Live data from Hacker News

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

responsiblestatecraft.org

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

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".

He was always very clear about Iran long before the election.

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the people criticizing the comment above, think of all the other illegal things trump is already doing. It's not a matter of "can't", it's a matter of if he will and who will stop him (nobody, so far)

I'm surprised he hasn't considered dropping The Bomb. No one will stop him, and it could actually garner a win.

Well... one wonders and speculates what exactly is meant by his statement of: "unleash hell"

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

#323
post #290

The title should change 'won't' to 'shouldn't'. This administration doesn't do things because of deep understanding, it does them because of gut reaction. The US Military could, at an unknown cost, just blast away. This article points out, rightfully, how scared we are to put our weapons in harms way because of how expensive they are. I made this argument many times to friends years ago. From a military strategic poi…

I think our navy is mostly designed for prestige too, but it seems like you could use the current carriers to transport like a million disposable drones?

Drones have limited range. Perhaps a submarine would be better: sneak close to your target, raise a pipe from the sub to the surface, then launch a bunch of drones from it.

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

#324
Which is why taking out the political leadership is the better tactic.

You don't need to fight armies - just make it suicide to command them. Decapitation strikes work.

"What if you had a time machine and could go back to kill Hitler?" Well yeah, no need to fight all of Germany.

Would the Ukraine war still be going without Putin at the helm?

The logical conclusion of drone war is take out whoever controls the drones.

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

#325

The title should change 'won't' to 'shouldn't'. This administration doesn't do things because of deep understanding, it does them because of gut reaction. The US Military could, at an unknown cost, just blast away. This article points out, rightfully, how scared we are to put our weapons in harms way because of how expensive they are. I made this argument many times to friends years ago. From a military strategic poi…

The position of the article seems to me to be it 'won't' because it can't. And that is an accurate assessment. It would take much more than the forces in the region, to secure the "strait". To actually secure the strait, you have to secure the entire Persian Gulf. It doesn't matter if tankers can pass through the strait only to be blown up just of Qatar. At it's widest the Gulf is about 360 kilometers, well within th…

> there has to be a real purpose. Escorting a bunch of privately owned oil tankers to bring down the price of gas does not really cut it.

While I agree with you in principle, if I have learned anything about politics it is that under whatever political system you care to invent, the people will definitely demand war and a navy to escort private oil tankers if it means they get to drive for $0.01 less per gallon.

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

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the people criticizing the comment above, think of all the other illegal things trump is already doing. It's not a matter of "can't", it's a matter of if he will and who will stop him (nobody, so far)

I'm surprised he hasn't considered dropping The Bomb. No one will stop him, and it could actually garner a win.

It depends on what you mean by "win".

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

#327

The title should change 'won't' to 'shouldn't'. This administration doesn't do things because of deep understanding, it does them because of gut reaction. The US Military could, at an unknown cost, just blast away. This article points out, rightfully, how scared we are to put our weapons in harms way because of how expensive they are. I made this argument many times to friends years ago. From a military strategic poi…

In this instance, a flight of B-52's could wipe the concrete shielded missiles off the face of the Earth. Start off with F18s to secure the skies, then B52s to pound the missiles, then the Navy could stroll back in. It's just that no one has had the gumption to do it until now.

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

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the people criticizing the comment above, think of all the other illegal things trump is already doing. It's not a matter of "can't", it's a matter of if he will and who will stop him (nobody, so far)

I'm surprised he hasn't considered dropping The Bomb. No one will stop him, and it could actually garner a win.

He has considered it. He's a psychopathic fantasist. No one sane would have started this war.

But the consequences would be catastrophic. Not least that Russia would very likely nuke Ukraine to try to force a surrender. And France would have to decide whether to respond in kind.

Trump would not - of course - nuke Russia. Likely not even if Russia launched a first strike.

And it's unlikely Iran would surrender, because Iran has set itself up as a patchwork of semi-independent forces. The immediate response would be a mass missile strike on desalination plants and oil installations in Israel and the Arab states.

The absolute best outcome would be plumes of smoke all over the Middle East.

The worst outcome would be all of the existing minor nuclear nations - North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel - deciding the safety was off, and why not?

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

#329
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone doctrine (they were the originators of the long range 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…

Quick, what's the difference between a suicide drone and a guided missile?

Cost, production capacity, radar cross section, speed, range, payload.

Drone means foam wings, plastic body, propellers, cheap camera, simple inertial navigation, maybe GPS, maybe 10-30 kilogram payload.

Guided missile means, metal airframe, jet engine, depending on targets thermal imaging or radar terminal guidance, radar altimeters, terrain imaging radars, 100 - 500 kilogram payload.

Remote guidance is a very hard problem, modern computers have made it much easier to solve.

Even an 80s missile, required hundred of thousands of dollars of equipment just for guidance. Now all you need is a simple computer, a cheap camera and a cheap accelerometer.

Drones are much easier to down than missiles, but they make it up in volume.

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

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The position of the article seems to me to be it 'won't' because it can't. And that is an accurate assessment. It would take much more than the forces in the region, to secure the "strait". To actually secure the strait, you have to secure the entire Persian Gulf. It doesn't matter if tankers can pass through the strait only to be blown up just of Qatar. At it's widest the Gulf is about 360 kilometers, well within th…

> there has to be a real purpose. Escorting a bunch of privately owned oil tankers to bring down the price of gas does not really cut it. While I agree with you in principle, if I have learned anything about politics it is that under whatever political system you care to invent, the people will definitely demand war and a navy to escort private oil tankers if it means they get to drive for $0.01 less per gallon.

The issue though is that this won't get us maritime supremacy. To get civilian tankers through the strait you need that. Iran will still take the occasional shot at these ships and who in their right mind would put their ship into a situation where there is even a 1 in 2000 chance you will be struck? At the end we will have boots on the ground, with real casualties, potentially a ship or two actually damaged and Iran unleashed and attacking everyone's critical oil infrastructure and water infrastructure. They will even probably find a way to hit a ship or two in the red sea just to spread the panic. My original point was that we could 'just blow things up' and get in there, not that we would succeed in achieving a great military objective.
Post reply on HN