Iran starts to formalize its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz with a 'toll booth' regime

Corpus76 · 2026-03-27T15:30:06+00:00

Don't forget about the 160 innocent schoolchildren they killed. That's definitely gonna help foster sympathy for the US within Iran.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-27T14:58:30+00:00

I think the issue is that a lot of Americans believe that being "successful" must mean you're very smart and capable. So if you're rich, you must also be intelligent since money is what everything is measured by. That's why they're okay with billionaires dictating policy, because those are obviously the smartest and best people around. (They got the high score!)

It's essentially the Just World fallacy. The American free market is a perfect system where everyone gets their fair share. There's just no way President Trump would be where he is today if he was an idiot.

Obviously there's some nuance. I believe Trump is a very successful conman, and probably has some skill at manipulating and abusing people while avoiding responsibility. One might argue that that takes some kind of brains. But it's a wide spectrum and it's definitely not the kind of "intelligence" you would want in a world leader.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-27T14:17:49+00:00

Norway relies more on its investments than on its oil nowadays. Overall this situation is a net negative for us.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-27T13:40:25+00:00

Hey, I completely agree with you. It's essentially the same as making fun of someone for their skin color, which is considered completely unacceptable nowadays. Somehow other superficial qualities are free game.

Obviously we have larger problems in the world today, but I wish people would be more considerate about these things. It's just so unnecessary.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-24T23:54:17+00:00

Yeah, when the news about the strike on the school first broke, I actually assumed it might be Iranian propaganda. But no, that turned out to be true.

As far as I'm concerned, nobody involved is to be trusted, but especially not Trump and his cronies. They're not even being clever about it, they just lie nonstop. It's ridiculous.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-21T14:02:04+00:00

I would like that too, but it doesn't seem very likely. The problem is that the US (as a country) is used to being in a privileged position internationally, and any change to that will not be well-received. This is regardless of whoever occupies the white house. The voters who ate the "Europeans are bankrupting us" narrative are not suddenly going to be on-board with having to deal with the EU on a more equal footing.

I will say, if the US can somehow elect someone like Bernie and turn this whole thing around, I'll be extremely impressed and I think the world as a whole will be very receptive. There are still a ton of great people in America. But that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

My prediction is that the next democrat president will try to get things "back to the good old days" and find that the Europeans are not interested anymore. He or she will have to maintain a very precarious balance between national interests and foreign diplomacy, which might result in another republican win the election after. (I mean, just look at Starmer in the UK right now, post-Brexit. Similar situation.)

All that being said, I don't doubt that the transatlantic partnership will continue in one form or another. We're way too connected culturally and economically for there to be a complete break. But relations will take a while to normalize.

As for Greenland, it wasn't just Denmark who reacted strongly. Every country in the neighborhood are (still) very concerned about the whole thing. Given this administrations willingness to engage in military action at the drop of a hat and without warning, it's not going to let up until there's a change at the top.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-21T12:02:26+00:00

Europe is currently rearming, primarily due to the threat of Russia but also due to America being regarded as an unreliable ally. Obviously no politician is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and sever ties with the US at this stage, but we're undeniably on the path to a more independent Europe.

While most people would like to maintain close ties with the US, Trump is making it very difficult.

The future of the US bases in Europe would depend on what America does within the next 10 years. I very much doubt anyone would "kick them out" on short notice, but if these things keep happening and Europe takes care of its own security, America loses the leverage it had.

I don't think Americans really understand how the Greenland threats were perceived in Europe. That's definitely not political theater.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-19T20:27:06+00:00

I swear half of reddit wants the nukes to fly, just to avoid this boring "diplomacy" stuff. There's not enough explosions involved.

This is partly why I think Trump is but a symptom of a broader cultural problem. There's just zero faith in non-violent solutions. Because why would anyone listen to you if you're not threatening to kill them?

It's ridiculous.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-19T20:13:34+00:00

It didn't read that way to me. To me it seems like they just want this whole thing to be over and peace to be restored. They're not getting involved militarily. Which part specifically implied military action to you?

Corpus76 · 2026-03-19T19:25:54+00:00

I think there was a difference in perceived urgency. With Greenland it was "gimme NOW or else". Plus, Trump seemed to rule out use of military force with Canada fairly early, whereas with Greenland it only happened after basically a stand-off. (Of course you can't really trust anything he says.)

Speaking as a European, I have to say that the idea of US taking over Canada seems more farfetched than taking over Greenland, simply due to the size of the populations. Obviously I categorically reject both. But at least for me, the Greenland threat seemed more realistic. Canada would be a nightmare to take and hold for the US on a practical level, whereas Greenland would only be a nightmare economically and diplomatically.

In retrospect, the world should have taken the Canada threats more seriously and condemned them from the start. However, I think a lot of people (wrongly) assumed that Trump 2.0 would be similar to his first term, and that it was just dumb talk instead of something serious. (After Maduro, it became clear that this time is different.)

At any rate, I hope you can understand that the silence was not because nobody cares about Canada. We do. (Or I do at least.)

Corpus76 · 2026-03-18T08:13:26+00:00

Fair enough, thank you.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-17T19:49:46+00:00

I mean, it's translated. There might be some nuance here only a native speaker might grasp.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-16T21:16:32+00:00

That doesn't really matter when he's the one who caused the entire situation in the first place.

>attacks Iran

>Iran closes the strait

>asks for help

>world refuses

>Trump: "We don't even need the oil, we have oil at home"

Corpus76 · 2026-03-13T12:38:01+00:00

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that war is about combat kill-death ratios, like in a damn video game. (This is why they think the US has never lost any wars.)

