[HN Gopher] Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' ...
___________________________________________________________________
Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of
Hormuz
Author : KoftaBob
Score : 119 points
Date : 2026-03-31 09:30 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (responsiblestatecraft.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (responsiblestatecraft.org)
| i67vw3 wrote:
| Not every war can be fought from air, there needs to be soldiers
| on the ground.
|
| In fight against ISIS, the Iraqi amry, Shia Militias, Kurds and
| others were ground forces while Allies were in Air. In
| Afghanistan & Gulf War, US forces were on ground.
|
| But in these "conflict", no party is ready to send ground forces,
| ground forces to stop the air drones, ship drones etc. So the
| "blockade" will probably continue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the "blockade" will probably continue_
|
| The part that makes the Strait weird is no belligerent wants it
| entirely closed. (Maybe Israel.) Iran wants to export. And
| America wants exports. So you get this weird stalemate where
| America doesn't want to actually blockade Iran, while Iran
| seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting
| the Strait.
| arkensaw wrote:
| > while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from
| actually shutting the Strait.
|
| Uhm, why would America shut the strait?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why would America shut the strait?_
|
| To deny Iran oil revenue.
| pjc50 wrote:
| America isn't getting exports from Iran, until recently they
| were sanctioned. More of a problem is that the biggest buyer
| of Iranian oil is China. I don't think that getting out of
| the war with Iran by starting a war with China would be an
| improvement.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _America isn 't getting exports from Iran_
|
| Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a
| barrel it doesn't scour the global markets for.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _America isn 't getting exports from Iran_
|
| Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a
| barrel it doesn't scour the global markets for.
|
| > _getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with
| China_
|
| China isn't getting into a war with America over the
| Strait.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Single market.
|
| Not really, they were getting discounted oil prices
| previously that they are no longer able to get.
|
| Also, they are a large importer of oil compared to the
| US, which is an exporter. They have much more to lose
| from high oil prices than we do.
| mrweasel wrote:
| There was an article somewhere a few days ago, where the author
| raised the question: Why buy tanks in a world of drone warfare.
| Something like that. I see this as much the same "problem".
| Drones can't really take or hold territory, they can only deny
| access to it. At some point you need people and armoured
| vehicles on the ground.
|
| The US is facing the same issue in Iran. You can bomb all you
| like, but a bomber, like a drone, can't hold land. Iran can
| launch drones and missiles towards the Strait of Hormuz from
| the entire country, denying anyone access, but also without
| being able to hold it.
|
| Because they went in without a plan, or even a goal really, the
| US administration denied itself, and everyone else, access to
| the strait. The military leadership probably knew this. If not
| they could have asked Ukraine if this was a sound idea, given
| their knowledge and experience with Iranian drone technology.
| bluegatty wrote:
| There is no party even capable of doing it.
|
| The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have
| to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small
| country, at the same time as there would be 'all out war' with
| Iran, which would be backed by China and to a lesser extent
| Russia, and whereupon an invasion would provide them with
| millions of determined fighters.
|
| We're talking 'Gulf War' scale of operation against a much
| bigger, more capable country, and of forces willing to fight.
|
| And the US doesn't even have anywhere to _do it from_.
|
| Assuming a Gulf country would host an invasion force -
| extremely unlikely - there's no magical way for US to cross the
| Gulf with large numbers of forces, as we can't get capitol
| ships in there in the first place.
|
| There's no amphibious capability at the scale necessary on the
| Arabian Sea.
|
| Literally just the logistics of large scale landings is almost
| impossible.
|
| That leaves the Kuwait / Iran border, and maybe something a bit
| wider.
|
| And then fight through the mountains across the Gulf?
|
| The thought is absurd, it's a 'major campaign theatre' - of
| which US forces were theoretically capable of fighting in two
| at once, but that's not pragmatic. That's 'wartime economy'
| kind of thing.
|
| It's possible but unlikely that 10K marines and paratroopers
| are going to be able to do much, because it's very risky and
| likely won't accomplish much.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| At some point, there's going to be a dumbenough general to
| try to paratrooper their way in. They've spent the past year
| trying to cull "dysloyal" troops, so at some point, the
| delusion will surface is an absurdly dumb attempt.
|
| Hard to see it any other way.
| bluegatty wrote:
| US forces are not partisan and not culled, they're mostly
| the same entity they were last year, but with a few
| Generals asked to retire.
|
| (Edit: highly professional I might add. There are quirks,
| and obvious hints of 'nationalist bias' - but that's to be
| expected. They are not the 'cultural problem' we see on the
| news - at least not for now. They lean 'normal')
|
| The current Joint Chiefs is a bit obsequious but he's not
| crazy.
|
| These are very sane people, for the most part.
|
| They may be pressed to do _something_ risky, like land
| troops at Kharg island, but not completely suicidal.
|
| That 'risk' may entail getting a number of soldiers
| captured, but that's not on the extreme side of military
| failure, it's mostly geopolitical failure. It would
| certainly end DJT as a popular movement.
|
| Having a ship hit, or a few soldiers captured - and this
| sounds morose - is normal. That's why they exist. It's the
| political fallout that's deadly.
|
| They won't do anything to crazy. The craziest thing they
| could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that.
| It's very unpopular and DJT has populist instinct as well -
| he's trying to 'find a way out'.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > They won't do anything to crazy.
|
| I don't know, they've been talking up a lot of crazy
| stuff, like strikes on desalination facilities and the
| power grid.
|
| > The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and
| Congress won't allow that.
|
| Genuninely unclear to me whether Congress has control
| here; don't they currently have a Republican majority who
| will agree to anything anyway?
| bluegatty wrote:
| - So I meant militarily. Yes - you're right, they could
| totally do something as stupid as attack civilian
| infrastructure. I totally buy that.
|
| - Congress is in charge. First - they need budget, and
| the GOP majority has zero appetiate for approving this.
|
| Remember that most of the GOP dislike Trump, and they
| also don't like this war, it's risky to the US - and -
| their own jobs.
|
| So the GOP finds ways to 'resit' Trump without sticking
| their neck out. They do this collectively by grumbling
| and not passing legislation.
|
| The majority leaders tell Trump 'We just don't have the
| votes for it!' thereby not taking a position against
| Trump, more or less 'blaming the ghosts in the party'
| kind of thing.
|
| That's very different than passing legislation that reels
| Trump in, that's 'active defiance'.
|
| So by 'passive defiance' and not approving $, the
| majority holds the Admin back.
|
| Remember that nobody wants this, not the VP, not Rubio.
| Hegseth is a 'TV Entertainer'. The Defence Establishment
| and Intelligence Establishment knows this is stupid. 80%
| of Congress wants it over now.
|
| If DJT has 65% poularity and 75% for the war, the
| equation would tilt, but as it stands, there is not
| enough political momentum.
|
| But anything could happen ...
|
| The death or capture of US soldiers could strongly evoke
| people to move one way or the other.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Theyre culling all branches for loyalty. You arnt paying
| attention or you thinl those who arnt being promoted are
| more DEI.
|
| THE rest of your screed follows from inattentive
| disorder.
| bluegatty wrote:
| I'm a former service member (of another country) and I
| have family members in the US forces.
|
| I'm paying relatively close attention.
|
| Just FYI, US forces are enormous, and with a very long
| and institutionalized history, and it would take at least
| decade to tilt them in such a manner, moreover, it's not
| even happening in the way you're insinuating.
|
| Removing certain DEI polices will have a very marginal
| affect on anything but senior officer promotions, as US
| forces are very meritocratic in most ways already.
|
| Removing transgender personnel etc. is arguably unfair in
| many ways - but will have absolutely zero effect on those
| institutions overall. None.
|
| Nobody is getting 'retired' for not being sufficiently
| MAGA, other than a few select positions in Washington.
|
| Your comment is uninformed and unwelcome; you'll have to
| do a bit better than consume Reddit in order to gain
| actual knowledge and perspective, and save yourself the
| embarrassment.
| Caius-Cosades wrote:
| Military does as the Civilian leadership orders them to,
| there is no other way in the west, and if the civilian
| leadership demands that they want an ground invasion, then
| they'll get one, even if it's the most moronic waste of
| human life in the world.
| bluegatty wrote:
| It's true that 'civilians are in charge' but it would be
| an oversimplification to suggest that the military will
| just 'do what they are asked'.
|
| Civilian leadership takes a few forms, there is a
| division between the powers of Executive and Congress.
| The military won't pursue anything long term without the
| backing of both.
|
| There are a lot of legal thresholds, Congressional
| approval being just one of them.
|
| There is institutional incumbency, and the military will
| push back _extremely hard_ on things that it deems
| impossible, or excessively risky.
|
| Populism etc. etc..
|
| There are so many factors.
|
| If they want to mount a risky 500 000 person invasion of
| Iran, they'll have to do a lot of 'convincing' and get a
| lot of buy in from stake holders. There is no chance that
| the Executive count mount that kind of operation without
| a lot of institutional buy in.
| generic92034 wrote:
| And this was all known for decades. Now everyone pays the
| price for the US leadership surrounding themselves with
| spineless yes-men.
| arkensaw wrote:
| > The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would
| have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a
| small country
|
| If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000 miles,
| that's 50,000 square miles, or an area bigger than more than
| half the countries on earth, including North and South Korea,
|
| Iran is the 18th largest country in the world
| bluegatty wrote:
| Wow, amazing perspective on proportionality there.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000
| miles, that 's 50,000 square miles_
|
| If you want to secure the entire Strait, sure. My
| understanding is you'd only seek to hold the area around
| the Musandam Peninsula, along with a couple of the islands
| near it.
| bluegatty wrote:
| The entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause
| problems from almost anywhere.
|
| Granted it may not have to be 'the whole thing' but
| something like it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause
| problems from almost anywhere_
|
| Sure, but its effect is far more dilute. In the Strait-in
| particular, around the Musandam Peninsula-it has unique
| geostrategic leverage.
| matusp wrote:
| However dilute the effect is, if they are able to hit a
| few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going
| to use that body of water.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if they are able to hit a few gas /oil carriers with
| drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water_
|
| It's a lot more feasible to escort tankers after the
| Strait than it is before, when American warships have to
| come close to shore. Iran doesn't have the resources to
| deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Iran doesn't have the resources to deny access to the
| entire Indian Ocean.
|
| I have what may be a scale issue in my imagination, so
| bear with me if this is silly.
|
| There are reports of international drug transport via
| seaborne drones in the 0.5-5 tonne range, and of these
| crossing the Pacific, and the cost of the vehicles is
| estimated to be around 2-4 million USD each. If drug
| dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone
| with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's)
| should be able to make credible threats to disrupt
| approximately as much non-military shipping as they want
| to worldwide?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and
| basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of
| something like Andorra 's) should be able to make
| credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-
| military shipping as they want to worldwide?_
|
| Sure. Do you think that means worldwide shipping would
| shut down?
|
| And the point isn't to take the risk to zero. But to a
| level where military escorts can feel safe.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut
| down?
|
| I think there's a danger of that, at least if
| countermeasures are not easily available for normal
| shipping.
|
| Even 1-on-1 rather than 1-v-everyone, there's too many
| players (not all of them nations) with too many
| conflicting goals and interests. If Cuba tried to do it,
| could they credibly threaten to sink all sea-based trade
| involving the USA? If not Cuba, who would be the smallest
| nation that could?
|
| And the same applies to Taiwan and China, in both
| directions, either of which would be fairly dramatic on
| the world stage, even though China also has land options.
| Or North Korea putting up an effective anti-shipping
| blockade against Japan.
|
| > But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.
|
| Are there enough military ships to do the escorting?
| ncruces wrote:
| They meant the Gulf. You cross the straight into the
| Gulf, then what?
|
| Iran hit an E-3's antenna in an airport in Riyadh with a
| precision strike. Was it not worth defending?
|
| How many tankers inside the Gulf do they need to hit
| before the rest of the world decides it's a bad idea to
| send new tankers to the Gulf?
|
| And if new tankers don't go into the Gulf, then it's
| simply not open for business. That's their leverage.
| bluegatty wrote:
| 'matsup' is correct.
|
| Iran only needs to score 'one point' to win the whole
| game.
