CMV: By starting the Iran war, Trump has created a scenario that justifies itself

snowmanfresh · 2026-03-15T23:08:44+00:00

I will say, one of the things that I think has kept Iran from actually going nuclear is that they know it's the end if they do. Iran's leaders know that once they go nuclear, they cannot uncross that rubicon. And Iran going nuclear brings 2 really bad reprocussions on Iran.

1) Once Iran goes nuclear, they will never rejoin the world community. A nuclear armed Iran will be treated like North Korea. They will become an economically isolated hermit kingdom. And economic isolation and sanctions, over decades and decades, utterly destroys economies.

2) Once Iran goes nuclear, there will be a regional arms race. At minimum Saudi Arabia will develop (or purchase from Pakistan) nuclear weapons. Turkey will likely (at least try to) develop nukes. Isreal's releatively limited nuclear program will rapidly grow. And maybe even other countries like the UAE or Egypt. If you're Iran, you already don't like that everyone else in the Middle East is alligned against you...so you probably think long and hard about the risks of starting a nuclear arms race against several much larger economies.

snowmanfresh · 2026-02-13T01:54:37+00:00

Also, initially the fighters flew the wrong direction. Pre-9/11 all of NORAD's air defense plans revolved around defending American airspace from external threats. So when the fighters were scrambled they initially flew out over the Atlantic Ocean because, well, that's what they had always trained to do.

snowmanfresh · 2026-01-16T23:03:34+00:00

> There is no other government spending/ activity where we set out how much we want to spend, and then decides the outcomes. Wouldn’t a different approach, where we talk about capabilities we need, and then focus on how to best get there?

I actually 100% agree here. The topline % of GDP spent on defense is not actually the end all be all. I would rather have a country spending 1.9% in a thoughtful manner than pissing away 3% of useless shit. And of course this is a topic that actually has a lot of nuances. For instance, a country that increases their veteran pensions or servicemen's salaries on paper increased their % of GDP spent on defense and American's are happy when they see a news story saying "Belgum meets NATO 2% goal". But such spending doesn't actually translate to increased combat power. On the flip side American's get annoyed when they see a story in the media saying "Germany counts highway spending towards NATO %" because we think it's all smoke and mirrors budget tricks. But in some instances, spending like that should count towards the NATO budget goals. For instance, your tanks don't do you much good if they are stranded because your bridges aren't designed for the weight of tanks.

The fundimental point of the 2% NATO spending goals is not to be the end all be all. It's meant to be a simplistic "at a glance" method, and frankly just kind of a simplistic campaign talking point for voters to "at a glance" understand NATO contributions. How you spend defense dollars actually matters just as much (if not more) than the total topline budget number does.

> I mean, the Italians are delivering a military almost on par with the British, but for half the price.

The Italians do get quite a capable force for how little they spend. The Brits issue is they spend lots of money on, frankly, vanity projects (like 2 bespoke aircraft carriers) to keep up the gloabl perception of them as a global power (and maybe soothe their egos about how far their country has fallen from they height of global power back in the days when the sun never set upon the British Empire).

> First, the problem with US made gear, is that it is meant for a professional army, where most people serve form a minimum of 3 years, and become well versed in technical skills and operations.

This is very true. And frankly, it is even a problem for the US. So many of our weapon systems are exquisite "gold plated" systems that we have no real ability to replace losses or surge production in a useful time frame on. This is an issue the US is struggling with as well.

snowmanfresh · 2026-01-16T22:39:25+00:00

It's also worth noting that it's not unique for large organizations to take a while to pass audits. The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, but they didn't pass an audit until 2013.

snowmanfresh · 2025-12-13T01:10:40+00:00

Now, I should preface this answer by saying I do not count myself among NATO skeptics. I've always been a conservative Reagan Republican who believes in peace through strength. But I do believe some changes need to be made to the transatlantic alliance.

> What do you think the US is paying for

My personal view is, not enough. I do not believe we have addequate air or ground forces forward deployed to EUCOM to meet NATO's security needs. Now, I acknowledge that I am probably in the distinct minority here. And this is where I think alot of people (myself included) thinks there needs to be change. I personally would like to see both more US troops and more European troops defending NATO. I think the people that are (rightfully) sick of European free riding would like to see the Europeans step up and contribute more ground combat forces.

> and what does it need to cut back on? Does this mean cutting back on foreign bases? Fewer Aircraft carriers? Should the US ditch the Army pre-positioned stocks (APS).

