Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Who would Win a US-Iran War?" video.

I think the part which isn't discussed nearly as often as it should be is that the tech level on both sides was basically the same. They were two modern industrialized countries duking it out in a war. With the same doctrine. It is two Russian armies. Much more akin to the American Civil War than most other wars
19
Yeah i think you're on the wrong side of the Dunnings-Kreueger regarding modern war. I think you need some reevaluations regarding how firepower wins wars. You're right manpower is required so drones cannot replace soldiers. However, the reason German output spiked was because it had officially committed its entire economy to the war effort which it had been reluctant to do. Separately, air power won the day in the 3 desert wars as advances in precision munitions allowed not just destruction of strategic assets, but the ability to destroy air defense and command and control assets, something impossible during WW2. This allowed units to roll over now disorganized and effectively leaderless units who thus offered little resistance. Fundamentally, still completely possible in mountains. Though you're correct regarding mechanized pushes in them.
16
@DistrustHumanz That's called occupation. Also, we're barely in Iraq right now. Only 2500 troops. The armies fell in less than a month for each of those counties, and we changed the government, while continuing occupation to prop it up while they recovered.
12
@zachariahhoots1735 Honestly some of the worst. However, I'd actually refrain from saying Ukraine is the smaller army. The trend for manpower for much of the war so far was actually in favor of Ukraine, and the first counter offensive was conducted with personnel advantage. And it's precisely what Russia lacked and was another limiting factor on Russia. But you're right they are absolutely transitioning to western equipment
12
@SeanMendicino-n3d Mass can be achieved through firepower. Which the US has in spades. And it's a specific issue unique to the Ukraine war in that no-one involved really did the prep for a long war. Compared to the US who has legendary planning abilities complete with pre-positioned stockpiles specifically meant to counter issues regarding munitions shortages.
11
I think there's something to be said regarding perception. Minus Vietnam where we were trying to prop up a government that was failing to defend itself and couldn't simply invade to end the war (one of the problems he mentioned here), we 3 times rolled a country in a month. And then got annoyed with occupation and left. So we "lost" a war we weren't actually fighting.
9
The biggest thing that those drones are useful for is reconnaissance. And they do tend to die quickly as a result. Secondly, it's worth noting that said war is lacking in air superiority much less air Supremacy. When you have air Supremacy you have ISR free from attrition. It's also worth noting that the US is actually currently training for drone swarms and with far bigger precision munitions. You're absolutely correct in the effectiveness of said munitions, but the US owns the sky from day one. There's little for those drones to defend against when command and control is bombed out thus depriving your units organization and supplies.
9
Yeah see that was a point I was going to bring up too. It was even easier for Afghanistan than Iraq. We "lost the war" because we didn't go full out with occupation and when we stopped occupying it a new group took over. Imagine you release all control to your puppet and they simply lose to a dissident group. That's what happened in Afghanistan. Yes I'm using HOI4 terms not because real life isn't infinitely more complicated, but because in this instance, it models that very well.
8
@bojangles8873 I think he's just going to take it as "It's a bunch of fan boys over the US who don't understand things" rather than realizing that he's on the wrong side of the Dunnings-Kreueger for this one
6
@bojangles8873 Honestly, if we can "take Iran" really is just dependent on win condition. Is it trying to nation build? Or is it simply destroying their armed forces and attempting a regime change? He says the current is lower tech powers being able to win, while all victories he referenced were achieved after the US stopped caring about occupation and simply left.
6
@Scottygthreethousand I think we are. They still have a VERY long logistics chain attached to them with limited time they can be active and have little creative thinking. Good for logistics though once they can be quieter.
6
@cgpxae2119 Kinda garbage. One commenter called it about 50/50 bs and accuracy. I agree.
5
 @UnknownUser1000-v7n Iran can't defend its skies or seas from the US. Ask the last time Iran messed with an American boat.
5
@likeAG6likeAG6 Yeah no way they don't wipe out the Iranian air forces. The most modern stuff they have are airframes that the US is actively retiring or already retired. I think they capped out at the oldest generation F-16s. Plenty fine for BVR kills with F-35 and even other, more modern, F-16s will blow them out of the sky. They don't have a domestic fighter industry. Or at least not a capable one.
