6 ms·
What are A-10s doing there? There isn't yet any ground operation, right?
by gpderetta 7mo ago
What are A-10s doing there? There isn't yet any ground operation, right?
- alfalfasprout 7mo agoWell, A-10s are well suited for strafing runs, etc. Presumably they'd be sent in if the area they're entering is presumed safe. That clearly didn't pan out. The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not) It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.
- ifyoubuildit 7mo ago> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?
- IncreasePosts 7mo ago[flagged]
- i_love_retros 7mo agoBringing democracy and freedom to the world by bombing school children. God bless America!
- orthoxerox 7mo agoThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of school children.
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoIn line with that logic, how is Ukraine protecting its freedom by bombing an ice rink in belgorod?
- wat10000 7mo agoAttacking your attacker defends your freedom. Spontaneously attacking another country does not protect their freedom.
- oh_sigh 7mo agoThose children who were at the ice skating rink were also attacking Ukraine? Quite precocious!
- wat10000 7mo agoAn unfortunate and unintended consequence of counterattacking the invader. Very different from bombing a school due to bad intelligence in an unprovoked attack.
- senderista 7mo ago[flagged]
- the_why_of_y 7mo agoWhy would Ukraine mine their own cities? Unlike Russia, Ukraine signed the Ottawa Treaty that bans anti-personnel mines in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty A more likely explanation is that butterfly mines were dropped by Russian armed forces; see Human Rights Watch: Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy. There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/15/background-briefing-landmine-use-ukraine https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/15/background-briefing-land... https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/ukraine-conflict-likely-russia-using-scatterable-anti-personnel-mines-in-donbas-mod-3796945 https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/ukraine-conflict-likely-... Of course this is all tradition to bring rebellious minorities back into Russkiy Mir, just look at how Grozny looked in 2000. That was Putin's first war, started when he was prime minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes
- inigoalonso 7mo agoAs a person who believes in democracy, don't you think it should be the US Congress the one declaring war?
- deeg 7mo agoSupporting an illegal war would be a funny way to support democracy. Or maybe they believe in democracies that ignore their constitution.
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoSure, but that ship sailed about 75 years ago with the Korean "police action". In any case a slightly dysfunctional democracy is in a totally different realm than a theocratic quasi hereditary dictatorship
- wat10000 7mo agoWhat do you think the odds are that this war results in more democracy?
- dylan604 7mo agoLike my math teacher was oft heard saying, "approaches zero".
- rurp 7mo agoThis is what bringing democracy looks like?! The regime is more entrenched than ever and our commander in chief keeps threatening to commit war crimes on a massive scale. If he follows through on what he says he will do and obliterates all the civilian infrastructure in the country it will kill mass numbers of innocent people and turn millions of survivors into impoverished refugees. As bad as the regime is, and it's very bad, what we're doing is even worse for most Iranians and the odds a democratic government arises from the ashes of our bombing campaign is incredibly unlikely.
- watwut 7mo agoLiterally none of the fighting countries want Iran to be democratic. Neither USA nor Israel nor Iran. Israel dont want the country functional and would prevent democracy. USA idea of regime change is to keep regime, change head for someone who pays extortion money. And if Iranian leadership wanted democracy they would have one. Not sure if you noticed, but American admin loves dictators and insults democracies So ,WTF are you talking about here. Also, bombing city with that double tap tactic during protests ensures you kill protesters.
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoHaving Iran be "non functional" would just be asking for even more hardliners take over, like what happened in syria. I don't take this to be actually indicative of their viewpoints.
- kergonath 7mo agoOr in Gaza, and it is not an accident. As far as they are concerned it’s working great. Israel is in a state of permanent warfare, which completely silences any kind of debate about what country it wants to be, enables racist nationalists who can freely go about burning villages, and it keeps Bibi out of prison. None of what has happened in the last 20 years or so in the region strikes me as particularly well thought out with a long term strategy besides keeping all their neighbours in the Middle Ages.
- senderista 7mo agoThere is a reason that Israel is arming criminal gangs in Gaza (which Bibi even publicly admitted).
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- ifyoubuildit 7mo agoWould you say you fall into the hardcore trump base category?
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoNo, I disagree with trump on most things, including possibly why he started the war.
- bdbdbdb 7mo agoWhy did he start the war?
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoWell, I have no idea. I'm just guessing it's not the reason I like the war. I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action. Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning. It could be as simple as "Iran kept trying to assassinate me so I'm going to assassinate them". Maybe he was pressured by Israel, I really have no idea.
- arkensaw 7mo ago> I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action This might be the wildest opinion I've read. You're onboard with the US bombing another country ("I like the war"), but you don't know, or care WHY. You just think it was a good idea. "Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning." I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you re-read your own words, you've just said a random citizen like yourself can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion, yet you gave us your opinion, which is that you think they should have bombed Iran.
- 7mo ago
- cheema33 7mo ago> As a person who believes in democracy, I'm pretty on board with it. As others have stated. This war will not bring democracy. Bombing Iranians have united them with the regime. Also, US and Israel do not want a democracy in Iran. Israel would prefer a non-functioning place like Palestine or a mostly non-functional place like Lebanon that they can easily control.
- vkou 7mo agoIt might bring some democracy to the US, though. There is hope for the midterms.
- Saline9515 7mo agoYes, bombing schools, universities and dessalination plants is a sure way to have more democracy in a country. Especially double taps where you kill the rescuers. The US have so many examples where they did so and worked!
