Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics.
-
@cstross @isaackuo I think its even simpler - Iranian leadership has been planning for this for 50 years and are clearly prepared to extract maximum pain from the world until the us is stopped.
Meanwhile us leadership appears to have thrown out 50 years of knowledge about Iran, strategic alliances, soft economic power, and every other advantage they had that wasn't "more expensive weapons" and started a war with about 5 seconds of thought
More planning went into the Iraq War for fucks sake
-
@otmar @cstross @isaackuo I mean, religious fanatics whose fetish is martyrdom (for others) riddle the Trump administration. The us secretary of "war" belongs to a Christian apocalypse cult. The us military- especially the Air Force - is completely overrun with them at all levels
Too many people think they can trigger the End Times by starting the right kind of wars and that coloring all of this too
-
@jmax@mastodon.social @Jer@chirp.enworld.org @cstross@wandering.shop @isaackuo@spacey.space Planck time. As in "as thick as two short plancks".
-
@cstross Trump and the people around him are absolute morons, yes, but there is a weird motivated thinking desire among many to breathlessly claim US military hardware - which Trump had no hand in the development of - somehow sucks.
The F-35, for all its infamous flaws, is working better than experts expected. It was never designed to be fully stealthy - it emits radar so it can see and shoot at enemy aircraft.
And SM-3 continues to be phenomenal.
But the awesome performance of some systems
@isaackuo @cstross It is not that they are bad planes per se, they just don't deliver $100M worth of fighting power. And it is basically the same story with everything that is more advanced than a rifle, it is way too expensive, leading to way too few items being produced for a war at scale. SM-3 sounds great as an anti-ICBM weapon, but if you need them against intermediate range misiles as well, a stockpile of 100 or so could run out rather quickly.
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/116271481696841313
Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics. The supply chain shock will get as bad as 2022 within a couple of months—then keep getting worse.
@cstross See how the 'Master Race' fucks up everything it touches....
-
@isaackuo @cstross It is not that they are bad planes per se, they just don't deliver $100M worth of fighting power. And it is basically the same story with everything that is more advanced than a rifle, it is way too expensive, leading to way too few items being produced for a war at scale. SM-3 sounds great as an anti-ICBM weapon, but if you need them against intermediate range misiles as well, a stockpile of 100 or so could run out rather quickly.
@NohatCoder @cstross F-35s do absolutely deliver $100M worth of fighting power. The initial costs are remarkably low compared to other fighter jets, that provide a lot less capability.
HOWEVER, the running costs of the F-35 are not great, and it's a reason why we're spending money on F-15X (which actually costs more than F-35, but the running costs are lower).
SM-3 costs a lot, but still less than the ballistic missiles they shoot down. And they're also a lot smaller and the magazine depth of
-
@NohatCoder @cstross F-35s do absolutely deliver $100M worth of fighting power. The initial costs are remarkably low compared to other fighter jets, that provide a lot less capability.
HOWEVER, the running costs of the F-35 are not great, and it's a reason why we're spending money on F-15X (which actually costs more than F-35, but the running costs are lower).
SM-3 costs a lot, but still less than the ballistic missiles they shoot down. And they're also a lot smaller and the magazine depth of
@NohatCoder @cstross the hundreds of destroyers and cruisers the USA and Japan have is such that it's not really realistic for Russia or China to saturate them, much less Iran or North Korea.
SM-3 also has a range of thousands of kilometers, which is an order of magnitude greater than other BMD missiles.
Basically, the fantasy Star Wars missile defense POTUS Reagan dreamed of ... became real. Not overnight, but over decades.
Aegis BMD is truly a "game changer".
-
@NohatCoder @cstross the hundreds of destroyers and cruisers the USA and Japan have is such that it's not really realistic for Russia or China to saturate them, much less Iran or North Korea.
SM-3 also has a range of thousands of kilometers, which is an order of magnitude greater than other BMD missiles.
Basically, the fantasy Star Wars missile defense POTUS Reagan dreamed of ... became real. Not overnight, but over decades.
Aegis BMD is truly a "game changer".
@isaackuo @NohatCoder Noted: Reagan's "star wars" pipedream was mooted in 1984. That's nearly 50 years ago! The tech arrived incrementally, in a steady drip. It still won't suffice to block a full-scale strategic attack by a superpower, but for anything much short of that, it's changed the rules of the game.
