NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704034/

They now have one of the world's fastest underwater missiles and they are planning terrorist attacks around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/

Since I am about to log off till tomorrow morning, have fun discussing.

Assuming it's actually true. Personally, I take anything the Iranians say with just a wee tiny grain of salt.

The usual talking out of their ass.

What reason does the United States have to fear Iran? We don't.

I think a new Iran needs to emerge. I mean, 70% of Iran's youth have positive feelings of the United States. And the mullahs are only holding power through brutality. It's only a matter of time until there's another revolution...

I wouldn't be surprised if they did start a massive terrorist retaliation. their mullahs are wacko enough to pull it off. of couse, we can bomb them back to the stone age if we get pissed off enough, or we can let israel do all the preemptive bombing while supplying the weapons.

what worries (if we do bomb iran) is that they will send their hezbollahs and whatnot to iraq and screw it up for us to the point of no return, if it's not already at that point.

What reason does the United States have to fear Iran? We don't.

I think a new Iran needs to emerge. I mean, 70% of Iran's youth have positive feelings of the United States. And the mullahs are only holding power through brutality. It's only a matter of time until there's another revolution...

well, iran did say they will strike back at us using terrorism in the first article, I believe. also, if they get da bomb, so will saudi arabia, egypt, and pretty much the entire middle east. how comfortable are you with a bunch of unstable regimes populated by islamofascists having nukes? personally, i'm not comfortable at all with that.

Wouldn't be surpised if it was one big bluff

or...







an April Fools joke...

Assuming it's actually true. Personally, I take anything the Iranians say with just a wee tiny grain of salt.
Yes it is perhaps just a bit suspicious that in the past week they've gone from nothing to world leaders in the field of missiles technology above and below the water.

So let's see, they reverse-engineered a new concept prototype, and suddenly they're omfg a threat!!! :rolleyes:

I'd like to hear their plans for getting within 7km of a target to fire it. :rolleyes:

Assuming it's actually true. Personally, I take anything the Iranians say with just a wee tiny grain of salt.
A tiny grain of salt? Just one? Personally if I was going to have one grain of salt to take when listening to the crap that Iran comes out with I'd hve a one metre by three and a third feet by one and one sixth yard cube block of salt. I'd keep it in my living room and show it to people when they visit. I'd say " This is my big block of nackle! That's the scientific term if you're unfamililar with chemistry.. It's actually salt. Yeah, try tossing that over your shoulder! You'd crush the devil with that! I actually had to remove the windows to get it in here but it was worth it!". I have no idea what I'm talking about..:confused:

A tiny grain of salt? Just one? Personally if I was going to have one grain of salt to take when listening to the crap that Iran comes out with I'd hve a one metre by three and a third feet by one and one sixth yard cube block of salt. I'd keep it in my living room and show it to people when they visit. I'd say " This is my big block of nackle! That's the scientific term if you're unfamililar with chemistry.. It's actually salt. Yeah, try tossing that over your shoulder! You'd crush the devil with that! I actually had to remove the windows to get it in here but it was worth it!". I have no idea what I'm talking about..:confused:

Obviously! :D

LOL!!!

"Fastest" underwater missle...more like reverse-engineered Russian weaponry from a decade ago. Iran's military is a paper tiger that would dissolve under serious attack with the exception of a few elite units. Their military is comprised of a large number of young Iranians...of whom a significant number have a positive impression of the US.

Obviously! :D

LOL!!!
Yeah... which do you prefer? Many small grains of salt or one big grain?

Assuming it's actually true. Personally, I take anything the Iranians say with just a wee tiny grain of salt.
Ha! How about an entire frakking salt mine! :D

So let's see, they reverse-engineered a new concept prototype, and suddenly they're omfg a threat!!! :rolleyes:

I'd like to hear their plans for getting within 7km of a target to fire it. :rolleyes:
Uh ... nuclear powered rowboats?

I wonder if it's coincidental that all of these "innovations" are occuring simultaneously with their increasing chance of being pwned by the US and its allies?

One big grain, because you never have to worry about losing it.

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him. Korea scares me more than Iran. Iran will have a revoloution, Korea, not unless Kim does something stupid.

And how about those Frenchies? You know, gotta give their youth credit. I will only assume anyone french over a certain age is now a pansy.

One big grain, because you never have to worry about losing it.

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him. Korea scares me more than Iran. Iran will have a revoloution, Korea, not unless Kim does something stupid.

And how about those Frenchies? You know, gotta give their youth credit. I will only assume anyone french over a certain age is now a pansy.

one point about the french. while revolutions and protest in iran and north korea would change something, in france they're protesting to keep things the same.

and they smell bad.

I wonder if it's coincidental that all of these "innovations" are occuring simultaneously with their increasing chance of being pwned by the US and its allies?
:eek:

Oh n0ez! You surely can't mean the Iranianz wud st00p so low!!111ELEVEN!!

Uh ... nuclear powered rowboats?
Yeah, that's what it would have to be. :p

We all know Russia can't get any new military tech to work with any reliability, even after a decade of R & D. No reason why Iran would do any better straight out of the lab.

:eek:
Oh n0ez! You surely can't mean the Iranianz wud st00p so low!!111ELEVEN!!

YA RLY! :eek:

YA RLY! :eek:
NO WAI! :eek:

One big grain, because you never have to worry about losing it.

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him. Korea scares me more than Iran. Iran will have a revoloution, Korea, not unless Kim does something stupid.

And how about those Frenchies? You know, gotta give their youth credit. I will only assume anyone french over a certain age is now a pansy.
I man (woman? Hemaf?) after my own heart.. leave those heathens to their small grains and join me in the licking!

NO WAI! :eek:

YA WAI! :eek:

WTH is as "underwater missile" ?

Don't they call them torpedos ?:confused:

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him.

the Shah ?:confused:

WTH is as "underwater missile" ?

