Next up, cartels and Iran. Both of these will need to occur to get you back in the green. I read you often and enjoy your efforts, but I’m still trying to assess whether I’m being given insight or fear-mongering. — NOS4A2

That was just a month ago what you said, @NOS4A2.

Well, seems like it's very close that we indeed get a Trump war, now with Iran that was started by Israel.

(The Guardian, Tuesday 17th on June 2025) Trump convened a meeting of his national security team in the White House situation room after a day of febrile rhetoric in which the president gave sharply conflicting signals over whether US forces would participate directly in Israel’s bombing campaign over Iran.

He told journalists in the morning that he expected the Iranian nuclear programme to be “wiped out” long before US intervention would be necessary. Later he took to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to suggest that the US had Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in its bomb-sights, and could make an imminent decision to take offensive action. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

In a post a few minutes later, Trump bluntly demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”.

It was not just Trump’s all-caps threats that triggered speculation that the US might join offensive operations. They were accompanied by the sudden forward deployment of US military aircraft to Europe and the Middle East, amid a general consensus that Iran’s deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities could prove impregnable without huge bunker-busting bombs that only the US air force possesses.

Demanding unconditional surrender is a quite extreme demand. Talk about an ultimatum. Is it going to be still TACO-Trump or will it be the big sidekick coming to the fight when the opponent seems to be loosing?

(The Hill, 17th June 2025) Trump — who on Monday cut short his visit to the Group of Seven summit in Canada to return to Washington to huddle with his national security team — has already authorized several military capabilities to the Middle East for defensive purposes. Those include more than 30 refueling tanker aircraft sent to Europe, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group ordered to the Middle East and two destroyers sent to the eastern Mediterranean Sea to help Israel defend against guided missile strikes.

The refueling tankers could be used to help replenish Israeli jets, offering Trump a less intense option for military involvement.

A U.S. official told NewsNation that the planes were moved to the European theater to give Trump “options” should things escalate further and the U.S. decide to become more involved.

The extra equipment and personnel add to the large U.S. force posture in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops, air defense systems, fighter aircraft and warships.

The deployments of air and sea assets, taken together, suggest Washington is preparing for a potential offensive operation as Israel and Iran take part in tit-for-tat attacks, open warfare that Israeli officials have said could last “weeks, not days” and threatens to spark a wider war in the Middle East.

To have a lot of tankers around is good especially for offensive purposes. You don't need them for defensive Combat air patrols, but you do need them if you want to strike deep into Iran. So I disagree a bit with the above article.

(Earlier the MAGA people thought like this. Let's see how it goes. But that was before the TACO-nickname.)

It is said that the regime has already so many woes to worry about. A quick defeat/retreat from Israel will add to the miseries of a big proud nation (that is overwhelmed from a nation ten times smaller). It may serve as the Falklands War example in Argentina (where it is said that their defeat from UK brought the collapse of the Argentina regime). — Eros1982

Argentina claimed the Malvinas, invaded it and then fought for them with the Argentinian forces finally surrendering to the British. That's a defeat, no matter how you look at it.



If Israel attacks by air strikes Iran and then stops them let's say after two weeks, that's a different issue. If Israel (or the US) would take Quesm and Kharg islands, then it would be far more serious and the loss would be more evident. Yet I have trouble envisioning the IDF taking and occupying Tehran. And this is the real problem here: attacking Iran is problematic, because a land war would be very, very difficult.

So much power is corrupting Israel and the US, in the same way as a jack pot might totally change me as a person. — Eros1982

One thing is totally evident, the Netanyahu administration has become a war cabinet which sees war as a natural instrument to solve it's problems. War is a normal state for Israel.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

No. As I said, if you shoot a man that didn't shoot you, you simply need a lot explaining to do to the judge, because you will be the one that shot. And at some times, it will, even under law, be legitimate. But naturally there are quite a high bar for this.

When Israel has a nuclear deterrent, those countries who see Israel as a threat to themselves will try to get a nuclear deterrent. But you simply assume that they aren't seeking a balance, their own deterrence, but their motive is simply to destroy Israel, even if this put their own people and country to the peril of the many nukes that Israel has.

What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired. — BitconnectCarlos

We never can know how many Americans (and Japanese) would have died if Operation Downfall would have been initiated. And naturally we forget the huge importance of the Soviet attack in Manchuria for the Japanese to admit to surrender.

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it. — BitconnectCarlos

How about the Arabs? It would be interesting how Israel would react if the Saudi's would get a nuclear deterrent. What if the Egypt would also get a nuclear deterrent? Israel does have a peace agreement with Egypt (which it doesn't have with the Saudis).

Thank you for one of the best replies I've ever gotten in this Forum. It's really great when somebody understands my points. Here are some comments that hopefully forward this good discussion.

You rightly emphasize the subjective-objective distinction in the context of Wittgenstein’s hinges and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, framing subjectivity as tied to self-referentiality and objectivity as a “view without a viewpoint.” I find this interesting, particularly your point that objective truths in logic and math are typically computable and provable, while subjective ones involve self-reference, evading such formalization. Your reference to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (3.332–3.333) and his solution to Russell’s paradox is spot-on: Wittgenstein identifies self-referentiality as a source of logical trouble, arguing that propositions or functions cannot contain themselves. This insight resonates with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which, as you note, cleverly navigate self-referentiality (e.g., the statement “This statement is unprovable in the system”) without falling into the traps of Russell’s paradox. — Sam26

There's one Holy Grail there if one could make it a true mathematical theorem: if that "objective truths in logic and math are typically computable and provable, while subjective ones involve self-reference, evading such formalization" could be made into "objective truths in logic and math are all computable and provable, if there isn't self-reference that leads to subjectivity". Or something like that.

