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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by AngryData »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #889
AngryData wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean its not the US's doing? They knew 100% before going in that the straight being closed would be the result of attacking Iran. If the US didn't attack Iran, there would be no blockade. Its like going into a bar and you start beating people up and so the bar owner kicks everyone out and then you say "It's not my fault the bar closed, it's the bar owner's fault, I merely started the fight that caused the…

Iran doesn't own the strait. They don't have a right to close the bar in the first place. If one guy throws a punch and the other guy responds by throwing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen you don't charge the first guy with arson, even if he "should have known that second guy was crazy".

If the other guy is literally holding a molotov in his hand saying "If you attack me im going to throw this" and then you attack him anyways, then yes it is 50% your fault. You knew what would happen before you did it.

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

#902

Post by dundarious »

t-3 wrote: post #498
dundarious wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership Good at hitting targets, terrible at achieving goals. Same as Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? In terms of resilience, the Iranians are similar, arguably much more so.

> Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? Of course not, because that wasn't the goal and would be impossible, because we were recreating the conditions that led to the Taliban taking control in the first place (corrupt and amoral warlords oppressing the populace). Afghanistan's strategic location and suitability for poppy farming and generating dark money flows is why we went i…

The US state is so large, that there are different constituencies operating within it. There was certainly a group that wanted the new state to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what you said though.

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

#903

Post by dlisboa »

jvanderbot wrote: post #890
dlisboa wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A blanket comparison of Russia's attempts to eliminate Ukraine's industry with US Navy's ability to eliminate Iran's is ... questionable. We've flown 1000s of uncontested sorties over Ukraine, and Russia has been relegated to knocking down apartment buildings with Iran's own drones. Russia has literally taken over the industrial heart of Ukraine in the east and southeast regions. With boots on the ground, tanks, ev…

Think about it this way - if Russia had the US Navy's task force near Ukraine, and the level of air dominance that US has in Iran, do you think Russia would do anything differently? Would they, for example, be making 100s - 1000s of daily aerial strikes anywhere in Ukraine? Because US _does_ have that, and so it _does_ significantly change the calculus. Unless you think it doesn't. In which case, we just disagree.

In the matter of drone production, which was my point, it doesn’t change the calculus. It is evident that short of regime change or popular upheaval Iran can produce or import drones indefinitely and the only thing that can stop it is a ground invasion.

The US Navy or any navy can’t destroy that production from the air.

The evidence is pretty clear on that. We see that is already the case in Ukraine or with Hezbollah and Ansar Allah.

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

#904

Post by superxpro12 »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #717

You can't. Iran only needs to be credible in their threats to make crossing the strait too risky. And for that you only need a few missiles, drones and mines every so often. Asymetric warfare is a hell of a hole to dig oneself into, ain't it?

Please figure out a way to communicate this to our completely inept leadership. We tried. They're too stupid and rich to care.

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

#905

Post by superxpro12 »

hn_throw2025 wrote: post #125

“during WWII, the US Navy… winning the U-boat war in the Atlantic” Sounds like typical US revisionist history. They developed ASDIC? HF/DF? Hedgehog? Even the depth charge? No, that was all the British. I would say technological development plus the Enigma decrypts were the biggest factor.

Also consider the simple fact that, you know, the US was sending entire convoys UNGUARDED for years.

And only when significant losses mounted did they decide to send some escorts.

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

#906

Post by superxpro12 »

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…

Its A LOT EASIER to project machismo manliness than it is to actually carry it out.

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

#907

Post by RobotToaster »

interestpiqued wrote: post #528
RobotToaster wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we just going to ignore the fact that targeting civilian infrastructure is yet another war crime?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. But man haves lots of people who don’t know what a war crime is really devalued the accusation. So much so I read yours and I just assume it isn’t.(again idk)

Will you take the ICRC's word for it? https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/civilian-objects

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

#908

Post by ragall »

ekianjo wrote: post #761
fny wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big mistake was underestimating the appetite for rebellion despite 70%-80% wholesale opposition to the regime.[0] I personally know many, many Iranians who welcome the attacks along with their families. All of the high-profile assassinations involve intelligence from Iranians. However, no one has guns, and government-backed militias roam the streets to maintain order.[1] There is no possibility of military coup.…

> Remember, they killed 30K of their own to quell an uprising.[2] There is absolutely no way to know if it's true or not

It's true. The real numbers are most likely 80-90k.

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

#909

Post by t-3 »

dundarious wrote: post #902
t-3 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? Of course not, because that wasn't the goal and would be impossible, because we were recreating the conditions that led to the Taliban taking control in the first place (corrupt and amoral warlords oppressing the populace). Afghanistan's strategic location and suitability for poppy farming and generating dark money flows is why we went i…

The US state is so large, that there are different constituencies operating within it. There was certainly a group that wanted the new state to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what you said though.

You're very right, it's important not to forget that hindsight makes the cloudiest things clear. At the time, it seemed as if almost everyone supported the invasion and thought we were taking revenge for 9/11 and liberating the oppressed from a brutal theocracy. It was not until later, sometimes much later, that the facts became apparent. Very few people knew that the Taliban had offered to surrender Bin Laden and hand over Al Qaeda members before the invasion, and almost nobody outside the military knew about what kind of people we were supporting in their stead. Even today when the historical situation is relatively clear I don't think many people have really thought much about the many uncomfortable facts of the opiate/opiod "epidemic" and it's connection to that occupation.

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

#910

Post by AnthonyMouse »

maxglute wrote: post #687
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

> 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).

Hyperscalers are probably not a great example because a) they don't really benefit that much from being physically centralized (especially at the building level rather than the regional level) and b) data is one of the easiest things to keep redundant, and then even if you destroy a large facility, backups get restored to another facility or distributed set of facilities with no downtime at all if the target is well-prepared and only a short period of time if they've done even minimum diligence.

The critical ones can also do the "build it on the inside of a mountain" thing and then your capacity to take down grandpa's WordPress is mainly useful to the target for rallying opposition against you.

> whatever targets that worth deterrent value (energy at top of list).

If "energy" turns into solar panels on the roof of every house and widely distributed low density wind farms etc., that's pretty hard to target.

In general centralization is often done because it has economies of scale, but those same economies of scale have diminishing returns. One huge facility reduces certain fixed costs by a million to one (i.e. 99.9999%) over having a million small facilities, but a thousand medium facilities are much harder to target while still reducing them by 99.9% and the remaining 0.0999% is negligible because you're long since already dominated by unit costs. The target can also choose where to take the trade off based on how likely they expect to be targeted. And that's a broadly applicable principle rather than something that only applies to any specific industry.

Post reply on HN