Rumsfeld put in the work and was very smart. His natural disposition was such that, when given the ring of power, things went badly.
The current head of DoD is basically a manosphere influencer that bumbled into this job.
Now, I'm not an endocrinologist, just an aging guy, but from my current vantage point it appears that over the course of my life, many stupid decisions have been made that I have lived to tell about. I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.
This is all to say that our current "situation" just kinda looks like one insecure guys roid rage when you take a big step back.
> I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.
I was thinking the same recently, analyzing my life choices then and now. We can't do a double-blinds study with these things, but I believe you might be right.
Which is a little ironic given one of their arguments against DEI policies is that it chooses less qualified people in the name of diversity. If this administration isn't nominating on the basis of merit, what standing do they have to target law firms with DEI policies? [1]
I read and article on here some months ago titled something like "Leftist usecases for LLMs" and one of them was negotiating bureaucracies, and that reminds me, I need to call back JCP&L about my Board of Public Utilities complaint that an LLM helped me out together.
You see, I live with in a rural area and especially since LED light bulbs have become the thing, it's been clear that we are delivered far less than 120v service a lot of the time. We live about 200 yards from the transformer that we share with several other houses, too many I believe. About two years ago I set up Home Assistant and bought one of those power monitoring rigs that you put on each circuit in your breaker box, mostly I just wanted data about where my power bill money was going. I work in FinOps in case anyone was curious.
Anyhoo, couple years later I'm analyzing several months worth of power bills vs the circuit meter readings to quantify where I can make some upgrades and save some money. After a day or so of this I mention to Claude about the voltage issues and sure enough, it puts together a whole packet for me documenting brownouts down to 95v and routine brownouts below 110v. It helps me fill out the BPU complaint form.
2 days later I get a call from JCP&L (unfortunately to my wife's phone because it's her name as the primary on the account). I want a new, larger transformer for myself and my neighbors, so I need to call them back today.
If you were monitoring the power coming into your house, why did you need claude to "put together a whole packet documenting brownouts"? Shouldn't you just have the raw data, maybe highlighted with the offending parts? Or was the prose of your complaint the issue?
Frequently you have to mention specific laws and describe how your situation matches the law or your complaints get ignored. At least this is how it works when you call your insurance company and make similar complaints.
How big is the transformer and how many residences are sharing it? It’s probably stencil painted on the enclosure.
I’ve seen half a dozen houses on a single 7.2kV -> 240V 25kva transformer which can lead to problems given the available current on the secondary side is only 104A. As the transformer overheats you get voltage drop, as you’ve noticed ;)
Your supply voltage should be +/- 5% of nominal, 115-125V line to neutral and 230-250V line to line, appliances are generally OK with +/- 10% from nominal voltage.
I don't know "how big", but I do know that it's a 7.2kV line, and that there are 6 houses on it, and that mine is pretty far away while the other houses are quite close to the transformer.
Like I said, it routinely drops to or below 100v. It's most noticeable after an outage is restored when everyone's hot water heaters and fridges kick back on at once.
Because it’s one thing to get me to spend more tokens because of how well a model functions, and another thing entirely to purposefully speak in unparseable prose that requires me to spend more tokens to understand what is going on.
I’m fine with the former, while the latter is manipulative, and I rationalize to “surely that’s not actually happening.”
Maybe I’m not giving my thoughts enough credit, though: maybe it’s not tin foil hat, and is real.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying "It gets paid by the word and you get back walls of text." - ie, what you don't want to think is happening is very obviously what is happening.
It charges by the unit and it decides how many units it produces. It decides how much money it makes, therefore it decides "more".
I get you, and maybe we’re talking past each other.
My point is that, while I understand it’s paid by the word, there are more words and less clarity than I previously experienced, leading me to believe it’s intentional to get an artificially inflated increase in engagement and, thus, spend.
If it could be as direct as I previously experienced, I wouldn’t need to ask for another different explanation of the same thing and experience the commensurate spend.