This leads to understanding that there's also true but uncomputable math and we cannot just assume objectivity to compute them. And that we do have to understand that in some occasions, the best models would be uncomputable.

Because look at just what we have now for a definition of computation: the Church-Turing thesis. And what does that basically tell us? Basically (and not rigorously defined) that computation is something that a Turing Machine can do. Which means that something that is uncomputable is something that a Turing Machine cannot do. And not that this isn't a theorem, just a thesis. The Church-Turing thesis is said to be unprovable or basically undecidable. And this is because a direct proof and computation are so close to each other.

The dichotomy of the subjective and the objective and Wittgenstein's remarks could really here help. It's worth mentioning that when Alan Turing and Wittgenstein met, they simply didn't understand each other. Wittgenstein say the paradox in Alan Turings undecidability result, yet as you noted that just like with Gödel's Incompleteness theorems, the example of the Turing Machine doesn't end up in a paradox. However, Wittgenstein does have an important point.

In your market e.g., the “hinge” might be the assumption that prices reflect aggregate behavior, but using the model to act within the market introduces a self-referential loop that defies objective grounding (if I understand what you're saying), which is akin to the unprovable truths in Gödel’s systems or the unquestioned certainties in Wittgenstein’s hinges. — Sam26

Yes, once you are an acting part of a universe you are trying to model, the problem arises. Many times when you don't notice the problem, you get to a problem of infinite regress. Yet do notice that self-referential loops can get to a "objective grounding". If we have something like a self-fulfilling prophecy, that can indeed be modeled and computed.

Your point, that “not all systematic thought can be brought back to grounded foundations,” is a helpful perspective, but I’d argue it complements rather than contradicts the my claim. — Sam26

I agree. The uncomputable are really special occasions to the norm. At least when we try to make objective scientific models.

The paper doesn’t assert that all thought lacks grounded foundations, but that sufficiently complex systems (epistemic or mathematical) require ungrounded foundations within their own justificatory scope. Simpler systems, like those covered by Gödel’s completeness theorem or basic linguistic practices, may achieve internal grounding, but that the parallel with Wittgenstein and Gödel emerges in domains where complexity has limits, necessitating external or unprovable foundations. — Sam26

Yes, exactly. There isn't any problem with having Gödel's completeness theorem and incompleteness theorems being true at the same time.

But let's think about just what is meant by "ungrounded foundations". Just what do we mean by this is important. In my opinion, with grounded foundations we go back to the way that an algorithm works: follow these foundations, and you can make correct model / compute the correct answer. Yet if in the foundations there is the aspect of subjectivity, all hell is loose. If the order or step would be "Here you decide what ice cream you like" it's not anymore an objective truth as it needs that subjective decision. Or the classic instruction of "Do something else not written in these instructions", which is a command that a computer cannot follow as it isn't itself a subject capable of making subjective decisions.

I think the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy would be an interesting way to look at this problem. I remember last year we had a good thread about , where people went through professor Noson S. Yanofsky's interesting paper True but Unprovable and the PF thread was Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic. Perhaps then the subjective / objective issue wasn't at the center stage, but it really puts the issue back to simple logic.

Anyway, I hope these have been useful comments to you.

Do you think it's possible for Israel to do something with the strait and pin the blame on the Iranians somehow? — Mr Bee

I don't think so. There's no need for an escalation like the Israeli attack on USS Liberty.

This is about the Eagle S incident from last December. Basically the police inquiry has ended with charges laid towards the crew members. Law takes it's time in a democracy.

• Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia are European countries’ puppets, says Lavrov (TASS · 2025 Jun 10)

When Russia says your country is merely a puppet, it rhymes quite with the country being "purely an artificial construct", just like in the case of Ukraine was said for years.

The Baltic States should indeed worry.

If the Iranian regime will sign quickly a treaty with Trump or Israel, this regime will definitely sign it own death. From the first day that there will be no more hostilities, the Iranians will ask themselves why their regime brought these misfortunes to them --and most probably will start killing each-other. But if the Iranian regime endures, then with the passing of the time I see more and more Iranians being united by the resistance towards Israel. — Eros1982

After they have been bombed by foreign state, why would Iranians start killing each other?

Or will they say that they endured most that arch enemy could through at them and they survived with bringing the Jews so much losses that they had to stop and thus this generation has been as victorious as the previous ones were defending Iran from the attack from Iraq?

And then they will do a "lessons learned" from this, look where their weaknesses were and prepare for the next time Israel attacks them?

That could easily happen too, you know. So I don't agree with you, but that's my opinion. We'll see what happens.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop. — Tzeentch

Are political assassinations in Minnesota, the killing of Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempt on State Senator John Hoffman and his wife also a - big whoop or are they something else to you?

(BBC) Investigators reportedly found a list of 70 "targets", including the names of state Democratic politicians, in a vehicle the suspect drove for the assassination.

Walz, congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Minnesota's two US senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and state Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison were on the hit list, according to local media.

Locations for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions and contraception, were also on the list, a person familiar with the investigation told the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life.

Just to stay on the topic of the creep.

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region that is building a mighty weapon. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have to imagine that.

I'm Finn and living next to Russia. My summer place is literally less than 10 km from the border of Russia.

As a last resort, if you were to attack your enemy's designs, would it truly be you starting the war? Or was it your fanatical enemy who ceaselessly worked towards designing a devastating weapon? — BitconnectCarlos

No matter how much you say about the logic and soundness of a pre-emptive attack, it still is an attack and there's no question about who is the attacker. Besides, some say an attack is the best defense. Just take it as a fact, admit it to yourself and don't be such a hypocrite.

No, but the situation could escalate. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's hope that Trump then doesn't escalate and sticks to his current position then.

