Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#81

Post by ardit33 »

beloch wrote: post #71

A few thoughts. 1. The straight of Hormuz is crazy because of the sheer amount of options Iran has to threaten shipping. It's so narrow that they can even hit ships with artillery fire . No need for missiles or drones at all! Lobbing kinetic shells may sound primitive, but anti-missile defences are designed to deal with large projectiles with minutes or hours of warning, not shell-sized projectiles that hit within se…

Agreed on your points. This conflict, just validated the North Korea style of strategy to all regimes out there. It does the opposite of what it is intended.

I hope things do get de-escalated soon, as this is not good for any party (apart Israel and Russia, which are the main gainers of all this mess).

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#82

Post by citrin_ru »

lmm wrote: post #69
D_Alex wrote: post #60

>Iran would have to respond and thus would have to try to find a way to inflict ‘pain’ on the United States to force the United States to back off. But whereas Israel is in reach of some Iranian weapons, the United States is not. This is too complacent for my liking. Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones (operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia). Nearly every US oil refinery and LNG…

> Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention? > operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototyp…

> And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own

China operates fishing fleets all around the globe but Iran is not known for this so Iranian fishing vessel in western Atlantics will rise suspicions. An ordinary cargo vessel heading to the Central America on other hand may sail unnoticed.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#83

Post by lmm »

citrin_ru wrote: post #73
lmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention? > operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototyp…

2500 km is a realistic range of you follow the war in Ukraine. Kyiv is frequently attacked with Shahed drones and it is far from frontlines.

> Kyiv is frequently attacked with Shahed drones and it is far from frontlines. reply

It's a couple of hundred miles from the frontlines in Kharkiv, and the Russian border to the North is even closer.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#84

Post by sveme »

avereveard wrote: post #65
decimalenough wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article discusses in detail, if the US actually cares about freedom of navigation, the war was a massive own goal because it looks extremely likely to grant the current Iranian regime de facto control of the Strait.

Iran already had the strait in ransom, directly and indirectly with proxy receiving weapons. You don't get to ignore that part and call this a own goal, since inaction led to the same effective results.

The strait was navigable until three weeks ago. There are very few conceivable paths towards reestablishing this. This is absolutely not the same effective result.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#85

Post by csomar »

khhu2bnn wrote: post #26

The amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc. In the fantasy im…

Read on the martingale strategy. This is Donald Trump signature strategy. Basically, when something doesn't work, you double down; and it pays off. This strategy keeps working until it doesn't and completely bankrupt the player. Because the strategy has been always paying off for the them (djt & co), they thought they have some kind of a special skill/power that others don't; not realizing that they are just bad at math, geopolitics and strategy.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#86

Post by duskdozer »

ardit33 wrote: post #74
johnohara wrote: post #72

The Straight of Hormuz is open to any country willing to pay $2M per voyage. Any country except the U.S. and Israel. The most important aspect of the "toll" is that Iran prefers payment in yuan, not dollars. If Iran succeeds in nationalizing the Straight and is successful in enforcing the toll, it represents a very serious threat to the dominance of the U.S. Dollar as the world's reserve currency for trading energy.

No one in the US asked for this. Such a dumb move from the current administration.

The traders with a five-minute preview of trump's tweets beg to differ

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#87

Post by kybernetikos »

wecwecwe wrote: post #54

Bret mocks the JCPOA, but the west found a way to work with the Kingdom of Consanguinity and Public Executions. What gives?

He wasn't particularly scathing about it - in the article it's presented as a decent solution to a difficult problem, just that in his opinion too much was paid for it - but that being so it should have stayed in place.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#88

Post by scott_w »

bonesss wrote: post #79
scott_w wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the way this administration has behaved makes me think someone there is obsessed with playing Total War and thinks that’s how the real world works. It’s all about winning battles and painting the map red, white and blue (Greenland, Venezuela, now Iran) with no thought to what they want to achieve beyond that.

I think that criticism legitimately undersells Total War players (and thereby oversells the administrations competence). Total War involves an understanding and exploitation of high ground, rivers, and choke points. Like just about any war gamer, with a glance at the map of Iran one arrives at The Pentagons stated wisdom on the matter for decades. Geography says you invade all of it, or cede the straight. We have thi…

I never said they were good Total War players ;-)

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#89

Post by pas »

hackandthink wrote: post #52

That all makes a lot of sense. Mr. Devereux is being more realistic this time than he was at the start of the war in Ukraine. My takeaway from the war in Ukraine is: it’s going to get worse and last longer than anyone ever imagined.

I remember his protracted war posts, and ... indeed there's still a war going there, and fortunately it did not even get into the anticipated guerilla phase.

Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#90

Post by red_admiral »

georgemcbay wrote: post #14

> Please understand me: the people in these countries are not important, but as a matter of national strategy, some places are more important than others. I assume/hope this was meant to say "the people in these countries are not [un]important"? (or just "are important") As an entirely secular person, I believe every innocent human life is important.

Trying to parse the whole sentence, especially the "but" afterwards, the most reasonable explanation is that there is a "not" missing.
Post reply on HN