WWII

GhostofBreadDragons

The reason for the American highway system is that Eisenhower saw how vulnerable the train lines were in WWII. This doesn’t mean you roads are safe. It just means that it is a lot harder to disrupt roads.  The same goes for renewable energy vs no renewable energy. Renewable energy is vulnerable to disruption as well, but it is less vulnerable than oil. You can still damage solar panels or windmills but they don’t have the same supply line problems of oil. They don’t require the tankers, refineries, power plants or pipelines. It’s a matter of how vulnerable something is not if it is invulnerable or not. Renewables are less dependent on supply lines and less toxic when damaged. Solar is safer than oil refineries and when damaged solar doesn’t pollute the earth. 

Ok-Barracuda39

Anyone want to join together to pool resources to buy a 200-300 acre plot of forest in the upper midwest? I can contribute by handling all of our networking/videogaming/IT needs as well as making a mean pizza and burgers. I also bring some student loan debt and a small collection of WWI and WWII firearms.

Playful_Stick488

Thats because the war machine is turning. Which makes everything else turn. Its slow getting started but once moving it makes the economy just buzz along. Thats what end the depression in the early 40's was WWII.

rbt321

Not always. USA paid reparations to Spain and Mexico after winning those wars; effectively paid for land after taking it. USA also provided assistance to West Germany and Italy after WWII.

ChaseballBat

No the mines are WWII era cartoon bombs, that is all that exists!

PowerfulHomework6770

I think mining technology has improved since WWII, you can switch off the sensors remotely (they just better hope nobody hacks them)... saw it on a youtube video or some shit

Critical_Concert_689

tbh, you're describing a niche perception pushed by a very small group of western radicals, primarily elitists pushing a savior's narrative. Literally no one sensible is comparing this conflict to WWII. Claiming Iranians support their regime is like claiming 50501 protestors are supportive of Trump, after he (hypothetically) ordered troops to mow them down; it's an argument that makes zero logical sense.

FancifulLaserbeam

That was a description of Iraq, not Iran. There's basically the pro-theocracy people and the anti-theocracy people. What I keep wondering, though, is how big the proportions of the total population each one is. We're kind of led to believe that the Islamist faction is some kind of detested minority, but I'm of the long-considered opinion that *all* governments are democratic, because if people don't like theirs, they always outnumber it and can replace it. It's not like the police and military are recruited from some separate population or grown in the lab to the mullahs' specs; these people are just normal Iranian people. So my question is not whether we needed to stop Iran from getting nukes, especially when we now know that they were lying about their missile stockpiles and range, but whether we can put an end to that with precision strikes and wiping out the military. I think that what we actually would need to do is a full invasion, occupation, hanging of the establishment leadership, set up a puppet state and make it popular, and make sure everything is running smoothly before mostly pulling out, which is what we did after WWII with both Germany and Japan. It was phenomenally expensive, but we could afford it because we were the last man standing, and both Germany and Japan are much more culturally similar (Japan may look/seem different, but it's basically the UK of East Asia—source: I've lived here for over 20 years) to the US. I don't think Trump et al. are really *dumb* (well... Hegseth doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed...), but I *do* think that whomever wargamed this underestimated Iran's willingness to just soak up abuse and keep fighting. It's the difference between a political war and a religious one. The truly religious cannot be rational.

LegitimateSituation4

Yeah, but they also smugly say "we haven't actually had a declared war since WWII!" But then go silent when asking "okay, so what was meant by 'no new wars,' then?"

McKoijion

The revolted against the British Empire after WWII.

AnnoyingEditor

Great depression did happen right before WWII 🤔

BellacosePlayer

I post a lot in shitpost subs and History subs discussing WWII. the reddit ban AI does not like me very much, no.

Tanpopomon

1. Get into office by framing it as a battle between the people and the elite. 2. Blame certain groups of people that could be considered "outsiders" for various problems. 3. Develop a branch of the government to get rid of those groups forcibly. 4. Start to call anyone against him "delusional", "egotistical", or "incompetent". 5. Start literally demanding other countries for their land. 6. Start a war and threaten to eradicate an entire group of people. 7. Half the country still supports The German stockmarkets rose considerably during the beginning of WWII, then went flat for a few years, then tanked to Hell towards the end.

Melonskal

> Orange man ready to create largest humanitarian and economic disaster since WWII I am serious about this, are you retarded?

sleepystockmarket

History gives us a reasonable template here. During WWII, the obvious beneficiaries were defense contractors and steel, but what held up quietly were utilities, food processing, tobacco, and railroads - things with inelastic demand. People still needed to eat, heat their homes, and move goods regardless of what was happening in the Pacific. The Korean and Gulf War periods tell a similar story. Energy spiked, defense did well, but the companies that simply kept collecting recurring fees - insurance premiums, utility bills, essential logistics contracts - tended to preserve capital better than most. Not spectacular gains, but they didn't crater either. Your toll-booth framing is historically accurate. The businesses that survived every cycle tend to share one trait: the customer has no real alternative and can't easily defer the purchase. Payroll has to run. Cybersecurity can't be switched off. Waste gets collected regardless of headlines. The one caveat history keeps throwing up: even resilient sectors can get hit by the recession that often follows the initial shock. Defense spending goes up, but consumer staples can still compress margins if supply chains break. Resilient isn't the same as uncorrelated - it just means the floor tends to be higher. Curious what names you're finding that fit the toll-booth model outside the obvious defense plays.

