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

#661

Post by mullingitover » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:43 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #628

mullingitover wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviet Union's relationship with China was more of a peer rivalry situation. The Russian relationship with China is nowhere near parity. Russia would fold tomorrow if China withdrew their backing and went along with the US/EU sanctions. So Russia is only able to prosecute their war with China's permission. When your foreign policy is decided by another power, that's the textbook definition of a vassal.

It's not a binary choice between material support and sanctions, there are plenty of intermediate states. I think you are being hyperbolic again. And I disagree that USSR and PRC were just "rival peers". Rival peers would be UK/US (at least until Suez), or UK/FR until the 90s. USSR and PRC actively fought each other and almost started a nuclear war; that's way beyond "peer rivalry", that's actual direct competition.

Regardless, Russia is far weaker today then when it was in the USSR, and China is far stronger than what it was when it was getting into shoving matches with the USSR. It's relegated to a chess piece China can move around without much thought.

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

#662

Post by overfeed » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:50 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #580

overfeed wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was left scratching my head why Ukraine would be there, but not Iran, on the basis that it too has stood its ground in what the superpower aggressor planned to be short and decisive conflict.

Iran has survived this war so far because the aggressor hasn't made any attempt to actually defeat them. It's very different from Ukraine, which is holding its own against an all-out invasion. Iran might well be able to withstand an all-out invasion by the US, but it hasn't had to yet. Right now, the US is half-heartedly trying to bomb Iran into submission, something that in the entire history of aerial warfare has w…

> Right now, the US is half-heartedly trying to bomb Iran into submission

The title of TFA confirms the attempt is wholehearted: It's just not working as well as it did in Venezuela (where leadership was captured, rather than killed).

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

#663

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:56 AM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #617

nemothekid wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm curious what the financial engineering you're referring to was. I've been trying to understand why gas is still comparatively cheap given the war and the best I've landed on so far is that the spread between feedstock (crude oil) and output (diesel, gas, jet fuel, etc) widened in large part die to flooding the market with strategic oil reserves. We keep crude prices low, which is what many indicators track, while…

China stopped buying 5.5 million barrels of oil per day (quarter of what was carried in the Strait). Huge reduction that has slowed down the catastrophe by months.

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

#664

Post by thelastgallon » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #617

nemothekid wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm curious what the financial engineering you're referring to was. I've been trying to understand why gas is still comparatively cheap given the war and the best I've landed on so far is that the spread between feedstock (crude oil) and output (diesel, gas, jet fuel, etc) widened in large part die to flooding the market with strategic oil reserves. We keep crude prices low, which is what many indicators track, while…

China stopped buying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehoMxfJxTw8

With the reduction in demand, prices didn't skyrocket. This is what OPEC does (cut supply to increase prices), but on the demand side.

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

#665

Post by khriss » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

What's stunning is that there doesn't seem to be a single way in which the United States has come out ahead on this conflict.

We have

* Established that US zero ability or will to protect it's 'allies' in region beyond Israel.

* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran

* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates

* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them

* Exploded the myth of US military superiority with US warplanes unable to approach Iran and the carrier groups unable to go anywhere near the straits.

And to think we got this in exchange for spending more on our military than the next few countries combined, and the military is asking for 1.5 Trillion more to continue to fight this war.

All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.

I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.

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

#666

Post by b3ing » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

khriss wrote: post #665

What's stunning is that there doesn't seem to be a single way in which the United States has come out ahead on this conflict. We have * Established that US zero ability or will to protect it's 'allies' in region beyond Israel. * Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran * Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by…

Doesn’t matter as long as the Epstein files fell out of the news, it’s considered a success despite $40 billion spent

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

#667

Post by feb012025 » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #57

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…

Air superiority was established fairly early on in the conflict. Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Not even stealth and they drop more than just missles - they carry bombs. B-52s weren’t sent in to carpet bomb the area of that’s what you mean. US could indiscriminately drop dumb bombs but you would have a higher civilian casualty rate.

This doesn't really make sense. We're using stand off munitions to bomb targets like missile silo entrances--why would you not just use guided bombs if we had air superiority? Civilian casualties wouldn't be a factor

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

#668

Post by wat10000 » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:19 AM UTC

overfeed wrote: post #662

wat10000 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has survived this war so far because the aggressor hasn't made any attempt to actually defeat them. It's very different from Ukraine, which is holding its own against an all-out invasion. Iran might well be able to withstand an all-out invasion by the US, but it hasn't had to yet. Right now, the US is half-heartedly trying to bomb Iran into submission, something that in the entire history of aerial warfare has w…

> Right now, the US is half-heartedly trying to bomb Iran into submission The title of TFA confirms the attempt is wholehearted: It's just not working as well as it did in Venezuela (where leadership was captured, rather than killed).

If it was wholehearted then the lack of long-range ground-to-ground precision munitions wouldn't be putting a damper on things, we'd be bombing round the clock from the air with way more sorties than are actually being flown.

Venezuela worked because it had much clearer and more limited goals (capture Maduro, vs regime change spark a revolution hammer out an agreement on nukes who knows what) and boots were put on the ground to accomplish those goals. Venezuela was not bombed into submission. Like I said, that has happened exactly once ever (or maybe not even), and that one time involved weapons that nobody is willing to use again (and rightfully so).

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

#669

Post by audunw » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:28 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #254

tim333 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>fighting China would be a proper all-out war I figure it would probably be like the US backing Ukraine's defense against Russia but backing Taiwan's defense against China. It would probably be quite hard for China to take Taiwan. There's a lot of sea in between and you can see how well Russia's navy has done against Ukraine's drones and missiles.

How hard would it be for China to make sure no ships or airplanes arrive to Taiwan for a few weeks? The island has only days worth of food and energy. No bloody D-Day landings needed to force a political capitulation. To continue to borrow from your example, Russia has completely shut down all commercial Ukrainian seaborne and airborne traffic.

A blockade of Taiwan could be met with a blockade of China. China can survive much longer on their own supply and reserves. But it’s still something to make them think twice. They don’t have the blue water navy to respond to a blockade. Land connections do not have the scale to work around it.

There’s a small port on the east side of Taiwan which could be used to supply some of the bare necessities. I don’t know if USA would fully enter a war but I do think they might do freedom of navigation exercises east of the island. Would China dear hit a US military vessel with missiles and escalate the conflict. I don’t think so.

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

#670

Post by credit_guy » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:29 AM UTC

The title does not follow from the stated facts. At most one could say that the US Army has used "virtually all" of its long-range munitions. But the war in Iran is mainly prosecuted by the US Air Force and the US Navy, not by the US Army. Is it possible that the USAF and US Navy also used most of their long range munitions? Maybe, but on that the Reuters report does not have anything new compared to guesses by everyone else.