War Summary
https://mol.im/a/15620191

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Place blame where it belongs, AI Claude killed the girls

---

You probably thought you were being funny, but you could be right.

The NYT ordered new satellite imagery from the commercial provider Planet Labs. It showed the area was hit by six rockets fired by the US, one which hit the school, and five which hit the adjacent military installations.

Commercial satellites are not equipped with sensors that determine where the rockets were aimed. Contrast that with the use of AI and satellites in US military defense systems that can determine the flight when someone shoots a rocket or missile and then sends out something to intercept the incoming projectile.

The article quotes Wes J. Bryant, a national security analyst who served in the U.S. Air Force and was a senior adviser on civilian harm at the Pentagon, He reviewed the commercial satellite images and concluded that all of the buildings, including the school, had been hit with "picture perfect" target strikes. That probably doesn't mean what you think it means, and the NYT wants to leave it ambiguous. It means that it looks like the rockets hit where you would aim if you were shooting at the buildings, in other words were direct hits on the buildings. It doesn't mean that the rocket that hit the school was aimed at the school building. There is no way to know that for the technology employed by the NYT, and the inference that it is, is the type of journalism one can expect in these days of narrative driven journalism.

That raises two issues assuming you believe that the US Navy doesn't intend to blow-up schools. One is an intelligence failure, which like it or not happens all the time, and in fact Bryant suggests happened. AI has images of stuff, picks out the target, and then when directed shoots rockets at its selected targets. It doesn't mean AI has all the most up to date images in the world or that it correctly picks the correct images out of the billions of images on line. But militaries (and just not the US) routinely have to rely on bad or imprecise intelligence when bombing thousands of targets a day.

The other weird thing my Space X friends tell me can happen is that modern missiles don't always go where they were originally aimed. While there are things such as defective missile systems (just look at Iran which has a hard time controlling where its missiles go) that is much more unlikely with US rockets and missiles. Modern US guided military rockets and missiles can adjust their trajectory after launch to hit targets, even if the target moves or the initial aim was off. They use internal guidance systems, such as GPS, radar, laser designation, or infrared sensors, to actuate fins or vector thrust, allowing them to redirect in flight. The systems don't operate at 100% effectiveness, and they can lock on to different targets that cross their path (which also can be the cause of friendly fire accidents). That would explain the direct hit, assuming that the initial target wasn't bad in the first place (see the prior paragrah).

Said it before, but the arrogance to think the US or any other military can run a perfectly sanitary war and not hit civilians is dangerous. Sometimes the military does know civilians are in the target area and shoots intentionally because they military target is just to high value. Hard to conclude the subject installation in question was such a target without further information. Nevertheless, the law professors should save their idiotic conclusions about violating international law for the ivory tower, because the real world doesn't function that way. Then there is collateral damage that occurs because a military target is adjacent to or in civilian rich area, and sheet happens. Using in AI is just replacing AI error for human error. You don't want civilian casualties, don't have a war.

---

I wasn't joking. I'm thinking those dip****s at Claude will make a land acknowledgment for the school before Friday happy hour.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Saudis and Emiratis considering pulling out of the Trump megainvestment deals because their countries are being destroyed by Trump's war of choice.

Look for Japan, S Korea and other countries hurt by the ongoing oil shock to do the same.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar are discussing pulling back from U.S. and other investments as the toll from this regional war with Iran mounts. https://t.co/M0OjA27Bns pic.twitter.com/yVpKrRgSLm

— Ali (@MerruX) March 5, 2026

---

This is bad logic. The biggest beneficiaries of higher oil prices and no competition from Iran will be other oil producing countries. The Saudis and Emirates say thanks. Any rumblings are for PR purposes only. What you suggest happening has about as much chances of occurring as the war being halted by the War Powers Act.

---

If we take out Iran's oil production, Iran will severely disrupt the GCC's oil production, as you know their entire oil and gas fields are near the Gulf and highly exposed to missile and drone attacks. Right now, just the threat on Hormuz shipping is enough to throttle GCC oil exports.

The rambling is real. UAE losing its status as the regional logistics and tourist hub, Qatar LNG production halted (most vulnerable to drone attacks), Saudi looking at a politically destabilizing budget deficit.

If you want to look at Iran's current military capabilities, this is a very good rundown by MIT prof Postol. He also had some choice words about scientific research fraud at your wife's alma mater

https://www.youtube.com/live/Q2yQ3kBAQIk

Cal88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

It seems pretty reasonable to believe that the cost is 1 billion a day, I would expect it is probably more actually

---

A figure I saw recently was $770M/day, in operational costs.

WIAF is clearly wrong, ignoring for example the cost of maintenance of jets like the F-35 per sortie, at $40k/hr (in the US, under normal conditions), with hundreds of planes involved every day. The "variable cost" of war is clearly pretty high.