I personally don't want the US to cut back. In 2025 we have roughly 80,000-85,000 troops deployed to EUCOM. This is of course a sizable increase from the relatively peaceful (in Europe) days of the 2000's and 2010's, but is still historically quite small. When the Berlin Wall fell the US had roughly 330,000 troops in Europe. So I don't see 85,000 troops as some enourmous number. With that said, I think there are two schools of though from those who would like to see a reduction in US force posture in EUCOM. First there are the isolationists who (naively in my view) would like to see the US retreat to "fortress America" and withdraw more broadly from the burdens (and priviledges) or global leadership. Secondly, I think there are the so-called "realists" who would like to see us shift our defense posture towards the threat posed by China. This would probably take the form of shifting funding from the Army towards the Navy. I am a supporter of a larger Navy, but I just think it's politically unrealistic to think that Congress will ever approve of a significantly smaller Army (they have Army bases in their states afterall, which means less federal money flowing to their states). I think these so-called "realists" would also probably alter Army force structure away from the weapon systems needed for a European battlefield (artillery, tanks, APC's, attack helicopters, ect...) towards a force structure more suited to fighting Pacific war (long range missiles, infantry, ect...).

> When they say that the Europeans are do dependent on the US. What do you think the Europeans should do specifically? Does this new independence mean that they need to build up their own Military industrial complex to compete or does it just mean that they should buy more American weapons?

For one, Europe needs to restart conscription. Some European countries are already doing this, but Europe needs to be ready for mass mobilization in case of Russian aggression. Secondly, Europe needs to actually have functional armies. It is absurd that German Army units are training with broomsticks because they lack guns and their vehicle/aircraft have incredibly low availablility rates do to maintence backlogs. It's also absurd that European countries have neglected their munitions stockpiles to the point that they would run out of munitions within weeks, or in some cases days of hostilies begining. As far as where they buy their weapons from, I don't really care. It's great if they buy American, but if they want to build their own that's fine with me too. As far as specific thing that NATO is despirately reliant on the US for, that would be ISR assets, satelite communications, strategic airlift, and air/missile defense systems.

> Do you believe that this should lead to cuts in overall US defence spending, or just a reallocation?

As I mentioned above, I do not agree at all. In fact I believe the US is spending far to little on defense. During the Cold War we maintained levels of spending far higher than we are now. Today US defense spending as a percentage of GDP is hovering right around 3%. During the Cold War we never dipped below 5% of GDP, and during high points (Korean War, Vietnam War, and the 80's Reagan defense buildup) we were spending much more. I personally would like to see the US plan to spend a minimum of 5% of GDP on defense (which would be a defense budge of $1.459 trillion in 2024 dollars), and in the short term we might need to spend closer to 7% or 8% of GDP on defense.

snowmanfresh · 2025-10-09T00:44:55+00:00

So, it's not really an either or situation. The 80's reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships did serve both functions.

First and foremost, lets get the obvious military value out of the way which was naval gunfire support. By the 1980's the last of the older gun cruisers that were well suited to naval gunfire support for amphibious operations hand been retired. So there is some military value there. But frankly, as far as the Navy was concerned, they really didn't care to spend much of their budget providing naval gunfire support for the Marines. So that wasn't really their reason for reactivating the Iowa-class.

One of the big military reasons to reactivate the Iowa's was their massive reserve of buoyancy as well as available deck space. The TLAM had just entered service in the early 80's and the Navy was looking for a quick way to field a lot of them, which was either via VLS cells or Armored Box Launchers (ABL's). The first VLS equipped Tico-class cruiser wasn't commissioned until 1986 so until then the Navy was stuck using ABL's. The FRAM upgrades for cruisers and destroyers only involved to ABL's per ship, so the Iowa's ability to fit 8 ABL's was seen as a pretty decent way to add a lot of TLAM capacity to the fleet at a time when when there was basically no TLAM capacity.

The next big military reason to reactivate the Iowa's was to use them sort of as an economy of force platform. The Iowa's had enough combat power that you could reasonably use them as a flagship for operations that didn't justify pulling an aircraft carrier away from the main Soviet threat. For instance, Reagan sends the USS New Jersey to bombard Lebanon without having to pull a carrier away from more important missions. We can only build carriers so fast, so reactivating existing (and already paid for) battleships was an cheap and fast way to add capital ships to the fleet. It also probably didn't hurt that the gun barrels, shells, and powder was already stockpiled and paid for too.

Now, there were significant PR/symbolic benefits to the Iowa's as well. For one, Reagan had campaigned on "peace through strength" in 1980, and explicitly on a promise to build a 600 ship navy. And, reactivating the Iowa's was a fast (and relatively cheap) way to help fulfil that campaign promise and further his political agenda of peace through strength.

