upvote
This was a big thing for drone people based out of Eppley AFB in Omaha. Wake up, drive to work, attack enemies, drive home, sit there eating dinner with your family trying to pretend you didn’t kill someone and can’t talk about it. Combat troops get to lean on each other after a firefight: “dude, good shot. That guy was about to get us!” You get validation that you did something to safe you and your friends, and it’s still a heavy burden, but you have people who were there telling you that you’re a good person and did the right thing.

The Air Force did something shockingly reasonable (according to the newspaper coverage): they require all pilots to attend mandatory counseling sessions. Then there was no sign of weakness or any of that toxic nonsense. “Ugh, guess I have to go talk to the doc today, and I don’t want to, but guess orders are orders.”

reply
Some minor quibbles...

It's Offut AFB, home of StratCom. Eppely is the municipal airport. And Offut doesn't have any drone units, nor do they manage any. They due process reconnaissance for sure, but actual drone strikes aren't conducted from there.

Creech AFB is where most of the drone units operating Reaper/Avenger etc are based.

reply
D'oh! Yes, Offut, of course.

My Google-fu is failing me right now, but when we lived in Nebraska, there was a long article in the Omaha World-Herald (I'm fairly sure) talking about the mental health problems of the local drone pilots. This would've been at least 15 years ago or so, and things have very likely moved around since then.

reply
It was definitely Creech. I remember the spate of articles discussing how the officers (the USAF requires drones to be piloted by officers) were both struggling with the close up nature of drone strikes combined with fewer or even non-existent flight hours affecting promotions.
reply
It didn't help that there was a sense that it was a non-job compared to direct flying duties - "what do you mean PTSD, you spend all day playing DCS!" etc.
reply
Huh. My memory's slightly different on that, but I can't find the source to cite so I'm can't argue it.
reply
I feel more compassion for the innocent people they killed and it's not even close.
reply
They probably didn’t kill just innocent people.
reply
So far about 3,000 of them, including 160 children (the 3.00 includes more children than 160 but I'm singling that out).. in this war alone.

I promise you that you didn't kill 3,000+ IRGC members.

reply
deleted
reply
Did I ever claim they only killed innocent people?
reply
Which part of "attack enemies" implies they were targeting innocent people?
reply
Some searching led me to this report from an NGO called "AirWars" [1] which, in connection with The Guardian, reports that "at least 22,679, and potentially as many as 48,308 civilians, have been likely killed by US strikes".

You can't bomb an apartment without also hitting the neighbors. And while we know the US has the the technology to hit a car driver without (physically) hurting the passenger, we also know that this is not the type of technology deployed regularly.

I don't think a drone operator would be naive enough to believe that they are killing exclusively military targets and no one else.

[1] https://airwars.org/tens-of-thousands-of-civilians-likely-ki...

reply
Israel will happily flatten a whole apartment complex to get one guy.
reply
Israel actually has the capability of targeting a single apartment in an apartment building, and has done so dozens of times in the current war against Hezbollah.
reply
Doesn’t that make it even worse that they also choose to flatten entire buildings?
reply
Does Israel actually have the capacity to target the whole of Hamas with those small accurate bombs, as they get intelligence on them? If Hamas is in the basement can the small bomb get them? And if they forgo the opportunity will it be possible to target that person again soon without civilians nearby?
reply
They also have been giving civilians warnings to leave areas before they "flatten a whole apartment complex"
reply
Hope they checked their text messages
reply
The real truth is that Israel is happy to flatten entire, crowded, apartment complexes. That "one guy" is just an excuse.

Most recent example (out of at least 100,000 examples in just these last 3 years alone) would be their "defence" (hah!) minister delightedly boasting how they have Gaza'fied South Lebanon and destroyed over 15,000 structures.

reply
seems small when compared to the overall effects of war

"An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting."

https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human

reply
What point are you trying to make, exactly?
reply
Obama's department of defense classified every male between 16-65 hit by drone attacks as enemy combatant until proven otherwise...

So the war crimes are bipartisan.

And I write this as someone who likes Obama.

reply
GWB got heat for extralegal extraordinary renditions. Obama solved it by just killing them. I guess we can’t ask the dead guys if they’d prefer to go to Guantanamo.
reply
obama also drone striked killed us citizens with no due process in the name of the game
reply
Why would they need due process? They weren't the targets and their deaths were accidental collateral damage.
reply
At least one of those American citizens was the intended target of a drone strike.
reply
US military standard for "did we kill civilians" with drone attacks is "do these appear to be combat aged males, based on satellite photos".

It's monstrous.

reply
Let's see. They were part of the US military, right? In just this war alone, they started by triple tapping an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, murdering nearly 200 little children.

And on the same day, they attacked a SPORTS STADIUM, completely vapourising a women's volleyball team who were in the midst of a game.

And that was just ... DAY ONE.

By now, we should be asking - if you're a member of the US military on active duty in an active war - prove that YOU DIDN'T kill a child, mother, handicapped person in a wheelchair, or a grandpa.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

reply
[flagged]
reply
Yes, the US government is literally everywhere.
reply
We sure do. They mostly work in federal government and government contracting corporations. There are multiple clearly documented repeated drone strikes on US citizens, even US citizen minors, who never were even indicted with a crime, that ended in assassination. Like the two intentional strikes it took to kill 16 year old US citizen from colorado, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... . See also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix executive program in general.
reply
Why are you citing these as cases of terrorism and murder when the American citizen wasn't the target? Collateral damage happens in missile strikes.
reply
Are American citizens always innocent? From what I have seen many Americans are guilty of a lot of bad stuff.
reply
This american citizen minor certainly was. And the claim of collateral damage is already shown false by the fact that they went after the kid (16 years old) intentionally, twice. Even after they knew his father was already dead. Oh, and by the way, they never indicted the father or showed evidence against the father either. Neither were in a war zone of any sort.

The other examples on the second wikipedia link were literally non-US citizen journalists who later sued the US in a US federal court he brought where he showed up and wasn't arrested because he didn't do anything wrong.

I'm with you that being a US citizen doesn't mean someone is "good". But in this case I've literally given non-US citizen examples too that you passed over for this mistargeted aside.

reply
Until proven guilty, yes they are always innocent.
reply
That is true for all people. Not just Americans. It’s just disgusting to say that all Americans are innocent but we can assume others are guilty. As far as I know Bin Laden was killed without ever being tried in a criminal court.

Are school shooters in America innocent if they are killed before getting a trial?

reply
I’m speaking with regards to the American legal system. Yes the endless foreign wars are also unconstitutional.
reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
I admire Aaron Bushnell, but that page unironically uses phrases like "Satanic Talmudic supremacy"
reply
Thanks, updated link below: seems to have been changed since last time I saw it back when it all happened, sorry!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

reply
Looks like a clever little psyop to discredit him.
reply
its a quote of a person, so the usage is justified
reply
It's a good phrase
reply
Were all US soldiers in the Revolutionary War war criminals? What about the North in the Civil War? Or WWI/WWII?

Nearly every soldier in any war will have directly or indirectly killed an innocent civilian. Which ones are war crimes and which aren’t?

How do you decide and who gives you the authority to do so?

reply
I'd say anyone who chooses to kill a civilian, whether based on an order or not, is a war criminal. I really don't care if they thought they were there for a noble cause or not.
reply
What if they choose to kill a person who was a civilian until they were drafted into the enemy army the day before?

What if the civilian they kill has a substantial effect on the enemy's military capabilities, for example by being someone famous who loudly endorses the honour of signing up to fight for one's country, thereby motivating thousands of young men to do just that?

reply
What if killing a soldier’s children might make him lose his resolve or act erratically? What if destroying an entire city full of millions of civilians might make the enemy lose hope and surrender? What if poisoning the land and water for decades could prevent the enemy from reconstituting itself? What if killing all the women could prevent the production of future soldiers?

Once you open the door, where do you draw the line?

reply
What does indirectly killed mean?
reply
Sounds like a weird way to phrase collateral damage?
reply
Collateral murder.
reply
Civilians die in wars, and that's with the best intentions of all parties to the conflict. If one or both has got radicalised, then a lot of civilians die in war.
reply
you are justifying 9/11 attack on the US, the similar logic to yours was used by Al-Qaeda
reply
This is the Israeli take that is continually pushed to normalize their approach to "removing baby terrorists"
reply
Who gives US president authority to just murder whoever he wants?
reply
Nobody. He just seized it. No one gave it to him; hence their upset that people like duterte are being kept in the Hague.
reply
US voters
reply
A group which has been known to collectively make a mistake or two
reply
Correct. Either all soldiers are war criminals or none of them are. The world is black or white, without nuance.
reply
The author of that page appears to be a Holocaust denier[1]. Not exactly the example I would put forwards, especially if I want to make an unannealed appeal against Israeli war crimes.

