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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by swiftcoder »

paganel wrote: post #603
asa400 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US. If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. After 9/11, there's no world in which an…

> flattened How will the Americans do that? Nuclear bombs? Because it doesn't seem to me that they have the conventional arsenal to flatten a country like Cuba.

Cuba is a relatively small island, and (by area) it's mostly agrarian. Conventional bombing campaign on the industrial and urban centres would send them back to the Iron Age in a matter of days. Which is why this whole scenario is absurd, Cuban leaders aren't about to start a war.

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

#682

Post by [deleted] »

imtringued wrote: post #573
misja111 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. Yes that would be a typical US solution. Let's liberate the Cuban people! By flattening them.

I'm not sure that you can have the moral high ground in a hypothetical scenario where Cuba conspires with Iran to attack the US. At that point both parties are banking on "might makes right".

[deleted]

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

#683

Post by adrian_b »

andrewflnr wrote: post #264

This version of the "end of the power of the aircraft carrier" sounds like it will play out a lot like the end of the tank, the end of the helicopter, etc. Yeah, it's not going to have the same untouchable power it used to. But it's not going to stop being useful or go away either.

Aircraft carriers will always be needed.

However, I doubt that the huge and vulnerable carriers of today have any future.

Carriers designed not for manned aircraft, but only for drones, missiles and guns would allow the use of a much greater number of small carriers instead of a few huge and expensive carriers.

Such carriers could be mostly automated and they would need much smaller crews, instead of being floating cities.

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

#684

Post by [deleted] »

boc wrote: post #318
sph wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 1 reason why I want to see the United States of America and its very loud citizens get a taste of humble pie in this self-inflicted crisis of idiocy with global ramifications. Even when discussing a war that's obviously gone out of hand with no easy resolution in right, there's still this air, this attitude from American commenters that somehow the might and brilliance of the US military will prevail in the en…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#685

Post by psychoslave »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #662
integricho wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is so rich hearing that America can attack anybody, but godforbid an attack on the "homeland" is an unforgivable act that will invoke nukes immediately.

That's how nukes work. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world is divided into haves and have-nots. Anyone lacking effective nuclear response can be steamrolled by those who do with total impunity. The USA has been attacked before but it has never been invaded and forced to fight a war on its own soil against foreign enemies. It's possible that they unconsciously believe war is something they bring to others, nev…

What was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apart, on practical level that’s typical asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.

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

#686

Post by ACCount37 »

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…

Ukrainian war is the way it is because neither side has a decisive advantage in air. There's barely any CAS - there are, however, lightweight drones.

If Iran were to become a major ground war, one of the sides would have air dominance, and we know which one. How that would change things remains to be seen. But it wouldn't be the same exact trench war, that's certain enough.

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

#687

Post by maxglute »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #621
maxglute wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real thought experiment is ~600m people in central/south American within ~6000km, i.e. IRBM range of US gulf coast, where ~50% of US oil refinery and LNG plant production are. Now that Iran has validated mid tier power can cobble together precision strike complex, it's only going to be matter of time before relatively wealthier countries realize only way out of M/Donroe is to build conventional strike against US…

> 50% of PRODUCTION, not plants, as in a few plants responsible for 50% of US refinery / LNG production. This is making a pretty big assumption that the long-term US energy mix is going to stay the way it is. The primary historical impediment to electric vehicles was high up-front cost, in turn driven by high battery costs. However: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-battery-cell-pric... We're soon to have el…

Yes, refinery mismatch vulnerability something that can be built around, ~10-15 year horizon. US can also bring down oil as % of energy mix and distribute renewables. If US smart they would do this.

But at same time, extend IRBM range by 1000km, and replace refineries with hyperscalers, or whatever targets that worth deterrent value (energy at top of list). Refineries just most immediately very high value targets that happens to be closest to missile range.

But the assumption is less about US adaptability/smartness, as the way commodity conventional strikes is trending, CONUS _ will _ be vulnerable eventually. Fortress America is as much function of geography as technology. Just like how 20 years ago Iran couldn't hit Israel or many GCC companies even if it wanted to... now it can. The natural outcome of longer and longer range strikes is at some point US becomes in range of Monroe neighbours who doesnt want to be Monroed.

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

#688

Post by decimalenough »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #667
asa400 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US. If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. After 9/11, there's no world in which an…

> After 9/11, there's no world in which any attack on the US homeland, however small or local, is met with anything other than overwhelming retribution. Yes remember when they invaded Saudi Arabia? That taught everyone an important lesson on the consequences of terrorism on American soil.

The hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the operation was in no way sponsored by the Saudi state, which is a staunch US ally. Which is why the US proceeded to (attempt to) flatten Afghanistan instead.

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

#689

Post by no_shadowban_6 »

vgchh wrote: post #405

Irrespective of the political leadership, it's unlikely that USA military is completely oblivious about the new modes of wars - cheap drones, AI, rapid build-outs (e.g. in China). On the contrary, they are likely deeply aware of it. That being said, it is also likely true that USA has become more bureaucratic and there is a high chance of deer-in-headlights situation. USA remains the shining city on the hill, though…

> unless we pull up socks and innovate, work, work, work and build, build and build.

These days I usually just get AI to do it!

Much more innovative, much more efficient!

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

#690

Post by expedition32 »

imtringued wrote: post #573
misja111 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this happens and Cuba decides to launch drones/missiles against the US homeland, it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon. Yes that would be a typical US solution. Let's liberate the Cuban people! By flattening them.

I'm not sure that you can have the moral high ground in a hypothetical scenario where Cuba conspires with Iran to attack the US. At that point both parties are banking on "might makes right".

If Cuba is attacked they are by international law allowed to strike military targets inside the US.

The US isn't magically off limits.

Post reply on HN