Utopia Talk - Politics - Trump strikes 2

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jun 27 13:14:55 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump strikes 2

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 05:16:52
Sammy
Absolutely not fan-fiction boy. You are wrong on all points.

USAF bomber losses overall is less than 2% of sorties flown. There was a bad week in 1943 where the ration was as high as 13% for an individual group.

It really is sad to see your total intellectual breakdown.

Iran's military lost 90 pieces of hardware that have been visually confirmed. Including things only damaged and stuff like excavators and bulldozers. Air defence losses were almost nill.

This alone is incompatible with any type of systematic overflights by manned air frames.

You really have to try and ground your emotions on a semblance of available data. As it stands, it just seems like you are off your meds.

Sam Adams
Member Fri Jun 27 05:25:34
You are just making up retarded shit at this point.

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 05:37:51
http://www..._STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf

The link to confirmed losses Iran (90 in total including damaged and things like bulldozers, already provided).

Bomber losses are 1.5% of sorties for the US in europe, 1.7% for bomber command.

murder
Member Fri Jun 27 09:01:42

"Air defence losses were almost nill."

You can't destroy what they don't have.

-

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 09:08:27
A simple google would help you out a lot murder. Iran has literally thousands of individual air defence units (as in a Patriot system consists of up to 10 individual units). Density is another matter. Iran is huge.

Sam Adams
Member Fri Jun 27 10:34:53
Lmfao. Ya jergul you really slayed the israelis with your giant network of extremely effective and invincible air defenses. You go.

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 11:35:28
Israel has a giant network of extremely effective and invincible air defences. And went from shooting down 90% of missiles to shooting down 65% of missiles defending a postage stamp of a country.

Perfection is not the idea. Forcing the opposition to rely on stand-off attacks is the idea.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Fri Jun 27 12:01:55
Jergul is such an authentic simulation of a regime sycophant that I find myself checking his posts for watermark stamps from PressTV.

He has an incredible talent for framing catastrophic strategic paralysis as deliberate restraint—like a guy tied to a chair claiming he’s practicing stillness meditation.

He is not even defending IRGC military capability anymore—he’s defending the idea that not dying immediately is proof of strategic genius. At this rate, a smoking crater will become a data point in favor of regime stability.

Sam Adams
Member Fri Jun 27 12:08:56
Hes been on team soviet for at least 20 years and it just got handed yet another crushing defeat. I think his mind is latching onto CT posts and regime propaganda as a desperate defense machanism.

Sort of like some poor iranian turning off his radar when the israeli harm missile is already inbound.

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 12:45:05
Yawn. I see you have run out of arguments. Not that any of you really had any arguments going from you at any time anyway.

I just see the shortcomings in ambitions of forcing regime change on Iran kinetically. It boils down to the unavoidability and undesirability of an open ended conflict.

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 12:52:04
Incidentally, it looks like the cost for Israel will be about 1 billion dollars a day. For reference, its gdp is 560 billion USD. Yes, I know the US will cover most of that one way or another, but it is one way of understanding why an open ended conflict is not great. It costs Israel 65% of its daily gdp every day.

jergul
large member Fri Jun 27 13:01:05
Not that I am getting defensive. I have said many times that the invasion, occupation and annexation Russia has done is worse than anything the US has pulled off since wwii. I frankly dont know how I can more harshly condemn it.

What I more generally have talked about is the limitations inherent to airpower. Particularly when you combine it with very low casualty tolerance.

The US for example is still the premier military power if only it had the balls to lose say 500 soldiers a day in a sustained conflict. But withouot that, well...then you have the limitations inherent to airpower.

show deleted posts

jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 05:16:52 Sammy Absolutely not fan-fiction boy. You are wrong on all points. USAF bomber losses overall is less than 2% of sorties flown. There was a bad week in 1943 where the ration was as high as 13% for an individual group. It really is sad to see your total intellectual breakdown. Iran's military lost 90 pieces of hardware that have been visually confirmed. Including things only damaged and stuff like excavators and bulldozers. Air defence losses were almost nill. This alone is incompatible with any type of systematic overflights by manned air frames. You really have to try and ground your emotions on a semblance of available data. As it stands, it just seems like you are off your meds.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jun 27 05:25:34 You are just making up retarded shit at this point.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 05:37:51 http://www..._STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf The link to confirmed losses Iran (90 in total including damaged and things like bulldozers, already provided). Bomber losses are 1.5% of sorties for the US in europe, 1.7% for bomber command.
murder Member	Fri Jun 27 09:01:42 "Air defence losses were almost nill." You can't destroy what they don't have. -
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 09:08:27 A simple google would help you out a lot murder. Iran has literally thousands of individual air defence units (as in a Patriot system consists of up to 10 individual units). Density is another matter. Iran is huge.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jun 27 10:34:53 Lmfao. Ya jergul you really slayed the israelis with your giant network of extremely effective and invincible air defenses. You go.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 11:35:28 Israel has a giant network of extremely effective and invincible air defences. And went from shooting down 90% of missiles to shooting down 65% of missiles defending a postage stamp of a country. Perfection is not the idea. Forcing the opposition to rely on stand-off attacks is the idea.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 27 12:01:55 Jergul is such an authentic simulation of a regime sycophant that I find myself checking his posts for watermark stamps from PressTV. He has an incredible talent for framing catastrophic strategic paralysis as deliberate restraint—like a guy tied to a chair claiming he’s practicing stillness meditation. He is not even defending IRGC military capability anymore—he’s defending the idea that not dying immediately is proof of strategic genius. At this rate, a smoking crater will become a data point in favor of regime stability.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jun 27 12:08:56 Hes been on team soviet for at least 20 years and it just got handed yet another crushing defeat. I think his mind is latching onto CT posts and regime propaganda as a desperate defense machanism. Sort of like some poor iranian turning off his radar when the israeli harm missile is already inbound.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 12:45:05 Yawn. I see you have run out of arguments. Not that any of you really had any arguments going from you at any time anyway. I just see the shortcomings in ambitions of forcing regime change on Iran kinetically. It boils down to the unavoidability and undesirability of an open ended conflict.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 12:52:04 Incidentally, it looks like the cost for Israel will be about 1 billion dollars a day. For reference, its gdp is 560 billion USD. Yes, I know the US will cover most of that one way or another, but it is one way of understanding why an open ended conflict is not great. It costs Israel 65% of its daily gdp every day.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 27 13:01:05 Not that I am getting defensive. I have said many times that the invasion, occupation and annexation Russia has done is worse than anything the US has pulled off since wwii. I frankly dont know how I can more harshly condemn it. What I more generally have talked about is the limitations inherent to airpower. Particularly when you combine it with very low casualty tolerance. The US for example is still the premier military power if only it had the balls to lose say 500 soldiers a day in a sustained conflict. But withouot that, well...then you have the limitations inherent to airpower.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: