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

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

#351

Post by lumost » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

pandinus wrote: post #301

"There's no such thing as public opinion, merely published opinion". While on the one hand we should never discount the impact of incompetence, gross negligence, or deliberate mismanagement there's a reason this story is circulating. For the most-dominant military power in the world to "whoopsy" run out of weapons because of a low-stakes engagement isn't readily believable. Suspicious me likens it to the supposed "wa…

It's been discussed for decades that the US would run out of precision munitions in any multi-week conflict. The presumption was that the US would either be in a nuclear war at that point, or a ground campaign would complete the task along with dumb munitions.

That the US decided to expend it's precision weapon stockpile on a conflict of choice with no ground or dumb bombing campaign to fallback on is a mystery for later generations. It is not unbelievable that Iran is capable of blocking a dumb bombing campaign indefinitely, or that the viable targets for such a campaign are politically untenable.

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

#352

Post by derriz » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #209

notaigenerated wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Until there is. We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. But the reality is that throughout history most leaders have been irrational. My country (America) is behaving increasingly irrationally. I've been hearing fringe conservatives calling for nuking the middle east since the early 2000s, but the rot has spread and became deeply religious. Now I hear talk of the…

Incompetence is one thing, but the aspect of the current leadership that I (as a non-American) find most shocking is the corruption. That is, the use of state power to enrich an individual and his family members and to bend state institutions into tools for conducting petty personal vendettas. Pardons are sold for “investments” into private business owned by the president. Legal “settlements” agreed with organs of state under the direct control of the executive. Granting themselves perpetual immunity for tax evasion. The use of federal regulatory bodies to force private media companies to cancel comedians who hurt the president’s feelings.

The fact that these actions barely seem to register with the US public at large truly blows my mind. That over 35% of the population are completely fine with this stuff is frightening. The fact that none of the constitutional checks and balances are effective in preventing this abuse of office is alarming.

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

#353

Post by toyg » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #290

dualvariable wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My takeaway is that Russia, China's vassal, wanted to use nukes and China told them they can't[1]. I don't believe Russia really cares about the rest of the planet. At the same time, China doesn't care if Russia gets a bloody nose on Putin's little vanity project and realizes a nuclear war is bad for their mercantile economy. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-china-ur...

This coming from the leader of the other country in a war... I mean, I do find it credible that Xi might have told Putin to think very hard before doing something extremely stupid, but from there to stating that Russia is "China's vassal" and will do whatever they're told by a party who has long been a direct competitor (China and Russia have been solid "frenemies" for a long time, pushing very different views of what "real socialism" looks like)... It's a big jump.

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

#354

Post by tintor » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #281

WarmWash wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China, in it's modern incarnation, and every living member of it's military, has never seen a single real battle. Nothing. No one has any rank that has bearing on any kind of combat. Just decades of self-congratulatory war games. China has tons of weapons and resources. But it would remain to be seen if they can actually fight when every single person along the entire chain is a total day one rookie.

I'm not sure that any of that actually matters. Wars are not Call of Duty. It's politically difficult to invest actual manpower in Iran and Unless China were to nuke Hawaii, an all out war with China would also immediately be politically unpopular. China, like Iran, wouldn't doesn't need to defeat the US, they just need to hold out long enough for the US economy to collapse, which would happen way faster if China is…

> The only reason we don't have $6 gas right now ...

I see you are not in California.

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

#355

Post by foo12bar » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

plasticsoprano wrote: post #330

hunterpayne wrote: post #271

The US only used long range precision missiles for the first 3 days of the war. Since then, its been almost all JDAMs. The interceptors got used a lot more but even with those we only went through about 5% of the stockpile. This is CNBC. If you trust them on topics like this, well...that's on you. Please remember that they don't have a single person on staff with any military experience or expertise. PS Their source…

Sure. I bet the Military Times also used the IRCG as a source. https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/08/04/... Probably Reuters too https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-...

The CNBC article's source is "as reported by Reuters", and the Military Times article is just a reprint of the Reuters Article, if you look, immediately under the headline it states "By Reuters".

