4 ms·

You are missing the point above - the F35 has enabled complete air dominance over Iran, and ability to perform any operation with impunity over Iran's land. Ir

by gpt5 6mo ago

You are missing the point above - the F35 has enabled complete air dominance over Iran, and ability to perform any operation with impunity over Iran's land. Iran is leveraging its geography and asymmetrical warfare against civilian ship (as done by its proxies), but if the US has build tons of cheap attack drones, that wouldn't have changed anything about this equation. The US already has the ability to strike anywhere in Iran. Eventually, defense capabilities against drones may catch up and change the equation, but this is all research at this point.

virtualritz 6mo ago
Maybe re-read the last sentence of parent which my reply was to? Your presumably Ai-generated reply missed that, unsurprisingly, because you probably just copypasta'd parent and my reply in there? P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context.
- lenerdenator 6mo ago
  > P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context. It's meaningless now. If the US, for some reason, decided to say, "For each drone or missile that you fire at one of your Arab neighbors or Israel, we launch an old-fashioned B52 raid on your industry or infrastructure. Come to the negotiating table." and actually carried out that threat, well, there would be nothing the Iranians would be able to do about it. That's not the case because of the currently scattered nature of US leadership, but it is a possible contingency that the Iranian government has to take into account. There's a reason they're not actively targeting US warships in the region.
  - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
    Bombing civilian infrastructure never works like this. As we saw in The Blitz (and in Vietnam, and in Ukraine), it just draws the bombed together, unifying them and hardening their resolve.
    - tick_tock_tick 6mo ago
      Can you use an example that doesn't prove the exact opposite? Bombing absolutely worked in Vietnam so much that the south didn't actually lose the war until 2 years after the USA left. The war becoming a political nightmare is why the USA left not because the horrendously effective bombing stopped working. Ukraine is really weird to put in here because Russia has fail to establish any effective air superiority so I can't make heads or tails why you put it in here. As for the Blitz is was absolutely effective vs the British but USA factories and supply shipments were largely out of reach of the Axis. Add in the fact that the people of Iran are largely opposed to being governed by a Muslim theocracy (most of the population is not Muslim) I'm frankly struggling to see how you get any of your viewpoints.
      - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
        You're suggesting that bombing civilian infrastructure will cause the Iranians to surrender (or to concede negotiating points in order to stop the bombing). My point is that this doesn't work - the British under The Blitz famously had "Blitz Spirit" that was all about enduring the bombing and showing the Germans that they couldn't be beaten like this. The Vietnamese did not try to stop the bombing by surrendering or negotiating, and neither have the Ukrainians; again, if anything, they are more unified and more resolute because of the Russians attacks on their infrastructure. Can you give me a single example where prolonged bombing of civilian infrastructure has brought a country to the negotiating table? Or made them surrender?
        usrnm 6mo ago
        Japan?
        marcus_holmes 6mo ago
        sure, if you think kicking off a nuclear war is a viable option ;)
        lenerdenator 6mo ago
marcus_holmes 6mo ago
Your definition of "complete dominance" is different from most people's. If you completely dominate your enemy, you prevent them from being able to affect the situation. Iran is maintaining a blockade over a major shipping lane that the USA does not want them to. The USA's inability to prevent this shows that they are not "completely dominating" Iran.
- bpodgursky 6mo ago
  No, "air dominance" is a well recognized term, it means you can fly your planes basically anywhere you want, to take out whatever target you want, without risk from AA. They are using it exactly how anyone familiar with warfare terminology would understand it.
  - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
    I think the accepted term is "air supremacy" which is a completely different set of words (and meaning) from "complete dominance"
    - tennysont 6mo ago
      "Air supremacy" would be dominance of the air such that enemy cannot effectively interfere. "Air superiority" is the lesser level (enemy interference is not prohibitive). At least in NATO lingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy I can't tell if this comment chain is a factual disagreement (ability to interference) or a linguistic one (supremacy vs superiority).
      - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
        Kinda both, really. Air supremacy (using your useful NATO definition) is not stopping Iran from flying drones and missiles. I don't know if that therefore contradicts the US/Israeli forces having Air Supremacy, or if Air Supremacy itself is an outdated term because it doesn't allow for the kind of drone bombardment we see now. Either way, it's not "complete dominance" which is where we started from ;)

by gpt5 6mo ago

virtualritz 6mo ago

Maybe re-read the last sentence of parent which my reply was to? Your presumably Ai-generated reply missed that, unsurprisingly, because you probably just copypasta'd parent and my reply in there? P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context.

