Hacker News Reader

Right I think its only an interesting argument in separating existential vs non-existential threats to the country.

So it means we aren't fighting in Iran the way we would in defending a hypothetical invasion of the lower 48 states, great.

But does it mean we'd fight any differently in the South China Sea, a Russian incursion into Poland, etc. Unclear, and presidential whim based.

View on HN

The American public has shown willingness over decades and decades to commit to long term wars of choice. Not infinitely patient, but patient.

Of course, other Presidents have been willing to put in some sort of effort to make to make a case. And usually have some of theory of victory or purpose. And generally avoid making weird random claims about invading NATO allies.

That willingness is predicated on being at war with much weaker powers / enduring FAR lower casualty rates than Vietnam / Korea / world wars.

The entire 25+ year GWOT era has resulted in 7k American military personnel dying.

Vietnam that number was closer to 60K in 8 years, when US population was also 33% lower.

Dramatically different impact on society.

Sending marines to take an island in Hormuz or a carrier under fire in the South China Sea might look a lot closer to Vietnam than GWOT in a hurry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com