Don't they call them torpedos ?:confused:

no. torpedoes need ships. the iranians have underwater planes and a secret underwater missle base.

not that we have anything of significance underwater, but i assume the iranians are preparing for the inevitable future of underwater cities.

no. torpedoes need ships. the iranians have underwater planes and a secret underwater missle base.

not that we have anything of significance underwater, but i assume the iranians are preparing for the inevitable future of underwater cities.
Iran has water? (bad joke. bad joke)

Iran has water? (bad joke. bad joke)

maybe if i got the joke i could call it bad? :p

I wonder if it's coincidental that all of these "innovations" are occuring simultaneously with their increasing chance of being pwned by the US and its allies?

what allies? the "coalition of the willing"?

no, i think this time, more people would come to aid us because its blatantly obvious they a) have nuclear weapons capacity b) thumb their collective noses at the UN.

this time, more people would come to aid us
Don't count on it any time soon. You might still be up for haemorrhaging cash, but the rest of us have economies we'd sooner not wreck for a fireworks display, thanks.

Don't count on it any time soon. You might still be up for haemorrhaging cash, but the rest of us have economies we'd sooner not wreck for a fireworks display, thanks.

yeah. the admin has this strange notion that cutting income and increasing expediture makes a better economy. . . .

maybe if iran would shake a real stick, and not the cheesy plastic replica they have now.

One big grain, because you never have to worry about losing it.

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him. Korea scares me more than Iran. Iran will have a revoloution, Korea, not unless Kim does something stupid.

And how about those Frenchies? You know, gotta give their youth credit. I will only assume anyone french over a certain age is now a pansy.

The Shah? THE SHAH?! You are way the fuck behind on the news.

People in the US keep whispering about Iran being the inevitable next step in the war. Iran is terrified the US is going to invade them, so of course they're going to be threatening retaliation if we attack them.

But they're also not stupid. They know if they start overtly causing terrorist attacks around the world that the US WILL invade, and they WILL lose.

What they're going for right here is a deterrant to invading them.

no, i think this time, more people would come to aid us because its blatantly obvious they a) have nuclear weapons capacity

No they don't. They have the capability to start manufacturing nuclear weapons and fire them at Israel - but there is no proof they already have. If they really haven't, it would take them at least a year to get the bombs. Uranium based presumably, since extracting plutonium from their new reactor requires some pretty obvious redesigns.

b) thumb their collective noses at the UN.
That however they do. And can you blame them ? I would also be pissed in their place.

What reason does the United States have to fear Iran? We don't.

I think a new Iran needs to emerge. I mean, 70% of Iran's youth have positive feelings of the United States. And the mullahs are only holding power through brutality. It's only a matter of time until there's another revolution...
Can you prove that?

what allies? the "coalition of the willing"?

Hey, you forgot Poland.

no, i think this time, more people would come to aid us because its blatantly obvious they a) have nuclear weapons capacity b) thumb their collective noses at the UN.

I think we should leave force as the last option, but should be prepared to use it if necessary. We should cultivate as much support as possible for any necessary action, but should wait until all options are exhausted.

One big grain, because you never have to worry about losing it.

As for Iran, they are a null point. Are they crazy? yes. Are they suicidal? No, the shah gets other people to do that for him. Korea scares me more than Iran. Iran will have a revoloution, Korea, not unless Kim does something stupid.

And how about those Frenchies? You know, gotta give their youth credit. I will only assume anyone french over a certain age is now a pansy.

The Shah was the puppet dictator installed by the US after a combined effort by the US and the UK ousted the democratically-elected socialist government. The Shah ruled in a tyranical fashion, murdering his political opponents, and in the end the only people in any position to organise resistance were the clerics, which is why Iran is now a hardline-islamic state.

Ultimately interventions are undertaken by those who have a heavy lift capability, and the rest of the world can't be bothered having one. Meh.

Yes it is perhaps just a bit suspicious that in the past week they've gone from nothing to world leaders in the field of missiles technology above and below the water.
maybe Russia sold it to them. Russia sells them pretty much everything else they ask for.

I wonder if it's coincidental that all of these "innovations" are occuring simultaneously with their increasing chance of being pwned by the US and its allies?
You mean like scare tactics?

The Shah was the puppet dictator installed by the US after a combined effort by the US and the UK ousted the democratically-elected socialist government.

That would be Mossadegh.

The Shah ruled in a tyranical fashion, murdering his political opponents,

To be fair..the Shah had some good intentions...he modernised Iran at a fast pace..but he was convinced that it can come only at the expense of religion and cracked down on it like Ataturk..

and in the end the only people in any position to organise resistance were the clerics, which is why Iran is now a hardline-islamic state.

The Iranian communists and many other groups were also instrumental in the revolution. The Ayotullahs managed to box out all the other groups post revolution...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704034/

They now have one of the world's fastest underwater missiles and they are planning terrorist attacks around the world.
Bull. Shit.

I know of very few civilian submarines big enough to be a worthwhile target for that Iranian missile. So the logical target would be military naval vessels. Striking those without warning is called "preemptive strike", if our President is to be beleived.

I have my serious doubts about this one. The Russians did invent the supercavitating torpedo in the 90’s and the Americans have been trying to steal this technology from them since they learned about it. As far as reverse engineering goes, you actually have to have one to reverse engineer one and it’s very unlikely that they have one. The US has been trying for a while to build their own supercavitating torpedo but with no success at all. The Russians have been guarding this military advantage very closely and I doubt like hell they’d sell it to the highest bidder to a nation known for stealing superpower military platform designs (jets, tanks, and trucks) and ignoring patents.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

More likely this is Black Propaganda, false news stories planted by a government secret service. The US is either hoping to use this to sway the UN into supporting strikes against Iran (based on weapons they don't have) or Iran is using it to attempt to scare potential allies to US strikes about weapons it doesn’t have.

What you should be worried about the top of the line SAM batteries that China sold Iran. SAM batteries that are superior to anything else out on the market. I’m guessing some of these will be guarding some of the nuclear facilities that the US are considering launching air strikes against. Whether or not the Iranian crews are trained well enough to make full use of their SAM sites or properly maintaining them, including the possible presence of Chinese military advisors, is another question altogether.

Bull. Shit.