5
Okay, first off: It's not about the vulnerability, it's about the capability. Secondly: aircraft carriers are mobile and it's hard to target things at sea Thirdly: They have air bases nearby. They don't need to use the aircraft carriers as the prime airbases. They're fundamentally command and control centers and even then there are others. This whole point about aircraft carriers is moot. That's not even mentioning the fact that the point of an aircraft carrier escort is things like air defense to protect them from that very threat.
4
No matter what manpower is required to occupy a country and solidify gains. Even if they just walk in, that part is important. It's how you hold territory. It's how you have a Frontline.
2
To the last point I'd like to add that even the Byraktar TB2 which we've stopped seeing so much of likely still has operations ongoing that are more with regards to sensor data and very limited direct strikes even though they were very useful and public early war. The situation changed and so their use changed as a result. Which is with any system.
2
@avroarchitect1793 He's good regarding social understandings but regarding the material inputs and even the strategy he's definitely missing more than a few parts of that whole. I don't blame him, but trying to opine on it as a video he apparently did a lot of research on makes it foolhardy. Very silly.
2
@PatagoniaAries Sounds about right. Mainly because they kind of drifted in and were simply arrested by some patrol boats. So by the next morning, they were released. Before that, Iran attacked a ship, and so I think 3/4 oil platforms used as bases and half of Iran's navy got destroyed in like 3 days.
2
I'd love to know more about the differences in the Kurdish groups. Also, I think you're right. I wonder who in the modern day has outsourced occupation to local militias
2
Iran's fertility rate is actually 1.71. They've been at 1.8 about as long as the USA has been at 1.7. They're stable. But that's it. Also, birth rate differences that small matter less when the population difference is over 3 times. But that's not exactly the point anyway.
2
It's worth noting that much of the reason for the current situation in Ukraine is that this is actually two armies who inherited a defensive doctrine from the previous state. The Soviet military knew that NATO would own the skies from day one. So they built masses of air defense and designed their planes in order to contest the skies. Built masses of tanks in order to conduct armored offensives in order to break through the lines under contested air, and made 3 line deep defenses as a way to defeat NATO forces. As well as loads of artillery in order to boost those defenses present. Now, Ukraine used that very doctrine to contest the skies, break offensives using 3 deep line defenses and massive artillery, against an army who did not invest in SEAD or DEAD capabilities for their air force, and also had tons of armor. So, they use their massive artillery to push using infantry assaults. This is because ATGMs are very effective, and ISR is also about even due to intense drone penetration. This invasion was conducted in mud season, using light forces, among strong choke points, with massive equipment losses due to logistical failures by the Russians. In short, since Ukraine did everything right, and Russia everything wrong, there has become relative parity, and the spear blunted, allowing everyone to dig in. That is not anywhere near all wars. First off, air supremacy changes this calculus greatly. Drone penetration only works when under contested air, and the opportunity exists. Secondly, armored offensives fail under enemy air superiority. In fact, it's why Ukraine's counter-offensives failed, as they advanced without their AA, and so they were destroyed by Russian helicopters. In such a way as how Russia was destroyed when it lacked its air defense network in that first few weeks of the invasion. Thirdly, America has insane levels of precision munitions in stockpile, with better precision, allowing them to target important locations like logistical hubs and command and control to make any army Iran fields completely disorganized and near inoperable. While also having a massive logistics focus. In short, any war would be different. Not because of drones not being a revolutionary technology in warfare that wouldn't matter "in a real war," but instead because about half of the fighting is basically missing from the equation. It's back to WW1 because it's mostly recreated WW1 conditions. No planes, elaborate trench networks (which have always been difficult to break), nullified tanks, and massive amounts of artillery. US-Iran is, many planes, no trench network focus, no artillery focus, mostly nullified armor.
1
@Letsplay222 What world are you living in that they always lose to HAMAS? Conscripts can be high discipline forces, and there's a mountain of evidence that Israeli forces are relatively disciplined units. So I don't know what you're on
1
@bojangles8873 I think that'd be a consistent throughline for a win condition, but I wonder if it's indeed what he meant by that, since he seemed to think the US would simply get stuck on the coast without an ability to advance but in bloody trench fighting.