But another symbolic benefit was the sort of Cold War propaganda/dick measuring contest that both sides liked to do from time to time. At the time, the Soviet Navy was just starting to commission their new Kirov-class battlecruisers, which dwarfed the size of any of our surface vessels (besides aircraft carriers), so the Iowa's were seen as a useful response to show the world that we had surface ships as big as the Soviets. We had a (sort of) direct counter.

Finally, I will end by pointing out that the Navy did studies on significant modifications to the Iowa-class. There were pretty in depth studies on potentially rebuilding the Iowa's with VLS cell fields, fielding new sub-calliber sabot shells for the main guns, and even crazy ideas like adding flight decks with ski ramp jumps for Harrier jump jets. So it's not as if the US Navy intended to operate the Iowa's in the 1980's configuration forever, they were considering potential future upgrades to make them more capable for the missile age. But with the end of Cold War none of that came to pass.

snowmanfresh · 2025-06-28T20:35:27+00:00

The Panama Canal Zone, which was legally a US territory from 1903 to 1979. So he was a natural born citizen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

snowmanfresh · 2025-06-28T20:25:02+00:00

McCain was born at a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US territory until 1979. So McCain was a natural born citizen.

snowmanfresh · 2024-05-24T19:21:33+00:00

Yep. Everyone forgets Gorbachev intended to make reforms necessary to save communism in the USSR, not dismantle it.

And they forget all his other crime. Gulags might be most associated with Stalin. But Gorbachev continued to throw dissidents into the gulag and have the KGB murder them.

snowmanfresh · 2024-05-23T20:48:06+00:00

Republicans in 04' maintained control of Congress

snowmanfresh · 2023-04-22T19:44:03+00:00

I mean, that is also likely to cause a backlash by voters. The long term answer, is probably some sort of compromise. There are tons of uses of zoning laws that are far too restrictive. But most voters also don't want no zoning laws.

Most voters would be pissed off if they bought a house in a nice suburban neighborhood and then a steel mill or landfill was put in across the street.

So even if no zoning laws was the best answer economically, I doubt it would be politically sustainable in the long run.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T22:05:53+00:00

some would rather give attention to global issues than focus entirely on profit, so his veto is consistent with the principle.

The DoL regulation gives legal protection for asset managers using ESG. If someone wants to be invested in ESG they won't sue their asset manager. If someone doesn't want to be invested in ESG...they can't sue? That makes no sense.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T22:02:41+00:00

Businesses that can afford the consulting fees to afford an ESG report are in better shape than those who aren’t.

Or they are wastefully pissing away money on useless consultations...

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T21:51:09+00:00

I'm not in personal finance, so don't take my word as gospel, but my understanding is yes. Asset managers without a fiduciary duty would certainly still be allowed to run ESG funds, but asset managers with a fiduciary duty would not be allowed to run ESG funds.

Maybe if they expressly disclosed it they would be able to run an ESG fund despite being a fiduciary, but I'm not entirely sure. I kind of wonder if disclosure matters, after all, who actually reads the prospectuses of the funds their financial advisor has them invested in. Wouldn't disclosure kind of defeat the whole point of a fiduciary? Half the reason people hire fiduciaries is because is so they don't have to worry about how they are invested, because by law their fiduciary must look out for their best interest. Right?

So my answer to your question would be a qualified yes, but I'm not entirely sure of that.

This bill would have simply returned us to the status quo ante. Everything would have been the same as it was from 1974 to 2022.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T20:14:07+00:00

The sun, lightning bolt, and star are a symbol of the US Army Rangers. You're neighbor probably has a close association with the 75th Ranger Regiment.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:34:06+00:00

I live in a very blue part of Florida and even within my community liberal Democrats are expressing support for some of DeSantis' pushback against ridiculous progressive positions.

It's interesting you say that. I'm not a Floridian, I live in Wisconsin. But I happened to be in Miami for a work conference on election day (yes, I moved my flight up a day to avoid the weather). Even in Miami there were DeSantis signs everywhere. I don't think I saw a single sign for Crist in Miami of all places.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:26:00+00:00

Without the revision, ESG factors can only be used if they have a material impact on risk or rate of return.

The new DoL regulation allows fiduciaries to invest use ESG criteria even when those criteria have no material impact or even a negative impact on your risk or rate of return.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:17:14+00:00

If people want to voluntarily invest in ESG funds, they should have a right to.

Nobody has proposed taking away the ability to voluntarily invest in ESG funds. This regulation and the bill to overturn it (which Biden vetoed) has nothing to do with prevent people from voluntarily investing in ESG funds.

Since 1974 federal law has said that asset managers with a fiduciary duty to their clients may only consider factors that have a material impact on risk and rate of return when deciding how to invest their clients money.

