Looks like you were off on oil prices by about $111 and missed the mark on furloughs and a complete collapse of the economy and the aviation industry…

But keep parroting a term referenced as museum by Eric Stalwell… it makes ya look and sound ridiculous, but in the end that’s all you have. Wonder if the Ayatollah is eating TACO’s in Jannah?

 

well, define over?

we’ve established that y’all think oil is going between $150-200, the airline industry is about to crumble with furloughs and a/c cancellations…

I believe we’ve seen the worst of the oil spike, we’ll see a nuclear deal, the SOH will be reopened, prices will plummet quickly and by Summer I’ll be filling my truck up for $60.

You believe in TACO’s, Iranian officials being honest and not a threat…

One of us won’t stress about the future, won’t make irrational financial decisions and in the end, be right again.

 

Franz-Stefan Gady wrote in Foreign Policy of what he called the "strike-as-strategy" paradox. Where "we substitute tactical prowess for comprehensive strategic design".
How true.
Wars that are begun without a clearly defined, understood, and stated political objective rarely go very well. (partially because no one really knows what will end them, or when they will end)
All the battlefield victories don't mean much if they do not achieve a political goal.

There is a lengthy list of post WW2 mid-sized wars that end poorly for the power that has the stronger military.
On paper they have all the advantages. But the major powers often enter the war as a sideshow to the population's daily life. Not only is sacrifice not solicited of them, the very opposite is encouraged. ("Go Shopping!") The war and the country are disconnected.

For the weaker military power, when it is an existential crisis that involves their very existence or their core identity, they find resilience and reserves that leaves the stronger power baffled. With the 'stronger' lacking political leadership that is willing to advise the nation that there must be sacrifice, the weaker nation outlasts them and emerges the victor. (see Khaldun's asabiyyah)

An ambivalent People are incapable of waging total war.
(It can be waged with nukes by a handful of people. However, my personal opinion is that any nation that launches an unprovoked nuclear attack will either perish quickly in the ensuing nuclear catastrophe, or perish within a generation or two from the fallout of the monstrousness of the crime.)

 

Why do find it outlandish? About the same % of people support the effort as those that are against it.

An equally foolish question would be....Why do you cheer for the Iran war effort to fail? (See what I did there?)

Is it possible in your world, that people can have a different perspective than you ......and not be stupid?

Rhetorical

 

Yes you obviously need a clear roadmap to the ultimate *strategic* objective before you employ tactical/operational capabilities.

So far nobody has used nukes lightly. Doing so would be existential for the first user in many scenarios.

But context would matter, if it's last-ditch in defense from invaders on your own territory you'd get a pass from the international community.

The vast majority of nuclear powers do appear to consider their arsenals as a deterrent, and thus potentially an enabler of their own freedom of action. As opposed to a first-use weapon.

The most likely nations to use them first would be IL, then very distant second/third India and Pakistan.

No, DPRK doesn't have a reason to actually use them (unless US and ROK invaded...).

 

"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."

George Washington

 

The only thing I’m accusing anyone of is seeming to take someone else’s criticism of a politician as a personal attack. It just seems odd. To me they’re all just a revolving door of managers who usually seem to do a mediocre to terrible job.

 

I added the comment regarding nukes as a qualifier to my assertion that an ambivalent country is incapable of waging total war. Obviously the power to launch does not require the participation or approval of "the People".

Your reference to "last ditch" defense is why I included 'unprovoked use' as possibly bringing total destruction to whomever would do such a thing.
Regardless the circumstances, first-use would definitely be entering "a path where no man thought".
(talk about launching something that would have unpredictable results!)

 

Yes. Exactly this.

 

Actually, polls from across the political spectrum show a 40/60 divide. 60 pct of the American people oppose this war.