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

Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#71

Post by s1artibartfast »

valcker wrote: post #58
Bender wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel, United States, United Kingdom, China and Russia have HEL high-energy lasers that can shoot down fast drones. Several other countries are working on HEL development. The numbers of operational HEL systems are still very small but growing. I believe that Israel have the most of them in operation today developed primarily by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. 10kw to 50kw on trucks, 100kw ground based. Range: 7-10…

What’s the cost of a single laser? Russia is launching hundreds of those per attack, over a large territory. With a range of 5-7km you’d need _a lot_ of lasers to effectively cover a reasonably large city.

It doesnt have to be perfect, just better than the next alternative.

If we take 4 million per interceptor at fact value, you can compare them on cost basis. More area coverage for less money would be a potential benefit. Alternatively, reusability could be a benefit if we expect prolonged conflicts or many more of these situations in the future.

perfect is the enemy of the good

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#73

Post by CamperBob2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
CamperBob2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the link I posted in the other reply. The people we've elected to lead the US are snakes. Even some of the more fanatical Iranians look sane, intelligent, rational, and trustworthy in comparison.

Hyperbole aside, that's irrelevant. Iran doesn't have the option of negotiating with someone else. Their options are to attempt diplomacy or face incremental anihilation as a modern state.

I don't consider it hyperbole. I grew up with those sorts of people. They are capable of beliefs you wouldn't believe.

As for Iran, about all they could have done, in retrospect, was to actually develop nuclear weapons rather than just hemming and hawing and bluffing and stalling for 40+ years. It's amazing that the country that invented chess could blunder that badly.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#74

Post by CamperBob2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
bluegatty wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the U.S. is looking for a quick win if it can have it." ?? What is a 'quick win' ?? Serious question. - Ayatollah dead, next Ayatollah? - 10 years of civil war? - Installation of US-backed Shah, with no real power base, which will lead to ongoing insurrection, which is what led to ... Islamic Revolution ... because we already tried that? - Faux acquiescence at the negotiating table ... while they dig their HQs furth…

> What is a 'quick win' ? An Iranian Delcy Rodriguez. Someone who waives a white flag, accepts Trump's terms and then gets left alone for the most part. Even if it's a bluff to buy time to rebuild, I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate. (I do see Iran's leaders being internally constrained to keep fighting. We saw a similar dynamic in Japan during WWII.)

I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate.

My understanding is that they were actively negotiating, or at least they thought they were. In the middle of the dialogue the lights went out.

Essentially, Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation. The outcome was foreordained.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bluegatty wrote: post #63
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Iran has stockpiles And launchers. > of those drones can be used to hit Oil Tankers ... if there are enough muntions, it will be bad Not really. During the Iran-Iraq war hundreds of tankers were sunk, including in the Strait [1]. Iran's supposed 'nuclear' option was mining the Strait. But for whatever reason, they weren't able to or chose not to do that. > this is going to be an interesting form of attrition on…

The factories are the weak link to all munitions. The Iran-Iraq war was decades ago, every weapon system has changed. Iran has anti-ship missiles they can fire with impunity at tankers - and - as I said Shaheds. Shaheds are not yet used against moving targets, but it's plausible they are ready for that. If they are, then they can close the straits. The reason they would not likely close the straits is that China is t…

> Iran-Iraq war was decades ago, every weapon system has changed

Not the point. The point is when the world was even more dependent on oil, hundreds of tankers getting potted was no more than a major nuisance.

> Iran has anti-ship missiles they can fire with impunity at tankers

But limited launchers. And if by “with impunity” you mean losing launchers every time they fire, sure.

> Shaheds are not yet used against moving targets, but it's plausible they are ready for that

This would be an issue.

> then they can close the straits

As you say, this gives everyone in the Gulf, EU, China and India a motivated reason to ensure the war ends.

Also, Iran closing the Strait (note: singular) is self siege. A legitimate American strategy could be just waiting them out while potting shit from the air.

> the nuclear option is very nuclear

There are no nuclear tactics on the table at this time.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#76

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #73
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole aside, that's irrelevant. Iran doesn't have the option of negotiating with someone else. Their options are to attempt diplomacy or face incremental anihilation as a modern state.

I don't consider it hyperbole. I grew up with those sorts of people. They are capable of beliefs you wouldn't believe. As for Iran, about all they could have done, in retrospect, was to actually develop nuclear weapons rather than just hemming and hawing and bluffing and stalling for 40+ years. It's amazing that the country that invented chess could blunder that badly.

> about all they could have done, in retrospect, was to actually develop nuclear weapons

There were so many mis-steps.

Iran could have rejected autarky. Constrained the IRGC’s corruption. Not funded proxies that pissed off every one of their neighbors (except for, maybe, Turkmenistan).

Not supported Hamas when they decided to deputize a lobotomy ward. Not drip fed Hezbollah’s rockets into Israeli air defenses. Not fired at Israel in a symbolic move in 2024. Not half assed their retaliation in 2025. Not assumed, with full faith, Trump was bluffing and thus not (a) seriously negotiate in Geneva nor (b) bother scattering their navy and air force in anticipation of strikes.