Do you have any doubt that we've had national leaders in the past 100 years who would have used a nuclear warhead had they had one at their disposal? Hitler, for one. We've had fanatical world leaders with zero humanitarian concern. Has humanity fundamentally changed since then? We're talking about our fathers and grandfathers here. — BitconnectCarlos

So you accuse president Truman to be a fanatic leader with zero humanitarian concern? That's a new one from you, @BitconnectCarlos.

Don't forget Fidel Castro and the tactical nukes that were already stationed in Cuba. Not having any intel about tactical nukes would have made it a bit hard for the Marines, if they've had landed on some beaches in Cuba. Talk about an extremely warm welcome.



Actually here the real question is: how mad do you think that general Curtis LeMay was? Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to strike and invade Cuba? Were they mad? Here's from the real tapes between general Curtis LeMay and President Kennedy discussing the attack on Cuba. (The following short video, 1 min 25 second, seems to be only viewed on Youtube, but it's really worth watching)



So LeMay's answer is that the Russian's won't do anything and won't make a reprisal. What's behind this? The simple conclusion is perhaps that a) Cuba isn't Soviet Union and b) the US will have an advantage at that time in a nuclear war between the two powers. Yes, Few bomber bases and few cities might be wiped off the map, but that's it. Something that LeMay seems to be an OK price.

EXCOMM considered the effect on the strategic balance of power, both political and military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the military balance, but McNamara disagreed. An extra 40, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads, but the Soviet Union had only 300. McNamara concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance.

In fact in 1961 Soviet Union had then only seven operational intercontinental missiles while the US estimated there to be 20 to 40. And the US had on the other hand 177 intercontinental missiles. The rest were shorter range missiles and free fall bombs that bombers had to carry. Hence Curtiss LeMay and other generals opted to have that war. Twenty years later in the 1980's it was totally different. Let's remember that even now Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US. We just forget this very big difference.

For Bibi to attack Iran now has the similar logic. Hit Iran while you still can. Because it won't get better. Since Trump is in Washington, since Hezbollah has been dramatically weakened and since the war in Gaza is winding down, why not then now hit Iran?

The only downside of this is that it leads to quite similar thinking that the German high command had prior to World War 1 about the Russian Empire: better have the war now before Russia becomes too strong. This thinking means that you simply won't have peace.

And what do you know, we have that Israeli-Iranian war we talked about for decades.

I was often taught the contrary: That two nuclear powers would never go to war because it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not the contrary.

What you were told is that they would never go to war. That it indeed would be impossible, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". This is the line that I'm exactly talking about! Since there's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), nuclear powers don't go to war.

Never were you (or I) told that the two Superpower could have a limited fight, but would restrain from using nuclear weapons. Well, that's the goddam thing that has already happened twice with India and Pakistan! Both can many millions of each others population. And they have fought wars having all those nuclear weapons. The wars have just been short and limited ones.

And that's why only later we have been told that the Red Air Force fought USAF fighters in Mig Alley during the Korean war with some Russian fighter pilots even getting to ace status against Americans. Did the Air Force know that they were fighting the Soviet Air Force? Of course! But this was kept as a secret, because nobody wanted to admit that the two powers were already engaged in pitch battle over North Korea. Don't want to frighten the people.

How we talk about nuclear war is really different and quite strange. The standard example is to put someone to be the President and then have the scenario where the other side has unleashed a massive nuclear strike... and he or she has the ten minutes to come up with a response. In that situation, many will give the answer (which basically reinforces the deterrence) that a similar massive strike is launched. But put that person to situation where the opponent has used an underwater nuclear detonation to kill one our attack submarine, and the response might not be to instill a massive nuclear strike on the enemy. And these situations aren't publicly discussed because of the emphasis is on that simply nuclear weapons would not be used, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". No other discussion tolerated.

Nuclear war isn't the likely outcome, but it doesn't need to be the likely outcome for it to be terrifying. — BitconnectCarlos

To take the step and use nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones, is huge. That I agree. Hence I don't think that the IDF would use nukes to destroy the underground facilities that Iran has.

During Desert Storm, the US couldn't know if Saddam Hussein actually would have nuclear weapons or would use the extensive chemical weapons arsenal. Hence it was a real possibility before it was evident that the Iraqi army would simply collapse. Colin Powell, who then was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told later that then in case of WMD's used against US forces in 1991, they would have blown the damns on the Tigris (and rivers flowing to it), which would have caused a huge flood in Baghdad. A flood can be devastating, but it doesn't sound to us as devastating as a nuclear bomb or a chemical warfare attack. This remark also shows just to what lengths the US armed forces would go NOT to use nuclear weapons.

Yet you might ask yourself: are you already in WW3? I don't think so. Neither am I. Still now you do have (again) Israel and Iran in open war.

Even if we knew there would be no nuclear war: Who loves death more? The secular or the Islamic fundamentalists? Fundamentalist religious countries (like Iran) that are nuclear do not bode well for a West that wants to live and let live. A nuclear Iran has much more bargaining power/influence, plus the possibility of proliferation, where they had their dirty work off to others to maintain plausible deniability. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel started this war, not Iran.

You should be thanking Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

The only thing I would thank them if they can deliver on time the weapons systems Finland bought from them.

The real bulwark for Western Europe is Ukraine, not Israel. I'm not seeing a nuclear armed Caliphate emerging from the Middle East, yet I do see a Russia hellbent on it's own imperialist goals to be great Power again and restore it's empire.

What I see is a Israeli administration attacking a hostile country that is 1000 kilometers away from it with it's actual neighbors still calmly looking from the side as Iranian missiles streak over them to hit Israel. Bibi is truly now is the wartime president, who thinks that military operations are the key to success. That's one big major problem.

