I would consider it military infrastructure, but if you don't then you can't really complain about the US attacking, say, a petrochemical facility while Iran is/was simultaneously attacking infrastructure in the Gulf and attacking actual civilian targets like apartment buildings.
So you have to be consistent. It's either military or not. Iran is doing the same thing the US is doing or neither are doing it. Either way there's no room for moral superiority or outrage when both countries are somewhat acting the same, of course with Iran attacking and killing more civilians and whatnot.
true, but there's some evidence that was unintentional. whereas Trump and Israel are openly saying they are targeting bridges, oil
infra, economic targets etc.
>Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.
Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.
The price tripled from 2003-2008 as well.
>The war did not had to start at all
We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not. It's not as Iran's been some peaceful country for the last twenty years, they actively have sponsored terrorist organizations with the purpose of destabilizing the region. The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Really the big lesson for the next superpower is to simply act earlier. If you don't care about winning and just being a thorn in everyone's side, ballistic missiles are a great investment, and it should have been taken more seriously when Iran started stockpiling thousands of them.
> Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.
I dont think UAE cares about American oil prices that much. Nor does Europe nor does Asia. That just meand America is less motivated to solve clusterfuck it created.
And yes, it is huge issue already. With flies cancelled for summer, with strategic reserves already being used, with homeschool and home office in some countries, shorted workweek in others, factories producing less.
> We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not.
We do know that. There was no urgent reason to start badly prepared war. And no involved country is peaceful.
> The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
It was entirely legal for them, because literally USA teared down agreement to do the opposite.
And what everybody knows now is that the only way to be safe from aggression is to have nuclear.
"Strait" refers to something which is narrow, especially at sea. It can be pluralised as "Straits" in many cases. "Straitjacket" also comes from this root.
"Straight" refers to something which is not curved. The "gh" used to be pronounced and still is in some parts of Scotland.
Yea there is some truth to that. The US is still in a wartime economy and cultural mode of thinking post-WWII (military budget, highway and infrastructure build, cultural characteristics around guns [1] and such). The downside is the degradation of quality of life, rage-bait, stress, those sorts of things. But if we have Americans constantly freaking out (and to some extent they should - being #1 is tough) about Chyna that does put pressure on the government to take these concerns seriously if they previously were not.
[1] Not a 2nd Amendment criticism, I’m a strong supporter. More so the folks who load up on ammo and “cool” gear and all that stuff.
They do have export control laws and such, but based on current and past behavior China’s Communist Party doesn’t need those laws to disappear people or create crimes and then make people guilty of said crimes.
Worth mentioning though that this is not how America functions, nor our rule of law.
Not much, none of those cases from the US resulted in disappearing the founders. The US is a nation of laws, no matter how imperfect. Stark contrast to the CCP.
At the end of the day, the process itself, years of investigation, millions in legal fees, frozen assets, destroyed careers is often the punishment regardless of whether charges stick or convictions hold up.
The US is a democracy, and people are given many procedural and substantive rights, even Guantanamo detainees (we can argue if Boumediene had any practical effect, but we wouldn't have seen the same from China).
But Americans are under the impression that what the world sees is what they mostly see -- the domestic side. And to a certain extent, they do thanks to its cultural influence. This democracy/rule of law, however, is completely absent in way it behaves outside its borders and it's now clearer than ever to everyone that the US is the biggest source of instability in the world. More than Russia. Certainly more than China.
Then you probably are not fit to comment on this matter.
I'm sorry to be that blunt but if you don't understand the value of rule of law, the difference in incentives, the consequences of separation of powers, I can't even grasp what kind of perspective you can build. It's genuinely baffling to me.
If you assume that war with China is on the horizon, it's arguable that this is a good thing for the US to see weaknesses exposed now while there is still something to do about it. Even if that war (and I hope it's not) is not on the horizon, real battlefield testing in what is becoming a new battlefield of drones and smaller missiles/weapons is necessary and highly valuable. Contrast that with, for example, China who has yet to demonstrate its combined arms ability, and its soldiers and equipment have yet to be tested in any meaningful way. There's a lot of value in battlefield experience - Ukraine itself is a great example.
Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, I am writing here a bit more broadly about some of the trade-offs for the military. Our defense industrial base has become sophisticated, expensive, and slow because we would increasingly get sold more "advanced" weapons. That's great when you are facing an enemy like Iran without an ability to really fight back, but in a war with a peer state you need more munitions faster and cheaper. Industrial production is key, else you become quickly exhausted.
Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).
I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need.
Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.
Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
> Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).
The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:
1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.
2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.
2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.
The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.
> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
> This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
Or maybe we just learned our lesson. Is the world better for each of those countries having nuclear weapons? I think not. Why permit yet another one to join the club? Why does Iran get special treatment? Do we need a JCPOA with all other countries, to pay them off as well to not get nuclear weapons? If you are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation you have to become a circus star to be able to jump through all of the contradictory hoops needed to justify somehow giving Iran special treatment or suggesting it's ok for them to have a nuclear bomb.
Calling the war completely arbitrary is intellectually dishonest and pointless in a discussion.
> and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
As quoted by German defense minister Boris Pistorius:
“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?” [1]
There is no country or coalition of countries that can do anything about this. They lack any meaningful military capabilities to stop Iran. What exactly is there to cooperate on? Iran is already sanctioned by the EU [2] for example. If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not. I don't agree with how Trump has handled that aspect of the war, but the grandstanding and pearl clutching over a non-existent and not to come into existence coalition against Iran is mostly falling on deaf ears.
If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.
> If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not.
Says who? I don't think anyone outside of a small group of hyper-Imperialists actually believe this.
Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
> If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.
I didn't suggest it was purely non-proliferation (I'm assuming you are talking about the war itself) - I was just responding to the JCPOA aspect.. We partner with nuclear states all the time, such as the United Kingdom and France. We're even partnering with Pakistan now to help facilitate negotiations with Iran.
> Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
Now we're talking. I really am not totally sure about what the best response here was. But I'm also very much of the opinion that this has been war-gamed to death by the Pentagon. Perhaps we had some faulty assumptions. Perhaps it's still too early. Even today I was reading that there was a leaked internal communication where the Iranian ruling regime is becoming increasingly concerned about the economy due to the blockade. There's a lot to discuss here in general.
Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.
Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious.
They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them.
Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Iran and a large part of the top religious leaders in Shia Islam (who also run Iran a strict Islamic state) have called for the death and destruction of me and my country for my entire life. Iran has spent billions working towards that end and funded multiples of the suffering that occurred in Gaza (such as the war in Yemen. Heck Iran provided the funding that enabled Oct 7th ultimately resulting in Israel taking action in Gaza making Iran in part responsible for Gaza's horrific suffering as well).
In my lived experience, Iran and by extension Shia Islam (as it is very senior Shia Islam leaders making religious proclamations/justifications declaring it) has been at war with my country my entire life and sponsored random attacks against Americans and also non-Americans out of the hopes of weakening the US to promote their 45+ year vocally stated goal of the death/destruction of my country. They have ordered hits around the world on people that wrong speak about Islam such as Rushdie. And they kidnap/rape/murder little girls in their nation if they don't wear the proper hats. These are Islamist religious fanatics intent on reshaping the world to match Shia Islams world view. Their 'moderates' ordered 30,000 of their own people gunned down in the streets, then went to hospitals and murdered nurses and doctors that treated injured civilians. That is the 'moderate' position in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :)
> Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Many countries put sanctions on them to get them to stop. They made a deal, JCPOA, with the US, China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the EU to stop in exchange for reducing sanctions.
It worked. Even the first Trump administration certified that Iran was upholding their end of the deal.
Then Trump unilaterally cancelled it over the objection of all the other parties and put back the sanctions. Iran resumed pursuing nuclear weapons.
