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

711–720 of 774 posts

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

#711

Post by Zigurd »

pendenthistory wrote: post #598
Zigurd wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these things is not like the other. Russia is a threat to Europe, and is in the midst of invading a country with a lot of agricultural, industrial, and cultural upside that should be on the road to EU integration. Bombing the snot out of Russian trenches in eastern Ukraine might even be a good idea. And the reasons for bombing Iran are...?

Perhaps letting Iran, a country ruled by fanatics, build enough military infrastructure to the point that they're able to hold a significant part of the world's energy hostage was the original blunder? You could argue they'd never use their power unless attacked, but I don't think you can be certain of that. It comes down to if you can accept that a non-rational actor can be allowed to have this power (or nuclear wea…

If you tried, could you make a more vague and abstract example of the sunk cost fallacy? Iran would do what with what to whom? There is literally no better example of a case where we could just stop being stupid and injuring ourselves by being stupid than fighting Iran.

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

#712

Post by Zigurd »

yubblegum wrote: post #642
varispeed wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two birds with one stone for benefit of Putin. Likely son of Ayatollah wanted to get rid of his weak father and Putin wanted the US to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine. So Putin asked Krasnov to get rid of Ayatollah and empty the stockpile of weapons. Trump always delivers for Russia.

That is absurd. This war is being waged for the benefit of Israel. Even the pussyfooting of the on and off strikes is to force the Arabs to sign on the so called Abraham Accords. Once this misadventure is over, Israel goes to be the dominant power in the area, controlling the energy resources, with Arabs on the leash, US out of the area, and all potential regional rivals destroyed or neutered. note they are now shift…

Having just one reason or one influence for massive strategic errors seems unlikely. And in this case that certainly doesn't make it better.

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

#713

Post by bijowo1676 »

SR2Z wrote: post #612
estearum wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about the war in Iran.

They sure care about rising gas prices, though.

can you tell us, why are gas prices rising ???

the strait has been open for oil trade just a few months ago, what happened and whose fault is it ???

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

#714

Post by weemonger »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #685
throw0101d wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Another way of phrasing the headline is "US initiates war of aggression against country, keeps pointlessly bombing its civilians to the point where it's run out of munitions". Complaining about empty weapons stockpiles completely misses the real damage that's been caused.

> to the point where it's run out of munitions

Hopefully, the same can be said to Russia war of aggression and both conflicts stop killing civilians and destroying their infrastructure.

But I do not see, that either conflict stops because an aggressor runs out of ammunition.

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

#715

Post by weemonger »

aqme28 wrote: post #432
varispeed wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two birds with one stone for benefit of Putin. Likely son of Ayatollah wanted to get rid of his weak father and Putin wanted the US to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine. So Putin asked Krasnov to get rid of Ayatollah and empty the stockpile of weapons. Trump always delivers for Russia.

I don’t know if I am convinced. Russia also uses a lot of Iranian drones, which presumably are going to have supply troubles because of this war.

AFAIK, Russia is building their own (improved/modifed) Shahed drones and no longer buy/import them from Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelabuga_drone_factory

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

#716

Post by ericmay »

estearum wrote: post #639
ericmay wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did. They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though, never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the…

> They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though Uh yes they did > never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more. In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...? > You're jus…

> Uh yes they did

Not really

> In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...?

Yes? Nobody argued otherwise.

> "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao.

Learning a lesson second-hand is different than learning a lesson first-hand. The fact that Iran was able to perhaps attack some equipment or position shows us where we are weak and gives us, albeit unfortunate, an opportunity to learn a lesson and improve.

> But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself.

No Iran doesn't learn lessons for free unless everyone else is too. Of course enemies are going to learn and adapt too, but we're smarter, stronger, our civilization is a lot better at war, have more money, and better equipment and so when we learn lessons they're more effective and important.

> China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value.

Again you're just confusing your mistaken view of the Iran war here as I mentioned in my OP.

Happy to answer any questions you have though

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

#717

Post by ericmay »

estearum wrote: post #641
ericmay wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No active American servicemember has fought a near-peer adversary lmao You don't need to fight China to get experience fighting. The skills and experience translate. Plus America is getting direct experience with Chinese and Russian made systems. Even the simple act of organizing and deploying the military is incredibly valuable as I've already explained to you in another post.

US Marine talking about Ukraine: “I just think that foreign fighters came here and got a war… a type of warfare that they didn’t expect,” he said. “Especially American foreign fighters. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq. You’re taking the side of Vietnam versus the U.S. over here. You are the underdog, and with no air superiority or anything. And so they just assume they were being used as cannon fodder. But that’s…

Circling back to where this began...

> The claim above is that neither side has experience that's all that relevant to the type of conflict we'd expect in a China/US conflict.

This is a factually incorrect statement. I'm not sure why you're confused about what you are agreeing or disagreeing with at this point.

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

#718

Post by LastTrain »

jonnybgood wrote: post #380
LastTrain wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the US has shown itself as to be extremely competent in the Iran war? If you were talking about Iraq, that was completely different leadership.

The US killed almost the entire Iranian regime leadership with minimal cost. What definition of competence are you going by?

What were the stated goals and did the US achieve them? The same family still runs Iran in the same way, nothing has changed in a material way as of now.

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

#719

Post by lern_too_spel »

nradov wrote: post #515
lern_too_spel wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many defense contracts are cost plus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-plus_pricing

Nope. Very few defense contacts are still issued on a cost-plus basis. Especially not those for serial production of existing munitions.

25% (many) of the contracts awarded in this notice are cost plus. https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4314128/...

Contracts are announced daily during the week. https://www.war.gov/news/contracts/

I provided the Wikipedia link to explain this contract structure because most people working outside defense have never heard of it. I didn't hear of it myself until talking to someone awarding defense research contracts, where these kinds of contracts are the norm. The Tomahawk missile contracts are not cost-plus, as you have said.

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

#720

Post by jitix »

theshrike79 wrote: post #699
renegade-otter wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where and who is the pilot who crashed btw?

It was big news a few months back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2k1dgz142o

Post reply on HN