Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 769 posts

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#51

Post by notaigenerated »

chmod775 wrote: post #46
PowerElectronix wrote: post #19

Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told…

If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place. The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is.

There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#53

Post by tclancy »

Jgrubb wrote: post #2

What is there even to say about this? Where does one even begin?

That fools running a country who turfed out military experience for loyalty were completely blind to what they were doing? I had no idea that running out of missiles was a distinct possibility until Spencer Ackerman started beating that drum in his newsletter around the start of the conflict. Forever Wars (along with the pieces he links to) has been an eye opening read.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#55

Post by locknitpicker »

rbanffy wrote: post #42
PowerElectronix wrote: post #19

Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told…

On the flip side, at least the press is not hammering the Epstein files and the lack of any prosecution for the crimes documented in those.

Trump's Iran war is known as "operation Epstein fury"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#56

Post by dathinab »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #33
wongarsu wrote: post #3

That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive In previous conflicts the US military could get a lot done with bombs, but that's risky if you can't get air superiority and take out all enemy anti-air systems. Which is more difficult against an enemy who can shoot at your air bases…

Doctrine never intended for these bombs to be used almost exclusively as means to wage wars. These are meant for strikes that need to be precise and carried in a short notice. If you have 10 targets and use atacms in all 10, there's something wrong in the decision making process or the strategy.

> something wrong

like waging a war while insisting they aren't really waging a war and it's just a special military operation and as a side effect having effectively no access to a lot of the resources/means normally used

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#57

Post by firesteelrain »

wongarsu wrote: post #3

That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive In previous conflicts the US military could get a lot done with bombs, but that's risky if you can't get air superiority and take out all enemy anti-air systems. Which is more difficult against an enemy who can shoot at your air bases…

Air superiority was established fairly early on in the conflict. Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Not even stealth and they drop more than just missles - they carry bombs. B-52s weren’t sent in to carpet bomb the area of that’s what you mean.

US could indiscriminately drop dumb bombs but you would have a higher civilian casualty rate.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#58

Post by shevy-java »

Trump is like Al Capone - just dumber.

There is not really any strategy here in place that makes sense from an US point of view. There is a strategy in place that may make sense for Netanyahu (e. g. remain in power) but this is not a US strategic point of view. Trump seems to be the most easily influenced roleplaying as "president". People need to follow the money trail here - that would explain the whole situation right now best.

Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

#59

Post by Philorandroid »

kubb wrote: post #11
Squarex wrote: post #5

That's hard to believe. US with it's military spending should be able to join two large scale conflicts at the same time, not to have problem with a one minor conflict.

Paper tiger.

Venezuela thought the same thing. Keeping a full-scale deployment at arm's length, and 'only' targeting military targets with exhaustive use of precision missiles is poor strategy, but if a military victory were the US's only ambition the Iranian regime has no capability that could prevent its country from being turned into a smoldering parking lot.

Doctrine isn't the same as inability.

Post reply on HN