Hacker News Reader

Comment by irishcule | Hacker News Reader

> the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it, and maintain that control

I never understood these kinds of arguments and they always come from those defending US military might.

Either they can do it or they cannot, if "the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it" is true, which it appears to be, then the US Military cannot control Hormuz.

View on HN

Right I think its only an interesting argument in separating existential vs non-existential threats to the country.

So it means we aren't fighting in Iran the way we would in defending a hypothetical invasion of the lower 48 states, great.

But does it mean we'd fight any differently in the South China Sea, a Russian incursion into Poland, etc. Unclear, and presidential whim based.

The American public has shown willingness over decades and decades to commit to long term wars of choice. Not infinitely patient, but patient.

Of course, other Presidents have been willing to put in some sort of effort to make to make a case. And usually have some of theory of victory or purpose. And generally avoid making weird random claims about invading NATO allies.

That willingness is predicated on being at war with much weaker powers / enduring FAR lower casualty rates than Vietnam / Korea / world wars.

The entire 25+ year GWOT era has resulted in 7k American military personnel dying.

Vietnam that number was closer to 60K in 8 years, when US population was also 33% lower.

Dramatically different impact on society.

Sending marines to take an island in Hormuz or a carrier under fire in the South China Sea might look a lot closer to Vietnam than GWOT in a hurry.

The distinction between political resolve and military might is relevant specifically to the "what has all this money gotten us?"

All the money in the military has gotten us, almost certainly, the ability to conquer virtually any plot of land anywhere on the planet at any time.

But that does not (thankfully) intrinsically generate the political resolve required to do so.

Democracy and markets are beautiful things. It's fantastic that it can constrain even a military as mighty as the US and a commander in chief as braindead as Trump.

I dont think it's fair to say it's from those defending US military might.

I've seen the same logical fallacy used everywhere; including people hyping Russia and China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com