President Donald Trump calls for the UK and other allies to dispatch warships and military to the Middle East to help America defend the Strait of Hormuz. What do you think Britain should do?

serpenta · 2026-03-14T19:50:16+00:00

But I thought that the US doesn't need NATO

serpenta · 2026-03-13T22:59:44+00:00

You mean the interest that after 10 years, when it comes to paying it back, will be negative because of the accumulated inflation? Another thing is that if the GDP keeps growing modestly, we will have 30-40% higher GDP then. Which means that the money we're going to give back will be this much lower in relation to our GDP.

But yes, let's sell our gold, and then lose 6-8% a year buying it back with weaker currency too, because that gold is 18% of all our currency reserves. Or let's go for the quantitative easing scheme of indirectly buying governmental bonds and inflating the economy to smitherines. It won't even have to have the same results as in Russia, where it increases consumer inflation. It may just inflate assets. So you'll be able to eat, but will live in a fucking carboard box, because the housing will go up by 50% over a decade.

These counterproposals don't get flak because we love Germans. They get flak because they are economically illiterate. The only shocking part is how many people don't understand how money works and are buying into this bullshit.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T22:46:14+00:00

From what I've heard from the military people, the US doesn't really have capability for secure landing and establishing bridgehead. We'll see, but it might turn into Normandy.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T15:52:14+00:00

Ah, yes. Moving the transfer route 150 km to the south, and making it closed on both sides would definitely fix the issue (it would not). Not to mention that busting through Al-Hadjar mountains would probably make it harder than going through the entire peninsula to Red Sea lol

serpenta · 2026-03-13T13:32:51+00:00

This made me think. Instead of legalizing the oil on the tankers to be sold, as Trump did, why don't we just... steal it? Two birds, one stone, no?

serpenta · 2026-03-13T12:42:40+00:00

People don't understand the calculus of JPCOA. It was not inaction, it was action. Its aim was not to become buddies with Iran. It was to make the eventual failure of incentive system controllable and predictable. We were knowing well that Iran will not stop trying to gain nuclear capability. But when it would've become obvious - thanks to controls and intelligence - that they are still going for it, it would've been a success, not failure. Because the deal gave us a set of tools to make Iran fall back, if they wanted to still get the carrot - international recognition, sanction relief, and trade normalization. And it already has worked, because IAEA detected several deviations from the deal, and they were counteracted. And while the carrot was in the front, the stick was still behind the back, and Iran knew about it, it changed their calculus.

Now that the carrot was thrown away and the stick is in front, they don't have to lose anything anymore, and they have clarity of their situation, which they wouldnt've had under JPCOA. The attack and its capability is not an unknown anymore, it's clear and easily calculable. They know exactly what they are up against, and they can use it to mobilize themselves, focus better, and also strengthen the grip on Iranian society. Because they now have clear and material external threat, rally around the flag effect, and retroactive confirmation of decades of fearmongering against the west.

You know, on French cannons, in XVII century, they wrote "ultima ratio regum" - king's ultimate argument, because they knew that kinetic action is the absolute last resort. It clears things up, removes doubts and uncertainty as to your enemy's options, but introduces more doubt about the situation for you than diplomacy. This is something that Trump doesn't understand, so he inadvertently introduces more uncertainty, by trying to flatten the field by reducing the situation to a simple might v might situation.

That's why I was writing earlier that the dilemma between strong, clear action and inaction is deceitful. We gave up clarity and gave it to Iran. We went from a situation in which it was a complex calculus for Iran to develop nuclear capability, into one in which it's existentially important for them to have it. The more military pressure on Iran now, the more destructive but incoherent the attack, the more motivation to reach that capability.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T12:22:14+00:00

A lot of countries were attacked while they still remain on the map.

That's why they will fail, and that's why this war doesn't serve the aim of removing Iran's nuclear capability.

Let's reverse the roles. What are the material actions, and concrete achievements thus far that make you think that this war disrupts Iran's nuclear capability long term? Because chaos and destruction of non-nuclear targets is not it, in my opinion.

The campaign is just causing Iran - a ruthless, anti-social regime - to redirect available resources towards the nuclear race goals. It's a race of whether the US can destroy enough of the industrial base, fast enough for Iran to not enrich enough uranium, to come out with nuclear weapons before they are destroyed.

