Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway9876g | Hacker News Reader

> US military has essentially nowhere left on the continent it feels like it can leave it's equipment.

You should look into how many air craft carriers the US has, how carrier groups work, and then also look at the air force and the operating range of some of our air craft.

Some of the aircraft literally take off from the Continental us when they run missions in the middle east.

Also there are somewhere between 20 and 28 US military bases in the middle east alone plus 30-40 in europe. All of those could easily host offensive strike craft just fine.

it looks like you don't have a good understanding of the capabilities of the US military or how we operate, so perhaps you should do more research.

Also, just FYI, every single one of the sources you cited has some pretty heavy bias. It might help you to seek out some alternative sources. I think you're in some kind of algorithm bubble and it's distorting your world view.

View on HN

> You should look into how many air craft carriers the US has

Air craft carriers such as the USS Abraham Lincoln? Which had to remain at sea for 286 days, including 208 consequtive days without making port. During which time, the military suffered a massive logistical failure to adaquetly supply it, presumably due to them moving their logistical base from Bahrain to Diego Garcia. Then, was relieved only by diverting the USS George Washington and USS Theodore Roosevelt to the region, leaving no carriers in the West Pacific

> Also there are somewhere between 20 and 28 US military bases in the middle east alone

Bases which have been comming under repeated air attack; the extent and damage of which is kept quiete, but appears to be much more substantial than the US military wants to admit. And which are increasingly vulnerable as they loose air defense abilities due to both loss of supporting infastructure, and a depletion of interceptors.

I have no doubt that the American military is hugely capable.

But as the saying goes, the fish rots from the head. When leadership is replaced based on loyalty to one man, and not merit, all that capability is steadily eroded.

The era of big military ships floating around on the ocean in the open is coming to an end and manned jet fighters will be joining them soon afterwards.

That's what we're seen in Ukraine. Smaller teams and mobility becomes extremely important as everything too big becomes an easy target.

As for the surface ships yeah, they will become more vulnerable as AI can process and tag millions of images to find a ship in the ocean which then becomes the target. Wonder how long it'll be until the major powers switch to subs and cruise missiles as the primary force projection method.

If these sources are biased, which sources do you think provide good unbiased reporting?

There is no such thing as unbiased reporting, so to balance it out just check more sources that have different biases.

Ground news is a site that provides feeds from everyone. They are decent at making sure all sides of a story are represented in their feed.

Is it tho? Or is it a ploy from mostly republican-connected investors to legitamize less trustworthy right wing news sources?

You can decide for yourself, but I did think this post on its ownership was interesting.

https://literatemachine.com/2026/08/16/is-ground-news-a-righ...

CNN's biggest backers spent decades campaigning for war with Iran. Every day for years and years Wolf Blitzer would take some time in the situation room to tell us all about the impotance of binging regime change to Iran, going back to the 90s.

If even CNN are too biased for your tastes then it's probably not them. It's you. Hegseth is also a true believer.

saying that Iran would benefit from a regime change (everyone knows this, easy topic for Blitzer to kill some time, no one watched him anyways) is not the same as “campainging for war” (we always knew we cannot win).

It's exactly the same, actually. The point of my comment being that Wolf Blitzer's daily campaigning for war (with calls for regime change among other things) happened on the same CNN that is presumably not pro-war-with-iran enough to be convincingly unbiased for the parent comment.

calling for regime change does not entail USA being involved in an armed conflict to make it happen. regimes change all the time on Earth without USA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com