Support NeoGAF

[pepeno]

No, that's because just as they did in the Strait, the Americans underestimated the danger posed by drones.

US did not underestimate danger. There were ton of articles, experts, generals who correctly stated that Iran is credible threat and any war with Iran is a war in which you have to commit at minimum million soldiers to have ground campaign. Air campaign will be easy but air doesn't win wars, ground troops do.

And that is without occupation, rotation and assuming US has infinite stockpile of tomahawks and other munitions. In assesments they correctly stated that in case of war US runs out of precision munitions pretty quickly leaving stuff like artillery doing most of the work.

And those assesments are already old because fpv drones are everywhere so prepare for russia vs ukraine part 2.

 

[Critical Hit]

US did not underestimate danger. There were ton of articles, experts, generals who correctly stated that Iran is credible threat and any war with Iran is a war in which you have to commit at minimum million soldiers to have ground campaign. Air campaign will be easy but air doesn't win wars, ground troops do.

And that is without occupation, rotation and assuming US has infinite stockpile of tomahawks and other munitions. In assesments they correctly stated that in case of war US runs out of precision munitions pretty quickly leaving stuff like artillery doing most of the work.

And those assesments are already old because fpv drones are everywhere so prepare for russia vs ukraine part 2.

I have no interest in discussing your speculations about the goals of the operation and its development as Russia-Ukraine II - this is not a full-scale war and is unlikely to become one. At this point, I still see the operation as quite successful (in a military context), despite some mistakes that could have been avoided, but in operations of this scale, everyone makes mistakes. Any army is inherently conservative and almost always changes only in response to mistakes and enemy actions. But of course, the clowns on youtube and twitter know better.

 

[StueyDuck]

I have no interest in discussing your speculations about the goals of the operation and its development as Russia-Ukraine II - this is not a full-scale war and is unlikely to become one. At this point, I still see the operation as quite successful (in a military context), despite some mistakes that could have been avoided, but in operations of this scale, everyone makes mistakes. Any army is inherently conservative and almost always changes only in response to mistakes and enemy actions. But of course, the clowns on youtube and twitter know better.

People seem to conflate military success and "war success" I do think the US military has mostly achieved the missions they have sent their airmen/soldiers on. The rescue of the pilots was a unanimous success, but the Strait of Hormuz hasn't been a successful outcome in terms of the general war.

As you say, the operation itself, as in soldiers doing what they are tasked to do, has been mostly a success. There's no doubt that the US military is still lethal and precise and achieve their goals.

 

[pepeno]

this is not a full-scale war and is unlikely to become one. At this point, I still see the operation as quite successful (in a military context), despite some mistakes that could have been avoided, but in operations of this scale, everyone makes mistakes. Any army is inherently conservative and almost always changes only in response to mistakes and enemy actions. But of course, the clowns on youtube and twitter know better.

What did US gain from this war ? Nothing.

- It actually lost most of interceptors stockpile to the point where they are asking for allies to bring over sold pac2-3 missiles, bring gear from actual US interest places like Taiwan. Rebuilding that stockpile is something like 5-10 years.
- Aside from that from sources US army also lost 1/5 of precision munitions. In those few weeks. Replacing that is another 5-10 years.
- Most of bases in region are heavily damaged or lost.
- Iran is now controlling straight and literally tolling tankers with oil.
- Iran oil is now unsanctioned officially by US
- US is feeling the heat of increased OIL prices.
- Iran lost SOME of infrastructure but that will be rebuild in manner of months and probably underground too. So next air campaign will not be as efficient as this one.
- Iran is still lobbing just fine balistic and drones.
- US had to ask for ceasefire (Iran doesn't want ceasefire)

The worst part is that US has no way to walk on escalation ladder. Meaning there is no way to force Iran to do it's bidding. The moment ground invasion is in play, whoever is in power loses and anti-war candidate wins.

Can't leave Iran, because US has major deals with UAE, Saudis, and other countries in region. The moment US blinks, all of those nations will start to ask hard questions.

 

[StabbyStabStabStabStab]

People seem to conflate military success and "war success" I do think the US military has mostly achieved the missions they have sent their airmen/soldiers on. The rescue of the pilots was a unanimous success, but the Strait of Hormuz hasn't been a successful outcome in terms of the general war.

As you say, the operation itself, as in soldiers doing what they are tasked to do, has been mostly a success. There's no doubt that the US military is still lethal and precise and achieve their goals.

I'm curious how you can differentiate between the 2 - the objective of the war should be outlined at the beginning and acheived through planned military sorties, so the very purpose of 'military sucess' as you put it is to lead to the desired outcome/completion of said objective. You can only really seperate the 2 if there is no objective to the war in the first place, so you can only point to solidiers successfully doing what they've been told to do with no clear reason why they're doing it.

