|
| ▲ | throw0101c 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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_... "Defense Primer: What Is Irregular Warfare?": * https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1256... * 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective. | | |
| ▲ | tclancy 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They couldn’t attack us to begin with. | |
| ▲ | ignoramous 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > (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). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwup238 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | blitzar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nobody attacks the US because they would lose. And anytime the US attacks someone it loses. | |
| ▲ | throwup238 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | computerex 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That’s why it took over 100 aircraft to rescue that pilot? |
| |
| ▲ | smcnc 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Search and rescue. Yes, it takes assets. Correct. | | |
| ▲ | computerex 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you have to blow up multimillion dollars worth of assets perhaps the operation wasn’t such a piece of cake. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | zarzavat 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is now Vietnam with no boots on the ground or years of war? Wow! Thanks | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | _moof 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it isn't Vietnam, there are plenty of other humiliating US losses to pick from. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | GorbachevyChase 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | SideQuark 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | oa335 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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... 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-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/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-re... |