|
| If they can threaten tankers, then the gulf will remain
| closed, and that's that.
|
| It's really debatable if the US really has the capability
| to play 'whack a mole' and get _all_ the moles.
| pjc50 wrote:
| TLDR: not going to put the navy within range of shore attacks +
| have not yet been able to degrade the Iranian strike capabilites.
| bluegatty wrote:
| "Why the the US Navy _Can 't_ Blast the Iranians and 'Open' the
| Strait of Hormuz"
| fooker wrote:
| At the heart of this is the fact that America has lost the
| capability to manufacture anything at scale.
|
| High tech interceptors and missiles and aircraft carriers are
| great, but with China's help these are outnumbered by three (soon
| to be four) orders of magnitude.
|
| It's unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and
| nukes, with not much in between.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at
| scale_
|
| We make plenty of stuff at scale. We just haven't designed any
| of military around it since WWII.
|
| > _unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and
| nukes_
|
| We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital
| and manufacturing bases in America.
| generic92034 wrote:
| > We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them
| capital and manufacturing bases in America.
|
| But Putin would not like that! /s
| giantg2 wrote:
| "We make plenty of stuff at scale."
|
| Not the stuff that matters (chips, electronics, metals, etc).
| We don't even have a primary lead smelter, which we would
| likely need if we got into a peer conflict.
|
| It's also important to note that the US lacks the ability to
| quickly pivot and set up plants. Much of the knowledge to do
| so has been disappearing as employment in that sector has
| been steadily declining for decades. Sure we make stuff at
| scale using automation, but that automation can't be changed
| to significantly different stuff in a reasonable timeframe.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| We suck at ultra-heavy industry that outputs commodities.
| We're _great_ at light industry, or specialised heavy
| industry, which includes a lot of electronics. You 're
| correct on inflexibility.
| fooker wrote:
| Can you give some specific examples of what light
| industry we are great at?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Pharmaceuticals, medical devices and craft food and
| beverage products come to mind. Guns and ammo, too.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, even if we can produce them now, we don't have the
| pipeline to keep them running - steel for guns comes from
| other countries, we don't have a primary lead smelter in
| the country, medical devices that rely on electronics
| rely on foreign components, etc. The only reason pharma
| can operate here is because of the regulations, and even
| then many components chemicals are sourced
| internationally.
| fooker wrote:
| We don't even produce things like bolts, screws, and
| springs.
|
| If we suddenly had to, it would take billions of dollars
| and several months to spin up any real capacity.
| hypeatei wrote:
| A quarter of steel used in the U.S. is imported, and of
| that quarter, 40% comes from Mexico and Canada; very
| little comes from China[0]. So, not only does your point
| fall flat, the people we get steel from are our neighbors
| so it'd make sense to not sour with relationships with
| them like the current admin is doing with chaotic trade
| policy and invasion threats.
|
| I really don't understand the FUD around US manufacturing
| capability, you'd essentially need to craft the greatest
| conspiracy ever to think that every politician, defense
| agency, intelligence agency, etc. is asleep at the wheel
| to not recognize this supposed threat _and_ do nothing
| about it.
|
| 0: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/where-
| does-us-ge...
| fooker wrote:
| > 40% comes from Mexico and Canada
|
| Where do you think this originates from?
|
| China ships a rather large amount of stuff to these
| countries to take advantage of the trade agreements. So
| much that you can find satellite images of large yards in
| Mexico that are used for this purpose with barely any
| effort.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Okay, let's assume most of their steel is Chinese (I have
| my doubts because, yet again, more conspiracies), we only
| import a quarter of the steel we use. That would hurt
| losing it overnight, sure, but we wouldn't be absolutely
| toast like the autarkists are saying.
|
| These takes are much more doomer than I'm willing to bet
| the supporters of "bring everything back" realize. Do you
| have no faith in the US economy / populace adapting to a
| hypothetical all out war with China?
| giantg2 wrote:
| I have a feeling that China doesn't export much steel.
| They more likely export their steel in the form of
| finished products.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Worked as a chemical systems technician for a bit. Can
| confirm, lots of the chemicals we used (most, some of
| which were pharma grade but we weren't pharma), had to
| come from either China or Germany. And we really did try
| to source as much in the US as possible. So it wasn't
| even a question of cost, it was simply no one here wanted
| to make what we needed.
|
| Now granted, I'm not naive enough to think we should be
| able to be self-sufficient and manufacture everything
| ourselves. I think it is fine to import stuff. My bigger
| concern is, for some things, there just isn't a lot of
| options. I think its fine to buy some of the raw
| materials from Germany and China, but I'd also like to
| see a few more countries that they could be bought from.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them
| capital and manufacturing bases in America
|
| I think the Ukranians are still unimpressed with the
| withdrawal of US support, especially from the shells which
| were being _manufactured_ in the US (now moved to
| Rheinmetall), and the de-sanctioning of Russian oil:
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2871wyz9ko
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| Ukrainians are unimpressed that US no longer supports war
| to exhaustion. US in unimpressed that Ukraine supported
| other side in elections
|
| Problem is that US wants to distance itself instead of
| ending the conflict
| Erem wrote:
| Did I miss something? When did Ukraine support any side
| in elections?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > US in unimpressed that Ukraine supported other side in
| elections
|
| Sorry, what is "the other side" exactly?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _US in unimpressed that Ukraine supported other side in
| elections_
|
| Considering that Trump literally tried to blackmail
| Zelenskyy in his first term, why on earth would they have
| supported him in 2020?
| fooker wrote:
| > We make plenty of stuff at scale
|
| Maybe this video of a rather famous YouTuber trying to
| manufacture something as simple as a grill scrubber with a US
| supply chain would help you understand how bad it is?
|
| https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY
| mmh0000 wrote:
| TL;DW: skip to 17m55s for the important bit
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/3ZTGwcHQfLY?t=1075
| fooker wrote:
| There are multiple interesting bits, worth watching the
| whole thing at some point.
|
| Something that stuck with me was that dude had an uncle
| that worked at a bolt factory down the road, and now
| there is literally no way to source domestically made
| bolts. And that they could find one retired guy after
| scouring multiple states who could help make an injection
| mold. I'm sure some of the larger defense contractors
| have a few guys who can do this, but that makes for a
| pretty low bus factor.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > Something that stuck with me was that dude had an uncle
| that worked at a bolt factory down the road, and now
| there is literally no way to source domestically made
| bolts.
|
| US manufactured fasteners are available*, the Build
| America, Buy America Act created a market for them.
| You're not going to find them at Home Depot or your local
| hardware store, professional supply houses will sell them
| to you.
|
| Waivers are available if no US supplier is available, but
| there usually is a US supplier.
|
| I assume bolt manufacturing is automated to the point
| where you load up a CNC machine with steel hex stock and
| get boxes of bolts on the other end, there's not a ton of
| labor involved. The machine cuts the hex stock to length,
| then removes material to create a cylindrical shaft and
| then threads are cut.
|
| * By US manufactured, I mean 'compliant with BABAA
| requirements', which is something like 55% of the
| materials and manufactured here.
| rented_mule wrote:
| I saw hints of this ~20 years ago. I was working on
| software for a consumer device. For manufacturing it, we
| chose Foxconn. One non-negotiable point from their end
| was that they had to write some of the software on the
| device. They didn't care which part or how small.
|
| The device had a physical keyboard with a micocontroller
| that managed it and they ended up writing the code that
| ran on that micro as it was largely independent of the
| code we were writing, and easy for us to test. The first
| versions were not great, but they got better quickly.
|
| As we talked amongst ourselves about why they were so
| emphatic about this, it became clear to us that they were
| taking a long term view of the importance of moving into
| the intellectual property side of things. Dustin points
| out that, in some areas, they are there.
| slumberlust wrote:
| No thanks. Watched the whole thing since its a great
| channel with great content.
| tim333 wrote:
| That talks about how they couldn't find someone US side
| to make the injection moulding moulds. We used to have a
| manufacturing business in the UK and got quotes for some
| moulds in the 1980s. You could get it done in the UK but
| the cost to get it from China was 1/5 as much. I guess
| people just went with the cheaper option.
| nickff wrote:
| You can still get molds made in the USA, but they are
| indeed much more expensive than an equivalent one made in
| PRoC, and options/expertise are often more limited or
| specialized (depending on how you look at it). It is very
| difficult, but not impossible to make consumer products
| in the USA.
| pydry wrote:
| >We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital
| and manufacturing bases in America.
|
| The soviet union collapsed as a result of military
| overspending and massive supply chain corruption in an
| attempt to keep up with an opponent with lower levels of
| corruption and a far more powerful industrial base.
|
| Which is to say, inviting the gold toilet brigade from
| Ukraine to come and build our weapons while showering them
| with cash would signal that that Christmas came early for
| Putin.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _inviting the gold toilet brigade from Ukraine to come
| and build our weapons_
|
| Ukraine is a massive weapons manufacturer. It's a small
| country holding Russia's entire military-industrial complex
| at bay. We have a lot to learn from them, even if it's just
| tactics and industrial organisation. And those lessons
| don't only apply to fighting pisspot dictatorships like
| Putin's.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Reality of course is the other way around: the US defense
| industry gets to build gold toilets (for the White House
| ballroom built on the ruins of the East Wing), while the
| Ukranians absolutely _must_ build stuff that works and is
| cheap or they get a missile on their heads.
|
| The US survived spending a trillion dollars to achieve very
| little in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure they'll survive
| spending another trillion over a decade to achieve nothing
| in Iran other than hundreds of thousands dead.
| pydry wrote:
| The reality is that most of the Ukrainian leadership _is_
| like Timur Mindich - furiously stashing away cash for the
| day when they inevitably have to flee to the west like he
| did. For now they are generally safe in Ukraine as Russia
| avoids bombing leadership centers for strategic reasons.
|
| The west tolerates nearly all of the corruption in
| Ukraine but keeps tight control of two political organs
| in Ukraine - NABU and SAPO.
|
| These "anti corruption agencies" will mostly hear and see
| no evil until a politican in Ukraine deviates from
| western foreign policy goals. Then they "discover" how
| corrupt this one individual turned out to be and crack
| down on them until everybody is once again on the same
| page.
|
| Twice they have threatened Zelensky (once when he tried
| to bring the agencies under his direct control) and twice
| he has backed down.
| fooker wrote:
| Leaders being corrupt is not a great reason to let a
| country get steamrolled by the russian war machine
| pydry wrote:
| It's inevitable now. If they didn't want to let the
| country get steamrolled then Zelensky probably should
| have signed the "keep the NATO war machine out of
| Ukraine" Istanbul deal from 2022.
|
| Given the nature of the US war machine and how prone it
| is to acts of extreme terrorism (as we are seeing in this
| war), Russia is logically (albeit quite brutally) trying
| to keep it away from its most vulnerable border.
| fooker wrote:
| It has been inevitable for more that three years, I'm
| sure you'll be proven right any day now!
| pydry wrote:
| No, three years ago it was inevitable that "Russian
| economy was going to collapse".
|
| Two years ago was the year of the crimean beach party
| (after the inevitably successful summer offensive).
|
| One year ago was "invading Kursk will inevitably
| achieve... something".
|
| And now the story is "stalemate was inevitable".
|
| Next year will be the story of "Russia is winning, yes,
| but at what cost?"
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Being steamrolled requires Russia have the logistics to
| drive a steamroller more than a hundred yards. There is a
| reason it was intended to be a three day war.
|
| Bombing a school is unconscionable but its a shadow of
| Russia's crimes in Ukraine.
| justacrow wrote:
| What do you mean "achieve very little"? A lot of American
| oligarchs made boatloads of money!
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them
| capital and manufacturing bases in America.
|
| That is happening, only with "EU" not "America". Because the
| EU are Ukraine's allies.
|
| https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-open-10-weapons-
| expor...