Yep.

Hopefully Iran won't enlargen the conflict by closing the straight of Hormuz. This would put oil prices skyrocketing and force Trump to go to a full war with Iran. Somehow I think they aren't going to be so reckless, if the US stays out of attacking Iran itself. If Trump would join the party, then it's another matter.

Yet if the missile strikes continue on Israel, then Bibi will face the question of when calling it quits. Israelis (and basically people ought to know) that Israel does have a large nuclear deterrent. Because of this deterrent, it's questionable just why Israel would be hellbent prolong this war. Doesn't Israel's nuclear deterrence work? Or Iranians would want to destroy themselves just to destroy Israel?



Nevermind the "Mad-Mullahs" argument of Iranians wanting a to commit a suicide on it's whole population, the fact is that in the Middle-East the political rhetoric isn't at all in line with the military reality on the ground. But naturally this rhetoric gives the argument for Bibi to proclaim that Iranians are lunatics. Tiny actors like the Houthis in dirt poor Yemen can indeed cry for the destruction of Israel, but they don't have any means of doing it. And Bibi will remind everybody that Iranian politicians have called for the destruction of Israel.



When there is actual nuclear deterrent on both sides, you would have such limited engagements as Pakistan and India had just a short time ago. In those cases basically both sides do want for the war to stop as quickly as politically possible as both sides do not want to escalate the conflict.

The fact is that we have this false idea repeatedly given to us that a war with two nuclear armed powers will lead to a nuclear war, and in the case of the US and Russia (and China), to an all out nuclear holocaust. And that to assume something else is wrong, and only increases the possibility of a nuclear war. That we simply cannot say that anything else would happen than an all out nuclear exchange.

But the truth is that this isn't the likely outcome. This Iran-Israel war and especially the engagements between India and Pakistan after the two have built their nuclear deterrent shows otherwise. Remember that many people thought that Israel attacking Iran would be "WW3". Well, if so, we are already living it! Doesn't seem so apocalyptic to me.

This also gives credibility to the previous Biden administration saying that if Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, NATO would attack Russian forces in Ukraine with an air campaign. Likely they really would have done that: A limited air campaign that would have weakened the Russian forces in Ukraine. And then a declaration that the limited air campaign was a success. And Russia would claim that it's forces endured the onslaught well. And then both would act as India and Pakistan have acted.



Why wouldn't then NATO forces attack let's say Russian nuclear submarine bases in the Kola Peninsula? Well, not only because of Norway and Finland (and Sweden) being against that, but also then that action would truly have gotten us closer to that WW3 type nuclear war. Then Russia would indeed follow it's nuclear doctrine. Hence the response truly would have been what the Biden administration said it would do. And only that. End result: no use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, at least for now.

Now it's about combat survivability of the Iranian missile launchers and armament production as this becomes a battle of attrition. In the end it's harmful for Bibi if this goes from days to weeks and months. Soon also Bibi has to turn to Trump for more armaments also.

The military parade is amazing. There should be one every year. — NOS4A2

I think it's just simply.... lovely.

The tankers and IFV crews are waving at the people, some are chewing bubble gum. Some salute the commander-in-chief (or where they sit as no general is taking the salute of the parade), some don't, quite randomly. Yeah, nobody is basically taking the parade (Trump stood, but oh it's so long time, that he has to sit). Then the driving vehicles have to randomly stop sometimes, because I guess there congestion or so.

Luckily the weather is so bad that they've seemed to cancel the overflights. Apart from some UAVs.

And finally, the walking troops don't have weapons. I've never seen that, marching columns of soldiers without weapons. I guess it's some American safety measure. But there marching... yep, these guys and gals haven't marched a lot or trained marching in formation. Because why the F would they? The local marching band of some little high school march better on 4th of July, because those youngsters train for that march. Sure, there's the Marine Color guard. But those are few and USMC.

Oh, it's all so Trumpian. Trump want's to see a military parade. Then the US Army has to quickly represent something out of the blue. End result is for everybody to see. Because this is so un-American and the US Army just shows it.

Assuming one would notice what a military parade looks like.

Israel did that today. — frank

Well, I don't think that Iran is economically back in the 1980's yet.

Even if you have had 200 combat aircraft attack Iran.

Trump tried to fight the lobby and lost. — Tzeentch

Lol.

Trump has never fought the Israeli lobby. What a bullshit lie.

Like when campaigning:


Yet unlike previous presidents, when moving the embassy to Jerusalem:


Yet unlike previous presidents, when accepting the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights to Israel:


On so on, on and on, countless of times. It's simply whimsical that anybody even tries to this stance that there would be some difference here with Trump and the neocons in this matter.

Likely they just want to bomb it back to the 1980's. They'll surely go for the (oil) infrastructure after they have finished with the nuclear weapons program.

Illegal immigrants usually get caught when attempting to enter the US. As everybody knows how hostile Trump is to immigration, the illegal immigration attempts have decreased radically. Hence in the previous Trump administration, Trump simply wasn't capable of deporting anywhere close as other president. And that looks... actually as incapable he is and how dysfunctional as a leader he actually is. Because he is no leader, he is just a populist orator for the stupid people. Yeah, not much eloquent speech with historical quotes coming from Trump, hence the MAGA-people understand this demagogue.

And thus this is the result. Stephen Miller has had to frantically push ICE to do everything possible to create the image that somehow the Trump administration is truly deporting the millions of illegal immigrants as TACO has promised. And attempt to federalize the Nation Guard.

The good thing is that I'm seeing a lot of US Flags in the "No Kings" demonstrations. That's a good thing, and a way to fight TACO Trump and cut the nonsense nativist and racist arguments their wings off.