The Vietnam War almost single-handedly broke the Bretton Woods monetary system, and back then weapon systems were much cheaper even adjusting for inflation, for example the cost of firing 1 THAAD rocket ($15M) is equivalent to about a dozen Bell Huey helicopters (around $300k in 1970s money, or $1.5M adjusted for inflation).

---

That bolded statement intrigued me. Good on you for leading me to read the following:

Quote:

---

The statement "The Vietnam War almost single-handedly broke the Bretton Woods monetary system" contains a kernel of truth, but it's an oversimplification. The war was an important accelerant, but the system was already structurally fragile. Let's unpack both sides.



First: What the Bretton Woods system was

The Bretton Woods Conference (1944) created a post-WWII monetary system with three key rules:
1. Currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar.
2. The U.S. dollar was convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.
3. Central banks could exchange dollars for gold from the U.S. Treasury.

So the system depended on one critical condition:

Confidence that the United States actually had enough gold to back the dollars circulating globally.



The Case For the Statement

The Vietnam War did play a major role.

1. War spending exploded U.S. deficits

The U.S. financed the war largely through deficit spending during the administrations of
Lyndon B. Johnson and later Richard Nixon.

Costs:
Vietnam War: roughly $140170 billion (1960s dollars)
At the same time Johnson funded the Great Society domestic programs.

Result:

Huge fiscal expansion without tax increases.

That produced:
inflation
large dollar outflows overseas

Those dollars accumulated in Europe and Japan.



2. Foreign governments began doubting the dollar

Countries holding dollars started asking:

"Are these dollars really convertible to gold?"

One of the loudest critics was
Charles de Gaulle of France.

France and others began redeeming dollars for gold.

U.S. gold reserves fell dramatically:

Year U.S. Gold Reserves
1958 ~$20 billion
1971 ~$10 billion

Meanwhile foreign dollar holdings were much larger than the gold supply.

This became known as the Triffin dilemma (after Robert Triffin):

The U.S. had to create dollars for global trade, but too many dollars would destroy confidence in gold convertibility.

Vietnam spending poured gasoline on that problem.



3. The crisis culminated in the "Nixon Shock"

In 1971, Richard Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold in the Nixon Shock.

That effectively ended Bretton Woods.

The immediate pressures included:
massive dollar outflows
speculative attacks on the dollar
gold redemptions by foreign governments

Vietnam war spending had clearly worsened all of these.

So in this sense, the statement has merit.



The Case Against the Statement

Most economists argue the system would likely have collapsed even without Vietnam.

1. Bretton Woods had an inherent contradiction

The system required two incompatible things:
1. The world needed more dollars for trade and growth.
2. The U.S. had to keep gold reserves stable.

Eventually:

There were far more dollars than gold.

This problem was structural not caused by the war.



2. U.S. global dominance was fading

By the 1960s:
Europe had recovered economically.
Japan had become a major exporter.

Countries like:
France
West Germany
Japan

were running large trade surpluses with the U.S.

Those surpluses meant:

dollars kept piling up overseas.

Even with balanced U.S. budgets, this would have strained gold convertibility.



3. U.S. domestic inflation predated the final collapse

Vietnam accelerated inflation, but other factors contributed:
loose monetary policy
welfare spending
rising wages
global economic expansion

Inflation erodes fixed exchange rate systems.



The Most Accurate Version of the Statement

A historian or economist might phrase it this way:

The Vietnam War did not break Bretton Woods by itself, but it accelerated the contradictions that caused the system to collapse.

In other words:

Bretton Woods was already unstable. Vietnam simply sped up the reckoning.



My evaluation
Partially true
Historically incomplete

If you had to assign responsibility:

Cause Importance
Structural design flaw Very high
Growth of global trade High
U.S. inflation & deficits High
Vietnam War spending Significant accelerator




If you're interested, there's an even deeper and fascinating twist:

Some historians argue the U.S. intentionally allowed Bretton Woods to die because abandoning gold convertibility gave Washington enormous financial power.

That story leads directly to:
the petrodollar system
modern fiat currency
the dominance of the U.S. Treasury market.

---

dajo9 said:

---

If Dem leadership had brains they'd demand Iran War spending has an equal amount added to the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund

---

Doesn't matter where the nuts are spent - we're not going to pay it back either way and the dollar will lose its status as global reserve currency.

We don't know yet what's going to take its place, but it'll happen. Every system breaks.

Quote:

---

Prompt: I assume what you call the petrodollar system is that oil trades in dollars which strengthens dollars?

Explain the modern fiat currency - like ALL currencies are, right?

And regarding the US Treasury market… it's backed only by the full faith and credit of the US government at a time when the US government is unable to reign in its own fiscal responsibility. $40T debt approaching.

