This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Pardon me since we did this just so soon but, yes, I'm ready to go again:
Iran has lost significant control of the Strait of Hormuz
Despite Iranian claims to control the Strait and shut down shipping, ships are increasingly making the passage. Ships are turning off transponders (eluding both the Iranians and OSInt twitter prose) and trusting in American protection. And the smaller number of ships making the passage often belies that these ships are carrying more than previous ships did before them:
It appears that America's strategy is working: Iran is increasingly hemmed in, unable to break the American blockade, threatened by inflation and sanctions, dwindling military supplies rendering its threats on the Straits weaker and weaker.
One of the theories invoked last time we had this discussion was that countries like UAE are in fact paying bribes to Iran, meaning that Iran in fact is collecting tolls on the Strait and it's really Trump that's impotent. How's that going?
UAE Cuts Economic Ties With Iran After Missiles Target Territory
Iran's strategy of bombing neutral nations, or declaring that neutral nations are actually working in concert with the Americans and therefore are justifiable targets, appears not to be making it any allies. It appears, in fact, to be more isolated than ever as more countries come around to the American line of thinking.
According to Al Jazeera, however, Iran denies bombing UAE.
So, how do we reconcile these claims? I would humbly suggest that Iran is less and less in control of itself, with political battles between hardliners and those who want to surrender, inflation, a puppet Supreme Leader who has not been seen in public since his supposed inauguration, and a military increasingly acting without any central command or foresight. I would suggest, in fact, that Iran has lost, which remains the case even if the Iranian regime does not fall and continues to make absurd pronouncements that they are actually winning.
Speaking of that...
Trump Responds as Iran Says U.S. Must Meet These Six Demands If Strait of Hormuz Is to Reopen
It looks like Iran is no closer to surrendering than they were a few months ago. And their public-facing demands are clearly non-starters -- unless anyone wants to argue that America is about to eminently surrender and accept these terms -- although it's not clear why they would. Because, at this point, here is where we are at:
Iran is not going to toll the straits. Iran cannot toll the straits. This is as powerful as they're going to get, it's all downhill from here, and it's not very powerful for them. Iran is never going to get nuclear weapons. Iran is never going to break the American blockade. Iran is never going to push America out of the Gulf. They have two options: surrender, or not. And it doesn't matter if they choose not to surrender, because America can continue doing this indefinitely. If anything, the longer this goes on, the cheaper it becomes as Iran's power wanes, more ships transit the gulf, more oil bypasses the Gulf entirely, and the easier it becomes for America to patrol.
What's changed recently? Well, not much. This is just the continuation of what's been going on all along. When America launched this war it significantly crippled Iran's ability to respond, and Iran's threat to control the Strait of Hormuz, which sounded so impressive at first, has turned more and more hollow. I don't expect this argument to be any more popular than the last time I made it, but I want to note again that the predictions that Iran was winning or would win have not been born out, have never been born out. Iran has lost, whether they surrender or not, whether people believe their blustery threats or not.
This is only going to become more and more obvious.
I'm a drone skeptic, in that I think they are a major advancement but not as big a deal to an S-tier military. The USSR/Russia has been a C-tier military since at least the mid-80s, and while lessons are important, they are not decisive. Drone dynamics are very different against air supremacy. The test case here will be around Israel in the coming years. Who I would put at S-Tear for air-force and electronic warfare within it's immediate vicinity.
The US should have pretty extreme electronic warfare (EW) capabilities. EA-18 Growlers, destroyer based system should offer almost complete suppression of remote drone operation.
AWACS should be able to spot drones almost immediately upon launch. Drone launch should be at a minimum of 30 miles away, and I would think quite a bit more because the US should have fairly thorough counter-suppression within a few miles off the coast. If you want to live after you launch the drone, you better be pretty far inland. This should also limit the ability for fiber-optic flying; if you have to fly the thing for 30 miles, you're dead before it gets there. Hence why I think I have not heard of fiber piloted drones happening.
My impression of the drone hits on US bases is that these are known fixed targets, so the drones are flying completely autonomously. This is a temporary issue, in that military bases should be able to be hardened against such threats. Put everything important behind reinforced concrete and nets, turns drone sophistication into more like planes, and thus makes suicide capabilities much less economical or you're just launching cruise missiles, which does not seem to be economical for Iran.
Thus, it feels like it should be doable with AWACS, EW from aircraft and ships coupled with loitering mentions over the UAE for very effective suppression long-term.
I at least partially agree with your overall conclusion (that the US has a lot of capability to achieve persistent monitoring of the area near Iran's coastline and strike attacks directed from this location) but I have some quibbles with the reasoning you use to get there.
I don't think so, except maybe in terms of personnel (although arguably that's the most important part of a military, but I think that claims that NATO is orders of magnitude better than Russia in troop proficiency, particularly in ground combat, are exaggerated). Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, I would argue that their military was as good as or better than "the EU military" if you're looking at kit and capabilities.
I think this depends on the system being used. I don't think Growlers can interfere with a satellite uplink system unless they are in a very specific geographic location relative to the drone. And (to your point about striking fixed targets) drones using only GPS or other navigation satellites to navigate might not be jammed even if the US has the capability because the US also uses GPS to navigate and/or doesn't want to jam foreign satellite constellations.
I also don't think Growlers are going to run broad-spectrum jamming based on "someone doing something out there." If you're controlling a drone via a mobile cell network, for example, you're not necessarily going to ping as the hostile communications node you are. So there are a lot of ways to get around US EW spectrum suppression.
I'd suggest this is a bit oversimplified. The US moving a bunch of E-2s in theater suggests to me that the E-3 was having a hard time picking up Iranian "one way drones" (cruise missiles), and they assessed the newer AESA radars would be better able to pick them up. Airborne radars have a hard time picking up low-flying small aircraft, particularly at range and there's a risk that the return of a drone will fall under their speed or size gates. Also, keeping an AWACS on station perpetually over each target point is a major commitment.
The US Navy released a pretty good report on the Gettysburg friendly-fire incident that isn't about AWACS per se but it gets into how even AEGIS destroyers with their high-end radars have trouble in certain radar environments. Unironically recommended reading, really fascinating stuff that illuminates what those sort of operations look like on the inside.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link