After this, it should be very obvious that the US isn't what it was before. It's far more worse than a country like Hungary with Orban. If this is the way US Senators are treated in an government building in an press conference, it's really obvious what the US has come.



Hey, next you can have the Russian response with someone giving tranquilizers to the person manhandled to the floor.

First thing about this war, which should be obvious to everybody:

Israel and Iran are separated by a long distance and thus there is no ability for the land forces to engage each other. Especially after the fall of the Syrian Assad regime, the proxy war will be fought in Lebanon. The Houthis can strike Israel with few missiles if any and don't pose any threat. Hence Israel (and the US, naturally) is hellbent to get UNIFIL out of the way and start again a landwar in Lebanon (see Israel, US agree to cease UNIFIL ops. in southern Lebanon).

This is also the reason for Israel to engage in this military action against Iran. Why not? There's no capable Arab military that will join the fight, so have this war with the IDF making long range strikes and the Iranians shooting their missiles and drones.

In the end it comes down to combat survivability with Iran and air defence with Israel. As long the missile defense works, no problem for Israel. As long that Iran endure the barrage, no problem either.

Bibi might think that this will last for weeks and then both US and Israeli intelligence will give him the good news that Iran's ability to create a nuclear deterrent is only now a dream.

The reality might be something different. But then again, if Iran cannot do anything, then comes the question if the whole Iranian bluster has been as stupid as Saddam Hussein was to his country with trying to say that actually he did have a working nuclear program when he didn't.

This is the reality we live in. Just remember that according Putin and Russia, Russia is at war with NATO.

To the Russians, best defense is active offense.

Anyone who cheers on rioters flying foreign flags and burning the flags of their host country is not a "normal American." — BitconnectCarlos

Did I say that?

Nope, but the usual strawman argument from you.

I think the real question is the enthusiasm Trump wants to federalize the National Guard and then use of the armed forces in the manner that previously his cabinet (during the last Trump administration) was not so eager to use. Talk about a power grab. Stephen Miller craved for many more arrests and naturally ICE didn't coordinate with local police (why should they, because California is lead by democrats), hence no wonder you got this in the end.

Would Trump make such a show in a MAGA voting city or state? Nope, even if many red states have their share of illegal immigrants.

Well, if only those motherfucking insurrectionists of Jan 6th would have had to face off with the National Guard and the Marines, perhaps the Congress wouldn't have been overrun with the member of the Congress having to flee the invading mob. Remember those rioters who attacked the police... that TACO-Trump then pardoned?

Yeah, it's a whimsical shit show of an administration...

The micromanagement of the universities is indeed breathtaking.

Now I get it, when there's an institution, as we also have, as something like the "Ministry of Education", it is sure that schools and universities and especially the principals, rectors and deans that they have, do have their work time filled with applying to the standards and the instructions from the "ministry". Because what else would a "ministry" or a "department" do other than give standards and instructions? Yet this is normal bureaucracy.

Yet this goes indeed deeper, because there's a genuine hostility against the educational institutions. The common right-wing understanding goes that educational system and the academy has been overtaken by the Marxists, hence you have to fight these institutions. They are basically bad and don't do their job well. One should have noticed even here in the PF the threads about how this happened.

So what's the answer? All that you see the Trump administration doing now. Micromanagement of the curriculum and all the ugly stuff you are seeing now how especially universities are harassed by the Trump administration.

As one commenter put it: it's like going after a fly with a bazooka. Firing that bazooka (especially in a closed area with a lot of people) will surely bring far more devastation than killing a fly. If it's killed, btw.

Oh, this is what basically Trump and the MAGA voters have drooled about for a long time: having riot police and the army cracking down on immigrant protesters waving Mexican flags (even if there's a couple of Stars & Stripes flags there, doesn't matter). They are genuinely happy about it, perhaps some even enthusiastic.

This hides the fact that actually Trump administration, this one and the earlier one, has had difficulties in sending back as much illegal immigrants as other administrations because of the simple fact that illegal immigrants simply won't try to come to the US when Trump is in charge. Just as tourists are now avoiding the ugly police state that TACO's US is now. And Canadians for obvious reasons because of Trump's absolutely disgusting behavior towards Canada.

Maybe if Trump starts to abuse his authority further but we're not there yet and the culture war is enough of a distraction currently to get people to accept what's going on. — Mr Bee

There's a long way still to go with the Trump administration.

Do note that Democrats are still viewed as "normal Americans". So just let the effects of the tariffs take their effect on the economy. Perhaps there's more "Liberation Days" still ahead. Who knows about all that winning...

Finally, Trump is getting his riots. He has wanted this so much. And just where he wants them most, in pinko liberal California with an annoying governor.

He was so angry that last time during the BLM riots his people, starting from the Defence Secretary, didn't go along on what he wanted. Now it's different. Hegseth is eagerly promising Marines, the regular armed forces, to be deployed.

Oh, Trump really loves to hear that.

Putin's Normal behaviour. And that is what the Russia armed forces can do.

Large cities are easy targets.

I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons is only going to be used if somehow the Russian front is in such a dire position that it could collapse. Or the state looks to collapse. This is directly from the Russian doctrine, and they will likely follow their doctrine.

First of all, destroying the Ukrainian military is actually very difficult with nuclear weapons. Above all, what if Ukraine doesn't immediately seek peace. You escalate? How many nukes will you use after the the first strike? You go and demolish Kyiv?

Then once tactical nukes are used, you cannot go through the radiated area. Then you have the question of radiation fallout: what if the winds start moving the fallout into Russian territory? How will the Russians take that? China has said it's against the use of nuclear weapons. What then will be the response of your most important ally?

