[alfalfasprout]

Well, A-10s are well suited for strafing runs, etc. Presumably they'd be sent in if the area they're entering is presumed safe. That clearly didn't pan out.

The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not)

It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.

[ifyoubuildit]

> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not

How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

[YZF]

Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though.

https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos...

https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro...

Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.

[btilly]

I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate.

Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate.

There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.

[YZF]

Repeating propaganda does not generally qualify as debate.

Why isn't there a productive debate to be had here?

Your arguing that the incompetence has to do with handling drones. To me that statement feels close to "repeating propaganda" because the Shaed drones are generally handled in an affordable way which is by shooting them with bullets from helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70

This is a method that has been used for a long time in Ukraine as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_t...

https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-dro...

There are endless videos and news stories about how drones are shot down effectively by the UAE (with AH-64 cannons), by Israel (where Iran doesn't even bother sending drones over because none of them make it), and by Ukraine (including with newer counter-drone tech they have).

The propaganda says "we fire a 2 million dollar THAAD missile on a 50k dollar drone". Many can be shot down cheaply. Some are shot down with $500k AA missiles. We also need to account for anything destroyed on the ground and not launched. So it seems like your opening argument can certainly at the very least be debated.

OTOH it is true that some drones got through and inflicted significant damage. But maybe that's unavoidable to some degree.

Even beyond the base statement. If you think Iran needed to be bombed, e.g. because they were manufacturing 100 long range ballistic missiles per month and because they had enough nuclear material to make 12 bombs and were working on all the technology pieces to be able to put them on ballistic missiles and launch them, then what would be the alternative universe where we somehow magically came up with solutions to the asymmetric nature of this war? Would waiting for them to have a lot more missiles and drones and bury them deeper be a good thing or a bad thing. What would be the odds of the regime either compromising and giving up their abilities or collapsing without external intervention.

[diydsp]

Exactly. Support means saying "I accept the reduction in my social security and medicare and other govt services in exchange for this war."

[Esophagus4]

I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign.

People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour.

This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Trump has been talking about destroying Iranian desalination plants, and "bombing the country back to the stone age". This is no surgical decapitation strike, nor one just targetting Iran's military capabilities. This is a vicious senile old man living out his dictator "I can do anything I like" fantasies, who could care less about helping the Iranian people, or those in America for that matter.

[lejalv]

I am shocked that the Democrats are not making clear to the military that engaging in crimes against humanity may have consequences for them -- not to speak, of course, of politicians higher up in the chain of command.

[dredmorbius]

Several have (Deluzio, Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Goodlander, and Houlahan), Nov 2025:

<https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-stateme...>

[7sigma]

Because a lot of the democrats are basically controlled opposition and need to please their MIC and Israeli donors

[BigTTYGothGF]

> I am shocked

You shouldn't be, especially considering that Schumer and Durbin both voted for the Hague Invasion Act.

[aaa_aaa]

He is simply doing israels bidding.

[asadotzler]

75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.)

Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion.

Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict.

https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-at... https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...

[markovs_gun]

20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.

[lejalv]

That is an interesting take. Seen from elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford not taking into account a big chunk of the American electoral body, which is effectively at war with us (by various means).

Essentially, a MESA movement, “Make the Earth Shit Again”.

The obvious implication is that the rest of the world is at war with the US (by various means), and should act accordingly, starting with a wide-ranging consumer boycott of all US products.

[XorNot]

Which is right in line with the "crazification factor": https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-...

The relevant quote:

> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

[tootie]

Herschel Walker got 48.6% of the Georgia vote against Warnock. Slightly different in that Walker was a popular football hero in Georgia but he was also clearly mentally incompetent.

[markovs_gun]

You can see that factor in a large number of polls on all kinds of subjects. It doesn't matter what the question is, a fifth to a quarter of the population will make the dumbest, least consistent, most self defeating choice every time. I think if you can get ~70% of the population on board with something that's all that should matter because the bottom 25% of the intelligence curve are literally incapable of making good decisions and worrying about them or their opinions will only lead to disaster. I also think that this is a major flaw of a lot of democratic systems because if a movement can effectively mobilize that group to vote as a bloc then it can easily sway policy. Add in messed up systems like in the US where you can amplify the power of that bloc beyond their population and it easily explains how we got here

[YZF]

The problem with this line of argument is that people will put you in that camp as well and paint you as the "dumbest". Let's take it as truth that 25% of a population are morons. You say those morons are all in the camp that opposes your policy/opinions. The other side says those morons are all in your camp (including you). And that's how we shut discussion down and get more polarization.