Every system breaks. What will replace the USDollar when it breaks?


AI Response

You're asking the right sequence of questions because the petrodollar, fiat currency, and the Treasury market are basically the three pillars that replaced the Bretton Woods gold system after 1971. Let's walk through them clearly.



1. The "Petrodollar System"

After the U.S. ended gold convertibility in 1971, the dollar needed a new anchor for global demand.

That anchor became oil.

In 1974, the U.S. struck agreements with Saudi Arabia and later the broader Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The arrangement worked roughly like this:
1. Oil would be priced and traded globally in U.S. dollars.
2. Oil exporters would recycle their dollar profits into U.S. assets, especially U.S. Treasury bonds.
3. The U.S. provided military protection and security guarantees.

Result:
Any country needing oil needed dollars first.
That created permanent global demand for dollars.

This system is what people mean by the "petrodollar."

Important nuance:
Oil doesn't have to be priced in dollars. It just historically has been because it was convenient and liquid.



2. Modern Fiat Currency

Yes, you're basically right:

Almost all currencies today are fiat currencies.

"Fiat" simply means:

The currency has value because a government declares it legal tender and people accept it.

Examples:
United States dollar
Euro
Japanese yen
British pound sterling

None of these are convertible to gold or anything else.

Their value comes from three things:
1. Tax authority
Governments require taxes to be paid in their currency.
2. Economic output
The currency represents claims on the goods and services of that economy.
3. Trust
Confidence that the government will manage the currency responsibly.

That last one is the fragile part.



3. The U.S. Treasury Market

The global financial system now rests heavily on U.S. Treasuries.

Treasuries serve several roles simultaneously:

1. Global reserve asset

Central banks hold them as reserves.

Major holders include:
Japan
China
United Kingdom

2. Collateral for the financial system

Banks and institutions use Treasuries as the safest collateral in the world.

3. Benchmark interest rate

Treasury yields determine borrowing costs for:
mortgages
corporate bonds
government debt globally.



Your concern: "Full faith and credit"

Correct.

The debt is backed by the taxing power and credibility of the U.S. government, not gold.

That works as long as markets believe:
the U.S. economy remains large
the government will not default
inflation won't destroy bond value.

Debt is now roughly $34-35 trillion and climbing toward $40T this decade.

But markets care less about the absolute number than about:
debt/GDP ratio
interest costs
economic growth



4. "Every system breaks"

Historically, you're right.

Reserve currency regimes tend to last 70-120 years.

Examples:

Period Reserve Currency
1700s-1914 British pound sterling
1944-present United States dollar

Before that:
Dutch guilder
Spanish silver dollar

Each eventually declined.



5. What Could Replace the Dollar?

There is no obvious successor right now. That's the key issue.

Possible scenarios:

1. Multipolar reserve system

Most likely outcome according to many economists.

Reserves split between:
United States dollar
Euro
Chinese yuan

But none fully replaces the dollar.



2. Chinese yuan dominance

Promoted by China.

Problem:
capital controls
opaque financial system
limited rule of law for investors

These discourage global reserve adoption.



3. IMF synthetic currency

The International Monetary Fund created the Special Drawing Rights (SDR).

It's a basket of currencies.

Some economists speculate it could become a global reserve unit.

But currently it's used only among central banks.



4. Gold resurgence

Some countries (especially BRICS nations) are increasing gold reserves.

China and Russia have been doing this.

But gold-backed currency systems are extremely restrictive and historically unstable.



5. Crypto or digital reserve asset

Examples:
Bitcoin
central bank digital currencies

Still far from replacing sovereign currency systems.



6. The Realistic Outcome

What most historians of money expect is gradual erosion, not sudden collapse.

The dollar loses share slowly but remains dominant because:
U.S. financial markets are the deepest in the world.
Rule of law is relatively strong.
Treasuries remain highly liquid.

Even critics admit something important:

The world complains about the dollar system - but there is still no better alternative.



The paradox of the dollar

The U.S. can run large deficits because the world needs dollar assets.

But those same deficits slowly undermine long-term confidence.

That tension is very similar to the Triffin dilemma that helped break Bretton Woods.

History has a way of rhyming.



If you're interested, there's a fascinating historical pattern called the "reserve currency life cycle" (Dutch -> British -> American).

And the U.S. is currently showing many of the late-stage symptoms seen in previous empires.

I can walk through those signs if you'd like - it's a surprisingly eerie comparison.

---

"You're not out here asking uncomfortable questions about the #IranWar, are you son?" pic.twitter.com/bVGGNeIjlZ

— Retro Coast (@RetroCoast) March 5, 2026

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Place blame where it belongs, AI Claude killed the girls

---

You probably thought you were being funny, but you could be right.

