5 ms·

> The US navies ships are good for real wars This is a real war.

bawolff 7mo ago
More to the point, if your military is only good when enemies attack you the way you want them to, you don't have a good military.
- glitchc 7mo ago
  Nonsense. Every military is built to counter certain types of enemies. Nations that win predict correctly, nations that lose predict incorrectly. History is littered with examples.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- whynotminot 7mo ago
  Pretty sure anyone who fights the US military finds out pretty fast it’s a good military. It isn’t perfect. It has flaws. War is hard to get right in every dimension.
  - nick238 7mo ago
    The US military is extremely good at doing specific objectives. All militaries are garbage at changing hearts and minds. That's what diplomacy is for.
  - csomar 7mo ago
    > Pretty sure anyone who fights the US military finds out pretty fast it’s a good military. I am not sure about that. Iraq, Afghanistan, to name the new ones and Vietnam to name an old one. Sure you can take an easy/undisciplined target like Maduro. But many armies in the world can also do that. Another thing that has to be recognized: alternative warfare (ie: terrorism) is a legitimate form of warfare regardless of its morality. You can't, in my opinion, claim military supremacy while not being able to contain these other risks. Another upcoming one: cyber-warfare.
    - whynotminot 7mo ago
      > Sure you can take an easy/undisciplined target like Maduro. You think what the US military did there was easy? lol. Lmao, even.
  - serioussecurity 7mo ago
    We win battles and lose wars. Haven't won a war since WW2 and arguably Russia would have won without us.
    - unclebucknasty 7mo ago
      Arguably is an understatement. Perhaps you're considering only the European theater, but even that would have been significantly more challenging for Russia without the U.S. tying up (and degrading) Axis resources and manpower throughout Europe and elsewhere (e.g. the Pacific). Japan could have very well opened an eastern front for Russia. And, it was the U.S. that forced a two front war that prevented Germany's fuller focus on Russia's western front (millions fewer troops). Not to mention U.S. logistical and material support to the Soviet Union, which may well have prevented their industrial collapse. Even with all of this support, the fatality rates for Russia were astronomical. To this day, it boggles my mind that one nation lost ~26 million people in a single war. Hard to imagine how they would have succeeded without the U.S.
    - cthalupa 7mo ago
      I generally agree that Americans tend to downplay the impact of Russia in WW2 but there is zero chance Russia would have won the war without the US. Even Lend-Lease going away would have resulted in a loss. Both Stalin and Kruschev agreed there. The British Commonwealth was the biggest factor in Africa, but it's questionable how quickly they could have won out and taken the Suez without the Americans coming in late in 42, which was critical for both vital supplies like oil and also invading Italy. Japan was already getting bogged down with China and even Burma so they wouldn't have suddenly been free to do much in the European theater but just getting Italy out of the fight and forcing Germany to replace their divisions elsewhere. Italy exiting the war removed 30+ divisions between the Balkans and France, while another 70 Axis divisions were being held down by Allied forces in the Mediterranean during D-Day, with there being 33 Axis divisions in Normandy for D-Day itself. A lack of US involvement also likely means that Germany is able to hold Caucasus for longer (and take more of the oil fields), solving a sizable portion of their oil shortage issues. With Lend-Lease but no active participation in the war from a military deployment standpoint, the UK and USSR do likely eventually win but at much greater cost and not without risk of losing. Without Lend-Lease it is highly possible that the Axis wins, at least in the European theater. Japan had kind of set themselves up to lose from the start no matter what the US did.
  - sriram_malhar 7mo ago
    Sure, they will find out it is a good military. No doubt about that. What the US has found out repeatedly but fails to acknowledge is that the opposition proves to be a match. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia have shown just how deep reserves of human resilience and arsenal of guerrilla tactics they have. This doesn't fit the US's mindset about how war is to be waged. Meanwhile, the American public wants a quick skirmish and a bold "We WON" claim .. it has no appetite for body bags coming home and the price of oil rising. Which is why if China makes a move on Taiwan, the US can do nothing.
    - whynotminot 7mo ago
      I agree with your statement that human resilience can outlast a better army. But then you go on to say: > Which is why if China makes a move on Taiwan, the US can do nothing. If your opening thesis is true, then it's strange you follow it up with that. Taiwan has just as much a chance of outlasting a stronger competitor as those other countries that resisted US dominance. And with the US providing them weapons, intelligence, and support, maybe a better chance. See Ukraine.
      - sriram_malhar 7mo ago
        You are right to some extent. But there are huge differences between all the wars the US has fought and is currently involved in, and a China-Taiwan war. Taiwan is only a couple of miles from mainland China at its closest point. It is possible to land large numbers of boots on the ground. Next, unlike the US, the Chinese govt is not dependent on the approval of its citizens for waging a war. It exercises complete control of the media, and squelches dissent immediately. AndIt has the largest navy in the world and a relatively modern fleet, and the supply chain is very very short. The US has no leverage over China.
        whynotminot 7mo ago
        You’re describing all the advantages that Russia in theory had when it invaded Ukraine. That war remains in stalemate. With US support and the resilience and ingenuity of their people, Ukraine has persisted. > It is possible to land large numbers of boots on the ground. I think you need to do more research on how challenging a Taiwan invasion would be. It is nowhere near as simple as “just cross the strait. Put those boots on the ground.” There is a reason it has not happened. It would be incredibly logistically challenging.
