4 ms·

Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though. https://you

by YZF 6mo ago

Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppose-sending-ground-troops-to-iran-march-27-30-2026-economist-yougov-poll https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos... https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-approval https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro... Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.

ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.
- YZF 6mo ago
  I lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.
  - kitsune1 6mo ago
    [dead]
- smcin 6mo ago
  The first link (YouGov) in fact is even less enthusiastic than GP quoted: 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran. (setting aside that it's illegal under international law, and unauthorized by Congress)
Esophagus4 6mo ago
I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign. People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour. This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.
- HarHarVeryFunny 6mo ago
  Trump has been talking about destroying Iranian desalination plants, and "bombing the country back to the stone age". This is no surgical decapitation strike, nor one just targetting Iran's military capabilities. This is a vicious senile old man living out his dictator "I can do anything I like" fantasies, who could care less about helping the Iranian people, or those in America for that matter.
  - lejalv 6mo ago
    I am shocked that the Democrats are not making clear to the military that engaging in crimes against humanity may have consequences for them -- not to speak, of course, of politicians higher up in the chain of command.
    - dredmorbius 6mo ago
      Several have (Deluzio, Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Goodlander, and Houlahan), Nov 2025: <https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-statement-lawmakers-deluzio-slotkin-kelly-crow-goodlander-and-houlahan https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-stateme...>
    - 7sigma 6mo ago
      Because a lot of the democrats are basically controlled opposition and need to please their MIC and Israeli donors
    - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
      > I am shocked You shouldn't be, especially considering that Schumer and Durbin both voted for the Hague Invasion Act.
  - aaa_aaa 6mo ago
    He is simply doing israels bidding.
btilly 6mo ago
I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate. Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate. There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.
- diydsp 6mo ago
  Exactly. Support means saying "I accept the reduction in my social security and medicare and other govt services in exchange for this war."
- YZF 6mo ago
  Repeating propaganda does not generally qualify as debate. Why isn't there a productive debate to be had here? Your arguing that the incompetence has to do with handling drones. To me that statement feels close to "repeating propaganda" because the Shaed drones are generally handled in an affordable way which is by shooting them with bullets from helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70 This is a method that has been used for a long time in Ukraine as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_the_ukrainian_air_force_shoots_down_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_t... https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-drones/ https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-dro... There are endless videos and news stories about how drones are shot down effectively by the UAE (with AH-64 cannons), by Israel (where Iran doesn't even bother sending drones over because none of them make it), and by Ukraine (including with newer counter-drone tech they have). The propaganda says "we fire a 2 million dollar THAAD missile on a 50k dollar drone". Many can be shot down cheaply. Some are shot down with $500k AA missiles. We also need to account for anything destroyed on the ground and not launched. So it seems like your opening argument can certainly at the very least be debated. OTOH it is true that some drones got through and inflicted significant damage. But maybe that's unavoidable to some degree. Even beyond the base statement. If you think Iran needed to be bombed, e.g. because they were manufacturing 100 long range ballistic missiles per month and because they had enough nuclear material to make 12 bombs and were working on all the technology pieces to be able to put them on ballistic missiles and launch them, then what would be the alternative universe where we somehow magically came up with solutions to the asymmetric nature of this war? Would waiting for them to have a lot more missiles and drones and bury them deeper be a good thing or a bad thing. What would be the odds of the regime either compromising and giving up their abilities or collapsing without external intervention.
asadotzler 6mo ago
75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.) Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion. Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict. https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-attacking-iran-under-current-circumstances-latest-critical-issues-poll-0 https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-at... https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-support-usa-military-action-against-iran-majority-think-it-is-likely-february-20-23-2026-economist-yougov-poll https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...
dylan604 6mo ago
>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea? > Apparently 37.7% of Americans, These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.
markovs_gun 6mo ago
20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.
- lejalv 6mo ago
  That is an interesting take. Seen from elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford not taking into account a big chunk of the American electoral body, which is effectively at war with us (by various means). Essentially, a MESA movement, “Make the Earth Shit Again”. The obvious implication is that the rest of the world is at war with the US (by various means), and should act accordingly, starting with a wide-ranging consumer boycott of all US products.
- XorNot 6mo ago
  Which is right in line with the "crazification factor": https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html?m=1 https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-... The relevant quote: > Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
  - markovs_gun 6mo ago
    You can see that factor in a large number of polls on all kinds of subjects. It doesn't matter what the question is, a fifth to a quarter of the population will make the dumbest, least consistent, most self defeating choice every time. I think if you can get ~70% of the population on board with something that's all that should matter because the bottom 25% of the intelligence curve are literally incapable of making good decisions and worrying about them or their opinions will only lead to disaster. I also think that this is a major flaw of a lot of democratic systems because if a movement can effectively mobilize that group to vote as a bloc then it can easily sway policy. Add in messed up systems like in the US where you can amplify the power of that bloc beyond their population and it easily explains how we got here
goatlover 6mo ago
The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.

by YZF 6mo ago

ifyoubuildit 6mo ago

Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.

