352
Iran destroys five US refueling aircraft. (www.vietnam.vn)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
171 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 7 months ago* (48 children)

It feels like Iran is exposing the traditional US military as a bit of a paper tiger unless you count nukes. I’m sure I’m at least kinda wrong, but that’s the vibe I’m getting

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 48 child comments
    •
  • [–] 62 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    US seemingly watched russia get rekt by ukrainian drones and decided they'd like a punch in the face as well. But who am I to judge those masochistic tendencies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I think the last year of officer purges also has something to do with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    They didn't stop with the officers. They also purged a ton of their most competent enlisted personnel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    I don't know if this info is even available. But I would be extremely curious to see if trans soldiers were concentrated in any particular positions or areas of the military.

    I imagine the military readiness of the average trans soldier was probably far above average. It's not like the military or military culture was ever some utopia for trans people. I'm sure every trans soldier or sailor had to deal with a whole lot of shit related to their gender. To be willing to put up with that, they would have to really like and be passionate about their job. To rise in the ranks in the face of bigotry, they would have to be quite skilled at their job. Marginalized minority groups usually need to work twice as hard to produce the same career outcomes as their non-marginalized peers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 31 points 7 months ago (35 children)

    This is the first time the US actually tried to fight a technologically advanced army since WW2, and the results are frankly embarrassing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (28 children)

    So we're forgetting about Iraq then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 33 points 7 months ago (26 children)

    Iraq had mostly 70s tech, and the US did manage to break their army initially and topple the government. It was a disaster in strategic terms, but Iraqi regular army was no match for the US. This time around, Iran actually appears to have the upper hand. They've pushed out the US out of their bases across the region, destroyed billions if not trillions in the infrastructure that the US built up over many decades, and they're eliminating American air power which was thought to be untouchable. This is truly unprecedented.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (25 children)

    Your description of the differences between Iraq and Iran is good, as well as your explanation of the current situation.

    However, it would change significantly if the U.S. decided to stop half-assing it. If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets, I think you'd see a situation more similar to Iraq. We could absolutely roll Iran's formal military if we committed to it.

    But the subsequent occupation and attempt to maintain control would be doomed to the same failures as Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those before it, but on an even larger scale. All forward progress would stop once the Iranian military's command and control falls. There's no way we could win the asymmetric warfare that would follow, and I'm not at all saying we should even try. It's all a pointless pile of shit that never should have been started.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    That's frankly delusional. Iran is a country of 90 million people. The US does not have the resources to, as you say, roll them. In fact, it's pretty clear that US army isn't even prepared for the realities of modern warfare like drones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Unfortunately all it would take is a fast deployment tactic dedicating everything the US has. It comes down to raw numbers of immediately available manpower, aircraft, and munitions. The US has a stupid amount of these things at the ready.

    It would be bloody and brutal and not certain, but I'd say the US would have a decent chance of overrunning the country.

    Now this will only topple the government, then you get into a whole Afghanistan situation again. So I suppose it depends on what the definition of victory is. Could the US defeat Iran and occupy it? I think it's likely, but the second they leave a new government that hates the US (rightfully) forms. Could they occupy indefinitely? Probably at a steep cost.

    So I see a path for the US to overwhelm the Iranian military, but no real way for them to ever establish control of the region. I wouldn't call that a win for the US for sure

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The US is not configured to deploy everything it has in one theatre. This is not a realistic scenario. You've clearly have never dealt with real world logistics in your life, if you think that's even remotely possible. And even if this fantastical feat of creating supply chains to the region for sustained war was possible, there's very little chance of the US overrunning anything. You only have to look at a map to realize that Iran is a very mountainous country that would be a nightmare to fight in.

    Finally, the US army is configured for legacy 20th century warfare. NATO as a whole is entirely unprepared for what modern war looks like. This is part of the reason the US is already getting its ass kicked by Iran, not being able to establish air dominance which is the core part of NATO fighting doctrine.

    here's how NATO fared in recent exercises with Ukrainian veterans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAg4qBaFvjI

    and here's how well US army is prepared to deal with drones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETeA07YjnSM

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    You've clearly have never dealt with real world logistics in your life

    Starting with the snark? Sure I tried to make my comment respectfully but whatever.

    You're not wrong, but the US could certainly throw a lot more into it. Then it, as I said, will come down to drones. That's a function of time and deployment speed before the bombs hit. Currently I think the US has the raw numbers of munitions to overwhelm the country, but day by day that changes.

    Plus it's not like any of us has the up to date figures from each country. I personally thinkk dismissing either possible outcome is just really stupid. I've tried not to make it sound like my speculation was fact, but what I believe was the most likely outcome.

    You only have to look at a map to realize that Iran is a very mountainous country that would be a nightmare to fight in.

