Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, I am writing here a bit more broadly about some of the trade-offs for the military. Our defense industrial base has become sophisticated, expensive, and slow because we would increasingly get sold more "advanced" weapons. That's great when you are facing an enemy like Iran without an ability to really fight back, but in a war with a peer state you need more munitions faster and cheaper. Industrial production is key, else you become quickly exhausted.
Wait, what now?
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...
Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.
Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy.
Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).
The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:
1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.
2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facility and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.
2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.
The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.
> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
And we have not nearly seen the end of it!
Today I heard that the regime in the USA is considering PUNISHMENT for NATO allies for not joining the war that is just an excursion, even though they were not obligated to join or help, they also were not consulted or even informed in any way about the 'plans'.
And they weren't even needed, according to the clown that millions of easily manipulated Americans voted for.
I feel nothing but disgust for that country right now.
Respect has to be earned.
The US now spends $1T+ a year on war and is asking for $1.5T next year. At least half of that is weapon systems. A lot of these are probably way too expensive and because of multiple suppliers, incredibly hard to scale up. For the missile interceptors, it may take 3-5 years. Logistically, imagine if there was way more standardization of parts so this was easier to scale? A bit like the missing Russian tanks, US military procurement is corrupt. We have the weapon systems we bought but we pay way too much. So we're basically paying $1T+ for a military that can't do anything about the Iranian military. The disparity is so large that one day of sustaining the war is a good part of what the Iranian military costs for a year.
Last year it was widely rumored that the 12 day war ended because the US and Israel were running out of missile interceptors. That's kind of why many didn't expect this war to happen because that shortage was never solved [1]. It's evidence that the US expected this to be a decapitation strike like Venezuela and for it to be over in a matter of days. This problem is reportedly dire [2].
But that was never going to happen and now the US has mired itself in a war it cannot end without a humiliating defeat and withdrawal.
We don't have exact figures because of censorship but it was estimated at the start of this that ~90% of missiles were being intercepted over Israel and now that figure was ~50% before the ceasefire. Ballistic missiles and drones in particular are cheaper to produce than their respective interceptors and can be produced in much higher volume. Launchers are cheap and easy to produce.
Another telling factor in all of this is the US military's continued use of so-called "standoff" weapons. This includes Tomahawk missiles as well as precision-guided muntiions from planes. You generally don't want to use these if you can because you sacrifice ordinance for fuel. So why do you do it? Because you don't have the air superiority you need.
Those weapons too are more expensive and slow to scale up production.
It's incredibly damaging to US interests too that they've been unable and/or unwilling to defend allies and their own bases in the Gulf.
What I hope comes out of this is some pushback on why exactly we're spending $1T (or $1.5T) a year and what exactly we're getting for that. It's an unimaginable amount of money that could otherwise do so much good. Yet instead we're acting like a belligerent yet still failing empire.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/world/middleeast/israel-s...
[2]: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-missile-interceptors-...
The fact that the Gulf turned to Ukraine for protection is one of these strange turnouts one would never expect a few years ago.
jacknews•1h ago
We've had 'China invades Taiwan in 2027' on the radar for a couple of years, and now Trump is disarming the US, and demonstrating it's impotence in certain areas, just in time.
I think we need a new script-writer.
mcphage•1h ago
jmyeet•1h ago
1. Crossing 100 miles of ocean (between mainland China and Taiwan) may as well be 10,000 miles. It's essentially impassable.. Just look at Iran, where a country that has endured decades of sanctions is impossible to invade for the largest and most wel-funded military on Earth. In Iran, the logistics of a sea landing mirror the size and complexity of D-Day and we just don't have that military anymore. Neither does China.
China would have to land somewhere between 500k and 1M soldiers in Taiwan then supply them. They simply don't have that amphibious capability. And anyone who thinks they do just doesn't understand how complicated and extensive the logistics are. Vehicles, weapons, medical supplies, food, ammunition, repair facilities, etc etc etc.
China could blockade but invade? No. Which brings me to...
2. China has absolutely no need to invade Taiwan, strategically. All but 10 countries on Earth have the so-called One China policy, which is a recognition that Taiwan isn't an independent nation and is part of China. China thinks very long term and believes the situation will ultimately be resolved. It's the US who thinks very short-term and likes to invade without thinking of the consequences.
What would an invasion of Taiwan (if they could pull it off, which they can't) do to China's standing in the world, diplomatic and trade relations, etc? Think about Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly Finland and Sweden abandon their neutrality and join NATO. The invasion has actually strengthened NATO.
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't listen to the biggest arms dealer on Earth about what a military threat China is and how we need to expand the military and buy even more weapons.
lossolo•1h ago
This is especially true now, when the US is shooting itself in the foot over Iran, making China look like a rational and stable actor and the US like a chaotic and unreliable partner. There is no gain for China in forcibly taking over Taiwan, they will try to do it through other means over the next 10–20 years. They know that using force to take Taiwan would be the biggest gift they could give the US right now.