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to-open-arms-
| factory...
|
| https://euobserver.com/209049/eu-signs-off-on-e260m-grant-
| fo...
|
| As for the US being Ukrainian allies as compared to EU, well:
| https://kyivindependent.com/us-military-aid-to-ukraine-
| dropp...
| tim333 wrote:
| I think the majority of Americans are on Ukraine's side but
| of course the president has other ideas. The UK has some
| Ukranian drone manufacturing going on
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dvjwygk1o
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think there's very little to be learned from Ukrainian
| technology. They dont have unprecedented servos, software, or
| manufacturing.
|
| What they have is a dire situation that drives efficient and
| pragmatic proucurement. This is much harder to export.
| freefaler wrote:
| They have a working operational system and battle tested
| tactics, not only procurement. It's not the rifle that
| distinguishes the special forces, but how it's used.
|
| They built a network centric warefare with starlink and
| cheap android tablets down to the drone teams in the field.
|
| They built a network of cheap acousting sensors (old
| phones) as passive sensors and using ML models to find the
| drones cheaply and increase the coverage. (Radars are
| expensive and easy to hit because they emit).
|
| What they achieved is a "sensor fusion like" distributed
| system buid on cheap components and updated realtime. And
| all this is battle tested in the new environment of
| transparent battlefield (there is always a drone looking).
|
| Also a lot of real-life electronic warfare stuff and drone
| applications.
|
| This is what's missing in the US army. They are optimized
| for a symetrical 20th century warfare.
| maxglute wrote:
| UKR = entire country of +40m is on the battlefront so
| they can do total war mobilized homefront distributed
| system... so can Iran. But it's very different for force
| projecting security guarantor US - can't convince paying
| protectorates to pivot total war defense posture in
| peacetime, that's what they bribe US not to do.
|
| And ultimately whatever model of distributed lethality /
| survivability (which US planning foresaw) is less
| relevant that US global commitments requires high end
| hardware that has to be rotated / propositioned
| selectively, and sustainable only in limited numbers vs
| adversaries mobilized on total war.
|
| But the fundamental problem is US adversaries are
| catching up on precision strike complex. Iran isn't
| asymmetric warfare, but restoration of symmetry. It's not
| so much US getting weaker as adversaries getting
| stronger, and without monopoly over mass precision strike
| (which naval / air superiority / supremacy is only
| delivery platform), US expeditionary mode simply on the
| losing side of many local attrition scenarios. Ultimately
| all US adversaries will gain commoditized local precision
| strike (even deadlier if bundled with high end ISR), at
| varying scales due to proliferation requiring persistence
| across global theatres US simply doesn't have
| numbers/logistics for.
|
| TLDR: US expeditionary model is bunch of goons with
| rifles in trucks, driving around neighbourhood where
| everyone had knives that could not get in range. The
| second everyone else buys guns, then rifles, the
| expeditionary model breaks.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > We could learn from our allies in Ukraine.
|
| Should have worn a suit.
|
| The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a
| nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow
| refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit
| longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing
| ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides
| the point).
|
| Allies come to each others aid, the US has all but abandoned
| Ukraine after Trump came to power and did far less than it
| could have done early on. Why you would expect Ukraine to be
| generous after the numerous put downs and actions that were
| _clearly_ organized to benefit Putin is a mystery to me.
| pedroma wrote:
| This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the
| perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered
| for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a
| break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my
| point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like
| Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think when you start to threaten your former allies by
| wanting to attack/invade them you probably should be
| dinged in the trust department for that.
|
| The same goes for when you try to strongarm a country
| into fabricating evidence to shore up your lies.
|
| The USA was an ally in 1945 and has since steadily eroded
| that. In 2001 they briefly regained a lot of sympathy but
| squandered it just as fast and now we're at low tide. And
| I wonder how much lower it will go before people with
| common sense will be back at the helm and reparation of
| the relationship can begin, but I don't expect the
| aftershocks of this to be gone quickly.
|
| And no, help was not offered '90% of the time'. Most of
| the time it was just business in disguise, altruism did
| not factor into it as far as I can see.
| pedroma wrote:
| Would you say we're worse than China these days (if so,
| what % of the time did China help Ukraine in the
| conflict)?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Both China and the USA have made many moves that benefit
| Putin. I would say neither party is a friend of Ukraine.
| China plays its own long games and the USA is being run
| by madmen. Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I
| don't like the way either is behaving on the world stage,
| and each for different reasons.
| pedroma wrote:
| >Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I don't like
| the way either is behaving on the world stage, and each
| for different reasons.
|
| This is the perfect encapsulation of what I mean in my
| original response to you. This IS the popular European
| sentiment. And this is what is off-putting to many
| Americans. The weight of China and the US is not even
| worth preference, despite the US having contributed
| positively to the Ukrainian conflict and European
| defense. We are not even WORTHY of being placed above
| China, we're either just as bad or worse is the typical
| response I see.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the
| USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe
| get with the times and then report back.
|
| Last I checked China hasn't threatened to take over
| either Canada or Greenland, has not started any major
| wars for which they expect the EU to pay for cleaning up
| their mess, has _reasonably_ sane leadership and on top
| of that has been a fairly trustworthy business partner
| that does not engage in whim driven economic warfare.
| They also have a bunch of very dark sides that I am going
| to assume we are all familiar with.
|
| I really wonder why you think that the USA should be
| given a free pass for what it has done in the last
| decade.
|
| And that's before we get into human rights issues and
| other 'details'. Comparing yourself to China is not the
| flex you think it is.
|
| Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not
| trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and
| that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views
| but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the
| point that you feel you need to pre-empt that
| classification then maybe HN is not the place for you?
| pedroma wrote:
| The reply chain got too long so I will respond here.
|
| >You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the
| USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe
| get with the times and then report back. Last I checked
| China hasn't threatened to take over either Canada or
| Greenland, has not started any major wars for which they
| expect the EU to pay for cleaning up their mess, has
| reasonably sane leadership and on top of that has been a
| fairly trustworthy business partner that does not engage
| in whim driven economic warfare. They also have a bunch
| of very dark sides that I am going to assume we are all
| familiar with.
|
| I'm aware of everything you've said. What I've noticed is
| Europeans just like to bash on the US given any reason.
| My original point is (proven by the exact quote of your
| words) that this type of European sentiment is
| accelerating a two-sided voluntary parting. Nothing much
| more than that. I am not defending the US's actions.
|
| >Comparing yourself to China is not the flex you think it
| is.
|
| Once again you are proving my point. Europeans are
| typically not willing to place the US above China. Any
| attempt to get them to do so will provoke this type of
| response.
|
| >Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not
| trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and
| that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views
| but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the
| point that you feel you need to pre-empt that
| classification then maybe HN is not the place for you?
|
| Calling me a troll is just an attack on me and not my
| argument. That's ok though, no offense taken. The bio is
| provocation for people who dig into people's profiles. I
| don't like to do that. I just take the person's posts as
| is.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Europeans are typically not willing to place the US
| above China.
|
| This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array
| with tons of values that all individually can be ranked.
| One some of these the USA is better than China on others
| it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all
| to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just
| not how the world works.
|
| > The bio is provocation for people who dig into people's
| profiles. I don't like to do that. I just take the
| person's posts as is.
|
| And that's not true either because you clearly checked my
| account upthread to link it to Europe.
| pedroma wrote:
| >This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array
| with tons of values that all individually can be ranked.
| One some of these the USA is better than China on others
| it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all
| to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just
| not how the world works.
|
| This is correct... and like I said the common European
| sentiment. I think we've exhausted this dialogue. We're
| restating the same things in more words.
|
| >And that's not true either because you clearly checked
| my account upthread to link it to Europe.
|
| Your post I originally responded to says "Should have
| worn a suit." and also mentions Europe and Ukraine.
| That's basically the entire context of our back and
| forth. If you have many other posts about the US and
| Europe's relationship... well I have no knowledge of
| those posts.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I would suggest that China are currently a more reliable
| partner than the US because of their predictability,
| given that I cannot be sure whether or not this statement
| alone might result in a change of tariffs for my nation
| at the whim of America's king. I'm still looking for
| congress in all of this (did they ever even approve this
| war in Iran?!?) but idk if the republic is a thing
| anymore or not.
| pedroma wrote:
| Yeah I can see that. The other poster is right about it
| being multi-faceted. My question is intentionally
| somewhat provocative. It forces someone to pick between
| two bad options, and I always gain respect for people who
| decide to pick one instead of intentionally avoiding it
| and just saying "oh they're both bad, idk".
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| hopefully this will all start to settle down around the
| end of this year if congress gets its teeth back and
| hopefully by the end of 2028. If it doesn't.... well then
| I despair, as the world I once knew is over.
|
| Already within the subreddits of my nation there is an
| increasingly dismissive attitude to the historic
| alliances that kept us safe for around the last hundred
| years and I can't blame them. Especially if Hormuz
| remains blocked and the US just walks away leaving this
| pile of sick of its own creation on the floor. I imagine
| a new rather loose coalition might rise of such a status
| quo and its possible that China becomes a major player in
| that, given its likely desire as a major manufacturer to
| keep trade open and shipping flowing, which is the
| opposite of what the US has been doing since 2025.
| angry_octet wrote:
| This is absurdist Russian disinfo. If you're not Russian,
| your information sources are poisoned.
| pedroma wrote:
| Does this mean the person I'm responding to is a Russian
| disinfo agent?
| scrubs wrote:
| We (the US) probably spend too much per munition and do not
| have manufacturing capacity like China. We're not helpless,
| but i dont get the sense we have plenty of stock either. Both
| are problems.
|
| (1) In this back and forth I'm surprised mines in the
| straight are not mentioned.
|
| (2) im having difficulty seeing how cheap drones
| incapacitates a carrier. They are there to project force well
| into enemy territory for precise strikes. The carrier can be
| some distance from the shore. Now, the question turns to
| strike what? Surely drone manufacturing plants and barracks
| would have to be on list or ... they'd be less effective.
|
| (3) if drones are sub-mach speeds why not shoot down with a
| glorified gattleling gun as opposed to expensive missiles or
| lasers?
| beachy wrote:
| (3) To take down a single drone, you'd probably need a few
| seconds of fire from a Phalanx CIWS, which fires about 75
| rounds per second at roughly 46 dollars each, so about
| 3,500 dollars per second of continuous fire.
|
| So call it somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7K to $20K in
| ammunition alone, depending on how long it takes to hit the
| drone.
|
| The big difference from a laser is that the laser has a
| high up front cost but very low/near zero cost per shot -
| much better economics for a war of stock attrition.
|
| There are no single silver bullets though in the anti-drone
| warfare. Lasers, guns, jamming, taking out the operators,
| intercetpr drones - they all have a place. Anti-drone
| warfare is a high tech race.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| is china helping ukraine also? The real "force multiplier" is
| basically the same as it was 100 years ago: fancy advanced tech
| works great to clear large, unoccupied spaces with no terrain
| costs; it still won't go into a jungle, climbmountains or fight
| in the streats.
|
| Whats compounding existing reality, is how cheap it is to use
| commercial tech from any of these manufacturing hubs, china
| included, and turn it into a small but persistent offensive
| weapon.
|
| So now Americas got billions of dollars worth of ammo up agains
| millions of dollars worth of fodder, and that won't clear the
| way to controlling a large, well defended plot of land.
|
| America's leaders are drunk and high on their own propaganda,
| even while Ukraine has demonstrated just how useless the old,
| bulky and costly tech is.
| angry_octet wrote:
| China has been cutting off Ukraine from direct drone
| supplies, they have to use front companies and middlemen.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| My theory is that China is playing wait-and-see. Likely
| futures:
|
| Russia survives; business as usual, if much poorer. China
| doesn't want to poison that relationship.
|
| Russia falls; China helpfully "adopts" the orphaned Asian
| lands.
|
| Iran falls; turmoil follows; the USA as usual (since WWII)
| has no plans for afterwards. Do nothing until opportunity
| presents itself.
|
| Iran survives; the US falters; wait and benefit from the
| opening that creates.
|
| I can't see a path where China picking sides in UKR/RUS nor
| USA/IRAN benefits China at all.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Sorry, at the heart of this is that the Commander in Chief and
| Secretary of War are idiots. It's not clear how any of this
| situation would be any different if America had a dramatically
| higher production capacity.
| fooker wrote:
| These are orthogonal problems.
|
| Getting into this war was stupid.