1
Yeah Fracking is actually an especially low cost method of gaining oil. So I don't think it'd be lower per barrel costs. Especially since there's only limited areas where they exist and that'd still be from the gulf. Otherwise yeah this is really off base
1
@Harry-fr1iz US Break even price for shale oil is about $30 for existing wells and $60 for new wells, as of 2023. Saudi oil has not been below $30 since 2003 and from 2018 to 2019 was about $65 with some variations year on year and dropped to $35 for 2020 only to rise again afterward. I'm not sure if it bears mentioning, but shale oil is light and sweet vs Saudi heavy and sour. The former is much easier to refine but I'm not sure how much that is affecting the prices if at all.
1
@Harry-fr1iz That would be incorrect. First off: Shale oil caused the price reduction in 2014 to 2016 of global oil prices as it came in and flooded the market. Second off: shale oil gets turned off first not because of unprofitabiliy, but instead due to physical constraints. Traditional drilling can't really be turned off and on again at will. Once you drill, it just goes on until you seal it up or it runs dry. Shale kind of can. So you can turn it off with regards to excess production. Also, no, Saudi Arabian prices of $60 are a relative norm and for 6 years from 2008 to 2014 the price was right around $100 per barrel minus 2009 and 2010 where it was $55 then $75. Also, I don't know why you'd think fracking is logically the more expensive process. It takes less time to set up (by orders of magnitude), and by all measures, it seems far more efficient. At least in its current incarnation. Even in 2014, when it was in its relative infancy, Shale created that 2014 to 2016 price fall, which hit all oil prices (even Saudi oil which had to decline to compete in the 2015 year). So, I don't see anywhere where it's the more expensive process. It seems to be less expensive given all evidence. The traditional wells are already set up. That seems to be the only potential mitigating factor. Also feel like it's worth mentioning now that the 2021 and 2022 oil prices for Saudi crude was about $65 and $95 respectively. Which covers the prices from 2008 to 2022, and demonstrates that there's been very few instances in which it was actually a lower cost producer compared to Shale.
1
@avroarchitect1793 Yeah, I'll admit that my knowledge comes from interest and subscribing to YouTube channels that cover related concepts. So I'm nowhere near an expert. But yeah, this is just not it with regards to military analysis. At least with regards to equipment and coordination, there's just so much more with regards to the USA. Iran has been operating through proxies for the last 40 years. Iran-Iraq war was the last war they fought and only really got ahead thanks to better equipment inherited from the USA. And the US fights exclusively with logistics.
1
@avroarchitect1793 Yes. I think the public has been a significant disservice by calling Afghanistan and Iraq occupations "wars" since now everyone equates occupying terroritory against insurgents from an army whose government is defunct to a major combined arms offensive. Which is clearly flawed.
1
@avroarchitect1793 I mean you're right. However, it's largely a post-war activity following a capitulation rather than in itself a traditional force on force conflict which is understood to be conventional war. You can have guerilla tactics employed within a traditional force on force conflict as part of a broader strategy, but usually not the only part of it
1
@jhoughjr1 Here's a question: can you win every battle and still lose? Separately, what did it mean to win? That's not rhetorical.
1
Is there any footage you can link? And do you know why it was edited out?
1
What happened is that in the public perception, especially paraded by the anti-war left, is that the occupation after the initial operation was called "a war" and so in America it's politically known as a war. Problem is that it isn't really a war. Or at least not a normal one. It was an occupation. But in America's mind, a force on force conflict is equated with anti-insurgency operations as a result of political sperging by the anti-war faction (who in their ignorance I'm not sure actually know what it would mean to not be at war to them). This has resonated through a couple of generations of Americans, and now it's just "known" to be our "foreign wars"
1
I mean it's a lot easier when there's no more command and control because the skies are owned entirely by one player from day one and they've been bombed to bits. Separately, the Turks might actually let this one through. They're allied to Azerbaijan and much of northwest Iran is Azeri and wants to join with the country. Not to mention, Turkiye kinda hates Iran. So they'd be doing a favor to Turkiye by knocking off a rival and strengthening an ally.
1
@failiprince. Khamenei is only half Azeri, and still Shia. But Azeris are largely Sunni, not Shia. Not to mention, yes, there has been some contact between the two areas in favor of joining with Azerbaijan. Separately, the west isn't the main power block in the region. Much of it isn't under western control as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is today. Saudi Arabia is its own power block. So no. It wouldn't be western control of the region.
1
@failiprince. You're right I did get it confused in saying it was Sunni.
1