this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
94 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14298 readers
623 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 1 points 3 hours ago

Reminder that money is not important to the US war machine. The US in practice at the levels we're talking about can create as much as it needs to sustain its military machine. It's about production capacity, raw materials, lead times, production time, etc.

US would have to be making and losing hundreds of these a year before the finances of the fact would hit home (US "defense" budget is near a trillion dollars so 10% more or so wouldn't really register). On the other hand if they can only make a few every few years then every loss really hurts especially if they can't scale capacity due to constraints in some part of the production or supply lines.

[–] Hexamerous@hexbear.net 20 points 12 hours ago

Iran: "For my next trick I'm gonna make this whole installation disappear..."

drum roll

THAA-DAA!

[–] JustSo@hexbear.net 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

KNOCK KNOCK OPEN UP ITS THAAD

THAAD who?

THAAD IDIOD DONAL TRUMP BROKE AMERIGA

[–] ThermonuclearHoxha@hexbear.net 17 points 11 hours ago

THAAD stands for "Trump Has Achieved American Destruction" trump-who-must-go

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 44 points 15 hours ago

Gonna show you why we could have spent $60billion on healthcare and housing people instead. [kaboom!]

[–] FnordPrefect@hexbear.net 20 points 13 hours ago

Looks like Trump et al. are a bunch of
big-cool
THAADomasochists

[–] Jacobo_Villa_Lobos@hexbear.net 29 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 24 points 14 hours ago

Aw, man; I saw that title and thought for a second that the Iranians took down a B-2, thus revealing once and for all that "stealth" is a whiz-bang buzzword and doesn't actually work in practice against even remotely modern radar arrays. sicko-wistful

But what the hell, multiple installations of an anti-missile defense system that was clearly designed by people who never played Missile Command for the Atari? Yeah, still one for the "win" column.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 20 points 13 hours ago

blow up the rich

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 31 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Can someone smarter than me tell me what happens once they're all destroyed? Seems inevitable at this point.

[–] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 37 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Not too confident, but from what I've read, the THAAD system is on the more advanced side of a web of missile defense systems (another defense option being Patriot missiles). Looks like it offers better defense against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles specifically. I think other, less advanced interceptors can still challenge those types of missiles, but probably at a lower success rate. So the effect may be making it easier for Iranian missiles to get through, but it's not a complete destruction of any U.S. ability to intercept.

It may have second-order effects if the U.S. planned on these systems lasting indefinitely: maybe they stocked up on THAAD missiles they can no longer launch, and have comparatively smaller stockpiles of other interceptors like Patriot missiles. Maybe those less-effective missiles will be spent more quickly if they successfully intercept less often, but I'm really guessing at this point.

Also found this:

A THAAD battery consists of 90 soldiers, six truck-mounted launchers and 48 interceptors – eight per launcher – one TPY-2 radar, as well as a tactical fire control and communication unit.

Really makes me question the total of 6 U.S. deaths reported so far.

[–] InexplicableLunchFiend@hexbear.net 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The 6 deaths they admitted to were also non-combat logistics workers in a random outpost in Kuwait. The US still has not yet admitted to even a single combat death of their active combat troops stationed at military bases. It's obviously complete bullshit

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 4 points 7 hours ago

The way I see this unfolding: they try and hide as many facts as possible, convince a substantial amount of the population that we’re winning. Then surprise! We actually lost. Then they find some minority group to blame as the only possibility in their mind was that w Im backstabbed us.

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 32 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Well, i'm no war genius, but this is basically blinding the missile interception system

Without it, they can't reliably shoot down incoming missiles

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 29 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

I mean, apparently they aren't that great if they got destroyed by missiles? Imagine a mosquito net that got torn up by mosquitos

[–] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 24 points 13 hours ago

"Traditionally" you built war machines knowing some of them are going to explode for one reason or another. You hope to get more utility out of it then if you could have gotten out of another system, ideally by complimenting your other systems. Losing 1 carrier is bad, but if it lets you sink 2-5 of Japan's carriers, its "worth it".

The problem is that modern (post cold war and back in the 1870-1930 period as well) military makes systems that aren't practical for the engagements they're in. Part of it is changing tech (dreadnaughts seemed like the big thing until cheap aircraft sank a few in WWI). Part of it is fitting your military for the conflicts you're in/expect to be in (late colonial Britian/France was used to fighting "lesser" foes not industrialized nations).

A lot of American systems are built for 10 billion billion dollars because they're assuming that they're going to be up against the Soviets/China/some European system. They "have" to be that expensive otherwise you're going to lose. The problem is, if your opponent gets lucky, or your system fails, or your opponent finds any flaw or builds a system that "just works", then you can spend 1000x more and still lose. Vietnam etal. almost taught us Yanks that you need some systems that aren't going to sink your budget if you lose them, but we're too dumb/proud to not spend the most on everything. (Also its a racket, etc, etc.)

So you end up spending a billion on a system designed to work in a different scenario, sold to you that its "actually more then you need, but then it'll work now and forever so you really are saving", and then gets destroyed because of course it does, you're fighting a war you (royal you, not you you) nerd.

TLDR: America falls into the pitfall all/most large organizations do. Assuming there is no point in smaller systems because you're too big to care about the little parts.

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 29 points 14 hours ago

More of a testament to how planned out the Iranian counteroffensive was to overcome these systems

[–] Formerlyfarman@hexbear.net 5 points 10 hours ago

One of those fancy radars got owned by a home made Iraqi drone.

[–] jackmaoist@hexbear.net 23 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It could've been better if they spent 100 billion per battery instead of 1.

[–] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 14 points 14 hours ago

I don't think any missile defense system is 100% effective, and I haven't seen any reporting on if these were destroyed by the types of missiles they are designed to intercept, or by drones or some other means.

use expensive limited munition to destroy air defense systems
you can as many of the cheap ones at your intended target

[–] CthulhusIntern@hexbear.net 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

And can anyone answer if my assumption is correct that South Korea and Guam are too far to reliably see missiles in the Middle East?

[–] GenderIsOpSec@hexbear.net 14 points 14 hours ago (2 children)
[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 15 points 10 hours ago

my neighbor told me Iran keeps bombing his missile defense systems so I asked how many missile defense systems he has and he said he just goes to south korea and gets a new missile defense system afterwards so I said it sounds like he's just feeding missile defense systems to Iran and then his daughter started crying

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 12 points 14 hours ago

Lol

Let's see how long these ones last

[–] RedMari@reddthat.com 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They pay the war profiteer companies more to make more, the capitalists and stock owning politicians profit.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 15 points 13 hours ago

THAAD trombone 🎺

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 15 points 14 hours ago
[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 4 points 12 hours ago

Gonna start a TAD cover band, call it THAAD