5 ms·

> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran

by drnick1 4mo ago

> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."

dotancohen 4mo ago
[flagged]
- kadoban 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway3748g 4mo ago
    [flagged]
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4mo ago
    > HN sometimes poses really difficult questions. The person who posted that question is Israeli.
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        dotancohen 4mo ago
        [flagged]
- throwaway3748g 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- scheme271 4mo ago
  I'm pretty sure that the reputational harms of using nuclear weapons on a country of 70M is going to be pretty severe. Surely you understand how starting a war with a country without sufficient cause and then using nuclear weapons on them might result in significant and very long lasting consequences?
- RajT88 4mo ago
  I feel like they made a movie with Matthew Broderick explaining why this policy was bad...
- justinator 4mo ago
  If you will remember from a few months ago, many of our actions was apparrently to cause a revolution from within. That didn't happen. We can't just change our strategy to "nvrmd: kill 'em all" and think we'll have any allies after this. Iran would once again not just attack us, but practically every country near it, causing even more causalities and infrastructure damage. And this doesn't get into the problem that this would eventually require a land invasion, which would be impossible. We couldn't even get an actual war ship close to Iran. There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" that someone in our Administration should listen to. Times up with this complete disaster.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    > There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" There is also the future cost of demonstrating that the US will not carry out on her threats. That is a higher cost than actually finishing the job - the whole purpose of the US having a huge navy is to project power. If the navy is deliberately powerless, than all the money put into that navy was wasted.
    - justinator 4mo ago
      I can't but agree. Either the Gerald Ford was not in shape for a conflict, or it was taken out. Our navy kept a good distance from the conflict and it seems pretty obvious why: these ships are expensive and the drones that could come in en-mass are cheap. Iran never showed the medium range ballistic missiles that were one of the given excuses to start a war. I would point the finger at the head of the DOD, who does not seem to be qualified for the job. After his massive gathering of the top brass and the messaging shared therein, I'm seeing a dissonance of action promised and action shown. Piss Poor Planning. I am under the opinion that this war should never have started, just to be clear. This is a mis-use of all our military resources, and insulting to our service men and women.
- ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
  Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you bomb water supply facilities in eg. new york, how many people will you have to evacuate? How hard would it be for those special forces to start forest fires in california? Or poison food supply for the army? Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? > Why is attacking one's enemies suddenly controversial? Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... it took a few years of vietnam war for americans to figure it out and a few decades to forget it all again and now you're repeating it against a stronger adversary. It's no wonder most of the world hates americans. edit: looking at his comment history, commenter above me seems to be from israel, not US, but same applies to them too, with the exception of having to ask trump (and the brits and others) for help when iran fights back.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    > Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Iranian assets in the US could attack American civilians, or you could argue that Iran does not endanger the US. But not both. I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.
    - ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
      Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently. > I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US. Yes, what used to be my country (yugoslavia), did the same during the first half of the 1940s, including what the germans called terrorist attacks, attacks on infrastructure, "death to fascism" chants, mining roads, etc. Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.
- cloche 4mo ago
  It's attacking civilians that's controversial.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.
    - slater 4mo ago
      > why is "glass the entire country" not an option? > I never advocated attacking civilians.
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        I did not realize that "glass the entire country" means to use nuclear weapons. Maybe I don't watch enough movies. I'm all for attacking Iranian military assets across Iran, but obviously not the civilians if that can be avoided.
        slater 4mo ago
        > I did not realize that "glass the entire country" means to use nuclear weapons. what the...? where did you think the term comes from? o.0
        scheme271 4mo ago
        I'm not sure how anyone can take that assertion in good faith. It's like saying that you want to bomb a country back to the stone age and then saying that you didn't realize that it meant attacking civilian infrastructure.
- thecrash 4mo ago
  Attacking civilians has always been "controversial". As a civilian myself, I would be pretty worried if this changed.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.
- simonh 4mo ago
  It would triggering an apocalyptic conflagration deter a bunch of religious fanatics that are actively trying to bring about a prophesied apocalyptic conflagration?
- drnick1 4mo ago
  > Then why is "glass the entire country" not an option? It is an option, but civilians bear most of the cost of it. That being said, I do think more could have been done militarily. The U.S. should have continued combat operations for at least a few more weeks and taken what is left of ballistic missiles, drones and arms facilities, etc. Striking dual-use infrastructure such as bridges and railroads is also fair game.
  - orwin 4mo ago
    The US kept hitting civilian targets and blasting about it, so they already did that. When Arab hit civilian targets, it's terrorism, when the US does, it's freedom. I personally fail to understand the difference, but I'm an europoor
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      The difference is that Arab doctrine is to deliberately target civilians, whereas Western doctrine attack military targets but accept that there may be unintended civilian casualties along the way.
      - orwin 4mo ago
        Schools, hospitals, desalination plants, museums and churches, those well know dual use infrastructure. So sad they were unlucky civilians there.
        dotancohen 4mo ago
        It is extremely sad that the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for Palestine Liberation, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committee, the Mujahideen Brigades, the Huthis, and Hezbollah see fit to use these structures to launch attacks against Israel. I highly suggest taking your complaints to them.
- senordevnyc 4mo ago
  Donald, is that you?
dingaling 4mo ago
> And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. A naval force isn't required to control the Strait. Artillery, drones and missiles fired from inland can do that quite easily.
- drnick1 4mo ago
  They can, to some extent, but drone stockpiles and factories can be targeted and destroyed by conventional means. It is difficult to destroy them ALL, but it is certainly a problem that can be addressed to a degree without taking over the country.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
    > They can, to some extent, but drone stockpiles and factories can be targeted and destroyed by conventional means. Every time the US shoots down a Shahed with a Patriot, the US is further from winning. The problem is that the USA is running out of US$4 million patriot missiles long before Iran runs out of $40K shaheed drones. And Iran can restock sooner. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-munitions-depletion-iran https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-muni... https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/how-iran-used-us-ceasefire-replenish-its-depleted-missile-stockpiles https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/...