- nick238 7mo ago
  Nowadays it's about efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Sure, 99% of the time a Shahed-136 might "lose" against a Patriot, but a Patriot missile costs 200x what a Shahed does. Laser and EWar approaches are going to be more successful long-term as the price per "shot" is dramatically less, but deployments are slow.
  - bawolff 7mo ago
    > Sure, 99% of the time a Shahed-136 might "lose" against a Patriot, but a Patriot missile costs 200x what a Shahed does. From what i understand, i think people use other systems than patriots to shoot down Shaheds except as a last resort. So the cost difference is bad, but its not nearly as bad as it would be if you were using something like a patriot for every drone.
  - Tade0 7mo ago
    Ukraine has been striking down Shaheds with even cheaper drones for several years now. No reason to use unproven technology when there's a practical means available.
  - jandrewrogers 7mo ago
    The US uses APKWS and similar against Shahed-136. These guided missiles are cheaper than the Shahed-136. Why would you assume the US uses Patriot missiles against a Shahed-136? That isn’t part of their doctrine and the flight profile is a poor fit. These have been operational in the US military for almost 15 years now and are widely deployed in the Middle East. You may want to update your priors. The US military anticipated all of this. While these are cheaper than the Shahed-136, lasers have the advantage of unlimited magazine depth, so it is obvious why the US would invest in that.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      > Why would you assume the US uses Patriot missiles against a Shahed-136? It's a demonstrable fact they're using them against drones. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/patriot-missile-involved-bahrain-blast-likely-us-operated-analysis-finds-2026-03-22/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/patriot-missile-invol... https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-million-dollar-missiles-a-fix-is-in-the-works-2afff48a https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...
nntwozz 7mo ago
You mean Special Military Operation, comrade.
throwawayffffas 7mo ago
Sure, but keeping the straight open is not really important, sure gas, fertilizers and a few other commodities are going to get more expensive, but there is no need to put thousands of sailors in harms way. The US navy ships, in this war have performed admirably, they have performed over 850 tomahawk strikes, and navy airplanes have performed thousands of sorties. And have had no casualties due to enemy action. I can't imagine a way they could have performed better.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  You need to define some kind of objective to be able to say whether or not you've performed well or not. Nobody doubts that USA can destroy a significant chunk of the planet, but to what end?
  - throwawayffffas 7mo ago
    The objective I am using, is the objective they were given. They were told to bomb a bunch of targets. And they did and without casualties. That means they performed their jobs well. Clearly the strategy behind the "bomb a bunch of stuff" objective is muddled at best, but that does not reflect badly against the navy. But to the people that set their objectives.
    - losvedir 7mo ago
      I think the point is it's like the parable of the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight, because that's where the light is. The Navy is performing well at the things it's being tasked with because it's only being tasked with things it can do well! But I think the point of this thread is that it still reflects poorly on the Navy if those things aren't actually useful in this war. They say generals are always preparing for the previous war and perhaps that's happening here.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      You are conflating execution capability and force protection with achievement. Meanwhile, lots of innocent lives have been lost, the regime is still where it was before even if some of the faces have changed, there is an E2 that is missing a little piece of its tail, the price of oil has gone up considerably (that may have been an actual objective) and we've been distracted for a while from the Epstein files. If you think there was an item in the above list that qualifies as an objective then that's fine by me but for me these do not cross that threshold.
jillesvangurp 7mo ago
It's not the first time that overwhelming force fails to deliver results for the US when they get bogged down in an asymmetric war. The Korean and Vietnam wars last century still involved air carriers parked off the coast of Korea and Vietnam. But in the end, those wars turned into messy grinds. And even with extensive navy and air support resulted in eventual withdrawal/cease fires on unfavorable terms. Vietnam especially was painful. Asymmetric war fare against a determined enemy is just hard and it always has been. Cheap drones and missiles are part of wars like that now. You can stash them all over the place and dig in. The Russians learned that the hard way in Afghanistan. As did the British before them. And more recently the US of course. The withdrawal from Afghanistan rivaled that of the one in Vietnam. Complete with chaotic scenes of people desperately trying to get out. That's only a few years ago. In the Gulf, the Houthis still pose a threat after years of determined efforts to take them out. In the same way, it took the Israeli's very long to neutralize Hamas in Gaza. And that's a few tens of miles away from their capital. Same with Hezbollah on their northern border. In Iraq, IEDs kept grinding away at the US forces long after victory was declared. And that was with massive amounts of boots on the ground and the country fully defeated and occupied. Iran of course has been supplying weaponry for proxy wars like this for decades. Iran is much bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan and much better prepared for a land/guerilla war on their own territory. The country was built on asymmetric warfare like this and has had decades to prepare and dig in and lots of experience via the various proxy wars I mentioned. The unfortunate reality is that that straight is only going to open when Iran decides that is in their interest.

