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

191–200 of 769 posts

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

#191

Post by rbanffy »

Squarex wrote: post #99
Arodex wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Minor" conflict? You really don't realize how much ressources Hesgeth has committed to this, and how much your president likes to make things go "boom". See also: the number of strikes on boats in the Caribbean (with absolutely no result on drug trafficking).

For US, major conflict would be with China, perhaps with Russia. Not with Iran. edit: this is the document I am talking about http://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022...

It seems like the US has priced itself out of those wars.

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

#192

Post by rbanffy »

padjo wrote: post #113
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

Eisenhower would be considered a woke commie by today's administration

I have been referring to myself as a communist more and more.1

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

#193

Post by matheusmoreira »

wookmaster wrote: post #174
matheusmoreira wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say they lost . They failed their strategic objectives, but they're still out there, intact and combat capable. Losing is what happened to Germany after both World Wars.

If you start a war in someone else's country and they push you out...they won the war which means the US lost it. Your definition that the country has to be taken over to lose is a very different situation. If you can't accept we started a war, lost thousands of US lives and left without achieving any objective we set out as a loss you might need to reflect on the propaganda you've been fed and how it's affected you.

For some definition of "push you out".

The US inflicted an order of magnitude more casualties than the ~60k deaths they suffered in Vietnam. The US has proven its willingness to withstand much greater losses: ~300k deaths in WWII, ~200k deaths in its civil war.

They did a staggering amount of damage but were unable to secure a decisive military victory. So the war started to drag on, the casualties started to mount, costs started to pile up and the unpopularity of the war applied political pressure.

Writing this off as a simple "loss" doesn't seem to accurately describe what happened. I think they could have won, but the cost was too high so they pulled out. Engagement must not have been important enough to warrant another 200k-300k deaths.

Doesn't feel like the same loss you suffer when you fully commit to the task only to end up getting routed.

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

#194

Post by matheusmoreira »

simonh wrote: post #117
matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Except for the capability to prevail in those conflicts. On the other hand the US did prevail in Iraq, and often prevails in smaller interventions such as K…

> Except for the capability to prevail in those conflicts.

Doubt. The US suffered around 60k deaths in Vietnam before it pulled out, yet it has proven a willingness to withstand at least 5x more losses than that. WWII cost the US around 300k deaths, its civil war cost around 200k deaths.

I think they just didn't want to commit more american lives to whatever objectives it is that they had. They definitely had and still have the capability to do so, but they chose not to.

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

#195

Post by palmotea »

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.

> 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.

I think the reason China has no reason to be threatened is the US outsourced most of it's manufacturing to them, meaning China now has more skills, know-how, and manufacturing infrastructure to redirect to wartime production.

That was truly a brilliant move by US business leaders and the 90s political elite. Besides creating the military vulnerability, it also helped get Donald Trump election, who they all love dearly.

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

#197

Post by matheusmoreira »

iamnothere wrote: post #161
matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, but this is a comic book understanding of victory and defeat. Not your fault, many people think this way post-WWII as they have come to see this conflict as a template for what “real” war looks like. Tactical defeat is when you are prevented from meeting your objectives for a particular operation, such as securing a target area or destroying/degrading a target enemy force. Strategic defeat is when the enemy pr…

> Not your fault, many people think this way post-WWII as they have come to see this conflict as a template for what “real” war looks like.

Yeah I certainly see it that way. I think saying the US got "defeated" by Vietnam drops some nuance.

WWII proves the US is perfectly willing to suffer at least 5x the casualties of Vietnam in order to achieve their objectives. They probably just didn't want to commit to that sort of cost and pulled out instead. Feels like a different failure mode compared to going all out and getting routed.

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

#198

Post by shevy-java »

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…

The USA will not really defend Taiwan anyway. Perhaps they may send some ships or airplanes but even that attempt at show of force will quickly collapse when Beijing increases pressure.

The only thing Beijing can not control is what Taiwan does and invading an island is always difficult. Also Taiwan needs a nuclear arsenal just as Israel has; Japan too, Canada and the EU as well. The days where the big countries abuse the smaller ones are over - we all can see this past the point of Putin starting his genocide against Ukraine. His next step of escalation will be mass mobilization; that's why his propaganda department already now calls the "special military operation" (which it never was) a war (which it always was from the get-go, but now he wants to send more of his slaves to die for him and his oligarch-bros).

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

#199

Post by locknitpicker »

Yokolos wrote: post #97
locknitpicker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years . This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. The idea of a war economy is wildly outdated. Either you have enough stockpiled until your weapons manufacturers can scale their production, or you're just out of missiles. Being out after some weeks of…

> This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years.

You're missing the whole point. The point is not that missiles are easy to build. The point is that military interventions planned not only to prop up logistics but also to accommodate for supply constraints. There is no plan on earth that consists of firing a constant barrage of expensive missiles, and instead you have armed forces planning around using dumb and cheap alternatives that are easier to source and provision.

And Trump did nothing of the sort. There was no plan, no exit strategy, nothing. Not even a war declaration to kickstart the country's logistics infrastructure. Of course ammo runs out if there is no plan to provision it.

> This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles.

That's also another point you missed. Trump even failed to mobilize the infrastructure to supply with basic ordnance. There is no plan.

Pay attention to what you are saying yourself: how do you start a war when you don't even secure your own supply needs for the first weeks of the engagement?

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

#200

Post by locknitpicker »

simonh wrote: post #103
locknitpicker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Those are interesting points. The US military is optimised for limited strike "special military operations", which it does all the time, and deterrence.

I don't think so. The US military still has the same Gulf War kind of punch. It's the same armed forces that supported multiple large scale military engagements and outright invasions without requiring changes to it's economy.

But that requires preparation and planning.

Trump did nothing of the sort, and forced the us military into an untenable position. The same armed forces that could easily occupy both Afghanistan and Iraq can't even support a limited engagement with Iraq until they started running out of ammo. That tells you everything about the level of planning that went into this mess.

Post reply on HN