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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by twodave »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #103
sph wrote: 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

This. Much of the most prevalent messaging on both the extreme left and the extreme right tends to be from other countries posing as Americans. It’s also difficult to even form opinions lately as the amount of lying by all outlets is nearly impossible to sift through. All we really know is that right, left, black, white, gay or straight, nobody is actually on our side anymore.

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

#332

Post by mcswell »

jmward01 wrote: post #276

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…

"They are only good for show at port visits..." This perfectly describes Trump's idea of battleships, in fact I think he's said more or less that himself. And he wants to help design them, because he's "aesthetic."

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

#333

Post by yfw »

jepj57 wrote: post #327
jmward01 wrote: post #276

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.

Ok general, the armchair is that way

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

#334

Post by jmward01 »

shiroiuma wrote: post #323
pram wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at SSGNs. Not drone carriers, but TLAM is pretty close to drone warfare from the US's point of view.

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

#335

Post by ceejayoz »

jepj57 wrote: post #327
jmward01 wrote: post #276

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.

We’ve tried the “just air power” approach a number of times. It never works by itself.

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

#336

Post by mcswell »

mothballed wrote: post #305
gentleman11 wrote: post #285

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.

I hope somebody would stop him. Using nukes in a war is just too bonkers to contemplate. Sure they would be small, but the road to big starts with small.

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

#337

Post by ceejayoz »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #309
brokencode wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'll need to score several hits. Just the warhead alone on a standard anti-ship weapon weighs more than an entire Shahed-136 drone.

To sink it, yes.

To render it useless for a while is easier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire

All from a little drone-sized warhead.

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

#338

Post by hermannj314 »

sph wrote: post #93
poulpy123 wrote: post #19

I'm always perturbed to see people talk of mass killings so casually

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…

One freedom denied to Americans is that we can not provide comfort to our enemies - this is punishable by death according our constitution, so we tend to err on unwavering support for our military always.

Many Americans may be absolutely against this horrible, barbaric, idiotic action in the Middle East, but they might wisely not want to talk about it.

So let me say "Thank you to all American troops for your service, God bless America. Our military is the only reason we have peace and freedom." - this is my official public opinion as an American and I would never have at least two witnesses catch me saying anything different.

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

#339

Post by acdha »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #325
throwawayffffas wrote: post #317

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 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.

This was more true in the 70s: the various fuel economy improvements mean that the impact is reportedly less than half this fine, and the millions of people who bought a hybrid or BEV don’t even notice. I think there’s less of an “war at any cost” bloc now, especially after the humiliating collapse of the last Republican president’s big Middle Eastern learning opportunity, and a lot of people would be willing to abandon Israel to fight Netanyahu’s war alone if it saved them money at the pump.

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

#340

Post by le-mark »

doe88 wrote: post #83
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fut…

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, an…

> I wouldn't have done this war, and I certainly would stop it now.

That’s the thing there is no stopping it now. Trump walks away and Iran taxes every barrel that goes through the straight. There is no return to normal.

Post reply on HN