Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#11

Post by larnmar »

hanniabu wrote: post #5

I've seen estimates on the amount of US soldiers dead ranging from 0 to 180 while this article doesn't mention any deaths. It's crazy how large of a fluctuation there is, it's so hard to know what news sources are valid.

If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an incompetent adversary.

If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match.

Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the US has bombed recently, so we might be about to find out just how good US technology really is.

What happens next? I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the US committing to a ground invasion of Iran, but it should be possible with an air campaign to reduce Iran to the level of a 2000-era Iraq.

Edit: President Trump’s latest “all is well” tweet, and his intention to hold off on doing a briefing until tomorrow, seems to imply that US casualties were zero after all and that he’s chosen the “laugh it off” response, which is a great relief to me.

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#12

Post by mc32 »

larnmar wrote: post #11
hanniabu wrote: post #5

I've seen estimates on the amount of US soldiers dead ranging from 0 to 180 while this article doesn't mention any deaths. It's crazy how large of a fluctuation there is, it's so hard to know what news sources are valid.

If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an incompetent adversary. If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match. Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the U…

Those bases house American, allied/coalition and Iraqi soldiers. The US forces will respond regardless what the casualty count looks like. Something like that even if they missed can’t be ignored.

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#13

Post by elihu »

dforrestwilson wrote: post #3

Things are about to get real. If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to go to war. I know the “WW3” meme is popular right now but Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

> Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

Iran would lose control of their airspace pretty quickly and we'd be able to drop bombs on whoever we want, but there's no quick way the United States could occupy and control the country in that time (at least, not without resorting to weapons and tactics that would cause massive loss of civilian life, and which most soldiers would I hope refuse to carry out).

Some of the logistical issues are explained here: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#14

Post by dogma1138 »

larnmar wrote: post #11
hanniabu wrote: post #5

I've seen estimates on the amount of US soldiers dead ranging from 0 to 180 while this article doesn't mention any deaths. It's crazy how large of a fluctuation there is, it's so hard to know what news sources are valid.

If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an incompetent adversary. If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match. Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the U…

Iranian air defenses are on about the same level as Syria and Israel has been running circles around those.

The US might actually get to use it’s SEAD capabilities for a change....

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#16

Post by [deleted] »

coolanymous wrote: post #8
dforrestwilson wrote: post #3

Things are about to get real. If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to go to war. I know the “WW3” meme is popular right now but Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

Are you serious right now? Iraq war started in 2003 and hasn't ended. What makes you think matter of days or weeks or the timeline?

[deleted]

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#17

Post by fnord77 »

elihu wrote: post #13
dforrestwilson wrote: post #3

Things are about to get real. If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to go to war. I know the “WW3” meme is popular right now but Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

> Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks). Iran would lose control of their airspace pretty quickly and we'd be able to drop bombs on whoever we want, but there's no quick way the United States could occupy and control the country in that time (at least, not without resorting to weapons and tactics that would cause massive loss of civilia…

there's no way at all we (the US) could win a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran.

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#18

Post by jrs235 »

mc32 wrote: post #10
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the article is correct, they were not only launched from Iran, but Iran admits it. This is going to get very interesting in terms of internal US politics. The Democrats don't trust Trump, including in terms of his motives and judgment in dealing with Iran. They also, in general, oppose war. They're trying to use the War Powers Act to reign him in. But if they do so, and prevent a response to this latest attack, th…

Neocons are in both parties and have influenced both Bush and Obama to “architect” the ME. These are globalists who want to accelerate their global political vision ("democratize" everyone and we’ll all get along). [so they can make their money]

I was under the impression that the globalist vision wasn't about democracy, even though that's the[ir] claim, and that it's really about controlling money and oil.

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#19

Post by [deleted] »

jrs235 wrote: post #18
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neocons are in both parties and have influenced both Bush and Obama to “architect” the ME. These are globalists who want to accelerate their global political vision ("democratize" everyone and we’ll all get along). [so they can make their money]

I was under the impression that the globalist vision wasn't about democracy, even though that's the[ir] claim, and that it's really about controlling money and oil.

[deleted]

Re: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles

#20

Post by elihu »

I wonder how Iraq is going to respond to this? It seems like they've been pretty friendly with Iran lately, but now Iran is lobbing missiles at their country. For that matter, the U.S. lobbed missiles at their country too the other day. I can't imagine they're happy about two major powers lobbing missiles at each other in their territory, but I don't know what they can do to get them to stop in the short term. (Kicking them all out may be the long-term solution.)
Post reply on HN