I know of very few civilian submarines big enough to be a worthwhile target for that Iranian missile. So the logical target would be military naval vessels. Striking those without warning is called "preemptive strike", if our President is to be beleived.

You could use supercavitating torpedoes against just about any naval target, but more likely a ship, especially an aircraft carrier. But I doubt like hell that Iran got a hold of this kind of tech from the Russians, who have shown no interest in selling supercavitating torpedoes to anyone. American spies, armed with tons of cash, have already tried to get a hold of them and ended up getting jailed.

What the US should be worried about are Iran’s submarines and rapid assault missile boats. One of the driving forces of the Littoral Ship program was to deal with small attack boats make rapid assaults on naval formation (pretty much a suicide run but then that hasn’t stopped them before). Iraq showed that the navy was susceptible to this type of attack and that it diverted planes from other necessary missions to deal with them. Not that the US navy hadn’t already had this happen to them before and not learned from it (Vietnamese motor torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer).

The subs can be dealt with by a number of means (satellite and underwater sensors detection) but they may be among the most dangerous weapons against US logistics in the region.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm

Iran has 6 diesel submarines, bought from Russia. The 877 Kilo Class Sub is considered one of the quietest subs in the World so you really should be concerned about them.

Yeah, that's what it would have to be. :p

We all know Russia can't get any new military tech to work with any reliability, even after a decade of R & D. No reason why Iran would do any better straight out of the lab.

Russia’s biggest problem isn’t perfecting R&D; they have a very driven scientific community towards developing toys for the military and space programs (while the civilian sector got crap). The biggest problem has always been funding, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and problems with the economy. Contrary to popular belief, the US has been guilty of stealing Russian tech for its own military. Most of the news stories about every piece of Soviet kit being built using the stolen plans of US manufactured military platforms was just Black Propaganda released to try to increase the confidence of NATO troops.

After the Clinton administration handed over a supercomputer to the Russians, as a sign of good faith, they certainly perfected their next generation of mobile ICBM’s.

The Su-37 has certainly panned out, as soon as India came along to help finance it.

The Russians were working on this new torpedo since the 60’s. The major obstacle in the 90’s were some guidance problems with the supercavitating torpedo (the little fin sticking out of the bubble of underwater gas surrounding the torpedo). It’s also believed that the mixture of unfamiliar gases of a supercavitating torpedo caused the Kursk disaster.

The Ka-50 (Werewolf) is probably the nastiest piece of attack helicopter around, but again it will be running into funding and production issues.

The Bruce

Bull. Shit.

I know of very few civilian submarines big enough to be a worthwhile target for that Iranian missile. So the logical target would be military naval vessels. Striking those without warning is called "preemptive strike", if our President is to be beleived.
Ummm. You see there was two different links. Just because I noted that they planned terror attacks in the same sentence that I said they claimed to have this missile does not mean I was saying they were going to use the missile in an act of terrorism. Really, show some sense. Everyone else here knew what I was talking about. Two seperate issue connected by one common source: Iran.

Yes it is perhaps just a bit suspicious that in the past week they've gone from nothing to world leaders in the field of missiles technology above and below the water.

They have always been that way, its just that the world doesnt realize this fact until the US tries to condemn them from doing what they (the US) are trying to and are doing, thats when Iran and their 'terrorist' plans of action became known....

.. 70% of Iran's youth have positive feelings of the United States. And the mullahs are only holding power through brutality....they say an fool is born every minute... dont they? ;)

More likely this is Black Propaganda, false news stories planted by a government secret service. The US is either hoping to use this to sway the UN into supporting strikes against Iran (based on weapons they don't have) or Iran is using it to attempt to scare potential allies to US strikes about weapons it doesn’t have.
Yes, I agree. I recently read some articles on "black propaganda", and it appears that the US has used this in the past and has enjoyed the results?

Pentagon plans propaganda war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm)

The date of the above article is February 2002, one year before the US invaded Iraq.

Iraqi radio station may be US 'black' propaganda (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3430)

U.S. Aggression towards Venezuela: The Rise of Black Propaganda and Dirty War Tactics (Again) (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1409)

Ummm. You see there was two different links. Just because I noted that they planned terror attacks in the same sentence that I said they claimed to have this missile does not mean I was saying they were going to use the missile in an act of terrorism. Really, show some sense. Everyone else here knew what I was talking about. Two seperate issue connected by one common source: Iran.
But you forget, terrorism now means doing anything against the United States. Back in the day you wouldn't call every little thing terrorism, but now its a hot word, so terrorism for everyone!

Uh ... nuclear powered rowboats?


I didnt read the articles posted, but I think Iran does have some Russian diesel subs and they may know how to use them.

Underestimating these people could be one of our worst mistakes.

What the US should be worried about are Iran’s submarines and rapid assault missile boats. One of the driving forces of the Littoral Ship program was to deal with small attack boats make rapid assaults on naval formation (pretty much a suicide run but then that hasn’t stopped them before). Iraq showed that the navy was susceptible to this type of attack and that it diverted planes from other necessary missions to deal with them. Not that the US navy hadn’t already had this happen to them before and not learned from it (Vietnamese motor torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer).

The subs can be dealt with by a number of means (satellite and underwater sensors detection) but they may be among the most dangerous weapons against US logistics in the region.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm

Iran has 6 diesel submarines, bought from Russia. The 877 Kilo Class Sub is considered one of the quietest subs in the World so you really should be concerned about them.


I think you're right on everything you state here-I'm sorry I hadnt read this far before my post on the Iranians having subs.
The Kilo class is indeed amongst the quietest. And apparently, they have very capable officers-trained in the United Kingdom.

We have to pay very close attention, not underestimate and not provoke unduly. These people are motivated and cunning.
If we underestimate, they could lead us a round by the nose, kick us hard in the ass and humiliate us.

The United States has a torpedo that can go faster than the speed of sound under water. It uses a tecnology similar to that of a scramjet engine.
(Yes, a singular prototype)

I didnt read the articles posted, but I think Iran does have some Russian diesel subs and they may know how to use them.

Underestimating these people could be one of our worst mistakes.