Spez_is-a-nazi

Orange man ready to create largest humanitarian and economic disaster since WWII in order to get exact same deal brown man got but with his name on it instead. Nikkei down 4% and counting.

Quietabandon

The US can invade a lot of countries, but historically has only rarely invaded. A change in the equation is a disruption of post WWII stability and order and would definitely threaten the global stability that modern economic systems depend on. 

poorman_stocks

This is one of the most common psychological traps in investing, and it's worth naming it directly: geopolitical anxiety causes people to hold cash waiting for "clarity" that never comes, and they miss years of compounding. Here's the historical pattern: markets have operated through WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, 9/11, Russia-Ukraine, and dozens of other conflicts. In virtually every case, investors who waited for the conflict to "resolve before buying" either missed the recovery or bought at higher prices after everyone felt safe again. A few frameworks that help: 1. Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) removes the timing question entirely. Instead of asking "should I buy now?" you invest a fixed amount every month regardless of headlines. You automatically buy more shares when prices are low and fewer when they're high. Over time, this beats most market timing attempts. 2. Ask what the market already prices in. War risk, energy disruption, and geopolitical uncertainty are already partially reflected in current valuations. When everyone is scared, stocks often have more margin of safety, not less. 3. Separate your time horizons. If you need money in 2-3 years, keep it in cash or short-term bonds — this isn't the question. If you're investing for 10+ years, short-term geopolitical events historically have minimal impact on long-term compounding. The question "what would you do if the war continues past 2026?" has a straightforward answer: the same disciplined investing you'd do if it ended tomorrow. DCA into diversified assets and let time do the work.

BaronVonMittersill

ends justify the means. pax americana has a cost. europe or any else could step up and do it. but they don’t. the quality of life most first world countries enjoy is directly the result of the post WWII american military hegemony. as much as it would be nice if everyone could sit in a circle and sing kumbaya, that’s not how the world works.

gdkod

Russia was never considered a post-WWII superpower. Soviet Union - yes, not russia.

JustGiveMeANameDamn

We haven’t been at “war” since WWII though. This is just a special military operation lol

Common-Second-1075

> "Oil spiked before every major US recession post WWII" That's not true. I think you're thinking of the previously true statistic that every m time oil prices have spiked 50% a US recession has followed. Which used to be true, until 2022 when the price spiked by more and there was no resulting recession (also one of the only time the yield curve inverted and there was no recession). For reference, there was no oil price shock before the following US recessions: - 1960-61 - 2001 - 2020

EarthquakeCrater

Say what you will about Tom Nash but he said markets bottom within 35 days of US foreign skirmishes starting (since WWII). We have 2-3 weeks to lows.

Pretty-Balance-Sheet

I'm close to early retirement (or was, lol). Not as old as you, but not far off. I went 50% cash last Monday. I was still up 30% yoy and even after being down 4% from my ATH. I'll start buying back in when we hit -8%. If we hit -20% I'll go fully back in unless things are looking genuinely worse. Not that anyone asked but ,y take is that Trump's in way over his head. He can't just cancel this war like he canceled tariffs to pump the market. I believe that Trump's handlers Israel and Russia both benefit from this action and that both have compromising material on DJT, so even if he could back out gracefully or otherwise he won't. 4,400 marines headed to the gulf. Boots on the ground in less than a week. We have zero leverage in this fight other than brute force and we've seen military fail over and over and over again since WWII. Iran can keep hitting energy infrastructure with $40k drones. If the US takes Iranian territory to open the Straight they'll keep flying those drones into refineries. Trump's mental illness and $5m in drones might crash the entire world's economy and frustrate a $1T military built to fight hypersonic jets, not cheap fiberglass flying bombs...

sleepystockmarket

The historical precedent that always gets overlooked in these discussions is post-WWII America. In 1946, debt-to-GDP hit around 119% — far worse than today's ratio — and the US didn't default or collapse. It grew its way out over two decades through a combination of strong real GDP growth, moderate inflation, and financial repression (keeping interest rates below inflation). The critical difference now is that 1946's debt was the result of a one-time emergency spend, while today's trajectory is structural — driven by demographics and entitlement obligations that don't switch off. So the "it's always been fine" argument has limits. The question I'd actually worry about for a portfolio is less "will the US default" (almost certainly not) and more "what's the exit mechanism this time?" — because historically it's always been some mix of inflation and financial repression, both of which quietly erode real returns on bonds. Has anyone adjusted their fixed income allocations with that historical pattern in mind?

Flaky_Acanthaceae925

Some excellent comments on regional politics here. I'll just say that the people who rule Iran are true fanatics, just like the Japanese military leaders at end of WWII, they will Never surrender and will take down everyone with them, civilians, Qatar, UAE, Saudis, etc. They have nothing to lose but their ego and pride. Trump is a business person, he is clueless about dealing with true religious fanatics. They will fight to the end, any student of history will remember the brutal long Iran Iraq war. One of the most ugly wars of second half of 20th Century.

calm_discussion_3500

I would say yea it definitely contributed very much to inflation during Covid. Doesn't mean we should have had zero stimulus but we clearly overdid it. Having WWII deficits now during peacetime is definitely contributing to core PCE being 3% 5 years later.

McKoijion

Nah, it was like that until they discovered oil and Britain attacked them. The US just took over Britain's imperialism after WWII. We were supposed to spread democracy, but we instead decided to support brutal monarchies to stop communism.