    Yes I'm well aware. This why I specifically said they could overwhelm the government. I do believe just due to raw numbers of munitions and equipment that the US currently could take out the centralized government (think more bombs and less boots), but as I said control would be a long bloody occupation that would never succeed. Just like Afghanistan just way more bloody.

    I think you're also dismissing US logistical capabilities in that part of the world. They spent 20 years setting up client states, Israel will give them all the access they need, and the majority of Europe is complicit allowing American bases to continue to operate within their borders.

    But then again who really knows. I can't outright dismiss your claim, and it would.be silly to do so. I think it's more likely that the US could do it, but I can't garuntee it. As I said each day the US doesn't commit to a large scale invasion it increases Iran's odds tremendously. Iran does need to build up enough drones. I don't believe they have enough yet. They're definetly working on it.

    I don't disagree with you in drones tech either. I think it just comes down to numbers and continued capabilities to launch the drones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago

    Buddy, Russia has been bombing Ukraine for four years now, and it's still there. And Iran is three times the size of Ukraine, with lots of mountains under which all the critical military infrastructure is.

    We might not have up to date figures on each country, but we do know that the US has been massively drained in Ukraine for the past 4 years. We know that US industrial production is laughable. And we know that the US is spread thin around the world with over 800 military bases to maintain. Meanwhile, Iran has been preparing for this specific war for literally decades, and they're fighting on their home turf.

    And the US can't specifically overwhelm the government because Iranians aren't idiots, and they have considered this exact possibility. This is why they have the whole mosaic defense strategy where each region acts autonomously, and has its own logistics. There is no central government you could take out to stop the army from acting.

    I'm being very realistic about the US logistics capability here. The US is literally abandoning bases and infrastructure that took decades to build in these client states. All the early warning systems and radars are gone at this point, and Iraqi and Iranian drones are flying freely through the empty US bases now. Iran has already pushed US logistics further away from their border.

    Nothing that we've seen so far suggests that the US has any chance of prevailing over Iran. Also not sure what you're basing the claim that Iran does not have enough drones on. They've been producing them since the war in Ukraine started.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago* (13 children)

    A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there's no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).

    But I don't think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they're capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we've also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.

    And just to reiterate: I don't think any of this is a good idea, and I don't support any of it. But when you're talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can't ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries.

    The key is that due to our kleptocratic military industrial complex, we're not able to produce these drones cheaply. Our military and its supply chains are built around producing very small numbers of very expensive weapons. We can't even get Congress to pass a military right to repair. Contractors bilk the taxpayers for spare parts at a 10000% markup, and our system is too corrupt to end their thievery.

    The hard truth is that our military isn't actually built to win wars against competent peer or near-peer opponents. It's built to line the pockets of defense contractors. Or, to use a car analogy, Iran is producing cheap $5k k trucks. Our military is running on $100,000 low margin, high profit SUVs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The F35 for all purchasors, except Israel, but Including US military, requires Lockheed contractor repair services. No manual is provided with purchase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    And that's why Iran could actually win this war. Iran doesn't have to send an expeditionary force to lay siege to Washington DC to win this war. They just need to turtle in and hold out long enough for either US will or treasure to break.

    Honestly, I think Bin Ladin will go down as the greatest strategic genius of the 21st century. For the cost of a handful of lives and a few hundred grand, he tricked a superpower into burning through trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. All he had to do was hit the superpower where it hurt the most - its sense of pride. And now, a quarter century later, we're still stuck in Bin Ladin's world, never having learned a damn thing. And we can't keep this up forever. Eventually people will simply stop wanting to buy US treasuries, and the whole debt empire falls to pieces. Simply by forcing the US to spend itself into the poorhouse, Iran can defeat the US without ever striking a single target on American soil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Right you just made his point? Cost is relevant as the conflict continues. If the US committed everything it could likely overwhelm the government (probably leading to an Afghanistan 2), but the longer the conflict goes the scales tip in favor of Iran due to these costs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Right this goes to attrition.

    Can this prevent the collapse of the government and a US occupation? Maybe, if it doesn't though it will cause endless insurgency even if the US props up a friendly government.

    Then we just get Afghanistan all over again.

    The real question is can these autonomous cells continue operating their regions independently and for how long. Maintaining governance and a prolonged guerilla campaign aren't the same.

    And you know I hope they do repel the US, but I feel like it's crazy to dismiss it as impossible

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago

    Look at Ukraine, Russia has not been able to collapse the government there so far, and it has an army of one and a half million fighting there, and has been bombing Ukraine for four years now. Russia has a far better situation logistically being situated right next to Ukraine and being able to transport troops and materiel by rail. Based on that, in what possible universe, does the US manage to break a country three times the size of Ukraine that's half away across the globe from it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    They don't need to take on the full brunt of the US, they just need to keep the Strait closed to US-friendly traffic until the US economy collapses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Unless that encourages the US to deploy everything to avoid that. We can't even begin to predict what the idiot in charge will do.