The NYT ordered new satellite imagery from the commercial provider Planet Labs. It showed the area was hit by six rockets fired by the US, one which hit the school, and five which hit the adjacent military installations.

Commercial satellites are not equipped with sensors that determine where the rockets were aimed. Contrast that with the use of AI and satellites in US military defense systems that can determine the flight when someone shoots a rocket or missile and then sends out something to intercept the incoming projectile.

The article quotes Wes J. Bryant, a national security analyst who served in the U.S. Air Force and was a senior adviser on civilian harm at the Pentagon, He reviewed the commercial satellite images and concluded that all of the buildings, including the school, had been hit with "picture perfect" target strikes. That probably doesn't mean what you think it means, and the NYT wants to leave it ambiguous. It means that it looks like the rockets hit where you would aim if you were shooting at the buildings, in other words were direct hits on the buildings. It doesn't mean that the rocket that hit the school was aimed at the school building. There is no way to know that for the technology employed by the NYT, and the inference that it is, is the type of journalism one can expect in these days of narrative driven journalism.

That raises two issues assuming you believe that the US Navy doesn't intend to blow-up schools. One is an intelligence failure, which like it or not happens all the time, and in fact Bryant suggests happened. AI has images of stuff, picks out the target, and then when directed shoots rockets at its selected targets. It doesn't mean AI has all the most up to date images in the world or that it correctly picks the correct images out of the billions of images on line. But militaries (and just not the US) routinely have to rely on bad or imprecise intelligence when bombing thousands of targets a day.

The other weird thing my Space X friends tell me can happen is that modern missiles don't always go where they were originally aimed. While there are things such as defective missile systems (just look at Iran which has a hard time controlling where its missiles go) that is much more unlikely with US rockets and missiles. Modern US guided military rockets and missiles can adjust their trajectory after launch to hit targets, even if the target moves or the initial aim was off. They use internal guidance systems, such as GPS, radar, laser designation, or infrared sensors, to actuate fins or vector thrust, allowing them to redirect in flight. The systems don't operate at 100% effectiveness, and they can lock on to different targets that cross their path (which also can be the cause of friendly fire accidents). That would explain the direct hit, assuming that the initial target wasn't bad in the first place (see the prior paragrah).

Said it before, but the arrogance to think the US or any other military can run a perfectly sanitary war and not hit civilians is dangerous. Sometimes the military does know civilians are in the target area and shoots intentionally because they military target is just to high value. Hard to conclude the subject installation in question was such a target without further information. Nevertheless, the law professors should save their idiotic conclusions about violating international law for the ivory tower, because the real world doesn't function that way. Then there is collateral damage that occurs because a military target is adjacent to or in civilian rich area, and sheet happens. Using in AI is just replacing AI error for human error. You don't want civilian casualties, don't have a war.

---

First of all, this is a war of choice.

Second, we don't really care about civilian casualties, in Afghanistan for example, 90% of drone strike casualties were civilians. 90%!

Quote:

---

Key Whistleblowers and Revelations

• Daniel Hale (USAF): A former Air Force intelligence analyst, Hale leaked classified documents to The Intercept in 2014, revealing that U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and other regions often resulted in high civilian casualties. The "Drone Papers" exposed that during a five-month period (20122013), nearly 90% of people killed in these airstrikes were not the intended targets. Hale was sentenced to 45 months in prison in 2021.

---

---

Sure sounds like you agree with me. Everyone seems to think precision bombing guarantees a sanitary war. It doesn't. The powers that be decide the greater good is served by war and no one should fool themselves into thinking the cost will not be civilian casualties. What Israel did in Gaza is not any difference that what the US, Russia, and other countries do. Insert whatever metaphor you want to put in about war being hell, and add especially war in urban areas.

Dubai

Condoleezza Rice was just seen walking into the White House.

— Kristen Holmes (@KristenhCNN) March 6, 2026

The ghost of Dick Cheney was also spotted in the Lincoln bedroom.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Trump's Iran War council is pretty big.

pic.twitter.com/yD8c2I48ks

— Heather Dinich (@CFBHeather) March 6, 2026

pic.twitter.com/Vty8ZY4xrO

— Heather Dinich (@CFBHeather) March 6, 2026

BINGO.

Big C said:

---

Unless the Iranian people really come around and form a new semi-American-friendly government in the next seven months (highly unlikely), Trump will get his in November.

---

President Trump tells CNN he's not worried whether Iran becomes a democratic state https://t.co/mUW45sj8Ya pic.twitter.com/nJ4z51EVsO

— CNN (@CNN) March 6, 2026

Trump enters the Iran War Council Meeting.

Donald Trump enters the roundtable pic.twitter.com/im7uQFy7i5

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 6, 2026