Trump Bombed Iranian Nuclear Site Fordo Today. Are We in WW 3?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t want a war with Iran. Having served, I’ve seen enough to know that war carries costs that are easy to ignore when you’re not the one bearing them.

In fact, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to join the military in this environment.

We’re all bearing the cost of the war right now. Every one feels it, even if they pretend otherwise.

[Gunnar]

But as we know, it was previously open to all international traffic, toll free, and had been for years, right up to when Trump and Netanyahu decided to start a war with Iran. So, we have gained what, exactly?

Trump and his ultra-rich donors and cronies couldn't care less whether any of the rest of us have either gained or been hurt by it as long as they continue to perceive that it only advances their own wealth and power, even at the expense of almost everyone else.

[I Have Questions]

But as we know, it was previously open to all international traffic, toll free, and had been for years, right up to when Trump and Netanyahu decided to start a war with Iran. So, we have gained what, exactly?

Trump and his ultra-rich donors and cronies couldn't care less whether any of the rest of us have either gained or been hurt by it as long as they continue to perceive that it only advances their own wealth and power at the expense of almost everyone else.

I cannot see that America has gained anything from the conflict, but I’m happy to be corrected on that. I guess some ultra wealthy people have gained from the oil price fluctuations, so there’s that. But in what way(s) is the situation better than it was before Trump had his “attack Iran” whim? It’s a serious question that I don’t see anyone (including the press) trying to answer.

[Gunnar]

Trump and his ultra-rich donors and cronies couldn't care less whether any of the rest of us have either gained or been hurt by it as long as they continue to perceive that it only advances their own wealth and power at the expense of almost everyone else.

I cannot see that America has gained anything from the conflict, but I’m happy to be corrected on that. I guess some ultra wealthy people have gained from the oil price fluctuations, so there’s that. But in what way(s) is the situation better than it was before Trump had his “attack Iran” whim? It’s a serious question that I don’t see anyone (including the press) trying to answer.

Certainly, the oil companies potentially gain from that, and it is my understanding that they are among the most prolific donors to Trump and conservatives in general. They also spend many millions of dollars to defeat fossil fuel and environmental improvement initiatives. Please read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

https://www.bing.com/search?filters=ufn ... A1&PC=HCTS

Merchants of Doubt: A 3 Minute Summary

[Limnor]

I don’t want a war with Iran. Having served, I’ve seen enough to know that war carries costs that are easy to ignore when you’re not the one bearing them.

In fact, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to join the military in this environment.

We’re all bearing the cost of the war right now. Every one feels it, even if they pretend otherwise.

That’s fair.

[Chap]

All this craziness points to a rather worrying question.

In the first Trump Presidency, there was at least a belief that should Trump wake up up in the night and start screaming 'NUKE TEHERAN! NOW!!!! BRING ME THE F*****G CODE FOOTBALL!!!!!'

... the top military would contrive to suggest that there was a technical fault, so that they couldn't do that right away, unfortunately, thus giving them a chance to get Article 25 into action.

I gather, however, that he has since then ensured that if he says 'nuke', then nuking will happen. Do better informed board members agree that this is the case?

[Res Ipsa]

All this craziness points to a rather worrying question.

In the first Trump Presidency, there was at least a belief that should Trump wake up up in the night and start screaming 'NUKE TEHERAN! NOW!!!! BRING ME THE F*****G CODE FOOTBALL!!!!!'

... the top military would contrive to suggest that there was a technical fault, so that they couldn't do that right away, unfortunately, thus giving them a chance to get Article 25 into action.

I gather, however, that he has since then ensured that if he says 'nuke', then nuking will happen. Do better informed board members agree that this is the case?

There is no check on the President's ability to use nukes. I think they would have been used in the first term if the order had been given. To think otherwise is just wishing.

[ajax18]

I cannot see that America has gained anything from the conflict, but I’m happy to be corrected on that. I guess some ultra wealthy people have gained from the oil price fluctuations, so there’s that. But in what way(s) is the situation better than it was before Trump had his “attack Iran” whim? It’s a serious question that I don’t see anyone (including the press) trying to answer.