|
| Being unable to win it is also pretty bad.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Clausewitz would say they are the same: the stupid war is
| the continuation of stupid politics by other means. The
| objectives are unclear, which prevents them being achieved.
| petesergeant wrote:
| These are the same problem. Getting into this war was
| stupid _because_ it 's virtually impossible to win it.
| chneu wrote:
| Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. He is a super zealous
| religious fanatic who very much wants to destroy as many
| Muslims as possible. He has a crusades tattoo and openly
| talks about killing heathens in his WEEKLY SERMON. He might
| be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is
| doing.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. [...SNIP...] He might
| be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is
| doing.
|
| That sound like he knows what he _wants_ to do, but that 's
| not the same as knowing what he is doing.
| ryandrake wrote:
| English language ambiguity problem. "Knows what he is
| doing" has two potential meanings: it could mean
| competence, or it could mean clear intent. I think OP
| meant the latter.
| ben_w wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| One of the contracting things I turned down was someone
| who knew what they wanted to do was make Uber for
| aircraft.
|
| I turned it down because they clearly didn't know enough
| about this goal to fill an elevator pitch, let alone a
| slide deck, and I think many of the current US _Secretary
| of XYZ_ leaders are similarly unaware of how vast a chasm
| lay between what they wanted to do and a specific,
| measurable, realistic, and time-constrained plan to
| actually achieve anything.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > he very much knows what he is doing
|
| Nothing about how this war is going suggests he has any
| idea what he's doing as SecWar
| caycep wrote:
| I mean he's even not that great at his chosen profession
| which is a television news media personality, although I
| am sure he knows what he is apparently trying to do, in
| that regard.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Could they?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Stupidly, yes, with carpet bombing. Practically, no, that would
| be horrible. More horrible, possibly, than taking out the power
| and water infrastructure.
| arkensaw wrote:
| Trump casually talks about destroying the energy
| infrastructure, power plants, desalination plants etc. This
| is one of the most controversial things that the Russians do
| in Ukraine - attack the grid when it's cold to try and freeze
| people to death. To willingly deprive a country of
| 100,000,000 people of water and power coming into summer
| would surely be a war-crime.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _This is one of the most controversial things that the
| Russians do in Ukraine - attack the grid when it 's cold to
| try and freeze people to death_
|
| But the Russians _have_ been doing it. Iran may have
| targeted an Israeli power plant. The precedent,
| unfortunately, is set.
| scott_w wrote:
| They have and Ukraine haven't surrendered (nor do they
| look like they will any time soon), so I don't see how it
| wit k a in Iran.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _and Ukraine haven't surrendered_
|
| Different goals. Carpet bombing to deny Iran access to
| its coast is maneouvre warfare. It's tactical. Carpet
| bombing to force Kyiv to capitulate is strategic bombing.
| It has never worked.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| You can't deny access to a coast that large with carpet
| bombing, especially in a mountainous terrain. It has
| never worked. You'd need tens to hundreds of thousands of
| boots on the ground to do that.
|
| If you wanted to try it with bombs, it would take
| continual re-dropping of hundreds of thousands of bombs
| every few hours to cover (1600km * 8km) to keep people
| out, even assuming they have 0 shelter or cover.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Iran already had severe water problems. Attacking the water
| infrastructure would definitely cause huge civilian
| casualties. Israel is used to that. Not clear whether
| America is ready to go into the midterms with an official
| policy of US-flagged genocide.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Attacking the water infrastructure would definitely
| cause huge civilian casualties_
|
| I personally think there is a wide barrier between
| electrical and water infrastructure. But given water
| infra has allegedly been hit already, it doesn't feel
| like it's off the table for both sides the way it once
| was.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Carpet bombing didn't even break Vietnam. It didn't break
| WWII Germany either.
| orwin wrote:
| Nor did WW2 England. Look, Churchill had like 24 approval
| rate after Dunkerque, and the 'british Hitler' had 18%.
| Bombing London moved those percentages _very_ fast. 'do
| nothing, win' people have a point most of the time.
| Someone wrote:
| : Stupidly, yes, with carpet bombing. Practically, no, that
| would be horrible.
|
| Could that work? It didn't end well in Vietnam, which is
| about a fifth of the land area, and, in 1970, half the
| current population of Iran.
|
| Also, they'll pack a bigger punch, but I think the USA has
| way fewer bombers now.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Could that work? It didn't end well in Vietnam_
|
| We can't carpet bomb to regime change. But we can probably
| depopulate critical areas around the coasts while ships
| transit. It's stupidly expensive, both in materiel and
| collateral cost. But it's feasible. Whether we have the
| bomb-production is a separate question to which I don't
| have the answer.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > probably depopulate critical areas around the coasts
| while ships transit.
|
| (looks at map) the city of Bandar Abbas, population
| ~500k? It's already being hit as it contains the Iranian
| Navy HQ, but actually _depopulating_ it is a much bigger
| project.
| angry_octet wrote:
| Depopulation won't stop the IRGC from digging up a Shahed
| buried in the sand and launching it. The range is so
| great you would have to pacify the entire east of Iran,
| an absolutely impossible task.
| kashunstva wrote:
| Whether or not professional military strategists and planners
| anticipated this shift in carrier-based projection of power in
| the era of low-cost drones, it is nearly certain that the
| Commander-in-Chief of the United States military has not. And if
| the Commander is involved in the either the day-to-day operations
| or the strategic level of planning, I can't imagine that whatever
| reasoning about these shifts in power dynamics has taken place
| will influence U.S. operations.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _this shift in carrier-based projection of power in the era
| of low-cost drones_
|
| Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete. A
| carrier that launches drones and fields an anti-drone strike
| group would be amazing. We don't have that. (And even what we
| do have is great in the carrier department, it's given us air
| parity to superiority from way offshore.)
| khalic wrote:
| Lol carriers were already being overwhelmed by regular
| missiles, this now means a multi billion dollar ship can and
| will be destroyed by cheap drones if it's anywhere near its
| optimal deployment zone.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _carriers were already being overwhelmed by regular
| missiles_
|
| Where? When?
|
| > _if it 's anywhere near its optimal deployment zone_
|
| What are you referring to? The entire modern carrier strike
| group is architected around using stand-off weapons to
| clear threats to make way for stand-in weapons. The
| relevant ranges are what your stand-in bombers can hit
| without re-fuelling versus with. The era of direct firing
| from ships passed ages ago-that doesn't make carriers less
| valuable, just changes their role.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Did you ever hear the tragedy of USS Plagueis The
| Unsinkable?
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > Did you ever hear the tragedy of USS Plagueis The
| Unsinkable?
|
| The USS Plunkett? A destroyer, not a carrier, that
| sustained the best the Germans could throw at her and
| kept on going; earning 5 battle stars while participating
| in all the major allied invasions in europe. What part
| was the tragedy of her? That she was scrapped in 1975
| instead of being turned into a museum?
| panick21_ wrote:
| You have any evidence for this? Because low cost drones
| can't fly very far, are easy to spot with radar, are slow
| as hell and can be shot down with cheap intercepters, or
| even lasers as the US is already deploying.
|
| Traditional anti-shipping missiles are a bigger danger.
|
| The optimal deployment zone is far off shore, and there its
| very hard to reach.
|
| Is your point that you can put a huge carrier literally in
| the straits?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Also the standard Shahed-136 style drones carry less than
| 200 pounds of explosives, and deliver that to the surface
| of a target.
|
| Antiship missiles carry larger warheads, often double the
| size, and _deliver that warhead deep inside a warship_
| where it is much more vulnerable. A shahed blowing up on
| a carrier deck will be upsetting but won 't do much. With
| particularly egregious negligence of standard US Navy
| damage control methodology, you might cause a lot of
| damage by fire, like what happened to the Ford. Not that
| I'm suggesting it was hit by a Shahed.
| XorNot wrote:
| You don't even need to say "lasers" : that's the future.
| CIWS is already a thing today and Ukrainians have downed
| Shaheds with ground fire from small arms.
|
| There's a plethora of various low cost systems being
| developed for some defence, but the assumption I always
| see on HN and elsewhere is that for some reason cheap
| offensive drones will just never have a
| countermeasure...which isn't how any of this works
| (exhibit A: massed infantry assaults can sometimes work
| against emplaced machine guns, but in general the machine
| gun was the end of that tactic).
|
| There is absolutely no reason that the current disruption
| drones are causing should lead to some sustained power
| imbalance: if you don't have the big laser today that's
| one thing, but if tomorrow you're scoring 100% intercept
| rates against the same threat then how cheap it is
| doesn't matter anymore. And there's no particular reason
| to think that won't be the case (if a cheap drone can be
| on the offensive, you'd have to present a very good case
| why the interceptor cannot be built in similar quantities
| at which point you're back to high end systems deciding
| the day).
| citrin_ru wrote:
| Both can be true - carriers and traditional air force are not
| obsolete but also western armies are unprepared to deal with
| the threat posed by a large number of cheap drones which can
| quickly deplete traditional air defense (based on SAM
| systems).
| guzfip wrote:
| Wasn't this the exact sort of reason we were developing
| laser weapons? I thought at least one US Navy ship was
| equipped with one now.
| citrin_ru wrote:
| From what I see in news both the US and the UK are using
| expensive missiles to shut down Shahed drones and laser
| weapons are not mentioned at all - either they are too
| rare or not yet working reliably enough to risk letting a
| drone to get withing the range or laser weapons (which I
| assume is smaller than for missiles).
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I dunno about what Israel is doing, but a ship usually
| has enough power to fire 1 or 2 lasers at a time. It
| takes 10s of seconds to destroy a drone, and each drone
| stays in range for 1 or 2 minutes.
|
| Or, that is their advertised capabilities. Countries that
| buy them usually complain that they don't work as well on
| practice.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Well, assume the advertised capabilities are realistic.
| Assume it takes 15 seconds to destroy a drone, the drone
| stays in range for 2 minutes, and you can fire on 2
| drones at a time.
|
| You can destroy 16 drones every 2 minutes. If you get
| attacked by 50 drones, you'll get 16-20 of them. Did that
| help you?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yes, the scenario makes it clearer.
|
| I mean, they are helpful (if they work as well as the
| marketing material says). Just not transformative or
| sufficient.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The US relies primarily on a weapon system called APKWS
| to shoot down drones. These guided missiles are cheaper
| than a Shahed. A single fighter jet can carry ~40 of
| them.
|
| These weapons have been around since the early 2010s,
| they aren't new, and have been deployed in the Middle
| East for many years. They were literally designed for
| killing swarms of Shahed-style drones.
| avianlyric wrote:
| If a carrier can launch fields of drones and missiles, then
| whatever land mass your attacking can launch more, given they
| obviously have a lot more space.
|
| The change in dynamic here isn't a function of carriers or
| their abilities. It's a change in the cost of drones and
| missiles. The cost of a "good enough" drone and missile is
| now so low that opponents of the US can simply build the
| thing faster than the US can build _and deliver_ them. In
| effect the technological advantage is that carriers
| represented for a long time has been completely neutralised.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If a carrier can launch fields of drones and missiles,
| then whatever land mass your attacking can launch more_
|
| This is also true of airplanes. The point is you choose
| where you launch your drones from anywhere in the world.
|
| > _change in dynamic here isn't a function of carriers or
| their abilities. It's a change in the cost of drones and
| missiles_
|
| It's a return to battleship economics. Except instead of
| direct fire from and onto shores, you have indirect fire
| via drones. Unlike shells, however, we have anti-drone
| capabilities on the horizon.
|
| It's silly to assume the current instability will persist
| for more than a few years. If the U.S. were paying any
| attention to Ukraine, it shouldn't have persisted until
| even now.
|
| > _the technological advantage is that carriers represented
| for a long time has been completely neutralised_
|
| Really not seeing the argument. Again, being able to build
| and launch and being able to field drones-alongside other
| weapons-is night and day. (Note that all of these arguments
| were made when missiles first dawned, too. Drones are, in
| many respects, a missile for area denial.)
| panarky wrote:
| The big lesson from the US/Israel war against Iran is
| that the power balance has shifted away from strike
| capability toward defense magazine depth.
|
| You can't win with stand-off strike capability. You can't
| seize and control territory, you can't keep strategic
| choke-points open, you can't change regimes.
|
| But you can definitely lose by spending two or three
| multi-million dollar air defense interceptors per
| incoming projectile that costs 10x to 100x less.
| Especially when your supply chain can only produce
| hundreds of interceptors per year and your adversary
| makes that many missiles per month and 10x that many
| drones per month.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _You can 't win with stand-off strike capability. You
| can't seize and control territory, you can't keep
| strategic choke-points open, you can't change regimes_
|
| To be clear, there is zero historic evidence--going back
| to the Blitz--that strategic bombing has ever been able
| to do any of these things.
|
| Except the one about choke points. That isn't strategic.
| It's tactical. And using artillery or airpower for
| shaping operations absolutely works.
|
| > _you can definitely lose by spending two or three
| multi-million dollar air defense interceptors per
| incoming projectile that costs 10x to 100x less_
|
| Agree. Fortunately, the MIC seems to have recognized
| this. None of it fundamentally changes the value of
| carriers. It just means they need to be defended
| differently from before. Sort of how you can't sent lone
| carriers out into the ocean, they have to be escorted.
| rurp wrote:
| I agree with all of this except the notion that this is a
| recent change. Infantry being needed to seize and hold
| territory has been standard military doctrine around the
| world throughout history. Air power can tip the balance
| between opposing armies but has never been enough to
| settle a war alone. I'm confident that every person
| working in the Pentagon is aware of all this, aside from
| the SecDef.
|
| I'm also not aware of a single case in history where a
| massive bombing campaign from a hostile country resulted
| in an immediate populist uprising and a regime change
| that favored that aggressor country. Having your city
| bombed for weeks on end tends to cause people to shelter
| where they can, worry solely about how they will survive
| the wreckage, and bond with their fellow citizens.
|
| The fact that an air campaign and magical thinking was
| the complete game plan from trump and hegseth shows how
| utterly unqualified they are for the positions they have.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _It 's a return to battleship economics._
|
| The real economics of battleships (and their precursor
| ships of the line) were:
|
| Given expensive armaments (cannon), it is cheaper to
| concentrate these on a mobile platform that can
| geographically reposition itself than build / deploy /
| supply equivalent power _everywhere_ , and the former
| allows for local overmatch.
|
| Sufficiently cheap and powerful unmanned guided munitions
| (drones, cheap cruise/ballistic missiles, UAV/USV/UUVs)
| are a fundamentally different balance of power,
| especially with enough range.
|
| What does make sense is a return to cheaper escort
| carriers, where the carrier should be as cheap as
| possible (preferably unmanned) as the platforms it hosts
| are no longer exquisite.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete.
|
| What are ours doing during this war?
| dingaling wrote:
| Adding 70+ strike and AEW aircraft apiece, individually
| more than most national air forces could muster.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Are you joking? Sending F-18s into the air.
| mcphage wrote:
| No, just asking--I know they're staying out of the gulf,
| but I don't know how involved they are, and I figured
| someone here did.
| chasd00 wrote:
| They're the only thing involved pretty much. The gulf
| nations have not allowed the US to launch from their
| bases in the region. Maybe that will change as they keep
| getting attacked but as of now the carriers (and now the
| base on Cyprus) are where the planes are coming from. The
| strategic bombers, prior to Cyprus, were taking off from
| the US and flying all the way to Iran and back.
| fakedang wrote:
| > The gulf nations have not allowed the US to launch from
| their bases in the region.
|
| This is a categorically false assertion that they have
| been putting to assuage their local populations - which
| are heavily opposed to the war and the US support. Maybe
| not all of them, but some of them, like the UAE and Saudi
| Arabia, are clearly hosting and allowing the US to
| prosecute the war from their soil. If they weren't, you
| wouldn't have had the AWACS aircraft getting turned to
| smithereens in Riyadh.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Would it not be preferable to launch drones from less of a
| big target? The issue is that the carrier is clearly visible
| and targetable. You could go submersible or just spam much
| smaller ships with smaller payloads. In those cases you get
| the benefits of the same level of assault without the
| potential of a hugely expensive loss.
|
| At a guess, I assume much of the scale of carriers is tied to
| the logistics of air power, which are considerably less
| relevant in drone warfare. Carriers will always remain useful
| for more accurate strikes and operating aircraft that work at
| higher altitudes, but this broadside idea of volume might
| work better on a platform that scales better instead of the
| huge and expensive carrier footprint.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| I think this strategy is effective for Ukraine and Iran
| because they fight an enemy that is superior in terms of
| weapon capabilities.
|
| If you are the big boy with the bigger gun you don't
| necessarily need that.
|
| PS: I will take that back when someone manages to hit a
| carrier with a low cost drone boat.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| sure but America's ship building doesn't appear to be at
| the level of being able to cranking out carriers should
| they start losing them. Conversely I imagine it might
| have a better shot at cranking out a smaller blue print
| en-masse.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Large aircraft are the cheapest and most scalable way to
| deliver a ton of explosive on target. That's why aircraft
| carriers exist. Everything else either is too expensive per
| unit of destruction or sacrifices too much lethality.
|
| The size of the ship has little bearing on the visibility
| of it to sensors. You should also consider that it is much
| more difficult to sink a large ship than a small ship.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| sure but if we're simply delivering drones then it might
| be better to have 1,000 small platforms than one big one.
| You can then still use the carrier in its classical role
| from further back.
| overfeed wrote:
| > Large aircraft are the cheapest and most scalable way
| to deliver a ton of explosive on target.
|
| An important variable missing from your calculus is
| distance from munitions factory/supply depot. There are
| far cheaper and scalable ways to deliver tons of
| explosives if your supply lines are short, such as rail
| when you're defending your homeland. Carrier groups are
| both transport and FOBs
|
| > You should also consider that it is much more difficult
| to sink a large ship than a small ship.
|
| How did that turn out for the Russian Black Sea flagship,
| the _Moskva?_
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| How exactly do drones project power globally?
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb
| dmitrygr wrote:
| >> How exactly do drones project power globally?
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb
|
| "The next country over" != Worldwide
| jacquesm wrote:
| You could do this anywhere in the world for a very small
| amount of money.
|
| The implications of the Ukrainian war have changed the
| balance of power for ever. No airport will ever be safe
| again.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| sneaking weapons into some countries is harder than into
| others, making things that fly long distances gets
| exponentially harder as distance goes up linearly.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's true, but when things get cheaper you can afford
| to lose a lot of them. Suddenly every container vessel is
| suspect. That trick has a lot of potential and harbors
| are relatively soft targets and easily accessible from
| just outside international waters. You could do a
| shitload of damage to most countries by just targeting a
| few key locations well within the reach of a basic drone
| and what sub $1000 drones can do is changing by the day.
|
| Armor and artillery are basically useless against a fleet
| of seaborne drones.
| chasd00 wrote:
| you don't have to do a lot of damage to have a dramatic
| effect either. Imagine an airport near the coast, you
| don't have to destroy the airport but if one drone
| flattens the tires on one out of ever 50 planes on a
| runway the airport might as well be a smoldering crater.
| It's like a ddos attack and similar to what's happening
| in Iran today. All it takes is one drone to hit one
| tanker and a > 0% of it happening again and no one is
| sailing because their payload is uninsurable. In the same
| way, all it takes is one drone to disable one airliner
| and a credible threat it could happen again and no plane
| is taking off from that airport ever again.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Clandestine power projection. Neat!
| jacquesm wrote:
| Somewhere in the next decade we'll wake up to a large
| military base, port or airport utterly wrecked by some
| party spending << $100k.
| XorNot wrote:
| Operation Spiderweb was not a power projection exercise
| though, it was an espionage mission.
|
| This is like arguing you don't need a military because
| you'll just have 1 spy turn the enemies own weapons on
| them.
|
| Sure...its not that it can't work, but there's more then
| a few issues with the strategic plan.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Fair, it's not an aircraft carrier. But you can turn any
| container vessel into a cheap rough equivalent. Take the
| coastline, then maybe 30 km inland and see what
| installations you could reach. Pearl Harbor on a
| shoestring budget is a realistic threat now.
| John23832 wrote:
| If I you can project power globally , but as soon as a human
| is put on the ground they're disintegrated by a 100 dollar
| drone, how important was your ability to get there?
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| An aerial drone capable of materially damaging a modern navy
| ship costs $1-2M a piece. Anything much cheaper doesn't have
| the range, survivability, or required warhead to do much more
| than scratch the paint.
|
| A cheap drone is only useful against soft targets. It is the
| reason Ukraine is scaling up heavy cruise missile production
| even though they already have vast numbers of cheap long-range
| drones. Being "cheap" isn't of much value if it is incapable of
| doing meaningful damage to the desired target.
|
| The US has been designing and building thousands of anti-ship
| drones since the 1970s. It isn't like they have no experience
| with the concept and those drones are far more capable than
| anything Iran has. The US Navy has assumed drone swarms as a
| threat model for half a century.
| skeletoncrew2 wrote:
| The article is reflecting on the observed reality that US Navy
| operations in this war are taking Iran's littoral combat power
| into account by operating its ships further from the Iranian
| coast...why can't you imagine that they are operating this way
| under Trump?
| high_na_euv wrote:
| Brightest minds of US were too focused on displaying ads and
| making teenagers addicted to tik tokies-like stuff instead of
| working security, defense, etc
|
| You couldve seen anti militsry industry sentiment on HN for
| years, which apparently worked for US adversaries, who knows who
| was behind that propaganda :)
|
| Inb4: im from eu
| cyanydeez wrote:
| The brightest minds were systematically bullied out of
| position, called DEI hires or accused of random crimes.
|
| They might not have been the best, but lets not pretend we're
| sending our brightest minds herw.
| leoc wrote:
| To be fair, it was bright Chinese minds at ByteDance which
| worked on getting US teenagers addicted to TikTok videos.
| high_na_euv wrote:
| Meta, Google did their parts too
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Would those "brightest minds" want to work for the current US
| government? Even if they did out of patriotism to the country,
| the Trump administration would have pushed them out by now and
| replaced with yes-men.
| 0x3f wrote:
| The pay levels seem more of an inherent problem than the
| political winds.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The people I know leaving that sector have been steadily
| leaving for years due to the day to day bullshit/internal
| politics and poor leadership that they have to put up with,
| not the pay nor current administration.
| 0x3f wrote:
| Right but if you're a lifelong gov worker you are
| probably used to the pay, and it's hard to switch from
| gov work to startups or big tech (at least, I would see
| it as a thing to question). Whereas the GGP talks about
| people switching from the private sector (adtech, etc.)
| to public.
|
| The first thing they are going to see is the salary and
| run a mile. That's partly why Palantir 'works'; they pay
| tech salaries and have a tech culture, but do gov work.
| Booz Allen et al were less advanced prototypes of that as
| well.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I know people who have switched to gov work despite the
| pay. Then they left due to the bullshit, without anything
| lined up.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| They also didn't work under Biden and Obama.
| bluegatty wrote:
| This has definitely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
|
| US Forces and Defence Complex have most of the talent they
| need.
|
| Even with prevailing capabilities in many areas, it's not
| possible to do most things. Armies are not 'magic' - we're
| lulled into a false sense of understanding of capabilities by
| focusing to much on 'special forces' and other kinds of
| operations.
| cicko wrote:
| > im from eu
|
| Yeah, the ultimate place of military preparedness.
| raincole wrote:
| It's not "look I'm doing better than you," it's "please don't
| repeat our mistakes."
| yomismoaqui wrote:
| I prefer having those minds focused on optimizing ad serving
| than on optimizing school bombings.
| high_na_euv wrote:
| I meant intercepting missiles, drones, etc
| polotics wrote:
| That tragedy of the Maven targeting system is very much
| something that could have been optimized away, so no! Ad-
| servers optimizing minds could have been better employed on
| that project. (nothing to do with Java's Maven, look it up)
| Someone told me: "Think! Who were these girls' parents..."
| and that's BS it was really a big senseless mistake, now
| we're clearly in Vendettastan
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Having those minds eliminate targeting mistakes wouldn't make
| a difference?
| panick21_ wrote:
| What are you talking about? Better missiles dont stop Iran from
| closing a tiny waterway in their border.