This clearly shows that war is not necessary to get Iran to stop. They were even offering significant concessions in the negotiations just before this war according to a UK advisor who was in attendance, but the US was not actually interested in a diplomatic solution and was just using the negotiations to make Iran think the attack was not imminent.
No I'm not ignoring Israel, I'm just evaluating Israel in context. Have they done shitty things? FOR SURE. Does that excuse Iran and Hamas with respect to the October massacre? No absolutely not. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
On the other hand, the US just forced Israel to the negotiating table with Lebanon with a single tweet. Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace. We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
You effectively are, none of the groups you listed sprang from the ether, summoned by Islamofascist wizardry, they exist as responses to Israeli conduct in the region, something made structurally possible almost entirely through US patronage.
>Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace.We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
Case in point - the historic collaboration between Israel and Lebanon was what created the context in which Hezbollah first came into existence, and UN peacekeepers have largely been ineffective there because the IDF kept firing on them. The ceasefire agreed to a week ago doesn't push for Israeli withdrawal in any term or really any other measures for accountability on their part or the US', so 'peace' in this context is effectively just capitulation to both those parties' hegemony, I suppose because it's a law of nature or something.
I know. I think Trump should be in jail, particularly over Jan 6th. But he's currently the President and I'm not going to stoop to reality TV level analysis of global events just because I don't like the guy. If he does something that I think is good, then I think it's good. He doesn't dictate my political opinions. If he, or anyone else aligns with me, they're right. If they don't, respectfully, they're wrong. But I set those opinions and hold them.
This is simply not true and it's disappointing fear-mongering from Vice (or anyone else who publishes this stuff). The reason you know it's true is because Trump doesn't care about precedent, yet in court case after court case that he or his administration lose they follow the law, even if it is imperfect or later attempted to be argued under a different standing.
The same thing that is true for Donald Trump now was true for pretty much all past presidents. Nothing has meaningfully changed here, yet we did not have these same articles before, nor did we have folks who are so caught up in political fervor that they are happy to go along with any ole' article or reporting that aligns with their current beliefs.
In other words, articles like those are click-bait, and their sole intention or at least their effect is to cause chaos and doubt in the American government.
> The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.
Now if we're talking reality, the realty is that new precedents were set (president acting like a king) which revealed that there are not effective legal checks on US presidents acting like kings (or else we would not have a president acting like a king).
Sorry, I just don't agree with your assessment. Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen". Trump, as despicable and annoying as he is certainly says a lot, but he's not doing anything from what I can tell that isn't at least poorly argued that he has a right or legal justification for doing. A king or queen needs no such justification, and if one is going through the motions and being forced to respect the law (again there are shades of gray here) than there is no "acting like a king".
But if your focus is on whatever he tweets and therefore he acts like a king, sure. Whatever. I mostly care about what actually happens, actual policy, actual laws and rules, not the theater around it which so many seem to want to indulge in instead of watching reality TV.
Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article:
> Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45]
Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch?
Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here.
He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress.
Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you.
> Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is.
Your placing of King in quotes is bizarre. Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king, and your takeaway is to try to retcon history and claim the king was not a king?
Your argument that someone can't act like a king unless they're breaking laws is a bad argument (and ignores the fact that this one is doing both). Don't let your reality tv fool you.
If that's your criteria as to who is "not acting like a king", I’m not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
> Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king
No, I don't. An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument.
For example, you refer to King George being stymied or frustrated by some act of Parliament. Is he a king or president? Our president today (and since the founding of America) is similarly stymied and frustrated by some act of Congress. Are the presidents kings or are the kings presidents?
It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.
> An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part.
This is demonstrably false: King George, who was an "actual king", was constrained by some checks and balances, yet he was still a king. We know that much is correct. Therefore your personal definition here must be what is incorrect. And indeed, it is. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument.
It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.
Ok then all presidents were acting as kings or King George was just acting more like a president.
> It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.
Yes I agree that you are doing that here. And now you've reached the point to where you're shifting definitions and cherry-picking various historic world leaders to draw inane conclusions and comparisons.