Certainly, the oil companies potentially gain from that, and it is my understanding that they are among the most prolific donors to Trump and conservatives in general. They also spend many millions of dollars to defeat fossil fuel and environmental improvement initiatives. Please read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

https://www.bing.com/search?filters=ufn ... A1&PC=HCTS

Merchants of Doubt: A 3 Minute Summary

If the war in Iran is driving up the price of gasoline, you should be happy given your environmental alarmist nature that leads you to embrace policies and unilateral carbon emission reduction agreements which disproportionately hurt the American people. Because in your view, we're responsible for bearing the cost of environmental regulations because we have more money than other nations. When Democrats take power, gasoline, electricity, and even fresh potable water will be heavily taxed for two reasons. It's part of income redistribution from working to nonworking people, which is the fundamental goal of democratic socialism. But it's also to punish American and only American people who use fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.

The only way you're going to make green energy competitive is to drive up the price of fossil fuels. So why aren't you jumping up and down happy about the price of gasoline, when it's literally saving the planet according to your logic?

[huckelberry]

.........Because in your view, we're responsible for bearing the cost of environmental regulations because we have more money than other nations. When Democrats take power, gasoline, electricity, and even fresh potable water will be heavily taxed for two reasons. It's part of income redistribution from working to nonworking people, which is the fundamental goal of democratic socialism. But it's also to punish American and only American people who use fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.

The only way you're going to make green energy competitive is to drive up the price of fossil fuels. So why aren't you jumping up and down happy about the price of gasoline, when it's literally saving the planet according to your logic?

Ajax you point to ideas of a desructive policy. I do not think any sizable group of people want such things. Not even real socialist or communist would aim for such a path.

[Chap]

Certainly, the oil companies potentially gain from that, and it is my understanding that they are among the most prolific donors to Trump and conservatives in general. They also spend many millions of dollars to defeat fossil fuel and environmental improvement initiatives. Please read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

https://www.bing.com/search?filters=ufn ... A1&PC=HCTS

Merchants of Doubt: A 3 Minute Summary

If the war in Iran is driving up the price of gasoline, you should be happy given your environmental alarmist nature that leads you to embrace policies and unilateral carbon emission reduction agreements which disproportionately hurt the American people. Because in your view, we're responsible for bearing the cost of environmental regulations because we have more money than other nations. When Democrats take power, gasoline, electricity, and even fresh potable water will be heavily taxed for two reasons. It's part of income redistribution from working to nonworking people, which is the fundamental goal of democratic socialism. But it's also to punish American and only American people who use fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.

The only way you're going to make green energy competitive is to drive up the price of fossil fuels. So why aren't you jumping up and down happy about the price of gasoline, when it's literally saving the planet according to your logic?

Sigh. Way, way out of date. Renewable energy sources are now considerably cheaper than fossil fuels. See for instance:

How cost-effective is a renewables-dominated electricity system in comparison to one based on fossil fuels?

Part of which reads:

How do energy production costs compare between renewables and fossil fuels?

The ‘levelised cost of electricity’ (LCOE) provides a simple means of comparing different technologies for the production of electricity, taking account of capital costs and costs of operation, including maintenance and the purchase of any fuel needed.
The British government’s assessments of the LCOE of generation technologies since 2012 show striking reductions in the LCOE of wind turbines and solar PV panels over time, which fell to between £41 per megawatt hour (MWh) and £48/MWh respectively for new developments in 2023. In comparison, the cost of new conventional gas-fired generation (without carbon capture) rose from £103/MWh (including a carbon price of £25/MWh) in 2012 to £124/MWh (including a carbon price of £65/MWh) in 2023.
Inflationary pressures in international supply chains have led to a recent increase in the maximum price (known as the ‘reserve price’) that may be paid for offshore wind in the next Contract for Difference auction, to £94/MWh. However, this price is significantly lower than the prices for offshore wind of £147–£155/MWh awarded in the first round of auctions in 2015 – a remarkable cost reduction driven by innovation and economies of scale. And importantly, this does not change the reality that the LCOE of renewables is now much lower than that of electricity produced from gas.