YZF 6mo ago
I lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.
- kitsune1 6mo ago
  [dead]
smcin 6mo ago
The first link (YouGov) in fact is even less enthusiastic than GP quoted: 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran. (setting aside that it's illegal under international law, and unauthorized by Congress)

Esophagus4 6mo ago

I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign. People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour. This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.

HarHarVeryFunny 6mo ago
Trump has been talking about destroying Iranian desalination plants, and "bombing the country back to the stone age". This is no surgical decapitation strike, nor one just targetting Iran's military capabilities. This is a vicious senile old man living out his dictator "I can do anything I like" fantasies, who could care less about helping the Iranian people, or those in America for that matter.
- lejalv 6mo ago
  I am shocked that the Democrats are not making clear to the military that engaging in crimes against humanity may have consequences for them -- not to speak, of course, of politicians higher up in the chain of command.
  - dredmorbius 6mo ago
    Several have (Deluzio, Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Goodlander, and Houlahan), Nov 2025: <https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-statement-lawmakers-deluzio-slotkin-kelly-crow-goodlander-and-houlahan https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-stateme...>
  - 7sigma 6mo ago
    Because a lot of the democrats are basically controlled opposition and need to please their MIC and Israeli donors
  - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
    > I am shocked You shouldn't be, especially considering that Schumer and Durbin both voted for the Hague Invasion Act.
- aaa_aaa 6mo ago
  He is simply doing israels bidding.

btilly 6mo ago

I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate. Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate. There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.

diydsp 6mo ago
Exactly. Support means saying "I accept the reduction in my social security and medicare and other govt services in exchange for this war."
YZF 6mo ago
Repeating propaganda does not generally qualify as debate. Why isn't there a productive debate to be had here? Your arguing that the incompetence has to do with handling drones. To me that statement feels close to "repeating propaganda" because the Shaed drones are generally handled in an affordable way which is by shooting them with bullets from helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70 This is a method that has been used for a long time in Ukraine as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_the_ukrainian_air_force_shoots_down_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_t... https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-drones/ https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-dro... There are endless videos and news stories about how drones are shot down effectively by the UAE (with AH-64 cannons), by Israel (where Iran doesn't even bother sending drones over because none of them make it), and by Ukraine (including with newer counter-drone tech they have). The propaganda says "we fire a 2 million dollar THAAD missile on a 50k dollar drone". Many can be shot down cheaply. Some are shot down with $500k AA missiles. We also need to account for anything destroyed on the ground and not launched. So it seems like your opening argument can certainly at the very least be debated. OTOH it is true that some drones got through and inflicted significant damage. But maybe that's unavoidable to some degree. Even beyond the base statement. If you think Iran needed to be bombed, e.g. because they were manufacturing 100 long range ballistic missiles per month and because they had enough nuclear material to make 12 bombs and were working on all the technology pieces to be able to put them on ballistic missiles and launch them, then what would be the alternative universe where we somehow magically came up with solutions to the asymmetric nature of this war? Would waiting for them to have a lot more missiles and drones and bury them deeper be a good thing or a bad thing. What would be the odds of the regime either compromising and giving up their abilities or collapsing without external intervention.

asadotzler 6mo ago

75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.) Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion. Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict. https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-attacking-iran-under-current-circumstances-latest-critical-issues-poll-0 https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-at... https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-support-usa-military-action-against-iran-majority-think-it-is-likely-february-20-23-2026-economist-yougov-poll https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...

dylan604 6mo ago

>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea? > Apparently 37.7% of Americans, These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.

markovs_gun 6mo ago

20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.

lejalv 6mo ago
That is an interesting take. Seen from elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford not taking into account a big chunk of the American electoral body, which is effectively at war with us (by various means). Essentially, a MESA movement, “Make the Earth Shit Again”. The obvious implication is that the rest of the world is at war with the US (by various means), and should act accordingly, starting with a wide-ranging consumer boycott of all US products.
XorNot 6mo ago
Which is right in line with the "crazification factor": https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html?m=1 https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-... The relevant quote: > Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
- markovs_gun 6mo ago
  You can see that factor in a large number of polls on all kinds of subjects. It doesn't matter what the question is, a fifth to a quarter of the population will make the dumbest, least consistent, most self defeating choice every time. I think if you can get ~70% of the population on board with something that's all that should matter because the bottom 25% of the intelligence curve are literally incapable of making good decisions and worrying about them or their opinions will only lead to disaster. I also think that this is a major flaw of a lot of democratic systems because if a movement can effectively mobilize that group to vote as a bloc then it can easily sway policy. Add in messed up systems like in the US where you can amplify the power of that bloc beyond their population and it easily explains how we got here

goatlover 6mo ago

The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.