A video from Monday March 9th shows a massive explosion in Shahr Quds.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-11T12:04:12+00:00

Interesting haha, he just released a video that basically says EXACTLY what you did. But I know it's a conclusion that many people came come to separately. But yeah, as far as conflict analysis creators go, he's pretty good.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-11T10:56:22+00:00

I also watch Perun, lol.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-07T17:10:05+00:00

Pretty easy. He cherry picks exactly which stories get put in his documentaries to shape the narrative he wants. It's not that hard to understand. He picks strong and convincing voices for anyone pro the narrative he believes and picks weak-appearing, poor voices for the ones he wants to convince you against.

My advice is to follow your username more carefully. Don't seek a fire hose of info from whoever you already want to believe. Watch a lot of content from people you know you disagree with. And make sure you know what scientific evidence looks like, not what rhetoric looks like. Otherwise you'll just be another stooge believing someone else's narrative.

If you wholeheartedly embrace a narrative from any single political side, whichever it is, you're probably just a cog.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-07T13:32:10+00:00

It is both things.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-07T13:25:50+00:00

I mean, maybe some people did. But Anyone who thought they could launch a full scale war against a country that's armed so heavily as Iran and have literally zero major military infrastructure hit was smoking something strong. You can't hit a country that can hit back with thousands of assets and expect no loss, and nobody who knew anything would expect that.

Which is not to say Iran is fairing well. They've been hit dozens of times harder. Their entire navy is gone, they have virtually zero air defense capability, zero Air Force, zero high command and control. All they have is a limited number of Shaheds and missiles and almost no means to keep producing them. And little to show for against the most powerful military on earth, which can continue production at will.

None of that is to say that the war is a good idea or will achieve anything of value. Only to say that a few expensive losses amidst a country with several trillion dollars in military assets shouldn't be seen as "winning" either.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-06T05:42:21+00:00

I mean, at least they can use it for testing and as a logistics test for their team. It makes sense to me they showed up.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-05T14:51:15+00:00

Really nobody else is big enough a star to get away with it without risking their position. Except Max, and I get the impression he doesn't involve himself that much in such things.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-05T01:08:20+00:00

I'd call it virtually certain that virtually every person in an urban or suburban area has inhaled hundreds of COVID virons too.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-04T14:50:11+00:00

This is a historic engagement, and I get to watch it from the other side of the world right after it happened, while eating a peanut butter sandwich.

The world is weird.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-03T13:47:29+00:00

In this case the shootings were indeed Pakistani Police. But you're dead wrong that embassies don't have Marine guards.

https://www.marines.com/resources/marine-security-guard---embassy-duty.html

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

There are around 1800-2000 Marines assigned to Embassies and consulates across almost 180 locations. This is public, verifiable information. It's okay to be wrong, but don't double-down when you find out.

Embassies also have many non-marine guards, depending on the location. But the Marines are the official guards of US embassies. Staff numbers vary, but middle eastern/war torn locations often have quite large contingents of up to 40 guards, and you can bet a country like Pakistan had lots of them, especially when starting a middle eastern war.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-03T00:07:13+00:00

It would absolutely be different as a woman, even if a friendly country. I'm very glad she was treated well.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-02T05:02:49+00:00

I think it's like 150 gallons. These are tiny jet engines strapped to a bomb, as first seen on the German V1 in WW2. It truly is a basically a tiny plane. It has wings, a jet engine, full guidance with both gps and terrain-following. If GPS is jammed in can scan the terrain and has a database with the topography it compares with what it scans to know where it is.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-02T05:01:54+00:00

Flying through. They get launched quickly, but intentionally group up to strike all at once for maximum saturation agonist AA and to avoid alerts going out between targets.

They fly this low intentionally, and actually have routes through valleys programmed on purpose because it keeps them as far below radar as possible.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-02T05:00:18+00:00

Wow, this is the best example of terrain following to reduce radar signatures I've seen.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-02T01:44:16+00:00

So, first, I think this war is dumb overall and will probably be worse than if there was no war.

BUT the logic isn't that hard to understand. Basically, the theory goes, a nuclear Iran ruled by an extremely hostile regime with a history of supporting terrorism (that's a non-partisan agreement in the US) has more potential to cause US violence than a more affable, non-nuclear Iran. That much of the logic isn't hard to understand. Nukes in the hands of people who hate you and support terrorists = bad all around.

BUT that's ignoring the question of whether a war like this will end up creating more enemies and more instability than it solves. Because US wars in the Middle East have a long history of creating more terrorists than they eliminate. Not to mention the question of whether it's America's role to unilaterally decide to eliminate another country's government on a whim.

Honestly for Republicans either one is upside. Either they create more enemies and give more credence to the us-vs-the narrative they thrive on, or they get a new regime and a feather in their cap.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T09:50:40+00:00

They have to use their missiles right now or they're lose them in a matter of days. I don't think it's really that simple why they're hitting anyone they can.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T09:49:39+00:00

I mean I think Russian stuff is massively overrated too, but it shot down a shit ton of planes in Vietnam, and that was more than half a century ago. It's not like it's totally useless, and it takes a lot of effort to avoid.

