| ▲ | Squarex 7 hours ago |
| That's hard to believe. US with it's military spending should be able to join two large scale conflicts at the same time, not to have problem with a one minor conflict. |
|
| ▲ | martinky24 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s easier to believe when missiles are the only strategy being used in the war… |
| |
|
| ▲ | bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's easy to believe, it's hard to realize. The conflict with Iran is only 'minor' in certain respects, it's a major air campaign otherwise, involving strategic bombing on par with the Iraq War 2 - or at least the initial period. The US is bombing them from very far away places, the amount of logistical overhead is unthinkable. These munitions cost a fortune in part because they are purchased in lower quantities, and yes, they have to be able to do a 10x-50x instant ramp up in order to be effective (aka capacity not inventory which is the strategic key). It takes 2 years minimum to adjust an economy in that way and the US does not have good supply chains. It's unlikely the US could hope to fight any kind of prolonged conflict with China 'in the area of Chinese territory' for very obvious reasons: they have the supply chains, 1 billion workers, and can turn them on a dime, and don't have 'far to go' to deploy weapons. The US doesn't even have reliable ways of getting goods and materials into the theatre and has limited quantities of everything. That said, there are still ways to defend Taiwan and/or to make an invasion futile - but 'broad conflict' ... nope. |
| |
| ▲ | firesteelrain 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US doesn't even have reliable ways of getting goods and materials into the theatre and has limited quantities of everything. This is not true. US is known for the best logistics in the world. | | |
| ▲ | bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | US has 600 air refuelling aircraft and 40 naval supply ships. US power is mostly strategic, it's 'Air Based' which gives the kind of instant leverage leaders like. It's 'Aircraft Carrier Based'. The US doesn't have that same overwhelming ability otherwise. You can't quite an Army overseas - it takes a different kind of logistics esp. in Pacific, one the US doesn't quite have the level of sophistication. Don't get me wrong - 'it could' but would take a while to ramp up. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | abcd_f 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Never underestimate how much damage a single high-ranked idiot can inflict on its own ranks. |
|
| ▲ | matchbok3 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That would be true if the money spent was actually optimized on output rather than expensive contractors, consultants, and third party profits. :( |
|
| ▲ | peesem 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| never underestimate the monetary inefficiency of the military industrial complex |
|
| ▲ | bad_haircut72 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| America could theretically sustain other cheaper losses, like a few more F15s going down - but Trump is rightfully terrified of the political fallout of American pilots being capturred and torture videos showing up on Telegram. |
| |
| ▲ | bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | They are not cheaper losses, because production capacity for those things is very limited. Missiles are always easier to replace then platforms of any kind. But yes - a single, lone captive could cause political devastation. | | |
| ▲ | bad_haircut72 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Im no military planner so Im not gonna get invested in this debate haha - and obviously a human death is a huge loss - but presumably you could drop a lot of bombs for each lost fighter, so the bang/buck (literally) would be better than with missiles. | | |
| ▲ | bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Planes aircrew high fixed/operating cost - lower unit costs on strikes. Missiles, more expensive - depending on. Missiles are not 'rocket science' - pun intended. They're expensive because of the overhead of military industrial complex. Russia is making ballistic missiles 'China style' - super fast, super cheap. Basically - much bigger than ATACMs, longer range, a bit less precise but vicious. Similar to Iran. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tencentshill 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Missiles (BIG EXPLOSION) look better when presented in video briefings to Trump and as propaganda on Fox news. It's all optics and style. No other goals. |
|
| ▲ | kubb 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Paper tiger. |
| |
| ▲ | Philorandroid 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Venezuela thought the same thing. Keeping a full-scale deployment at arm's length, and 'only' targeting military targets with exhaustive use of precision missiles is poor strategy, but if a military victory were the US's only ambition the Iranian regime has no capability that could prevent its country from being turned into a smoldering parking lot. Doctrine isn't the same as inability. | | |
| ▲ | pibaker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Venezuela was likely a palace coup disguised as a purely foreign intervention by both parties involved. There is a reason why instead of holding an election or having the opposition take over, they just handed the country to Maduro's very own vice president. | |
| ▲ | Arodex 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >if a military victory were the US's only ambition the Iranian regime has no capability that could prevent its country from being turned into a smoldering parking lot. I read this and I wonder, "are we back to 2003 and Iraq?" Incredible how little memory Americans have. Absolutely none. You just have no grasps on reality. |
| |
| ▲ | throwthrowuknow 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don’t worry, they can still carpet bomb with high explosive and nuclear always remains an option lest you forget. | | |
| ▲ | mr_toad 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US bombed North Vietnam into dust, but because they didn’t occupy it with ground forces they simply rebuilt and kept coming. You can’t win a war with just air power. |
| |
| ▲ | bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In some ways yes, not in others. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is a remarkably stupid thing to say about the US military. |
|
|
| ▲ | Arodex 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Minor" conflict? You really don't realize how much ressources Hesgeth has committed to this, and how much your president likes to make things go "boom". See also: the number of strikes on boats in the Caribbean (with absolutely no result on drug trafficking). |
| |
