Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

10
so uh, how are they doing that? they're just sending ships full of men and materiel to the island? and we're letting them?

why isn't there an F/A-18 overhead 24/7 ready to drop a 2000 pound bomb through the deck of any suspicious ship approaching the island? we have air dominance, right?

Replies

50
@DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf @BobsonDugnuttHB they don't need to meet us in the field. whatever forces we drop in iran won't be able to do anything about their missiles, while iran can hit those forces with shaheds launched from anywhere inside their borders

or iran can simply ignore them and tell us to pull them out or they'll completely destroy the gulf state oil infrastructure and close the strait permanently
@DC5FAN @BobsonDugnuttHB @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf what's to surmount? we literally cannot effectively attack them, we don't know where their missile bases are. we can't move the infrastructure they threaten. there's no military solution here, not right now

if we spent the next 20 years reindustrializing the US and expanding the US military to 5x its current strength then sure, we could go squash iran

sometimes the enemy is just too strong to defeat at a reasonable cost. we don't have to take every single fight
@deprecated_ii @BobsonDugnuttHB @DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf there's gotta be something else going on here, like the whole thing's a scheme to profit off manipulating the markets or something
it's just totally implausible to me that the US is incapable of carrying out airstrikes on Iran's infrastructure and industrial capacity until they're stuck standing on the shore trying to skip rocks at passing tankers
has the entire defense budget for the past 50 years been nothing but embezzlement while some guy gets paid 14 bucks an hour to duct tape traffic cones to the end of culvert pipes and paint them like missiles?
@skylar @BobsonDugnuttHB @DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf sure, we could destroy their infrastructure. but they can destroy the infrastructure of the entire gulf and israel in response. we can't stop them doing that. the missiles are already built, and the people who can fire them are already in bunkers we can't locate. the missiles cannot be shot down

we're in a standoff. we're pointing a big gun at them and they're holding a dead man switch that will blow up the world economy if we shoot them

our options are to back off for now, or say fuck it and destroy 30% of the world oil supply in an attack that won't even achieve what greater israel needs out of this war

they simply outplayed us
> iran is warlords now thoery

I tried to look into this(no one seems to care who the fuck these men are so there is very little information) while theres some corruption and distrust I dont think they fractured; isreal seems to sometimes get a bribe to stick and assassinations are used to spread distrust; but the full "they are 27 regional warlords now" seems to be an exaggeration, it seems like 3 men and one of them is the same guy whos been hiding underground for a year(or being puppeted by who knows for that long) so long as the airforce and the navy agreed to put a guy in a coma "in power"(instead of the cyclic assassinations) I see no reason to expect a wet dream of a break down of power.

While I think they are making a mistake attacking qatar and turkey, I think this can be explained by both "isreal bribed someone to do that and they will be removed from power" and "theres paranoia so they are purity sprialing" explain it well enough.

I dont see people hiding in different caves, having friends who died at the hands of "the great satan" needing to fight among themselves, more then usual, if they measure dicks it will likely be by sending missiles at the enemy not blood among themselves; which is not different from what they were doing before.
> if they measure dicks it will likely be by sending missiles at the enemy not blood among themselves

Oh yes, this is 100% my expectation. A leaderless group never turns to in-fighting while they have an outside threat, they instead compete on who can be the most manly by attacking that threat the hardest. So that means you don't have a bunch of warlords battling it out, you have a war machine that nobody can turn off (even the Iranians), hence the Dr. Strangelove reference...

Since when I posted that, it does look like Iran has more of a government than I was imagining, but IMO the US and Israel continue playing with fire by trying to decapitate it.

it bothers me how little information is out there tho; youd think the news would have sorta accurate org charts and actually check the top 3 levels of the trees life history. Irans explictly designed itself to not break from a single strike, youd think the democrats/china would want to fact check trump.

Think of it like a nigger's old Altima: We've been "investing" in it for a long time, but that money was spent on big speakers, a loud, muddy subwoofer (no amplifier), 24" rims, used tires, and limo tint.

Meanwhile, it still has the original oil, original water pump, a threadbare timing belt.... all the boring logistical elements ignored.

We could just air strike the oil island, and wait and see the decapitation strike changed things(I believe the replacement is a puppet in a coma and the who ever is collecting the million dollars is hoping to take power), but nooooo we must threaten to "capture" the island and let trade go thru in case democracy suddenly shows up and so europe can delay making neclear power planets... again.

Why are we supporting our enemies trade routes while trying for impossible goals? If we could just make the hard choice "should this oil production still exist", yes is an easy to achieve situation, no is an easy to achieve situation, "yes but it should be a democratic nation state" is literally impossible.
I think you are asking an irrelevant question. I agree that if you were to place a US army mech infantry battalion against its Iranian equivalent it would be better trained, equipped and lead but that doesn't really matter.
A lot retired military analysts are, I believe, correctly comparing any US landing in Iran to the Gallipoli campaign of WW1. By all accounts the British and Commonwealth were superior in all regards to the Turks but they could never take advantage of said superiority because the campaign to take the Dardanelles was logistically and strategically impossible.
The same can be said of any US incursion into Iran, barring some massive Gulf War style build up over months (which the military doesn't even have the numbers to pull off anymore). The specific quality of Iranian units is not very important because any landing is not capable of being reinforced or supplied in a meaningful way even if successful.

I don’t honestly have any real way of knowing details; but Persians are an ancient Nation with a proud history of conquest. They’ve been around literal millennia. That they’re *still* around, in a strategically well-defensible land with area comparable to Western Europe, strongly suggests to me they know how to run an Army in defense of their homeland. My two cents

You mean Iran, right ? I don’t know much about their tactical game - but I do know strategy is a big part of Persian culture and highly valued, and they regularly have people that get into chess grandmaster levels internationally.

Ngl the whole idea of the US Army going in there and trying to seize/hold territory just strikes me as astonishingly foolish.

AFAIK neither the US, nor Iran really has battle hardened troops at this moment. Every army learns on the job, every time. That said, if you're of a warrior race then blood memory brings things back pretty quickly.

I think both (white) Americans and Persians do qualify as warrior races. The big difference here is that Persians are extremely motivated, and Americans are extremely demotivated.

This isn't even War On Terrah "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", this is War For Israel "why did I want that challenger so badly"... This moral problem is going to plague the US.

So IMO the fighting ability gap is probably in fact pretty small, but the moral gap is on par with the American Revolution vs. the British...

Pic: Iranian made car.
The military has fully autonomous drones, except for the final decision about the actual deployment. That is still a mandatory human in the loop. That human is not sitting in a civilian-controlled facility or vehicle, that human is sitting in a military asset close to the weapon system. Could be a surface, submerged, ground or airborne.

There are tons of YT videos about this, military exercises showcasing the capacity are publicized for marketing the technologies - even China participates in these. This is how we know that Chinese are over-selling capacity and support, because the performance is not matching the demonstration.

These operators are not remote, that one thing is cerrtain.
Women found a niche in the Military as well as in civil life. You no longer need all 32 in your mouth or even all four on your torso, the military has a job for everyone. It would be very difficult to qualify the increasing number of roles as "troops", let alone "fighters". The Space Force, for example, has zero "troops" that can be "deployed".

The actual "fighters" are no longer human, they are mechanical and increasingly electronic.

But you knew that, of course!