Hacker News Reader

Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths. They’ll use more and more jdams vs stand off weapons as air superiority has been mostly established. There’s also been a significant drop in missile attacks as more and more launchers are destroyed.

https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat...

> Why would the US and Israel resort to unguided cheap bombing? That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths.

It is cheap and neither cares about civilian deaths. That is why. Both countries show it both in rhetoric and action. The leadership literally brags about not caring about civilian deaths.

There is basically no country in the world who cares more about civilian deaths than the US. Get out of your bubble

First, USA literally officially does not care about it right now. That is the stated official politics. Hegseth, Vance and Trump are proud and open about it. Hegseth was referring to literally this war when he was saying they will not care about things like civilian deaths.

Second, the number of civilians deaths caused by USA was going up due to drones usage. That is prior Trump, in administrations that kind of cared at least a little. And that was at the time when media sorta kinda cared. Nowdays, media do not care at all.

Third, Israel is not just ok with genocide, but wants it to happen. And USA is one of the leading countries in the project of helping them. I am not singling out America here, it is not JUST America. But America is very consistent in that.

> First, USA literally officially does not care about it right now. That is the stated official politics.

All indications so far indicate the US military is in fact still trying to minimize civilian casualties regardless of the statements being made by some of the individuals in the leadership.

> Hegseth, Vance and Trump are proud and open about it. Hegseth was referring to literally this war when he was saying they will not care about things like civilian deaths.

I wouldn't take the statements being made by these 3 individuals as fact as they are known to lie constantly for various(usually dumb) reasons.

The decision to use cheap bombing or an expensive one will go from the top. And the military already shown they will obey unlawful orders. They also got rid of leaders who were not aligned with Trump on this point.

Yes these three lie a lot. They are also setting the rules for military. They also already shown in actions they dont value evwn American lives much.

They had in speeches toward military telling them to be violent and unrestrained. They are leaders. If they lie, military will eventually lie. If they dont care, military wont care.

> The decision to use cheap bombing or an expensive one will go from the top.

I don't see any indications that unguided munitions are being used if that's what you're referring to. The advantages in terms of accuracy from precision guided munitions tends to largely eliminate any cost advantages unguided munitions may theoretically have.

Regardless of the statements being made by some of the leadership the actual targeting appears to be done in a way that tries to avoid civilian casualties.

Trump went on TV and openly stated we just have to accept the death of Americans. "Oh well, that's what happens." As if this conflict is an act of God.

You think he - a raging, narcissistic, racist, pedophile rapist - gives a single fuck about Iranian citizens? You think He Seth - an alcoholic, "lethalmaxxing", Tate bro with nazi tattoos - gives a single fuck about Iranian citizens?

Lots of countries in the EU care more about civilian deaths than the US. However the US cares a lot more than Russia.

Even if you take the current US leadership at their word, they do not. They've all but said that war crimes are on the table here.

America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course classified effects. All on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.

Literally, on day 1, they bombed an elementary school and killed dozens of little girls.

When you are constantly hearing the words 'precise', 'controlled', 'surgical' you absolutely must wipe the propaganda off of your ears. A protracted aerial bombing campaign will never, ever, be precise and surgical. Doesn't matter how good the tech is. One only needs to look at Gaza to see what is planned for Iran.

The us is indeed very interested in how many innocents its enemies kill.

70 years of bombing random coutries an causing caos and military dictatorships show that is might not apply inward.

How naive of you to think that Israel cares bout civilian deaths.

whether Israel cares or not the US people definitely care and half the nation literally wants Trump hanging from a tree. The US midterm elections in November are going to make things 1,000% harder for the Trump admin and widespread Iranian civilian deaths will up that by an order of magnitude.

Back to speaking tactically, JDAMs are cost effective enough that I bet they are the only gravity bomb used. I could see using unguided bombs for things like airbase runways but i bet they stick with JDAMs for logistical simplicity.

> Why would the US and Israel resort to X?

> That’s how you end up with wide scale civilian deaths.

Has Israel ever shown restraint wrt civilian deaths?

  Its worked before (see 1980s https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-tanker-war/), and it'll probably work again. Especially as Iran has different values on loss.

One of the lessons learned:

The oil market is likely to adapt to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil. But the Tanker War did not significantly disrupt oil shipments. In fact, Iran lowered the price of oil to offset higher insurance premiums on shipments, and the real global oil price steadily declined during the 1980s. Even at the its most intense point, the Tanker War failed to disrupt more than two percent of ships passing through the Persian Gulf.[x]

This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction.

> This seems relevant to the global stock/oil market overreaction.

This is true, but as with the start of the tanker wars:

> Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a sharp rise in the price of crude oil.

currently something like 90% of shipping is stopped.

But your general point about moving around it is valid, assuming that Iran doesn't attack refineries and distribution points. Last time Iran had to use artillery to attack shipping, this time they have better weapons

There's already videos of US/Israeli jets over tehran dropping guided bombs.