Once Russia would use nuclear weapons, basically the Pandora's box is opened. Likely many European countries would take defense against Russia just as seriously as Finland, the Baltics and Poland do. Enlarging nuclear deterrence in Europe would be likely. Germany or Poland acquiring a nuclear deterrent might happen then.

If people have not noticed, two nuclear armed countries, India and Pakistan, just a brief time ago went and had a limited war. They exchanged missiles and artillery fire, but then stopped. Let that above just sink in: we have already witnessed how two nuclear armed states fight each other conventionally without the conflict escalating to nuclear weapons. (This was actually the second or third time for those two countries.)

NATO can indeed respond to a Russia nuclear strike on Ukraine. Even if you have TACO as POTUS. The assumption that this will lead to an all out war and to a total nuclear exchange is a false assumption. The likeliest outcome is that NATO will make some hard hitting and crippling strikes that are indeed annoying to Russia, but then they will stop. Likely as they have said, without using nuclear weapons.

And then what will Russia do? How would the situation be then better for Russia? Likely it will be in a worse situation. And this is something that clearly Putin and the Russia military staff has already thought about. "Escalate to de-escalate" is something that the West already knows and has thought about for a long time. If it wouldn't be so, then it could really be that "Escalate to de-escalate" could work. That Russia used tactical nukes against Ukraine and this would make Europe to panic and insist that Ukraine takes the Russian "peace" deal alongside TACO.

Yet that's something that Russia cannot count on to happen. Thus the use of nukes is unlikely in my view.

It's just wonderful that after everything Elon is now going after Trump. What better than two annoying assholes going at each other. (Of course, the stuff has been known for a long time, yet since both Trump and Clinton have their Epstein links, it's understandable that the partisan hacks haven't looked at the whole issue)




Now Bannon wants Elon to be deported. Ah, these MAGA people are so hilarious.

A crucial distinction emerges between subjective and objective dimensions of these certainties. While our relationship to hinges involves unquestioning acceptance, this certainty is not merely psychological. These assumptions are shaped by our interactions with a world that both constrains and enables our practices. The certainty reflected in our actions has an objective component, as it emerges from our shared engagement with reality and proves itself through the successful functioning of our practices. — Moliere

Everything is about objectivity and subjectivity, actually. It's not merely a psychological issue, but simply logical. We can easily understand subjectivity as someone's (or some things) point of view and objectivity as "a view without a viewpoint". To put this into a logical and mathematical context makes it a bit different. Here both Gödel and Wittgenstein are extremely useful.

In logic and math a true statement that is objective can be computed and ought to be provable. Yet when it's subjective, this isn't so: something subjective refers to itself.

Do note the self-referential aspect Gödel's incompleteness theorems, even if Gödel smartly avoids direct circular reference of Russell's Paradox. Yet I would argue that Wittgenstein observes this even in the Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus as he thinks about Russell's paradox:

3.332 3.332 No proposition can say anything about itself, because the propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the “whole theory of types”).

3.333 A function cannot be its own argument, because the functional sign already contains the prototype of its own argument and it cannot contain itself. If, for example, we suppose that the function F(fx) could be its own argument, then there would be a proposition “F(F(fx))”, and in this the outer function F and the inner function F must have different meanings; for the inner has the form ϕ(fx), the outer the form ψ(ϕ(fx)). Common to both functions is only the letter “F”, which by itself signifies nothing.This is at once clear, if instead of “F(F(u))” we write “There exists g : F(gu). gu = Fu”.

Herewith Russell’s paradox vanishes.

Here I think it's very important to understand just what is objective and what is subjective in this context. An objective model can is true when it models reality correctly and can be written as a function like y = F(x). But what then would be a subjective model, that couldn't be put into the above objective mold?

Let's take one example. Let's assume that the market pricing mechanism is dependent on the aggregate actions of all market participants. This obviously is true: trade at some price happens only when there is at least one participant willing to sell at the price and at least one willing to buy with the similar price. At first this looks quite objective and we can write as a mathematical function like y = F(X). But then, if we want to use this model, let's say to forecast what prices are going to be in the future and then participate in the market, this isn't anymore an objective function. Now actually the function is defining itself, which as Wittgenstein observed, cannot contain itself. Us using the function is self-referential, because the model is the aggregate of all market participants actions, including us. How are we deciding our actions? Because of the function itself.

I have argued for a fundamental parallel between Wittgenstein's hinges and Gödel's incompleteness results: both demonstrate that systematic thought requires ungrounded foundations. By examining how epistemic and mathematical systems share this structural feature, we gain insight into the nature of foundational certainties across domains of human understanding. — Moliere

If I understand correctly what you mean by grounded / ungrounded foundations, I would say it differently: Not all systematic thought can be brought back to grounded foundations. Usually we can use axiomatic systems and get an objective model, but not allways.

Just as there is also Gödel's completeness theorem, that theorem doesn't collide with the two incompleteness theorems.

Very seldom does a central banker give such a straightforward lecture on the large picture of monetary policy. (Especially Fed Chairmen can give extremely cryptic talks.) But here Christine Lagarde (ECB chief) does just that with clarity, perhaps because she is giving a lecture to students. She starts with a historical viewpoint on the role of the reserve currency through time. What one rarely hears is a central banker truly talking about the role of gold, "the barbarous relict" according to Keynes, in our fiat currency system even today. She also notes one important factor: the key role that military deterrence and defence alliances have today on the role of the reserve currency. Her speech starts at 06:33 after an introduction:



What is obvious that she does see a role for the Euro and the ECB, and the speech is basically an acknowledgement that things are indeed changing.

The crazy stuff that Trump is doing might bring the issue of the reserve currency to be a current question, not just a theoretical question. Lagarde also goes through what are the strenghts of the US economy and where the EU is lacking.