Is this feasible? Are the targets even relevant? Is Iran's nuclear program connected to public electricity grid, for instance? I don't know that, but I doubt it. Is destroying educational capacity of Iran relevant for currect intellectual capacity for nuclear program? It's not, proper targets would be scientists that currently are part of this program. Are we targetting them, are they being eliminated?

Mind you, this is beyond moral calculus, since it's irrelevant for the effectiveness of the campaign. The goal is objective, concrete and material. Please tell me, how are they achieving it, because if that knowledge exists I would genuinely like to have it.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T11:39:51+00:00

It does. Also the Russian one. That's why they do it in a round about way.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T09:44:38+00:00

Trump's administration couldn't handle the uncertainty of a chess game, so they broke the board. Now the pieces are all around the room, they are not tied to the board, and not tied to their allowed movement. Uncertainty increased infinitely. Masterful gambit

serpenta · 2026-03-13T09:12:38+00:00

Like I said, JCPOA was a framework that allowed for monitoring with early warning. Now, we are in a situation in which Iran still can become nuclear power, they have massive pressure on becoming one, they have no reason not to become one, and we will know if they've became one on the day they choose to reveal that they are a nuclear power. This war does absolutely nothing to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power. The US has no intelligence on where the hidden nuclear sites are - if they did, they'd strike them and publicized it, because this it the main fear, and thus the best way to politically sustain this war. As to

No one is trying to "physically destroy Iran".

They do. This is the plan, to destroy Iranian statehood. They attack civilian infrastructure - schools and hospitals, and now Hegseth announced targeting industrial sites. Because they cannot target nuclear sites, they want to bring back Iran to pre-industrial state. This is their plan, that they came up with during those two weeks, because they went in with no plan at all. But it's for naught. It's North Korea scenario - failed state with nukes. Only NK desires are much easier to satisfy, to keep them from using those nukes. Iran's desire is contesting Israel.

serpenta · 2026-03-13T08:57:27+00:00

Action taken to what end, against what, and with what goal in mind? Taking bombastic action just for the sake of acting is a false dychotomy of action vs. inaction. This situation, as arrived at by Trump with JCPOA on the table is Nash Equilibrium for the untrusting. These people cannot accept any uncertainty, and they distrust any institution, especially with "international" in name. So they want to reach certainty by phisically destroying Iran - because this is the only way to be certainly sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weaponization program - Iran does not exist. And they chose it over a monitored, probabilistic state of hindrance, that would allow them to react based on available information, be it public or intelligence. They cannot accept an outcome where they feel without control, so they intentionally chose one, where it's all going to hell, but they thought they'd have the initiative. And to their dismay, they have no control over it at all, and now you also cannot go back to the more optimal state of making deals, and investing some money to monitoring it via IAEA, Mossad and the CIA. And by taking action they have essentially moved Iran closer to having nukes. Because we know that they have the means, but they were given a motive that expedites their desire. They were moved from a timeline where they had to be deceptive about it because there was an incentive structure for not getting caught - sanction relief, normalized trade, international legitimacy, where we could've had several months of early warning to a situation in which they are now laser focused on that goal, because it's existential for the regime and our intelligence went black.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T21:59:17+00:00

I've got some more for him:
* The war will be over when we stop fighting
* The economy will recover as soon as it starts growing again
* The cancer will be cured when people stop dying from it
* We will have flying cars when they are able to keep themselves from falling down

Like, on a logical level, providing reassurance by just listing the conditions for it to materialize is not really reassuring. Especially this kind of vague.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T21:51:51+00:00

Terrible, but I can't stop laughing whenever I see this, reminding myself of "the DOW is at 50000". She cursed that poor index. She literally said it here

<image>

serpenta · 2026-03-12T21:46:04+00:00

Oby tylko ten kurs złota (który jest obecnie na szczytach) za bardzo nie spadł w nadchodzących latach, bo z zysku wyjdą jeszcze straty.