-
@etchedpixels @cstross The worst case I've seen suggested is Iran setting off a dirty bomb in an important population centre (do they have any plutonium?), thus rendering it uninhabitable for centuries. Somewhere like Manhattan or the City would be awful
@rpluim @etchedpixels @cstross
Does it matter if they have plutonium?Do they have Shaheeds? Yes
Is Russia willing to pay for them? YesWhat is the Shaheed to plutonium exchange rate on the black market?
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@bontchev/116271481696841313
Oh good grief, this summary is both farcical and tragic: also, Trump has fucked air travel for at least the next two years, never mind automobiles and logistics. The supply chain shock will get as bad as 2022 within a couple of months—then keep getting worse.
@cstross
I wonder if he will end up having reduced the CO2 emissions of the planet.
Hard to tell, plus Methane leaks. -
@NohatCoder @cstross the hundreds of destroyers and cruisers the USA and Japan have is such that it's not really realistic for Russia or China to saturate them, much less Iran or North Korea.
SM-3 also has a range of thousands of kilometers, which is an order of magnitude greater than other BMD missiles.
Basically, the fantasy Star Wars missile defense POTUS Reagan dreamed of ... became real. Not overnight, but over decades.
Aegis BMD is truly a "game changer".
@isaackuo @cstross Yes, all the other planes are also way too expensive. When Iran has only been able to shoot down 2 planes, the reason is that US and Israel have attacked primarily with land/ship-launched missiles, and possibly some plane-launched missiles and glide bombs. The planes are too vulnerable to get close to any target with a working AA system, that includes 1970's USSR spec.
-
@isaackuo @cstross Yes, all the other planes are also way too expensive. When Iran has only been able to shoot down 2 planes, the reason is that US and Israel have attacked primarily with land/ship-launched missiles, and possibly some plane-launched missiles and glide bombs. The planes are too vulnerable to get close to any target with a working AA system, that includes 1970's USSR spec.
@NohatCoder @cstross Uhh no. 1970s era USSR SAMs have practically no chance of hitting an F-35, and little chance of hitting various 4th gen jets (thanks to ECM and countermeasures). I mean, assuming well trained pilots.
An F-35 is much more difficult to detect and track on radar than the (much older technology) Tomahawk cruise missiles that were expended at great expense in the initial wave of attacks.
Why did the US military do this? I don't know, but it could easily have been stupidity
-
@NohatCoder @cstross Uhh no. 1970s era USSR SAMs have practically no chance of hitting an F-35, and little chance of hitting various 4th gen jets (thanks to ECM and countermeasures). I mean, assuming well trained pilots.
An F-35 is much more difficult to detect and track on radar than the (much older technology) Tomahawk cruise missiles that were expended at great expense in the initial wave of attacks.
Why did the US military do this? I don't know, but it could easily have been stupidity
@NohatCoder @cstross driven by Hegseth and/or Trump himself.
But then, they were expecting Iran to surrender within the first few hours, or maybe days, so who knows?
Anyway, USS Ford having clogged toilets had an "effect" on the viability of F-35 round the clock bombing of Iran anyway.
These are things which COULD have been ... I dunno ... PLANNED about and for. But Hegseth and Trump are just so stupid.
-
@cstross really does not change the fact that there never was any way to "win" this Iran War. You just have to look at this size, terrain, population layout of Iran compared to Iraq 2003 to get an idea of what sort of invasion force would have been necessary.
And there aren't any neighbors to Iran eager to become an invasion staging area.
So ... Iran will win. Period. They'll get bombed and stuff, and then ... they'll win.
@isaackuo @cstross The US victory conditions are for the Islamic Republic to go away. (US elite consensus that it's illegitimate, generational offense at daring to claim ownership of oil, etc.) They don't need to be Napoleon and be lauded as a conqueror.
Take a look at Iran on Google Maps; switch on the traffic.
Sparse transportation network, very concentrated; single export economy.
Think kinetic sanctions; blow up the ability to export oil and the roads over the mountains. Mine the ports.
-
@isaackuo @cstross The US victory conditions are for the Islamic Republic to go away. (US elite consensus that it's illegitimate, generational offense at daring to claim ownership of oil, etc.) They don't need to be Napoleon and be lauded as a conqueror.