I don't think this is obvious at all. There's enough competition that this would at least arguably be a silly, self-destructive approach. And it's not like it's the only plausible explanation.
- A country, even as big as the US, is strictly, evidently, not exceptional.
- The US lost the majority of the wars it joined/started in the last 100 years and came home every time trying to sell it as a victory despite not achieving their war goals.
- You may have weapons or power of some kind, but every move you make costs you some kind of currency: time, material, energy, credibility, goodwill. You may have large amounts, but they're never infinite.
- Acts of raw destruction as mean towards a goal is often not ideal: change and control are "constructive" concepts, while bombs can only offer you guaranteed chaos. You MIGHT be able to steer that chaos afterwards, but it's not guaranteed and numbers do not simply improve your position here. (see: Iraq, etc.)
No - the Iran war is a total strategic failure, but the US is very obviously 'exceptional' - I'm not saying necessarily admirable, or more moral etc but it is hugely 'stand out' in terms of capabilities. That's just a fact of reality irrespective of all of the political and moral context.
- The US did not 'lose' the majority of the wars it started - it won most of them, and arguably failed to achieve strategic objectives in some.
- "Acts of raw destruction as mean towards a goal is often not ideal " - this is a misrepresentation of US doctrine for decades. Even in Vietnam the US did not pursue 'full war' and refused to do strategic bombing in North Vietnam for a decade. As soon as Nixon did (op: Linebacker) - basically, the US 'won' right away. They decimated N. Vietnamese ability in a very material way. Were that strategy to have been undertaken in 1967, the war would have had a completely different outcome, probably more like Korean detente.
- US is very careful in their campaigns, there are chains of authority, externalizations are always assessed. The rules of engagement may shift a but - but it's false to suggest it's 'arbitrarily destructive' in targeting, it's generally minimal.
If you want to see what 'destructive' is, just look at Russian engagement in Ukraine, or Assad in Syria, or Saudi in Yemen. They don't care what they hit, it's a totally different environment.
To this day Iran's Oil Infrastructure remains intact. Just let that sink in.
All of this is outside of any moral or whatever other consideration - it's just 'what it is'.
The 'important note' here is that 'Power Has Limits' and that's truly the defining characterization of this war. This is not 'America is not capable' is that 'capabilities have limits' - and they become very obvious in difficult ways if power is applied poorly.
The Generals 100% warned Trump of all of this - this conflict is not a military failure in that sense, this is predictable. It's the political apparatus pushing the boundaries. The Generals would have none of this.
>If you want to see what 'destructive' is, just look at Russian engagement in Ukraine, or Assad in Syria, or Saudi in Yemen. They don't care what they hit, it's a totally different environment.
Show us the difference with Vietnam (and Cambodia).
The difference is deliberate and arbitrary attack of civilians at scale and total lack of concern - popularly, politically, operationally, and practically for casualties outside military targeting.
The notion one would even try to compare 'the Caribbean' - where USN is destroying drug running boats - which is arguably against some maritime laws but is nevertheless exceedingly acute, I think shows how wound up people are in the political context.
There is no relevant kinetic fallout in the Caribbean - it's an Elephant precisely stepping on a single ant.
Capture of Venezuelan Oil ... almost certainly illegal.
But that's a different thing
As for Vietnam - start by laying the context for why the N. Vietnamese imprisoned, tortured, killed 100's of thousands of political dissidents and civilians of all kinds, and continued that horrible repression for decades even to this day as they continue to crack down on mild dissent. The actual facts on both sides are actually ugly, but woefully misrepresented and the same utterly bizarre dual moral lens is applied ... a bit like in the Iranian situation as well.
Implied in the question is the despotism in plain site: why did N. Vietnam invade Cambodia? Against the will of those people? And murder and maraud in that territory?
The difference is between that, as a starting point, and strategic bombing of rural roadways (Ho Chi Min trail) etc., which ironically was in lieu of actually bombing North Vietnam which should have been done right from the onset, would have prevented a war, and saved 1/2 the population from a perennial nightmare and given the citizens some say in their future.