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"
Do you have something that can verify your statement?

Do you have something that can verify your statement?

I see no one watches Down Periscope anymore :D

I see no one watches Down Periscope anymore :D
How does that prove your statement?

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"
Bogus. Underwater warfare is pretty much all about who gets the first torpedo in. The diesel mentioned above is very quiet, it can sneak close and shove a torpedo up the nuclear's ass. See that's the problem with subs, they're already underwater, if they take a hit they don't need to sink first, they're already there. And one hit is usually enough.

I think the threat to use terrorism was a big mistake. They've only accomplished showing the rest of the world that the US is right. It was all over today's paper in my country too, so if it is 'black propaganda' the US have done a mighty good job.

The claims that they've developed a missile that's invisible to radar, as well as the fastest underwater missile are bogus in my opinion. I doubt they have the expertise and the funds to be able to get that far. And so far I've yet to see proof they actually fired the things.

As for the nuclear threat, so far there hasn't been proof they're actually building bombs. And even if they do plan to, it'll take them a while to get there. For now the biggest threat isn't the A-bomb, but when they do get it expect it to pop-up all over the middle east.

Edit: Forgot to add it, but if a country uses one of those bombs, they get a thousand in return. So should Iran throw a nuclear bomb, I expect the Caspic Sea and the Persian Gulf to be linked by a new body of water ;)

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"

Yes, like that war game with the Dutch(I believe it was them) which resulted in one diesal sinking several US escort ships and sinking/crippling a carrier to boot and successfully slipping away.

Suuuuuuure, one nuclear attack sub can defeat several diesals.

Anyone with a passing knowledge in nuclear power generation knows that it eats up water like nobody's business. In a surface plant, that's no problem for cooling. In a closed loop system as found in nuc's, the water is vented in high pressure pipes to make sure that it can cool the reactor while allowing it time to lose that waste heat inside the heat exchange system. That means pumps. Pumps mean noise. So while a diesal can run on pure silent while on batteries, a nuclear will have reactor noises even at minimum power.

The only way a nuclear can ever run purely silent is with a complete reactor shutdown or a radically new reactor design. The former requires too long a time for a restart for a tactical platform and the latter doesn't exist yet.

How does that prove your statement?

ITS CALLED HUMOR!!!

If Iran goes to war many people are going to die. Also many nations around the world will go to war with each other, Mybe WW3 may start. We would have Cuba,Veniswalia,Iran,Syria,N Korea against United States,Uk and other European nations. Iran will fall if that happens. Irainian Citizens are being taken by its Evil Goverment! We must do something soon befor they get a nuke. United States will win. Along with European Country's and Isreal!!

Iran:mp5:

ITS CALLED HUMOR!!!
So what you really were saying is that:

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"
Was meant to be a humourous statement and not to be taken seriously? Gotcha!! :p

Reminds me of Civilization, where you start stocking up like crazy on archers and whatnot and then you start a war with somebody and you find out they have tanks.

So what you really were saying is that:


Was meant to be a humourous statement and not to be taken seriously? Gotcha!! :p

"In conventional battle, yes thats true. But what if you had one renegade diesel captain attempting to get a nuclear warhead into one of our harbors? You think a nuclear sub can stop and catch a bogey like that?"

Watching the movie and the answer seems to be no if he uses pirate like tactics :D

"In conventional battle, yes thats true. But what if you had one renegade diesel captain attempting to get a nuclear warhead into one of our harbors? You think a nuclear sub can stop and catch a bogey like that?"

Watching the movie and the answer seems to be no if he uses pirate like tactics :D
This all sounds like double talk to me and comes nowhere near addressing your original comment, which was:

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"
Which you later decribed as a failed attempt at humour.

What I really think, is that you made a statement that you had absolutely no way of proving.

This all sounds like double talk to me and comes nowhere near addressing your original comment, which was:


Which you later decribed as a failed attempt at humour.

What I really think, is that you made a statement that you had absolutely no way of proving.

You take everything way to seriously CH! Way to seriously. I take it you never watched the movie then. Your loss.

As to the Iranian Navy. I'm sure they are well trained. Problem is, our subs are still quieter than theirs are. Our subs can also go deeper than a diesal sub can dive too.

If it came to a naval showdown, I do not believe that Iran has the ability to defeat the American Navy. Hurt it maybe but not defeat it.

As to the Iranian Navy. I'm sure they are well trained. Problem is, our subs are still quieter than theirs are. Our subs can also go deeper than a diesal sub can dive too.

Show me a nuc that's quieter than a Kilo class. I dare you.

Iran has 6 diesel submarines, bought from Russia. The 877 Kilo Class Sub is considered one of the quietest subs in the World so you really should be concerned about them.

The 877 Kilo is a quiet sub yes, but it shares the same vulnerability as all non-Nuclear attack submarines. It must surface to run its diesel motors which are significantly more noisy than its primary electric motors. On the surface, a sub like the 877 is slow, noisy and generally a big target for the USN. Remember, a Carrier does not operate alone. There is a small fleet of ships around her, and several of them are dedicated Anti-Submarine Warfare vessels.

For example, you have the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke AEGIS Destroyer, armed with two Phalanx Close In Weapons Systems, the only weapon in the U.S. military capable of identifying, targeting and destroying a hostile without any input from the controller. The Phalanx is comprised of three parts, the inbuilt target acquisition/identification RADAR array, two six-barrel .20mm Gatling cannons, and an onboard targeting computer. The DDG-51 is also armed with two MK 41 Vertical Launch System, loading with Tomahawk cruise missiles, two quad container Harpoon Anti-shipping missile pods, one MK 45 MOD 1 5"/54 caliber Gun Mount, and two MK 32 MOD 14 Triple Torpedo Tubes (six MK 50/46 Torpedoes).

Also available to the Navy is the CG-47 Ticonderoga class, also outfitted with the Phalanx Close In Weapon System, as well as armed with several different varieties of anti-ship, anti-plane and anti-ground missile systems.

To defend against an underwater threat, the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate is armed with several torpedo systems as well as, you guessed it, yet more Phalanx CIWS systems. Catching a trend here?