 

[StueyDuck]

I'm curious how you can differentiate between the 2 - the objective of the war should be outlined at the beginning and acheived through planned military sorties, so the very purpose of 'military sucess' as you put it is to lead to the desired outcome/completion of said objective. You can only really seperate the 2 if there is no objective to the war in the first place, so you can only point to solidiers successfully doing what they've been told to do with no clear reason why they're doing it.

No, it's very easy to separate the two...

Did the soldiers complete their mission successfully, yes or no?

Did the Overall strategy from global leaders complete their mission successfully, yes or no?

Conflating the two is just what people do to make military success seem like a failure, so they can get some likes on their tweets. The A10 taking out a target's only success is whether the target is successfully destroyed as planned.

Saying the A10s mission was a failure because the overall war objective didn't go as planned is a bit silly, and talk about disrespecting your service members putting their lives at risk.

 

[StueyDuck]

What did US gain from this war ? Nothing.

- It actually lost most of interceptors stockpile to the point where they are asking for allies to bring over sold pac2-3 missiles, bring gear from actual US interest places like Taiwan. Rebuilding that stockpile is something like 5-10 years.
- Aside from that from sources US army also lost 1/5 of precision munitions. In those few weeks. Replacing that is another 5-10 years.
- Most of bases in region are heavily damaged or lost.
- Iran is now controlling straight and literally tolling tankers with oil.
- Iran oil is now unsanctioned officially by US
- US is feeling the heat of increased OIL prices.
- Iran lost SOME of infrastructure but that will be rebuild in manner of months and probably underground too. So next air campaign will not be as efficient as this one.
- Iran is still lobbing just fine balistic and drones.
- US had to ask for ceasefire (Iran doesn't want ceasefire)

The worst part is that US has no way to walk on escalation ladder. Meaning there is no way to force Iran to do it's bidding. The moment ground invasion is in play, whoever is in power loses and anti-war candidate wins.

Can't leave Iran, because US has major deals with UAE, Saudis, and other countries in region. The moment US blinks, all of those nations will start to ask hard questions.

I didn't realise the negotiations were over and everything was signed and good to go already.

 

[Critical Hit]

What did US gain from this war ? Nothing.

It makes sense to discuss the results after the operation is complete or once it becomes clear that the outcome will not change in the future. None of that has happened yet.

the objective of the war should be outlined at the beginning and acheived through planned military sorties

There are usually several objectives, ranging from the minimum, which has almost been achieved to the maximum, which is still very much up in the air.

 

[DrFigs]

Trump two days ago:

President Donald Trump told ABC News on Wednesday morning that the U.S. may seek a "joint venture" with Iran to safeguard the Strait of Hormuz, following his Tuesday announcement of a two-week ceasefire. "We're thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It's a way of securing it -- also securing it from lots of other people," Trump said when asked whether he would allow Tehran to charge tolls for shipping to transit the strategic waterway. "It's a beautiful thing," the president added.

Trump yesterday:

 

[Hypereides]

Unfortunately this part of this country has always been there. Those folks who, after gaining freedom from the colonialist British immediately thought "ya know. Maybe they had a point lol ".

Its always been here. But people weren't always this bold about it. But I believe in the real america, the one that doesnt subverting freedom for false power but realizes freedom IS power. And respect is earned by reason, not by threats.

Honestly, the US could use the essentially *free education system we have here in Denmark. Maybe even the universal healthcare aspect too. Only drawback would be paying high/proportional-to-wealth taxes to accommodate it, which I can imagine some Americans would be vehemently against, but the long term fruits of the investment would be worth it. Might settle down some of the unrest and restore some trust in their government too.

Shame lobbying US millionaires and billionaires are suppressing and preventing that from happening. Anyway, just a perspective from a Non-American/Dane.

 

[ElFenomeno]

US has won operationally yes, but lost strategically.

 

[Bojji]

Honestly, the US could use the essentially *free education system we have here in Denmark. Maybe even the universal healthcare aspect too. Only drawback would be paying high/proportional-to-wealth taxes to accommodate it, which I can imagine some Americans would be vehemently against, but the long term fruits of the investment would be worth it. Might settle down some of the unrest and restore some trust in their government too.

Shame lobbying US millionaires and billionaires are suppressing and preventing that from happening. Anyway, just a perspective from a Non-American/Dane.

I constantly read on Youtube that USA is paying for European armies, healthcare and education. That's why there are no monnies to do it in the country...