But it's also an example of the extent of the ability of superpowers to project power.
You get it completely backwards: the US Navy is "allegedly" destroying drug running boats, and it is completely, totally, "inarguably" against maritime laws - and laws of war (but there is no war, right?) and basic law principles in civilized countries.
>it's an Elephant precisely stepping on a single ant.
It is not a cute animal simile. It is US Navy sailors commiting 200+ summary executions. It is burning alive and drowning. It is widows and orphans.
"It is widows and orphans." - you lost the argument by trying to characterize these people as innocents, because it's such an awful position it undermines your own legitimacy.
These are 'Cártel de los Soles' etc they are thugs and killers, the source of untold violence and harm.
This the hysterical rhetorical position that I'm actually hinting at - contempt for a party (in this case the US) renders people intellectually incoherent - willing to defend the most vile actions such as mass murder by Hamas, Iranian regime, mass killings, torture and imprisonment, by North Vietnam etc..
The same people that overlook Stalin's literal genocide - for example, the German Centre Left Party, the Social Democrats, who used to 'retreat' in Russia, at one of Stalin's summer homes.
This 'USA always bad / actual terrorists are victims' nonsense is the psychological affliction at work here, in almost all these discussions.
It's the flip side of the 'USA good and justified in everything' nonsense.
One posture does not justify the other.
First - The US has a reasonable moral claim against stopping these parties, even if they are going too far by not using interdiction, and killing those who were floating at sea. The basic legitimacy remains even if the methods are not justified.
Second - The situation if anything demonstrates US exceptionalism, which is the argument here. This isn't about 'moral claims' - it's about if the US is actually an exceptional military force.
The OP indicated 'the US clearly not exceptional'.
This is completely delusional. Obviously, they are. It's not a moral assessment, which is much more complicated.
Contempt for the US turns people's brains to rubbish.
>These are 'Cártel de los Soles' etc they are thugs and killers
Do you have any proof the people killed on those boats are thugs and killers, and not just mules, or fishermen?
And how does your righteousness squares with the same US government releasing Juan Orlando Hernández?
>willing to defend the most vile actions such as mass murder by Hamas, Iranian regime, mass killings, torture and imprisonment, by North Vietnam etc..
Absolutely nobody is defending these. The US is just completely failing at stopping those "vile actions" and piling up more death and misery to just end up at the same point or worse.
> Contempt for the US turns people's brains to rubbish.
...it's not contempt, but man, the US is just not that special. It's just one of us. calm down.
Or, coming from another direction: you are verbally thrashing in an HN thread because you heard something you didn't like, you think countries don't do this on the regular, including with weapons if they feel it's worth the effort?
> To this day Iran's Oil Infrastructure remains intact. Just let that sink in.
The US was going as far as issuing sanctions waivers to Russia to try and get oil to the market it was so worried about what the war in the middle east would do to prices. All the indications are they're desperate to preserve as much middle eastern oil infrastructure as possible, even to the point where they look like losers vis a vis Iran. No surprise if they aren't inviting tit for tat exchanges on oil infrastructure. And the Russia-Ukraine war had vaguely similar parallels, with Ukraine allowing transit of Russian gas through the country to Europe for ... I want to say at least 12 months. So clearly neither side was so lost in the battle that they thought disrupting the pipelines was a good idea.
That type of targeting discrimination seems to be fairly normal. Armies are only indiscriminate when they think that helps their war aims. Although what exactly the US war aims are in Iran is very much a guess, Trump was struggling to even lie consistently when he was trying to come up with one.
Yes, that's a fair assessment, but then general context is still one of very specific strategic targeting. And FYI it's not just about 'Oil Prices', the US has left many other strategic industries in place whereas by any other ugly consideration, they would just 'blow up whatever'.
I'm not sure how far the Administration would go but they are very strongly restricted by US Armed forces procedures and just norms.
>The US did not 'lose' the majority of the wars it started - it won most of them, and arguably failed to achieve strategic objectives in some.