Upset_Development_64

Of course they are, fascists loathe accountability and the Bored of Peace committee exists solely to usurp global institutions that were established after WWII to actually facilitate peace and free trade. Isolationism isn’t good for Line Go Up

SevereLog9181

Most SBR rubber that you will find in tires (a synthetic that was made out of necessity for WWII), has sulfur in its system. This is true of a lot rubber, synthetic or otherwise. Just thought I'd put that out there because everybody has to buy tires at some point.

I_am_Nerman

Just like WWII

Roxorek

new Dalio dropped Dalio's like: "Forget the nukes and politics, whoever controls this oily choke point WINS the whole war." Iran dragging it out with mines/drones? US looks weak AF, allies ghost, dollar gets heemed vs gold, inflation goes full BRRRR, and the post-WWII world order turns into a smoking crater (Suez Crisis 1956 vibes on steroids). Trump threatens "Death, Fire, and Fury"? If we actually reopen that strait and flex on Iran, America stays the alpha, oil flows, portfolios moon. Fail? Everyone's bagholding while China/Russia laugh.It's all Stage 6 Big Cycle chaos – debt bubbles popping, empires crumbling like your 0DTE calls, history repeating since Spanish/Dutch days. No agreements, just raw "might makes right" until one side taps out.Dalio's not picking sides (he's just a history autist betting on outcomes), but basically: Hormuz decides if we're all fucked or if the empire holds. Gold gang diamond hands? Probably. Talent over money in this clown market? Always. TL;DR: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ – THIS IS THE FINAL BOSS BATTLE, BRO

ptwonline

Canada was given the power of independent foreign policy in the 1930s. So when Britain went to war in WWII Canada could make its own choice to join or not. In WWI Canada was still under British foreign policy and was at war as soon as Britain was, but the Canadian govt still had control about how and how much to contribute.

Soffatjockis

WWII? But considering how many nazis there seems to be now I'm not too sure.

Kaymish_

Your feelings are badly wrong. The Iranians have said they're prepared to fight this war for years and they won't entertain any negotiations right now. Trump has already tried to send envoys but they have been rebuffed. They fought the US backed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for 8 years; endured daily bombings and chemical weapon attacks. The bombings of the schools hospitals and sports teams have hardened Iranian resolve and support for their government, there are no viable separatist forces the US can make use of. Think October minimum before there's even talk of a peace deal. Unless the USA and Israel break before then. A modern nation state can take a lot of beating before it breaks, just look at Ukraine it has been 4 years and the whole country has been bombed into dust they're losing whole generations of men to the front line still fighting bravely and they were extremely weak at the beginning they didn't have anywhere near the wide based institutional structures Iran has put in place they don't have the same 3000 year old history of Persia they have Stephan Bandera from WWII as their hero and they're still standing. Iran is going to stand much stronger than Ukraine has.

actuarialisticly

No. Not much correlation between wars and markets. For example, during WWII the market was BOOMING.

soad1331

Did they refer to it as WWI as it was happening? Or did they just call it WW? Or afterwards were They like, yeah that was the WW. They probably didn't call it WWI until there was WWII. I mean, WWIII we'll just know what to call it.

Garbage-Disposal-938

in Israel, 93% now favor the war. earlier this year, before the war started, the percentage in Israel that favored attacking Iran was much lower. but I guess what's happening in Israel is the same thing that happens everywhere during air bombing campaigns: people rally around their country and its leaders. also happening in Iran. also happened in the blitz bombings of London in WWII. and when Allied forces bombed the hell out of Germany. I believe it also happened in Vietnam.

sleepystockmarket

Something worth thinking about that nobody's mentioned — the data on market returns during active conflicts is pretty counterintuitive. During WWII the Dow roughly tripled from the 1942 bottom to VJ Day. The Gulf War in 1990-91 is a particularly clean example: the S&P fell about 20% in the run-up, bottomed almost exactly when ground troops went in, then fully recovered within a few months. People who sold at maximum fear in January 1991 missed the entire recovery. The harder question isn't "should I stay in" — it's "am I actually going to buy back in, and at what signal?" Most people who sell in a downturn never re-enter at a lower price. They either wait for certainty (which never comes) or chase back in after the recovery is mostly done. If you don't have a specific, pre-written rule for when you'd re-buy, that's worth thinking through before you do anything.

Malnilion

All pathways are safe if you're a friendly ship because the mines are almost definitely remotely activated. This isn't WWII, technology has come a long way.

Money_Term8366

Aren’t they killing more people this year through their suicide program than the amount that died in WWII

SpellAccomplished541

US hasn't nuked anyone since WWII ('45). Trump obsesses over stock market, family enrichment/crypto, Trump hotels worldwide. Nukes tank *all* that. To the contrary, he's backed down *every single time* markets/bonds dipped (he'll do it again here, declare "victory" after oil volatility peaks).