[1]: A search for that name mostly brings up links to pages for SS apologia.

reply
Yes: the content is very different from what I remembered it as from back when I first visited it after Aaron died, I don't know how the website went where it went, and I'm sorry I didn't check prior to posting.

Updated link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

reply
>someone defending their country

Can be used to justify anything.

reply
Hey is friendly fire a war crime?
reply
"War crimes" is something of a shorthand for being involved in an aggressive war; they are a surprisingly minor influence on the discourse because they are small in comparison to the decision to go to war at all.

I think the more baby-steps approach to western cognitive dissonance is to at least get them to be consistent about when it is a good idea to go to war. I'm more than happy to get downvoted pointing out that killing 100s of thousands of Russians and welding them strategically to China was a terrible policy, uniting Asian manufacturing and resource giants is catastrophic for western power. But people were grumpy and didn't want to talk about realpolitik because the Russians are so evil.

Now we have the US attacking Persians in Persia for trying to govern Persia because the US sphere of influence covers the whole world and doing serious damage to the West's access to global oil markets and we have this muted and philosophical response from the powers that be. It isn't just immoral, it is also actively stupid - if we can tolerate this behaviour from the US, why can't we also tolerate Russia on a far smaller and easier to understand scale? How are all the sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine actually justified in the minds of the people making the decisions? It clearly isn't a moral calculation and it seems to be stupid strategy.

If we got some thoughtful and transparent thinkers in power there'd probably just be less wars, they seem to be the fast path to poverty and the upside is hard to spot. There are serious questions about why any of the major conflicts right now looked like a good idea to the people in Washington and wherever NATO is in Europe. Brussels I suppose. Can we try peace and prosperity as a strategy?

reply
The US hasn't fought a just war since WW2 and even that is actually somewhat questionable
reply
The citizens of South Korea might have some thoughts on that.
reply
The South Korean government was a military dictatorship at the time. And the North was wealthier. Without the power of foresight, you couldn't justify the war as bringing democracy or economic prosperity, it was purely a geopolitical struggle. It took a lot of historical revisionism to erase that inconvenient little fact from western consciousness.
reply
The majority opinion at the time, in the west, was that communism led to less economic prosperity, less democratic institutions, and less freedom. So maybe it wasn't a guarantee that the south would become a democracy or prosperous, but doing nothing would guarantee the opposite.

Also, the North wasn't democratic either so it was two nondemocratic groups fighting.

reply
Can’t speak for others but the most damaging part of direct combat is watching people that you consider to be family die or be maimed.
reply
> the most damaging part of direct combat is watching people that you consider to be family die or be maimed.

I've heard from various places over the years (documentaries, friends) that soldiers really fight for their comrades at the end of the day. As in when asked "why are you here fighting" if they are in front of a news crews or something where they have to say "we're bringing democracy to ..." they'll just say something like "those fuckers blew my buddy up and I am here to pay them back".

reply
That's a well studied topic in military history/science called unit cohesion. The saying goes that morale gets the soldiers to the battlefield, cohesion is what keeps them there. In order to withstand the psychological horrors of combat, soldiers need that comradery otherwise they'll run off at the first chance they get. There needs to be some anchor keeping the soldier in the way of danger, whether that's social pressure or years of intense training together.

Brett Devereaux has talked about it multiple times on his blog in various different contexts (most recently two weeks ago)[1][2][3]:

[1] https://acoup.blog/2026/07/24/collections-pre-modern-armies-...

[2] https://acoup.blog/2022/07/01/collections-total-generalship-...

[3] https://acoup.blog/tag/cohesion/

reply
I was in the military and in my experience people that chose to go into war zones, it's optional, are fucked in the head and literally enjoy killing people, I've seen it a dozen times. They want to kill.
reply
Id recommend anyone to give "Generation Kill" series a watch.
reply
You are absolutely fucking full of shit.

I chose to "go into war zones" many times and none of it was to "enjoy killing people".

reply
Not sure what military is being discussed. In the US military, you do not choose to go into combat zones. You receive orders to deploy you to a combat zone.
reply
Then you aren't one of the dozens he has seen?
reply
You ought to be able to back this up with sources other than trust me bro
reply
No one runs into machine gun fire to bring democracy to someone else I can assure you of that.
reply
That's probably false as you can see historically that ideological armies have far better morale and better effectiveness
reply
"Bringing democracy" is a very weak ideological motivation. I would rather call it plausible deniability. As in "we're doing this to bring democracy" and people might be left with the doubt that it's true.
reply
It is a very weak ideological motivation for people who would never enlist in the first place.

However, I think people are generally too cynical towards a very real belief system. There are multiple examples of US pushing for democracy against its own interest. Bush with the Hamas Gaza elections, Obama with the Egypt Muslim Brotherhood government and Carter with pre-revolution Iran are such examples

reply
deleted
reply
Bush knew what he was doing - Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it. When Trump decided he wants them to release Israeli hostages he forced them to do it rather quickly, all things considered, showing who really controls Hamas. Restraining American "allies" is key to how America understands its interests and Hamas is an excellent lever to pressure Israel, or Hamas-controlled Gaza wouldn't be flooded with American and European money.

Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did; in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup against the elected government (this is not to say that Russia's actions in Ukraine are "justified", it's just a fact.) Democracy has nothing to do with any of this

reply
> Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it

I doubt this is backed by US intentions and actions historically

> Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did

That seems like a tautology to me, care to expand? I vividly remember Obama throwing his autocrat ally under the bus

> in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup

The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement

reply
>The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement

Most coups are organic. The US involvement in the Iran coup of 1953 was not very much, but the signal of support was meaningful. Ditto Chile in 1973. Ukraine's overthrow was not like those coups. It relied on popular support from the region near the capital. However, this support was not uniform across the country, and support for the protests hovered around 50% and never reached 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_abou...

>According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan.

>In a March poll, 57% of Ukrainians said they supported the Euromaidan protests.

The polling variation was large. The government was overthrown in February. But the western regions were massively in favor, and surrounded the capital, while the southeast was mostly opposed. Well-functioning states rely on political processes instead of simply overturning the government whenever a majority of citizens opposes it.

Given the polling data and the division of public opinion, I don't support what happened in February 2014. But that doesn't make it a coup -- a coup is a transfer of power that originates specifically within the government, and Ukraine's protests weren't like that. Nor does it justify Russia's invasion. What happened was more like a feudal power struggle. It doesn't help that before new elections could be held, the interim government banned several political parties. Maybe they were "pro-Russian", but democracy means voters deserve a say in a country's geopolitical alignment, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban a political party to me.

>but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement

Now this sounds like a joke. US politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden and several senators, attended the protests. This makes American support pretty obvious. US media at the time also tended to minimize domestic opposition to the protests, even though this was a significant position within Ukraine.

reply
> Now this sounds like a joke.

OP alluded to the Euromaiden protests being an orchestrated Obama-led coup. I still don't see how this is the case. There's some difference between diplomatic reactions to proactive overthrow

reply
that's because they were the ones being threatened, they were at risk, and they did the kill shot as self-protection (putting aside whether they should have been there in the first place). Drone warfare isn't the same thing. People who kill by drone aren't "at war", more often than not now, just killers. Their buddies aren't there, they aren't there, and they were really never at risk of much but being sent to the brig if they defied orders.
reply
This seems like rage bait. You could just as easily make the claim that all soldiers, regardless of their support role, could refuse orders long before they were put in a position that risks their own safety, knowing that in all cases their role would be to support the killing of others.
reply
News just in: talking about your mental health, especially for men, does not improve your mental health.

For the majority of men, most of the time.

If it did, shouldn’t we see mental health improving by now?

reply
This is a fascinating assertion. I would love to read more about it.

Can you please provide some sources?

reply
Narrator: They could not.
reply
a quick search engine query 'is venting healthy' leads to results suggesting that venting (emotionally talking about things that affect mental health) is not necessarily an entirely positive behaviour. so the challenged statement is at least partially true. just wanted to share that the sarcasm looks abit silly coz it's not a clear cut situation
reply
Venting and talking to a counselor aren’t the same thing, though.