I mean if we look at all recent wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and now Iran we completely failed in our objectives. We spend billions, kill a lot of people and get a lot of our own people killed and didn't manage to instill democracy anywhere. How is that not losing the wars? It's complete failure to do what we set out to do 3 times now in recent history.
It's fair to say overall engagements were bad, but it's hard to argue that a military looses when it streamrolls the opponent, and then 'decides to leave'.
The US generally wins wars, but can fail on occupational and grander objectives, which are different things.
The US 'tied' in Korea, eventually 'won' in Vietnam but then quickly decided to leave - strategic failure), 'won' in Iraq but a grinding occupation left it a strategic quagmire but no total failure.
Middling intervention in Syria was effective in bringing down Assad and now there is a transition to 'something somewhat better'.
There was no fight to even win in Afghanistan as the Talibain was overthrown without direct intervention - the follow up was entirely occupational - and though it was a strategic failure, it wasn't a military defeat. The West just did not want to continue paying the cost of keeping the fighters at bay. That's a 'stupid set of decisions' which is different than 'losing'.
This is all different from Russian failure in Ukraine where it cannot meet it's military objectives.
Iran is shaping up to be a 'military tie' - because US is engaging from afar it' abilities are limited and is taking real losses ... and a pretty big strategic failure, having lost control over the Gulf, no 5th fleet presence in the Gulf, allies attacked, Iran emboldened. Bad.
Hi, the guy with the original claims here: You can really argue this one either way - If you look at Wikipedia, the field seems fairly even, but when you start looking into the details, things don't look quite as rosy: There's a few "wins" that are literally just a plane getting shot down or similar, there's a lot of revolutions they were involved in (some turning out good, some bad) But as you've observed: the big, memorable ones they lost. even the ones Wikipedia claims as wins/mixed bags are sometimes consequences of an earlier battle that they lost. For example, Korea: the division counts as a 'win', because it happened during WW2 and the US were part of the victors of WW2. Defending the south in the Korean war counts as 'mixed' and gets thrown in with the lost counteroffensive of taking the north. You can play the numbers however you like here, it feels like.
> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953
That fools running a country who turfed out military experience for loyalty were completely blind to what they were doing? I had no idea that running out of missiles was a distinct possibility until Spencer Ackerman started beating that drum in his newsletter around the start of the conflict. Forever Wars (along with the pieces he links to) has been an eye opening read.
US adversary countries have to love everything that is happening. If you’re China you win by doing nothing, just let the US administration pillage the country
It bodes well for Europeans when the Americans begin their invasion of Denmark, at the very least. Not great for a potential Russia-USA war and Taiwan wouldn't get as much support if the Chinese invade would also be difficult, though.
The title says "virtually all" but the first paragraph says "much". The actual stockpile is probably larger than this news report would make it seem. It would be convenient for Trump and his Russia-loving cronies if it would appear that the USA has no more weapons to support Ukraine with, of course.
Many advanced NATO weapons being difficult to produce and only being available in small quantities is something that has been discussed before, I don't think that's news. The rate at which they're being spammed without much result at Iran is, but that's hardly surprising given the current people in charge.
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes", international relations edition.
America is not happy when it is not at war. There has to be an enemy. The old WOT had finally run out of steam; people are coming out of college who were born after 9/11. Venezuela (and Latin America generally) made a good enemy for a while, but they were too easily defeated. But Iran? America has wanted a rematch since Jimmy Carter.
(A bipartisan problem, mostly, but propped up by pro-war media. The only people against it are a few Democrats, almost all of whom are women)
I haven't either. I'm honestly questioning how many resources are being wasting on bumper stickers we don't buy. Is this why I couldn't find the sticker I wanted last week?
The current head of DoD is basically a manosphere influencer that bumbled into this job.
Now, I'm not an endocrinologist, just an aging guy, but from my current vantage point it appears that over the course of my life, many stupid decisions have been made that I have lived to tell about. I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.
This is all to say that our current "situation" just kinda looks like one insecure guys roid rage when you take a big step back.
reply