So there is only one news outlet reporting on it, Reuters, and the rest are just reporting on the reporting.

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

#356

Post by 1970-01-01 » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

hunterpayne wrote: post #271

The US only used long range precision missiles for the first 3 days of the war. Since then, its been almost all JDAMs. The interceptors got used a lot more but even with those we only went through about 5% of the stockpile. This is CNBC. If you trust them on topics like this, well...that's on you. Please remember that they don't have a single person on staff with any military experience or expertise. PS Their source…

Their source is Reuters and is literally the sub-headline. You did not read this article. Flagged.

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

#357

Post by SR2Z » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

sarchertech wrote: post #338

SR2Z wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the US got into a war that anyone actually cared about, it would almost certainly snap into action at incredible speed. I'm gonna push back on "nobody cares." The United States is somewhat unique in that our doctrine calls for wars to be fought on distant shores, and that the main role of our military is to ensure that our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world. That's why we entered WWII, it…

> That's why we entered WWII The US entered World War II in the pacific after Pearl Harbor and in Europe after Germany declared war. Before those 2 events, there was still a strong isolationist contingent in the US.

For years leading up to that point Congress was passing "neutral" bills that allowed the country to sell weapons to the Allies but not the Axis. Since we're discussing weapons production, yes, the US joined the war effort on the side of the Allies well before formally declaring war.

Yes, there were isolationists, but there weren't enough to change the fact that fascist/communist victories in Europe would be bad for America. The neoliberal thing where we support liberal democracies is an evolution of the Monroe doctrine, because we've recognized for a long time that the best path forward for America is free trade and interdependency with other like-minded countries.

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

#358

Post by hgoel » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:57 PM UTC

pendenthistory wrote: post #347

justin66 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the most-dominant military power in the world to "whoopsy" run out of weapons because of a low-stakes engagement isn't readily believable. Wow, yeah, you'd need to have morons at the top of the chain of command and subordinates afraid to speak out in order for something like that to happen. Nothing like the US government today at all.

(Not American, need to preface with this) I think the US military has shown itself to be extremely competent in the last war. Reading about Desert Storm and later the invasion of Iraq it's just insane. It's still possible they miscalculated how rapidly warfare would change, but to call them morons... As far as I can see, there are only three proven militaries in the world, the US, Israel and Ukraine, and the US is or…

I think their point is that it doesn't really matter how competent the lower levels of the command structure are if the ones at the very top are bumbling fools unwilling to listen.

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

#359

Post by colechristensen » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #337

pandinus wrote: post #301

"There's no such thing as public opinion, merely published opinion". While on the one hand we should never discount the impact of incompetence, gross negligence, or deliberate mismanagement there's a reason this story is circulating. For the most-dominant military power in the world to "whoopsy" run out of weapons because of a low-stakes engagement isn't readily believable. Suspicious me likens it to the supposed "wa…

>For the most-dominant military power in the world Russia kept saying its the second most powerful military in the world and now it's the second most powerful military in Ukraine. You can't just keep saying words and then think they're true because you keep repeating them. There's no secret US weapons factories hidden away somewhere, the inadequacy of the US industrial base to maintain production for long term war ha…

Russia could still trigger a mass extinction and end civilization as we know it.

The thing which has changed is the nuclear threat is almost just, losing interest? Yes any one of a handful of nations could launch a strike that would kill tens of millions and start a war that would kill billions but... why? A teenager could build in their garage that can take down a ship or a particular room in a building a thousand miles away so what's the point of vaporizing civilians? It is exclusively a weapon for genocide now and it seems like mutually assured destruction is an ending doctrine it's a weapon for a madman and there are just so many easier options to accomplish any goal.

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

#360

Post by toast0 » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

svpk wrote: post #126

dccoolgai wrote: post #38

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.

I think it's worth pointing out that the US almost certainly could have taken control of the strait. But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc. You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to…

> But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc.

Boats in the water and boots on the ground can be popular. But it needs a credible story, told by credible sources.