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

Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#171

Post by mrguyorama »

panick21_ wrote: post #54
khalic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol carriers were already being overwhelmed by regular missiles, this now means a multi billion dollar ship can and will be destroyed by cheap drones if it's anywhere near its optimal deployment zone.

You have any evidence for this? Because low cost drones can't fly very far, are easy to spot with radar, are slow as hell and can be shot down with cheap intercepters, or even lasers as the US is already deploying. Traditional anti-shipping missiles are a bigger danger. The optimal deployment zone is far off shore, and there its very hard to reach. Is your point that you can put a huge carrier literally in the strait…

Also the standard Shahed-136 style drones carry less than 200 pounds of explosives, and deliver that to the surface of a target.

Antiship missiles carry larger warheads, often double the size, and deliver that warhead deep inside a warship where it is much more vulnerable. A shahed blowing up on a carrier deck will be upsetting but won't do much. With particularly egregious negligence of standard US Navy damage control methodology, you might cause a lot of damage by fire, like what happened to the Ford. Not that I'm suggesting it was hit by a Shahed.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#172

Post by John23832 »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #156
kashunstva wrote: post #10

Whether or not professional military strategists and planners anticipated this shift in carrier-based projection of power in the era of low-cost drones, it is nearly certain that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military has not. And if the Commander is involved in the either the day-to-day operations or the strategic level of planning, I can’t imagine that whatever reasoning about these shifts in power dy…

How exactly do drones project power globally?

If I you can project power globally , but as soon as a human is put on the ground they're disintegrated by a 100 dollar drone, how important was your ability to get there?

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#173

Post by marcosdumay »

j_maffe wrote: post #21
KingOfCoders wrote: post #13

I don't get that "Strait" discussion. Where does the Strait begin and end? If somehow the US Navy "opens" the Strait, what stops Iran to attack every ship moving in the direction of the Strait? Where does the "protection zone" start and end?

at a range where short-range anti-ship missiles can reach ships from Iranian territory.

So, the entire gulf?

Actual short-range weapons can't cross the strait. The ones that can don't care much about the difference on the rest of the place.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#174

Post by pedroma »

jacquesm wrote: post #166
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale We make plenty of stuff at scale. We just haven’t designed any of military around it since WWII. > unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America.

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Should have worn a suit. The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides the point). Allies come to each others aid, the US ha…

This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#175

Post by pjmorris »

hn_throw2025 wrote: post #125

“during WWII, the US Navy… winning the U-boat war in the Atlantic” Sounds like typical US revisionist history. They developed ASDIC? HF/DF? Hedgehog? Even the depth charge? No, that was all the British. I would say technological development plus the Enigma decrypts were the biggest factor.

Yes.

"When whole squadrons of very long-range aircraft were operating out of bases in the Shetlands, Northern Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland (and, after mid-1943, the Azores), and when the Bay of Biscay could be patrolled all through the night by aircraft equipped with centimetric radar, Leigh Lights, depth charges, acoustic torpedoes, even rockets, Doenitz’s submarines knew no rest." [0]

[0] Kennedy, Paul. Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned The Tide in the Second World War, from the chapter 'How to Get Convoys Safely Across the Atlantic'

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#176

Post by thaumasiotes »

Balgair wrote: post #113

In chapter 11 of All Quiet on the Western Front Paul and his unit find an abandoned food cache in the middle of no mans land. Instead of secreting away the food back to their lines where they will have to share it, they decide to just cook and eat it right then and there. But a spotter plane from the allies sees the smoke and then begins shelling their position. Cue a terrifying, if hilarious, scene where the soldier…

> Cue a terrifying, if hilarious, scene where the soldiers try and cook pancakes as shells explode around them.

In the 1974 movie The Four Musketeers, Athos needs to find a private place in which to impart some information to d'Artagnan. The musketeers are currently deployed battling some French rebels.

The solution he finds is to place a bet with another soldier that he and his friends will have breakfast inside a fortress that is being bombarded by the rebels. We see a similar comedy scene of five people attempting to cook and eat a meal while under attack. (Athos also struggles to get his information across, since the constant attacks understandably pull a lot of attention.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aezX4lxCaCw

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#177

Post by trevithick »

forinti wrote: post #167

In the movie Thirteen Days, JFK mentions a book titled March of Folly by Barbara Tuchmann. I bought the book on that tip and it has an interesting chapter on Vietnam. I don't think adding a chapter on this "special operation" would even be worth it as it would just be repetitive.

How does that book fit in the timeline? It was published in 1984.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#178

Post by colordrops »

pjc50 wrote: post #107
recursivedoubts wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a strong majority of the united states citizens are against the war, despite a full court propaganda press against the right and a no-kings distraction op against the left https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/03/25/americans-br... don't confuse american citizens with the bought-and-paid talking & tweeting heads we are forced to live with

"No Kings" isn't a distraction, it's very tangible popular opposition, and they're certainly not in favor of the war?

They don't even mention the country Iran or the war by name, because it's a DNC op and the DNC also supports war in Iran. They don't mention Israel or Gaza, because the main organizers and funders are Zionist. They have no concrete demands. It's a distraction, a release valve, controlled opposition.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#179

Post by jacquesm »

pedroma wrote: post #174
jacquesm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Should have worn a suit. The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides the point). Allies come to each others aid, the US ha…

This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.

I think when you start to threaten your former allies by wanting to attack/invade them you probably should be dinged in the trust department for that.

The same goes for when you try to strongarm a country into fabricating evidence to shore up your lies.

The USA was an ally in 1945 and has since steadily eroded that. In 2001 they briefly regained a lot of sympathy but squandered it just as fast and now we're at low tide. And I wonder how much lower it will go before people with common sense will be back at the helm and reparation of the relationship can begin, but I don't expect the aftershocks of this to be gone quickly.

And no, help was not offered '90% of the time'. Most of the time it was just business in disguise, altruism did not factor into it as far as I can see.

Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz

#180

Post by zardo »

freefaler wrote: post #133
chneu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just came up yesterday in the sauna with a bunch of dudes. Everything feels unique and special, but we're just repeating history again. Nothing about this situation is actually unique. Change a few names, a few numbers like the year or GPS coords, but most everything today is just history repeating itself. Don't let capitalism convince us to do bad stuff cuz it makes us feel like the moment is special. It isn't.…

How is capitalism in the wrong here? Resource warfare is universal trough the history in any society. The check and balances of the US President that can start an offensive war is more a political problem, not "capitalism" problem.

It's a contributor factor through the usual pro-war think tanks funded by weapons companies.

But, yeah the choice of Iran now isn't at all explained by "capitalism".

Post reply on HN