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

Post by lowercased » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:04 PM UTC

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…

Post by simonh » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:05 PM UTC

aeve890 wrote: post #94

simonh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The health care issue in the USA isn't due to lack of funding, the US spends more on health care per person than any other country, double that of many European countries with single payer systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... The costs of medicare, medicaid and CHIP to tax payers are about what most Europeans pay in tax for universal health care, but then they also need to pay for…

>No other military could even try Iran military is trying alright.

Post by surgical_fire » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:06 PM UTC

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…

Post by simonh » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:06 PM UTC

nwatson wrote: post #95

simonh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The health care issue in the USA isn't due to lack of funding, the US spends more on health care per person than any other country, double that of many European countries with single payer systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... The costs of medicare, medicaid and CHIP to tax payers are about what most Europeans pay in tax for universal health care, but then they also need to pay for…

Health insurance company margins are 3% to 5%. The book America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Back-Room Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System (2015) by journalist Steven Brill blames mostly wasteful practices in hospitals, pharma and device manufacturers, government and corporate health administration costs.

Post by bluegatty » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:07 PM UTC

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #115

bluegatty wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not cheaper losses, because production capacity for those things is very limited. Missiles are always easier to replace then platforms of any kind. But yes - a single, lone captive could cause political devastation.

Im no military planner so Im not gonna get invested in this debate haha - and obviously a human death is a huge loss - but presumably you could drop a lot of bombs for each lost fighter, so the bang/buck (literally) would be better than with missiles.