|
| US weapons are pretty damn good for the most part. But trade
| protection is just not something fancy advanced weapons can
| solve.
|
| Military planners have known this for a long time.
|
| If anything, if you were serious you would say that the US
| didnt pay enough tradesmen and technician to build enough of
| the needed weapons.
| b345 wrote:
| What makes you think what the US, most probably at the behest
| of occupiers of Palestine, is going to do wonders for sentiment
| of the general public towards the US military industry? The
| anti-military sentiment is justified and will probably grow as
| more people wake up to the terrorising and dual faced nature of
| the US.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| The US no longer uses its army for defense. Nobody in their
| immediate region dares attack them, they're too powerful
| ("Godzilla", in the words of John Mearsheimer). All the wars
| that the US has fought since WWII are nothing to do with
| defense. Just look at the Wikipedia article on "power
| projection":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
|
| The leader image is ... a US aircraft carrier (the USS Nimitz).
| That's what the US uses its military power for, to influence
| events in lands far, far away from its territory.
|
| But, now, tell me which one of the many wars that the US has
| fought in after WWII did _not_ end in disaster. Afghanistan?
| Iraq? Korea?
|
| There was a meme doing the rounds the other day: "Name a
| character who can defeat Captain America". The answer being
| "Captain Vietnam". The US has faced humiliating defeat after
| humiliating defeat while bringing death and destruction and
| immeasurable misery to millions around the world.
|
| _That_ is what HN users seem to have an "anti" sentiment for.
| If you watch the news you'll be able to tell that this goes far
| beyond HN. The whole of US society seems to be extremely tired
| with those "forever wars", those senseless excursions to
| faraway lands, that not only do not secure US interests but
| turn world opinion more and more against the US. Even the US'
| closest allies now fear the US: _vide_ Greenland. Anyone with
| more than a video game or comic book understanding of how the
| real world works would do well to be concerned.
|
| Edit: also from EU, btw. Greek but living in the UK.
| chneu wrote:
| >The whole of US society seems to be extremely tired with
| those "forever wars",
|
| This is the main thing I would disagree with, as an American
| who rubs elbows with conservatives quite a bit.
|
| A large amount of Republican and conservative Americans want
| war. They're primed for a war they haven't had this
| generation. There are a lot of relatively young conservatives
| who are eager for war. A weird number of Republicans don't
| think we lost Iraq or Afghanistan, or a few other wars, so
| they aren't tired of it yet.
|
| Like 15-25% of Americans also believe in some form of the end
| times prophecy involving Israel. I'm not kidding about this.
| The number really is that high. A lot might not openly state
| that they believe in it, but they were raised under a
| religious teaching that says it will happen. Hegseth,
| literally, has a crusades tattoo and openly talks about
| eradicating Muslims on his weekly or monthly sermon.
|
| But yes a majority of americans, like 60%, are extremely
| tired of ongoing wars. But I can also drive to towns in the
| western US where trump still has majority support and they
| will openly say they support the Iran war. America is really
| polarized and a lot of conservatives only talk about this
| stuff to family now.
|
| I grew up super rural and have to deal/work with very
| religious conservative Americans often enough. There are a
| lot more of them than people think. They've just learned to
| self-segregate and keep to themselves and say things a
| certain way.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I don't get that "Strait" discussion. Where does the Strait begin
| and end? If somehow the US Navy "opens" the Strait, what stops
| Iran to attack every ship moving in the direction of the Strait?
| Where does the "protection zone" start and end?
| j_maffe wrote:
| at a range where short-range anti-ship missiles can reach ships
| from Iranian territory.
| Terr_ wrote:
| And boats, amd submerged drones, and mines...
| marcosdumay wrote:
| So, the entire gulf?
|
| Actual short-range weapons can't cross the strait. The ones
| that can don't care much about the difference on the rest of
| the place.
| angry_octet wrote:
| Not even short range. With a sensor feed from an ally they
| can project into the Gulf of Oman, and via Yemen the entire
| BaM.
|
| Doubtful China would provide that because they want oil, but
| likely Russia would, because they want high oil prices and
| American humiliation.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Where does the Strait begin and end?_
|
| Practically speaking, the Musandam Peninsula [1]. Open that to
| the sea and you make everyone except Iraq and Kuwait happy.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musandam_Peninsula
| angry_octet wrote:
| Much further than that. At least 200nm using drone ISR to cue
| Shaheeds, 500nm with satellite ISR. (With a 90kg warhead.)
| There are also many fishing vessels in the region,
| originating from a number of countries (e.g. Oman, Iran,
| Pakistan) which can report sightings of VLCCs.
|
| Once you have sighted the ship it is an undergrad project to
| implement target classification and recognition using off the
| shelf algorithms. It doesn't need a fast GPU because naval
| engagements are very slow, a cheap mobile phone can do it.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| That's exactly why the tanker escort promises were quickly
| abandoned.
| standardUser wrote:
| Iran's deep investment in asymmetric warfare is paying serious
| dividends. You wouldn't expect a nation that's being bombed day
| and night, essentially at will, to still hold so many cards. Not
| only is the US completely incapable of strong-arming the straight
| open, but the rate of missile and drone attacks out of Iran and
| its proxies has been accelerating the last few days, as has the
| rate of successful hits.
| lnsru wrote:
| My Iranian ex colleague shares very interesting opinion. They
| trained during his army time to blow everything in the region
| up. So if things escalate badly the oil and gas importing
| countries will stay with a fraction of needed oil and gas for
| years. There is no backup infrastructure anywhere in the world.
| It will take years to rebuild the infrastructure. It will
| destroy world's economy better than nukes.
| guzfip wrote:
| I kinda expected scorched earth from Iran, or any oil
| producing state tbh, didn't Saddam do this retreating from
| Kuwait?
| aryonoco wrote:
| Since 1979, every US president has known that the US can send a
| couple of aircraft carriers and bomb the shit out of Iran.
|
| And yet none did. Because they listened to their security
| chiefs and advisors who would tell them, Iran is a highly
| complex multiethnic geographically complex country. If you can
| contain it with diplomacy, that's preferable.
|
| When listening to "experts" becomes taboo, there will be
| consequences.
|
| The inhabitants of the Iranian plateau have been the subject of
| the ire of the military superpower of their era quite a few
| times. Alexander the Great conquered them and set their capital
| and their sacred books on fire and yet a mere 70 years later
| his Hellenic dynasty was gone. They were conquered by the Arabs
| and were forced to give up their religion but somehow, unlike
| Egypt and Syria/Lebanon and many other ancient places, these
| guys somehow kept their language and distinct culture intact.
| They were decimated (maybe even worse ) by Genghis Khan and
| followed quickly by Tamerlane and yet, it was their Turco-
| Mongol rulers who ended up adopting their language and culture.
|
| The inhabitants of this land have deep memory of knowing how to
| suffer, to endure and to survive. It wasn't that long ago that
| from Constantinople to New Delhi, the language of the Imperial
| Court was Persian.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| I'm always perturbed to see people talk of mass killings so
| casually
| no_shadowban_5 wrote:
| Didn't you read the URL?
|
| It's not mass killing, it's statecraft.
|
| It's not casual, it's responsible.
| ghywertelling wrote:
| James Cameron in Avatar: Fire and Ash makes fun of these Big
| Picture guys (so called ThinkTank people) towards the end.
| lpapez wrote:
| The US public discourse is so dehumanized today that anyone who
| is not "with them" is literally not a human anymore. Even
| within the country itself "the leftards" are considered an
| obstacle which can be removed if only enough force is applied.
|
| Sending armed agents at protesters is seen as being the same
| thing as sending pest control to clear out beaver dams on the
| creek. Nobody cares what the beavers think, they are not human,
| they do not have feelings. They are simply a menace to be
| dealth with.
| no_shadowban_5 wrote:
| How long will it take in your opinion for the concentration
| camps (like CECOT) to be converted to Nazi-style death camps?
| orwin wrote:
| It took 8 years the last time.
| pydry wrote:
| The supporters of imperialism all about nonviolent protest
| and democratic principles if it seems feasible it could bring
| about US foreign policy goals:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47111067
|
| Or, if an anonymous and uncorroborated source claims tens of
| thousands of said protestors were allegedly massacred.
|
| If it _doesn 't_, and the strategy now involves blowing up
| desalinization plants ( https://apnews.com/article/trump-
| iran-threat-desalination-pl... ) and invoking a humanitarian
| crisis on the level of a nuclear catastrophe, well... then
| they're a bit less concerned about human rights.
| andrepd wrote:
| "Responsible Statecraft" they call themselves.
| roenxi wrote:
| There aren't a lot of alternatives - the amount of mass killing
| going on right now is unusually high. People can't spend all
| day frothing with moral outrage at the horror of it all. If
| something is routine there isn't much of an alternative than to
| discuss it as routine.
|
| This article is actually unusually good, I wouldn't be
| surprised if the site was generally anti-war. It isn't unusual
| for the level of analysis to be "we're the in-group, we're
| morally right, they're the out-group, we can't imagine they're
| competent, lets kill them it'll be easy". The moment people
| start doing serious analysis they become well-armed pacifists.
| As a case study; this war is part of a trend of the US hurting
| itself in aid of ... nothing useful for the US. The only silver
| lining is I don't see the Trump presidency surviving this and
| that might be a lesson to the next guy about trying to start
| fights.
| div wrote:
| It's really quite amazing how the US went in without
| seemingly an iota of planning beyond "kill ayatollah for
| regime change", but at this rate we will see US regime change
| before Iranian.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Enough planning for the Secretary of War to buy defense
| stocks and the son of the president to own a drone
| manufacturing company.
|
| Just not planning for anything that might help "make
| America great again".
| ryandrake wrote:
| It's really this simple. People seem so confused as to
| why this administration is doing this and why this
| administration is doing that, but it's clearly about
| personal enrichment of leaders. It's not some complex 5D
| chess game. If you want to know why Trump did this or why
| Hegseth did that or why Bondi did thus, just look at who
| placed bets, owns stock, owns companies, and/or will be
| personally enriched by the decision. That's all there is
| to it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _perturbed to see people talk of mass killings so casually_
|
| I'm almost perturbed to not see it discussed at all. What are
| the casualty estimates of blasting open the Strait?
| Caius-Cosades wrote:
| I'm just going to throw some napkin pointers and rough
| guesstimate-arithmetics here.
|
| -At the very minimum you would have to search and secure 130
| 000 square kilometers in a mountainous region, in a hostile
| country where you have no popular support, and where most of
| the male population has had somewhere around two years of
| military training. To be sure that Iranians couldn't lob
| anti-ship missiles into the strait, you'd probably need to
| double or triple that area. -And that's because of anti-ship
| missiles, with distances ranging from few hundred kilometers
| to thousand or more. And only one missile needs to get
| through to cause a mass casualty event onboard of a warship
| involving hundreds of people.
|
| So, assuming that troops get to the shore, then there's the
| slight peculiarity of modern warfighting. Drones. Cheap and
| plentiful, with FPV drones having the range varying from 30
| to 60+km, you can be assured that visitors stay on shore or
| island(s) will be filled with plenty of activities such as
| listening to never ending buzzing of drones or trying to find
| cover from those drones. As good as US electronic warfare
| efforts might be, wire-guided FPV drones don't really care.
| So unless the US incursion is going to be anything but a
| short 30 minute visit to a largely meaningless Tump island
| we're probably going to be looking at hundreds of casualties
| if we are extremely lucky. If they really want to open and
| "secure" the Strait, I think we're going to be looking at
| Russo-Ukrainian war-tier butcher's bill.
|
| And since that would be perfectly fine for Israel, I think
| that's exactly what we'll be getting. I hope I'm wrong
| though.
| xtiansimon wrote:
| > "...getting blown to smithereens..."
|
| Looney Tunes language like this projects an aura of un-reality
| further in the article, which I like even less.
| sph wrote:
| Number 1 reason why I want to see the United States of America
| and its very loud citizens get a taste of humble pie in this
| self-inflicted crisis of idiocy with global ramifications.
|
| Even when discussing a war that's obviously gone out of hand
| with no easy resolution in right, there's still this air, this
| attitude from American commenters that somehow the might and
| brilliance of the US military will prevail in the end and they
| can restore their position as leaders of the free world.
| Meanwhile the rest of the world has waited 50 years for this
| day.
|
| Let me have a little schadenfreude with my EUR2.20+ litre of
| petrol.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| a strong majority of the united states citizens are against
| the war, despite a full court propaganda press against the
| right and a no-kings distraction op against the left
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/03/25/americans-
| br...
|
| don't confuse american citizens with the bought-and-paid
| talking & tweeting heads we are forced to live with
| pjc50 wrote:
| "No Kings" isn't a distraction, it's very tangible popular
| opposition, and they're certainly not in favor of the war?
