Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

221–230 of 769 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course there can be - likely with a gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose. It's just going to be your typical meatgrinder and attrition warfare.

Yeah, arguably the war in Ukraine is teaching everyone who is listening that nobody is willing to be the first to use nukes and destroy the planet, which means that nuclear powers can actually fight wars--which is incredibly dangerous, of course.

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“They didn’t want to” is hiding some of the complexity behind it. Vietnam had turned into a political crisis at home; there were widespread protests and lots of people openly dodging the draft. Grunts would sometimes “frag” commanders who pushed them into overly risky missions. Running up the casualties would have created a real risk of a violent revolt at home and mutiny among the soldiers. The US as a society was likely incapable of winning the war, so it turned into a defeat.

There may have been a window earlier on when greater commitment could have won the war or frozen the conflict, via invasion of North Vietnam, but not once the public turned against it. But this came with a big risk of direct intervention from China or the Soviet Union, as happened in Korea. In Korea, Chinese intervention led to a stalemate.

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

#223
post #49

3 generations of wealth poured into the most expensive military in recorded history - the reason that we don't have health care, clean energy, decent social safety nets and so many other things... and they can't even control a small stretch of water. What a waste.

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…

> As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz

They don't though

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

#224

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…

LBH US hasn't been in position to defend 1st island chain in a while, US performance vs Iran just made that obvious.

The one thing we have learned in recent wars is highend hardware can shoot down subsonic munitions reliably, highend missiles can penetrate high end defense reliably. AKA PRC is uniquely positioned to blunt most of US fires (subsonic munitions) while having tons of highend fires vs US defense. But really PRC doesn't even need highend fires for TW scenario, see their subsonic cruse missile / drone gigafactory (like proper not ghetto tier) that can churn 1000s per day, i.e. even with pure subsonics PRC can fully saturate entire US posture/basing structure in 1IC/2IC.

US in westpac has been thoroughly functionally cooked for years. It just took Iran performance for sensible people to realize how cooked. Not just how not up to task i.e. force balance, but how US tech stack uniquely vulnerable to PRC, who TBF has spend past 10 years of modernization strictly on this issue. NVM PRC can now conventionally hit CONUS as recognized by recent Pentagon China Power report, something PLA watchers have known for years, meanwhile said report still assumes PRC highend missile stockpiles is about size of Irans which is kek territory if not delulu.

TLDR people should stop hopiuming about PRC and evaluate consequences of commodity precision fire for mid tier operators. What Iran can do today, most of Americans can do in 10-15 years, i.e. we are entering a world where CONUS is vulnerable due to tech again (remember US project almost extinguished to wooden British boats). CONUS isolation/security as much man made as god/geographic given. It relies on US expeditionary model containing everyone ability to project fires to their shores. Once that's done, entire US defense model post war breaks. All of which is to say, forget Iran, anticipate Monroe wars in the future.

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

#225
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You could fight conventionally over logistics chokepoints. China’s not going to lob nukes just because their oil’s dried up.

[dead]

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

#227
post #49

3 generations of wealth poured into the most expensive military in recorded history - the reason that we don't have health care, clean energy, decent social safety nets and so many other things... and they can't even control a small stretch of water. What a waste.

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…

> 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 for themselves.

People always say this, but I suspect Americans are more unhealthy in general and actually need more healthcare per person.

We have a development pattern where people barely walk, but less walk or cycle to work.

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that before the era of modern weapons, many wars were a net positive for the winners. Much of our genome is inherited from successful conquerors, many of whom are long forgotten. Starting wars has only been unequivocally negative for maybe the last 100 years. Not enough for an evolutionary change to manifest itself.

The US made about $68 billion just by kidnapping Venezuela’s president (and making sure the successor would be next if she didn’t allow the sacking). For something that required intelligence work and two choppers, the margin was great. The fallout will come later, of course.

On a purely Machiavellistic level, coups with an inside element helping along (and that is what Venezuela was: Delcy Rodriguez going full Judas on Maduro) are a distinct phenomenon with a different profile of risks and rewards. As you say, even today, they may pay very well - but precisely because they don't lead to a large-scale war with all the destruction it entails.

Iran is a true war, where the local elite didn't even partly defect, and it is already becoming an expensive quagmire with nothing of value gained.

Of course some politicians do mistake one for another. Putin in 2022 probably expected a swift coup by his crony Medvedchuk, who instead turned tail and ran. Instead he got a brutal war of attrition.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nation-building project ultimately failed. That is not the same as achieving nothing, nor is a political withdrawal the same thing as being militarily defeated.

You can also do Victory parades regardless of losing.

And you can label every political withdrawal a military defeat regardless of what happened on the battlefield.

US achieved major objectives, failed at building self-sustaining governments, and eventually withdrew.

Post reply on HN