Comprising most of the offensive punch of a battle group is the queen of the sea herself, the carrier. Let us take the CVN-65 Enterprise as an example. The Enterprise is a 46 year old warship and is the largest, and fastest super-carrier currently deployed. She carries 85 aircraft, comprised of a mix of Anti-Submarine Warfare, Air Superiority and Anti-Surface/Ground aircraft. That alone is enough of a deterrent to most enemy navies to keep them well away.

Historically the carrier has been the most vulnerable ship in a battle group, loaded with jet-fuel, munitions, and parked aircraft she is in essence a giant gas-station and arms depot rolled into one. While we have never seen a carrier take a direct hit from a missile or bomb, we can extrapolate the Forrestal incident to see how vulnerable this ship is.

The Navy knows this, and has not only placed the carrier in the center of a hornet's nest of anti-missile, anti-air and anti-submarine defenses, but they have given the carrier a sizable punch of her own. She has 3 Phalanx CIWS mounts, and an undisclosed number of Sea Sparrow missiles. The Sea Sparrow or RIM-7 has a maximum range of between 6 and 30 nautical miles, and with the Enterprise's targeting system can lock onto a target 50nm away. The RIM-7 can target air-craft or missiles, and poses a significant hurdle to any attacker. The CVN-68 Nimitz is much the same, with 4 Sea Sparrow launchers, but with 4 Phalanx CIWS systems.

Now, my fingers are getting tired, so we’ll skip the aircraft and move onto the submarines! We’ll also stick with the attack subs, just remember, the missile subs do have torpedo tubes, and can use them.

The SSN-688 or Los Angeles class Attack Sub was designed as an Anti-Submarine Warfare vessel, capable of hunting Russian missile subs through the ocean. As such, she is quite overqualified to hunt the 877 diesel sub. Even though the 877 is quiet, it is not as quiet as the Typhoons were back in the days of the Cold War. She is armed with a wide array of SONAR systems, both active and passive, as well as surface tracking RADAR. Most of the details on this equipment remain unknown, but I’m fairly certain that if they could track the Typhoons, they can track the 877s. In terms of armaments the Los Angeles has four forward torpedo tubes, not that many until you remember that a sub like the Los Angeles can slip up to a target undetected, fire a torpedo without using compressed air (letting the torpedo swim out on it’s own), and then slip away as the enemy vessel tries to avoid the torpedo. She also is armed with Vertical Launch Systems, capable of carrying a wide array of anti-ground and anti-shipping missiles.

The SSN-21 Seawolf class Attack Submarine (the successor to the SSN-688) is very similar to the SSN-688, although it is faster and even more deadly. She is armed with eight torpedo tubes and can carry a total of 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles, or 50 Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, or 50 Mark 48 ADCAP torpedoes, or up to 100 mines. The Mark 48 can be used with or without wire guidance, and has both active and passive SONAR systems. In theory, when fired without compressed air, the Mark 48 could use passive SONAR to swim and hit a target without being detected until it is far too late.

Finally, the SSN-774 Virginia class is currently undergoing production testing. Very little is known about the SSN-774 other than she has Mark 48 torpedo tubes, Vertical Launch Tubes and the ability to carry Special Forces teams. The presence of the VLTs indicates that she would be capable of carrying both torpedoes as well as a variety of U.S. missiles including the Harpoon anti-shipping missiles and possibly the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile, although how an attack submarine could use a Surface to Air Missile is beyond me.

Finally we have the much overlooked BB-61 Iowa class battleships. Two of these ships are currently residing in Mothballs awaiting reactivation. It is not unlikely that should a sustained naval war break out with a nation such as Iran, the two BB-61s could return to the sea, although in a much different form. Currently, the Iowa class vessels are armed with Harpoon anti-shipping missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, 9 Mark 7 16-inch guns, 12 Mark 8 5-inch guns, 4 Phalanx CIWS guns, and more than likely more armaments could be equipped on these final two floating fortresses. It is likely that should the two BB-61s be reactivated, they would be converted to serve as floating missile platforms, and as guardians for the lightly armored carriers. There is no doubt that the BB-61s could also be armed with SeaSparrow anti-air missile launchers, the only question is whether the Navy will spend the money to refit and return these ships to active duty.

Next we have our second member of the mothball fleet, the near ancient CC-1 Lexington battle-cruisers. These vessels have been in the fleet since 1919 and unlike the BB-61s have not seen major refit for missile and anti-missile duty, although the sheer amount of turret space that would be provided if the outdated heavy guns were removed does hint at their capability. Able to keep up with the carrier battle-groups, the CC-1s show promise if the Navy decided to refit these ships. Currently the two CC-1s are armed with Eight 16" guns in four twin turrets and Sixteen 6" guns single mounting, eight on each side of the ship.

I won’t cover any of the “X” ships, or experimental/future fleet designs because we really don’t know what those things are going to end up as. Ships have this nasty habit of changing as they are developed. Now, anyone here want me to do an analysis of aircraft? Wow… two and half pages. Not too shabby.

Show me a nuc that's quieter than a Kilo class. I dare you.

I didn't see your reply as I posted, and please, don’t use ‘nuc’ at lease use ‘nuke’ or ‘nuclear’ it would please my heart so.

But yes, I can. It’s called an Ohio class SSBN. The Russians never were able to track the Ohio missile submarines. Diesel subs have one major downside, the must surface to recharge. And diesel engines generate noise, from the fans, to the drive shafts, everything. The more moving parts you have in a ship, the more noise you generate. Not to mention that the simple fact that a internal combustion engine is a series of controlled explosions, and it’s very difficult to keep that hidden.

You take everything way to seriously CH! Way to seriously. I take it you never watched the movie then. Your loss.
Don't worry about me. I get my fill of humour on a daily basis. :D

However, when it comes to debating the possibility of worldwide chaos, then you are damn right that I am serious. This stuff is no joking matter, and I have seen to many incidents of false pride getting in the way of acting in a prudent manner. The war on Iraq is just one of those circumstances. Tough talk regarding Iran based on the same principles is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

As to the Iranian Navy. I'm sure they are well trained. Problem is, our subs are still quieter than theirs are. Our subs can also go deeper than a diesal sub can dive too.

