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

491–500 of 774 posts

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

#491

Post by testing22321 »

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…

Invading armies burnt the White House down twice, then just left and said “stop being so stupid”.

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

#492

Post by FuckButtons »

throw0101d wrote: post #455
laughing_man wrote: post #286

>The U.S. Army has used up much of its stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles during its five-month war with Iran, according to three people familiar with the data, raising concerns about the military’s readiness for future conflicts. >The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “v…

> That quite a bit less of an issue than the headline implies. Here's a point that I ran across: these long range missiles are there to take out air defences and such (along with stealth sorties), which allows you go go in with 'regular' ordinance and non-stealth aircraft—of which there is much higher quantities and availability—in later phases. In the early phases of the conflict you use stand-off munitions to reduc…

You’re giving trump a lot of credit that you think he’s capable of thinking of second order effects of his actions.

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

#493

Post by laughing_man »

throw0101d wrote: post #455
laughing_man wrote: post #286

>The U.S. Army has used up much of its stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles during its five-month war with Iran, according to three people familiar with the data, raising concerns about the military’s readiness for future conflicts. >The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “v…

> That quite a bit less of an issue than the headline implies. Here's a point that I ran across: these long range missiles are there to take out air defences and such (along with stealth sorties), which allows you go go in with 'regular' ordinance and non-stealth aircraft—of which there is much higher quantities and availability—in later phases. In the early phases of the conflict you use stand-off munitions to reduc…

>Here's a point that I ran across: these long range missiles are there to take out air defences and such (along with stealth sorties), which allows you go go in with 'regular' ordinance and non-stealth aircraft—of which there is much higher quantities and availability—in later phases.

Not ATACMS. SEAD is an Air Force/Navy activity.

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

#494

Post by 762236 »

renegade-otter wrote: post #440
Maxion wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PrSM has been in production for only a short time, and ATACMS stocks were never high. Neither of these are the backbone of US long-range precision strike weapons. Article is misleading.

It IS an issue if stand-off war is your only war, and it seems to be the exclusive approach here. If you run out of long-range precision weapons, what do you have left? Boots on the ground? That's not going to happen, and that means you will never win this on and off war.

They want this problem to be solved. So you spend the munitions, forcing the manufacturing problem to get fixed. This works in favor of Anduril, which cares about manufacturing scalability

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

#495

Post by mohamedkoubaa »

martinky24 wrote: post #10
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.

It’s easier to believe when missiles are the only strategy being used in the war…

Hold on, there's strategy being used in the war?

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

#496

Post by bmitc »

And we've advertised it to the entire world. And we've destroyed our economy. And we've further isolated ourselves from the world, culturally, politically, and economically.

Good job everyone with the voting. All those people voted for "let's make things universally worse for everyone except billionaires in America".

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

#497

Post by switchbak »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #238
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…

> As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz I don't see how they could manage that without a full-scale invasion and control of Iran. It's far too easy for Iran to launch drones/torpedoes from small watercraft or from nearby land. I expect they could control Hormuz for a while, but it would be very expensive and I'd expect the logistics to break down fairly quickly if the economics do…

"I don't see how they could manage that without a full-scale invasion and control of Iran" - that's precisely what they're saying, and that the domestic populace wouldn't put up with it.

I suppose "could" here is a bit of a stretch. Like technically, yes, you could if you whipped up your country into enough of a frenzy to support it. Hell, Iraq happened (twice), so I suppose it has historical precedent. And yes, a full-scale invasion of a fully committed US military should absolutely be able to conquer and hold Iran. But I can't imagine any circumstance where that's possibly going to happen in today's reality (outside of an Iranian terrorist event on USA soil, for instance).

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

#498

Post by tsimionescu »

jonnybgood wrote: post #443
valleyer wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The son of the elderly Iranian ruler, aligned politically with his father, took over. The war prompted Iran to operate one of the world's largest economic pressure levers, to great effect. The U.S.'s unilateralism, leadership rhetoric, and war crimes (like bombing a school) have lost it a significant amount of global goodwill. None of that seems like it jibes with your description.

None of that contradicts what I said. Obviously, the Iranian regime will replace them.

It does. The initial strike, while effective, has proven to achieve absolutely nothing, or less than nothing. Neither Iran's military nor logistic nor even administrative capability was impacted to any serious extent. The population, of which a large proportion was against the regime and potentially on the brink of a revolt, quickly fell in line and became supporters, faced with the external opposition. And Iran has proven its ability to unilaterally close the straight of Hormuz, a crippling blow to the entire world's economy that the USA is simply unable to stop.

So again - the execution shows significant tactical competence. But the strategic direction is absolutely disastrous.

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

#499

Post by asdfman123 »

elendilm wrote: post #441

US apologists thought this is Hollywood. That Iron man and Thor will fly down from the sky. Instead we saw videos after videos of Iranian missiles rain down from the sky. There is a reason distributed systems are resilient. Iran's military doctrine of decentralized mosaic has proven to be a masterclass in military organization.

Indeed fellow current events observer, this will portend the imminent collapse of the cowardly west and the grand rise of the stalwart and wise Ayatollahs of Iran (I was not paid by state actors to write this)

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

#500

Post by renegade-otter »

laughing_man wrote: post #489
renegade-otter wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS an issue if stand-off war is your only war, and it seems to be the exclusive approach here. If you run out of long-range precision weapons, what do you have left? Boots on the ground? That's not going to happen, and that means you will never win this on and off war.

The USAF has a pretty substantial inventory of stand-off weapons, and an absolutely enormous inventory of guided bombs.

They do, but the current leadership does not have any appetite for entering Iran's airspace after the last downing drama. If Iran captures a pilot, there is going to be no more room for market manipulation.
Post reply on HN