I think someone was doing calculations and universal healthcare in USA would cost less than current system where shit ton of money goes to private pockets (the middle man, insurance companies).

 

[adamsapple]

adamsapple

 

[Buggy Loop]

I constantly read on Youtube that USA is paying for European armies, healthcare and education. That's why there are no monnies to do it in the country...

I think someone was doing calculations and universal healthcare in USA would cost less than current system where shit ton of money goes to private pockets (the middle man, insurance companies).

It's cute of them to think that NATO didn't funnel multi-trillions from NATO allies, mostly Europe, directly into US military complex.

I'm sure Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, BAE and General Dynamics are all excited at the prospects of NATO collapsing

Such good timings for Boeing having won the F-47 contract and you have the POTUS saying the other countries would get a gimped version of it and then threaten to invade Greenland or pull out of NATO. I wouldn't be surprised one day we wake up and Trump got "Boeing'd" as they say.

 

[NickFire]

It's cute of them to think that NATO didn't funnel multi-trillions from NATO allies, mostly Europe, directly into US military complex.

I'm sure Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, BAE and General Dynamics are all excited at the prospects of NATO collapsing

Such good timings for Boeing having won the F-47 contract and you have the POTUS saying the other countries would get a gimped version of it and then threaten to invade Greenland or pull out of NATO. I wouldn't be surprised one day we wake up and Trump got "Boeing'd" as they say.

What would buying weapons from US companies matter to 99% of the US population? Not trying to be a dick. I just don't get why anyone thinks this matters to average people from the US.

 

[Buggy Loop]

What would buying weapons from US companies matter to 99% of the US population? Not trying to be a dick. I just don't get why anyone thinks this matters to average people from the US.

Jobs? Money funneled in the country? Allows to make technologically advanced military hardware because the bill is largely footed by allies? The F-35 program for example would be unsustainable without allies.

That's like asking why doing any business would affect the average people from the US. The US holds 43% of the GLOBAL arms exports.

What a strange question

 

[Bojji]

What would buying weapons from US companies matter to 99% of the US population? Not trying to be a dick. I just don't get why anyone thinks this matters to average people from the US.

Same way that Greenland or Iran is irrelevant to average US Joe, but here we are...

Military Industrial Complex won't be happy when EU will stop ordering weapons from US.

 

[NickFire]

Same way that Greenland or Iran is irrelevant to average US Joe, but here we are...

Military Industrial Complex won't be happy when EU will stop ordering weapons from US.

I'll give you Greenland - entire thing was ridiculous and irrelevant to pretty much everyone. Can't really agree about Iran. I think people know how much trouble they cause and didn't mind seeing their deceased leaders getting payback.

Anyway I'm not trying to completely dismiss the benefits of investing in US weapons for the US. I stand by my position that most Americans don't give a shit though.

 

[Toons]

Honestly, the US could use the essentially *free education system we have here in Denmark. Maybe even the universal healthcare aspect too. Only drawback would be paying high/proportional-to-wealth taxes to accommodate it, which I can imagine some Americans would be vehemently against, but the long term fruits of the investment would be worth it. Might settle down some of the unrest and restore some trust in their government too.

Shame lobbying US millionaires and billionaires are suppressing and preventing that from happening. Anyway, just a perspective from a Non-American/Dane.

The lack of importance and money put into education is a large art of why you're seeing what you're seeing. Its, if you ask me, the one of biggest tools of the elite to keep the common people dazed, confused and submissive.

 

[daffyduck]

OK, now that one was good.

 

[Brucey]

Def a dude. Unless hes already cupped her pussy....

 

[Brucey]

Both sides agreed to different things.

This certainly makes what both sides have been saying make more sense. Talking past each other and fucken Pakistan just bullshitting in the middle.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I did a search to make sure it was real because I had doubts for a minute

 

[Celcius]

How does he have time to do all of this tweeting and golfing?

 

[poppabk]

What would buying weapons from US companies matter to 99% of the US population? Not trying to be a dick. I just don't get why anyone thinks this matters to average people from the US.

More than anything Trumps presidency has been about trying to reduce the trade deficit and encourage manufacturing in the US. Guess what are some huge manufacturing companies in the US with significant exports of around $200 billion (or 1/5th of the trade deficit)?

 

[Jaybe]

Yet another demand added on by Iran (blocked assets). Just cancel this charade and finish them off already. This guy first on the list.

 

[adamsapple]

Looks like Vance is on his way to Islamabad at this moment as the US representative for the negotiations.

Unclear whether Iran will still send someone or not.

 

[Jaybe]

Looks like Vance is on his way to Islamabad at this moment as the US representative for the negotiations.

