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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by ericmay »

venzaspa wrote: post #716
kqr wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having difficulty projecting force from the air with fighter bombers launched from air craft carriers and refueling caravans from the Indian Ocean or Mediterranean Sea This is not to be underestimated. It is very rare to be able to project military power far from one's capital. That the US is able to do it at all is remarkable. We should not expect it to be easy.

This is in large part because the US relies on their bases in allied countries at their grace.

We can remove them and do the isolationist thing as many have been clamoring for. Then we have no need for bases in Europe or the Middle East. Gulf States can figure out how to live with a nuclear armed Iran or one that has a repository of thousands of missiles to blow up gulf state infrastructure when they misbehave. We can remove the bases in Europe too, and when Russia invades Lithuania the Spanish and Germans can take care of it.

Or perhaps these bases aren’t just in allied countries “at their grace”. These alliance systems don’t just solely benefit America.

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

#792

Post by torlok »

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…

The USA military is losing equipment sitting unprotected on the tarmac 4 years since Russia invaded Ukraine. Your shining city is a polished turd.

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

#793

Post by lyu07282 »

streetfighter64 wrote: post #311

Typically american to argue that "blasting" people is bad because of tactics or economics or whatever. How about it's bad to kill random people that haven't done you anything just because it's evil to do so? I guess that would involve admitting something about the morality of what the USA has been doing since the end of WWII though...

All establishment media, thinktanks and both parties are pro US imperialism in general which necessitates wars of aggression, you have to read this critique more like it's taking place within the pro-war group. Like everybody is agreeing with the Iran war in principle thats not even up to debate anywhere in the mainstream. It wouldn't even occur to most Americans that "no wars at all" is even an option to begin with. To most, their "freedom" and safety depends on wars thousands of miles away.

One example you can look for (it's everywhere) is in the way Chinese military capabilities are discussed by media like that, what is often brought up against them is "the lack of experience", without a hint of irony alongside the implicit view of china as the dangerous aggressor and rival. Imperialism is just the air they breathe, they don't notice it at all. Peaceful coexistence is not an option.

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

#794

Post by khalic »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
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.

> carriers were already being overwhelmed by regular missiles Where? When? > if it's anywhere near its optimal deployment zone What are you referring to? The entire modern carrier strike group is architected around using stand-off weapons to clear threats to make way for stand-in weapons. The relevant ranges are what your stand-in bombers can hit without re-fuelling versus with. The era of direct firing from ships pa…

Where? Any war games in the last 10 years. It’s a known issue with aircraft carriers agiants anti ship missiles. What’s protecting them right now is what would happen to a country if they attacked one of those. Retribution is not a great defensive capability in the long run.

Contrary to popular belief, an aircraft carrier does more than just launch airplane. Its optimal deployment zone will be defined by the range of its helicopters. So not as far as you think.

Take the helicopters out and you have easily 50% less missions this thing can launch per day.

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

#795

Post by idkduu »

bonesss wrote: post #629
woeirua wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is delusional. Iran has thousands of ASM on the coastline. They need 1 to make it through to take out a tanker. Even the best anti missile systems we have aren’t 99.99% reliable. It was always a losing proposition. Iran has always been able to close the strait. What I don’t get is why we need to take Kharg island. Can’t we just blockade ships selling Iranian oil?

I think the collective take might be too focused on the kinetic picture to see the underlying issue(s). 1) we want Iranian oil flowing and being bought elsewhere for the economy and to avoid hard decisions in Beijing, and as we’ve recently heard ad nausea money is fungible so… if one hasn’t thought to invade, dominate and occupy mountainous terrain filled with holy people, then ‘open’ means money to The Baddies. 2) i…

[flagged]

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

#796

Post by nemomarx »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #574
Animats wrote: post #426

A big mistake here was simply underestimating the scale of Iran. Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine. More than 2x Germany. More than 2x Iraq. More than any country in Europe. About 2/3 of Russia. Expecting to win a war on the cheap was a fantasy. Especially since Iran has been fighting Israel for years. On the naval front, Ukraine sunk the Moskva with a few truck-mounted missiles. That finally made it u…

> The US can't just pull out, either. The enemy gets a vote on when it's over. Israel, Iran, and Yemen now all have to agree Is that really true? Just claim that Iran's Nuclear ambitions have been destroyed, and anyone who needs oil can "Buy it from the US or get it themselves from Hormuz" - mission accomplished! With the US withdrawing (or atleast not attacking), Iran can stop the drone attacks and open Hormuz - col…

How to get Israel to back down in that scenario? They seem pretty committed to keeping this going.