If it came to a naval showdown, I do not believe that Iran has the ability to defeat the American Navy. Hurt it maybe but not defeat it.
I think you entirely missed the point that Carnivorous Lickers was making, when he stated:

We have to pay very close attention, not underestimate and not provoke unduly. These people are motivated and cunning.

If we underestimate, they could lead us a round by the nose, kick us hard in the ass and humiliate us.
He wasn't talking about the Iranians defeating the US navy, he was referring to the possibility of the Iranians ability to "kick us hard in the ass and humiliate us".

Enter....Corny's false pride......

And we know how to use our Nuclear Submarines.

"One nuclear attack sub can defeat several deasels"
Which of course, you have no way of proving. When I called you on it, you tried to put it down to "humor", in reference to Down Periscope, and then persumed that I "take everything way to seriously".

If anyone has taken anything too seriously, that would be you.

*snip*

Yes, yes, yes. We are all impressed with your wonderful list of shiny technical information. However, that doesn't change history. Such as a certain US carrier being lost to no more than a Walrus.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/boats/boat_walrus2.htm#JTFEX%20/%20TMDI99

A diesal powered Walrus I might add. So then, what good is all that fancy tech if you can just be plain outwitted. Looking down on your opponent just because he has lower tech than you is a recipe for disaster.

As for the Kilo class, are you actually saying that when running on batteries, it's noiser than a Typhoon? I very much doubt that as chemical batteries have no moving parts. As for it's use in the case of Iran, the fleet would not really be really out of range for such diesals to approach and engage.

CH, I must disagree, strongly, with you on this one. Really strongly (by the way, Down Periscope, I love that movie!). It is true that a diesel sub, commanded by a darn good captain, with an intimate understanding of how U.S. sub commanders think, could possibly destroy a U.S. attack sub such as a Los Angeles, Seawolf or Virginia class is true, it is very unlikely.

Most likely the U.S. sub commander would spot the 877 as she surfaced (probably at night to recharge batteries, and maybe get fresh air, I’m not sure if the 877 can generate her own, probably not, the batteries don’t have enough juice to do that.) and would then proceed to get in behind her if possible (in her baffles so to speak. The area where a sub is generally blind due to the disturbance from the propeller) and generate a decent firing solution. I’m none too certain on the 877’s torpedo load, but if she has rear torpedoes, the attack submarine commander would fire a torpedo set to passive SONAR, without wire guidance and immediately conduct evasive action. I’m not sure what that would mean, but I’m betting it has to do with a crash dive.

He wasn't talking about the Iranians defeating the US navy, he was referring to the possibility of the Iranians ability to "kick us hard in the ass and humiliate us".

Well.. humiliating the USA and Israel is probably one of Irans intentions. Imagine: your country is one of the richest in fossil fuels on the planet and in a pretty important tactical position, yet underdeveloped due to restrictions placed on your trade capacity by the USA. You despise one of your neighbouring countries and cannot help noticing it can easily get away with wiping its butt with nuclear proliferation treaties.

So.. you restart your own nuclear program. The USA claims you do not need nuclear power, since you have fossil fuels. An excellent reason for Iran to demand that the sanctions be lifted. Israel dislikes the idea of you being capable of making nukes, since your missiles can easily reach it. An excellent reason to point that you, as far as anyone can prove, have adhered to the letter of the treaty perfectly - while the whining country has not.

If Iran plays it smart, they can vastly improve their economy as well as hurt Israels nuclear program without ever engaging in war.
I *hope* that that is their plan...

CH, I must disagree, strongly, with you on this one. Really strongly (by the way, Down Periscope, I love that movie!). It is true that a diesel sub, commanded by a darn good captain, with an intimate understanding of how U.S. sub commanders think, could possibly destroy a U.S. attack sub such as a Los Angeles, Seawolf or Virginia class is true, it is very unlikely.

Most likely the U.S. sub commander would spot the 877 as she surfaced (probably at night to recharge batteries, and maybe get fresh air, I’m not sure if the 877 can generate her own, probably not, the batteries don’t have enough juice to do that.) and would then proceed to get in behind her if possible (in her baffles so to speak. The area where a sub is generally blind due to the disturbance from the propeller) and generate a decent firing solution. I’m none too certain on the 877’s torpedo load, but if she has rear torpedoes, the attack submarine commander would fire a torpedo set to passive SONAR, without wire guidance and immediately conduct evasive action. I’m not sure what that would mean, but I’m betting it has to do with a crash dive.
Disagree as you will, but the problem I see, is that do we really want to find out who is right and who is wrong.

The other problem, which is even larger, is that there is way too much warmongering going on in the world today. Iraq is a perfect example of a failed foreign policy. Do we want to see more or less of these failures?

Personally, I want to see less. Others want to kick the whole world in the butt, only to find out that others can kick back.

IMO, it's not a question about who can kick whose butt. I'm sure that even with the Iraq debacle, we could whoop Iran. If Iran's leader isn't totally whacko, he knows it too. But the cost would be a lot higher than it was in Iraq, and the higher the cost, the less likely we are to attack. They don't have to beat us militarily. They just have to raise the stakes high enough to keep us at bay.

Don't worry about me. I get my fill of humour on a daily basis. :D

I agree with you 100%

However, when it comes to debating the possibility of worldwide chaos, then you are damn right that I am serious. This stuff is no joking matter, and I have seen to many incidents of false pride getting in the way of acting in a prudent manner. The war on Iraq is just one of those circumstances. Tough talk regarding Iran based on the same principles is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Ok, I'll agree with you about Iran. I guess I"m just one of those that likes to joke when the tensions spike up fast. That way the tension is only slightly broken.

To be perfectly honest i doubt it would coem down to a straight battle between US SSNs and Iranian SSKs, the Us navy would likely pull most of the valuable naval assets out of the operating rnage of the Kilos and simply spam as much of the gulf and surrouding oceon with soubouys as required to find them before finishing them off with air launched weapons, a few sub hunting firgate would be kept around to help and likely the SSNs used a perimeter patrol but airpower would do most of the work, with iranian naval bases being very high on the bombing list.