> Ok then all presidents were acting as kings or King George was just acting more like a president.
You're confusing how someone acts with which laws they are subject to, and as a result, you've been reduced to inane wordplay as your only argument.
Previously, even though a US president theoretically had the power to act like a king, they have mostly maintained a precedent of not doing so*.
Now, a new precedent has been set: A president acting like a king*.
Hope that clears things up.
* - I realize you may personally disagree with this. That's okay. I'm open to hearing arguments otherwise, but the ones you've put forth so far were unsuccessful at swaying people from the consensus stated above.
Sorry, but I just can't agree with your assessment:
> Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen".
This does not mean that anytime someone says it, it is false. If many folks are saying a thing, there is more evidence of it being true than if "anyone" says it. The consensus here seems to be that the current USA president is acting like a king. To alter the consensus, make a successful argument to that effect.
To wit:
- "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
- "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
- "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."
- "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
- "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"
- "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"
- "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world"
- "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"
- "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"
- "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
For someone in the USA, some of this might ring a historical bell.
> This does not mean that anytime someone says it, it is false.
You're right, it doesn't mean that. But it belittles the accusation. Folks sometimes refer to their children as little tyrants. Conservatives would say Obama or Biden were acting like kings issuing edicts.
If you want to argue about this because you're interested in the mudslinging, that's fine but that's a separate discussion: a discussion about reality TV, not reality in offices of the government.
> The consensus here seems to be that the current USA president is acting like a king.
Current consensus is usually wrong, doubly so in this case. He might tweet a bunch of things, yet he's still constrained by the rule of law and the Congress, and the Court.
>> This does not mean that anytime someone says it, it is false.
> You're right, it doesn't mean that. But it belittles the accusation.
Does it? I don't think so. Like we should refrain from ever saying it when it is appropriate, because there will always exist at least 1 person in the world who disagrees and thus the accusation is belittled in their eyes alone? Pass.
> Conservatives would say Obama or Biden were acting like kings issuing edicts.
Sure, and they can say whatever they want! It's not like people would agree with them if they said it, unlike in this example, in which they would.
> Current consensus is usually wrong
This nonsense sounds like a slogan of somebody who is usually both wrong and against consensus.
> yet he's still constrained by the rule of law and the Congress, and the Court
Yep, totally irrelevant, as we've already covered: someone being theoretically "constrained by the rule of law and the Congress, and the Court" does not mean "cannot act like a king", as we've now seen.
This is demonstrably false. In the case of removing migrants, the court ordered the practice halt and flights get turned around. The court also found evidence of contempt from the federal government due to noncompliance, although another appeals court stopped the contempt investigation.
In the Kiyemba decision, the court identified a pattern of 96 violations across 75 or so cases. Detainees were held despite release orders
In family separation cases, courts have required legal representation reinstated and the government refused to comply.
In the case of NY vs Trump, courts ordered funds to be unfrozen and the administration refused to comply.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but can you cite the specific court cases or provide an up to date article discussing them so we have somewhere to start? The reason I am asking for this (and no worries if you don't want to dig any of this up) is because each case has specific nuance that is worthy of discussion, and in some cases (pardon the pun) the court order wasn't the final say pending appeal or actual Constitutional authority arguments were pending or legitimate.
Separately, if you want to claim that the Trump Administration is acting like a king because they've refused to comply with a single court case, then of course you have to extend that same categorization to any president who has ignored or circumvented a court order. But why stop there? Why not governors or private persons? Why do some have the luxury of seemingly ignoring Congressional subpoenas?
The Trump Administration has also lost quite a number of court cases and he has failed to prosecute his political enemies. If he were a king he would be ignoring much more than just a few court orders, folks would be in jail, &c.
The rate is different but at the end of the day they still go through the process and when his administration loses cases they just shut up and lose the case. You mostly don't hear about the, I believe hundreds, of cases that the administration has lost. As long as they follow the rule of law (obviously there are at times gray areas and he is expert at identifying and challenging those) I'm not too concerned. Again the media just whips people up into a fervor because it's really good advertising business.