If someone says “taking medicine is bad”, and I say “that’s silly”, then “smoking crack can be harmful” doesn’t weaken my position.

reply
the problem statement regarded 'talking about mental health'. venting is one form of talking about mental health. paying therapists is another form of talking about mental health. neither of these weakens the other. concomitantly, neither of these can have their positivity be extrapolated to the overarching point, as their positivities contradict. final result = ambiguity, we cannot conclusively state that talking about mental health is a universally positive pursuit. hence I pointed out you looked a bit funny coz sarcasm is best employed for that which can't be argued ... and we just argued. thanks & all the best
reply
I dunno man, just, like, use your preferred tools to, like, ”do your own research”.

Don’t believe me, I’m just a random stranger with an opinion. Often a contrary one.

reply
Can you think of a single person who has cured their mental health problem?
reply
Yes, I know many. Of course everyone has minor mental health problems but I know many who have basically cured mental health problems from depression to crippling OCD. None of them did it purely with counciling but with a vast combination of life experiances, including becoming more prosperous and being able to afford to excercise and enjoy a good diet and not have to worry about losing everything and starving to death (this was a big one for mental health), having children, success giving them self confidence, growing older and having their hormones change, having time seperate them from trauma, drugs, legal and illegal, hooking up with someone who somehow made them feel better, study of human culture, history and psychology to get a new perspective on themselves, and finally finishing their dissertations.
reply
> Of course everyone has minor mental health problems

I think this is an extremely dangerous position to take.

We’re all flawed, the human condition and all that, but I don’t believe that necessarily translates to ’minor mental health problems’.

reply
On the other hand, you're approaching tautology with what you seem to be implying here, which is "flaws or challenges that you can fix yourself aren't mental health problems".
reply
I'm personally acquainted with multiple people who figured out that their mental health symptoms were downstream effects of natural phenomena (diet incompatible with genotype, insufficient sunlight exposure, excessive work stress, etc), with resultant drastic improvement of mental condition after root cause rectification. any reason in particular for you to have asked?
reply
Here is a list of mental health disorders from the World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-diso...

Which of these triggered for one of those people by one of the things you listed (like diet incompatible with genotype)?

reply
you didn't answer me directly, I'm not obliged either. MTHFR (and possibly COMT) are examples where genotype directly influences nutrient absorption. when the human body is unaligned (poor nutrient absorption, improper physical engagement, etc), symptoms such as depression and mania are expected behaviour. your link is a list of similar symptoms grouped under labels. I find it more pertinent to assess individual symptoms and progress from there.

sometimes mental conditions are temporary and resolvable. sometimes mental conditions are permanent and symptom alleviation is the best option. both are true. we are assessing the interface to the entire body here, all traffic flows through this node to a certain degree. problematic traffic can be caused by an issue local to the central node, but this possibility does not exclude the potential for data to be problematic on arrival.

reply
I've successfully addressed several issues with a therapist. I know other men who've also done it. It's about the same as getting a doctor's help with a physical issue--some easily fixed, some taking time and effort, some stubborn that seem to resist all attempts.
reply
Wait, it doesn't? Genuine question. Where can I read about this theory more?
reply
At the He-Man club of course. We all face our challenges with stoicism like Odysseus when his sailors got eaten.
reply
rephrased for ease of interpretation - venting about a problem is nice just as stretching a muscle is nice. stretching doesn't fix the root cause of muscle soreness though, just as venting does nothing to fix the issue. emotionally re-reacting is likely to result in strengthening of existing associations, which is more likely to cause repetition of a problem scenario, as opposed to leading to scenario avoidance.
reply
"talking about your mental health" does not mean re-parroting your trauma. there's understanding, re-framing, forgiving, all kind of other things that go beyond the limited belief that talking just calcifies trauma.
reply
Do you know a single person who has cured their mental health problem?
reply
Yes, me. I suffered some serious depression that I cured through therapy and medication. Discussing it openly with my family and friends certainly helped.

As the saying goes, recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to being able to solve it.

reply
Yes. What point are you trying to make?
reply
deleted
reply
venting is a form of talking about mental health. there are other forms that the problem statement doesn't apply to, like your examples. but the statement does apply to my example, therefore we can't say that talking about mental health is exclusively a positive behaviour.
reply
LOL, I’d love to see that peer reviewed paper. Which one are you citing?
reply
Nothing ever happens unless there's a paper to back it up
reply
More like: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That wild claim needs some backing, lest we all be justified in making fun of it.
reply
The extraordinary claim is that talking to a ‘counsellor’ or ‘psychologist’ has any net positive benefits that are measurable in any way.
reply
The extraordinary claim at issue is YOURS:

> News just in: talking about your mental health, especially for men, does not improve your mental health.

> For the majority of men, most of the time.

reply
It appears to be a huge lapse on the part of command. These people should have eaten dinner thinking "I got them good, these fuckers".
reply
[flagged]
reply
America has been an evil empire for a long time the people making money don't want to admit it.
reply
[flagged]
reply
> Therapy for normal people is one of the absolute worst things that feminism has done to society.

No, people who think and say things like that are one of the absolute worst things to happen to society.

If you think treating women as human beings is bad, you’re one of the worst things that has happened to society, end of statement.

This is so unbelievably crystal clear to people who think that it isn’t even a topic of discussion anymore.

“Women belong in the kitchen” is colossal ignorance and/or active and intentional desire not to learn in the same sphere as flat earthers, witch hunters, and anti-vaxxers.

Go stand in a corner until you believe that women should be able to do what they want to the exact same degree as men.

reply
> “Women belong in the kitchen”

They never said anything remotely like that in their comment. You're actively lying about their words in addition to badly breaking the HN guidelines. You should re-read them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

reply
Thanks, throwaway account. I’m glad you’re brave enough to name yourself. [whispers: lotta people hiding around here…]

Do you really think that someone who says feminism is bad does not have a very strong idea that women should be subservient?

He didn’t say that, you’re right. Nor did I say that he did.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low among Americans and English speakers in general. I can’t wait to leave this hellscape planet that people like you seem to dominate.

reply
[flagged]
reply
I talked about the CIA very negatively after having a top secret clearance (never actually used it but it gives useful context). They then showed up in my commune and after a while of unusual behavior and psyops and pretending to be hippies (they couldn’t quite get that right) they resorted to drugging me to get answers they were convinced were true.

I never ordered off the dark web, I do believe my [usa] government can be terrorists, I have purpose and meaning to want to surface truth to find peace because that’s what I believe.

It was a scary time (in Jan - May 2023), and I fled back to parents in VA after which for a while they’d show up with similar personas of odd-people in open community gatherings attempting to get close to me.

I’ve never thought of suicide before and even today have not. When I started sharing about this last spring on hacker news I got a slew of “random” messages and downvotes and people claiming I was sick. I am not mentally ill, I do not need a therapist. It took me several years to process the traumatic experiences and feel the courage to share because I hope it might help someone else going through something similar. I’m thankful for the one person who validated my experience and didn’t gaslight me or attempt to ad hominem/discredit through attack. These suicides very much can occur and I hope can begin to happen less.

Here’s to a random stranger if you read this and are going through something similar, I hope you find peace and safety from these abusers!

reply
Has a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist ever evaluated you for paranoid schizophrenia?
reply
>The concentration of deaths is entirely implausibly described as "suicides",

The article talks about 19 people. Given the size of those organizations that's statistically elevated but too small a number to descend into conspiracy theories. As the article points out they apparently had internal warnings and studies about lack of mental support for people in signals intelligence and cyber related roles.

Given that this cluster of deaths seems to have happened in June/July, the Iran war and how the American government has conducted itself I don't find it surprising there's elevated numbers of suicides. You don't need to be on the frontline, if you're in sigint and involved in that attack on the school that casually blew up 150 girls and probably the stuff we don't know about I wouldn't be surprised people off themselves.

reply
You supplant your lack of knowledge in statistics with unfounded assumptions and overt bias.

The relevant metric here is number of deaths per size of the specified group and per time.

You compare to completely different numbers and confabulate entirely unconnected "explanations".

These deaths are most likely due to "housecleaning", as I said.

reply
deleted
reply
> These deaths are most likely due to "housecleaning", as I said.

No, it’s not. It’s very obvious you have no idea of how US military personnel work and live, and the stresses that can be imposed on a person by the function of being in a military. Among those functions such as deployments which can come as a surprise and up root anything you having going on in your life. Or, having to live for several years in highly undesirable locations like Cannon AFB in the middle of no where. These can have a substantial effect on a service member’s mental health. Add in work conditions like working 12 hour shifts in a windowless room. Compounded even further by crappy leadership that you’re stuck with and continuously denies your leave.

