3 ms·

> 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 tol

> 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 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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 8d ago
      It’s definitely worth appreciating. The world could have looked very differently and might still fall into that trap.
  - orwin 8d ago
    They did that btw. Is there any railroad bridge still standing in south Iran?
hattmall 7d 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.

qlte 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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 8d ago
    It’s definitely worth appreciating. The world could have looked very differently and might still fall into that trap.
- orwin 8d ago
  They did that btw. Is there any railroad bridge still standing in south Iran?

hattmall 7d 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.