3 ms·

Once you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admi

Once you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admission of defeat - so it drags on and on and on.

TSiege 3mo ago
I'm not sure the US would behave as rationally in that scenario as you hope
dctoedt 3mo ago
> I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship Sinking or even just seriously damaging a U.S. aircraft carrier — approx. 5K people in crew + airwing, billions of dollars in ship and aircraft — might trigger a Pearl-Harbor or 9/11 fury among the American public. No U.S. president could get away with even a "proportionate" response, let alone doing nothing. Think of the Tonkin Gulf incident in 1965, which led to the U.S.'s widened involvement in Vietnam on the basis of grossly-distorted reports about alleged attacks — which never happened — on U.S. destroyers (which are comparatively small ships). [0] If Iran were to actually sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, then Trump-Hegseth-Miller might well nuke Tehran in response. We sure as hell don't need anything like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by a terrorist. It triggered a cascade of some of the stupidest and costliest government decisions in history. Belgrade, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, London, they all effed it up almost beyond belief. WWI cost millions of lives and untold billions in resources that could have been put to far better use. Iran sinking a U.S. carrier could be a similar trigger. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
- bad_haircut72 3mo ago
  Yeah exactly, thats how you win wars, you force the enemy to do things they dont really want to do.
  - m000 3mo ago
    Win the war, lose the empire.
- colechristensen 3mo ago
  >It triggered a cascade of some of the stupidest and costliest government decisions in history. Eh. WWI wasn't an accident, a series of unfortunate incidents, or something that just got out of hand. Countries and people WANTED the war, war was still thought about as a general benefit to the country, almost sporting. Everybody was feeling powerful with the new capabilities industrialization gave them and they wanted to use that to gain influence. (of course not literally everybody, but this was a prevailing force)
  - dctoedt 3mo ago
    So you agree with me — stupid decisions, catastrophic fuckups.
    - colechristensen 3mo ago
      >stupid decisions, catastrophic fuckups The implication here I'm disagreeing with is that the war was the unintended consequence of mistakes. Instead of mistakes leading the continent down a dark path it was intentional, just waiting for an excuse to start fighting.
      - dctoedt 3mo ago
        I have to differ. I don’t think anyone on either side even imagined, let alone intended, that the Western Front would get bogged down in four years of trench warfare or (on the Allied side) that Russia would fight so suboptimally. There was a lot of catastrophically-naive optimism at work.
  - dctoedt 3mo ago
    > Countries and people WANTED the war, war was still thought about as a general benefit to the country That was true among some of the players in various governments — Kaiser Wilhelm being a prime example. Can you cite any (reputable) historians who think that was a general attitude?
    - 3mo ago
Georgelemental 3mo ago
I think the current leadership in Tehran is pragmatic enough to want to avoid that. Of course, the longer this drags on, the more likely they are to be replaced by hard-liners
croes 3mo ago
The have the Strait of Hormuz, a much bigger asset than sinking a US ship
m000 3mo ago
I think they can already sink any US ship that comes in range if they want to. And the US knows it too. But for different reasons, it's in neither's interest to go there.

TSiege 3mo ago

I'm not sure the US would behave as rationally in that scenario as you hope

dctoedt 3mo ago

> I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship Sinking or even just seriously damaging a U.S. aircraft carrier — approx. 5K people in crew + airwing, billions of dollars in ship and aircraft — might trigger a Pearl-Harbor or 9/11 fury among the American public. No U.S. president could get away with even a "proportionate" response, let alone doing nothing. Think of the Tonkin Gulf incident in 1965, which led to the U.S.'s widened involvement in Vietnam on the basis of grossly-distorted reports about alleged attacks — which never happened — on U.S. destroyers (which are comparatively small ships). [0] If Iran were to actually sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, then Trump-Hegseth-Miller might well nuke Tehran in response. We sure as hell don't need anything like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by a terrorist. It triggered a cascade of some of the stupidest and costliest government decisions in history. Belgrade, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, London, they all effed it up almost beyond belief. WWI cost millions of lives and untold billions in resources that could have been put to far better use. Iran sinking a U.S. carrier could be a similar trigger. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

bad_haircut72 3mo ago
Yeah exactly, thats how you win wars, you force the enemy to do things they dont really want to do.
- m000 3mo ago
  Win the war, lose the empire.
colechristensen 3mo ago
>It triggered a cascade of some of the stupidest and costliest government decisions in history. Eh. WWI wasn't an accident, a series of unfortunate incidents, or something that just got out of hand. Countries and people WANTED the war, war was still thought about as a general benefit to the country, almost sporting. Everybody was feeling powerful with the new capabilities industrialization gave them and they wanted to use that to gain influence. (of course not literally everybody, but this was a prevailing force)
- dctoedt 3mo ago
  So you agree with me — stupid decisions, catastrophic fuckups.
  - colechristensen 3mo ago
    >stupid decisions, catastrophic fuckups The implication here I'm disagreeing with is that the war was the unintended consequence of mistakes. Instead of mistakes leading the continent down a dark path it was intentional, just waiting for an excuse to start fighting.
    - dctoedt 3mo ago
      I have to differ. I don’t think anyone on either side even imagined, let alone intended, that the Western Front would get bogged down in four years of trench warfare or (on the Allied side) that Russia would fight so suboptimally. There was a lot of catastrophically-naive optimism at work.
- dctoedt 3mo ago
  > Countries and people WANTED the war, war was still thought about as a general benefit to the country That was true among some of the players in various governments — Kaiser Wilhelm being a prime example. Can you cite any (reputable) historians who think that was a general attitude?
  - 3mo ago

Georgelemental 3mo ago

I think the current leadership in Tehran is pragmatic enough to want to avoid that. Of course, the longer this drags on, the more likely they are to be replaced by hard-liners

croes 3mo ago

The have the Strait of Hormuz, a much bigger asset than sinking a US ship

m000 3mo ago

I think they can already sink any US ship that comes in range if they want to. And the US knows it too. But for different reasons, it's in neither's interest to go there.