Rainbow_Frenz4vr

can not do it all they can do is drop the 82nd airborne. they are light infantry and not really good for anything (dont tell them that!). as far back as WWII they realized airborne is pretty much useless (look at operation varsity in 1945) even eisenhower realized the resources needed to drop and then break through to the airborne (Because they need almost immediate resupply and casualty evacuation) would be better used just applying it to the main ground push. airborne is only any good for very specific smash-n-grab raids (like rescuing mussolini) but there's no one to rescue on Carguy Land, dropping them there just makes them an immediate target in an Alamo type situation with no way out. Americans will not tolerate casualties remember this is the TikTok generation where everyone is a main character and future celebrity not Band of Brothers where the 21 year old soldiers actually believe in the cause

IJustBoughtThisGame

Iran has 70 million more people and 950,000 more military personnel (compared to when we invaded Afghanistan in 2001) and is 2.5 times the size. The US would struggle to occupy the country even if its entire military (across all branches) were in theatre simply because Iran has half the military size we do and so many people there would become insurgents since foreign invaders tend to inspire that kind of thing (a la pretty much every war we've fought post-WWII). This would basically be the Korean War + the Vietnam War + the Afghanistan War + the second Iraq War all rolled into one.

Dr-McLuvin

US Presidents have been deploying troops since *checks notes* WWII

TernTheNumbers

Israel was willing to share the land since 1947, even getting the worse half of British Palestine from the UN after WWII. "We're going to kill you and take it all" was the Muslim response to the idea of sharing, peace proposals, and compromises ever since. I think Israel was driven to this by decades of terrorism and genocidal threats. They're not deliberately aiming for civilians like Hamas does, they're just not holding back anymore. "You wanna shoot at us from an apartment building? Apartment building goes boom." The death and destruction in Palestine is horrific but I can't bring myself to condemn Israel under the circumstances. The Muslims have wanted a fight to the death against the Jews for 75 years.

RiseIfYouWould

Yes in war there are civillian casualties, a lot of casualties died in WWII in order to make Hitler suicide. War sucks. There is also a lot of fake news and false flags in wars. Lots of countries have a history of false flags to worse the image of their enemies.

Unemployable1593

that was just WWII

Pffffftmkay

And I'd take him over Carter, but I'm an independent who leans right, so that's not too surprising we disagree here and there (I'm assuming your left since you're on reddit). At any rate, people with no memory or education of the past often hyperbolize recent events. It's pointless for me to get so frustrated, but with how people are reacting to the Iran conflict (or war or whatever it "is"), I'd love to see them react to Vietnam or WWII. And for all the complaints about what Trump has done to our norms and with immigration enforcement, I'd love to see them react to Jackson and the trail of tears. I'm NOT defending his actions. I'm just saying on the spectrum of Hitler to George Washington, he's objectively and factually far far far closer to George Washington than the NYT and people on Reddit act. I do think there is value to properly calibrated reactions. Part of the reason we're here now is because the Biden admin and various state prosecutors undoubtedly did overreach and use law fair in the same ways they accused Trump of doing (including to a much greater and worse degree in his second admin). As far as evidence shows, Trump is an immoral human being, but he's not completely irredeemable. Neither is his presidency. There have been flashes of good amidst all the muck. There's far more muck to be sure, but things and people are never all good or bad.

depressed_panda49

Based on the all-time high (ATH) closing price of $697.84 for SPY, here are the calculated price points: · 5% down: $662.95 · 10% down: $628.06 · 15% down: $593.16 For VOO: · 5% down: $609.72 · 10% down: $577.63 · 15% down: $545.54 During the 2008 financial crisis SPY drop 57%. - WWII (Pearl Harbor): -19.8% to -23% (S&P 500/Dow) - Korean War: -12.9% (S&P 500) · Vietnam War (Cambodian Campaign): -14.9% (S&P 500) · Yom Kippur War/Oil Embargo: -16.1% to -41% (S&P 500; -41% over 1 year) · Gulf War (Iraq invades Kuwait): -15.9% to -16.9% (S&P 500) · Afghanistan War (2001): -11.6% (S&P 500; linked to 9/11) · Iraq War (2003): -5.6% (S&P 500) · Russia-Ukraine War: -7.4% to -12.4% (S&P 500; -12.4% over 1 year)

Boomer_With_Dementia

My moves for tomorrow? I dunno, Peter Zeihan says that continued loss of Persian Gulf Oil to Asia will cause things to collapse pretty quickly over there in Asia. But I think the obvious destruction of the past WWII global order will continue to cause military stocks to go up everywhere. So trying to figure out wether the militarization play matures before the financial collapse happens is really hard to figure out. So I don't have energy for that, instead I will probably follow some zany trade idea posted by some other WSB account.

Quick1711

These aren’t old traditional mines. This isn’t WWII

siali

What happened to stocks during that short-term 1939 excursion that is called WWII?