This reminds me of a war game the USN held in the Gulf shortly before the invasion of Iraq - it was covered in the Guardian but I cannot furnish a reference.

A retired Pentagon guy was given all known Iraqi smallboats and weapons to play with, and asked to attack the USN. He wiped the floor with them, managing to sink a carrier and numerous support ships (shore-based anti-ship missiles and fast missile boats were all he needed), before the game was ended early because his opponents complained his inside knowledge was "unfair".

The thing is, he did have an unfair advantage - intimate knowledge of exactly how the defences of a carrier battle group function. Yes, the Iranians can pump the Strait of Hormuz full of lead, but you need a certain tactical grace ;) to be effective with what they have. Which isn't much.

Let us not forget Serbia, the military technology of which was of a similar level. In a land war, their army's 7 years of combat experience and prepared urban, mountain, forest positions would have been a bloody challenge. Their AA defences were sufficiently good that helicopter gunships and A-10s were not used, and aircraft had to stay above 5000m. Yet what did they achieve? Survival of their military by hiding, loss of a squadron of MiG-29s because they were hopelessly outnumbered, and shooting down one F-117. In the end their military remained intact, but it was unable to strike back, and over time, the political damage was done.

Iran is in a similar position. All these conspiracy thriller super-weapons are a load of crap, and it is the US which stands to gain from the propaganda value of these stories. A land war would be suicide for the US, but a prolonged aerial bombardment could not be countered. I don't think we are hearing anything new, but I do suspect the US information warfare establishment is amplifying it to build up the threat.

*snip*

Also have to remember that the "Iraqi Navy" used unorthodox tactics to defeat the carrier group.

As to the F-117, that happens when you fly over the same area time and time again.

Yes you do need tactics if your going to win a battle, and sometimes those tactics will and should be unorthodox if your going against a much superior foe as standard battle tactics will not work.

Also have to remember that the "Iraqi Navy" used unorthodox tactics to defeat the carrier group.

To rephrase: the general refused to fight in the way the US military wanted him to fight. No use of advanced technology which the US forces could have crippled with even more advanced technology - but back to basics. Slow, but certain. No mano-a-mano face to face combat of David against an army of Goliaths - but clever sneaking.

It is quite sad that the people in charge claimed that "fighting to win" was not a valid tactic, since it would make all those nifty defense budgets useless.

To rephrase: the general refused to fight in the way the US military wanted him to fight. No use of advanced technology which the US forces could have crippled with even more advanced technology - but back to basics. Slow, but certain. No mano-a-mano face to face combat of David against an army of Goliaths - but clever sneaking.

It is quite sad that the people in charge claimed that "fighting to win" was not a valid tactic, since it would make all those nifty defense budgets useless.

That is why I have problems with the way America conducts wargames.

To rephrase: the general refused to fight in the way the US military wanted him to fight. No use of advanced technology which the US forces could have crippled with even more advanced technology - but back to basics. Slow, but certain. No mano-a-mano face to face combat of David against an army of Goliaths - but clever sneaking.

It is quite sad that the people in charge claimed that "fighting to win" was not a valid tactic, since it would make all those nifty defense budgets useless.
Yeah, but the applicable part here is that Iran could never fight that way. It takes a true insider to play the system and beat it. In the sea and air, the Iranians could only fight the way the US would expect them to fight, in a conventional, half-blind and ineffectual manner. It is on the ground that the Iranians could make life difficult, but that's not even on the cards. If all the US did was a bombing campaign, Iran couldn't counter it.

This reminds me of a war game the USN held in the Gulf shortly before the invasion of Iraq - it was covered in the Guardian but I cannot furnish a reference.

A retired Pentagon guy was given all known Iraqi smallboats and weapons to play with, and asked to attack the USN. He wiped the floor with them, managing to sink a carrier and numerous support ships (shore-based anti-ship missiles and fast missile boats were all he needed), before the game was ended early because his opponents complained his inside knowledge was "unfair".

Several years ago my father was no longer permitted to play war games. He very rarely lost but was told that it didn’t count because he “cheated”. The Pentagon has been like this for many years now – they discount anything that isn’t in their rulebooks. If you behave at all differently, rather than learning from the ass-whoopin, they just ignore it.

I liken it to the British army during the revolutionary war – a lesson we should have kept in mind. The British commanders would always complain that the colonists wouldn’t fight fair – they would hide behind trees and such when attacking. Some of them didn’t follow the rules by lining up shoulder to shoulder in an open field. Of course we did have some officers who followed the rules and got a lot of their men slaughtered, but it was the unorthodox methods that were so very effective against the British.

Actually I recall some Clint Eastwood movie where he was a Marine Gunnery Sergeant and had a little field exercise planned. The base commander (I think) was leading some men out on a ‘how to defeat an ambush’ exercise. When, rather than waiting at the designated spot for the appointed time of the ambush, he led the troops to ambush unexpectedly ahead of schedule, the commanding officer just yelled at him that it wasn’t the proper time or place – completely disregarding the fact that ambushes are ambushes because you don’t know when or where they are going to happen.

The military has become mired in bureaucracy – until we learn to put more importance on what will actually happen and adapt, we will be destined to be spanked time and time again by people who don’t follow the step-by-step plan for the attack.

That is why I have problems with the way America conducts wargames.

I agree! I don't pretend to know much about military tactics, but it seems to me that if someone whips @$$ with unorthodox tactics, that should be some to learn from, not something to b!tch about.

I agree! I don't pretend to know much about military tactics, but it seems to me that if someone whips @$$ with unorthodox tactics, that should be some to learn from, not something to b!tch about.

Agreed 100%. Learn from those tactics. Its the only way to win.

An Army that thinks in terms of 'fairness' is an Army that isn't thinking in terms of "Victory'...

Orde Wingate, anyone?

Iran is not (thankfully) stupid enough to launch crap themselves. Why? Age-old adage: Who wants to rule over a parking lot?

