5 ms·

Surely airlifting supplies to a carrier in a war zone is not totally comparable to airlifting supplies to a base in a US territory?

by nkrisc 16d ago

ceejayoz 16d ago
There was supposed to be a base there. The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened.
- wongarsu 16d ago
  That explains why resupply doesn't work as well as in peace time But at the same time, it's not like that came out of nowhere. If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist
  - mulmen 16d ago
    > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist. Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it.
    - Terr_ 16d ago
      > Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it Not only that, but it was already that way for ~40 years, where past presidencies all knew and documented why it was a stupid idea, didn't press the stupidity-button, and mostly worked towards better options.
    - Gollapalli 16d ago
      Idk, current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well. Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor.
      - estearum 16d ago
        Mega copium. All Trump needs is a little dangling of glory and publicity and he'd oink like a pig if he thought it'd earn it. Pathetic creature. Netanyahu tried the same schtick he's done for 30 years of POTUS's, just now we have someone retarded enough to fall for it and a party that allowed him to be surrounded by sycophants. You should just admit you voted for a retard and pay your penance to your countrymen and species.
      - ceejayoz 16d ago
        > current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well Gosh, if only they could've stopped it! > Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor. The only head of state assassinated in this conflict was Iran's.
  - solid_fuel 16d ago
    > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict.
  - wbl 16d ago
    You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed not the enemy constraining our freedom of action through force. Not to say it's great: it sucks to be on the ship for this, but if Hezbollah murdered 3,000 Americans the shortage wouldn't make the news amid our invading Iran.
    - ceejayoz 16d ago
      > You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. No, it doesn't. It's now in Thailand for R&R, then back to base in the US, because of this issue. https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-carrier-lincoln-port-visit-79d29834422823c3a5b52f3c01f5d050 https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-ca... > What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed… Right. We're being too restrained. That's some Vietnam War era cope you're huffing.
      - wbl 16d ago
        In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing: we can't depose the Iranian government without a land invasion (which is too costly) and nothing else keeps them from having control of the strait.
        lazyasciiart 16d ago
        > In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing Yes, that is the point everyone has been trying to make.
        sofixa 15d ago
        Exactly, which makes this a stupid war to start in the first place. Also, to be clear, a land invasion isn't "too costly". It's suicidal because we're talking about a massive country that has been preparing for decades, has a terrain advantage and literally more than a million fanatics ready to die for the regime. You'd need millions of soldiers deployed, and are looking at some Operation Downfall level expected losses.
  - vkou 16d ago
    > If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Americans make war on other people, other people don't make war on Americans. It's one of the reasons why they are so eager to do so. 'The other guys might hit back' doesn't even register in the cultural psyche.
    - LtWorf 16d ago
      They hit back on 9/11 and it caused a panic that is still ongoing.
      - lostlogin 16d ago
        I'm no shill for the US, but that's a hot take that's too simplistic by far. Eg who armed the Mujahideen?
        LtWorf 16d ago
        The USA, to fight the democratically elected government of afghanistan.
lostlogin 16d ago
> war zone But the US won and have and have a peace agreement. Several times.

Surely airlifting supplies to a carrier in a war zone is not totally comparable to airlifting supplies to a base in a US territory?

by nkrisc 16d ago

Surely airlifting supplies to a carrier in a war zone is not totally comparable to airlifting supplies to a base in a US territory?

ceejayoz 16d ago

There was supposed to be a base there. The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened.

wongarsu 16d ago
That explains why resupply doesn't work as well as in peace time But at the same time, it's not like that came out of nowhere. If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist
- mulmen 16d ago
  > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist. Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it.
  - Terr_ 16d ago
    > Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it Not only that, but it was already that way for ~40 years, where past presidencies all knew and documented why it was a stupid idea, didn't press the stupidity-button, and mostly worked towards better options.
  - Gollapalli 16d ago
    Idk, current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well. Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor.
    - estearum 16d ago
      Mega copium. All Trump needs is a little dangling of glory and publicity and he'd oink like a pig if he thought it'd earn it. Pathetic creature. Netanyahu tried the same schtick he's done for 30 years of POTUS's, just now we have someone retarded enough to fall for it and a party that allowed him to be surrounded by sycophants. You should just admit you voted for a retard and pay your penance to your countrymen and species.
    - ceejayoz 16d ago
      > current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well Gosh, if only they could've stopped it! > Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor. The only head of state assassinated in this conflict was Iran's.
- solid_fuel 16d ago
  > Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict.
- wbl 16d ago
  You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed not the enemy constraining our freedom of action through force. Not to say it's great: it sucks to be on the ship for this, but if Hezbollah murdered 3,000 Americans the shortage wouldn't make the news amid our invading Iran.
  - ceejayoz 16d ago
    > You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. No, it doesn't. It's now in Thailand for R&R, then back to base in the US, because of this issue. https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-carrier-lincoln-port-visit-79d29834422823c3a5b52f3c01f5d050 https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-ca... > What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed… Right. We're being too restrained. That's some Vietnam War era cope you're huffing.
    - wbl 16d ago
      In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing: we can't depose the Iranian government without a land invasion (which is too costly) and nothing else keeps them from having control of the strait.
      - lazyasciiart 16d ago
        > In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing Yes, that is the point everyone has been trying to make.
      - sofixa 15d ago
        Exactly, which makes this a stupid war to start in the first place. Also, to be clear, a land invasion isn't "too costly". It's suicidal because we're talking about a massive country that has been preparing for decades, has a terrain advantage and literally more than a million fanatics ready to die for the regime. You'd need millions of soldiers deployed, and are looking at some Operation Downfall level expected losses.
- vkou 16d ago
  > If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Americans make war on other people, other people don't make war on Americans. It's one of the reasons why they are so eager to do so. 'The other guys might hit back' doesn't even register in the cultural psyche.
  - LtWorf 16d ago
    They hit back on 9/11 and it caused a panic that is still ongoing.
    - lostlogin 16d ago
      I'm no shill for the US, but that's a hot take that's too simplistic by far. Eg who armed the Mujahideen?
      - LtWorf 16d ago
        The USA, to fight the democratically elected government of afghanistan.

lostlogin 16d ago

> war zone But the US won and have and have a peace agreement. Several times.