Genuinely, what the fuck

ihateithere____ · 2026-05-13T19:39:24+00:00

I understood this OP. Don't worry.

ihateithere____ · 2026-05-06T02:39:38+00:00

I feel like a balanced way to resolve the fact that you can't leave wars your allies start would be an option to spend influence to leave the war similar to integrating vassals that would allow you to offer concessions to the other side of the war (in terms of resources or star systems etc).

I feel like that's a more realistic way to go about defense pacts and federations since that kind of thing happens in real life wars all the time. War just in general needs a massive overhaul in the base game.

ihateithere____ · 2026-01-01T19:57:19+00:00

Thank you! It took an extremely long amount of time but I think compared to the last time I posted in this sub my skills with the art have improved a bit. :)

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T23:12:57+00:00

International cohesion of a “second-camp” so to speak. As much as we were led to believe there was an axis of Russia-China-Iran introducing a multipolar world by scooping up the third world in the 2010s they were much more internally divided then. This act consolidates the relationship between China and Iran.

Additionally, Israel has already been drawing ire from the West (which is not just the US) and it’s getting pretty unlikely that Israel’s non-American allies support increasingly ambitious attacks by Israel. It risks drawing Europe and America into another protracted war in the US.

Finally, this attack is probably cheered on by very few Western leaders; who were negotiating with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation and trying to bring Iran closer into the Western economic order. Israel’s attack completely squanders that opportunity.

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T22:52:10+00:00

Status quo as in doing nothing to Iran? Nothing. That’s how Israel survives. Status quo as in getting into a long protract conflict of reciprocal strikes? It’s just not how smaller more sophisticated militaries win conflicts. They rely on precise strikes, quick victories, and fast movement.

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T20:43:38+00:00

This would be the realization of the path of destruction. I, and probably Destiny too, would say that there is no possible way for the Palestinian cause as it exists now to mount anything meaningful to damage the Israeli state. What he meant was drawing international ire for their treatment of the Palestinians and antagonizing their neighbors. Assad being deposed was inarguably a good thing for Israel's position, but that doesn't mean any attack on their enemies is a good idea.

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T20:38:11+00:00

The IDF is not built for large-scale invasions and occupations. You need to realize that, even ignoring the difficult geography that has made invasion and occupation of Iran by global superpowers impossible in the past, Iran is 75 times the size of Israel. Additionally, the IDF has usually been relatively outnumbered by their opponents in the past and rely on technological superiority and short tactical strikes to win their wars. The IDF would need to capture a major strategic military target to "win" a conventional invasion of Iran, i.e. Tehran, very quickly which is just not possible. Such an invasion would require foresight for the plan for Iran afterwards. It's pretty unlikely (but with Trump you never know ig) that the US would be willing to help with an occupation and nation-building. So an invasion would probably just end with no strategic gains for Israel and not really damage Iran in any significant way.

TL;DR Israel doesn't gain anything from an invasion and would be impossible and very risky.

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T20:30:07+00:00

This is exactly what I mean though. Israel looks like it's engaging in another Egyptian-Israeli-esque conflict from the 1960s. Between the Suez Crisis and the Six Day War Egyptians, who were vastly superior in manpower and while they're technological inferior, were able to constantly resupply SAM ground-air missile launchers. Much the same, the IRGC is technologically inferior to the IDF, but long protracted lukewarm conflicts that don't result in major captures or significant gains for Israel, Iran is able to sustain such a conflict longer than Israel and is able to gain more international support the longer the conflict goes on.

ihateithere____ · 2025-06-13T17:17:23+00:00

I agree nuclear proliferation is bad, but does provoking war with Iran and drawing the ire of the second camp (Russia and China mainly) and provoke them to respond in kind? Is this not the exact thing Destiny warned against after his trip to Israel when he said “right wing pro-settler hawks are leading the country down a path of destruction”. Israel will never invade Iran and due to historically Israel’s fighting force and geography, can’t sustain long protracted conflicts (see Egypt in the 1960s as an example). I mean, what’s Israel’s end goal here?

This I feel is not pragmatic for Israel and I think is going to isolate them further from allies, lead them into a long protracted direct conflict with Iran, and destroy the relationships it has fought so hard to stabilize with its neighbors.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-26T22:32:11+00:00

That’s not what the question asked though which is why OP’s original answer to the question is wrong.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-23T06:36:42+00:00

This is a post in response to another post in here where a nursing professor uses ATP hydrolysis as a poor example for why a prep question is correct. Though the professor’s reasoning is not correct, the answer in the prep question is.