That's my assessment. By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.

So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands.

In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them).

But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.

look at the stats of what the UAE has defended against, what is the purpose of those attacks? They make no sense to me.

Iran attacks on the UAE 186 ballistic missiles 812 drones

this article even states that the UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind. The UAE is, wisely IMO, choosing to stay out of it but i mean how much can they take?

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/uae-iran-missiles-strike-is...

The UAE is hosting multiple US military bases and is absolutely a valid target.

> UAE has been attacked more than Israel itself which, again, blows my mind.

UAE is closer and so it is harder for them to intercept attacking missiles and drones. Israel is further and thus harder target. They have more time to destroy the attacking drone or missile, making such attack more wasteful.

Second, the goals are likely American soldiers stationed there and the defense systems themselves. Intercepting missiles can run out and Iran likely wants them to run out.

> So, the USA and Israel started a war with Iran when they were in the negotiating table and the Iranians were accepting all the nuclear demands.

They were not accepting all the nuclear demands[0].

> In the first unprovoked attack they killed an important religious leader of a big part of the population of the area (not only Iran) and a bunch of civilians (160 children in a school between them).

Calling the attack "unprovoked" is just wildly inaccurate, Iran has for years funded terrorist proxies to attack both Israel and US interests in the region.

> But the assesment is that 'is Iran who is threatening and targeting bystanders'. No surprise that we are in the mess we are.

Iran deliberately targets their own civilians as well as 3rd party countries.[1]

I think the massacres and not the nuclear program were however what finally pushed the US and Israel into a war with the regime itself as a primary target as the massacres opened up an opportunity to potentially take out the regime once and for all.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/world/middleeast/iran-us-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres

unprovoked is "why now?"

that funding has been for years, and Israel itself has funded some of those same proxies.

the massacres also arent timely. we're months later with the unrest settled down, but its also not something unique to iran. lots of countries, including israel go about massacring civilians

nothing has substantially changed in many years. not even oct 7 is timely anymore

> unprovoked is "why now?"

The protest massacres opening up an opportunity for regime change, I think that's ultimately what pushed Israel and the US to take action.

> Israel itself has funded some of those same proxies

Israel facilitating aid/funds into Gaza for humanitarian reasons which often got diverted by Hamas is not the same as Israel funding Hamas.

> the massacres also arent timely. we're months later with the unrest settled down, but its also not something unique to iran.

The war happened as soon as one could reasonably expect it to happen given the necessary logistics involved.

> including israel go about massacring civilians

Israel does not have a top down policy of deliberately targeting/massacring civilians, Iran on the other hand does.

> nothing has substantially changed in many years. not even oct 7 is timely anymore

Oct 7 drastically changed Israel's perspective on containment and deterrence being effective policies for dealing with enemies like Hamas and Iran. Part of the problem with a containment and deterrence strategy here is that groups like Hamas and the Iranian regime don't respond to incentives in the way one would expect a rational actor to respond.

Embarrassing hasbara.

> By threatening and targeting bystanders, Iran tries to make any military action against them costly to those not involved, who will naturally apply pressure to whomever is taking the action.

i'm no geopolitical expert but the most likely outcome of bombing bystanders is more enemies and fewer bystanders.

> They are using all the fancy missiles first, but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing.

Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.

It could also signal a command that is less risk averse than the past. We lost B52s bombing Asia back in the day because even old SAM systems are a danger to them, maybe the Trump admin is just fine with losing a handful of irreplaceable old workhorses. I don't think the DoD ever planned to use those B52s in a war against China either, which this is essentially all in concert of.

i doubt it. you dont have verification on that without boots on the ground, and consistently not being shot down.

iran could easily be keeping air defenses hidden in caves waiting for the right opportunity

It appears that now there are b-52s making their way over. So this seems to back up the claim of ait superiority.

This war will end with regime change in Iran one way or another. Whatever the 'play' is won't change that.

> but haven't made a safe path to do unguided cheap bombing

Do you seriously believe it? That we're not going to see the US/Israel bombers over Iran?

I think it could finish with regime change in the USA.

Air power alone has _never_ achieved regime change.

Libya begs to differ

What do you mean, Lybia happened 2 days after France met with Libyan rebels leaders and one of Ghadafi's son, the first strike targeted ground installations so that the rebels could take over.

It was carefully planed for a swift takeover, way, way more than what is happening there, and it still ended up being a cluster fuck. The rebels were the fucking ground groups.

Here, it will probably be Iraqis, like during the first gulf war. Hopefully less people will die, but clearly this is a terrible decision.

Up until this afternoon, I hadn't seen evidence of non-long range munitions.

Lots of cruise missiles, but not short range guided bombs.

It appears that b-52s are being flown over to the middle east now, which means they must be fairly confident of air superiority