You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
PurestEvil on scored.co
2 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
> I think it would be good optics for Iran to sink a US warship.
That depends. The US would greatly benefit in vilifying Iran. Unless there is a good reason, Iran should not do it. Which is likely also how they think about it.
> and US domestic suport for an invasion would massively increase
Yes, and that's not a desirable outcome. Iran would still have a lot of casualties, and the US would bomb the shit out of civilians. The victory would come at a hefty price.
> The world would see it as "shooting back" not agression.
Probably, yes. So Iran has options.
> The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it
Well, or the uninterceptible missile referenced by OP. I wouldn't be surprised if just a little additional speed couldn't penetrate anti-missile defences anyway, or reducing their detectability, possibly by removing electromagnetic clutter, or just have them shut off mid-flight once they have the ideal movement vector to hit "dumb" (as they move downwards).
> Saturation strike wouldn't even work
It also sounds like a waste of resources, and Iran knows how to fight the US by having them expend 50-100+ times the cost for weaponry.
I agree on your last point. The part of US doctrain that is outdated is the focus on small numbers of extremely expensive high performance weapons. It looks good in limited engements when they kick the shit out of lesser militaries, but against a near-equal, the stocks would be depleted almost immediately.
Iran knows this but I dont think they have the production capacity to capitalize on it, even with each engagement being massively more costly for the US than for Iran. The US also knows it and is trying to adapt. New interceptors are in development that at less than 1/10th the cost of the previous generation. It remains to be seen if this will actually come to fruition without the military industrial complex bloating the project for more profit.
That depends. The US would greatly benefit in vilifying Iran. Unless there is a good reason, Iran should not do it. Which is likely also how they think about it.
> and US domestic suport for an invasion would massively increase
Yes, and that's not a desirable outcome. Iran would still have a lot of casualties, and the US would bomb the shit out of civilians. The victory would come at a hefty price.
> The world would see it as "shooting back" not agression.
Probably, yes. So Iran has options.
> The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it
Well, or the uninterceptible missile referenced by OP. I wouldn't be surprised if just a little additional speed couldn't penetrate anti-missile defences anyway, or reducing their detectability, possibly by removing electromagnetic clutter, or just have them shut off mid-flight once they have the ideal movement vector to hit "dumb" (as they move downwards).
> Saturation strike wouldn't even work
It also sounds like a waste of resources, and Iran knows how to fight the US by having them expend 50-100+ times the cost for weaponry.
Iran knows this but I dont think they have the production capacity to capitalize on it, even with each engagement being massively more costly for the US than for Iran. The US also knows it and is trying to adapt. New interceptors are in development that at less than 1/10th the cost of the previous generation. It remains to be seen if this will actually come to fruition without the military industrial complex bloating the project for more profit.