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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by gizmo686 »

maxglute wrote: post #455
asa400 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. After 9/11, there's no world in which an…

The real thought experiment is ~600m people in central/south American within ~6000km, i.e. IRBM range of US gulf coast, where ~50% of US oil refinery and LNG plant production are. Now that Iran has validated mid tier power can cobble together precision strike complex, it's only going to be matter of time before relatively wealthier countries realize only way out of M/Donroe is to build conventional strike against US…

The problem for a would be attacker is that the US still has enough military power to give almost any country on the planet a very bad day every day for as long as the US cares to. Historically, the way to win against the US is to survive long enough for the US to get bored and leave. The last time that happened, it took us 2 decades to get bored.

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

#492

Post by ifwinterco »

IlikeMadison wrote: post #436
Animats wrote: post #426

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 u…

Germany has 80+ mil inhabitants. Also 90,000,000 people doesn't mean 90,000,000 soldiers, especially when a large part of them hate their own regime.

German geography makes it much easier to invade (most of the country except for the far south is a relatively flat plain). And it still wasn't much fun for the troops who had to do it in 1944 and 1945 even against a significantly weakened force fighting on multiple fronts at once

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

#493

Post by hax0ron3 »

Animats wrote: post #426

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 u…

I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure about the drones. I don't think the kind of drone you can build with a lawnmower engine would be likely to do any significant damage to any but the smallest ship. And the US/Israel coalition has a much greater airpower advantage enabling them to target drone production than Russia does.

Cuba is in no shape to do anything. Even if they had drones, the leadership there is very unlikely to use them since doing so would result with almost 100% probability in the US killing or capturing them.

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

#494

Post by flyinglizard »

Animats wrote: post #465
IlikeMadison wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has 80+ mil inhabitants. Also 90,000,000 people doesn't mean 90,000,000 soldiers, especially when a large part of them hate their own regime.

Right re 80 million in Germany. After a bombing campaign, most of the people tend to hate whoever bombed them.

Was it true for Japan and Germany post WWII? Or between European nations after the same said war?

On the other hand, until a couple of years ago, Iranians and Israeli never directly exchanged even a bullet between them and yet Iran was dedicated to the destruction of Israel, so YMMV.

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

#495

Post by magic_hamster »

Balgair wrote: post #113

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…

[flagged]

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

#497

Post by finnjohnsen2 »

Animats wrote: post #426

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 u…

TIL: Germany (85m) has almost the same population as Iran (90m)

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

#498

Post by t-3 »

dundarious wrote: post #416
tim333 wrote: 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…

> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership Good at hitting targets, terrible at achieving goals. Same as Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? In terms of resilience, the Iranians are similar, arguably much more so.

> Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over?

Of course not, because that wasn't the goal and would be impossible, because we were recreating the conditions that led to the Taliban taking control in the first place (corrupt and amoral warlords oppressing the populace). Afghanistan's strategic location and suitability for poppy farming and generating dark money flows is why we went in. It was the staging ground for the plans to overthrow "Iraq [...] Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-...). We're still involved in active conflicts in most of those countries.

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

#499

Post by _s_a_m_ »

Animats wrote: post #426

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 u…

> Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany.

Germany has 83.000.000 people

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

#500

Post by t-3 »

linehedonist wrote: post #450
oa335 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda Every think tank exist to further their agenda… do you have a more substantive critique?

It’s not a bad critique on its own! Yea, good to engage on the merits, but also good to acknowledge the messenger’s allegiances and biases.

They haven't "acknowledged any allegiances or biases" though, they just dismissed them because they're not of the right ideology. If they don't engage on the merits or offer substantive criticisms, there is no discussion, just a cheering contest.
Post reply on HN