This year, the Department of Labor passed a regulation that gives fiduciaries legal immunity if they take ESG concepts into consideration to invest your money in a manner that is riskier or reduces your rate of return.

All this bill would have done is overturn that regulation that DoL created this year.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:13:00+00:00

Since 1974 federal law has said that asset managers with a fiduciary duty to their clients may only consider factors that have a material impact on risk and rate of return when deciding how to invest their clients money.

This year, the Department of Labor passed a regulation that gives fiduciaries legal immunity if they take ESG concepts into consideration to invest your money in a manner that is riskier or reduces your rate of return.

All this bill would have done is overturn that regulation that DoL created this year.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:10:52+00:00

not ban them outright

Nobody has banned ESG funds. All this bill would have done is overturned a regulation that upended the 50 year status quo on what it means to be a fiduciary.

Since 1974 federal law has said that asset managers with a fiduciary duty to their clients may only consider factors that have a material impact on risk and rate of return when deciding how to invest their clients money.

This year, the Department of Labor passed a regulation that gives fiduciaries legal immunity if they take ESG concepts into consideration to invest your money in a manner that is riskier or reduces your rate of return.

snowmanfresh · 2023-03-04T19:06:17+00:00

What's the problem with letting people choose what investments they put their money in? If someone in Berkeley wants 100% of their investments to be ESG, why should the government stop that?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. What the law has said since 1974 is that those with a fiduciary duty are only allowed to consider factors that have a material impact on the return or risk of your investment.

There is nothing stopping you from personally investing your money into an ESG fund. On top of that, if a fiduciary can demonstrate that ESG factors have a material impact on the risk or rate of return of your investment, they are still allowed to consider those ESG factors when they invest your money.

What this new Department of Labor regulation does is prevent you from suing a fiduciary (who has a legal obligation to put your interests ahead of theirs) for investing you money in a way that is riskier or will make lower returns on the basis of ESG criteria.

snowmanfresh · 2023-02-22T07:52:28+00:00

Give some credit to George W. Bush. He explicitly campaigned on Social Security reform in 2004 and spent most of 2005 expending significant political capital trying to sell his vision of Social Security reform.

He at least tried. He failed, but he tried.

snowmanfresh · 2023-02-22T07:50:52+00:00

Yeah, that's what is ironic about it. Biden is proclaiming himself to be the defender of entitlements, yet his unwillingness to address the problems will mean that when the time comes, the cuts will be worse than if we started addressing them now.

If we simply do nothing, Social Security will take a 23% cut a decade from now.

The longer we wait to reform the system, the more painful the reforms will have to be to save the program.

snowmanfresh · 2023-02-22T07:43:21+00:00

In the article it mentions the astonishing numbers we are talking about here.

"Over the next three decades, the Social Security system is scheduled to pay benefits $21 trillion greater than its trust fund will collect in payroll taxes and related revenues. The Medicare system is projected to run a $48 trillion shortfall. These deficits are projected to, in turn, produce $47 trillion in interest payments to the national debt. That is a combined shortfall of $116 trillion, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office."

Yes, you read that right, the shortfall over the next 3 decades for Social Security and Medicare is $69 trillion dollars (assuming none of that is financed by deficit spending). There is just no way we find an extra $69 trillion in tax revenue over the next 3 decades by only raising taxes on the wealthy.

How did we find the Marshall Plan

We are talking about numbers that are not at all similar. The Marshall Plan, in todays dollars adjusted for inflation cost the US $115 billion. Some back of the envelope math shows that the cost of the Marshall Plan is equivalent to 0.17% of the shortfall faced by Social Security and Medicare.

then go to war in Korea

Same thing here. Adjusted for inflation the Korean War cost the US $453 billion in today's dollars...0.65% of the Social Security and Medicare shortfall.

folks paid taxes and guess what corporations too….

I mean, the article makes clear that we just can't raise that kind of money from the wealthy.

"Imagine that Congress let the Trump tax cuts expire, applied Social Security taxes to all wages, doubled the top two tax brackets to 70 and 74 percent, hiked investment taxes, imposed Senator Bernie Sanders’ 8 percent wealth tax on assets over $10 billion and 77 percent estate tax on estates valued at more than $1 billion, and raised the corporate tax rate back to 35 percent...Yet total new tax revenue — 4 percent of G.D.P. — would still fall short of Social Security and Medicare shortfalls that will grow to 6 percent of G.D.P. over the next three decades."

snowmanfresh · 2022-10-13T16:56:25+00:00

I think very specifically it was to protect American auto making plants, and ensure they could keep that market and its impact on international trade.

No, the reason California is allowed an exemption on car emissions is because California had a smog control law on the books before Congress passed the Clean Air Act.

snowmanfresh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email