Today in wars are predictable and easy to win.
06.03.2026 14:49
👍 10
🔁 4
💬 0
📌 0
Today in wars are predictable and easy to win.
So there is a story about the "top 10 cities at risk during nuclear war" circulating in various tabloids/etc. with my name attached to it, and I will say that a) I never have (nor would) make such a list at all, and b) I never said any of the quotes attributed to me in the article.
So the man who thought that Khomeini and Khamenei were the same person is now in charge of Homeland Security.
gRanD sTratEgY
Why just having "a human in the loop" is not good enough.
This means nothing. They say this when they don't have an answer because they think it makes them look determined and strategic. They have no idea what they are doing.
US teams under cover of large scale bombardment could get there and out again. And it might be enough to blow the canisters up in place.
It's somewhere not near the sea, which is the only likely US approach. We can recall the unsuccessful attempt at bringing the hostages out under Jimmy Carter, plus a war going on.
And, as you say, we don't know where it is.
Securing it in place would be an unending firefight.
That would be an enormous job.
It is probably in the form of UF6, in cylinders. Since they've been hauling it around, the cylinders are probably mid-sized, maybe a ton each? Or smaller, a couple hundred pounds? Smaller, of course, means more of them.
If they knew where Iran's HEU was, they would surely have tried to secure it by now?
“Yesterday in the Indian Ocean . . . an American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” US defence secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon briefing on Wednesday morning.
When the UK sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War, there was a lot of controversy over whether the ship was sailing away from the battle area.
As the Trump admin readily admits, this Iranian ship wasn't anywhere near the battle area. www.ft.com/content/d9d5...
Official translation of French President Macron’s Monday, 2 March speech on nuclear deterrence www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-...
“Yesterday in the Indian Ocean . . . an American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” US defence secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon briefing on Wednesday morning.
When the UK sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War, there was a lot of controversy over whether the ship was sailing away from the battle area.
As the Trump admin readily admits, this Iranian ship wasn't anywhere near the battle area. www.ft.com/content/d9d5...
A special military operation, if you will.
Yup. This time a “window of vulnerability” looks real.
Being from the UK, I think of the British Empire's dilemma in maintaining deterrence vs two revisionist powers at different ends of Eurasia in the 30s-40s.
Britain was forced to fight in Europe, sapping its resources and leading to collapse in the Pacific. It wasn't a war of choice.
Full report here: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2025-12/251205_Rumbaugh_Depleting_Interceptor.pdf?VersionId=RpbsdtFvkVAuFNV3VNEydpFJI920fVDn
Useful report from @csis.org back in December on interceptor munitions. In the 2025 Israel-Iran exchanges over 12 days:
Iran - 500x ballistic missiles
US - 150x THAAD, 80x SM-3
US also used 200x SM-2 or SM-6 missiles against Houthis over a year.
Procurement rates of interceptors is chaotic
I'm similarly worried that China and Russia will conclude that the US can't sustain a regional-scale air campaign for more than a few weeks and won't be in a position to do even that for two or so years.
Particularly China might consider that a window to call BS on the US global deterrence posture.
This US-Israeli raiding approach to warfare, if it continues at the current operational tempo for weeks, could draw down INDOPACOM & EUCOM stocks that will take many years to replenish, further weakening US military readiness.
Unfortunately, I think we might start to see the acceleration of the established cycle in which Trump faces the consequences of his actions vs Iran, then takes even more dangerous/escalatory steps to try to deal with those, but instead precipitates even worse consequences.
US Navy: No availability to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, sorry.
Trump: "If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible."
I suppose we'll see if Caine has any sway at all.
And there is nothing deterring the Iranians from throwing everything they have at any US escorts.
I think there is a strong likelihood that Iran will sink a US destroyer. What is deterring them from throwing everything they have at any escorts?
So does that mean that the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review is now the authoritative statement of US nuclear policy?
Perhaps an eight-year-old document might be a bit out of date?
Making these kinds of comments once could be written off as careless. Twice, and you're definitely doing it on purpose.
Polish sources have the final sentence as "As our own autonomous capabilities grow, we will also strive to prepare Poland in the future for the most autonomous actions *possible* in this matter."
In any case, this is proper nuclear hedging talk.
www.polskieradio.pl/399/7975/Art...
Tusk: "We are investing heavily in future nuclear power plants, and Poland will not want to be passive when it comes to nuclear security in a military context."
"We will cooperate with our allies...as our capabilities increase, we will try to prepare Poland for autonomous action in this matter."
Nuclear warning to re-establish deterrence Should a state engage in hostile action against France, having misjudged the scope of its vital interests, a nuclear strike could be carried out as a warning. Its purpose would be to demonstrate unequivocally to the aggressor that the nature of the conflict has fundamentally changed, and to restore deterrence by compelling the cessation of aggression against France. Such a nuclear warning is optional and nonrepeatable. Only one strike could be envisaged. It would be strategic in nature and would not, under any circumstances, be intended to secure military superiority over an adversary.
Informative French Ministry of Defense press kit on France's nuclear policy before Macron's speech today.
Including this on the "nuclear warning"/final warning.
www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/defaul...
The real US national security strategy lies in the revealed preferences.