Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Some new weapons are giving it the ability to economically counter mass drone threats, APKWS II (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II) is a cheap rocket with a laser guided kit added that gives it some air-to-air chops. You can fit them in pods so a single fighter can carry dozens. And they only cost like $20k-30k per shot, which actually makes them win price exchange with drones like the Shahed (cost estimates between $50k and $200k). And a fighter wing can actually counter a drone swarm in single sortie rather than having to go back and re-arm. These are already in service with F-16s.
  2. That's a given. China is going to look to fill the power vacuum we've left by withdrawing a lot our soft power projection assets. Back to missile defense, BBC did a decent overview last year of Israel's assets (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20385306) The full article is worth a read for anyone looking for some good information. But I think this is most helpful: US promise to deploy THAAD to Israel was huge. I believe they now have 2 batteries in country (a cool billion dollars per battery).
  3. You're making the same mistake. The question wasn't about what he wanted. It was about which entity was in a position to do it. The answer demonstrates the difficulty of the situation from our perspective. At any rate, I didn't intend this to be a huge derail, so let's drop it and get back to updates on events. Iran has updated the number of scientists killed to 9. There is also this: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/14/world/israel-iran-news/db1009e6-b251-5d94-bdab-cb4e25bd1276?smid=url-share
  4. I think you've misunderstood the question. Your point appears to be that it would be bad FOR US. That may be true. But that isn't what I was analyzing. The question was who was in a position to negotiate a peace successfully, not what is the ideal outcome for the US. I don't disagree that China negotiating a peace isn't an ideal outcome for the US.
  5. We aren't a party. I don't know that either Iran or Israel have particularly strong feelings on China. You keep saying it is terrible idea. But 1) you haven't actually said why and 2) it isnt like I'm saying I want it, it just is reality. There aren't really any other strong players that haven't already staked a position here. Y'all be dense. For real.
  6. Again, what are you arguing? I know a thing or two about mediation. A heavily biased party is never going to be a good mediator. It just isn't how it works. The US can certainly exert pressure on Iran (and Israel). But the Iranians are never going to see it as anything but an Israeli proxi. That's just the reality. I don't know why you think China is a bad option. It hasn't staked any particularly strong position with regard to Israel that I'm aware of.
  7. I really don't know what point you're making. What we want is irrelevant. The question was what party is in position to mediate an end to this. It isn't us. That's a fact. China is a decent option. I'm not sure what the other one is. Nd
  8. China is both a strong party and semi neutral. Iran isn't going to listen to us.
  9. @Hitch Unfortunately this is going to get worse for everyone.
  10. In terms of this conflict, he is correct. You need a semi neutral party. That isn't us.
  11. That's unlikely. Israel used a large number of 4th generation aircraft loaded out with close range strike weapons. If anything got shot down, it is significantly more likely to be one of those.
  12. We literally have video of a missile landing on top of a defense complex with nearby interceptors firing. That's an important target. I doubt Israeli security is significantly compromised because of the hit, but you don't get to just ignore it.
  13. You send the drones hours earlier because they take longer to get to the target. And these systems take time to reload, so even if attacks don't arrive simultaneously, they can still be part of a coordinated effort to degrade defenses. Again, missiles got through to important targets. And they did so because Iran sent a large scale attack. I think you're jumping to conclusions incorrectly and prematurely.
  14. Correct. That is David's Sling and Arrow. I generally assume that when folks say "Iron Dome" they are just referring to the Israel's air defense systems generally and not specifically the Iron Dome system.
  15. Not that I'm in favor of Iran having one, but plenty of other countries (including crazy ones like North Korea) do and we've muddled our way through. Nuclear weapons are largely unusable by state actors. My primary concern with nuclear proliferation is rogue elements getting hold of them. I honestly don't know what you even mean. That's literally the definition of overwhelming it. If you mean the attack wasn't so massive that the entire city burned down, sure, it wasn't overwhelmed to that degree. But a saturation attack resulted in missiles getting past Israel's defenses, including to what appear to be some important military facilities.
  16. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. It appears they successfully hit multiple targets in Israel. That suggests the defenses were in fact overwhelmed.
  17. +rep for the quote. I do note, that the operative worked for a tyrannical, authoritarian regime that experimented on its own citizens.
  18. Ballistic missiles are hard to intercept even with very sophisticated defenses. Given this one appears to have hit pretty close to where defensive launches are occurring, it seems Iran has enough information and capability to precisely target military positions in Israel. These don't appear to be random terror strikes on the city.
  19. Wait, so he is saying that his policies: (1) Are resulting in the deportation of "very good, long time workers"; and (2) Not resulting in the deportation of "the criminals" who are now applying for those jobs. That's... something.
  20. Apparently not.
  21. Guys, my current diversified portfolio is only getting like 7% yearly returns. I don't think it is maximizing the value. My uncle that lives in a trailer says to scrap it and move everything into this hot new fund run by Mernie Badoff. What y'all think?
  22. https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/06/yep-rfk-jr-appoints-anti-vaccine-advocates-to-cdc-vaccine-panel/
  23. You should probably look up the definition of cherry picking. That's exactly what this is. You found some signs of this organization participating in protests and jumped to the wild conclusion that "the protests in all these cities are organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation whose goal is to completely topple capitalism". The protests aren't organized by that organization. The organization may take part in some of the protests (along with many other organizations and individuals) and it may also organize some of its own protests. Assigning all the protests and protesters to this one organization is a blatant fabrication and ignores the diverse people and groups that oppose the military occupation of the country (read: actual patriots).
  24. I heard all the violent ones were organized by the Proud Boys as a false flag. See. I too can make shit up.
×
×
  • Create New...