Live data from Hacker News

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

responsiblestatecraft.org

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

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…

> The US navies ships are good for real wars This is a real war.

More to the point, if your military is only good when enemies attack you the way you want them to, you don't have a good military.

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

#362
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…

The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda, not to accurately describe reality.

This comment did catch my attention. While I am willing to accept some level of bias from various parties, I have an odd feeling that we about to argue that reality is in the eye of the beholder.

With that in mind, what do you think the reality is? I am not leading you on. I am genuinely curious.

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

#363

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.

> and it could actually garner a win

No, it could not. It would be a massive loss. For those that lose their lives, for the rest of the world.

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

#364
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

You need to seriously upgrade your level of knowledge about what is available in terms of drones today.

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

#366
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"10-30 kilogram payload" - for carrier it is probably a moscito bite

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

#367

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…

> The US navies ships are good for real wars This is a real war.

You mean Special Military Operation, comrade.

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

#368

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…

> Oh yeah, we can't do this to Russia because they have nukes Why would the US want to bomb an ally?

It's not an alliance - the Russians are supplying Iran with intelligence and material.

It's just that Trump is Putin's biggest fan for some reason.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing just one carrier would give Trump all the excuse he needs to drop a nuke, declare a monster emergency and cancel elections…

He can’t cancel elections. Stop fear mongering about that. He can 100% drop a nuke though, so thats probably worth fear mongering about.

He doesn't need to legally cancel the election. He simply needs to say it is and take action as if it was already. This allows him to combine interference before the election with the Republican insurrection tactics from 2020. Say he declares, through executive order, that the 2026 election is cancelled due to an emergency, and that the current Congress will stay in power until the emergency is over. This would allow, even if not actually legal, some combination of:

- Republican-led states voluntarily ending their elections.

- In the case where local election authorities refuse, allowing state governments to take action by arresting said local authorities.

- Ending all Federal assistance for states to run and secure elections.

- Posting ICE to all states who insist on having elections, to arbitrarily arrest people going to vote. By the time they can get in front of a judge the election is over. Even if they're released within a few hours they'd likely miss the vote.

- Having ICE seize all "illegally cast" ballots, and the voting machines, preventing counts from completing or being accurate.

- Declaring states who hold an election to be in rebellion, deploying the National Guard or standing military forces.

- Refusing to seat anyone elected from those states who refuse to go along with it. We could see something like Republican states are allowed to "elect" new representatives as long as they allow an ICE presence everywhere, along with the arbitrary arrest. Speaker Johnson then refuses to seat any newly elected officials from any other states.

- Arrest of newly elected officials as illegitimate, and the seating of Republican candidates instead, similar to the fake elector scheme from 2020.

We can insist that all of these things are illegal, or that people won't go along with it. We would likely see the start real, violent resistance, but that doesn't mean they won't try.

Edit: Looks like he's starting already, by trying control all mail in ballots. He's going to issue an executive order ordering the USPS to filter ballot mail according to a master list compiled by the administration. Obviously this why they wanted voter rolls and have been seizing ballots. Even if the court immediately rules it illegal, why would anyone trust mail in voting? He's essentially cancelled the election for those who vote by mail.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/trump-mail-in-voting-executi...

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

#370

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…

have you considered that if you can’t keep your guns away from “gut driven” administrations, maybe you shouldn’t make them at all?
Post reply on HN