Live data from Hacker News

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

responsiblestatecraft.org

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#242
post #225

>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 co…

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.

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.

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

#243
post #230

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…

It’s difficult to imagine something more psychologically damaging than WWI trenches. Where can we read more about this?

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)!

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

>in a nation of some of the brighest minds on the planet

Found the assumption that caused the issue.

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

#245

Ooh, ooh, is it because it would be mindnumbingly stupid ? [reads article] Yep, got it in one!

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…

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.

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

#246
post #225

>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 co…

[dead]

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

#247
post #225

>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 co…

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.

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.

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

> 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?

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

#249
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".

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

#250
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

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

Will the citizens of said country do anything to prevent their government from doing this?

If no, then why does their disposition matter?

Post reply on HN