No, housecleaning is not more likely. You’re just ignorant of the military life.

reply
> Cannon AFB in the middle of no where

From what I see there are only 10 kilometers to a town which has a zoo, mall, church etc. It's not a walk in the park, but with given the zoning laws and car-centric culture of the US, it's not very much.

reply
You might want to actually read the article, then you would see how your descriptions don't actually apply.

Part of the shitty work conditions (that remarkably persist despite incredible amounts of money vanishing in the DoD/W) is your employer being out to kill you should they get the idea of you being insufficiently free of morals or independent thought.

I would argue, that part should worry you far more than your other points.

reply
stop lying.
reply
Or maybe… Things are really fucked right now.

I agree that this is an abnormal number of suicides- I don't think anyone is disputing that. I disagree with your suggestion of “housecleaning” though.

I would speculate that the answer is simplier:

DoD “Hacker stuff” kills people. And worse. At scale. The psychological stressors of intelligence work alone is real and extremely high; Cyber Command’s role is not just to know, but to act.

Cyber warfare is escalating faster than they can keep up, global consequences for their actions are high— and they understand the risks better than anyone [1](and can’t talk about it), but they are extremely under resourced, and because of leadership decisions or other factors outside their control, they feel unable to complete their work effectively [2], or are being told to do things they feel are immoral [3].

The most plausible cause of these suicides, and the takeaway I get from this story, is that under the surface of US global military operations, things are bad. If things are even more stressful than normal under the surface at CYBERCOM and personnel are feeling hopeless enough about it to end their own lives, this should be a red flag for the rest of us.

-

[1] maybe you can imagine having a hands on understanding of the real world impact of critical OT exploits, and being both unable to disclose specific details and also yelling into the void about it for years while no one listens. US water treatment cyber vulnerability is a great example of industry and government lagging so hard that it took an enormous volunteer effort and a decade to begin to address fixing issues which should have been a “fix it yesterday” all hands on deck priority. https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/08/07/water-system... As another example, the US and Israel hacked “nearly all” traffic cameras in Tehran and used them to target and kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now think about the proliferation of internet connected doorbell and traffic cameras in the US… now imagine having an intimate understanding of how cameras can be used to kill people, while watching that risk grow exponentially over a decade, and being helpless to do anything about it because you aren’t allowed to talk about it and no one would believe you that doorbell cameras are a national security threat anyway. https://www.wired.com/story/from-ukraine-to-iran-hacking-sec... https://www.safehome.org/resources/home-security-industry-an...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/25/us-cybersecurity-agency-ci...

[3] e.g. disrupting Venezuelan or Iranian civilian infrastructure. Would you feel okay about developing the capability to cause a nuclear meltdown in Iran? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrv0p37k8jo https://cybernews.com/cyber-war/us-confirms-cyber-role-carac... https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1163519987825...

reply
The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon.

The fiction, that intelligence community (among many other places in US government) was some harbor of angelic superior morality, capable of restraining themselves in spite of total lack of effective oversight is certainly "simple". That doesn't make it true.

reply
USCYBERCOM is not the IC, it’s DoD. The majority of CYBERCOM tasked units are cyber protection teams, primarily focused on securing the DoD’s own vast and bloated network infrastructure from attack by foreign adversaries. The rest are split between hunt forward teams, cyber support teams, and the combat mission teams, the latter of which are the only ones that conduct offensive cyberspace operations. This is all literally 101 stuff

https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3206393/cyber-10...

reply
So?

"Housecleaning" isn't part of USCYBERCOM, obviously, it belongs to several arms of the (military) IC and is even partly sourced out to private contractors. Obviously, it's not exactly official.

Did you expect them to announce those activities on their website?

reply
Absolutely! But I don't think that’s the most plausible answer here.
reply
[flagged]
reply
You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.
reply
"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book?

You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.

reply
>"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book?

It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact.

>Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.

I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.

reply
No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point.

Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gaslight people not trained in applying formal logic into believing something in spite of contradicting evidence.

How do you act here? You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand.

You're right about people who appear more likeable getting more attention. Does that make their standpoint actually more valid or valuable?

reply
Is there somewhere I can read more about what you are claiming in these comments? How did you learn about these housecleaning activities?
reply
Of course there is, but what difficulties can you possibly have finding it?

Part of the problem with events like these is people's "incredulity", which is fundamentally rooted in them not being force-fed with the topic by the media despite the importance.

The other way around, while people baselessly believe to be told everything of importance by their news-feed, in reality they are entirely being left in the dark about truly important matters simply by not "pushing" them in headlines.

The stories exist, you simply don't get them effortlessly.

That attitude of passive complacency has to change.

Look in this thread, the good links are usually those far down.

reply
I want to read your original claim but it was censored. I am aware of the IC community being active on these forums and using algorithm/actors to downvote and hide information.

Would you share it again here or send it via DM?

Sorry you’ve had to face this.

reply
I’m not him, but I did see this post after his post was censored via [FLAGGED]

I have first hand experience being targeted by the CIA after negatively criticizing them and having a former clearance (Pakistani American also, we know how the brass feels about Muslims in terms of racism and the like).

Curious if you’ve heard of the documentary everything is a rich man’s trick and the author who published it spent a lot of effort investigating for it. There’s probably content you can read from him. Do you trust that sort of information?

reply
Not bombing weddings could help as well...
reply
Used to work in this field. You're correct: not being able to talk about it is the worst part.

This is equally true of successes as well as challenges.

I did some cool, very impactful stuff in that job. I will go to jail for a long, long time if I ever go into detail about it.

reply
Is there any type of internal support where you're allowed to chat about it?
reply
It’s hard to say exactly what the folks in the article are grappling with, not working with them personally. I never got to the point where I was anywhere near personal crisis from my classified work. These folks sound like they were associated with some kind of wet ops or drone programs. Not fun to deal with.

I know cleared psychologists are a thing. I never tried to speak with one but I’m told demand is high, and the ones out there are typically very oversubscribed.

I may be a bad counter example to this article. I never had to cope with super severe depression or crisis, or conops that would bring me a ton of personal crisis.

I just see a commonality in struggling with not being able to talk about it. Work is too big a part of my life to not be able to discuss it freely. That did cost me something, personally. I’m glad it didn’t cost me anything as dear as what it cost the people in the original article.

reply
In all of my years messing with computers, I have met very few people who are as fluent with the technology and the terminology. There is virtually no one I know that I can talk to about the things I do. I do not work in IT. I do not know people in IT. I also do not go out of my way to find IT folks. For a while this bothered me a little.

On pondering this, I suppose everyone with a hobby has this same lacking. For that matter, anyone with a mind that contains unique thoughts has the the same lacking. A desire for comradery seems pretty universal.

That said, not being able to talk about it and not being allowed to talk about it is quite different!

reply
There are chaplains and in-agency psychologists, both can have classified conversations with you. The problem is that you cannot change the underlying causes of any illness/sickness
reply
What can you say, if anything, without going into detail?
reply
It was, on a technical level, the most interesting work I’ve ever done. What people say about the US government being ahead of the commercially available technology curve is certainly true.

The work I did absolutely had positive impact on the world.

People rush to criticize and write off working in the defense sector, but it can be a very rewarding place to work. There are absolutely problems in that sector - bad management and regulatory capture being primary among them. (Ultimately, those are why I left.)

It’s hard to judge accurately from the outside. That’s the nature of classified work: by definition, you can’t know what you’re getting yourself into until you’ve jumped with both feet.

reply
> What people say about the US government being ahead of the commercially available technology curve is certainly true.

Is that what they say?

reply
Yes, and it's true. Not in every field. For example, defense contractors have material science well beyond what is commercially available. I'm a nobody, and what I've seen is world changing.

And that isn't even the half of it.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
reply
It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
reply
Is Canada an adversary of America? Or Greenland?

What position should Canadians or the people of Greenland take with regards to the people in the US military who are currently working to annex and invade their countries?

What position should the US military take with regards to the people in those countries who are currently working to resist those efforts to annex and invade their countries their homelands?

Do you consider Canadian and Icelandic civilians your adversary? If so, how did that come to be?

reply
I think you meant to write Greenland.
reply
Indeed I did, my brain was a bit foggy when I wrote after a night of partying.