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| It muddies the waters by focusing on divisive issues like
| immigration enforcement and de-emphasizing the war,
| preventing what could be a unified left-and-right antiwar
| movement.
|
| Plain anti-war protests could draw significant support
| across the political spectrum, so divisive issues are
| inserted as wedges. Same thing that happened in the 60's,
| when the anti-war movement went from a coat-and-tie
| affair to a laurel canyon one.
| zzgo wrote:
| If you think the No Kings movement is preventing a
| unified front against the war, you haven't been paying
| attention to the political discourse in the US since the
| rise of the Tea Party 15+ years ago.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| man
| intended wrote:
| There will be no public rapprochement between the right
| and the left pretty much anywhere in the world.
|
| They are fed by entirely different media machines.
|
| If you like, its a coordination problem where the various
| groups no longer have the commons of a shared reality to
| coordinate through.
| platevoltage wrote:
| It's not just the "media machines". These two sides have
| completely different moral values.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| Both sides are completely retarded imho.
|
| The leftists are so self-righteous that I detest them a
| little more.
| platevoltage wrote:
| There is no anti-war movement on the right. The only time
| there is, is when a Right-winger is trying to win an
| election. Once said right winger inevitably starts a war,
| the pom poms come out.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| If everyone just noticed that they have to vote left the
| world would be a paradise /S
| colordrops wrote:
| They don't even mention the country Iran or the war by
| name, because it's a DNC op and the DNC also supports war
| in Iran. They don't mention Israel or Gaza, because the
| main organizers and funders are Zionist. They have no
| concrete demands. It's a distraction, a release valve,
| controlled opposition.
| V__ wrote:
| The U.S. can't win this war. John Kiriakou did a nice analysis on
| this on his recent podcasts. "Iran just has to prolong the war
| and survive it to win". Trump on the other hand needs a decisive
| win fast, or the economic and political fallout will be too big.
| As long as Iran can launch cheap drones and keep a small but
| steady pressure there is just no path out of this for the U.S.
| except to go home.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| I have seen the same from other sources
|
| https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
|
| > This is the second sudden bombing campaign the country has
| suffered in as many years - they do not want there to be a
| third next year and a fourth the year after that. But promises
| not to bomb them don't mean a whole lot: establishing
| deterrence here means inflicting quite a lot of pain. In
| practice, if Iran wants future presidents not to repeat this
| war, the precedent they want to set is "attacking Iran is a
| presidency-ending mistake." And to do that, well, they need to
| end a presidency or at least make clear they could have done.
|
| Can they do that: yes, keep Hormuz shut until much closer to
| November, and "the economic and political fallout will be too
| big."
| doe88 wrote:
| While it can very well be true, I wonder if we don't
| exagerate the will of the iranian regime and its ablity in
| the current time to think this far ahead. I see them more in
| survival mode, I'm not sure they fight for future deterence,
| maybe the goals align currently but seems to me to be
| happenstance. They seem resilient but I wonder how much they
| would be close of falling. Of course, I wouldn't have done
| this war, and I certainly would stop it now.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > They seem resilient but I wonder how much they would be
| close of falling
|
| While neither of us have any special insight into that, and
| no-one has certainty, I urge you to read the essay linked,
| as this topic is in fact discussed with historic examples.
| "There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in
| economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars
| when the economics turn bad ... There is a great deal of
| ruin in a nation."
|
| You are right that the the Iranian regime's short and
| longer term goals align. But, happenstance or not, they are
| aligned and likely will stay that way.
| juliusceasar wrote:
| What people do to distract the focus from Epstein list.
|
| 2nd Epstein war.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Hey, don't knock what works!
| jleyank wrote:
| The problem shown by Ukraine was that large, expensive solutions
| were not effective when cheap weapons were used. The solution,
| which will take time, is to recreate some of the cheap defensive
| solutions that used to be available - guns, radar-bearing
| weaponry, etc. these are quite boring to the high tech industry,
| who prefer things like lasers, rail guns, etc. but ww ii showed
| they worked, and I suspect the approach speed of drones is
| similar to kamikazes.
|
| There are also fewer ships than in the 80's, and everything costs
| too much. F-35's vs. F16 birds, the gripen argument in Canada or
| Europe. How to get companies and staff to embrace low tech
| solutions in a rapid mapper.
|
| Perhaps they can remember history and make planes that support
| ground operations rather than high tech birds. Having more,
| slower birds with cannons would help with drone warfare. Armour
| also helps.
|
| And yeah, selling ads vs more interesting tech solutions was a
| cliche 10+ years ago.
| leoc wrote:
| https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/30/what-are-ukraines-new-gu...
|
| > Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine is willing to share its
| expertise in unblocking maritime trade routes with the naval
| drones.
|
| > "We shared our experience with the Black Sea corridor and how
| it operates. They understand that our Armed Forces have been
| highly effective in unblocking the Black Sea corridor. We are
| sharing these details."
| Balgair wrote:
| In chapter 11 of _All Quiet on the Western Front_ Paul and his
| unit find an abandoned food cache in the middle of no mans land.
| Instead of secreting away the food back to their lines where they
| will have to share it, they decide to just cook and eat it right
| then and there. But a spotter plane from the allies sees the
| smoke and then begins shelling their position. Cue a terrifying,
| if hilarious, scene where the soldiers try and cook pancakes as
| shells explode around them. Paul, as the last to leave, takes his
| pancakes on a plate and dashes out, timing his escape between
| bursts, and just barely making it back to the German trenches.
| Its a rare comic scene in an otherwise horrific and very real
| look at WW1.
|
| The scene in the book is just so familiar to the lines in Ukraine
| these days, nearly a hundred years later. Instead of spotter
| planes near the dawn of aviation, we have satellites and drones
| (similarly quite new in the role). Instead of just shells and
| fuzing experts, we have FPV drones and much more sophisticated
| shells. Instead of buddies from the same towns all huddled
| together in cold muddy holes, we have deracinated units spread
| far and wide in laying in fear of thermal imaging. This results
| in a no mans land again, but a dozen kilometers wide instead of a
| few hundred meters wide, and somehow more psychologically
| damaging.
|
| My point is that absent any tech that will miraculously be
| invented and deployed widely in the new few weeks, the Iran war,
| if it should be a ground one, is going to be just like Ukraine is
| today, which is somehow a _worse_ version of _trench warfare_.
|
| Even casual _Victoria II_ players know that WW1 is essentially
| the final boss of the game. And the 'lesson' of Vicky II is
| essentialy: _Do not fight WW1, it ruins Everything_.
|
| To be clear: The US is choosing to fight a _worse_ version of WW1
| without even a stated (or likely even known) condition of
| victory. We 're about to send many thousands boys to suffer and
| die for not 'literally nothing', but actually _literally_
| nothing.
| chneu wrote:
| This just came up yesterday in the sauna with a bunch of dudes.
| Everything feels unique and special, but we're just repeating
| history again. Nothing about this situation is actually unique.
| Change a few names, a few numbers like the year or GPS coords,
| but most everything today is just history repeating itself.
|
| Don't let capitalism convince us to do bad stuff cuz it makes
| us feel like the moment is special. It isn't. There is a
| tomorrow. It will be yesterday soon enough.
| freefaler wrote:
| How is capitalism in the wrong here? Resource warfare is
| universal trough the history in any society.
|
| The check and balances of the US President that can start an
| offensive war is more a political problem, not "capitalism"
| problem.
| ben_w wrote:
| Was this started as a resource war, or as a money-making
| scheme, or as a distraction from the Epstein files, or just
| because DJT developed actual old age dementia after purging
| anyone who might say 'no'?
|
| To the extent it's a money making scheme, well, capitalism
| gets blamed for all money making schemes even if it's
| supposed to be a specific subset of them which is useful
| for the feedback one can get from open markets.
|
| (As that's a caveat inside a caveat, I'm mostly agreeing
| with you).
| mikkupikku wrote:
| > _Was this started as a resource war, or as a money-
| making scheme, or as a distraction from the Epstein
| files, or just because DJT developed actual old age
| dementia after purging anyone who might say 'no'?_
|
| Or because America is filled with demented cultists who
| think a two thousand year old property dispute is the key
| to triggering the Apocalypse so they can all be whisked
| away to paradise.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > Was this started as a resource war, or as a money-
| making scheme, or as a distraction from the Epstein
| files, or just because DJT developed actual old age
| dementia after purging anyone who might say 'no'?
|
| We won't know until everyone publishes their memoirs. I
| imagine absurd reasoning is entirely on the table. Given
| the administration's blind luck with its raid on
| Venezuela it assumed that scaling up the same plan would
| function, without realising how fortunate it was the
| first time. Reminiscient of Blair and Kosovo leading to
| hubris on Iraq.
| sugarkjube wrote:
| Not sure this was blind luck.
|
| They had a few people on the inside, who handed over
| Maduro to the US. May have been internal conflict in
| Venuzuela using US to get rid of Maduro.
|
| Maybe US also had people on the inside in Iran, but
| killed them by accident on the first strike with the
| "precision bombings".
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I think they were extremely fortunate that their complex
| plan actually went off without a hitch. Its quite a lot
| of moving parts and hoping that certain people will react
| in certain ways.
|
| > Maybe US also had people on the inside in Iran, but
| killed them by accident on the first strike with the
| "precision bombings".
|
| Yeah but no. Iran isn't Venezuela by a long shot,
| extremely different properties all round. Its hubris to
| think what worked out well in one case would apply to a
| completely different one on the other side of the world.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Was this started as a resource war, or as a money-
| making scheme, or as a distraction from the Epstein
| files, or just because DJT developed actual old age
| dementia after purging anyone who might say 'no'?
|
| I don't think we should look too far for reasons. He got
| all excited with the adventure in Venezuela and wanted to
| do it again, but with bombs and his pal Bibi. He's
| itching to do the same thing to Cuba, and he's not subtle
| about it.
| zardo wrote:
| It's a contributor factor through the usual pro-war think
| tanks funded by weapons companies.
|
| But, yeah the choice of Iran now isn't at all explained by
| "capitalism".
