upvote

points

by vbezhenar3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby FpUser20 minutes ago|
next
[-]
This applies to incumbents (well maybe until it does not). Smaller countries facing destruction of their regime might actually use the nukes. Probably do the test first along with the warning
reply
upvoteby bambax54 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> They won't invoke nukes to overturn the table

How do you know? Trump's frustration is on the rise; at some point he very well may threaten nuclear strikes.

Another scenario is, he tries to invade, an Iranian drone makes it through and sinks a big US ship, hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers die in a very short period of time. Now everyone's upset and the American public screams "revenge".

Then anything can happen, really.

reply
upvoteby H8crilA2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
America has lost every war in the recent past.
reply
upvoteby kasey_junk1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better?

The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen.

The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US.

Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet).

These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.

reply
upvoteby Noumenon7230 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and now all their enemies are gone (disarmed and Armenians expelled) which presumably makes their citizens better off once they move into the empty territory.
reply
upvoteby H8crilA52 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.
reply
upvoteby kasey_junk41 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.
reply
upvoteby roncesvalles52 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The Gulf War was a decisive victory, if you consider that recent.
reply
upvoteby edgyquant1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
reply
upvoteby myrmidon1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end).

Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior.

The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.

reply
upvoteby roncesvalles47 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
One of the reasons to do a war is to simply show the enemy that you are able and crazy enough to go to war with them over whatever grievances you had. This is called strategic deterrence.

You are making the folly of thinking of war like lawsuits, where one side wins and the other side loses, and the losing side goes home with nothing. This is not so.

If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.

reply
upvoteby voganmother4212 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
“A Kourier has to establish space on the pavement. Predictable law-abiding behavior lulls drivers. They mentally assign you to a little box in the lane, assume you will stay there, can't handle it when you leave that little box.” - Snow Crash

Is it strategic deterrence, or just being so unreliably and inconsistent that insider information becomes more valuable?

Is it strategic to demonstrate a lack of planning or that you are a poor ally incapable of garnering support (either domestically or abroad)?

reply