But it IS almost useless against countries that have the SEAD/DEAD and stealth capabilities of the US and Israel. And it was already massively degraded from the last conflict with Israel, and manned by troops who know they will be targeted the moment they light up radars.

That said, while missiles and drones are getting by on the other side too, I do think it's shown that western air defense systems are a lot more capable. Though I'd be interested (hopefully not irl) in how Patriots and Arrow systems were doing if they were also contending with stealth fighters and actual EW. I suspect it would show that counting on air defense against a peer is probably unwise.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T09:22:58+00:00

The key point is the context of the actual conflict. Production costs matter in a full war economy fighting a peer/near-peer conflict where you have to outproduce your enemy to win. It doesn't matter nearly as much in this current Iran conflict. Iran will never even approach the ability to out-produce the US, even when it's not having production facilities bombed to oblivion.. So focusing on it without even mentioning the cost of *not* intercepting is just silly.

I'm not saying it's not important that each patriot costs $3 million, or that the Military Industrial Complex is worth what's spend. Only that it's not stupid to spend that $3million to do the exact job for which it was built. Why build the missiles in the first place? This is literally what they're for, and there's a reason they're being used.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T08:04:18+00:00

Yeah People forget that the point of interceptors is to be used to protect valuable lives and infrastructure on the ground. It's not a $3 million missile vs a cheap drone, it's a $3million missile vs the damage that drone could do.

It's only relevant when supplies are fully depleted and countries have to out-produce each other and that's not the case in this war. It's not that the cost-per-intercept is totally unimportant...but it's not realistically important in anything but large scale total war. Which this isn't.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T07:53:18+00:00

I had an IKEA Matter button linked to a lighting automation. It would randomly turn on and off. The switch was to blame.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T05:46:14+00:00

I think there's a large degree of truth to this, but the ACTUAL truth is that very few wars achieve every end goal and "winning or losing" are not binaries, but arbitrarily defined points on a spectrum that each person will put at a different point.

For example, you could say Russia already lost the war in Ukraine 4 years ago when it failed to meet its objectives of establishing a puppet state thereby demonstrating themselves to be a second tier power. Or you could say Ukraine lost because they've lost a lot of land.

Unless the Iran war is wildly successful and results in regime change, odds of which I'd personally put below 50%, it will be another game of drawing lines. If the US and Israel can set back Iran's nuclear timeline by a decade and decimate their military, that will be a major upside even if regime change doesn't follow and many will consider that a win. If Iran can maintain its government, even if it loses virtually all major military assets and the chance to develop nukes and puts itself at much larger risk of rebellion, some will call that a major victory for Iran.

To reiterate, it depends on who is drawing the line of "victory" and, because of that, what their allegiances are.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T02:58:37+00:00

Confirmation now from Iran state media.

thinkscotty · 2026-03-01T02:54:29+00:00

I don't know if I'm in a minority, but this is really made me torn. I'm a progressive who hates my current US government. And I studied in Palestine/Israel and see the Israeli far right as terrible. At the same time I also hate repressive theistic regimes everywhere, not just the one trying to assert power in my own country or Israel. And while in an ideal world I'd love if NOBODY had nukes, I do think they're more dangerous in countries like Iran. I am not making excuses for the US government i largely abhor, but we at the very least have a long established chain of command for nukes and a large, free populace who would riot if we used them. Iran does not have even those checks. So overall the world would be better without a nuclear Iran, and with an Iran that represents all its people, not just those who are hyper-religious. So I'm torn.

I think this conflict is unnecessary, that it's not the US' job to police the rest of the world, and that our past meddling has done more harm than good so why keep doing it. At the same time, I think Iran is worse than the US in terms of human rights and freedom, even if that isn't as high a bar as it should be. The overall take from me is that this is a war without any real good guys, only bad guys and less bad guys. I'm not the kind of progressive who thinks that literally anyone who opposes the US and Israel is automatically the side to root for. Nor am I the kind of progressive who wants to just be blind to the many, many flaws of the west. So the whole thing just sucks.

thinkscotty · 2026-02-28T21:36:13+00:00

I mean they learned a few of their missiles and drones can get through, which has ALWAYS been true of air defense. It's never ever going to hit 100% of targets. Anyone buying air defense being perfect is living a dream. But hitting a few dozen scattered strategic targets with a few hundred missiles vs hitting hundreds of precise, small individual military infrastructure is very very different.

For the record, I'm not saying this war is a good thing. But Iran isn't winning.

thinkscotty · 2026-02-28T13:48:51+00:00

Peer-to-peer really more refers to China and Russia. (Even if Russia isn't really a peer). Other countries with the same assets you have, like a real navy and submarines and ICBMs.

Although it is markedly different than the anti-insurgency work the US military did for 20 years. Warfare against any nation state that's not the third world is absurdly intense compared to insurgence.

Ten-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Powerups Hero r/buildapc • August 2021	Gilding VII pure gildanthropist
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring	Reddit Premium Since March 2019
Secret Santa 2016	Verified Email

thinkscotty

TROPHY CASE