3 ms·

Shahed drone's are not serious weapons of war. Japan could easily produce millions of them if needed. The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising a civ

Shahed drone's are not serious weapons of war. Japan could easily produce millions of them if needed. The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising a civilian population. A few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties. In other words if Japan were in a position where they were willing to use drones to indiscriminately attack soft targets an F-35 would be about a trillion times more effective.

nixon_why69 17d ago
They were serious enough to defeat the US Navy and Air Force..
ekianjo 17d ago
> few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties the current admin does not care about civilians casualties. remember the tomahawk on school girls? so what are they waiting for if it was that easy?
- qlte 17d ago
  Yeah, it's laughable to think that somewhere in the DoD a map labeled like "Iran: Huge Undefended Drone Warehouses" has just been sitting around unused because Hegseth/Trump keep vetoing it on account of potential civilian casualties. Sure, we could easily wrap this whole thing up a couple days but the admin is choosing to remain stuck in a quagmire that's dooming GOP in the midterms. Based on a moral red line, of all things. Makes perfect sense.
  - klrefg 17d ago
    They obviously could start methodically destroying civilian infrastructure to cause a huge humanitarian crisis which might force the Iranian government to collapse. They have clearly chosen not to commit to that approach so far.
    - Semkas 17d ago
      These kinds of arguments are obviously vacuous: The US could also "win" any war with a non-nuclear opponent by nuking every major city. But the fact that they don't is not something worth calling restraint.
      - gpt5 17d ago
        It’s definitely worth appreciating. The world could have looked very differently and might still fall into that trap.
    - orwin 17d ago
      They did that btw. Is there any railroad bridge still standing in south Iran?
- hattmall 16d ago
  >remember the tomahawk on school girls? Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence. OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.
mysecretaccount 17d ago
> The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising [sic] a civilian population. A few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties. Absolutely incorrect. - The purpose of these drones is to establish deterrence. - US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots. - Even if they could, the US has not been able to decimate Iran's drone stockpile even in the areas it can ~safely reach. The age of the fighter jet is over.
- galangalalgol 17d ago
  Quite possibly. But shaheds aren't the answer either. After Fukushima, the plutonium 240 fuel for the breeders they don't want to run anymore has been piling up. Not as good as 239, but that is what they should be looking at.
- stickfigure 17d ago
  Because of stealth jets, the US is capable of destroying every single power plant in the country, with all the horrible human cost you would expect. Exactly like Putin has been trying to do in Ukraine. Except, they could actually do it. Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.
  - jiggawatts 17d ago
    It would be sufficient to destroy just the Asaluyeh gas infrastructure near the South Pars field. It's easily approached over the open sea where Iran has negligible air defences, and it is rather... flammable. It provides something like 75% of Iran's domestic gas supply and in turn fuels most of their power stations. Their economy would implode within days. Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city. Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.

nixon_why69 17d ago

They were serious enough to defeat the US Navy and Air Force..

ekianjo 17d ago

> few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties the current admin does not care about civilians casualties. remember the tomahawk on school girls? so what are they waiting for if it was that easy?

qlte 17d ago
Yeah, it's laughable to think that somewhere in the DoD a map labeled like "Iran: Huge Undefended Drone Warehouses" has just been sitting around unused because Hegseth/Trump keep vetoing it on account of potential civilian casualties. Sure, we could easily wrap this whole thing up a couple days but the admin is choosing to remain stuck in a quagmire that's dooming GOP in the midterms. Based on a moral red line, of all things. Makes perfect sense.
- klrefg 17d ago
  They obviously could start methodically destroying civilian infrastructure to cause a huge humanitarian crisis which might force the Iranian government to collapse. They have clearly chosen not to commit to that approach so far.
  - Semkas 17d ago
    These kinds of arguments are obviously vacuous: The US could also "win" any war with a non-nuclear opponent by nuking every major city. But the fact that they don't is not something worth calling restraint.
    - gpt5 17d ago
      It’s definitely worth appreciating. The world could have looked very differently and might still fall into that trap.
  - orwin 17d ago
    They did that btw. Is there any railroad bridge still standing in south Iran?
hattmall 16d ago
>remember the tomahawk on school girls? Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence. OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.

mysecretaccount 17d ago

> The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising [sic] a civilian population. A few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties. Absolutely incorrect. - The purpose of these drones is to establish deterrence. - US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots. - Even if they could, the US has not been able to decimate Iran's drone stockpile even in the areas it can ~safely reach. The age of the fighter jet is over.

galangalalgol 17d ago
Quite possibly. But shaheds aren't the answer either. After Fukushima, the plutonium 240 fuel for the breeders they don't want to run anymore has been piling up. Not as good as 239, but that is what they should be looking at.
stickfigure 17d ago
Because of stealth jets, the US is capable of destroying every single power plant in the country, with all the horrible human cost you would expect. Exactly like Putin has been trying to do in Ukraine. Except, they could actually do it. Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.
- jiggawatts 17d ago
  It would be sufficient to destroy just the Asaluyeh gas infrastructure near the South Pars field. It's easily approached over the open sea where Iran has negligible air defences, and it is rather... flammable. It provides something like 75% of Iran's domestic gas supply and in turn fuels most of their power stations. Their economy would implode within days. Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city. Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.