Putrid-Caregiver7407

The basis of your argument is flawed, relying heavily on hindsight bias. You're saying just because we know the inner workings of USSR near the point of collapse, that all policies implemented prior were fluff. Which is blatantly false. I don't even know what your objective is. But lets go over what you are saying. >What do you call a punching bag that started the Yom Kippur War over a false flag operation by killing innocents in Egypt, struck the USS Liberty, and actively funds a superPAC that is anti-American at heart? My argument is that Israel doesn't control us. We don't do anything we dont want to do. You say they are terrorists, which isn't relevant to my argument because I never said they weren't. This designation of good and bad is immature. We worked with Soviets as allies right before they became our mortal enemy in the cold war. We have objectives in the region and we use resources to best accomplish those objectives. >We were never involved in the Middle East until the Yom Kippur War and they & Great Britain begged and pleaded for Americans to help them. The fact that we did and continue to do so out of "obligation" is a massive mistake. The communist argument was a facade, Israel wanted Jordanian land and control of the Nile. We have been involved in the middle east officially since we voted on the resolution. Period. Light involvement existed earlier, but the U.S. became a real Middle East power in the mid-1940s, and fully committed by 1947–1957. Everything else afterwards was a primary influence of deterring communism with our vested interest in maintaining Israel against mutual enemies and a base in the middle east. >Yeah, the communist scare was a joke. The USSR was a paper tiger. Poorly managed, their entire economy was contingent on essentially feudal labor and too inflexible to provide for the needs of both the state and its peoples. They could never realistically survive an all out conflict- look what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. They were a complete joke militarily, and still are (also, they literally almost lost to the Finns before WWII in the Winter War. How do you almost lose to townies on skis?) Through our official policies, funding and military commitments and lives lost, whether or not communists were pretending to be bigger than they were is irrelevant, fact is WE thought they were and our polices reflected that. You can argue that it was a mistake to continue to assist, though that is countered by every uncertainty during that time that Soviets were rational actors. You wouldn't be able to go back in time to play out that reality so its really groundless on whether it was a mistake. You cant control what other nations do but you can control the resources at your disposal. The positioning to obtain greater US resources has been a major philosophy of every clandestine operation since OSS. But the real fact is USSR was not a joke in the sense of being harmless or fake. It was a real superpower with a huge military, a massive nuclear arsenal, and enough power to threaten the United States and dominate Eastern Europe for decades. U.S. historical assessments in the 1950s described the USSR as heavily armed and capable of inflicting serious damage on the U.S., including atomic attack. But I suppose you know more than the experts. [https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p1/d18](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p1/d18) >Don't forget the entirety of the Mossad-Epstein ring goes all the way back to the Contras... Even if we didn't want to help them if their aims hurt ours, our politicians are blackmailed into going along with it  Also: [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/07/18/netanyahu-us-easily-manipulated](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/07/18/netanyahu-us-easily-manipulated) Bibi said it himself, and in 2010! "Don't forget". What Mossad-Epstein ring? What blackmail? The link you put doesn't speak to any of that. This is just tin foil hat speculations with no ground. Your argument here is that we are engaged due to blackmailing of political officials and we would continue to be engaged even if it hurts our interests, largely pointing to covert Israeli cabal influence at the highest levels. There is no evidence of this which negates the overwhelming reason for the cold war and involvement in the middle east. All this stemming from your hindsight bias that Soviets were never a threat? You are all over the place. Again, just because our interests align doesn't mean there's some secret Israeli black ops mind controlling our politicians. >Korea and Vietnam accomplished reducing international support for American actions so Israel and the US could be more isolated internationally, and thus the US could be beholden to proIsraeli goals instead of global unity. Your attempt to frame every US policy and action on an Israeli focused ground is nothing but propaganda and brainwashing. You do know the world doesnt revolve around this right? You do understand that these types of conflicts were occurring before Israel became a state. The immediate reason for the Korean War was that North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, and the U.S. intervened under a **United Nations mandate** to help repel that attack. The bigger reason was the Cold War. U.S. leaders believed that letting South Korea fall would strengthen Communist expansion in Asia and weaken U.S. credibility with allies. State Department history describes the war as the point where the Cold War turned into open armed conflict, and later U.S. policy documents explicitly framed Korea as part of resisting further Communist expansion in the Far East. [https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar](https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar) [https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/KoreanWarAnniversary](https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/KoreanWarAnniversary) The U.S. fought in Vietnam because it wanted to prevent North Vietnam and the Viet Cong from defeating South Vietnam, and it saw that as part of stopping communist expansion during the Cold War. The war escalated dramatically after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin) [https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v05/d177](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v05/d177) You want to know what all these have in common? No relation to Israel other than it all being under the same umbrella with the primary objective in the cold war which is to contain Soviet expansion without triggering a direct nuclear war. NSC-68 and related U.S. history sources frame that as deterrence, military buildup, and resistance to further Soviet gains. [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/NSC68](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/NSC68) >Why the fuck did we veto UN propositions that literally everyone else in the world vehemently disagreed with, except Israel? Why do we shield UN? Easy because their position is to our benefit in the region. >Why do we actively disparage the institutions we built after WWII for global unity? Take it up with the charter and formation legalities of the UN. Any permanent member back block action with a veto. This is not a special reserved US power. >Israel wants everything for itself and cannot imagine a non Jewish world they cannot "inherit". It's literally the Haredi point of view, which is the fastest growing sect of Judaism: [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9734595/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9734595/) All this run around. Just say you are biased against Jews instead of denying history. The Cuban Missile Crisis was started because the US escalated the situation with our Minutemen in Turkey pointed at Moscow. The Soviets wouldn't have sent their nukes to Cuba if we hadn't placed them there to begin with. Stupid policy blunders like that were entirely self inflicted. First of all the U.S. missiles in Turkey were Jupiter missiles, not Minutemen. Second it was not started because of that. there were multiple motives: deterring another U.S. attempt to overthrow Castro after the Bay of Pigs, countering ongoing U.S. pressure such as Operation Mongoose, improving Soviet strategic position, and also responding to the missile balance that included Turkey. In other words, Turkey was one cause, not the whole cause. This of course is not relevant because it does not provide ground to your "ussr is a joke" statement or your anti israeli bias. It sounds like you grew up watching too much Alex Jones or the like. I wouldn't say you can claim critical thinking either, as all your references have little to no ground. Simply put, you speak out your ass on things you dont know about.

