First, one-eighth of a percent isn’t statistically meaningful. This is a top-priority combat theatre and aircraft are still flying. Any C-135 that can fly can get there, the sky is largely open to the usa.
Second, the claim that the U.S. is losing significant assets feels like a stretch, especially given the first point. Can you share sources to support that?
It is very significant if the US is unable to protect these planes. Sending new ones just means they will meet the same fate because radars and early detection were the first thing Iran systematically targeted. None of these assets can’t be easily replaced, and they cost countless billions to build:
I can assure you our leaders are entirely able to count the billions they will spend repairing these systems. They counted to 37 trillion with no problem.
Ty for the response. I challenge the assertion that the usa will keep doing the same thing and loosing to Iranian attacks…because there is no better teacher than failure.
The U.S. military’s greatest strength isn’t size, it’s adaptability. It learns faster, shifts faster, and scales faster than any force on earth.
The us likes to show off and really only combats those it knows it can outclass.
The US doesn’t really have a lot of practical option here that I can see. The early detection infrastructure has already been destroyed. The US industry is not capable of producing interceptors at the rate they’re being used. And the US has a huge logistics disadvantage having to ferry troops, weapons, and supplies across the ocean.
The US military has also proven itself to be incapable of achieving strategic goals in pretty much every single conflict it fought from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq, and Afghanistan. There is zero reason to believe that the US military can learn faster, shift faster, or scale faster than the Iranians can. It is an incompetent force that’s disgraced itself time and again. The war on Iran will be no different.
First, one-eighth of a percent isn’t statistically meaningful
Yeah just glaze right over “not all of them are operational and not all of them can be deployed there” and still persist in framing things as if it’s 5 out of 800 because you’re VERY smart
the claim that the U.S. is losing significant assets feels like a stretch, especially given the first point
Hey chat how many THAAD systems are there and is it a good sign if they had to dismantle the one in south Korea to rush in a replacement
The cost of the Iran war TO THE US ALONE, and NOT including the literal trillions that will be lost worldwide due to the 30-40% of Gulf oil infrastructure that’s been blown up, could already pay to permanently end homelessness in America
Weird how Iran has burnt enough american money that it could have ended homelessness and yet here you are, engaging us with your full powers as a Reddit debarebro
Neither you nor anyone else “does debate” ever. This isn’t high school. There are no rules of order and there aren’t going to be. Obnoxious pendants like yourself reframe arguments you get in as debates so that when you lose you can gesture at some moderator that isn’t there or rulebook only you respect to indicate that the time for argument has passed
First, one-eighth of a percent isn’t statistically meaningful.
fuck i hate these misaproppiations of technical terms. “Really small number” is not the same as “statistically meaningless”, go to a police station with one-eigth percent blood alcohol content, tell them you’re gonna go drive know and see if they think it isn’t “statistically meaningful”
I get your distinction, but you’re mixing contexts. A small percentage in a system isn’t the same as BAC in a human body. Let’s keep it apples to apples.
And hey, don’t let that hate eat you up, this back and forth is essentially meaningless leisure. it’s not that deep.
BAC in a human body is a small percentage in a system though? So by your definition it is apples to apples.
You’re speaking of 0.125% of all those types of aircraft, including the non-operational ones or the ones in operation elsewhere. Even if there were still 500 aircraft available how many are in the region on standby to be deployed immediately to continue operations unimpeded? You don’t need to destroy all of them to degrade operations to a point where its no longer viable, only a sufficient amount. That’s why 0.125% BAC is already a pretty high amount. It degrades operations to a sufficient degree, rendering one incapable of operation machinery for instance.
this back and forth is essentially meaningless leisure
and fuck do I hate people that treat news and war like some tv-show episode or sportsgame. These are real people dying by the terror attacks from the judeochristian fundamentalists. It’s not meaningless and the fact that you debate it “for leisure” is frankly revolting.
The real meaninglessness is this back and forth. I am not changing your mind, just giving your anger something to focus on.
I am stepping away from it, but I will leave you with this: if someone can make you angry, they can control you. Anger may feel powerful, but it takes your power and leaves you carrying it alone. Take care.
if someone can make you angry, they can control you. Anger may feel powerful, but it takes your power and leaves you carrying it alone. Take care.
and buddy do I fucking hate it when people think that emotions are to be shunned and think some platitudes about tranquility are deep. There are no bad emotions only bad ways to deal with them. There is a reason people get angry in the face of injustice, embracing that anger gives one the motivation to act in an altruistic manner. It allows us to put the immediate and visible rewards for us aside and put oneself in harms way for the benefits of others.
The people that think that emotionless debate is the highest form of reason have not understood what debating others is for.
Ty for the reply. Two points I’m struggling with:
First, one-eighth of a percent isn’t statistically meaningful. This is a top-priority combat theatre and aircraft are still flying. Any C-135 that can fly can get there, the sky is largely open to the usa.
Second, the claim that the U.S. is losing significant assets feels like a stretch, especially given the first point. Can you share sources to support that?