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

#797

Post by bradley13 »

bwv848 wrote: post #617
bradley13 wrote: post #570

Cheap airborne weapons have irreversibly changed warfare. IIRC a Patriot missile costs something like $4 million. Using them to shoot down $50k Shahed drone is a losing proposition. That's not only because of the price, but because the drones can be produced a lot faster. Even Iran's ballistic missiles are a lot cheaper and faster to produce than any defense system that can reliably destroy them.

Nobody is using Patriot to intercept Shaheds. PAC-2/3 are intended for ballistic missiles and fighter jets. In Ukraine, low-flying drones are primarily countered by FPV, MANPADS, drone-hunting aircraft and truck, and EW before point defense SAM and AA gun.

No one should use a Patriot to shoot down a drone, but they certainly have done so.

There are some pretty solid reasons why Ukraine offered consultation - unlike the US, they have actual combat experience against hordes of Shaheds. The US walked into a mess: they overestimated their ability to take out Iranian systems, and underestimated how hard it is to defend against them.

It's embarrassing. Now, the US seems to be looking for some way out, while preserving some dignity and pretending that they "won".

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

#798

Post by cbolton »

sfRattan wrote: post #274
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US no longer uses its army for defense. Nobody in their immediate region dares attack them, they're too powerful ("Godzilla", in the words of John Mearsheimer). All the wars that the US has fought since WWII are nothing to do with defense. Just look at the Wikipedia article on "power projection": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection The leader image is ... a US aircraft carrier (the USS Nimitz). That's…

As an American, I think a better metric for outcomes of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq is: were we trading with the before the war and are we trading with them one generation after the war ? The same is even true of WWII, a more important marker afterward is that we spent the rest of the 20th century trading prosperously with Japan and Germany. Korea: the south became an economic powerhouse with whom we now tr…

Consider the cost on local civilians of the Vietnam and Iraq wars (the GWB war likely killed more Iraqi civilians that Hussein did in 24 years). And the literal trillions of dollar these wars costed. And the real possibility that regime change could have occurred anyway by less horrific means. Are you getting at a tiny silver lining or do you actually think these wars were remotely a good idea?

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

#799

Post by ericmay »

brazzy wrote: post #656
tommica wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my countrymen were killed by my government by the thousands, I'd not be super happy about defending that government. If the enemy does the same kind of mindless killing to the civilians, then I would have different ideas.

> If the enemy does the same kind of mindless killing to the civilians, then I would have different ideas. You mean like bombing a school and killing about 150 schoolgirls? The USA had a lot of local support and goodwill in Afghanistan, and turned it into support for the Taliban, because they kept killing civilians in their attempts to beat the Taliban with bombs, because they wanted to limit the unpopular ground tro…

> You mean like bombing a school and killing about 150 schoolgirls?

Even Hamas knows western powers don’t do this on purpose - which is why they take up arms inside of civilian facilities. The Iranian people know the US doesn’t intentionally kill little girls.

Meanwhile the Iranian government quite literally has killed upwards of 30,000 people (maybe some were little girls even) and is hanging people in the public square for protesting.

Not to mention Iran intentionally targeting apartment complexes and other civilian targets throughout the region. Why are we even talking about the US accidentally blowing up a school? We should be talking about Iran and their revolting crimes instead.

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

#800

Post by torlok »

zmmmmm wrote: post #454

Given it is reported to be successfully targeting Israel with cluster ammunitions in warheads, I am curious what stops Iran from targeting US ships even far outside the strait? I would have thought if you could send multiple missiles with cluster bombs simultaneously at short notice it would be very difficult to counter and impose catastrophic cost. Is anti-missile defense is just that good on ships that no amount of…

It's a waste. Iran can't win against the US army. They'll win by being as disruptive as possible, for as long as possible. They'll keep seldomly launching rockets until they get what they want or the global economy collapses. This whole situation perfectly illustrates that wars are won with intelligence, and not by gung ho "warrior ethos" morons like Hegseth.
Post reply on HN