It's not really that insane. Don't overreact to Trump stuff - it leads you to make bad decisions and assumptions.
This archaic and formal "I do declare war upon theee" is not flexible enough for the modern world and so we have found, perhaps an unhappy middle ground where the President can indeed take military action, for a limited period of time (60 days) without congressional authorization. The President is the civilian commander of the military and regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican we, like in other cases, give the President the discretion to make these choices. You may not like their exercise of power, but it is legal, Constitutional, and intentional and even if it is Donald Trump (much to my displeasure) we as a society trust him and his office to use this power responsibly and for the good of the American people. Even in the case of Iran and Venezuela, frankly, I think he has used power responsibly (if less effective than it should be) and for the good of the American people. We can't have a nuclear Iran in the Middle East, nor can we or should we accept thugs like Maduro running a country into the ground and causing mass migration to the US and causing problems here and breaking our laws.
There are folks in the cabinet that can take action, or resign, &c., but as the Executive the president selects his cabinet and they serve at his pleasure, once they are confirmed by the Senate. This is true for all presidents and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
I think sometimes we forget, these are just people. We give them broad authority and they get to, by virtue of being elected, exercise that power as they see fit though ideally if or when a law is broken we deal with it through the judicial system.
What's the recourse when they fall into a natural senile abyss like with the previous POTUS? Wait and see? I naively lived under an assumption there was a system of checks and balances that's not a coup d'état.
It's just up to those that we elected to make a decision or enact legislation. If they decide tat the president isn't senile enough, then that's just what they get to decide. Sometimes I think folks are expecting there to be an ever increasing system of accountability or authority to appeal to, but no it's just those people and they get to decide. If you don't like their decision, outside of the ballot box or whatever other means you have available to protest their decision, then you just have to live with what they say or decide. They are the authority. They decide to invoke the 25th Amendment or not. Not you.
I'll bite. What's in it for them ("They are the authority")? Weathering the weather until the next election? I'm prone to assuming that people higher on the totem pole are smarter, more experienced, more nuanced, better educated, that's on me.
The POTUS is funny /s. Read his remarks about Tim Apple, pure comedy if was intended as such. He needs to take an ESL course. "3 or 4 "BIG HELPS". "I was very impressed with myself to have the head of Apple calling to ‘kiss my ass.’”
He's surrounded by the creme de la creme of our society, at least in terms of influence. Many of these folks come from old money, West Point, Ivy League, whatever. No matter how egomaniac one has to be to raise through the ranks of our the political system, they are still highly intelligent and connected tribe and should be able to read the future we are leaping into. Am I giving them too much credit? Why isn't their horizon decades long?
> What's the recourse when they fall into a natural senile abyss like with the previous POTUS?
Congress should tighten up the War Powers Act, including but not limited to making the Secretary of Defense personally liable for breaches. (We do this with CFOs under Sarbanes-Oxley.)
It's not, and the evidence for that at least partially rests in the War Powers Act as Congress itself realized it wasn't enough. Who am I to argue with Congress? :)
Just "doing war" and calling it something else because you find the "right" way inconvenient or impractical is ridiculous, immoral, and illegal.
If the government acts on behalf of and derives its authority from the will of the people then do it according to our shared governance. If not then the people claiming autocracy or oligarchy or techno-feudalism has supplanted our democracy are probably on to something.
Tl;dr - no shit following the law is less convenient than just doing whatever you want
Is there something about the War Powers Act that's unconstitutional? If so, what specifically? I'm struggling here to understand what is being alleged to be unconstitutional.
Separately, I actually think Congress has been dysfunctional and has been outsourcing its power to the Executive and Judicial branches, but these claims about constitutional breaches seem to be, at best, wrong.
It varies by location and by what we mean by rich. In New York, for example, you're totally right. But for most of America the model is country club + suburb, 6,000 sqft house with a pool, big public school district that is very well funded, SUVs, &c. for the "rich".