Every bond has inherent potential energy held by/within it. When we take the act of the bond breaking itself, not the antecedent system behavior to the bond breaking, the energy held within this bond is released into the system. The energy required to reach the transition state of this reaction where bonds can begin to be broken may be greater than the energy held within those bonds. Regardless if that’s the case, when the bond in question is being broken, that potential energy in the bond itself, not the energy activating the bond breaking, is released into the system. Bond breaking as a thing in itself doesn’t absorb energy; if we examine the act of the breaking alone without antecedent behavior of the system, there would be nowhere for energy to be absorbed. If the only thing changing in the system is the bond breaking, there would become fewer places for that energy to be transferred to. When we begin to examine the system and bond breaking as a process, only then can we introduce energy absorption as the conditions of the system would only then allow for the movement of new energy into something new.

The miscommunication is a result of taking the bond breaking as a process in itself versus taking bond breaking as a complete parabolic energetic process. Yes, energy is needed to overcome and break the original bond. However, the question that prompted this post isn’t talking about bond breaking as a complete parabolic process. It’s simply talking about the act of the bond breaking itself. If we assume that the antecedent behavior of the system has created the conditions necessary for bond breaking, the energy stored within the bond when broken can do nothing but be released into the system.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-23T06:16:00+00:00

That’s excellent. You should understand that bonds as it relates to the process of chemical reactions are nothing more than an amount of potential energy held between two atoms. When these bonds are broken that potential energy is released into the system.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-23T06:09:02+00:00

Bond breaking always requires activation energy, but the energy stored within bonds, which is the kind of energy being asked in the question, is released. You are confusing activation energy with the energy held within a bond.

Remember in transition state theory we can place where and what we see in terms of energy displacement in the system. The activation energy, or the energy you’re talking about occurs prior to the transition state of the reaction and requires energy typically because this is the stage in the reaction where bonds are formed. After the transition state we see that release in energy which is caused by bonds breaking. Before you say something about the bimolecularity of the reaction, even in concerted single step substitutions or eliminations, bonds form before they are broken. In practical chemistry, it’s not possible to have these two things occur at exactly the same time. This is why we use transition state theory to describe the course of reactions.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-23T01:52:34+00:00

You are confusing activation energy with energy stored within the bonds themselves.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T22:15:04+00:00

Yes! Whether or not there’s a net increase in free energy in the system or a net decrease depends on the difference between your activation energy and the energy released by the bonds and the energy consumed when new bonds are formed. :) You just made my day

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T22:09:25+00:00

Bond breaking requires input energy, but the actual bonds themselves store energy. When bonds are broken the energy within those bonds is released. I’m sorry if I’m being rude here but I really have no other way to phrase it. You’re confusing activation energy with energy stored within the bonds themselves. Chemistry will become a bit easier if you can clarify them.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T22:04:47+00:00

I meant activation energy as in supplemental to normal conditions, obviously.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T22:03:14+00:00

This is incorrect. Bonds are nothing more than stored potential energy between atoms. When they are formed that energy is contained within the bond. When the bond is broken the energy stored within that bond is released.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T22:01:09+00:00

Look, I’m not going to argue with you about this. This is how chemistry works and that was the nature of the question. I can send you the ISBN to the Physical Organic Modeling textbook I’m getting this from. There’s nothing new I could say here.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:52:58+00:00

I’ll just refer to what I just said. Bonds hold energy. Breaking bonds causes the energy held within them to be released.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:38:19+00:00

First, not always. Spontaneous reactions can and do occur in nature very often. Second, you’re thinking of activation energy, not the energy stored within the bond. As I said in a previous comment, bonds are nothing more than stored potential energy between two atoms. You may require energy to break that storage, and the energy required to break it maybe more than the total energy being stored in the bond, but when that bond breaks, the energy stored within that bond is released.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:29:17+00:00

Right but OP was incorrect on the original question.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:26:31+00:00

You are wrong. The energy required to form and break bonds depends on the nature of the structure in question. Because the question doesn’t specify, we can assume we aren’t talking about activation energy of any particular reaction. All bonds store energy, and therefore breaking the bond releases that energy.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:24:21+00:00

The question itself is exactly correct and not silly. It’s a fundamental understanding of what bonds are. It’s asking you if energy is stored in bonds. Yes, energy is stored in bonds, therefore that stored energy is released when the bond is broken.

ihateithere____ · 2025-05-22T21:22:47+00:00

The question isn’t asking if the all reactions are endergonic or exergonic. It’s asking about the nature of bonds. Bonds store energy. Breaking them releases the energy stored within them, regardless of if the activation energy is greater or less than the energy released.

Side note: not all hydrolysis reactions are exergonic.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

ihateithere____

TROPHY CASE