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "Everything I don't like is woke." - Right
|
| "Everything I don't like is capitalism." - Left
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "in the sauna with a bunch of dudes"
|
| The way this reads.
|
| I thought the analogy was "i'm frequently in a hot tub with
| dudes with different names, the faces change, but i'm still
| in this hot tub"
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "in the sauna with a bunch of dudes"
|
| The way this reads. I thought the analogy was "i'm frequently
| in a hot tub with dudes, with different names, the faces
| change, but i'm still in this hot tub with another set of
| dudes"
| narrator wrote:
| Trump already said he was just going to bomb all their
| infrastructure so the economy of the country couldn't function
| if they didn't negotiate and then it's just going to be a mass
| refugee crisis. It would be a mass refugee crisis anyway with a
| protracted ground invasion, but more Americans would die, so
| Trump is choosing to get it over with the easy way for America
| at least if they won't negotiate.
|
| IMHO, This is pretty much the strategy the Khans used in the
| 13th century when they encountered arrogant Islamist Sultans
| emboldened with the bravery of their faith who refused to
| capitulate. They killed all the islamic people in Baghdad and
| then proceeded to fill all their canals and burn all their
| books. This decisively ended the Islamic golden age and Europe
| was able to survive after a very difficult 14th century where
| it would probably have been easily crushed by Islamists from
| the East had the Khans not set them back at least a few
| centuries. Truly one of the big turning points in World
| History.
|
| Oh yeah, we can't do this to Russia because they have nukes,
| but the Ukrainians are trying to do it piecemeal.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Oh yeah, we can't do this to Russia because they have nukes
|
| Why would the US want to bomb an ally?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| What this current administration is doing speaks much more of
| a lack of strategy than what the Khans did in the 13th
| century.
|
| Not having any sort of counterplay to Iran's one big move
| (the blocking of the straight), in a nation of some of the
| brighest minds on the planet, speaks volumes of how advisors
| are clearly not being listened to. The powers of the once
| mighty Republic have seemingly been vested in the hands of a
| bunch of incompetent nepo babies.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| > in a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet
|
| You mean the people who voted for trump or those who voted
| for the democrats?
|
| Are there some causal reasons you think americans are
| smarter than people in other countries?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > You mean the people who voted for trump or those who
| voted for the democrats?
|
| I'm not talking about plebs, I'm talking about people who
| know their shit and work at government level. We could
| just look at the invention of the past century and pluck
| out relevant events like the moon landing, electronic
| computer, transistor or ARPANET. Clearly there are smart
| people living in that nation. They have the talent to
| draw from to get good advice about stuff like: what
| Iran's first response might be to an aerial assault.
|
| > Are there some causal reasons you think americans are
| smarter than people in other countries?
|
| I never said that. I said America is home to SOME of the
| brightest minds in the world. That sentence does not
| apportion all the brightest minds to that nation. What
| you read is clearly something different from what I
| wrote. Do you have a chip on your shoulder?
| qup wrote:
| IQ testing?
|
| Inbreeding as a cultural norm?
|
| Not smarter than the Japanese.
| babypuncher wrote:
| > a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet
|
| The brightest minds we had working in government have all
| quit or been fired in the last year.
| protocolture wrote:
| >in a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet
|
| Found the assumption that caused the issue.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > he was just going to bomb all their infrastructure
|
| That's usually the idea ever since bombs were a thing. It
| just so happens that it's harder to actually pull off than to
| say it.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| and nor does it result in victory without the follow up of
| a ground assault.
|
| I'm legit baffled by the US engaging in a war that suffers
| exactly the same negative properties as the Saudi's war in
| Yemen. You don't even have to learn from history, the
| Saudi/Yemeni conflict is still active today. Air campaigns
| alone are entirely insufficient, especially if your enemy
| has mountains.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Are we just going to ignore the fact that targeting civilian
| infrastructure is yet another war crime?
| free652 wrote:
| That's dual use infrastructure. Its also used for military
| and goverment purposes, right? The same as China providing
| weapons components to Russia, masking them as "civilian".
| kergonath wrote:
| "The Russians did it as well" is not a fantastic excuse
| for a war crime... You might want to think this through a
| bit more.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| We'll make Hegseth regret it deeply when the time comes for
| his trial, but right now I don't know that there's much to
| do about that fact.
| chistev wrote:
| Why should a president have this much power?
| torginus wrote:
| Not according to FIFA
| kergonath wrote:
| > Trump is choosing to get it over with the easy way for
| America at least if they won't negotiate
|
| That is... not the easy way. That's how you get a nightmare
| for decades to come, endless waves of refugees and a
| limitless supply of terrorists.
|
| Though, to be fair, there is no easy way of doing what Trump
| claims he wants to do. Which is why it's spectacularly stupid
| to do it in the first place. I mean, they _did not expect
| retaliation in the strait of Hormuz_. Amateur hour does not
| even begin to describe it. Spectacularly stupid is probably
| way too kind.
|
| If you must learn from the Khans, you'll find that
| decapitation is not enough. You need people to put in place
| of the former leadership, and enforcers so that the
| underlying power structure stays in place to serve the new
| masters. The reason why is that, as the US learnt in Iraq and
| Afghanistan, it takes a bloody lot of soldiers to keep a
| whole population in check. Trump does not want to do the
| former and does not have the latter.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Cue a terrifying, if hilarious, scene where the soldiers try
| and cook pancakes as shells explode around them.
|
| In the 1974 movie _The Four Musketeers_ , Athos needs to find a
| private place in which to impart some information to
| d'Artagnan. The musketeers are currently deployed battling some
| French rebels.
|
| The solution he finds is to place a bet with another soldier
| that he and his friends will have breakfast inside a fortress
| that is being bombarded by the rebels. We see a similar comedy
| scene of five people attempting to cook and eat a meal while
| under attack. (Athos also struggles to get his information
| across, since the constant attacks understandably pull a lot of
| attention.)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aezX4lxCaCw
| shawn_w wrote:
| Movie? That happens in the original book.
| oniony wrote:
| Does it not also happen in the movie?
| rat9988 wrote:
| You usually cite the original story
| wvbdmp wrote:
| It's difficult to imagine something more psychologically
| damaging than WWI trenches. Where can we read more about this?
| MikeTheGreat wrote:
| I think the poster's point is that FPV drones &
| accurate/advanced shells mean that you get all the downsides
| of WW1 trenches and no-man's land, PLUS new downsides of
| trenches not helping so you're constantly under threat of
| death no matter where you are. Plus: the more people huddle
| together the better the target they are, so you get to hide
| in small groups (or solo) in the hopes that the economics of
| killing just you doesn't pencil out and the drones will kill
| someone else while _they're_ sleeping, instead of you.
|
| If you're looking for more reading maybe start with WW1
| trenches, then look for YouTube videos about Ukraine drone
| usage? The drone stuff may be too new for lots of writing
| about it, but you'll get an oblique view of it by looking at
| how the Russians put those roll cages / turtle shells over
| their tanks, etc.
|
| If you find anything and wanted to share it that would be
| interesting (if morbid)!
| hn_throw2025 wrote:
| "during WWII, the US Navy... winning the U-boat war in the
| Atlantic"
|
| Sounds like typical US revisionist history.
|
| They developed ASDIC? HF/DF? Hedgehog? Even the depth charge?
|
| No, that was all the British.
|
| I would say technological development plus the Enigma decrypts
| were the biggest factor.
| pjmorris wrote:
| Yes.
|
| "When whole squadrons of very long-range aircraft were
| operating out of bases in the Shetlands, Northern Ireland,
| Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland (and, after mid-1943, the
| Azores), and when the Bay of Biscay could be patrolled all
| through the night by aircraft equipped with centimetric radar,
| Leigh Lights, depth charges, acoustic torpedoes, even rockets,
| Doenitz's submarines knew no rest." [0]
|
| [0] Kennedy, Paul. Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers
| Who Turned The Tide in the Second World War, from the chapter
| 'How to Get Convoys Safely Across the Atlantic'
| cladopa wrote:
| >No, that was all the British.
|
| And not even British. For example most of the Enigma decryption
| was the genius work of a Polish man. Britain received the
| immigration of half the Nobel prices of the world in a couple
| years as the jews escaped nazism.
| forinti wrote:
| In the movie Thirteen Days, JFK mentions a book titled March of
| Folly by Barbara Tuchmann. I bought the book on that tip and it
| has an interesting chapter on Vietnam. I don't think adding a
| chapter on this "special operation" would even be worth it as it
| would just be repetitive.
| trevithick wrote:
| How does that book fit in the timeline? It was published in
| 1984.
| pfedak wrote:
| I believe they are mixing it up with The Guns of August
| (published in 1962, also by Tuchman), which JFK was fond of
| and supposedly drew on during the Cuban missile crisis.
| phyzome wrote:
| Ooh, ooh, is it because it would be _mindnumbingly stupid_?
|
| [reads article]
|
| Yep, got it in one!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Americans have been sold an image of the US being an omnipotent
| presence, due to its Navy. It is a legitimate question to
| wonder why a relatively weak, long embargoed country has the
| power to control the waters when the US has spent a pretty
| penny on all these warplanes and aircraft carriers.
|
| If little Iran can prevent the US from being able to establish
| security in a little straight, it (ideally) shatters that image
| and causes some soul searching for what US taxpayers are buying
| with the military.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| You can lose a game of chess to a guy with fewer and less
| powerful pieces than you if you play like a moron. The US has
| been playing the Iran situation like a gigantic moron.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Maybe I am misinformed, but I was under the impression that
| the US was so capable it is not even playing the same game
| as a country like Iran. As in they could brute force
| solutions due to superior technology and infrastructure,
| because that is how much more the US spends on it.
| nickff wrote:
| Iran does not 'control the waters', it is denying access;
| this is an importance difference. Lacking control means that
| Iran cannot make use of many of its naval assets, which they
| have invested in.
| kergonath wrote:
| The situation is massively favourable to Iran, from a
| strategic point of view. The Gulf is narrow, bordered by Iran
| all the way and with mountains and rugged terrain nearby,
| which is very convenient to hide rockets. What a carrier
| brings is completely irrelevant in this configuration.
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| to quote: "in the Persian Gulf today, the Navy grasps the
| reality of the circumstances, recognizing that it simply can't
| sail into the strait without risk getting blown to smithereens
| by Iran's missiles. Today, its carriers are stationed well
| outside the Gulf and the ranges of Iranian missiles."
| mmooss wrote:
| The United States primary strategy against China, in the even of
| war around Taiwan or nearby, is the same:
|
| China's coast is mostly enclosed by the 'First Island Chain',
| which extends from Japan to Taiwan, through the Philippines and
| Borneo (look up a map and the situation will be very clear).
| Imagine strings of islands along the US coasts controlled by
| Chinese allies and with Chinese and allied forces training
| intensively there.
|
| The American plan is to keep the Chinese navy trapped (or under
| assault) along its own coast by putting Marines (and Army
| soldiers too, I think) on the islands with anti-ship missiles.
|
| The northern tip of the Philippines is as close to Taiwan as the
| Chinese mainland is; the US and Philippines are conducting an
| essentially endless series of military exercises and the US is
| placing some of its most advanced missiles there.
| metalman wrote:
| tumpy was/is/might be going to china in a week or so, and there
| is pretty much no way that can happen while WWIII is launching,
| and/or things are going mega bad for the marines, as there is no
| way they are not going find themselves in a real fight. all those
| islands are owned and operated by the irainian military, who in
| fact have complete long range artilery superiority,and every
| square inch dialed in, dont see how it could be done except with
| a full and total invasion of the wholecountry, which would likely
| go worse and would require a much much larger force than the one
| on hand, but tumpy is crazy, so who knows
| tim333 wrote:
| >The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap,
| unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US
| planners are ready for it or not.
|
| is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US
| operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and
| leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates
| how powerful they are.
|
| Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power controls
| the shores is not a new thing. The Bosphophorous has been closed
| on and off by the Ottomans or Turks since 1453 and the allies
| couldn't break through in WW1. They can send raiding ships, use
| canons, artillery, naval mines etc. You don't need the new tech.
| brokencode wrote:
| I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn't really indicate that
| the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was.
|
| Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated
| opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at
| aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.
| rustyhancock wrote:
| I get the feeling you haven't read the article. The carrier
| is not in drone range precisely for that reason.
|
| The reason so many tankers have been lost and that E3 sentry
| is that the carriers are having to stay out of the preferred
| range and rely on refueling for the bombing campaign.
|
| If the CSG could move to the Iranian coast they wouldn't have
| to maintain a constant chain of refueling tankers which have
| become so vulnerable.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It sounds like you agree vehemently with the article, modulo
| the reframe of _what the military had to already_ as solely
| your personal worry, about a hypothetical, that could only
| occur with a more sophisticated opponent, in the future.
| rustyhancock wrote:
| I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone
| doctrine (they were the originators of the shahed drones, the
| FPV drones and sea drone which have dominated the Ukraine way
| too).
|
| A US CSG could simply sit in the Hormuz strait shoot down any
| incoming missiles and keep it open.
|
| Right now the US has 3 CSG in the middle east and nearly 50000
| troops. After weeks of intensive bombing the strait remains
| closed and any associated asset in the region is at risk the
| loss of the E3 to drones is particularly shocking.
| shevy-java wrote:
| I am very angry with Trump. He owes all of us money here.
|
| The sooner the guy is gone, the better. Some folks compared Trump
| to Lyndon B. Johnson, but as a lame duck from the get go. I think
| Trump in his own category - a new label of criminal and stupid. I
| want my money "back".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-31 23:00 UTC)