External_Anteater730

Yeah, the communist scare was a joke. The USSR was a paper tiger. Poorly managed, their entire economy was contingent on essentially feudal labor and too inflexible to provide for the needs of both the state and its peoples. They could never realistically survive an all out conflict- look what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. They were a complete joke militarily, and still are (also, they literally almost lost to the Finns before WWII in the Winter War. How do you almost lose to townies on skis?) The Cuban Missile Crisis was started because the US escalated the situation with our Minutemen in Turkey pointed at Moscow. The Soviets wouldn't have sent their nukes to Cuba if we hadn't placed them there to begin with. Stupid policy blunders like that were entirely self inflicted. I know how to read between the lines. You grew up listening to propaganda. Learn to use common sense and critical thinking next time

External_Anteater730

The communist argument was a facade, Israel wanted Jordanian land and control of the Nile. Korea and Vietnam accomplished reducing international support for American actions so Israel and the US could be more isolated internationally, and thus the US could be beholden to proIsraeli goals instead of global unity. Why the fuck did we veto UN propositions that literally everyone else in the world vehemently disagreed with, except Israel? Why do we actively disparage the institutions we built after WWII for global unity? Israel wants everything for itself and cannot imagine a non Jewish world they cannot "inherit". It's literally the Haredi point of view, which is the fastest growing sect of Judaism: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9734595/

bulldozer_66

Wars continue till people are sick of them. In the 1980s the Iranians and Iraqis fought for about a decade over basically nothing. Why would they stop now? They have many layers of backup clerics to take over. They kill their own people for speaking up. They just do not care. This could go on for a while. With the US having little say in anything. We're not the boss here. Haven't been since WWII. Too bad MAGA can't figure that out.

AggieDem

Merchant subs have not been built since WWII. A sub would have nowhere near the capacity of a tanker. Finally, submarines can still hit mines in a strait.

SaveTheAles

Time to bring back WWII ship convoys or just mass rush it.

Dr-McLuvin

That’s what they used to say during WWII

RedditConsciousness

So you are saying Japan or Germany should have fought to the last man in WWII? You are factually wrong. And it is strange take to paint the Iranian regime who sponsors global terrorism while straight up mass murdering 30k of their own people as victims here.

LongHealth

At my first job we had this kid who would literally fall asleep at his desk while he’s supposed to be working. Now usually I wouldn’t care but I was his senior and his extra work would end up on me. This kid also had the sickest collection of WWI and WWII weapons and on the weekend we’d go to the shooting range (a field in the middle of nowhere) and shoot up targets. He only ever asked me to contribute to the bullets. Needless to say I gave him perfect performance reports.

HerpDerpMcChirp

Largest is incorrect. That would belong to one of the great powers of WWII. Most powerful compared to peers? Perhaps.

ThePapaSauce

Well, that paired with a precarious network of conflicting treaties which were a relic of pre-industrialized war-making. After the assassination, all of those treaties triggered like dominoes, spiraling Europe into the First World War. Then Germany was left in shambles with crushing debt, which gave rise to fascism and Hitler, giving us WWII. The aftermath of which resulted in the Bretton Woods petrodollar, the Cold War, and the state of Israel — all three of which being major ingredients in the tinderbox that is gulf state geopolitics, and the reason this mess could spiral out of control in short order.

finance-mcp-001

for context, the S&P 500 has returned > 10%/year for the last 100 years, which includes the Great Depression, WWII, countless shocks, stagflation etc.. you'll be fine

LetMeSeeYourNumber

WWI started with the assassination of some heir from where it just kept escalating. And it also sowed the seeds for WWII. All from one guy getting shot.

TheoryInttro

Trauma from having to flee South Africa after the collapse of Apartheid when he went from being one of the heirs of his actual nazi grandfather who tried a coup in Canada during WWII and helped set up Apartheid in SA afterwards to a refugee fleeing justice.

outhinking

200 was never seen in history since WWII so I don't believe it will reach that, or it's truly WWIII which I don't think will happen this year

EntrepreneurOld7858

Yeah and people were worried when liberation day happened, but the market ripped harder than the end of WWII.  Hmu when something meaningful happens 🥱

Slim_Charles

The Geneva Convention isn't completely cut and dry on the question of rendering aid to sailors after you've sunk their boat. You're supposed to assist, but only if you reasonably have the means to provide assistance, and if doing so will not expose your own ship to danger or seriously impede military operations. Historically (at least since WWII) submarines have not attempted to render aid to their victims. In WWII the US navy used subs to sink thousands of Japanese merchantmen and left tens of thousands of seamen to die.