Thanks for catching that.

reply
The times are wild enough that I first checked if Trump had been making any moves on Iceland, just in case I had missed something...
reply
Should the whole of the military quit because the American people were x enough to elect Trump?
reply
There is a Godwin in there somewhere.
reply
I can’t speak to what the American military should do in this situation but I’m curious to hear what HN users think the people of Canada and Greenland should do in this situation.

What would the American response to these kinds of actions be if the shoe was on the other foot?

Given the asymmetry in power how should Canada and Greenland respond?

If the American response to Iranian actions against American allies and interest in the Middle East is to spend half their missile stockpile to assassinate the leadership of Iran how should Canada respond to American threats of annexation and Greenland of invasion?

What’s proportional and sensible here?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwar...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-separatism-trump-ad...

reply
Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.
reply
I'm against the U.S.'s broken leadership as much as any sensible person. But even in normal times with sane leadership, national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed." This is certainly an uncomfortable truth, but that's the way of the world.
reply
In what "normal" times is a country down to the "kill or be killed" choice? It's only "kill or be killed" if you are under attack by an actual aggressor. When was the last time, say, Canada or New Zealand, felt their national defense choices were "kill or be killed"?
reply
> national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed."

You and Israel's current leadership are in agreement.

reply
Ukraine is also running headlong into the reality of kill or be killed.
reply
I mean it's not like we know those "adversaries" ever wanted to murder us. For example, the US has a long record of assassinating labor leaders in South America to protect our Banana Republics on behalf of Chiquita. I think it's absolutely fair to bring in skepticism towards the secrets our military keeps from us
reply
Do you believe that "death to America" chants should not be taken seriously?
reply
In short, yes. They should not be taken seriously. You should take Iranian actions on the ground seriously, and ignore that which is essentially compelled political theatre.
reply
I'm saying it is foolish and historically uninformed to hold a blind faith that everyone that the US labels an "adversary" is evil.

Would you like to engage with the comment I left?

reply
I agree that blindly assuming that all "adversaries" of the U.S. (per labeling by the U.S. government) want to kill us. But it does seem that some indeed do. It would further seem that proportionate countermeasures would be appropriate for those cases.
reply
If they have no practical way of acting on the chant, then it's just bluster.
reply
No they shouldn't because "death to" is simply a mistranslation. "Death to" is an idiom in Persian that means approximately "down with"- and in fact the official translation by the Iranian government itself is "Down with the USA". But I'm curious what you thought it meant.
reply
So rather than wanting to kill the USA, they merely want to bring it down? That sounds like a distinction without a difference if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist.
reply
I would say "down with Palantir". That doesn't mean I want every member of that organization dead. In the same way, it's absolutely fine to say down with a state. States/corporations don't have rights. People do.
reply
Yeah

To the younger generations it's just political theatre and gets laughed at as being the equivalent of boomer cringe

reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
I'm genuinely not sure how else to interpret your previous comment. Do you see any situations where defense by lethal force is appropriate?
reply
[flagged]
reply
A bit of an unconstructive, unwarranted jab, if I may say so.
reply
Ah. Cool story bro. Meanwhile private equity doctors let their private corp owners kill people over insurance denials. But complain only when their malpractice copay rises.

Tech workers for Silicon Valley daily enable and positively contribute to the pervasive surveillance and exploitation of the majority of the world. To the point the poors cant even open the app or walk into the store without an algorithm raises prices to the mathematical max this person can afford. But they only complain when free bananas are removed from the snacks.

reply
Maybe everything you listed and nation state murders are all bad?
reply
Everybody here is all so small minded.

The government has spent centuries doing spycraft and has a budget in the billions.

reply
When you know you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.

This is the tactic used when journalist Gary Webb started reporting on the USA involvement with selling crack to Americans so they could fund Contra insurgents in Nicaragua.

They did this so well that other news organizations turned on the journalist.

I could easily imagine the USA not wanting to patch holes so they have access to the systems and these experts know this.

reply
The US agency that we entrust with evaluating and recommending our encryption standards is the same one (albeit a different branch) that focuses on breaking encryption. There is an obvious conflict of interest with this arrangement.

Many examples of deliberate weakening are documented, especially with the "export approved" stuff that we sell to our allies.

This problem goes beyond just encryption, and also involves deliberate data leaking (with plausible deniability).

So yes, you don't need to imagine it at all -- the NSA works to create and maintain access to "everything everywhere."

reply
Does this mean the NSA could open things I've encrypted using libsodium crypto_box?
reply
The used algorithms were designed by DJB, not US agencies.
reply
What does this mean? NIST and NSA are not even in the same federal department.
reply
If they worked there recently, they probably grappled with this in some capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon
reply
deleted
reply
Took me a year to get my secret clearance in the military, I promise you no one gives a s** about anything you say once you're out. It is a fun way to feel self-important though :-)

I was a part of the world's largest illegal operation in history and again I promise you no one gives a s**.

reply
everyone seemed to nonchalantly care because you all got blanket secret clearance in mil. if you had TS/SCI and an interesting SAP you would not be saying this
reply
Well go on then...
reply
Sounds like a good tip if someone wants to find themselves in jail
reply
[flagged]
reply
Plenty of people work at Meta.
reply
I think most people think the ethical values are far higher in those jobs than most random startup bs just wasting resources.

I definitely do, I would rather work in the military than Meta/Amazon/Microsoft/Any online gambling/and loads of other shit companies.

reply
Thou shalt not kill is pretty straightforward.
reply
If you speak to the correct people about illegal activities and unlawful orders you will not.
reply
It’s wild to, in a thread about an unusual number of suicides among a branch of government doing secret stuff, say that folks talking about that secret stuff would be a good idea.

I am absolutely not saying that is what’s happening here, suicide of folks put in stressful situations is to be taken seriously. But like… c’mon guy, surely this exact premise has been a direct-to-Amazon-Video release.

reply
… you might not.

Have you noticed the current executive administration in the US?

reply
Cool things are not necessarily illegal. You ever done anything cool in your life?
reply
Way to pull a Tokyo Rose; the GP was alluding to "cool" and "impactful" things they had done to keep us all safe from malicious actors and you try to twist it into "illegal activities" and "unlawful orders".

Do not think we aren't catching on to this kind of nonsense.

reply
If the activities were truly cool and impactful, and not illegal or unlawful as you suggest, wouldn’t it be possible that the suicide could be due to a culture of not speaking out and then left to deal with the after effect of guilt? A slanderous retort vs a different lens to review the events isn’t helpful
reply
I seriously doubt the GP (who was proud of their work) was one of the suicides. If they were, the mere fact that they are able to post here after taking their own life would be the far bigger story.
reply
So we're to trust an anon supposed ex officer saying they're doing good things there despite all the clear evidence to the contrary?
reply
It's possible that they think they are doing good things according to their moral framework. There are hundreds of millions of people with truly insane moral frameworks.

It's possible that their particular job was, as far as they know, doing good things according to most moral frameworks.

I have strong doubts that everyone who kills people by clicking on them on a computer screen thinks that what they are doing is wholly compatible with their personal moral framework. Presumably, some of those people feel very guilty about what they do.

reply
Kills people by clicking on them? WTF?

This is about network security, defending against cyber attacks. You may or may not agree that we should have people doing that, but conflating it with imagined nonsense like this is counterproductive.

reply
What do you think drone operators and their support staff do?
reply
Why do you think this has anything to do with drone operators?
reply
You’d likely get Snowdened in.
reply
I don't see anywhere that OP mentioned illegal activities or unlawful orders. Sounds like they're quite proud of what the accomplished.
reply
deleted
reply
Counterpoint, industry cyber security is so generally weak, if there were actually a secret "huge cold cyber war" on-going, we'd see real world impact.

Since we don't, it probably isn't happening.

reply
There are a lot of documented small scale hacks on American infrastructure by state actors. The prevailing theory I have heard was that the point is to find as many vulnerabilities in our internet-connected critical infrastructure, then sit on it until it’s needed. It doesn’t make news when a few water tanks overflow in a random tiny Texas city, but the principle is that these kinds of exploits may generalize to the infra of major cities.

Example: https://texasstandard.org/stories/russian-hackers-muleshoe-t...

So there is no need for a highly visible active cyber war. We have tons of cyber professionals working on this stuff day in and day out to help keep up prepared.

reply
> Counterpoint, industry cyber security is so generally weak, if there were actually a secret "huge cold cyber war" on-going, we'd see real world impact.

But we do: ransomware stories are in the news all the time; while they likely aren’t being directly executed by the Russian or Chinese governments they are being allowed to happen because they aid state interests: for example, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa...