More to the point, if your military is only good when enemies attack you the way you want them to, you don't have a good military.

glitchc 7mo ago
Nonsense. Every military is built to counter certain types of enemies. Nations that win predict correctly, nations that lose predict incorrectly. History is littered with examples.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
whynotminot 7mo ago
Pretty sure anyone who fights the US military finds out pretty fast it’s a good military. It isn’t perfect. It has flaws. War is hard to get right in every dimension.
- nick238 7mo ago
  The US military is extremely good at doing specific objectives. All militaries are garbage at changing hearts and minds. That's what diplomacy is for.
- csomar 7mo ago
  > Pretty sure anyone who fights the US military finds out pretty fast it’s a good military. I am not sure about that. Iraq, Afghanistan, to name the new ones and Vietnam to name an old one. Sure you can take an easy/undisciplined target like Maduro. But many armies in the world can also do that. Another thing that has to be recognized: alternative warfare (ie: terrorism) is a legitimate form of warfare regardless of its morality. You can't, in my opinion, claim military supremacy while not being able to contain these other risks. Another upcoming one: cyber-warfare.
  - whynotminot 7mo ago
    > Sure you can take an easy/undisciplined target like Maduro. You think what the US military did there was easy? lol. Lmao, even.
- serioussecurity 7mo ago
  We win battles and lose wars. Haven't won a war since WW2 and arguably Russia would have won without us.
  - unclebucknasty 7mo ago
    Arguably is an understatement. Perhaps you're considering only the European theater, but even that would have been significantly more challenging for Russia without the U.S. tying up (and degrading) Axis resources and manpower throughout Europe and elsewhere (e.g. the Pacific). Japan could have very well opened an eastern front for Russia. And, it was the U.S. that forced a two front war that prevented Germany's fuller focus on Russia's western front (millions fewer troops). Not to mention U.S. logistical and material support to the Soviet Union, which may well have prevented their industrial collapse. Even with all of this support, the fatality rates for Russia were astronomical. To this day, it boggles my mind that one nation lost ~26 million people in a single war. Hard to imagine how they would have succeeded without the U.S.
  - cthalupa 7mo ago
    I generally agree that Americans tend to downplay the impact of Russia in WW2 but there is zero chance Russia would have won the war without the US. Even Lend-Lease going away would have resulted in a loss. Both Stalin and Kruschev agreed there. The British Commonwealth was the biggest factor in Africa, but it's questionable how quickly they could have won out and taken the Suez without the Americans coming in late in 42, which was critical for both vital supplies like oil and also invading Italy. Japan was already getting bogged down with China and even Burma so they wouldn't have suddenly been free to do much in the European theater but just getting Italy out of the fight and forcing Germany to replace their divisions elsewhere. Italy exiting the war removed 30+ divisions between the Balkans and France, while another 70 Axis divisions were being held down by Allied forces in the Mediterranean during D-Day, with there being 33 Axis divisions in Normandy for D-Day itself. A lack of US involvement also likely means that Germany is able to hold Caucasus for longer (and take more of the oil fields), solving a sizable portion of their oil shortage issues. With Lend-Lease but no active participation in the war from a military deployment standpoint, the UK and USSR do likely eventually win but at much greater cost and not without risk of losing. Without Lend-Lease it is highly possible that the Axis wins, at least in the European theater. Japan had kind of set themselves up to lose from the start no matter what the US did.
- sriram_malhar 7mo ago