Unclear whether Iran will still send someone or not.

That's a long flight to make just for Vance to be embarrassed if nothing happens, hopefully Iran takes it seriously

 

[Sybrix]

Here's a good idea, get Melania to spout some bullshit to take the attention of this shit ceasefire deal.

Just from a professional POV, is this really how to run a White House & govt?

 

[YCoCg]

Here's a good idea, get Melania to spout some bullshit to take the attention of this shit ceasefire deal.

Just from a professional POV, is this really how to run a White House & govt?

"I did not know Epstein, these lies have to stop!"

 

[Vestal]

Here's a good idea, get Melania to spout some bullshit to take the attention of this shit ceasefire deal.

Just from a professional POV, is this really how to run a White House & govt?

His presidency is unprecedented. Personally, I don't think this sort of governing is sustainable for another 33 months.

People in general are just absolutely fed up with the carnival.

edit.. Not to mention that Mike Johnson is one of the weakest Speaker of the House in US History. He is but an extension of the Executive.

 

[pepeno]

Just so you know how things are dire for operations in middle east and why US asked for cease fire:

From sources us used around 2300 interceptors during those 2-3 weeks of war. Almost all stock it had in middle east and now rides other regions storages and tries to ship them to middle east and try to restock.

Even at 2030 production rate that's only like 2-3 weeks of war with iran. Let alone 2025-2026 production.
PAC3 are patriot system missiles used to shoot down Iran's missiles targeting ships, bases and other expensive stuff.

Iran apparently also did not shoot out everything they had. Most of their stock that went in first 2-3 weeks of war was their oldest stock, that's why they are still lobbing ballistic missiles and drones daily.

 

[ADiTAR]

Just so you know how things are dire for operations in middle east and why US asked for cease fire:

From sources us used around 2300 interceptors during those 2-3 weeks of war. Almost all stock it had in middle east and now rides other regions storages and tries to ship them to middle east and try to restock.

Even at 2030 production rate that's only like 2-3 weeks of war with iran. Let alone 2025-2026 production.
PAC3 are patriot system missiles used to shoot down Iran's missiles targeting ships, bases and other expensive stuff.

Iran apparently also did not shoot out everything they had. Most of their stock that went in first 2-3 weeks of war was their oldest stock, that's why they are still lobbing ballistic missiles and drones daily.

Than we really shouldn't have gone to war, just let them stockpile more shit.

 

[Critical Hit]

PAC3 are patriot system missiles used to shoot down Iran's missiles

PAC-3 is anti-ballistic. Ballistic missiles are the rarest (excluding nukes). The main focus right now should be on protection against drones and usvs.

US asked for cease fire

Are you Pakistani or something?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

 

[Clear]

What did US gain from this war ? Nothing.

- It actually lost most of interceptors stockpile to the point where they are asking for allies to bring over sold pac2-3 missiles, bring gear from actual US interest places like Taiwan. Rebuilding that stockpile is something like 5-10 years.
- Aside from that from sources US army also lost 1/5 of precision munitions. In those few weeks. Replacing that is another 5-10 years.
- Most of bases in region are heavily damaged or lost.
- Iran is now controlling straight and literally tolling tankers with oil.
- Iran oil is now unsanctioned officially by US
- US is feeling the heat of increased OIL prices.
- Iran lost SOME of infrastructure but that will be rebuild in manner of months and probably underground too. So next air campaign will not be as efficient as this one.
- Iran is still lobbing just fine balistic and drones.
- US had to ask for ceasefire (Iran doesn't want ceasefire)

The worst part is that US has no way to walk on escalation ladder. Meaning there is no way to force Iran to do it's bidding. The moment ground invasion is in play, whoever is in power loses and anti-war candidate wins.

Can't leave Iran, because US has major deals with UAE, Saudis, and other countries in region. The moment US blinks, all of those nations will start to ask hard questions.

Sorry, but I find it highly implausible that the Iranians will find it easier to rebuild all the shit that got destroyed than the US to manufacture more ordnance to destroy said shit.

And no. Building underground is slow and highly resource intensive, way more so than surface construction and still creates natural choke-points because without surface access what use is an underground base ?

Stop talking like the IRGC are supermen! Its laughable.

 

[daffyduck]

"I did not know Epstein, these lies have to stop!"

To be fair, it does sound like something Reddit/Bsky/Ree and the like would say.

CNN, BBC and CBC must be kicking themselves for not finding the "story" earlier.

 

[adamsapple]

Than we really shouldn't have gone to war

Finally, something we can agree on for once.

 

[calico]

"NATO. Is. A. Defensive. Alliance."