…or more insidiously: political influence campaigns, which are very much a cyber concern, and even easier to deny.

reply
I like the argument and it seems valid, but I have heard the opposite from people working in commercial cybersecurity.
reply
People who work in commercial cybersecurity might have a vested interest in looking like warriors at least.
reply
I mean, isn't that all counter-intelligence? They wouldn't want to be seen?
reply
The entire US powergrid is so vulnerable right now, if there really was a cyber cold war the entire thing could be shut off overnight probably.

Given that it's not happening, then it's probably just not a thing.

reply
It’s definitely happening.

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories?f%...

Don’t mistake prepositioning for “not happening.” As you said: “cyber cold war” means there are a lot of incentives not to reveal capabilities or trigger escalation from your adversaries. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa...

Although, that is changing as we continue to escalate. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/cisa-fbi-epa-and-us-go...

If you’re not convinced the threat is real and the cyber warfare is happening, I highly recommend checking out Nocole Perleoth’s To Catch a Thief. S1E7 is especially relevent: Everything Everywhere All at Once. https://www.rubrik.com/lp/to-catch-a-thief-podcast

reply
Where?
reply
Here. There. Over there too.
reply
deleted
reply
This thing probably never stops and doesn’t have holidays. I read about Operation Gladio back in the day, which was not a cyber operation, but a preparation of guerrilla operations in case the WP occupied EU. But I got the feeling that the war in darkness (cyber is part of it) is non-stop.
reply
WP = Warsaw Pact. Took me a while to decipher, but I get that bytes are expensive these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

reply
[dead]
reply
This could be a factor, but there are other things that probably do more to explain the uptick in suicides.

1. There's a new hot war with Iran, a country that has put a large amount of resources into its cyberwarfare capabilities after previous U.S. cyberstrikes (e.g. stuxnet). Iran is likely a lot tougher target than it was ten years ago and that means pressure for members of the U.S.'s cyber command to perform.

2. Computer nerds probably struggle with getting respect from the rest of the military even at the best of times. That just got a lot harder with Hegseth as secretary.

3. The U.S. is likely not targeting just Iran right now. Imagine being called upon to go to work against countries you consider to be allies, like Denmark, Greenland, Canada, Spain, etc..

reply
Regular Cold War people could not disclose anything to their families either...
reply
or they just got tired of feeding data into Palantir that results in hundreds of civilians being butchered
reply
(Replying to my own post). Also, it’s gotta be mentally draining to be told by the president they have to win but also always let Russian attacks though.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/defens...

reply
Presidents come and go and, hopefully, this one will be held accountable.
reply
I'm an agnostic, but when I read about what he does, it makes me devoutly wish that hell exists. He has made countless people's lives hell on earth, and he doesn't care at all. No one is holding him accountable in this life: it's inconvenient for those in power.
reply
It's a systemic issue, not due to one man.

What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of inconvenient information is very real.

The recent cluster of weird deaths and disappearances of scientists linked to secret military research has a similar pattern to it: a statistically highly unlikely density of "suicides, accidents & mishaps".

The assumption, those actions were "justified" somehow is entirely baseless: there is no transparency and no effective oversight. What is supposedly being kept secret there might simply be illegal corruption or embarrassing and inconvenient to those in power.

reply
Almost every discussion here on HN about those "deaths and disappearances of scientists linked to secret military research" has been about how, when you actually dig into the data, they have been very statistically likely.
reply
Calling things "systemic" is unfortunately often just a way of offloading the problem into the pile of Things We Can't Fix. It removes individual accountability, in an era where we are increasingly able to assess the effect an influential individual actually has - because their dialogue is public and recorded, and the consequences of that can be studied.

I think there are plenty of individual men who are absolutely responsible for things becoming worse, and we do the world no favours by helping them shrug the burden of their actions.

reply
There are long standing systemic issues, and then there's also one man making things dramatically worse in new, stupider ways.
reply
So have many others before him.

The only difference is, is that before him we had "Iraq has weapons for mass destruction! we must attack them, before they attack us, we're in danger!", and now there's "we're going in and we're taking the oil!".

So from "we can do whatever we want if we lie" turned into "we can do whatever we want", not really relevant to all the people killed.

But hey, some americans would say that "It's worth it" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP_VnVlFhXU

reply
Nobody is holding up those other guys as shining paragons of virtue either.

“Other people did it too” is not an excuse for immoral behavior.

I think the parent and I basically agree.

reply
But pretty much every US president did something like that, killed people somewhere, usually half the planet away. No US president is in jail for that. OP above me is just blaming this particular one for something that everyone has done before, and many of them even got reelected again by the same people complaining about.

Trump attacked quite a few countries in his first term, even killed the Iranian general (Soleimani), and you guys reelected him after all that. You guys clearly weren't bothered by that enough to vote for someone else.

If nothing else, Iran has learned that they really need those nukes, because you guys will never leave them at peace otherwise.

reply
Not every nation survives a tyrant by the virtue of patience.
reply
Especially in Russia...
reply
There may eventually be a Nuremberg II for the henchmen but the ship has sailed on bringing the dear leader to justice.
reply
Yeah, January 2021 says no.
reply
This was wasn't after January 2021, and hasn't been during his second term. There are methods to hold presidents accountable, there are institutions to prevent the harm from happening.

These have failed.

reply
Just as important, the US will need to figure out exactly what strings Putin's managed to attach to Trump - kompromat? threats? bribes? elaborate man management? something else? - or this vulnerability could be exploited again.
reply
It's almost certainly just that Trump is a fundamentally fragile, insecure man. He has proven over and over that he will happily fellate (proverbially speaking) any man who says nice things about him, and at least refrain from assaulting most women who say nice things too.

Putin (and everyone else) knows this.

reply
Idk maybe there is something nefarious but afaik Putin's always been cordial with Trump as well as let him do various investments in Russia. I'm not sure there's much reason for Trump to alienate his friend; if you've ever see Trump's staff meetings you'll know how much cordiality is important to him.
reply
All of the above, plus death threats.

Trump isn't the weakness. The weakness is the almost complete collapse of the checks and balances around the president. If those were in place Trump would have been in prison by the end of 2021 at the very latest.

The DOJ, the military, both houses, the AIPAC wing of the Democrats, and corporate media are all fully captured. So are "independent" organisations like the NRA.

The Supreme Court is mostly captured. The lower levels of the judiciary are still holding out, but have limited enforcement ability without the DOJ.

reply
It's why I don't see the US making the course correction it actually needs - realistically the "best" feasible outcome is that a presidential election is held and a business as usual democrat is elected who will immediately not address any of the problems for whatever reason (part of the system/paid by the same people pick one).

Candidates come and go but the system endures and it is the system that is rotten at every level all the way down to the core.

Then 4-8 years later the GOP candidate wins subservient to the same interests as Trump and the US Gov is back there again.

Not really sure what the outcome is for the US at this point, things will have to get a great deal worse before enough Americans decide this is unacceptable but that state can last years/decades before the dam breaks.

reply
The winning Presidential campaign message would be this: I promise to work to reduce the power of the Presidency via supporting and campaigning for legislation and Constitutional amendments. It is time for Congress to once again be ascendent like it was in the first century of our great Republic.

We need a G. Washington, who refused more power than he was offered, setting precedents and expectations.

reply
No, that is your wishful thinking.

Based on recent years and the power of personalized AI influence campaigns, the winning Presidential campaign message (after 4 years of 'change nothing substantial Democrat' would most likely be 'I need real, full (silently: fascist) power, to finally drain the swamp'.

reply
None. No vulnerability. The population and the RNC just voted for a known Russian asset for some reason.
reply
Our vulnerability is an open internet that includes Russia, leaving our populace completely open to Russian influence campaigns of micro targeted propaganda, recruitment, and incitement.
reply
I like how the “Chinese propaganda” against datacenters was found to be mostly a collection of facts.

While Russian propaganda is more clumsy and emotional, we’ve produced such an unequal society with such low regular education and outright corruption that people fall for it. That says something negative about US, not them.

If we admit our system cant even survive an open internet, it should be dismantled or reformed rather than free exchange closed.

reply
This.

I lived in a communistic country, where BBC/Voice of America/Radio free Europe were banned/jammed, under the pretext of 'your feeble minds will not be able to resist the insidious allure of western burgeois propaganda'.

Seeing the same argumentation from the west's side is disheartening. We are now in the west, but (almost) full circle back where were before.

reply
Education would blunt, but not eliminate the threat of nation-state funded micro targeted influence campaigns. Moreover, it would take years, and we have the problem now.