  Sure, they will find out it is a good military. No doubt about that. What the US has found out repeatedly but fails to acknowledge is that the opposition proves to be a match. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia have shown just how deep reserves of human resilience and arsenal of guerrilla tactics they have. This doesn't fit the US's mindset about how war is to be waged. Meanwhile, the American public wants a quick skirmish and a bold "We WON" claim .. it has no appetite for body bags coming home and the price of oil rising. Which is why if China makes a move on Taiwan, the US can do nothing.
  - whynotminot 7mo ago
    I agree with your statement that human resilience can outlast a better army. But then you go on to say: > Which is why if China makes a move on Taiwan, the US can do nothing. If your opening thesis is true, then it's strange you follow it up with that. Taiwan has just as much a chance of outlasting a stronger competitor as those other countries that resisted US dominance. And with the US providing them weapons, intelligence, and support, maybe a better chance. See Ukraine.
    - sriram_malhar 7mo ago
      You are right to some extent. But there are huge differences between all the wars the US has fought and is currently involved in, and a China-Taiwan war. Taiwan is only a couple of miles from mainland China at its closest point. It is possible to land large numbers of boots on the ground. Next, unlike the US, the Chinese govt is not dependent on the approval of its citizens for waging a war. It exercises complete control of the media, and squelches dissent immediately. AndIt has the largest navy in the world and a relatively modern fleet, and the supply chain is very very short. The US has no leverage over China.
      - whynotminot 7mo ago
        You’re describing all the advantages that Russia in theory had when it invaded Ukraine. That war remains in stalemate. With US support and the resilience and ingenuity of their people, Ukraine has persisted. > It is possible to land large numbers of boots on the ground. I think you need to do more research on how challenging a Taiwan invasion would be. It is nowhere near as simple as “just cross the strait. Put those boots on the ground.” There is a reason it has not happened. It would be incredibly logistically challenging.
nick238 7mo ago
Nowadays it's about efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Sure, 99% of the time a Shahed-136 might "lose" against a Patriot, but a Patriot missile costs 200x what a Shahed does. Laser and EWar approaches are going to be more successful long-term as the price per "shot" is dramatically less, but deployments are slow.
- bawolff 7mo ago
  > Sure, 99% of the time a Shahed-136 might "lose" against a Patriot, but a Patriot missile costs 200x what a Shahed does. From what i understand, i think people use other systems than patriots to shoot down Shaheds except as a last resort. So the cost difference is bad, but its not nearly as bad as it would be if you were using something like a patriot for every drone.
- Tade0 7mo ago
  Ukraine has been striking down Shaheds with even cheaper drones for several years now. No reason to use unproven technology when there's a practical means available.
- jandrewrogers 7mo ago
  The US uses APKWS and similar against Shahed-136. These guided missiles are cheaper than the Shahed-136. Why would you assume the US uses Patriot missiles against a Shahed-136? That isn’t part of their doctrine and the flight profile is a poor fit. These have been operational in the US military for almost 15 years now and are widely deployed in the Middle East. You may want to update your priors. The US military anticipated all of this. While these are cheaper than the Shahed-136, lasers have the advantage of unlimited magazine depth, so it is obvious why the US would invest in that.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    > Why would you assume the US uses Patriot missiles against a Shahed-136? It's a demonstrable fact they're using them against drones. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/patriot-missile-involved-bahrain-blast-likely-us-operated-analysis-finds-2026-03-22/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/patriot-missile-invol... https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-million-dollar-missiles-a-fix-is-in-the-works-2afff48a https://www.wsj.com/world/america-downs-cheap-drones-with-mi...

