3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Pentagon - “Aircraft was damaged.”

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by No One

10 hours ago, frog said:

What is the desired end state? No one seems to be able to explain it. If no one knows what the desired end state is, how can the American people define the cost they are willing to pay?

Take away (or at least reduce to max extent feasible) Iran’s ability to project any kind of influence, power, and/or destruction outside of their own borders.

4 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Incorrect - Air Force to Buy Developmental E-7s With $2.4B Contract Modifications

Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!

@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.

10 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

I can promise you one KC-135 is not $240M.

36 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!

@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.

-46 was damaged as well

12 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Now do Iran...

23 hours ago, brabus said:

Bottom line: it’s a lot better than the MSM and you would like it to be. The red line for me would be mass ground invasion for longterm “nation building” (aka the last 25 years). I don’t support that one bit, and would view it as a leadership failure.

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Now do Iran...

59 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

Aside from the college-essay-esqe nature of your question and the interesting philosophical debate it could engender: why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer? I mean I get the rules of war and not violating clearly illegal bounds ala My Lai massacre, but in sooooooo, soo many cases in the modern era, this is how "war" is fought. WTF is "congressional approval" for anyway? Funding, right? Congress gets to declare war - which they don't do - so you and I know that in the real, modern world, the President has full and complete executive authority to launch whatever type of operation he deems serves our national security, Congress be damned. That's it. ROE is determined by government / military lawyers - not Congress. So, why do you think you have any legitimate basis upon which to question this operation vs any of the others you've been fine carrying out?

Congress doesn't get any say whatsoever in what the scope of an operation is, whatever the label is you want to apply to it, be it 'limited,' 'temporary,' no 'boots on ground,' etc. So your question is inherently a red-herring. If you have (or had) a serious personal issue with how military operations have been conducted since WWII and Congress' (lack of) authorization, then you should have resigned your commission and stopped collecting retirement pay a long time ago.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer?

Because as an officer, it is quite literally his job to understand the legality of orders before carrying them out. One of the unique and saving graces of the US military: The officers swear no allegiance to the president, but rather to the constitution, and specifically in the oath, are required to follow lawful orders.

56 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Because as an officer, it is quite literally his job to understand the legality of orders before carrying them out. One of the unique and saving graces of the US military: The officers swear no allegiance to the president, but rather to the constitution, and specifically in the oath, are required to follow lawful orders.

The question becomes who determines the lawfulness of the order? I know there are plenty of members here who are textbook examples of Dunning Kruger effect, however I’m pretty sure said members aren’t attorneys in good standing with a state’s bar. Therefore, their “legal analysis” of whether an order is lawful or not is moot.

3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

I don't think there's a simple objective answer to your question. The framers clearly understood that Congress could not be relied upon to act swiftly in times of military necessity. Thus the commander-in-chief.

And more recently, the last few decades, Congress has happily offloaded unbelievable amounts of their authority to the executive. That includes many of the powers to wage war, despite retaining the now largely ceremonial function of declaring it.

So I think the real answer in light of that, is that the president has the authority wage war until a veto-proof majority of Congress decides to take it away. The president is, after all, a direct representative of the people, and the only true representative of all Americans.

The alternative to this construct is incredibly dangerous. Not to say that the current construct is danger-free, but I would rather we over-war, than under-war, if that makes sense. The former can be fixed with the existing structures of our government. The latter is existential.

And my suspicion is that if we end up nation building, which I absolutely don't think is happening, you'll have more than enough Republicans vote against him to break a veto.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Lord Ratner

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't think there's a simple objective answer to your question. The framers clearly understood that Congress could not be relied upon to act swiftly in times of military necessity. Thus the commander-in-chief.

And more recently, the last few decades, Congress has happily offloaded unbelievable amounts of their authority to the executive. That includes many of the powers to wage war, despite retaining the now largely ceremonial function of declaring it.

Agreed. The phrasing of the War Powers Act is pretty vague and I think that was intentional. While obviously not the same thing, when a contract is written vaguely, the wiggle room is generally interpreted more liberally towards the party that did not write the contract, or so my lawyer told me. Since Congress wrote the War Powers Act and did so in vague language, it seems reasonable for the Executive to be able to use all the wiggle room Congress seems to have intentionally given.

As far as Constitutional questions, the modern Federal government has gone so far beyond the Constitution that it can't even be seen in the rear view mirror. It would be comical to suddenly draw a WAY more restrictive line when it comes to the Commander-in-Chief employing the military.

Individual officers must be able to recognize and not obey illegal orders. Extending that same responsibility to the entire war seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. If the President ordered the invasion of Bermuda because he said he wants a better vacation home, that would be different, but this is a war on a country that has directly caused American deaths. An officer saying that's illegal because it's been XX days and therefore in his mind should have Congressional approval seems absurd.

What’s important to remember about executive branch scope creep and abuse of power is that its only bad when the other side does it. When your own side does it, it’s just an unfortunate reality/status quo of the times we live in.