[ceejayoz]

> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power.

Oh, come on. NATO and Gulf allies are starting to deny US use of their bases, and Trump's been credibly threatening to leave NATO. We've also nixed a bunch of our soft power programs like USAID.

[ericmay]

NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action. [1]

Your view of the situation doesn't match reality.

Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/nato-is-s...

Sorry for the paywall, I don't have a subscription but saw the headline on Bloomberg TV. There are other sources but I wanted to be consistent and link where I saw the news.

[ceejayoz]

> consider taking action

Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?

> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers…

Yeah, and we're straining to keep them handling the load.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/05/11/epic-fur...

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/us/politics/uss-ford-fire...

[ericmay]

> Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?

More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.

[ceejayoz]

> More ships always helps...

So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?

[maxglute]

This what most "why Americans have no healthcare" proponents not realizing. 11 carriers a pittance in terms of sortie generation. ~80% CENTCOM strikes was from now degraded land basing. 3 carriers = ~20% of total fires... ~10% when pushed to standoff range and have to spare sorites for tanking + cap... ~5% when tanking from land basing disrupted. >5% because original ~20% assumes unsustainable high tempo operations. If US waves magic wand and somehow got 11 carriers doing standoff strikes on Iran tier threat, that's ~10% of CENTCOM land strike generation. Iran degrading regional land basing and pushing CSGs to standoff in Arabian Sea basically broke CENTCOM logistics posture in ways that compound. NVM global (not just theatre) stockpile of highend munitions and interceptors would likely be gone before dismantling Iranian ghetto regional strike complex... who could also reconstitute faster. TLDR even if US could, 11 carrier are likely not enough.

[ericmay]

Great points I think. And even more poignant when you realize that this is basically the only game in town. No other country or combined group of countries has the ability to even attempt what the United States is doing. So without the US, well, you don't really have a way to stop Iran if they decided to get a nuclear bomb or close the Strait pending tribute.

[ericmay]

You're familiar with the mythical man month, right?

If we park all 11 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, how will we have them deployed to support interests elsewhere?

[ceejayoz]

You have correctly identified why people are asserting to you that the US looks weak over this, yes.

[epistasis]

Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.

> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.

Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its former ally, Ukraine.

You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking, and not understanding the current reality. Which is why you accuse others of the same thing, it's classic projection.

[ericmay]

> Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.

It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.

> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its

Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.

> former ally, Ukraine.

Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.

> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking

Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.

[bonsai_spool]

> Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine

I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled.

We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere).

I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which seem very resistant to current events.

[ericmay]

Well the first problem here is you're ignoring the previous support that was provided and of course some hundred + billion to date. The US and UK were rushing in missiles before the war even started.

Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:

> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5876595-ukraine-discharge...

" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.

Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.

It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "

Of course this is one minor example.

You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.

[epistasis]

> 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe.

To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?

This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.

Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?