by drnick1 4mo ago

dotancohen 4mo ago

[flagged]

kadoban 4mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway3748g 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4mo ago
  > HN sometimes poses really difficult questions. The person who posted that question is Israeli.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        [flagged]
throwaway3748g 4mo ago
[flagged]
scheme271 4mo ago
I'm pretty sure that the reputational harms of using nuclear weapons on a country of 70M is going to be pretty severe. Surely you understand how starting a war with a country without sufficient cause and then using nuclear weapons on them might result in significant and very long lasting consequences?
RajT88 4mo ago
I feel like they made a movie with Matthew Broderick explaining why this policy was bad...
justinator 4mo ago
If you will remember from a few months ago, many of our actions was apparrently to cause a revolution from within. That didn't happen. We can't just change our strategy to "nvrmd: kill 'em all" and think we'll have any allies after this. Iran would once again not just attack us, but practically every country near it, causing even more causalities and infrastructure damage. And this doesn't get into the problem that this would eventually require a land invasion, which would be impossible. We couldn't even get an actual war ship close to Iran. There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" that someone in our Administration should listen to. Times up with this complete disaster.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  > There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" There is also the future cost of demonstrating that the US will not carry out on her threats. That is a higher cost than actually finishing the job - the whole purpose of the US having a huge navy is to project power. If the navy is deliberately powerless, than all the money put into that navy was wasted.
  - justinator 4mo ago
    I can't but agree. Either the Gerald Ford was not in shape for a conflict, or it was taken out. Our navy kept a good distance from the conflict and it seems pretty obvious why: these ships are expensive and the drones that could come in en-mass are cheap. Iran never showed the medium range ballistic missiles that were one of the given excuses to start a war. I would point the finger at the head of the DOD, who does not seem to be qualified for the job. After his massive gathering of the top brass and the messaging shared therein, I'm seeing a dissonance of action promised and action shown. Piss Poor Planning. I am under the opinion that this war should never have started, just to be clear. This is a mis-use of all our military resources, and insulting to our service men and women.
ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you bomb water supply facilities in eg. new york, how many people will you have to evacuate? How hard would it be for those special forces to start forest fires in california? Or poison food supply for the army? Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? > Why is attacking one's enemies suddenly controversial? Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... it took a few years of vietnam war for americans to figure it out and a few decades to forget it all again and now you're repeating it against a stronger adversary. It's no wonder most of the world hates americans. edit: looking at his comment history, commenter above me seems to be from israel, not US, but same applies to them too, with the exception of having to ask trump (and the brits and others) for help when iran fights back.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  > Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Iranian assets in the US could attack American civilians, or you could argue that Iran does not endanger the US. But not both. I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.
  - ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
    Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently. > I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US. Yes, what used to be my country (yugoslavia), did the same during the first half of the 1940s, including what the germans called terrorist attacks, attacks on infrastructure, "death to fascism" chants, mining roads, etc. Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped. And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.
cloche 4mo ago
It's attacking civilians that's controversial.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.
  - slater 4mo ago
    > why is "glass the entire country" not an option? > I never advocated attacking civilians.
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      I did not realize that "glass the entire country" means to use nuclear weapons. Maybe I don't watch enough movies. I'm all for attacking Iranian military assets across Iran, but obviously not the civilians if that can be avoided.
      - slater 4mo ago
        > I did not realize that "glass the entire country" means to use nuclear weapons. what the...? where did you think the term comes from? o.0
      - scheme271 4mo ago
        I'm not sure how anyone can take that assertion in good faith. It's like saying that you want to bomb a country back to the stone age and then saying that you didn't realize that it meant attacking civilian infrastructure.
thecrash 4mo ago
Attacking civilians has always been "controversial". As a civilian myself, I would be pretty worried if this changed.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.
simonh 4mo ago
It would triggering an apocalyptic conflagration deter a bunch of religious fanatics that are actively trying to bring about a prophesied apocalyptic conflagration?
drnick1 4mo ago
> Then why is "glass the entire country" not an option? It is an option, but civilians bear most of the cost of it. That being said, I do think more could have been done militarily. The U.S. should have continued combat operations for at least a few more weeks and taken what is left of ballistic missiles, drones and arms facilities, etc. Striking dual-use infrastructure such as bridges and railroads is also fair game.
- orwin 4mo ago
  The US kept hitting civilian targets and blasting about it, so they already did that. When Arab hit civilian targets, it's terrorism, when the US does, it's freedom. I personally fail to understand the difference, but I'm an europoor
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    The difference is that Arab doctrine is to deliberately target civilians, whereas Western doctrine attack military targets but accept that there may be unintended civilian casualties along the way.
    - orwin 4mo ago
      Schools, hospitals, desalination plants, museums and churches, those well know dual use infrastructure. So sad they were unlucky civilians there.
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        It is extremely sad that the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for Palestine Liberation, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committee, the Mujahideen Brigades, the Huthis, and Hezbollah see fit to use these structures to launch attacks against Israel. I highly suggest taking your complaints to them.
senordevnyc 4mo ago
Donald, is that you?

dingaling 4mo ago

> And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. A naval force isn't required to control the Strait. Artillery, drones and missiles fired from inland can do that quite easily.

drnick1 4mo ago
They can, to some extent, but drone stockpiles and factories can be targeted and destroyed by conventional means. It is difficult to destroy them ALL, but it is certainly a problem that can be addressed to a degree without taking over the country.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
  > They can, to some extent, but drone stockpiles and factories can be targeted and destroyed by conventional means. Every time the US shoots down a Shahed with a Patriot, the US is further from winning. The problem is that the USA is running out of US$4 million patriot missiles long before Iran runs out of $40K shaheed drones. And Iran can restock sooner. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-munitions-depletion-iran https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-muni... https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/how-iran-used-us-ceasefire-replenish-its-depleted-missile-stockpiles https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/...