In terms of data center propaganda and fact. Both are true. China is funding anti data center sentiment for geopolitical power, while at the same time, there are legitimate reasons for people to not like/ or fear AI. The problem is we (the U.S.) have to solve both. We cannot let China have significantly better AI models than we have because that is a real national security threat, while AI also threatens potential mass destruction dangers and an avenue of utter concentration of wealth, etc

reply
I’m not buying the “AI security threat”, and I don’t really care if the best models are open source - and Chinese. If everyone can buy enough hardware to run the best models, what’s the threat? The same tired arguments as banning books on encryption or chemistry?

I see the crazed AI investment as worthless financial gambling, a house of cards that will eventually crumble, and the argument that “we need to fund AI” really is “your tax dollars should bail out our financial mistake, because security”.

It’s nonsense all the way down. Covid showed we didn’t even manufacture basic drugs in the country anymore, and were openly threatening our biggest/best/longest allies (Canada, Mexico, NATO). AI is so far down the security list as to make it noise, compared to our recent missteps.

reply
I like how the “Chinese propaganda” against datacenters was found to be mostly a collection of facts.

That's not my understanding. Got any credible links that back up this point?

reply
You guys do know that the same thing is said about americans in "the rest of the world"? Remember the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" thing?
reply
Propaganda and bribery. Things like the Hungarian funding of CPAC and the NRA holding a July 4 celebration in Russia some years ago.

The weak spot was the conservative prediction to fascism - worship of force and masculinity - which was easily retargeted against other Americans.

reply
I think Trump is just that naturally that stupid and always has been.
reply
Epstein files?
reply
You’re kidding right?
reply
> always let Russian attacks though

The article doesn't say anything of the sort. Literally just said to put a halt on OFFENSIVE operations.

If I were to guess I'd say it was an overly ambitious negotiation tactic.

Also, that was a year and a half ago. The current status quo is that Ukraine is producing more drones than Russia can deal with, bombing Russian targets daily and the US-Ukraine relationship is much closer, with Ukraine sharing drone technology and intel with the US.

reply
The US and Russia are allies.
reply
No, despite what the conservatives and Fox News say, we are not
reply
In what sense? Removing the embargo on russian oil? Inviting the gremlin from the kremlin to Alaska (of all places!) and rolling out the red carpet?
reply
Does US know it ? Coz it certainly acts like one for most part of the war
reply
The new US policy under Trump is giving up trying to win the world and instead focusing on internal market and dominance over the American continent. Causing and sustaining friction everywhere is aligned with this policy.

This is the result of a shift of power in the US politics, from the global financial capital of the last decades back to the military and industrial sector.

reply
The new US policy under Trump is to burn everything down while extracting as much wealth for himself and his cronies as possible.
reply
And creating so much chaos afterwards that it becomes impossible to recover any of it
reply
That's more of a side effect if anything
reply
> The new US policy under Trump is giving up trying to win the world and instead focusing on internal market and dominance over the American continent.

Is that why he bombed Iran and single-handedly caused a global energy crisis? A shift of focus to “dominance of the American continent”?

reply
Well yeah, probably -- during this self made crisis oil prices in the US are some of the most well controlled.

Destabilizing everywhere else is a potential step taken toward achieving continental superiority in certain regards.

( not a GOOD step, mind you)

reply
He's just doing his best to make everybody switch to renewables!
reply
Blocking foreign-made solar power inverters must be part of that master plan:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423682A1.pdf

reply
That's just deliberate damage to the US, his actions have increased move to energy sovereignty globally and done more for net zero than any president before him.
reply
deleted
reply
Unfortunately this slows down adoption of renewables even more, China produces most of world’s renewables and batteries but bootstraps this industry with oil.
reply
> Is that why he bombed Iran and single-handedly caused a global energy crisis?

Yes. Oil price hurts China industrial capacity more than the US economy. Oil companies made a $93 billion profit amid the war [1]. The US is a net oil exporter, while China halved their oil imports [2].

ExxonMobil and Chevron are US-incorporated. TotalEnergies (French) BP (UK), Shell (UK) also have significant US-based ownership (~50%, ~25% and ~25% respectively), including BlackRock, Vanguard, mutual funds, and US pension funds.

> A shift of focus to “dominance of the American continent”?

1. Venezuela was under embargo and selling oil to China. The Nicolas Maduro hijack and the country's political realignment with US will have the double effect of negating oil to China and securing large nearby reserves.

2. Argentina has a Trump-aligned president, who is vocal about undermining the Mercosul agreement and is currently in diplomatic attrition with Brazil. Recently signed a $20 billion loan from FMI.

3. Paraguay signed a treaty for a US forward operation base in their territory. The Paraguay border is home to a large hydroelectric, a major power source for 3 countries: Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil.

4. Colombia has a new Trump aligned president. It's a young president with no political background. The US State Department announced a $1 billion assistance upon his election for military investment.

5. Peru’s new president Keiko Fujimori is Trump-aligned.

6. Chile’s new president Jose Antonio Kast is Trump-aligned.

7. US retaliated against the prosecution of former Trump-aligned Brazil president for attempted coup by announcing an 50% emergency tariff (which didn't hold legally), then crafting a Section 301 investigation to justify a 25% tariff in July 2026.

8. US is giving asylum to the former president's son, who is vocal on social media about defending the US tariffs as retaliation, defends military intervention of the US in Brazil, as well as stating (but without proof) that Brazilian polls are rigged – not the one his father ran and won, apparently.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2026/aug...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomyCharts/comments/1uxdx8p/chin...

reply
> The US is a net oil exporter, while China halved their oil imports [2].

This seems to be the opposite point you want.

Everybody is going to have increased expenses for everything due to their oil dependency _except_ China. Which will raise the price of Chinese exports to the market price but giving China a lot of producer surplus.

Or China can keep doing it's Belt & Road plans and grant other countries money to help with their oil problems in exchange for territory. Or also keep prices lower to continue hollowing out other countries manufacturing capabilities.

--

The leaders of South America claiming to be "Trump aligned" is good for Trump. Trump is not the average american citizen. And boy will those leaders flip the second he's out of the presidency.

reply
It's believed China managed to halve oil imports due to large (undisclosed) reserves, emergency public policies and overdriving coal use, but this can't last. China is also extremely dependent on Russian oil, which is a country at conflict and having its key infrastructure destroyed. China is building their renewable energy capacity fast, but this has to be quick started on oil.

Increasing oil prices have the double effect of slowing China expansion and energetic transition long-term while increasing dollar demand in the short term - just look what happened to gold prices once Iran war started.

The new Trump-aligned leaders of South America are puppets to secure cheap, nearby materials and food in a future world in conflict, where the US has to re-industrialize rapidly. The US navy would be spread too thin, and the US currently doesn't even have capacity to build its navy - the US recently sought the help of South Korea in this matter.

Please note none of this my opinion, the current US foreign policy strategy is a public fact. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donroe_Doctrine

reply
> Please note none of this my opinion, the current US foreign policy strategy is a public fact.

This is beyond arrogant and makes discussion impossible. Your opinion is not automatically a 100% accurate reflection reality because you have citations.

reply
that’s a lot of words about South America in order to paper over what we are all currently feeling at the pump and in the economy at large. Between his incoherent tariff policies and the paltry job numbers we are seeing, I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing me he’s doing things that are good for us domestically. I’m not even touching the heated social issues he’s been pouring gas all over.
reply
it is very harsh pressures both professional and personal
reply
yeah, I can't imagine how stressful.
reply
I suspect Hegseth's atavistic attempt to turn the US military back toward a culture of machismo is resulting in misery for anyone who doesn't fit the part, whether they're skilled at their duties or not.
reply
There's lots of people working for NATO and federal agencies in Europe that have been assassinated by the luckystrike branch of the FSB. The name comes from the Telegram account with underscores in between, and they're essentially recruiting kids or former inmates for GTA style missions.

Starts with simple stuff like package rerouting, then goes on to gathering intel about places, people, putting in USB flash drives to their laptops, theft, death threats, arsony, and actual murder. Each step of the way the kids get deeper into trouble because they have to prove that they have done it for the payout, making photos of themselves... which gives the other end increasingly more doxxing material on them.

It's a real problem, and they use the luckystrike branch also to go after witnesses in big lawsuit cases, which then fall off due to all witnesses accidentally dying under seemingly random causes.

reply
I have heard of zero murders of NATO and EU agency people, and I think you're quite wrong.

