7 ms·

Maybe re-read the last sentence of parent which my reply was to? Your presumably Ai-generated reply missed that, unsurprisingly, because you probably just copy

Maybe re-read the last sentence of parent which my reply was to? Your presumably Ai-generated reply missed that, unsurprisingly, because you probably just copypasta'd parent and my reply in there? P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context.

lenerdenator 5mo ago
> P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context. It's meaningless now. If the US, for some reason, decided to say, "For each drone or missile that you fire at one of your Arab neighbors or Israel, we launch an old-fashioned B52 raid on your industry or infrastructure. Come to the negotiating table." and actually carried out that threat, well, there would be nothing the Iranians would be able to do about it. That's not the case because of the currently scattered nature of US leadership, but it is a possible contingency that the Iranian government has to take into account. There's a reason they're not actively targeting US warships in the region.
- marcus_holmes 5mo ago
  Bombing civilian infrastructure never works like this. As we saw in The Blitz (and in Vietnam, and in Ukraine), it just draws the bombed together, unifying them and hardening their resolve.
  - tick_tock_tick 5mo ago
    Can you use an example that doesn't prove the exact opposite? Bombing absolutely worked in Vietnam so much that the south didn't actually lose the war until 2 years after the USA left. The war becoming a political nightmare is why the USA left not because the horrendously effective bombing stopped working. Ukraine is really weird to put in here because Russia has fail to establish any effective air superiority so I can't make heads or tails why you put it in here. As for the Blitz is was absolutely effective vs the British but USA factories and supply shipments were largely out of reach of the Axis. Add in the fact that the people of Iran are largely opposed to being governed by a Muslim theocracy (most of the population is not Muslim) I'm frankly struggling to see how you get any of your viewpoints.
    - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
      You're suggesting that bombing civilian infrastructure will cause the Iranians to surrender (or to concede negotiating points in order to stop the bombing). My point is that this doesn't work - the British under The Blitz famously had "Blitz Spirit" that was all about enduring the bombing and showing the Germans that they couldn't be beaten like this. The Vietnamese did not try to stop the bombing by surrendering or negotiating, and neither have the Ukrainians; again, if anything, they are more unified and more resolute because of the Russians attacks on their infrastructure. Can you give me a single example where prolonged bombing of civilian infrastructure has brought a country to the negotiating table? Or made them surrender?
      - usrnm 5mo ago
        Japan?
        marcus_holmes 5mo ago
        sure, if you think kicking off a nuclear war is a viable option ;)
      - lenerdenator 5mo ago
        Japan and Germany. Even if it doesn't cause them to "surrender" - I still don't know what the point of this whole "limited operation" is - it would effectively set back Iran's ability to operate a nuclear materials enrichment program, among other things. I'd also like to point out that German raids on Britain, American raids on Vietnam, and Russian raids on Ukraine are not exactly comparable to the sort of bombing raids carried out by the Allies (particularly the US and UK) in Germany and Japan in scale. If anything, the Iranians are trying the same strategy the Nazis did with the V1 and V2 with their drones and missiles: use them as a weapon of stochastic terror against the population of the region and on the occasional industrial target.
        marcus_holmes 5mo ago
        Again, as I replied above, Japan was nuked. There were 2 bombs. That is not "sustained bombing". Also, they were losing the conventional war and US troops had set foot on Japanese soil. The Germans surrendered because millions of Russian troops invaded their capital city. The bombing had nothing to do with it (and I would argue, even hardened their resolve against surrendering).
  - lenerdenator 5mo ago
    If you ignore Japan and Germany, this is absolutely true.
    - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
      Japan was nuked, different thing. Germany was not bombed into submission. Millions of Russian soldiers invaded their capital city and forced them to surrender.

lenerdenator 5mo ago

> P.S. air dominance in Iran is meaningless in this conflict. Read e.g. the blog post I linked to for context. It's meaningless now. If the US, for some reason, decided to say, "For each drone or missile that you fire at one of your Arab neighbors or Israel, we launch an old-fashioned B52 raid on your industry or infrastructure. Come to the negotiating table." and actually carried out that threat, well, there would be nothing the Iranians would be able to do about it. That's not the case because of the currently scattered nature of US leadership, but it is a possible contingency that the Iranian government has to take into account. There's a reason they're not actively targeting US warships in the region.

marcus_holmes 5mo ago
Bombing civilian infrastructure never works like this. As we saw in The Blitz (and in Vietnam, and in Ukraine), it just draws the bombed together, unifying them and hardening their resolve.
- tick_tock_tick 5mo ago
  Can you use an example that doesn't prove the exact opposite? Bombing absolutely worked in Vietnam so much that the south didn't actually lose the war until 2 years after the USA left. The war becoming a political nightmare is why the USA left not because the horrendously effective bombing stopped working. Ukraine is really weird to put in here because Russia has fail to establish any effective air superiority so I can't make heads or tails why you put it in here. As for the Blitz is was absolutely effective vs the British but USA factories and supply shipments were largely out of reach of the Axis. Add in the fact that the people of Iran are largely opposed to being governed by a Muslim theocracy (most of the population is not Muslim) I'm frankly struggling to see how you get any of your viewpoints.
  - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
    You're suggesting that bombing civilian infrastructure will cause the Iranians to surrender (or to concede negotiating points in order to stop the bombing). My point is that this doesn't work - the British under The Blitz famously had "Blitz Spirit" that was all about enduring the bombing and showing the Germans that they couldn't be beaten like this. The Vietnamese did not try to stop the bombing by surrendering or negotiating, and neither have the Ukrainians; again, if anything, they are more unified and more resolute because of the Russians attacks on their infrastructure. Can you give me a single example where prolonged bombing of civilian infrastructure has brought a country to the negotiating table? Or made them surrender?
    - usrnm 5mo ago
      Japan?
      - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
        sure, if you think kicking off a nuclear war is a viable option ;)
    - lenerdenator 5mo ago
      Japan and Germany. Even if it doesn't cause them to "surrender" - I still don't know what the point of this whole "limited operation" is - it would effectively set back Iran's ability to operate a nuclear materials enrichment program, among other things. I'd also like to point out that German raids on Britain, American raids on Vietnam, and Russian raids on Ukraine are not exactly comparable to the sort of bombing raids carried out by the Allies (particularly the US and UK) in Germany and Japan in scale. If anything, the Iranians are trying the same strategy the Nazis did with the V1 and V2 with their drones and missiles: use them as a weapon of stochastic terror against the population of the region and on the occasional industrial target.
      - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
        Again, as I replied above, Japan was nuked. There were 2 bombs. That is not "sustained bombing". Also, they were losing the conventional war and US troops had set foot on Japanese soil. The Germans surrendered because millions of Russian troops invaded their capital city. The bombing had nothing to do with it (and I would argue, even hardened their resolve against surrendering).
- lenerdenator 5mo ago
  If you ignore Japan and Germany, this is absolutely true.
  - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
    Japan was nuked, different thing. Germany was not bombed into submission. Millions of Russian soldiers invaded their capital city and forced them to surrender.