3 ms·

> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

by oa335 6mo ago

smcnc 6mo ago
[flagged]
- computerex 6mo ago
  That’s why it took over 100 aircraft to rescue that pilot?
  - smcnc 6mo ago
    Search and rescue. Yes, it takes assets. Correct.
    - computerex 6mo ago
      Except there was fight and the US lost multiple aircraft in that rescue and required the use of the most elite personnel US has. Let’s just say I don’t take Trump for his word.
      - smcnc 6mo ago
        US blew up C-130s stuck in sand. A few got shot up. Iranians on the ground got the brunt of the bullets, however.
        computerex 6mo ago
        If you have to blow up multimillion dollars worth of assets perhaps the operation wasn’t such a piece of cake.
- throwup238 6mo ago
  Have you been living under a rock for the last quarter century? It doesn’t take planes, ships, or missile launchers to defeat the US military. The average American gun owner is better equipped than the insurgents that have defeated our armed forces.
  - smcnc 6mo ago
    Define defeat here. I think everyone in this thread confuses actual defeat with indifference and political risk. If the US military could be defeated so easily America would cease to exist, no? It just loses interest and moves on. Nobody attacks the US because they would lose.
    - hackable_sand 6mo ago
      You can defeat someone without killing them. You can defeat someone without attacking them. You don't even have to be in the same room as someone, nor in the same century, to defeat someone.
    - throwup238 6mo ago
      Defeat is failure to achieve strategic goals. (The fact that you’re even asking that question is a strong signal that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you think rhetorical questions are a substitute for critical thinking) Anyone who thinks America would cease to exist due to foreign military action is a fool. Canada and Mexico do not have the logistical capabilities and no one else has trans-Pacific/Atlantic force projection.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - blitzar 6mo ago
      > Nobody attacks the US because they would lose. And anytime the US attacks someone it loses.
- zarzavat 6mo ago
  That's why the US won in Vietnam. Guerrilla warfare was no match for the planes and ships of the US military which swiftly defeated the Vietnamese and installed a friendly capitalist government.
  - smcnc 6mo ago
    This is now Vietnam with no boots on the ground or years of war? Wow! Thanks
    - anigbrowl 6mo ago
      Air power alone does not win any conflict. This is well known and proven over and over. Iran is not giving up its nuclear material for the asking, and there is no way for the US to secure without committing ground forces. Iran would love th US to commit ground forces, because it has a massive defensive advantage due to its terrain and decades of preparation for asymmetric conflict.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > Air power alone does not win any conflict Air power alone can absolutely win a conflict, provided a compatible theory of victory. What it can't do is effect regime change.
      - zarzavat 6mo ago
        The US military is a paper tiger. All of the planes, ships and missiles are of limited utility when they're so afraid of 1 pilot getting captured. That's not to say the rescue mission was wrong, the psychological advantage of Iran capturing the pilot would have been immense. But, it demonstrates just how weird the US military is. Most militaries would have had no choice but to let the pilot get captured and then negotiate a prisoner swap at a later date. The US had the option to mount a rescue mission, and merely having that option available is a strategic disadvantage. Now Iran knows that the US is very unwilling to suffer captures. Now Iran is incentivised to maximize captures in the case of a ground invasion. The US could probably win with a ground invasion, if they committed all their forces. But they're definitely not willing to suffer the consequences, so the effect is that they cannot win[0]. The US Army is a supremely powerful force that nevertheless cannot be used offensively anymore because the US is unwilling to suffer the consequences of doing so, kind of like a nuclear weapon. [0] it reminds of Feynman's anecdote about a stage hypnotist. When the hypnotist invites you on stage and tells you that your eyelids are heavy and you cannot open them, you are aware that you could open your eyes if you wanted to. But in front of the watching crowd, you of course "choose" to obey the hypnotist and keep your eyes closed. So were you really able to open your eyes? The US military "chooses" not to open its eyes.