Take a look at Iran on Google Maps; switch on the traffic.
Sparse transportation network, very concentrated; single export economy.
Think kinetic sanctions; blow up the ability to export oil and the roads over the mountains. Mine the ports.
@isaackuo @cstross Is this a big bundle of war crimes before they start bombing power plants? Yes. The whole thing is illegitimate per the defunct post-war order.
Does anyone in the US administration care at all? No. (Many are actively in favor.)
Can the US do it? This is one of the things you can do with air supremacy.
Will it work?
It could; starving people are docile, but people who know they're going to starve are not. (Not that this is going to save anybody.)
-
@isaackuo @cstross Is this a big bundle of war crimes before they start bombing power plants? Yes. The whole thing is illegitimate per the defunct post-war order.
Does anyone in the US administration care at all? No. (Many are actively in favor.)
Can the US do it? This is one of the things you can do with air supremacy.
Will it work?
It could; starving people are docile, but people who know they're going to starve are not. (Not that this is going to save anybody.)
@isaackuo @cstross Does the current "supply chain shock" scenario go flying out the window singing strange names in unpronouncable tongues once anybody starts figuring out that the supply of fossil carbon from the Gulf is now indefinitely impaired? (It's not like US fossil carbon producers mind the current prices. It's not like elites notice food prices.)
It sure does; that's "some other global economy, try again later" for prognostication. Far too many pieces no one can predict.
-
@isaackuo @cstross Is this a big bundle of war crimes before they start bombing power plants? Yes. The whole thing is illegitimate per the defunct post-war order.
Does anyone in the US administration care at all? No. (Many are actively in favor.)
Can the US do it? This is one of the things you can do with air supremacy.
Will it work?
It could; starving people are docile, but people who know they're going to starve are not. (Not that this is going to save anybody.)
@graydon @cstross Okay, but how does this actually make the Iranian regime go away?
Yeah, starving people may be docile, but this would help whoever's already in power.
Unless you have a full on invasion force, I see "regime change" as a political struggle. And Trump's hurting, not helping, political support for the Iranian opposition.
-
@isaackuo @cstross Does the current "supply chain shock" scenario go flying out the window singing strange names in unpronouncable tongues once anybody starts figuring out that the supply of fossil carbon from the Gulf is now indefinitely impaired? (It's not like US fossil carbon producers mind the current prices. It's not like elites notice food prices.)
It sure does; that's "some other global economy, try again later" for prognostication. Far too many pieces no one can predict.
@isaackuo @cstross Is the US military going to collectively mutiny over being ordered to commit overt genocide in Iran?
Doesn't seem likely.
Is is getting on for being a really good idea to avoid recreational travel? I would say so.
The Angry Weather would have dragged us out of the domain of preference into the domain of necessity soon enough; this looks like getting dragged firmly into necessity a little early, as planetary scales go.
-
@graydon @cstross Okay, but how does this actually make the Iranian regime go away?
Yeah, starving people may be docile, but this would help whoever's already in power.
Unless you have a full on invasion force, I see "regime change" as a political struggle. And Trump's hurting, not helping, political support for the Iranian opposition.
@isaackuo @cstross It takes a minimum economy to maintain a regime. It needs radios and the ability to manufacture small arms ammunition and keep records. If you crash an economy hard enough and external support isn't available (no sufficient transport network over those mountain passes before they get mined), it stops being able to have a government.
It's not even a little bit hard to imagine this administration deciding that's the plan.
Much better if they don't, but.
-
@isaackuo @cstross It takes a minimum economy to maintain a regime. It needs radios and the ability to manufacture small arms ammunition and keep records. If you crash an economy hard enough and external support isn't available (no sufficient transport network over those mountain passes before they get mined), it stops being able to have a government.
It's not even a little bit hard to imagine this administration deciding that's the plan.
Much better if they don't, but.
@graydon @cstross Okay, I understand that as a theory, but I don't see how that would work in practice.
It's hard to imagine being bombed back into the Stone Age more than the Taliban, and ... well, we saw how that worked out.
And it's not like the Taliban was the darling of external helping superpowers or anything.
And the terrain was - oops - yeah, similar to much of Iran. And the region - oh yeah, right next door.