It is very significant if the US is unable to protect these planes. Sending new ones just means they will meet the same fate because radars and early detection were the first thing Iran systematically targeted. None of these assets can’t be easily replaced, and they cost countless billions to build:
And it’s clear that the US is abandoning entire bases now, NYT chose to use a hilarious euphemism for that saying that ‘Iran’s Attacks Force U.S. Troops to Work Remotely’. There are now plenty of videos of drones flying in US bases completely uncontested, and based being empty.
I can assure you our leaders are entirely able to count the billions they will spend repairing these systems. They counted to 37 trillion with no problem.
Ty for the response. I challenge the assertion that the usa will keep doing the same thing and loosing to Iranian attacks…because there is no better teacher than failure.
The U.S. military’s greatest strength isn’t size, it’s adaptability. It learns faster, shifts faster, and scales faster than any force on earth.
The us likes to show off and really only combats those it knows it can outclass.
2 non usa Sources on their adaptability: -https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-fifth-element -https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/09/overseas-bases-and-us-strategic-posture/
Historical examples on adaptability: -Operation Odyssey Dawn (2011) -Operation Inherent Resolve (2014–present) -Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (2015–2021) -Operation Allies Refuge (2021) -grabbing Maduro from Venezuelas most fortified military installation (2026)
The US doesn’t really have a lot of practical option here that I can see. The early detection infrastructure has already been destroyed. The US industry is not capable of producing interceptors at the rate they’re being used. And the US has a huge logistics disadvantage having to ferry troops, weapons, and supplies across the ocean.
The US military has also proven itself to be incapable of achieving strategic goals in pretty much every single conflict it fought from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq, and Afghanistan. There is zero reason to believe that the US military can learn faster, shift faster, or scale faster than the Iranians can. It is an incompetent force that’s disgraced itself time and again. The war on Iran will be no different.
Here’s what’s the most likely to happen next, should the US decide to put boots on the ground https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETeA07YjnSM
Do you think practically all their bases in the region destroyed and $1.1 billion radars that take 10 years to rebuild aren’t significant assets lost?
Yeah just glaze right over “not all of them are operational and not all of them can be deployed there” and still persist in framing things as if it’s 5 out of 800 because you’re VERY smart
Hey chat how many THAAD systems are there and is it a good sign if they had to dismantle the one in south Korea to rush in a replacement
The cost of the Iran war TO THE US ALONE, and NOT including the literal trillions that will be lost worldwide due to the 30-40% of Gulf oil infrastructure that’s been blown up, could already pay to permanently end homelessness in America
Weird how Iran has burnt enough american money that it could have ended homelessness and yet here you are, engaging us with your full powers as a Reddit debarebro
I could respond point by point, but the tone you’re bringing isn’t about understanding, it’s about winning.
I don’t do debates where anger replaces reasoning.
lol cool story, yeah the U.S. totally could win this war, too (they won’t)
Neither you nor anyone else “does debate” ever. This isn’t high school. There are no rules of order and there aren’t going to be. Obnoxious pendants like yourself reframe arguments you get in as debates so that when you lose you can gesture at some moderator that isn’t there or rulebook only you respect to indicate that the time for argument has passed
fuck i hate these misaproppiations of technical terms. “Really small number” is not the same as “statistically meaningless”, go to a police station with one-eigth percent blood alcohol content, tell them you’re gonna go drive know and see if they think it isn’t “statistically meaningful”
I get your distinction, but you’re mixing contexts. A small percentage in a system isn’t the same as BAC in a human body. Let’s keep it apples to apples.
And hey, don’t let that hate eat you up, this back and forth is essentially meaningless leisure. it’s not that deep.
BAC in a human body is a small percentage in a system though? So by your definition it is apples to apples.
You’re speaking of 0.125% of all those types of aircraft, including the non-operational ones or the ones in operation elsewhere. Even if there were still 500 aircraft available how many are in the region on standby to be deployed immediately to continue operations unimpeded? You don’t need to destroy all of them to degrade operations to a point where its no longer viable, only a sufficient amount. That’s why 0.125% BAC is already a pretty high amount. It degrades operations to a sufficient degree, rendering one incapable of operation machinery for instance.
and fuck do I hate people that treat news and war like some tv-show episode or sportsgame. These are real people dying by the terror attacks from the judeochristian fundamentalists. It’s not meaningless and the fact that you debate it “for leisure” is frankly revolting.
Amen.
The real meaninglessness is this back and forth. I am not changing your mind, just giving your anger something to focus on.
I am stepping away from it, but I will leave you with this: if someone can make you angry, they can control you. Anger may feel powerful, but it takes your power and leaves you carrying it alone. Take care.
try being all tranquil when bombs are dropping over your home all the time fuckass dumb fucking enlightened redditor
and buddy do I fucking hate it when people think that emotions are to be shunned and think some platitudes about tranquility are deep. There are no bad emotions only bad ways to deal with them. There is a reason people get angry in the face of injustice, embracing that anger gives one the motivation to act in an altruistic manner. It allows us to put the immediate and visible rewards for us aside and put oneself in harms way for the benefits of others.
The people that think that emotionless debate is the highest form of reason have not understood what debating others is for.