    If he goes that route the government of Iran would probably fall after a lot of death and then a long bloody, and ultimately unsuccessful, occupation would follow.

    Hopefully he's not dumb enough to try, and everyday the US doesn't fully invade does tilt the scales in Iran's favor

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The government of Iran won't fall before they mine the Strait, and then it'll be closed without any further input. Then all Iran has to do is survive the occupation while the global economy collapses, eventually starving the occupation of the funds it needs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities

    US strategic options made public are like 300 but instead of guarding a choke point, they rush into higher defense ratios.

    But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries.

    US is not among the 4 drone superpowers. Iran is one of these. US tech is old, expensive, and not high volume production.

    you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.

    The option they have threatened is mutual assured destruction of global economy. US has avoided Iran oil, and unsanctioned them during this war. It's hard to see why they would escalate more, even if Israel gets to veto.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Worse. The US actually just doesn't have enough troops to occupy Iran. We literally don't have enough people in uniform. The US would need to institute a draft to raise the number of soldiers necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    I think that's an eventuality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think the US can even afford such an occupation financially. We're already spending more on interest than we are on even the defense budget. Even if our leaders completely ignore popular will and the cost of lives. The US budget and debt can only be stretched so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets,

    If you've played RTS/starcraft, zerging one unit at a time after you have started the campaign, is not effective. Zerging as a verb also refers to suiciding cheap units to overcome a big objective, and US is not playing the Zerg side. Putting entirety of US military forces in near proximity of Iran is going to continue the reported hospital filling Iran strikes on those gatherings from this weekend.

    The plan you speak of is completely different than surprise assassination of ayatollah followed by quick air campaign hoping for surrender. It is something that has to be in place before the air campaign, and not one unit at a time that has 2 week lag time before it is in position.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago

    Iraq was nothing like Iran. Iraq is a small country, with a small population and a small military industry. Iran is far more advanced and capable, and it also had more time to prepare both strategically and technologically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    The Iranians are not well advsnced, not at all. No offense, it is a whole thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 12 points 7 months ago

    They're one of a handful of nations that are able to put a satellite in orbit and they have hypersonic weapons that burgerland is still isn't able to procedure, but do go on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Don't forget, we're supposedly bombing them because they are on the brink of nuclear capability. That's pretty advanced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    So advanced the Americans did it in the 40s

    And the north Koreans beat them to it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Of course NK got it first, nobody was bombing their facilities at at regular intervals. You can make faster progress when you don't have to rebuild your entire program, including replacing all your dead scientists, every few years.

    And so we did it in the 4Os, so what? Nuclear weaponry is still considered among the highest tech, and extremely dangerous, which is exactly why they wanted to bomb it.

    They also have cool enough drone tech that they regularly get past Israel's impenetrable Iron Dome defense.

    It kind of defeats your argument that they are technologically weak, when we are bombing them because we fear their technological strength.

    Underestimating your opponent is one of the most classic moron military moves, and one America enthusiastically engages in, which is why we've lost most of the wars we've fought since WW2. When you don't take your enemy seriously, you don't fight them hard enough offensively or defensively, and you eventually lose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Yeah they are. They're a theocracy, yes, but the theocracy made a point to maintain the scientific and engineering capacity they had prior. They've got women with barely any freedoms with PhDs and jobs using them. If you can't understand that you can't really assess their capabilities. What they lack is allies, water, and freedoms

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    We may just be in an era where things swing in the direction of cheap mass armies rather than expensive elite fighting units. Think knights vs longbows. Sometimes the technology of the day favors small numbers of very expensive fighters, vehicles, and weapons. Sometimes the tech favors large numbers of cheap weapons. Cheap longbowman beat out expensive elite armored knights. Elite gun-toting marksmen and mercenaries eventually replaced the longbow armies. The mass gunpowder armies of the Napoleonic era replaced the elite mercenary armies that came before that. In the twentieth century, tanks, machine guns, and aircraft overcame masses of soldiers charging trenches with cheap rifles.

    It's not necessarily some moral failing of the nations involved. We may simply be seeing the technology evolve. Expensive aircraft that cost hundreds of millions are the modern day equivalent of knights, while cheap drones are the equivalent of the hoards of English longbowmen. An individual knight could easily defeat a single longbowman in combat. But bows were so cheap you could deploy them by the thousands. A modern fighter jet will laugh in the face of a cheap drone. But if the jet costs as much as a thousand drones put together, spamming drones becomes the winning tactic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent