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

761–769 of 769 posts

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

#761

Post by orwin »

firesteelrain wrote: post #760
orwin wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a win for the US military. They spent 20 years in south Vietnam, trying to keep it independent, and ultimately failed. Their stated goal was south Vietnam independence and stopping the spread of communism. Both were failed goals. War is a continuation of politics, and here, the US lost politically (in Laos first) even if they didn't loose strategically. But let's be honest, multiple times they got their ass…

It was a win for the US military. I agree the political objective ultimately failed. My point is that political failure is not the same thing as military defeat. The US withdrew; South Vietnam was defeated two years later.

Which military objective did the US accomplish in their "win"? Did they won on the battlefield? Do you consider the Korea war a win for the US military too? And if not, what is the difference with the vietnam war?

I'm pretty sure we have different definition of what a win is, but i would like to understand your point of view, genuinely.

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

#762

Post by firesteelrain »

orwin wrote: post #761
firesteelrain wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a win for the US military. I agree the political objective ultimately failed. My point is that political failure is not the same thing as military defeat. The US withdrew; South Vietnam was defeated two years later.

Which military objective did the US accomplish in their "win"? Did they won on the battlefield? Do you consider the Korea war a win for the US military too? And if not, what is the difference with the vietnam war? I'm pretty sure we have different definition of what a win is, but i would like to understand your point of view, genuinely.

[dead]

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

#763

Post by elendilm »

firesteelrain wrote: post #755
elendilm wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, logistics and refueling are important to maintain air superiority. If there are no bases, there is no air superiority. If you follow world news from non-western-propaganda-sources, you would know, the fighter jets shoot without entering Iranian airspace to stay clear of Iranian home made anti air defense and heat seeking tech along with potential russian and Chinese air defense. Entering Iranian airspace has bee…

You’re moving the goalposts. First it was missile attacks on bases, now it’s logistics and refueling. Those influence air operations, but they aren’t the definition of air superiority. Also, “multiple US jet shootdowns” is an extraordinary claim. What’s the evidence?

I give up buddy.

I thought you wanted explanation of how air superiority is acheived.

Apparently you think it can be acheived without logistics and refueling.

What is the need of evidence when you have magic by your side. So no - those fighter jets were not shot down. Magic saved them. You were right all along.

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

#764

Post by firesteelrain »

elendilm wrote: post #763
firesteelrain wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re moving the goalposts. First it was missile attacks on bases, now it’s logistics and refueling. Those influence air operations, but they aren’t the definition of air superiority. Also, “multiple US jet shootdowns” is an extraordinary claim. What’s the evidence?

I give up buddy. I thought you wanted explanation of how air superiority is acheived. Apparently you think it can be acheived without logistics and refueling. What is the need of evidence when you have magic by your side. So no - those fighter jets were not shot down. Magic saved them. You were right all along.

[dead]

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

#765

Post by elendilm »

tomhow wrote: post #729
elendilm wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't try to police speech. You are saying someone says "a unicorn drank water from my home" and we should just accept it. No thanks. How about you find a better job than policing speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Do you wear the police uniform as well while you are about it.

Excuse me, this isn’t policing speech, this is asking you not to act like a jerk. There’s an important difference. It’s not just about being respectful to others, it’s about bothering to make solid arguments yourself. If you can’t make your point without demeaning other people, you probably don’t have a good point at all. We want this to be a place where difficult topics can be discussed and all points of view can be…

Buddy you haven't seen me be snarky nor insulting. That was polite yet informative. You are clearly overreacting.

"ungodly numbers", false & violates economics - thoughtful to you.

"source - trust me bro. " - you found snarky.

Talk about hypocrisy. Is truth too hurtful for you.

Where we hang out to explore is none of your concern. If you don't like truths, remain here and keep doing what you are doing.

Who knows, I never had any incentive to put up a similiar page, but now I may have one, where falsehood and hypocritical policing will be dealt with appropriately.

If you can't handle uncomfortable truths, you probably never built anything let alone lecture on what constitutes solid points.

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

#766

Post by bitmasher9 »

owebmaster wrote: post #623
bitmasher9 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this talk about entering a hot war with China is crazy because of this fact. You don’t go directly from literally zero battles to starting a war with one of the strongest armies.

How long it takes for an army to have zero experience to be heavily experienced? 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? Can their enemies win before that?

Probably 5+ years. Institutions learn slowly, especially top down institutions like militaries and governments.

The Ukraine war is 4+ years old, and they are still making significant improvements on their tactics. This is with support and advice from experienced militaries like US and France.

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

#767

Post by varispeed »

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…

You obviously live in a bubble. Israel also has Epstein files and other kompromats, so Kransov is in double bind.

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

#768

Post by maxglute »

firesteelrain wrote: post #756
maxglute wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And immediately lost it after a few weeks, hence current detente. A maximally preopositioned/prepared/postured US + Israel suckering punching Iran was able to briefing maintain air superiority through select regions, but the minute Iran reorganized and hit CENTCOM basing, US lost sortie generation rate to maintain air superiority. Land basing / sustainment ~70% of theatre sortie generation, US carriers / long range b…

That’s a lot of assertions, but none demonstrate Iran denied US air operations. You’re describing increased friction, not loss of air superiority.

Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough manned and unmanned airframe losses over the first few weeks that it was no longer viable to try to maintain air supremacy - it was obvious after downed F15 that US can't afford to burn an entire combat SAR worth of hardware more than a few times. Hence from air supremacy -> superiority -> contested air space scale, losses vs US appetite = Iran contested air space enough that US could not afford to maintain superiority, and Iran degraded or put enough CENTCOM sortie generation under threat that US likely cannot anyway. Of course this all mediated by US risk appetite. US on paper pour enough hardware at extreme cost, eat enough losses, to reestablish superiority or even supremacy over Iran, but it's unlikely.

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

#769

Post by firesteelrain »

maxglute wrote: post #768
firesteelrain wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a lot of assertions, but none demonstrate Iran denied US air operations. You’re describing increased friction, not loss of air superiority.

Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough manned and unmanned airframe losses over the first few weeks that it was no longer viable to try to maintain air supremacy - it was obvious after downed F15 that US can't afford to burn an entire combat SAR worth of hardware more than a few times. Hence from a…

I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority.

The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited.

[1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/

Post reply on HN