I think the reality is a lot of people aren't that smart. And sometimes even smart people can make bad choices. The average IQ is 100.

Here's an interesting random paper for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

"• Individuals who identify as Republican have greater probability knowledge

• Individuals who identify as Republican have higher verbal reasoning ability

• Individuals who identify as Republican have better question comprehension

• Cognitive ability’s effect on party identity works through socio-economic position"

At least this does not seem to support the common opinion here of presumably a democrat leaning crowd (based on the comments) who seem to think that their opponents are all morons.

Bottom line of sorts for me is that we need to be able to debate issues from first principles and based on facts. We often go to appeal to emotion and herd mentality instead. Very much so on these sorts of partisan button pushing threads.

[dylan604]

>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

> Apparently 37.7% of Americans,

These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.

[ifyoubuildit]

Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.

[smcin]

The first link (YouGov) in fact is even less enthusiastic than GP quoted: 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran.

(setting aside that it's illegal under international law, and unauthorized by Congress)

[YZF]

I lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.

[goatlover]

The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Surprisingly so, I would say. Without going into any identifying details, my buddy, who is otherwise fairly reasonable, thinks it was. I disagree. Reported country split ( US ) seems to fall some along common political lines though, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.

Then again.. I can no longer can rely on those surveys in any meaningful way.

[markdown]

> seems to fall some along common political lines though

While true, I think it's more correct to say that the determining factor is which television news media people most readily consume.

[dotancohen]

  > How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

Almost every single Iranian in the diaspora. And every person who heard Iran chant Death To America while building a nuclear program and a ballistic missile program.

[verzali]

Way to go proving Iran right. Who wouldn't want to eliminate a nation that bombs and kills your civilians?

[dotancohen]

So I see that you agree that Israel must destroy a significant portion of Gaza - at least those parts of Gaza educated by UNRWA.

[drnick1]

I think that you will find that many people think that we ought to solve the 50 year old problem in the Mideast once and for all. Now that the Russians are busy, that Venezuela is down, that Syria has fallen, and that the Chinese are minding their own business is a good time to decapitate Iran. Also Cuba is next.

[ifyoubuildit]

What exactly are the problem and the solution?

[drnick1]

Permanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.

[7sigma]

Maybe read up on the history before 1979. Maybe toppling a democratic regime in 1952 in order to get their oil was not the best move.

If you're worried about a state that terrorises the region, best to focus on Israel

[g8oz]

Who's going to deal with the Zionist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Middle East since 1948?

Or the Wahabi regime that sponsored the sort of fanaticism that led to the rise of Al Qaeda?

Let's not put a moral spin on America's realpolitik.

[ifyoubuildit]

Any guesses on how long that will take, what it will cost, and the odds if it happening at all?

[drnick1]

No idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict.

The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.

[QuarterReptile]

North Korea was able to get nuclear weapons because we didn't want the carnage of artillery bombardment to Seoul that would have been the retaliation, had we stopped them.

Iran was close to achieving that same thing with ballistic missile bombardment of Europe.

The problem is that Iran, unlike NK, is run by a fanatical death cult with stated goal of attacking United States and history of running proxy militias in every nearby failed state, in a neighborhood that has no shortage of failed states.

[CamperBob2]

The US defense secretary (excuse me, War secretary) is almost covered with tattoos and mottoes celebrating the Crusades [1]. I wouldn't go around accusing other countries of being run by "death cults" if I were you. We have a nuclear-armed death cult called Christian Dominionism here at home.

1: https://i.imgur.com/cDjIG2S.png

[QuarterReptile]

I agree that the quantity of tattoos on the SecWar is appalling.

[goatlover]

What makes you think the Iranian regime wants a destroyed country as opposed to setting up strong opposition to the West in the region? "Fanatical Death Cult" just sounds like propaganda for justifying war with them as opposed to diplomatic solutions. North Korea and Russia saber-rattle plenty. It's a tactic.

[ifyoubuildit]

> fanatical death cult

Why do you believe this? Their recent actions don't seem to back it up.

[QuarterReptile]

Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."

IF(highest sacrifice in your cult is dying while trying to kill those who disagree with you because of same) THEN (you are in a death cult)

[BigTTYGothGF]

So you're saying you want a solution, and you want it to be a final one?

[freefrog1234aa]

The military advantage of colonial powers, and the political weakness of the pawn countries is reduced making the great game harder. Venezuela and Syria fell because internally they were divided and the US could find traitors willing to sell out. That didn't happen in Iran, and Cuba will defend themselves if they are united.