Seems like Ukraine did a very successful drone attack against Russian strategic bombers just today. Short range drones smuggled into Russia and then attack airbases very far away. Great job!!!

There's actually a long thread about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies that was started seven years ago here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2455/cryptocurrency/p1

True, but "heart" had a much different meaning in both the Hebrew and Greek context (see below). The heart is often referred to as the "eye of the nous," the inner-most part of the mind that receives the highest forms of intelligible illumination in the Patristics (gnosis). It is not primarily a symbol for "emotion" or "sentiment," but often instead of the deepest possible sort of knowledge. Early Christianity is very much a religion of Logos in a way perhaps at odds with some contemporary sentimentalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't know this. Thank you!

I find it interesting that you mention computers' inability to motivate themselves. Reason has often been reduced to computation in modern thought (computational theories of mind might play a role here, although the shift predates them by centuries). On this view, the computer is sort of an idealization of rationality. But if it cannot act, does that mean all action comes down to a sort of non-rational sentiment? Something else? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The idea is that computers (or Turing Machines) follow algorithms. An algorithm is a procedure used for solving a problem or performing a computation and act as an exact list of instructions that conduct specified actions step by step.

No, I'm not trying to reduce reason to computation here. I'm just trying to make a simple model on where the issue is. And it's a very specific issue. First of all, a Turing Machine can do a lot. But this doesn't meant that all (or some) action "comes down to a sort of non-rational sentiment". That's why I'm referring to mathematics, which is quite logical. The fact is that there do exist mathematical statements that are true but not computable. They aren't illogical, false, they are only uncomputable.

Completely agree! I think the ‘meta-algorithm’ you refer to might be close to what Roger Penrose was getting at in his Emperor’s New Mind. But overall in agreement with your post. — Wayfarer

I think that here really lies some awesome axiom that is simply missing from our philosophical and mathematical vocabulary. Once we know that axiom, everything makes far more sense.

Indeed it's the 'meta-algorithm' problem. The 'meta-algorithm' is the way to avoid the problem, to get that needed external view to have an objective model. The problem is that you cannot just write the 'meta-algorithm'. In mathematics this means that there's obviously a correct model, but no way to make that model or to compute it. Here the problem is that we actually don't have a theorem for just what computation is (which likely is linked to the whole problem itself).

The basic issue is that this is seen as a problem, as a paradox that ought to be overcome by some way. The instant response is usually: "Let's think about this in another way."

I think the basic red line (in this hypothetical axiom) is the following: by negative self-reference, you get something that cannot be computed / modeled objectively. With positive self-reference, you basically get a self-fulfilling prophecy of an outcome that indeed can be computed and objectively modeled.

And naturally this comes close to many mathematical limitations, like Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Which at the most trivial can be summed up like Hans Straub puts it:

What – in layman’s terms – is the trick in Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?

The trick is the same as in the barbar paradox and all other real paradoxes. The trick is to make a sentence, a logical statement and …

1. to refer it to itself (self reference)
2. and then to deny it. (negation)

That’s the whole trick. With this combination, any classic formal system can be invalidated.

The point is to understand how subjectivity relates to this. The computer simply follows algorithms, it's not a subject itself: it doesn't make any choices itself, it only follows the rules it has been given, even if these rules extensively are about making choices.

So here's one interesting question: could one say that the ability to make a negative self reference means having subjectivity?

A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerous—probably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out. — BitconnectCarlos

Seems you don't have any idea just how a modern scientific university works. On the contrary, foreign students bring money into universities... especially if your own citizens wouldn't have to pay huge fees. What are especially liked are foreign post-doc researchers, who come to make good research and then leave back to their country. The departments and the university get the product of their work, yet these foreigners aren't competing for the university positions with the locals, which the locals are very happy about. When you have had the best resources and the top research hubs in Ivy League universities, those attract the best talent.

Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities?

If you want to shoot yourself in the leg, please do so! Ban then all foreigners from entering your universities. That would really help them! I wouldn't be surprised if the Bigot in Chief in the White House would want that. He hates international trade, so this would be a natural extension of that.

Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing? — BitconnectCarlos

Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%?

First of all, the largest population of foreigners and foreign born Swedes are us, Finns. The number of Sweden Finns are estimated of being from half a million to 700 000. These people were taught in school in Finland already the Swedish language. They are also Lutherans (if the belong the church), watch hockey and eat pea soup, just like the native Swedes do. They don't live in separated areas and naturally have intermarried to the native population. Above all, they look just like Swedes. This migration happened basically from the late 1960's to the early 1980's and thus their even their children are quite old now. As people can inside the Nordic countries as easily as an American can move from New York to California, many of the Sweden Finns have simply retained their Finnish citizenship, hence there are many who are indeed foreigners.



And because opening the border for hundreds of thousands of Finns worked so well and as they integrated well and the economy improved, some then thought Sweden that it was OK to get anybody. Until 2015-2016 that is. Once the European migration crisis happened, Sweden shut down quickly it's open door policy.

So how do you get these ideas of Sweden is "going to lose to multiculturalism"? That it becomes a Muslim state and the native population will be a minority and loose it's identity?

The only way you get these fictional statistics that in few decades Sweden will be muslim or whatever, is if you extrapolate from the year 2015-2016. Because that's when you had the European migration crisis. This is what it looked like in Sweden:




Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. Hence the idea that Sweden will become a Muslim country or loose it's identity is simply a lie. As I said, the Swedish government quickly stopped the open door policies - which naturally the racists and bigots extremists are totally silent about. And Swedes aren't at all so open to immigration, the US is far more open to immigration.




In fact it's quite difficult for even an American to emigrate to the Nordic countries ...if they wanted that is.

