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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by vgchh »

kjellsbells wrote: post #407
vgchh wrote: post #405

Irrespective of the political leadership, it's unlikely that USA military is completely oblivious about the new modes of wars - cheap drones, AI, rapid build-outs (e.g. in China). On the contrary, they are likely deeply aware of it. That being said, it is also likely true that USA has become more bureaucratic and there is a high chance of deer-in-headlights situation. USA remains the shining city on the hill, though…

There's no shortage of national security and military analysis talent in the US. There is a gigantic shortage of intestinal fortitude in the politicians. The Army tried reducing the sizeof their tank force, and had to back down after screams from Congress because it would have meant job losses in some representative's district. The US poured money into the strike fighter and littoral ship projects, despite the brass…

Ultimately, it's an internal battle. A battle of bureaucracy+ignorance vs democracy+optimism+innovation. The side that weighs more wins. And the adversaries are hoping it's the former.

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

#422

Post by nradov »

guzfip wrote: post #123
citrin_ru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both can be true - carriers and traditional air force are not obsolete but also western armies are unprepared to deal with the threat posed by a large number of cheap drones which can quickly deplete traditional air defense (based on SAM systems).

Wasn’t this the exact sort of reason we were developing laser weapons? I thought at least one US Navy ship was equipped with one now.

The US Navy has been experimenting with laser weapons but none of them are really operational for air defense yet.

https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/03/31/...

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

#423

Post by Starman_Jones »

shadowtree wrote: post #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.

That doesn’t work if a nation has strong institutions and hierarchies of command. Russia and Nazi Germany (and Iraq) were organized around a strong central leader who personally granted authority to his subordinates, but Iran’s rulers are given authority by a process. If the new supreme leader is killed, they will simply elect another one. Imagine that FDR was visiting Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked. Would the US government have collapsed? How many politicians and generals would the Japanese have had to kill before the US surrendered?

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

#424

Post by glitchc »

bawolff wrote: post #361
jacquesm wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nonsense. Every military is built to counter certain types of enemies. Nations that win predict correctly, nations that lose predict incorrectly. History is littered with examples.

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

#425

Post by jojobas »

oa335 wrote: post #412
jojobas wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like USN can still do whatever it was made for from this large standoff distance, also seems like it wasn't made for chasing individual nondescript trucks in a hundreds-miles-long mountainous shoreline.

> USN can still do whatever it was made for One of the primary functions of navies historically has been to secure vital shipping lanes. It’s a big deal that USN can’t seem to fulfill that function anymore.

It can be safely said that current carrier groups were not built for that, they were built for power projection on land.

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

#426

Post by Animats »

A big mistake here was simply underestimating the scale of Iran. Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq. More than any country in Europe. About 2/3 of Russia. Expecting to win a war on the cheap was a fantasy. Especially since Iran has been fighting Israel for years.

On the naval front, Ukraine sunk the Moskva with a few truck-mounted missiles. That finally made it undeniable that sending naval vessels anywhere near a hostile shore is a thing of the past. Countermeasures can take out some attacking missiles, but not all of them.

This is a real problem for the U.S. Navy, because they've invested heavily in craft intended to operate near hostile shores. Littoral combat ships and amphibious assault ships are intended to operate offshore of trouble spots. This worked a lot better when the trouble spots couldn't do much to them.

The size of Iran means that knocking out drone and missile production for long won't work. Russia has been trying to do that to Ukraine for years now. Ukraine produced 4 million drones last year, and production continues to increase. Ukraine even exports drones now. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE have been making deals with Ukraine for air defense systems. Iran exports drones to Russia.

Mass-produced drones today are a simple airframe, a lawnmower engine, and the smarts of a cell phone. Ukraine has people making them in basements. Presumably, so does Iran.

The US can't just pull out, either. The enemy gets a vote on when it's over. Israel, Iran, and Yemen now all have to agree. Probably the best deal the US can get at this point is a cease fire with Iran collecting tolls on the Strait of Hormuz.

Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US.

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

#427

Post by [deleted] »

lpapez wrote: post #31
poulpy123 wrote: post #19

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

The US public discourse is so dehumanized today that anyone who is not "with them" is literally not a human anymore. Even within the country itself "the leftards" are considered an obstacle which can be removed if only enough force is applied. Sending armed agents at protesters is seen as being the same thing as sending pest control to clear out beaver dams on the creek. Nobody cares what the beavers think, they are…

[deleted]

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

#428

Post by myko »

coderenegade wrote: post #344
PunchyHamster wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the dro…

The issues the US faces are political and humanitarian (and economic) rather than military. I don't see any compelling evidence that the US couldn't open the straits if it really wanted to, it's just that the cost in lives and hardware would be unlike anything the US has seen since Vietnam, maybe even the second world war. And of course, once you open the strait, you have to keep it open. The whole thing is a lose-lo…

The US wasn't doing nothing about Iran though. The JCPOA was a thing, before trump tore it up. This approach is about the dumbest way Iran could be handled, which makes sense given who is giving the orders.

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

#429

Post by steve-atx-7600 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #317
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…

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…

Right and also mines that could be (maybe have already been) dropped off by small craft.

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

#430

Post by oceanplexian »

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…

> This administration doesn't do things because of deep understanding, it does them because of gut reaction.

Do you think that the overwhelming tactical success in Venezuela, or the basically flawless decapitation strikes in the opening weeks of the Iran conflict were gut reactions?

Because of that’s the case I’d be terrified to know what the Pentagon is capable of if they really put their mind to it.

Post reply on HN