I’d actually argue an indigenous nuke was a strategic blunder for Iran. It cost them their economy and moral standing. Maybe pursuing Russia’s nuclear umbrella would have been a smarter move.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #74
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is a 'quick win' ? An Iranian Delcy Rodriguez. Someone who waives a white flag, accepts Trump's terms and then gets left alone for the most part. Even if it's a bluff to buy time to rebuild, I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate. (I do see Iran's leaders being internally constrained to keep fighting. We saw a similar dynamic in Japan during WWII.)

I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate. My understanding is that they were actively negotiating, or at least they thought they were. In the middle of the dialogue the lights went out. Essentially, Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation. The outcome was foreordained.

> My understanding is that they were actively negotiating

The only parties I’ve seen say this are Iran and Oman. Practically every other source, including non-English, concedes taking three weeks to come close to hashing out a framework isn’t serious.

> Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation

This is nonsense. Netanyahu was pushing Trump. But if the Tehran team had capitulated, Trump would have taken the win. Hell, the capitalization could have been bullshit.

> outcome was foreordained

Of course it wasn’t. Ford wasn’t scrambled until weeks ago.

If you can read translated European, Indian, Chinese and Arab reporting on this, I’d strongly suggest it. The English-language stuff has inherited America’s obsession with Israel. That’s obviously germane here. But it isn’t as controlling as we like to make it seem.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#78

Post by CamperBob2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77
CamperBob2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate. My understanding is that they were actively negotiating, or at least they thought they were. In the middle of the dialogue the lights went out. Essentially, Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation. The outcome was foreordained.

> My understanding is that they were actively negotiating The only parties I’ve seen say this are Iran and Oman. Practically every other source, including non-English, concedes taking three weeks to come close to hashing out a framework isn’t serious. > Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation This is nonsense. Netanyahu was pushing Trump. But if the Tehran team had capitulated, Trump would have…

How can you read things like this: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mg5ylq5phs2s

... and still carry water for Trump?

Honest question, posed with all possible respect to a longtime HN user whom I am certain isn't a bot, an idiot, or a shill. Does Trump sound, to you, like a guy with a plan of his own, who can be trusted to execute that plan? Like someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt?

We're told that "Biden gave everything to Ukraine and didn't bother to replace it," but "Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term," and now we have a "virtually unlimited supply, stocked and ready to WIN BIG!!!"

Where do you, personally, draw the line? What could he say to convince you that he isn't acting in our country's interests, or even his own?

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#79

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #78
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that they were actively negotiating The only parties I’ve seen say this are Iran and Oman. Practically every other source, including non-English, concedes taking three weeks to come close to hashing out a framework isn’t serious. > Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation This is nonsense. Netanyahu was pushing Trump. But if the Tehran team had capitulated, Trump would have…

How can you read things like this: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mg5ylq5phs2s ... and still carry water for Trump? Honest question, posed with all possible respect to a longtime HN user whom I am certain isn't a bot, an idiot, or a shill. Does Trump sound, to you, like a guy with a plan of his own, who can be trusted to execute that plan? Like someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt? We're told tha…

> and still carry water for Trump?

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m carrying water for the evidence.

Iran was not negotiating in good faith regarding giving up their nuclear program. Israel was encouraging but not boxing in American decision making. Witkoff and Kushner were (a) genuinely trying to strike a deal and (b) against kinetics when they started. These are each supported by the preponderance of evidence, far more than their inverses.

> Where do you, personally, draw the line?

Where the evidence does. If that winds up being pro- or anti- whatever party, I’ll look at that second. Facts aren’t partisan.

Re: Iran unleashes Shahed drones aimed at targets across Middle East

#80

Post by CamperBob2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79
CamperBob2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you read things like this: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mg5ylq5phs2s ... and still carry water for Trump? Honest question, posed with all possible respect to a longtime HN user whom I am certain isn't a bot, an idiot, or a shill. Does Trump sound, to you, like a guy with a plan of his own, who can be trusted to execute that plan? Like someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt? We're told tha…

> and still carry water for Trump? I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m carrying water for the evidence. Iran was not negotiating in good faith regarding giving up their nuclear program. Israel was encouraging but not boxing in American decision making. Witkoff and Kushner were (a) genuinely trying to strike a deal and (b) against kinetics when they started. These are each supported by the preponderance of evidence, fa…

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m carrying water for the evidence.

Unfortunately I don't feel that I have access to the "evidence" you're referring to.

Everything I know about the attacks on Iran, I learned from people who lie a lot. That's pretty much all they do. They begin lying shortly after they wake up in the morning but before they get out of bed, and then they don't stop lying until they enter the alpha state that night. After that they probably lie in their dreams, but to be fair I guess I don't have evidence of that either.

Facts aren’t partisan.

Are your non-partisan facts more like Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts," or the kind that are actually true?

Post reply on HN