roguemedic62

Ryan Grim was not entirely truthful in his X post about the Iranian ship sunk in the Indian Ocean—he made several materially false or misleading claims that exaggerate or misrepresent key facts. Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) posted something very close to this (widely quoted and reposted across platforms like X, Instagram, Threads, and Facebook): "An unarmed Iranian ship was invited, along with the U.S., to be part of an Indian Naval exercise, and its sailors paraded on land before the president. The U.S. at the last minute pulled out of the exercise and instead attacked the Iranian ship with a torpedo. Breaking with all norms of civilization and warfare, we then refused to rescue the drowning survivors. The Sri Lanka Navy was left to pull the dead bodies from the water. I am hard pressed to think of any other nation throughout..." This refers to the sinking of the IRIS Dena (a Moudge-class frigate of the Iranian Navy) by a US submarine torpedo on March 4, 2026, in international waters ~40 miles off Sri Lanka's coast. Here's a breakdown of the accuracy: Unarmed? → False/misleading. The IRIS Dena was a commissioned warship (frigate) equipped with missiles (including surface-to-air and anti-ship), a 76mm gun, torpedoes, and other armaments. Photos and descriptions from its participation in India's MILAN 2026 naval exercise show it with loaded launchers. While it may not have been actively combat-loaded for the exercise transit home, calling it "unarmed" is inaccurate for a naval combatant. Multiple sources (e.g., military analysts, AP reports, RedState coverage) describe it as Iran's "prize ship" and a fully capable warship—not a civilian or disarmed vessel. Invited/participating in exercise? → Partially true. Yes, the Dena participated in India's MILAN 2026 multinational naval exercise (hosted in Visakhapatnam, with a fleet review/parade involving sailors from various nations, including Iran). The US was also invited/participated in MILAN events broadly, but reports do not confirm the US "pulled out at the last minute" specifically to target this ship—rather, the attack occurred days later during its return transit amid the active US-Iran conflict escalation. US refused to rescue survivors/breaking norms? → Misleading/false. The US submarine (standard procedure in submarine warfare) transmitted the distress position to international rescue authorities after the sinking. International law (Geneva Conventions, UNCLOS, naval protocols) does not require a submarine to surface and recover survivors if it risks its own safety or mission (submarines are vulnerable when surfaced). Sri Lanka's navy handled SAR (rescuing 32, recovering 87 bodies) as it fell in their designated search-and-rescue zone—no evidence supports a deliberate US refusal or war crime in abandoning survivors. Claims of a Geneva Convention breach here have been called out as disinformation in discussions (e.g., on X and Reddit). Overall, Grim's framing presents the incident as an outrageous peacetime betrayal of an innocent, disarmed guest vessel with barbaric abandonment—when it was actually the deliberate wartime targeting (first sub torpedo sinking of an enemy warship since WWII) of an armed Iranian naval asset during open hostilities. While the sinking itself is factual and controversial, his post contains significant inaccuracies that align with anti-US/anti-war narratives but don't hold up to reported details from defense sources, AP, and naval experts. (Note: Grim is an investigative journalist often critical of US foreign policy; this post drew pushback from military accounts calling it propaganda or exaggeration.)

092Casey

Literally the dumbest law ever.  Instated to save energy or something during WWII or Korean I forget. Some states dont even use it and other countries dont. Its also linked to detrimental health events.

star744jets

Give me a break ! There was zero threat at the time for thousands of square miles around that sub. They could have easily and at minimum used their tubes to send some survival equipment. Even some nazis Uboat surfaced to help sinking ships during WWII. Let’s face it, Trump’s Navy has demonstrated the lowest standard with this event of abject cruelty toward the enemy. This is throwing a veil of dishonor on the entire country.

NlNJANEER

Considering we held election during the civil war, WWI, and WWII, I can't imagine a valid reason why we wouldn't be able to have them during WWIII

14mmwrench

It's not a destroyer, its a corvette or frigate depending on how you want to name the types. It's not the only surface ship suck by the USN since WWII. Iran has a few others that had an unfortunate meeting with USN surface forces. It's the first ship sank by a US submarine since WWII, and the first ship sunk by nuclear powered submarine using a modern torpedo.

TheBalloonEffect

Ironically a great movie about WWII tanks

jrex035

Literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The US doesn't have the military might to compel the whole world to do whatever we want. Our navy is falling woefully behind China in terms of tonnage and modernization, all while we keep fucking around with half brained designs that we spend billions developing before *not* buying them and while our port and shipbuilding infrastructure falls ever further into disrepair. Our military might is second to none, but it isn't infallible and we can't be everywhere all the time. Our relative military advantage has been waning for decades at this point (it peaked around the turn of the millennium), all while our economy is increasingly burdened by unsustainable, evergrowing debts. Our greatest military advantage is the worldwide network of alliances that we built that our mitigates our need to be everywhere at once and reduces the cost of our military equipment through economies of scale. These alliances are fraying as we speak. There's a reason why we didn't pursue such a stupid strategy at the height of our relative military and economic might after WWII, the brilliant leaders we had back then knew such a strategy was wasteful, sure to fail, and immoral to boot.

OzymandiasKoK

I don't disagree with the argument per se, but using examples no more recent than WWII is a bit weird.

Domitus_Aurelian

Japan handed them their asses in WWII. We had to rescue them.

C_B_Doyle

USA military is far more advanced then WWII military industrial claim. American hunters have more guns and ammo then most armies. Companies like Lockheed Martin have contracts with the USA about top secret aircraft.

ccblr06

To be fair, this is quite literally one of the points of the US Navy. Thats why the navy is so big, it was a deal made after WWII. The only problem is that we need MORE destroyers to do this effectively.

CoffeeMaker999

To be fair to Spain, they had fought a horrorific civil war before the start of WWII and were exhausted. They had huge casualties relative to the size of the population.

Brawmethius

The last congressional war in the mechanism you are describing was WWII. Every single conflict since has not been a declared war of congress. Although the cooperation of congress on funding or continuing has varied. Effectively congress has abdicated their duty and power for 80 years. But no one votes them out, fuck you have octogenerians in there who stayed in power since Vietnam.

Boozeburger

We need a billionaires tax, or at least go back to the taxes of WWII levels if we're going to be at war. And lets close the loop holes for the filthy rich so they pay their fair share.

Vast-Heart774

It has roughly 90 million people who are highly keen on killing Americans for past and present wrongdoings. The entire country is built like a tank with enormous mountains throughout. The US can only win this by getting boots on the ground and that is a suicide mission waiting to happen. Iran is the only functioning country the Us has attacked since WWII. The economic outcome from this will be devastating for the entire world and may very well end up being WWIII because everyone needs to secure their piece of the pie. This is a complete cluster fuck and beyond stupid, even by Donne-kid-raping-Trump standards

ReadyRaspberry8663

Beautiful how people are escalating their language. The WWII spooky boi name wasn't bad enough

Charming_Raccoon4361

how is this different than WWII or iraq war?

SummerTight1483

We toppled the government then spent 20 years with troops on the ground instigating an even harder right wing and fundamentalist than IRGC militant government forming in the vacuum and needing to be dismantled. In the process we killed 4.5 million people and counting minimum in that region from 2001 to 2023 stemming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/papers/how-death-outlives-war](https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/papers/how-death-outlives-war) Iran is 4 times as many people as Baathist Iraq with way way better weaponry, way way more wealth, a significantly larger army, incredibly hostile and unwieldy terrain, built in religious fervor, and documented a) virulent hatred for the US and b) multiple times success thwarting American takeovers of their country. The IRGC will be significantly harder to defeat than any resistance the US has gone against since Vietnam at least but most likely the Koreans or maybe even Germans in WWII. China and Russia will align with Iran in so far as weapons and supplies, this can totally spread. There are a lot of countries that have been bombed by the US who will want their lick back as well, and lots of fundamentalist or political organizations within countries that are supposed allies or not aligned to Iran who will see this as an opportunity to spread the violence. The American military will enter a meat grinder in which many many people will die if they engage in ground combat, and all of this for absolutely no reason, because Israel is willing to destroy the world to advance its genocidal plan. It is an almost hilariously myopic chauvinist take that because Venezuela was easy Iran will be too. Those two countries could not be more different. There is no surgical end here, just excessively violent churns of death and collapse.

orsomeshitidk

If we haven’t ‘declared war’ since WWII but fought in Korea, Vietnam, the gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran once and then now again.. kinda ‘illegal’ in name only.

IllBuyYourCar

Sara on CNBC got that WWII Hugo Boss uniform on

hyperblue128

People get scared all the time. The more scared they are, the cheaper you can buy stocks and ETFs. The markets surveyed WWI and WWII. If the world survives WWIII, the markets will recover too. If it doesn't - well, you wouldn't need those money.

North_Experience7473

We held elections during WWII. Fuck him.

ProudestPeasant

is this for real? it's well known that Russia is only choosing select targets and not going all-out. last time Russia went all-out, they won WWII by defeating the nazis.

Beard_of_Valor

[It's like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE&t=1288s). That's a specific time stamp in a video of an economics professor discussing the creditor and debtor perspectives of the last hundred years in America. If this sort of thing is interesting to you, you might enjoy the full video. The solution is to have income that isn't based on owning assets. So before the 70s there was a great recession and WWII, but after WWII the goal of the economy was to achieve full employment for workers. As unemployment got very low, it was harder to find workers, and workers felt like they could quit a job at noon on Friday and find another job by 4pm that they could start next Monday. Labor had a lot of negotiation power. There were unions, there were Cost of Living Adjustments so that as things grew more expensive then wages must climb to afford the same things. That made sense moment-in-time I guess, but it led to a wage-price-spiral that is now the bogeyman of every central bank but I'm getting ahead of myself. So during stagflation there's a lack of investment because as you rightly assume if you invest in a business you might as well take that cash out back and burn it, although holding it isn't much better. You could buy antiquities, maybe, and hope a Monet is worth more when things simmer down. So the investment class kind of went on strike and networked with the political elites they're already embedded with and pointed out that the country needs the investment class, too, and central banks were born. The thesis goes "you politicians will give people anything to get elected again and you keep giving everyone a pony but no one will be able to, you know, build a better factory to build a better car to make more money or get better market share or bring money to our country. You need to fix inflation." And central markets popped up, but not just in the USA. It's not just a silly mistake we made, it's a solution to the problem they had. Recently, that same economist talked to another one about the idea "maybe that was a good idea at the time but we should give the reins back to the legislature" because taking important decisions away from the politicians results in people voting for unserious politicians. So then central banks ran the show for a while until the next massive shit stain on the US economy. You can watch another 15 minutes of the video for that.

Blazeitbro69420

The war part lasted like 100 hours. The occupation doesn’t count as war. That’d be like saying WWII was still going on when Germany was west and east until the Berlin Wall came down lol

xalibr

That's how Germany won WWII too!

Due_Collar2

That actually connects to my original point — how societies deal with dangerous ideologies long-term. Europe largely chose legal bans after WWII. The U.S. relied more on constitutional rights and education. So the question becomes: if education is the main safeguard, what happens when people lose trust in the education system or when it becomes politicized?”

atheistunicycle

Oh I 100% agree with you that we've instigated many engagements all the way back to WWII, and that that money would be better spent on healthcare for the American people. I guess what I'm getting at is that most of those conflicts were not nearly as big as what Iran could become.

dontfigh

Thats like saying it took the whole world to stop some small countries in WWII. Its a different ballgame champ.

PassengerStreet8791

lol. Every war carried out by a US president since before WWII has been “illegal”. No president should have to ask the bumbling group of congress for surprise attacks because some fool will leak it.