There are of course people like this, recruited on the internet in the many criminal networks that exist, but I don't think they've had any notable successes.

reply
"I was never mugged on the train station, therefore muggings at train stations never happen"

Basically your argument right now.

Check my sibling comments, I provided plenty evidence across multiple countries and multiple jurisdictions that came to the same conclusions that the FSB is involved.

reply
What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of information is very real.

The recent cluster of weird deaths and disappearances of scientists linked to secret military research has a similar pattern to it: a statistically highly unlikely density of "suicides, accidents & mishaps".

reply
> "is very real"

Except it's not.

reply
> The recent cluster of weird deaths and disappearances of scientists linked to secret military research has a similar pattern to it

The pattern being that the deaths and disappearances among people with top secret clearances is lower than the national average would suggest.

> According to science writer Mick West, more than 700,000 people work in top-secret-cleared positions in the U.S. aerospace and nuclear sectors. When viewed against existing mortality rates and causes, this would suggest around 250 persons in the industry would normally succumb to homicides and suicides over the time-period during which the 10 or 11 alleged "missing scientists" had died or disappeared, with thousands more dying of natural causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_scientists_conspiracy_...

reply
Just think how many ordinary people they have to randomly kill to keep it that way.
reply
can you prove it? and if you can, you being still alive kinda contradicts...
reply
If so, then the family members of the president are in danger!
reply
You have absolutely no information on whether this is probable or likely, and the recent news on scientists was a conspiracy theory powered as usual by a cherry picking facts and exaggerating biographies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_scientists_conspiracy_...

reply
The US doesn't even kill foreign leaders. Our intelligence service doesn't have the skills or appetite, let alone citizens. The resulting scandal would make the Church commission look like nothing, not to mention the impact on recruitment.
reply
Yes, they only kill random fishermen in the Caribbean, foreign leaders get kidnapped and tried in kangaroo courts. Except Iranian leaders, those do get killed. But that's just the last 6 months.
reply
Those were military not CIA. The distinction really matters!
reply
Regardless that you said "the US doesn't...", there's no way the CIA was not central to kidnapping Maduro and as for Khamenei: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/us/politics/cia-israel-ay...

I'm not sure why the distinction matters, the Navy and Coast Guard also need to recruit. I could imagine at least an occasional sailor is troubled by shooting drowning seamen, even if they are suspected smugglers.

Perhaps even a few civilians are troubled by the lack of regard for human life of the psychos running the show, eliminating any moral standing the world pretended the US had.

reply
>The distinction really matters!

to whom?

reply
to recruiters explaining: we are the good guys!
reply
>The US doesn't even kill foreign leaders.

Is the US military somehow not "the US"? Do you not have any shame just blatantly lying like this?

reply
Surely you've reached the conclusion by now that "resulting scandal" no longer steers policy, or even any noteworthy degree of public outrage.
reply
> There's lots of people working for NATO and federal agencies in Europe that have been assassinated by the luckystrike branch of the FSB. The name comes from the Telegram account with underscores in between, and they're essentially recruiting kids or former inmates for GTA style missions.

Iran too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyqggvyp1do

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/29/norwegian-te...

reply
EU is already under attack by Iran and has been for a while yet the american zoomers on TikTok/Reddit/here state everything is fine and Iran/China/Russia just wants to be left alone uwu

>The Swedish Security Service has established that the Iranian regime uses criminal networks in Sweden to carry out violent acts against other states, groups, or individuals in Sweden that Iran regards as threats.

https://sakerhetspolisen.se/ovriga-sidor/other-languages/eng...

reply
Haven't found a lot about it online, other than https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7786/artykul/3438674,russian...

Do you have any references about it?

This is very reminiscent of Iranian intelligence modus operandi in Israel and world wide lately, currently with not a lot to show for

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/06/how-iran-sough...

reply
> Do you have any references about it?

Before someone from the US claims some leftist bullshit about this (as this is what Russian bots typically do), here's a mix of newspapers including more right/conservative ones:

- https://www.blick.ch/schweiz/polizei-warnt-eltern-teenies-we...

- https://www.mdr.de/ratgeber/finanzen/telegram-gruppe-jobange...

- https://www.sicher-im-netz.de/europol-warnt-kriminelle-rekru...

- https://www.fr.ch/de/sjsd/pol/news/die-kantonspolizei-freibu...

- https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-internationales/euro...

- https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/euro...

- https://www.dutchnews.nl/2026/04/teenagers-being-recruited-b...

- https://nltimes.nl/2026/04/29/europol-children-recruited-vio...

Also check netzpolitik and other CCC-related media outlets, there's been extensive research about this topic from us. (Didn't want to post articles where I've personally been involved, but you can find them easily with similar search keywords.)

reply
This is essentially one article about criminals recruiting young people. Is Russia FSB (or even Russia)even mentioned?

I also believe the premise is true (why would it not, it's the logical thing for every nation state to do), but your research could be a bit deeper.

reply
https://www.occrp.org/en/investigation/make-a-molotov-cockta...

That's a better source I found, does not call the phenomenon lucky strike though

reply
> This is essentially one article about criminals recruiting young people. Is Russia FSB (or even Russia) even mentioned?

Generally if an article is about FSB, it implies Russia. Otherwise, you would have to admit that Russia is a failed state if the FSB acts without Putin's knowledge or control.

For example, google the luckystrike account with underscores ("l_u_c_k_y_s_t_r_i_k_e").

Example results:

- https://news.sky.com/story/british-citizens-are-volunteering...

- https://unn.ua/en/news/czech-police-detained-a-teenager-for-...

- https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/feb/28/russia-linked-t...

^ News outlets confirmed by MI5 statements about the luckystrike account, its FSB ties, its activities, and recruitement of teenagers for terrorism.

The luckystrike account literally owns Telegram channels like "Anti-NATO/Anti-USA/Anti-Nazi" and others:

- https[:]//tgstat[.]com/channel/@anti_nato_anti_usa/stat

- Description of this channel is "This channel was created to fight with USA and NATO on the territory of Ukraine and Europe. We call on all residents of Europe to fight by any means."

- https[:]//en[.]tgramsearch[.]com/join/4307894160

- Description of this Guerilla themed channel is "Central Guerilla Movement organise fight against Nazi, NATO and USA. We call on all residents of Ukraine and Europe to fight against USA and NATO by any means. Send us your photo, video of your actions or get a guerrilla task: @L_u_c_k_y_S_t_r_i_k_e"

... and there's a bunch of other channels in those results, with a similar theme, and similar promises.

reply
Yes, but these articles are over a year old. this is really scratching the bottom of the barrel, no?

Look, I'm not saying this isn't happening. It's just that there's really not a lot of evidence that this is rampant (and I think that's what GGP seeemed to imply).

This whole thing reads a lot like hyperbole/propaganda, and it wouldn't have to.

reply
> It's just that there's really not a lot of evidence that this is rampant

Not sure what is "rampant" in your view, and what is not. There's been multiple attempts of murder, multiple linked assassinations, across multiple nation states with multiple different jurisdictions.

> Yes, but these articles are over a year old. this is really scratching the bottom of the barrel, no?

You asked for verifiable sources, I provided some. Enter the same keywords into google and pick your own ones. There's at least 10 more pages on google that you can read.

Pretty much everything I linked as credible and verifiable sources weren't good enough for you. You either don't give a shit or you're trolling.

Either way, I don't care enough about your opinion to continue to do this childish game of 4chan-esque whataboutism.

reply
The open AI engineer who was ready to testify in a copyright case against them, also died in weird circumstances. His mom is out on an anti-Altman campaign.

Man this stuff sucks to be so out in the public and out of darkness. I mean we knew these things were happening but they’ve accelerated so much now and what are we going to do about it?

reply
Unjust wars and enabling genocide is probably the more likely factor here, realizing there is no honor in defending these things overseas.

This has been an issue for decades: overseas, not knowing 'why' Americans are dying for nothing, and, the veterans being treated as refuse when they return.

Edit: that may have come across too callous.

The crushing of ones consciesness for unjust foreign wars, protecting a global network of the worst crimes (Epstn files and the international group within it, operating under the umbrella protection network of the US vis a vis NATO).

The most immoral army in the world, the IDF, also has a very high suicide rate - ones conscience cannot be destroyed, it can only be atrophied and dulled, and then depression hunts you.

reply
[dead]
reply
How can you fight such fight if the government at highest level is compromised by the enemy - Russia?
reply
How about that they do bad stuff and feel bad about it? You make it sound like they are taking a bullet or something. Desillusion is probably way worse.
reply