And in some cities you actually have both. Where I live we have these big, wealthy suburbs (New Albany for example), Delaware County in central Ohio is one of the top countries by income in the whole country - all suburban. Yet we also have some absolutely fantastic and premier neighborhoods in the Columbus area with prices to reasonably match given the scarcity of actual neighborhoods and such, though I actually think the homes in these areas are a bit under-priced and the large suburban homes a bit over-priced.
Have you been to NY? It’s both. There are wealthy folks in the city but also some of suburbs are also some of the wealthiest places on the planet. Folks forget that you drive 30 minutes from the city center and you’re basically driving through neighborhoods of $1M+ homes that go on for miles and miles. It flies below the radar, which is precisely why so many wealthy folks hang out there.
Yes, many times. Usually at least twice/year since it's such a short flight from my home town. I can be in Midtown in about 3 hours from my front porch which is cool.
The OP wrote this:
> As an American, I don’t think of the suburbs when I think of rich people.
Which, I think is still the case in NY. Upper East Side, Chelsea, West Village, wherever. $40 million apartments, billionaire's row.... when I think the suburbs yea there are wealthy people there but you're talking $1mm for a house or something. In Ohio $700k - $1mm is pretty common in the suburbs around Columbus (and the downtown neighborhoods). The prices are usually higher outside of the city. I think this is typical, whereas NY it's the opposite. It's a little distorted because NY is so wealthy that you see the suburban prices and it tricks you a little bit, but it's really an inside-out model there and most of America is still priced from the outside-in.
the suburbs around new york are some of the richest in the world. Scardsale, every town near the ct border, rye, huge parts of li, montclair nj and the towns around it.
the average household net worth in westchester which is a huge county is $1m, thats on the same tier as wealthy parts of any major city.
Sames true of the suburban sprawl of the bay area and dc.
I'm not sure you're contradicting the parent. There are "elite" suburbs/coastal towns surrounding a lot of "elite" cities. There's something of a preference (and life stage) whether someone has a nice condo in a city or a nice suburban/exurban home (or admittedly both in some cases). The balance doubtless varies depending on the locale; there are some cities that aren't generally considered very desirable while some of thee suburbs/exurbs/nearby smaller cities are.
Net worth means little when you have to spend 2+ hours commuting via public transit 5 out of 7 days per week, so that you basically only live for weekends. Obviously, it's a choice to give up your 30s/40s for a secure 50s/60s or whatever, but the definition of "wealth" is not so clear to me in that scenario.
The suburban wealthy are a little more McMansion/nouveau riche.
Some of these people meet a certain definition of "rich", as in they never have to worry about money. Most suburbanites are not rich by that definition, there's a mix of negative net worth "keeping up with the joneses" types and the single digit millionaires who are a little less flashy and careful with their money.
A useful example - I knew a guy who lived in Naperville and owned an insurance company, drove a hot Jaguar and lived in a huge house. When the housing market crashed, he gutted it and sold off all the parts he could before the bank foreclosed on it.
As a SDM, something about being able to retire immediately changes you. That violently brings into focus a new most important aspect of wealth.
I’m still working (I enjoy it!). But, having a job is no longer stressful. Small stuff completely doesn’t matter and big stuff barely moves the needle.
I screw up at work? What are they gonna do, fire me? lol who cares.
Doing salary or raise negotiations? Max the band out. What are they gonna do, not hire me? lol who cares.
I would have thought your first inclination would be to say you're not Russian and not thinking from the perspective of a Russian inclined to join in on the unjust invasion of Ukraine.
But you could also perhaps look at it from the perspective of someone who is a member of Hamas, bombing and attacking civilian targets, or the IRGC launching one of the hundreds to thousands of drone attacks unjustly.
> The positive aspect of drones is that maybe war will turn in a purely economic contest, drones against drones, until one side has exhausted their supply and are forced to declare defeat.
I think in an age of more deadly drone warfare and less human intervention you'll start to see more deaths and more destruction.
reply