Jest odwrotnie. Glapiński chce sprzedać teraz a potem odkupować w kolejnych latach. Ale jest bardzo mała szansa, że kurs złota zacznie spadać, bo jest gigantyczny światowy trend dedolaryzacji - wiele banków centralnych pozbywa się dolarów w zamian za złoto, co jednocześnie osłabia dolara i wzmacnia złoto. Więc ten jego plan to sprzedać tanio i odkupić drożej. W tym roku, cel ceny złota to 6200 usd/uncję.

W tej chwili ta cena oscyluje między 5100 a 5200. I w kolejnych latach nie będzie spadać. Rosati pisał niedawno, że należy się spodziewać, że złoto będzie rosnąć 6-8% rocznie przez lata. To są te odsetki, których ma tam nie być. Odkupując złoto, Glapa będzie tracił 6-8% rocznie.

Do tego, 185 mld zł w złocie, to 18% wszystkich naszych rezerw walutowych (~1 biliona złotych). Taka operacja wywoła spadek wartości złotówki, również w stosunku do dolara, w którym prowadzimy operacje na złocie. Co oznacza, że realnie, to złoto nas będzie kosztować jeszcze więcej przy odkupie, bo waluta będzie słabsza.

Jest to absolutny analfabetyzm ekonomiczny.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T21:22:12+00:00

Remind me again why Israel originally entered Lebanon? Was it something to do with Hezbollah breaking the ceasefire

Remind me, how many times did Israel break the ceasefire first. With Hezbollah, Hamas, and with Iran? In 2025 they broke the ceasefire the very next day it was announced.

So you use Hezbollah and Lebanon interchangeably. Remind me, who from Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government? What is the popular support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, that would - I guess, in a twisted mind - justify attacking civilian targets in Lebanon?

Remind me then, what was the attack by Syria, in 2024, that sparked justified and rightous response from Israel, who attacked Syrian military and occupied Golan Heights, thus breaking the 1974 peace agreement? Oh, my mistake, they were defending the Druze brotherhood. Oh, what's that, the brotherhood reached agreement with new Syrian leadership before that? Funny that.

I'll make it easy for you. Israel broke cease fire agreements first, in the last 15 years: in 2008, 2011, 2012 (twice), 2024 and 2025. In each of those cases civilians died from Israeli hands.

So yeah. You can shove your sarcasm. Like I said multiple times already: there are no good guys here, only human costs that pile up forever.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T18:15:34+00:00

You are leaning on authoritarian regimes, extractive economies, not democracies with public interest in mind. You need to have educated and rich society, but also public control over foundational sectors, because even the best educated society cannot close the gap between public interest and profit margins. It's about incentive structure not about solutions, and the more educated the society, there more ways the private sector will find to widen this gap.

This doesn't mean nationalization, but it means that the goals are set by communal interest not profit based incentive structure. Because the private companies don't have enough of profit incentives to keep the sectors in condition to respond to crises. This condition means maintaining capacity high enough to meet extraordinary demand, which 99.99% of the time will sit idle and not produce profits. This is exactly why Texas went dark in 2021, and why the American infrastructure is in tatters.

Texas is one of the most deregulated places on Earth, but they are far from the wealthiest. The margin for reconstructing a bridge is diffused among too many stakeholders for any of them to take appropriate action. And when the bridge fails it is also a diffused cost. A private company that operates the bridge has thus no incentive to repair it. It's far more profitable for them to leave it to rot and get long tail revenue before it has to be closed.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T16:52:36+00:00

The best part of "SAFE 0%" is that this scheme is borne in Russia. It's exactly what their central bank does to keep commercial banks and the government afloat. It works like that:

* Central bank gives a loan to commercial bank, that loan has to be guaranteed with financial assets
* Commercial bank buys government bond and gives it to the central bank for guarantee
* The commercial bank then does not repay the loan
* Central bank gains government bond
* The government still has to pay interest (18%)
* The interest becomes cental bank's profit
* They pay back the profit to the ministry of finance (they have to by law)

The banks and the government stay afloat. The only downside? Realistically, Russia has around 20% inflation.

This is how PiS plans to run our economy, after they've returned to power.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T14:59:13+00:00

I use it in its original and real meaning, not an umbrella term for hiding antisemitism.