lenerdenator 6mo ago
> P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context. It's meaningless now. If the US, for some reason, decided to say, "For each drone or missile that you fire at one of your Arab neighbors or Israel, we launch an old-fashioned B52 raid on your industry or infrastructure. Come to the negotiating table." and actually carried out that threat, well, there would be nothing the Iranians would be able to do about it. That's not the case because of the currently scattered nature of US leadership, but it is a possible contingency that the Iranian government has to take into account. There's a reason they're not actively targeting US warships in the region.
- marcus_holmes 6mo ago
  Bombing civilian infrastructure never works like this. As we saw in The Blitz (and in Vietnam, and in Ukraine), it just draws the bombed together, unifying them and hardening their resolve.
  - tick_tock_tick 6mo ago
    Can you use an example that doesn't prove the exact opposite? Bombing absolutely worked in Vietnam so much that the south didn't actually lose the war until 2 years after the USA left. The war becoming a political nightmare is why the USA left not because the horrendously effective bombing stopped working. Ukraine is really weird to put in here because Russia has fail to establish any effective air superiority so I can't make heads or tails why you put it in here. As for the Blitz is was absolutely effective vs the British but USA factories and supply shipments were largely out of reach of the Axis. Add in the fact that the people of Iran are largely opposed to being governed by a Muslim theocracy (most of the population is not Muslim) I'm frankly struggling to see how you get any of your viewpoints.
    - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
      You're suggesting that bombing civilian infrastructure will cause the Iranians to surrender (or to concede negotiating points in order to stop the bombing). My point is that this doesn't work - the British under The Blitz famously had "Blitz Spirit" that was all about enduring the bombing and showing the Germans that they couldn't be beaten like this. The Vietnamese did not try to stop the bombing by surrendering or negotiating, and neither have the Ukrainians; again, if anything, they are more unified and more resolute because of the Russians attacks on their infrastructure. Can you give me a single example where prolonged bombing of civilian infrastructure has brought a country to the negotiating table? Or made them surrender?
      - usrnm 6mo ago
        Japan?
        marcus_holmes 6mo ago
        sure, if you think kicking off a nuclear war is a viable option ;)
      - lenerdenator 6mo ago

marcus_holmes 6mo ago

Your definition of "complete dominance" is different from most people's. If you completely dominate your enemy, you prevent them from being able to affect the situation. Iran is maintaining a blockade over a major shipping lane that the USA does not want them to. The USA's inability to prevent this shows that they are not "completely dominating" Iran.

bpodgursky 6mo ago
No, "air dominance" is a well recognized term, it means you can fly your planes basically anywhere you want, to take out whatever target you want, without risk from AA. They are using it exactly how anyone familiar with warfare terminology would understand it.
- marcus_holmes 6mo ago
  I think the accepted term is "air supremacy" which is a completely different set of words (and meaning) from "complete dominance"
  - tennysont 6mo ago
    "Air supremacy" would be dominance of the air such that enemy cannot effectively interfere. "Air superiority" is the lesser level (enemy interference is not prohibitive). At least in NATO lingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy I can't tell if this comment chain is a factual disagreement (ability to interference) or a linguistic one (supremacy vs superiority).
    - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
      Kinda both, really. Air supremacy (using your useful NATO definition) is not stopping Iran from flying drones and missiles. I don't know if that therefore contradicts the US/Israeli forces having Air Supremacy, or if Air Supremacy itself is an outdated term because it doesn't allow for the kind of drone bombardment we see now. Either way, it's not "complete dominance" which is where we started from ;)