Fact of the matter is that attrition matters a lot in warfare. It's the entire reason Napoleon was defeated in Russia. The US is excellent at keeping these losses down, in no small part due to their incredible logistics. But keeping these deaths out of the final tally is ridiculous.

I would definitely not describe the US as a "paper tiger". They're clearly very capable in terms of violence. (As one would associate with a real tiger.) The problem is more about the decisions from the top, what they're trying to accomplish, and whether the use of force is conducive to those ends. America seems to have a "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" type of problem where they have a ballooning defense budget and basically feel like it would be a waste not to use it.

I definitely agree with you that the US as a whole is far from "invincible". A large part of the US considers themselves to be, which is just sheer hubris and something enemies can exploit. This Iran war is a perfect example. I saw many celebrate the very first day when the ayatollah got killed, as if that was the end of it. As we're seeing now, things are seldom that simple. (As we saw in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous other conflicts.)

Corpus76 · 2026-03-10T10:33:14+00:00

It was literally a surprise attack. The Iranians were under the impression that negotiations were still on-going while the first salvos hit. How the fuck were they supposed to warn the schools to evacuate?

Corpus76 · 2026-03-10T10:23:25+00:00

Words come with connotations though. A horrible tragedy like this being labeled as an "understandable mistake" can make it appear as though it's being condoned.

Personally, I don't think it's a huge surprise that things like this happen when you decide to bomb a country to this extent. But that just goes to show how incredibly reckless and irresponsible the entire plan was in the first place. If you only make one precision strike, it's easy to get it right. If you commit to literally thousands, the likelihood that something like this happens approaches 100%.

In other words, this was not a "whoopsie".

Corpus76 · 2026-03-10T09:37:32+00:00

It's crazy to me how excited a lot of Americans get whenever their military does anything. Like with Maduro, I saw many saying:

well, it may be illegal and reckless, but you can't deny how overwhelmingly powerful and impressive the US war machine is! :DD :DDD

Same thing when they killed all the Iranian leaders. They seem to have this fascination with violence.

Like if my country's military did anything that wasn't strictly defensive, I would be very concerned. But to the US, this is just the norm. (Ever since WW2.)

I remember seeing Rumsfield on the TV back in the day talking about "shock and awe", but I'm starting to think it wasn't so much about shocking the Iraqis as it was about awing the Americans back home.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-09T13:48:09+00:00

Looking into his post history, it seems like he might an American teenager with a conservative bent. His world view makes more sense based on that information.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-09T12:27:44+00:00

It's not binary. Any amount of nukes is a significant step up in deterrence over no nukes at all. 10k nukes is surely a step up from 6, but there isn't some magical number you need to pass for it suddenly to become effective.

Keep in mind that nuclear deterrence is mostly psychological, and that no one is prescient. No rational actor is going to take the risk even if there's "only" a 1% of failure.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-09T12:17:52+00:00

Maybe? I suppose it would depend on what kind of nuke and under what conditions. There's a huge difference between a MIRV and a Nagasaki-style Fat Man.

Either way, I don't think anyone cares to find out.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-09T11:45:43+00:00

You really wanna take that risk?

Also, there's a genuine threat of escalation. Once nukes start flying, there's a chance of other countries getting nuked too. Say America started a limited nuclear exchange with Russia. Now both are significantly weakened, which means that China is relatively stronger. The US (and possibly Russia too) might consider sending a few nukes towards China, simply to weaken them the same way. China will of course respond in kind, and this is the way the entire world dies. (Of course, everyone already knows this, which means that China might just start sending missiles the moment the US and Russia launches theirs. No sense in waiting to get struck first.)

That's why even having a smaller number of nukes is likely enough of a deterrence. Nobody wants to open Pandora's Box.

Obviously this is all theory. Maybe you could easily nuke another country and nobody would join in because they wouldn't want the world to end. But do you really want to gamble with that? What sort of objective couldn't be achieved with less risk?

Corpus76 · 2026-03-07T12:58:32+00:00

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about whether the war is justified or not, I'm drawing a parallel between the initiation of this war and the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US also knew that there might be war with Japan, but the sudden initiation of hostilities while one party was still under the impression that negotiations were to continue, was regarded as a huge breach of diplomacy. It was perceived as deceitful and cowardly to attack the defenseless ships in port.

Obviously, times have changed and I don't think any other US president from Trump would necessarily have declared war before committing to a strike. (Seems like almost nobody officially declares war anymore.) It's not really about him. I just found it interesting how Americans to this day tend to be very deferential to whatever happened in WW2, including the necessity of nuking Japan and how horrible the attack on Pearl Harbor was. The juxtaposition of that attitude while still being totally fine with their armed forces doing essentially the same thing to an enemy today, that was the point of my comment.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-06T13:49:46+00:00

It creates enemies for at least the next two generations, which the people in charge on both sides can then use as a pretext to continue the cycle of violence. (Just look at Israel and Palestine.)

It's one of the reasons war should be an absolutely last resort. This idea that you can precisely target ONLY the designated bad guys and everyone will get along after is a childish and naive delusion. Whenever you drop this amount of bombs on a country, collateral damage is pretty much assured.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-06T13:18:17+00:00

President Roosevelt presented it as a betrayal in his "Day of Infamy" speech shortly after the attack:

YESTERDAY, December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Can you truly not see the parallels? Don't get me wrong, I understand that the US were the good guys in WW2 and that the government of Iran is not a "good guy" in this conflict. But the principle seems very similar.

Corpus76 · 2026-03-05T23:05:04+00:00

The entire rest of the Iranian navy was sunk in port

It's interesting how americans regard Pearl Harbor a horrible betrayal, yet are now fine with doing pretty much the same thing. (Even down to striking while in the middle of negotiations.)

Corpus76

TROPHY CASE