A lot of the problem is with the current commander in chief's not very good strategy. Iran is huge and populous and would be very expensive to occupy with boots on the ground so no one really wants to go there. Trump thought he could just bomb their military assets and government and things would all be ok but the Iranians have been planning for that for ages and have everything distributed, duplicated and protected. A more normal leader might consult with allies who have been dealing with Iran for decades and make a coherent plan but he ignores them, tariffs them and threatens their territories. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. He could launch 100% of the US's missiles at Iran and still not achive much.
U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
211–220 of 769 posts
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#2123 generations of wealth poured into the most expensive military in recorded history - the reason that we don't have health care, clean energy, decent social safety nets and so many other things... and they can't even control a small stretch of water. What a waste.
I think it's worth pointing out that the US almost certainly could have taken control of the strait. But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc. You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to…
There's control and there's enough control so not a single missile can hit a cargo ship in the strait.
Maritime insurers are understandably conservative. If the ship stays trapped it continues to pay premiums (insurance company wins). If it risks passage it risks a $10M payout (insurance company loses). If there's risk of a single missile the insurers won't allow the ships through. How can an insurance company thousands of miles away stop a ship? "If you risk the passage you're not covered by insurance"
Pretty sure Iran has spent the last 30 years ensuring that they can mount gorilla attacks indefinitely in the face of overwhelming invasion.
That has been their deterrent strategy for decades. Intelligence analysts out front should have told ya.
(A massive invasion would also not open the strait.)
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies.
Until there is. We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. But the reality is that throughout history most leaders have been irrational. My country (America) is behaving increasingly irrationally. I've been hearing fringe conservatives calling for nuking the middle east since the early 2000s, but the rot has spread and became deeply religious. Now I hear talk of the…
>We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb.
Cough, cough. Who is currently in the White House?
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies.
You could fight conventionally over logistics chokepoints. China’s not going to lob nukes just because their oil’s dried up.
China imports food and has stressed or extremely stressed fresh water reserves. You take out the method they keep alive hundreds of millions of citizens, you think they won’t launch a nuke?
Although for all the strategic thinking we’ve seen out of the “department of war” (that offers gender affirming testosterone shots and then runs out of missiles), I wouldn’t be shocked if you worked at the Pentagon, hahahaha.
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#215Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told…
If you look at Taiwan history when the US gave PRC the UN seat and Nixon visited Beijing it was pretty much decided. Taiwan is no West Berlin and everyone knows it.
What about TSMC?
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until there is. We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. But the reality is that throughout history most leaders have been irrational. My country (America) is behaving increasingly irrationally. I've been hearing fringe conservatives calling for nuking the middle east since the early 2000s, but the rot has spread and became deeply religious. Now I hear talk of the…
>We have thus far been supremely lucky that irrational actors have not acquired a nuclear bomb. Cough, cough. Who is currently in the White House?
Read the rest of my comment, I get there eventually.
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#217Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told…
Hey look on the bright side - every time we cut CDC staff by 25% or kick a 100K people off SNAP, we can afford a few more weeks of missiles.
100k people is like 400mil, one day of war is estimated at 2billion dollars. So more like one volley of missiles or 1/5th of a day
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#218That'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…
You can't really stockpile missiles, their explosives and fuel needs to be replaced with some interval, so having a massive stockpile doesn't make that much sense, because it's as you suggests expensive to maintain.
In the case of an war (like you know, a war-war) the US is perfectly capable of ramping up manufacturing to ungodly numbers (but it won't be cheap). I would however like to see what Ukraine does, if they get the go-ahead to start making Patriot missiles. They probably won't just do a run of 50 or 100 missiles and call it a day.
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The USA has never been defeated. It's never been taken over by force and forced to submit to a foreign power. War getting a little too expensive or politically unpopular for their tastes is not really a loss, and it implies nothing about their true capabilities. Except for the capability to prevail in those conflicts. On the other hand the US did prevail in Iraq, and often prevails in smaller interventions such as K…
> Except for the capability to prevail in those conflicts. Doubt. The US suffered around 60k deaths in Vietnam before it pulled out, yet it has proven a willingness to withstand at least 5x more losses than that. WWII cost the US around 300k deaths, its civil war cost around 200k deaths. I think they just didn't want to commit more american lives to whatever objectives it is that they had. They definitely had and sti…
Are you pretending that political losses are not losses? Getting into a war you cannot fund, fuel, or staff and having to retreat is called "losing".
Re: U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the same issue with the conventional bombs and their guidance kits, which when delivered in contested areas are not usually cheaper. The issue is general industrial capacity, not missiles specifically.
JDAM's are a lot cheaper. They are a guidance kit bolted on to a MK-82 gravity bomb. There are a lot of MK-82's in stock, as they have been made since the 1940's. Problem is you put a crew and an expensive airplane at risk. We are out of missiles because the current administration wants to minimize combat losses. Looking at the dollar cost; it seems like a bad idea. But is this war worth any of our soldiers / sailors…
[deleted]