- throw0101c 6mo ago
  > Manpads and a few drones from tunnels aren’t a military. Planes, ships, and most missile launchers are… ? This is a myopic view of engagement options. "Understanding Irregular Warfare": * https://www.army.mil/article/286976/understanding_irregular_warfare https://www.army.mil/article/286976/understanding_irregular_... "Defense Primer: What Is Irregular Warfare?": * https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12565/IF12565.5.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1256... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military The Afghan Mujahideen / Taliban didn't need planes, ships, and missile launchers to force the Soviets/Americans out.
  - smcnc 6mo ago
    There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective.
    - ignoramous 6mo ago
      > (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective. Wasn't it "regime change"? Anyhow, how was Iran attacking "your country" (assuming you're talking about the US and not its proxies / clients).
    - tclancy 6mo ago
      They couldn’t attack us to begin with.
    - throw0101c 6mo ago
      > There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). How many countries was Iran attacking, or could attack, when they still had their "military" intact (in, say, December 2025)?
- oa335 6mo ago
  Sure, but they can still hit critical infrastructure. Iran still has missiles that can hit Israel, they just launched some more tonight. War is about achieving political gains, even if it means material losses. Compare the proposal that the US rejected in February to the 10 point plan that Trump now says is a "a very significant step" which he now " believes it is a workable basis on which to negotiate." https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/article/trump-agrees-to-two-week-ceasefire-deal-with-iran-after-threatening-to-wipe-out-its-whole-civilization-how-we-got-here-and-what-could-happen-next-193210369.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/article/trump-agrees-to-two... The proposal in February mentions limiting nuclear enrichment. "The Iranian proposal does not meet core US demands. US officials told the Wall Street Journal that Iran’s proposal would force Iran to reduce enrichment to as low as 1.5 percent, pause enrichment for a number of years, and process its enriched uranium through an Iran-based regional consortium.[11] Four unspecified Iranian officials told the New York Times on February 26 that Iran would also offer to dilute its 400 kg of 60 percent-enriched uranium in phases and allow IAEA inspectors to oversee all steps.” https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-february-26-2026 https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat... The new 10 point agreement (see top comment on this story) explicitly mentions "Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights" and "Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war" as conditions (along with lifting sanctions). https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb599e2c6/c.html https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59... The new plan is CLEARLY a step backwards from the perspective of the USA and the fact that the US is entertaining it while Iran literally is still launching missiles to Israel means that this is clearly a step backwards for the US. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/no-immediate-reports-of-injuries-after-iranian-missiles-shot-at-central-and-southern-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/no-immediate-re...
- SideQuark 6mo ago
  Those “few drones” have completely kept the US military, ships and all, far away since they can damage and sink large expensive vessels with tiny cheap drones. How did the planes and ships and missles fare in Iraq or Afghanistan? Oh yeah, decades and trillions spent and nothing changed. Iran is much larger and well armed everywhere, with support by China and Russia and others…. Good luck
- GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
  That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo. They don’t need to win a set piece battle like it’s a chessboard. They’ve already woken everyone up from Pax Americana. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when the GCC realizes that pumping billions into the United States economy comes with no security guarantees or real benefit at all. We’re operating from a highly leveraged position. It’s going to take a while, but with a few more years of hindsight, the depth of what a monumental strategic blunder this is will seem hard to believe. We’re not sending our best to Washington.

> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

by oa335 6mo ago

> Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

smcnc 6mo ago

[flagged]

computerex 6mo ago
That’s why it took over 100 aircraft to rescue that pilot?
- smcnc 6mo ago
  Search and rescue. Yes, it takes assets. Correct.
  - computerex 6mo ago
    Except there was fight and the US lost multiple aircraft in that rescue and required the use of the most elite personnel US has. Let’s just say I don’t take Trump for his word.
    - smcnc 6mo ago
      US blew up C-130s stuck in sand. A few got shot up. Iranians on the ground got the brunt of the bullets, however.
      - computerex 6mo ago
        If you have to blow up multimillion dollars worth of assets perhaps the operation wasn’t such a piece of cake.
throwup238 6mo ago
Have you been living under a rock for the last quarter century? It doesn’t take planes, ships, or missile launchers to defeat the US military. The average American gun owner is better equipped than the insurgents that have defeated our armed forces.
- smcnc 6mo ago
  Define defeat here. I think everyone in this thread confuses actual defeat with indifference and political risk. If the US military could be defeated so easily America would cease to exist, no? It just loses interest and moves on. Nobody attacks the US because they would lose.
  - hackable_sand 6mo ago
    You can defeat someone without killing them. You can defeat someone without attacking them. You don't even have to be in the same room as someone, nor in the same century, to defeat someone.
  - throwup238 6mo ago
    Defeat is failure to achieve strategic goals. (The fact that you’re even asking that question is a strong signal that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you think rhetorical questions are a substitute for critical thinking) Anyone who thinks America would cease to exist due to foreign military action is a fool. Canada and Mexico do not have the logistical capabilities and no one else has trans-Pacific/Atlantic force projection.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - blitzar 6mo ago
    > Nobody attacks the US because they would lose. And anytime the US attacks someone it loses.
zarzavat 6mo ago
That's why the US won in Vietnam. Guerrilla warfare was no match for the planes and ships of the US military which swiftly defeated the Vietnamese and installed a friendly capitalist government.
- smcnc 6mo ago
  This is now Vietnam with no boots on the ground or years of war? Wow! Thanks
  - anigbrowl 6mo ago
    Air power alone does not win any conflict. This is well known and proven over and over. Iran is not giving up its nuclear material for the asking, and there is no way for the US to secure without committing ground forces. Iran would love th US to commit ground forces, because it has a massive defensive advantage due to its terrain and decades of preparation for asymmetric conflict.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > Air power alone does not win any conflict Air power alone can absolutely win a conflict, provided a compatible theory of victory. What it can't do is effect regime change.
    - zarzavat 6mo ago
      The US military is a paper tiger. All of the planes, ships and missiles are of limited utility when they're so afraid of 1 pilot getting captured. That's not to say the rescue mission was wrong, the psychological advantage of Iran capturing the pilot would have been immense. But, it demonstrates just how weird the US military is. Most militaries would have had no choice but to let the pilot get captured and then negotiate a prisoner swap at a later date. The US had the option to mount a rescue mission, and merely having that option available is a strategic disadvantage. Now Iran knows that the US is very unwilling to suffer captures. Now Iran is incentivised to maximize captures in the case of a ground invasion. The US could probably win with a ground invasion, if they committed all their forces. But they're definitely not willing to suffer the consequences, so the effect is that they cannot win[0]. The US Army is a supremely powerful force that nevertheless cannot be used offensively anymore because the US is unwilling to suffer the consequences of doing so, kind of like a nuclear weapon. [0] it reminds of Feynman's anecdote about a stage hypnotist. When the hypnotist invites you on stage and tells you that your eyelids are heavy and you cannot open them, you are aware that you could open your eyes if you wanted to. But in front of the watching crowd, you of course "choose" to obey the hypnotist and keep your eyes closed. So were you really able to open your eyes? The US military "chooses" not to open its eyes.
throw0101c 6mo ago
> Manpads and a few drones from tunnels aren’t a military. Planes, ships, and most missile launchers are… ? This is a myopic view of engagement options. "Understanding Irregular Warfare": * https://www.army.mil/article/286976/understanding_irregular_warfare https://www.army.mil/article/286976/understanding_irregular_... "Defense Primer: What Is Irregular Warfare?": * https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12565/IF12565.5.pdf https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1256... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military The Afghan Mujahideen / Taliban didn't need planes, ships, and missile launchers to force the Soviets/Americans out.
- smcnc 6mo ago
  There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective.
  - ignoramous 6mo ago
    > (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective. Wasn't it "regime change"? Anyhow, how was Iran attacking "your country" (assuming you're talking about the US and not its proxies / clients).
  - tclancy 6mo ago
    They couldn’t attack us to begin with.
  - throw0101c 6mo ago
    > There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). How many countries was Iran attacking, or could attack, when they still had their "military" intact (in, say, December 2025)?
oa335 6mo ago
Sure, but they can still hit critical infrastructure. Iran still has missiles that can hit Israel, they just launched some more tonight. War is about achieving political gains, even if it means material losses. Compare the proposal that the US rejected in February to the 10 point plan that Trump now says is a "a very significant step" which he now " believes it is a workable basis on which to negotiate." https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/article/trump-agrees-to-two-week-ceasefire-deal-with-iran-after-threatening-to-wipe-out-its-whole-civilization-how-we-got-here-and-what-could-happen-next-193210369.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/article/trump-agrees-to-two... The proposal in February mentions limiting nuclear enrichment. "The Iranian proposal does not meet core US demands. US officials told the Wall Street Journal that Iran’s proposal would force Iran to reduce enrichment to as low as 1.5 percent, pause enrichment for a number of years, and process its enriched uranium through an Iran-based regional consortium.[11] Four unspecified Iranian officials told the New York Times on February 26 that Iran would also offer to dilute its 400 kg of 60 percent-enriched uranium in phases and allow IAEA inspectors to oversee all steps.” https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-february-26-2026 https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat... The new 10 point agreement (see top comment on this story) explicitly mentions "Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights" and "Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war" as conditions (along with lifting sanctions). https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb599e2c6/c.html https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59... The new plan is CLEARLY a step backwards from the perspective of the USA and the fact that the US is entertaining it while Iran literally is still launching missiles to Israel means that this is clearly a step backwards for the US. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/no-immediate-reports-of-injuries-after-iranian-missiles-shot-at-central-and-southern-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/no-immediate-re...
SideQuark 6mo ago
Those “few drones” have completely kept the US military, ships and all, far away since they can damage and sink large expensive vessels with tiny cheap drones. How did the planes and ships and missles fare in Iraq or Afghanistan? Oh yeah, decades and trillions spent and nothing changed. Iran is much larger and well armed everywhere, with support by China and Russia and others…. Good luck
GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo. They don’t need to win a set piece battle like it’s a chessboard. They’ve already woken everyone up from Pax Americana. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when the GCC realizes that pumping billions into the United States economy comes with no security guarantees or real benefit at all. We’re operating from a highly leveraged position. It’s going to take a while, but with a few more years of hindsight, the depth of what a monumental strategic blunder this is will seem hard to believe. We’re not sending our best to Washington.