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

Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#151

Post by narrator »

Balgair wrote: post #113

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 soldier…

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.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#152

Post by ben_w »

mcphage wrote: post #129
chneu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#153

Post by ethbr1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65
avianlyric wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buil…

> 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 fro…

> 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.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#154

Post by cosmicgadget »

mcphage wrote: post #128
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

> Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete. What are ours doing during this war?

Are you joking? Sending F-18s into the air.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#155

Post by cosmicgadget »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
khalic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 pa…

Did you ever hear the tragedy of USS Plagueis The Unsinkable?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#156

Post by cosmicgadget »

kashunstva wrote: post #10

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 dy…

How exactly do drones project power globally?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#157

Post by cosmicgadget »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #13

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?

That's exactly why the tanker escort promises were quickly abandoned.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#158

Post by mcphage »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #154
mcphage wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete. What are ours doing during this war?

Are you joking? Sending F-18s into the air.

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.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#159

Post by jacquesm »

narrator wrote: post #151
Balgair wrote: post #113

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 soldier…

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 pre…

> Oh yeah, we can't do this to Russia because they have nukes

Why would the US want to bomb an ally?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#160

Post by jacquesm »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #156
kashunstva wrote: post #10

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 dy…

How exactly do drones project power globally?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spiderweb
Post reply on HN