- FireBeyond 7mo agoOh, didn't you hear, we actually _triple tapped_ the school, so after the first wave of rescuers was also hit, anyone who came to help was also attacked. Totally not a war crime.
- spwa4 7mo agoWhere do you even find this? Even if true, it's legally incorrect, btw. There are 2 kinds of warcrimes: Rome treaty (the only legal definition) and Geneva convention. The Rome treaty allows countries to opt-out of the treaty, and then nothing on their territory qualifies as a war crime. Iran has opted out of the Rome treaty, and so when it comes to international law, nothing that happens on Iranian soil is a war crime. And we all know WHY islamists want it that way. But of course they will confuse matters as propaganda ... Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations. And ignoring that EVERY attack Iran executed in the 2 days was a warcrime in that definition. Every last one. They didn't even try to go after military targets for days. But ignoring that. What warcrimes do, in the sense of the Geneva convention, is that they are justifications for the UNSC to intervene, should it want to. Well, Russia, China and France have just declared that the UNSC does not follow the reasoning that these are warcrimes. Not because they don't believe Geneva convention violations aren't heinous crimes (of course Iran has violated it constantly for 50+ years with constant heinous crimes), but that these states don't see any reason to act.
- Saline9515 7mo agoIt's in the wikipedia notice, if you ever tried to search it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack "According to witness accounts verified by satellite-based analyses, the school was triple tapped by three distinct strikes." War crime isn't just a legal definition, just like the world was genocide-free before WW2. And by your reasoning it's totally fine to genocide people as long as no treaty/law prevents it. Of course it isn't. Most people would agree to say that bombing a school or a dessalination plant is a war crime, whatever the convention was signed before. Schoolchildren are not responsible for the IRGC's actions.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- idiotsecant 7mo agoIf this is a troll it is masterful. If it's an honest opinion I would invite you to check your skull for unexpected holes where your brain may have fallen out.
- FpUser 7mo ago>"As a person who believes in democracy" Is this a new spelling of fuck whatever semblance of international laws we have and big dicks do as they please?
- YZF 7mo agoApparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppose-sending-ground-troops-to-iran-march-27-30-2026-economist-yougov-poll https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos... https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-approval https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro... Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.
- ifyoubuildit 7mo agoYour first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.
- YZF 7mo agoI lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.
- kitsune1 7mo ago[dead]
- smcin 7mo agoThe first link (YouGov) in fact is even less enthusiastic than GP quoted: 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran. (setting aside that it's illegal under international law, and unauthorized by Congress)
- Esophagus4 7mo agoI also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign. People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour. This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo agoSurprisingly so, I would say. Without going into any identifying details, my buddy, who is otherwise fairly reasonable, thinks it was. I disagree. Reported country split ( US ) seems to fall some along common political lines though, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised. Then again.. I can no longer can rely on those surveys in any meaningful way.
- markdown 7mo ago> seems to fall some along common political lines though While true, I think it's more correct to say that the determining factor is which television news media people most readily consume.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- drnick1 7mo agoI think that you will find that many people think that we ought to solve the 50 year old problem in the Mideast once and for all. Now that the Russians are busy, that Venezuela is down, that Syria has fallen, and that the Chinese are minding their own business is a good time to decapitate Iran. Also Cuba is next.
- ifyoubuildit 7mo agoWhat exactly are the problem and the solution?
- drnick1 7mo agoPermanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.
- ifyoubuildit 7mo agoAny guesses on how long that will take, what it will cost, and the odds if it happening at all?
- drnick1 7mo agoNo idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict. The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.
- 7sigma 7mo agoYou're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do. Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
- dotancohen 7mo ago> How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea? Almost every single Iranian in the diaspora. And every person who heard Iran chant Death To America while building a nuclear program and a ballistic missile program.
- verzali 7mo agoWay to go proving Iran right. Who wouldn't want to eliminate a nation that bombs and kills your civilians?
- dotancohen 7mo agoSo I see that you agree that Israel must destroy a significant portion of Gaza - at least those parts of Gaza educated by UNRWA.
- stackghost 7mo agoThe A-10 carries AGM 88 anti-radiation missiles, and while it's a slow aircraft it can still passably perform SEAD with the AGM 88.
- elictronic 7mo agoManpads (man portable air defense) works just fine.
- stackghost 7mo agoI'm not sure that I understand what you are implying.
- beedeebeedee 7mo agoThat A-10’s can’t suppress manpads
- stackghost 7mo agoWell, they absolutely can with a BRRRRT, but if you mean "AGM 88 HARMs are a poor weaponeering choice against a Misagh-3", then sure, no argument here. But a dude on a hilltop with a shoulder tube is not the only type of air defense. I'm not sure why any of this is relevant. The question I was responding to was about why A-10s are even in-theatre, given there's no boots on the ground yet. The answer to that question is "they're probably doing SEAD". They might also be there to hit Iranian naval drones, though I doubt it'd be effective in that role.
- elictronic 7mo agoTo my understanding blowing up drone boats designed to destroy shipping.
- thinkcontext 7mo agoThey were largely being used for maritime patrol against fast boats. I saw a newsblurb a couple days ago that more were being sent to the region.
- jabwd 7mo agoThe A-10 is a horrible friendly-fire as a service. Might as well use the thing as a bomb truck while you are still forced to keep it in service because certain brain cell lacking individuals think brr is good.
- AdrianB1 7mo agoCheaper to operate than any fighter, longer endurance, good for patrolling over the Strait. Filling the gap between helicopters and fighters with a big, but cheap cannon.
- benjiro3000 7mo ago[dead]