nntwozz 7mo ago

You mean Special Military Operation, comrade.

throwawayffffas 7mo ago

Sure, but keeping the straight open is not really important, sure gas, fertilizers and a few other commodities are going to get more expensive, but there is no need to put thousands of sailors in harms way. The US navy ships, in this war have performed admirably, they have performed over 850 tomahawk strikes, and navy airplanes have performed thousands of sorties. And have had no casualties due to enemy action. I can't imagine a way they could have performed better.

jacquesm 7mo ago
You need to define some kind of objective to be able to say whether or not you've performed well or not. Nobody doubts that USA can destroy a significant chunk of the planet, but to what end?
- throwawayffffas 7mo ago
  The objective I am using, is the objective they were given. They were told to bomb a bunch of targets. And they did and without casualties. That means they performed their jobs well. Clearly the strategy behind the "bomb a bunch of stuff" objective is muddled at best, but that does not reflect badly against the navy. But to the people that set their objectives.
  - losvedir 7mo ago
    I think the point is it's like the parable of the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight, because that's where the light is. The Navy is performing well at the things it's being tasked with because it's only being tasked with things it can do well! But I think the point of this thread is that it still reflects poorly on the Navy if those things aren't actually useful in this war. They say generals are always preparing for the previous war and perhaps that's happening here.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    You are conflating execution capability and force protection with achievement. Meanwhile, lots of innocent lives have been lost, the regime is still where it was before even if some of the faces have changed, there is an E2 that is missing a little piece of its tail, the price of oil has gone up considerably (that may have been an actual objective) and we've been distracted for a while from the Epstein files. If you think there was an item in the above list that qualifies as an objective then that's fine by me but for me these do not cross that threshold.

jillesvangurp 7mo ago

It's not the first time that overwhelming force fails to deliver results for the US when they get bogged down in an asymmetric war. The Korean and Vietnam wars last century still involved air carriers parked off the coast of Korea and Vietnam. But in the end, those wars turned into messy grinds. And even with extensive navy and air support resulted in eventual withdrawal/cease fires on unfavorable terms. Vietnam especially was painful. Asymmetric war fare against a determined enemy is just hard and it always has been. Cheap drones and missiles are part of wars like that now. You can stash them all over the place and dig in. The Russians learned that the hard way in Afghanistan. As did the British before them. And more recently the US of course. The withdrawal from Afghanistan rivaled that of the one in Vietnam. Complete with chaotic scenes of people desperately trying to get out. That's only a few years ago. In the Gulf, the Houthis still pose a threat after years of determined efforts to take them out. In the same way, it took the Israeli's very long to neutralize Hamas in Gaza. And that's a few tens of miles away from their capital. Same with Hezbollah on their northern border. In Iraq, IEDs kept grinding away at the US forces long after victory was declared. And that was with massive amounts of boots on the ground and the country fully defeated and occupied. Iran of course has been supplying weaponry for proxy wars like this for decades. Iran is much bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan and much better prepared for a land/guerilla war on their own territory. The country was built on asymmetric warfare like this and has had decades to prepare and dig in and lots of experience via the various proxy wars I mentioned. The unfortunate reality is that that straight is only going to open when Iran decides that is in their interest.