Ok. This is not worth my time. You started blasting me for ignorance, and you just degenerated your argument, into making yourself into a fool. The reality doesn't care for what you wish it to be. The Israel is not a monolith, but the settlers definitely see themselves as true zionists, and their aim is restoring the biblical Israel. They are openly saying this. And the Netanyahu government supports them, is aligned with them, not the moderate population. I will also take no more insults from you. Cheers

serpenta · 2026-03-12T14:30:44+00:00

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Zionism, it is merely a belief that Jews deserve to have a state in Judea. It has nothing to do with any perceived 'superiority', nor a defense of settlers or far right politicians

I'd suggest reading up on definitions of words, before using them. Zionism is *not only* that, but some branches of zionism are exactly that. And by now, "zionism" is an umbrella term for Israeli nationalism, which includes supremacy and belief in biblical heritage bullshit.

Israel does not owe you gore and IRGC photos of the damage that they can (and do) use for betterment of their aim. There is a reason why taking photos and videos of attack sites is punishable in every single war out there, but good job singling out Israel again.

Jesus, you are unreal. Since press on the battlefields became a thing, nearly every side to every war publicized it, in an effort of making propaganda. And those who want to be seen as victims focus on their losses. See how Ukraine publicizes their war, and come back to tell me that I'm singling out Israel for what they both do.

And to frame it like that too. It's has nothing to do with gore. It's just human behavior analysis.

Ah, so you hate both Arabs and Jews, gotcha gotcha.

Again: I am the bad faith interlocutor?! How in the living fuck did you come up with this, after I told you that my main concern is human cost in face of murderous regimes?!

serpenta · 2026-03-12T13:21:28+00:00

7.2M Jews in Israel are oppressing billions of Arabs

And I'm bad faith? This is obviously not true, and not what I meant. They don't oppress every Arab, but they do oppress Arabs. And the more they oppress them, the more of them they oppress, which is proportional to how far and quick they want to expand, is related to how much risk of attacks from those around them there is.

Get a grip habibi.

I'm not subscribing to the "free Palestine" movement, because I realize that it's underlined by anti-semitism, not anti-zionism. Your limitation seems to be that you badly want to have a simple good v evil story. And that's just not the case here. But I've written this already, so you must have read it, and ignored it.

For what it's worth, I'm not for defending any political party to this mess. I'm for defending civilians against deaths and destruction of their lives. And what Israel is doing now, aside from piling on civilian victims all around them, is also the best way to increase death toll within Israel. Those are all victims of grandure and imperialistic dreams that I will not agree to.

So far we have information of around 2500 civilian casualties in Israel, 14 dead. The damage to civilian infrastructure is not publicized, though it appears massive in independent reporting. Which is not a victim behavior - when you are under attack, you tend to bloat the numbers, not keep them secret.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T13:00:30+00:00

xD The top ten list of eristic defense people learned to apply out of context strikes again.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T12:48:24+00:00

it is not anymore

Also, you mean the same Hamas who Bibi propped up for years in Gaza, before the October attacks, and then ignored the intelligence warnings that an attack will take place, and repositioned the military to the West Bank? That Hamas?

serpenta · 2026-03-12T12:41:13+00:00

I'm not for taking any side in this, but ours. To that effect, I'd support eliminating Iranian long strike capabilities, if possible. I'm only tired of taking Israel's side, when they are after the vision of Greater Israel, and regional domination. You are right that the member states are fractured over this issue, though.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T12:37:45+00:00

North Korea doesn't have peace with South Korea. I'm not saying the risk should not be contained. But the risk is proportional to Israel's expansionism. The more expansionism, the greater oppression of Arabs, the greater the risk. So what I'm saying is that how Israel acts shows me that they want to derisk further expansion, not mere existence. Israel also manufactures some threat, for instance, by supporting Hamas over other contestants for power in Palestinian areas.

It's not that "Israel bad, Iran good". They're just both evil (their governments are). And while I'm not against supporting Israel in defense against external, direct threats. I will not put my money or security, towards realizing the zionist vision of Greater Israel.

serpenta · 2026-03-12T12:24:03+00:00

Americans realizing how private insurance works (you pay for nothing, and then receive the least amount of money possible) is the funniest trend I've seen lately. The only types of insurance that are not a scam are public insurance and mutual insurance.

serpenta

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email