> On Apr 11, 2026, at 12:45, Michael Pugliese via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > "It's been recognized that we don't have enough long-range strike > capability, so we've been trying to build up these stockpiles, but we > keep depleting them," Grieco told CBS News. > > Raytheon, or RTX, recently announced a framework agreement with the > Defense Department to scale up to 1,000 missiles for the U.S. per year > over several years." <SNIP>
We are focused on missiles, maybe because I tossed out the unqualified claim that "US capitalism can produce an endless supply of missiles at $1M apiece." But the US could instead use planes and drop dumb bombs. I'll baldly claim that the US can produce an endless supply of richly-priced dumb bombs. MP and others are invited to correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with planes is that the Iranians will shoot some down and march injured and bedraggled US POWs in front of cameras during the election year. Militarily, bombers would work quite well but not politically. That rules them out - for now. It is true that Trump's MAGA base overwhelmingly supports the war on Iran. Only about 20% voted for Trump because of his no "forever wars" pledge. But domestically, MAGA and overall Republican support for the invasion is weakening according to polls and MAGA talking-head podcasters. This is a political constraint just as Iranian intransigence is a military constraint on the US. There are international political constraints: Arguably, it's international political considerations that prevent Trump from blocking the entire Persian Gulf, as many neocons now demand. US neoconservative war-hawks correctly see this as a great humiliation for the US: China and other Iranian allies have their ships pass; Chinese recon ships operate in the Gulf to forward telemetry readings to the IRGC, and the US has chosen not to escalate by stopping them. I think that's primarily a political decision and not a military one. Politically, China and former US allies have not yet begun to fight. There are leverage points that these powerful nations have against the US such as bonds. I suppose the conundrum is that putting the US into great financial pain could take down their economies as well. But I disagree with the SC and the other MP that some military victory has happened or is even assured. Trump sent over 10 thousand elite troops to the region. There are powerful political forces that will push him to use them. What is stopping them is political, not military. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#41429): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41429 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/118722013/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
