And the US is trusted with nuclear weapons.

There's a non zero chance Trump does try to 'win' this with nukes. Apart from the narcissism he gives every impression of not just being a "if I have a hammer, every problem can be solved with nails" type guy, but also a "if I have a hammer it has to be used, or it is worthless" type guy.

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Can they be used on civilian ships or is it only for military use?

You can stick pretty much anything on a civilian ship, with enough work*. In that case, you'd presumably lift a vehicle with it onto the ships then take them off at the end to swap onto a ship going the other way, which seems simple enough. Though given the information on its effectiveness comes from the manufacturer some mild skepticism about its stated capabilities is warranted. Especially so if it's actually been rejected (given it's microwaves, is it massively less effective if it's, well, raining for example?).

We have no idea how the system copes with swell (probably ok, on a big tanker, on a smaller cargo ship though?) and especially salt water. Which will mess things up far worse than fresh water might.

*Germans stuck ~light cruiser level load outs on modified freighters in WW2 for example, and they had to be clandestine. Good enough that the Kormoran sank a heavy cruiser, albeit they wouldn't have had a chance if the cruiser had been sensible.

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

Its integration to US Army's system seem to have been delayed as 2024 they were excepting that integration is done in 2025, but it looks that project didn't go forward in 2025.

Four v1 have been delivered and as recently as July 2025 the Army bought two more v2: Epirus Receives $43.5 Million Contract from U.S. Army for IFPC-HPM Generation II Systems

I agree that all DE weapons suffer from environmental limitations (rain, snow, clouds, haboob, smoke) but it seems to me that ("human safe" lol) microwaves offer a better option than pewpewing single targets with a laser.

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

There's a non zero chance Trump does try to 'win' this with nukes. Apart from the narcissism he gives every impression of not just being a "if I have a hammer, every problem can be solved with nails" type guy, but also a "if I have a hammer it has to be used, or it is worthless" type guy

That would not bode well for Ukraine.

Also I find it kind of ironic that the US had tripped over the same assumption Russia had in Ukraine, that the local population will be on their side.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Sarex

On 3/14/2026 at 12:38 PM, Zoraptor said:

I have to admit there's a certain amount of grim amusement to be had from Trump now begging other countries to send warships to Hormuz.

Sounds like a grand opportunity to cut a Tarrif deal with redacted. I'm sure he'd be all over that.

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

That would not bode well for Ukraine.

I don't think there's any realistic scenario in which Russia nukes Ukraine even if it were not as taboo.

The trouble with Trump is that he's Trump. No one really knows what he'll do in a no win situation. It wasn't a reasonable decision to attack Iran either, it wasn't a reasonable decision to do so with-seemingly, and it's a pretty solid seemingly- no apparent plan for anything apart from blowing stuff up and when that doesn't work, blowing more stuff up. The ultimate end point of that 'strategy' is, well, nukes. Not really the logical end point, but we're far beyond applying logic to someone who appears to have had no consideration for how the other side might react.

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

Also I find it kind of ironic that the US had tripped over the same assumption Russia had in Ukraine, that the local population will be on their side.

I don't really think Russia believed the local populace would rise, just that the Ukrainian army wouldn't fight effectively.

Western media, and probably Intelligence, appears to suffer from classic Confirmation Bias. And really, White Knight/ Hero complex as well.

If you watched/ read only the BBC* you'd think that every Iranian opposed their government. Because they all say they do. But, every time I see or read a BBC interview with an Iranian I remember that the type of people who would say things the BBC doesn't like would simply never be interviewed by them- they'd never talk to the BBC in the first place. People who had changed their mind post bombing wouldn't risk anything to berate the BBC knowing that they'd probably not get covered. You'd never know that from the BBC itself though.

You can also see it with the Iranian women football players. They make the free choice to stay in Australia, but have to be being pressured into deciding to return to Iran. There's a fair chance they just turned on the news, and decided that actually their government was not wrong about some things. Even if they don't like their government they may well hate being used to justify attacks on their country.

This is the ultimate problem with all these sort of things; you have the media- and Intelligence- talking only to the people who say what they want to hear. Since they hear nothing else from people, except state media who you can easily dismiss, you end up Believing what you want to be true is true.

Personally, I also always remember the old Chomsky response to a reporter who didn't like Manufacturing Consent: ~"..if you asked those sort of questions, you'd never be employed as a reporter in the first place".

*or just about any other western source really. But the BBC is handy, has a live stream and a veritable plethora of articles and newsbits talking to Iranians, and BBC 'Persian' (sic; that it isn't BBC Iran or BBC Farsi shows who it's aimed at) exists.