Maybe mass deportations are needed. — BitconnectCarlos

And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden.

I'll hope the Trump administration is a minor setback to the World. And indeed there are plenty of ways around it. At least Wall Street has a firm belief in this.

Finally some sanity to Trump's insane tariff actions.

(BBC 29th May 2025) A US federal court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping global trade tariffs, in a major blow to a key component of his economic policies.

The Court of International Trade ruled that an emergency law invoked by the White House did not give the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs on nearly every one of the world's countries.

The New York-based court said the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other nations, and that this was not superseded by the president's remit to safeguard the economy.

The White House has asked the court to block the order suspending tariffs while it appeals the case.

Let's see how this goes to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much as I said above. It is, to allude to a rather controversial, but also profound, book, ‘the Reign of Quantity’. One of the discussions that prompted this thread, was about how qualia (an item of academic jargon in philosophy of mind referring to the qualities of subjective experience) can be explained away as illusion. — Wayfarer

Positivism put's objectivity on a pedestal.

To emphasize objectivity is totally rational and sound: you find subjectivity in the creation stories of various religions. Why did something happen? How was the Earth formed? Where did we come? It was Gods will. There isn't an explanation for the answer, it's an issue of faith, an issue that religiouns are quite open about. In Christianity Jesus talks about opening your heart to him to find God, not to "use your brain and think it through". Positivism, a product of the 19th Century, had still to confront religious thinking in the way that there wasn't in the 20th Century or today, even if the real fight betwen science and religion had happened in the Renaissance in Europe. (In Muslim countries, religion prevailed and there was no Renaissance)

Explaining qualia away as illusion is one example. The emphasis on objectivity puts everything that is subjective to be unimportant, or simply not something of a scientific matter. Yet I think the problem is far larger than this. Objectivity has logical rules which simply limit just what can be accurately modeled.

Here is the problem: many of our most important and critical questions about reality cannot be modeled accurately with a totally objective model, because objectivity demands an external viewpoint of the issues at hand. Yet we ourselves are part of the universe and when this fact needs to be in the model, then we cannot make an accurate model. We cannot just assume an external viewpoint, somebody observing reality / the universe outside it.

The most obvious example is in physics when a measurement itself affects the object that is measured. This isn't a trivial problem that you can just assume away in physics. It's the reason just why we have the elaborate models of Quantum Physics. In Quantum Physics we simply just cannot assume that the subatomic particles behave as Newtonian physics says. Yet this problem at all limited to physics.

Usually in all models, be the in economics or sociology or whatever, where we find this dilemma of a Black Box, where something crucial happens in a Black Box through it we have the outcome, but we cannot model just what happens in the Black Box, we typically have this problem of subjectivity. So it's no wonder that for example when thinking about how we actually learn and think something is this confusing Black Box.

Computer science shows the problem in the most simple and clearest way. As computers follow algorithms, they cannot follow an instruction "Do something else". That's not an algorithm: an exact list of instructions that conduct specified actions done step by step. In fact, a computer can follow this only if it has as in instruction, "If asked do something else, then x". Why can them humans answer this? Because they can understand what they have done (hence in a way they are aware of the algorithms they use) and then do something they have not done. But this is a subjective decision and subjectivity comes into the model. And now the objective modelling has a huge problem: it cannot model just what happened, how the human did the something else. In order for there to be objectivity, there has to be a meta-algorithm that the human follows, but that cannot be listed.

This isn't just a philosophical problem, this is basically a mathematical problem. Yet people don't realize how big this is because we are lacking the mathematical axiom behind this.

That there is a global problem seems to be the case, when Japan has it's close encounters with a bond crisis. It's interest rates have spiked up and this causes a severe problem to the country as it has 270% debt to GDP. Japan has to get it's fiscal house in order, which can result in assets now for example in US Treasuries being sold and put into Japanese debt.

This can be bad. At worst it could start a dollar crisis along the road and a huge crisis for the whole fiat monetary system.

Being on your ignore list is either very temporary or works differently. :wink:

There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to. — BitconnectCarlos

The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history.

With refugees it's even more stark and obviously the closeness to the refugees matter very much. Clearest example of this is has been the response in European countries of the Ukrainian refugees compared to 2015 Migration Crisis. A very good decision by the Ukrainians was to forbid military-aged men from leaving the country (and many Ukrainian male expats going to fight in the war). Countries that had not taken any refugees in 2015 took millions. Poland has taken nearly a million Ukrainian refugees. People will think this is blatant racism, but the reality is that people can empathize with these as Poles obviously understand what a threat Russia is to them and the Poles have a bloody history with the Russians. If it would be just racism, then these countries would have taken also the Russian men fleeing the war as refugees. They surely did not.

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Please focus on what the disagreement here is. I don't think there is a genocide taken place, something like the Turks did against Armenians or what the Hutus did against Tutsis during the Ruandan civil war. There simply aren't the piles of white people lying around with either South African soldiers or jubilant crowds with machetes. A genocide looks like a Zombie movie with the exception that the Zombies aren't the brain eating living dead, but totally ordinary people minding their business whereas the "heroes" in Zombie movie are just like how they are portrayed in the movies, except that they just think that other people are zombies and killing them will make the world a better place.

Is South Africa dangerous for Whites? Yes, but it's also dangerous for Blacks too. Are there severe problems in South Africa and tensions between the ethnic groups? Yes.

This isn't nitpicking. We do have to find a way to talk about the situations in various countries accurately. Because we shouldn't use these terms like genocide as tropes.

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

But if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true.

Do notice that the alt-right media-sphere that turns this out never report things like that EU and EU countries have dramatically tightened their immigration policies. This is because the agenda is to portray only the radical populists to be capable of doing this: the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on.