Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#832A 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…
I am not a military expert, but the US theory of war has for a long time started with and was based on airspace dominance/control, and drones/cheap missiles put a serious dent in achieving that. Maybe laser weapons put the balance back toward the side that has them?
" airspace dominance/control,"
Lmao re-writing the history books? That plan of attack can be attributable to the Nazis.
"Maybe laser weapons put the balance back toward the side that has them?" Thats more fiction than reality.
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#833Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anything, this war demonstrates the tyranny and tentacles of the modern state. The well seems forever poisoned once power is lost to despots. Didn’t we just see in Syria that’s not the case. It is supremely hard to nation build a large failing state no matter who’s attempting it. Having the guns to challenge the internal security forces seems like a necessary first step.
Did you not see how long it took in Syria? Did you miss ISIS? the massive number of groups splintered off? Sure people hated Assad but what it took to get rid of him was horrid. If any thing the Iranians are probably scared that this is what will become of them I know I would be.
[deleted]
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#834Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the whole point of having nukes - so others won't attack you.
No, it is not. Russia was attacked by Ukraine multiple times and nukes are still not used. India, Pakistan and China are in various stages of conflicts with each other for decades and all of them are nuke-enabled super-powers. There are three points of having nukes: 1. Deter other countries with nukes from using them against you, or your military ally. 2. Prevent total annihilation in the war. You can lose the war, b…
> they're losing Iran war.
What criteria are you using for this assessment?
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#835Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issues the US faces are political and humanitarian (and economic) rather than military. I don't see any compelling evidence that the US couldn't open the straits if it really wanted to, it's just that the cost in lives and hardware would be unlike anything the US has seen since Vietnam, maybe even the second world war. And of course, once you open the strait, you have to keep it open. The whole thing is a lose-lo…
Given you compare the cost of a US operation to open the straits to the Vietnam War, it seems prudent to mention that the outcome of the Vietnam war, according to Wikipedia, was a North Vietnam victory.
The victory was due to the people at home who protest and is politically against the war.
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#836Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Iran has 90,000,000 people. More than 2x Ukraine Population size is relevant but not the most important factor. Russia has 146,000,000, more than 4x than Ukraine. It doesn't guarantee that Russia will win the war. > On the naval front, Ukraine sunk the Moskva with a few truck-mounted missiles. Ukraine also had Bayraktar TB2 overhead which distracted Moskva's crew and provided targeting information. Russia probably…
Russia is the aggressor, Iran is a defender. That’s a huge difference.
[flagged]
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#837This gives drones way too much credit. The USN knew that Iran could block the strait of Hormuz back in the 80s. Anti-ship missiles were already effective and plentiful enough to do it then and they’ve only gotten more lethal since. The long term solution here is to build pipelines that eliminate the need to sail up the strait. Why this wasn’t done already is beyond me.
how do you pipeline fertilizers?
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#838People don't seem to understand the level of strategic defeat that the US is facing. Not only is the strait closed, but the US Navy has been completely locked out of the Gulf. They do not have a single ship operating there. They cannot service their coastal bases, which now sit empty. The situation is completely unprecedented.
Hopefully the beginning of the end for this Epstein regime in the ME
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#839At the heart of this is the fact that America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale. High tech interceptors and missiles and aircraft carriers are great, but with China's help these are outnumbered by three (soon to be four) orders of magnitude. It's unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes, with not much in between.
What would you manufacture at scale that would open the straits?
If you had an interceptor with a 99% rate of interception (even in such a tight space, and assuming it could intercept underwater as effectively as in air) then if the Iranians fired 50 drones at a ship, they’d have a about a 40% chance of getting at least 1 through (1 - 0.99^50).
So they would likely sink 4 in every 10. No sane insurer let alone captain or crew would take such a risk I think.
This is the issue with interceptors, you need phenomenally high reliability AND very large numbers AND very cheap prices per unit to make them workable.
As it is, I would argue this is a classic example of America trying to solve a POLITICAL problem with MILITARY force. This has never actually succeeded as far as I know. Certainly not on the last few decades.
Re: Why the US Navy won't blast the Iranians and 'open' Strait of Hormuz
#840Earlier 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…
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.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"