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

101–110 of 769 posts

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

#101

Post by breppp »

thinkindie wrote: post #21
actionfromafar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was very quick though.

Iran has been preparing for this war for almost 50 years, and they have more leverage than Vietnamese or Talebans had.

They have been preparing for 50 years yet lost all their leadership, nuclear facilities, ballistic missile manufacturing ecosystem and air defenses in minutes to days.

The US is not doing amazing in this war but no need to give the Iranians too much credit. The Iranians are expanding a lot of resources of their own as much as this war drags on.

It is still very early to say how a country will fare considering that it ran out of water and was on a verge of economic breakdown and revolt before fighting a prolonged war with economic blockade of its main export.

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

#102

Post by mr_toad »

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #27
kubb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper tiger.

Don’t worry, they can still carpet bomb with high explosive and nuclear always remains an option lest you forget.

The US bombed North Vietnam into dust, but because they didn’t occupy it with ground forces they simply rebuilt and kept coming.

You can’t win a war with just air power.

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

#103

Post by simonh »

locknitpicker wrote: post #39
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…

> 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 I don't think so. This observation completely misses the root cause, and it ain't missiles. Armed forces size their stockpiles in terms of their short term needs focused on rapid reaction and deterrence. The goal is to be able to re…

Those are interesting points. The US military is optimised for limited strike "special military operations", which it does all the time, and deterrence. Neither of those require a super deep arsenal, just enough to complete a limited intervention, or blunt an initial assault. Initiating a long deep ongoing offensive campaign is a whole other thing the US never planned for.

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

#104

Post by throwthrowuknow »

closewith wrote: post #31
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…

You have the same issue with the conventional bombs and their guidance kits, which when delivered in contested areas are not usually cheaper. The issue is general industrial capacity, not missiles specifically.

The issue is restraint, an all out bombing campaign with no regard for civilians or international condemnation would do the job in a month

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

#105

Post by padjo »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75
thinkindie wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn’t be the first war the USA loose against a smaller enemy. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc etc.

The USA has never been defeated . It's never been taken over by force and forced to submit to a foreign power. War getting a little too expensive or politically unpopular for their tastes is not really a loss, and it implies nothing about their true capabilities. It's their relentless deindustrialization that will eventually do them in. The USA's industrial output back in WWII was staggering, its enemies had little h…

If you set out to achieve an objective, but the enemy prevents you from achieving that objective, you lost.

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

#106

Post by appointment »

firesteelrain wrote: post #57
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.

> Flying F-15 and F-16s now.

Except not really. If they were willing to risk sending many aircraft deep into Iranian airspace with SDBs and JDAMs they wouldn't be running out of ballistic missiles.

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

#107

Post by Arodex »

Philorandroid wrote: post #59
kubb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

I read this and I wonder, "are we back to 2003 and Iraq?"

Incredible how little memory Americans have. Absolutely none. You just have no grasps on reality.

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

#108

Post by peesem »

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.

never underestimate the monetary inefficiency of the military industrial complex
Post reply on HN