This must be the new talking point for people who don't really know what they're talking about to mindlessly parrot I guess. NATO can act whenever it chooses to act, as it has demonstrated repeatedly previously. No NATO member needs to be attacked for it to take action. It is -collectively- choosing not to act and some members are (more egregiously) even choosing to make it difficult for the US to act, thereby potentially further increasing the risk to US service members. This obstruction is particularly odious given Europe benefits from the military action more immediately than the US itself does, and largely supports the goal of it.

It is perfectly reasonable for the US to reevaluate in light of this whether the benefit it derives from being in NATO is worth carrying the huge obligation to guarantee and provide for the security of a freeloading Europe.

I have no interest in discussing your speculations about the goals of the operation and its development as Russia-Ukraine II - this is not a full-scale war and is unlikely to become one. At this point, I still see the operation as quite successful (in a military context), despite some mistakes that could have been avoided, but in operations of this scale, everyone makes mistakes. Any army is inherently conservative and almost always changes only in response to mistakes and enemy actions. But of course, the clowns on youtube and twitter know better.

To be able to assert this degree of dominance over a previously highly rated military and with -touch wood- very low losses is a phenomenal military achievement.

After how badly the previous regime degraded the reputation of the US military, it has its swagger back following the technical masterclass in Venezuela and a near flawless victory against Iran.

 

[Wildebeest]

Once again, that was the UN who approved that, not NATO. Russia or China could have vetoed it and you can assume the reason why they didn't is not because they were terrified of standing up to NATO nations.

 

[Bojji]

Once again, that was the UN who approved that, not NATO. Russia or China could have vetoed it and you can assume the reason why they didn't is not because they were terrified of standing up to NATO nations.

And US president not even asked NATO or individual countries for any help in this operation before it started.

 

[Wildebeest]

And US president not even asked NATO or individual countries for any help in this operation before it started.

The "useless do nothing UN" of US media talking points are responsible for all these actions. The "terrifying aggressive invade everyone NATO" of Russian propaganda responsible for approving none of them. Makes you think. Maybe social media isn't always reliable?

 

[adamsapple]

And US president not even asked NATO or individual countries for any help in this operation before it started.

I don't think even the oldest of allies like the UK were informed beforehand. If this was the Bush era, Tony Blair would be the first one to commit forces to help the US.

 

[winjer]

FFS. That was not a NATO operation. It was a UN operation, sanctioned under UNSCR 1973.
Several NATO countries lead the operation, but also included several non-NATO countries.
And there was never any call for Article 5.

 

[StabbyStabStabStabStab]

"NATO. Is. A. Defensive. Alliance."

This must be the new talking point for people who don't really know what they're talking about to mindlessly parrot I guess. NATO can act whenever it chooses to act, as it has demonstrated repeatedly previously. No NATO member needs to be attacked for it to take action. It is -collectively- choosing not to act and some members are (more egregiously) even choosing to make it difficult for the US to act, thereby potentially further increasing the risk to US service members. This obstruction is particularly odious given Europe benefits from the military action more immediately than the US itself does, and largely supports the goal of it.

It is perfectly reasonable for the US to reevaluate in light of this whether the benefit it derives from being in NATO is worth carrying the huge obligation to guarantee and provide for the security of a freeloading Europe.


To be able to assert this degree of dominance over a previously highly rated military and with -touch wood- very low losses is a phenomenal military achievement.

After how badly the previous regime degraded the reputation of the US military, it has its swagger back following the technical masterclass in Venezuela and a near flawless victory against Iran.

I think the key word here is 'collectively'. Decisions are made collectively - considered, debated etc. It's not about waiting for one country to literally windmill into another with a pair of keys in each hand with little strategic forethought or discernible goals, and then expect everyone to follow suit. That's not an alliance, it's just an extension of the aggressive bully boy tactics trump's shown throughout his current tenure.

That aside, yes I reckon the US should leave NATO.

 

[thefool]

 

[Vr46]

 

[Baemono]

Nothing better than someone having « patriot » in his account name to make sure he's everything besides that.

Lybia was pushed by France after Sarkozy got money from Gaddafi for his campaign (in a not legal way), and then when Gaddafi's entourage threatened Sarkozy to reveal about the money sent, Sarkozy pushed for an international coalition approved by the UN for an intervention in Lybia so he can get rid of Gaddafi.

Nothing to do with NATO

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

American conservatism probably dies with the blowback that is coming thanks to Trump blowing it and one can't really underestimate the damage this will do to our country yet.

 

[winjer]

And let's not forget that JC Vance went to Hungary to support the election campaign of Viktor Orbán, the biggest piece of shit in the whole of the EU.