David Burbach 🇺🇸🌹

I recall Musk going off to his fan club about how for air combat or air defense missiles, radar was stupid because optical tracking would "always" be superior because higher frequency photons = more bandwidth

"drone" = cool, good, smart, disruptor dudes with Black Rifle coffee

"cruise missile" = old, fat, dumb, pocket protector bureaucrat with a frappachino

If Iran or Russia could 1:1 trade in their Shadeds for Tomahawks or Kalibrs I'm quite sure they would do so

But the label "drone" and "built by disruptors" does not magically change basic physics of range and payload

It's also 1/25 the cost of a Tomahawk, in principle letting you buy lots more of them. Against some target sets, those numbers work out great for LUCAS! Nice to have the option. Against others, not so much. 2/

Discussion was amusing on X, with many insisting its superior in every way to a Tomahawk because it is a "drone" (silicon valley good) and not a "cruise missile" (lockheed bad) 🙄.

LUCAS has 1/4 the range and 1/4 the speed and 1/20th the warhead of a Tomahawk. 1/

Ah yes, regime change where the IRGC and military and police end up in charge after some promises to the US

So too with Iran, I suspect the prospect of a civil war / failed state / general chaos is less frightening to some figures in the US and Israeli govts (and Gulf states?) than you might think. Sucks for the Iranians perhaps but wont, they may think, affect much beyond Iran's borders. 4/4

That view didn't prevail with GWB and we set out on democratizing / nation building, despite Rumsfeld's best efforts to head it off.

But some of the current admin figures came away thinking the Iraq/Afg mistake was not invading, but that we did more than just smashing, salting, and leaving 3/

That is, whatever followed "smash" in Iraq, there would be no capability left to threaten the US. If we parachuted in Chalabi and he pulled it off, great, but if not, eh, not our problem. Rumsfeld, Cheney, some others in OSD didnt think failed states were a problem -- only *strong* states 2/

Good thread.

I'd qualify though, our goal may not be regime *change* vs regime *destruction*. Rumsfeld's Iraq view in 2003 was just smash and leave. With military hardware, regime security nodes, economic infrastructure destroyed, we wouldn't have to care who ran Iraq or what happened next 1/

Hypothetical but from historical examples, a strong case made in the SOTU a few days ago might have been pretty helpful with domestic opinion.

"usually only down" but if something unexpected and dramatic and good happens -- Iran basically surrenders, maybe even as news of Khameni's death is confirmed and spreads -- it might increase. But it's a low start for sure

Historically, these are TERRIBLE polling numbers for day 1 of a major US use of force, particularly against a well known and disliked adversary. Usually it only goes down from the start

If your car is low on gas, this might be a good afternoon to fill up to save a buck or two later.

"If President Trump wants to use military force in Iran, he should first seek authorization from US Congress"

Agree: 67%
Disagree: 17%

Disagree Among:
GOP: 36%
IND: 11%
DEM: 4%

YouGov / Feb 23, 2026

I think I've gained quite a few followers from this (thanks @uticaeric.bsky.social). Welcome!

Most important note is that I post here in a personal capacity not on behalf of an employer, and without using any government resources.

Obviously you need to set up an onlyfans live stream and then guilt your concerned followers into paying to keep track of your status. Monetize this shit.

Yikes

True that Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, but at least presidents would ask permission (via an authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF) before major military operations

It may not feel like it but it is actually a big deal that Trump has now twice skipped even that cursory step

In recognition of your sacrifice a grateful nation shall list your name in Times New Roman on a shiny new ballwasher at Bedminister (* until a corporate sponsor signs up)

Thoughts and prayers, man

Mike, we sent text messages encouraging Iranians to go out and do a regime change once they think the bombing has stopped. How is that not a serious CONOP?

For people who still care about this sort of thing, here's James Madison writing from 1793 (6 years after the delegates in Philadelphia signed the Constitution) about why the power to make war was vested in the legislature.

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/doc...

I'm guessing basically a psyop attempt? Useful if anyone stands down for a while?

If this is airstrikes only, who are they supposed to surrender to, and who are the 'forces of liberation'?

"No new wars" really just meant "f*ck Ukraine" and everyone knew it.

President Trump's approach to Iran is reckless, the editorial board writes.

"He started this war without explaining to the American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war." nyti.ms/4rLzhbh

This is actually genuinely very much not good for stability and not-killing

In 1973, a veto-proof majority of Congress took the position that POTUS’s constitutional powers to use military force are limited to:

1) declaration of war

2) specific statutory authorization

3) national emergency triggered by attack on U.S., its territories or possessions, or armed forces. 1/n