However, Iran is the founding member and bankroller of Hezbollah and also provides funds to Hamas and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They also send weapons and munitions. Who the heck can point the finger after someone brought in a cargo container, sat it right next to Easter Jerusalem and detonated a nuclear device? Oh, then they claim responsibility, but Iran's hands remain (relatively) clean.

As for the actual topic of the "super-1337" weapons: no. Russia might be hard up for cash, but they'll sell their Soveremny-class DDGs to China before providing the religious zealots with super-de-duper torps.

(Note: yes, I know that China has bought the Soveremnys already, but they're buying more, and paying more. They're also building their own SSBNs now. I think they're much more potent than Iran at this point)

If anyone would care to be cool in my book, read Debt of Honor, Executive Orders, and The Bear and the Dragon, by Tom Clancy. Much of that might be stylized and exaserbating, but remember, we didn't think that anyone would be stupid enough to turn an airliner into a precision-guided munition, either. But Tom Clancy did.

Who the heck can point the finger after someone brought in a cargo container, sat it right next to Easter Jerusalem and detonated a nuclear device? Oh, then they claim responsibility, but Iran's hands remain (relatively) clean.
I am assuming the composition of the fallout could be analysed, and that it could be compared to data from past nuclear tests. Most countries could then be eliminated from the inquiry pretty quickly.

Iran is not (thankfully) stupid enough to launch crap themselves. Why? Age-old adage: Who wants to rule over a parking lot?

However, Iran is the founding member and bankroller of Hezbollah and also provides funds to Hamas and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. They also send weapons and munitions. Who the heck can point the finger after someone brought in a cargo container, sat it right next to Easter Jerusalem and detonated a nuclear device? Oh, then they claim responsibility, but Iran's hands remain (relatively) clean.

As for the actual topic of the "super-1337" weapons: no. Russia might be hard up for cash, but they'll sell their Soveremny-class DDGs to China before providing the religious zealots with super-de-duper torps.

(Note: yes, I know that China has bought the Soveremnys already, but they're buying more, and paying more. They're also building their own SSBNs now. I think they're much more potent than Iran at this point)

If anyone would care to be cool in my book, read Debt of Honor, Executive Orders, and The Bear and the Dragon, by Tom Clancy. Much of that might be stylized and exaserbating, but remember, we didn't think that anyone would be stupid enough to turn an airliner into a precision-guided munition, either. But Tom Clancy did.


There are 3 problems with the somewhat rosy picture you are trying to paint.

1. Iran is a country that has a self-proclaimed mission of bringing about revolutionary change, by whatever means possible.

2. It's President has displayed such an intense amount of messianistic self-delusional dreams of selfaggrandizement that it actually makes the like of Dubya sound like some passive soul talking about tea.

3. Iran does have a track-record of willy-nilly using the severest weapons available when under stress or duress. I'm referring to the original Gulf Conflict in the eighties.

I can't advocate playing fast and loose with precautionary measures under such circumstances.

If anyone would care to be cool in my book, read Debt of Honor, Executive Orders, and The Bear and the Dragon, by Tom Clancy. Much of that might be stylized and exaserbating, but remember, we didn't think that anyone would be stupid enough to turn an airliner into a precision-guided munition, either. But Tom Clancy did.

I actually read The Bear and the Dragon. Good book.

3. Iran does have a track-record of willy-nilly using the severest weapons available when under stress or duress. I'm referring to the original Gulf Conflict in the eighties.
That doesn't really count. The country was fighting a land war on its own border against an enemy with powerful backers - at stake was its very existence. Under those circumstances you use whatever means you have at your disposal. Not even the US or UK have ever had to fight under those conditions.

That doesn't really count. The country was fighting a land war on its own border against an enemy with powerful backers - at stake was its very existence. Under those circumstances you use whatever means you have at your disposal. Not even the US or UK have ever had to fight under those conditions.


I'm not arguing against your point: Iran used those weapons under duress - when one of its most essential interests, survival was at stake.

However - do you know what a society driven by messianistic ideals perceives to be its most essential interests, and when it considers these interests under threat?

They might be content to rule a parking lot - if it came equipped with 40 virgins and a skybox for Judgement Day. Since we are unable to assess their rationality, we must allow for the possibility that they are indeed irrational.

However - do you know what a society driven by messianistic ideals perceives to be its most essential interests, and when it considers these interests under threat?

They might be content to rule a parking lot - if it came equipped with 40 virgins and a skybox for Judgement Day. Since we are unable to assess their rationality, we must allow for the possibility that they are indeed irrational.
I doubt the military sees it that way. From what I have seen, the military of Iran is generally respected by society, one of its virtues being its apolitical nature. In a country where political and religious demagoguery has long been the norm, the military has managed to remain aloof from both worlds. It may not necessarily obey the government if ordered to consign the nation to oblivion. As in Turkey, the complex is powerful enough to have maintained a degree of independence. A coup would be a trivial matter. I treat it as a separate entity.

Yeah, but the applicable part here is that Iran could never fight that way. It takes a true insider to play the system and beat it. In the sea and air, the Iranians could only fight the way the US would expect them to fight, in a conventional, half-blind and ineffectual manner. It is on the ground that the Iranians could make life difficult, but that's not even on the cards. If all the US did was a bombing campaign, Iran couldn't counter it.
The Iranian govt. would fall.

I doubt the military sees it that way. From what I have seen, the military of Iran is generally respected by society, one of its virtues being its apolitical nature. In a country where political and religious demagoguery has long been the norm, the military has managed to remain aloof from both worlds. It may not necessarily obey the government if ordered to consign the nation to oblivion. As in Turkey, the complex is powerful enough to have maintained a degree of independence. A coup would be a trivial matter. I treat it as a separate entity.


I find it very strange to assume that the decision to employ unconventional weapons would be delegated to the Military. If it were so, Iran would be even more than an odd duck than we have assumed so far, since as far as I know, no country on earth fails to place such matters under policy-control.

Furthermore, we mustn't forget the large part played in Iran's military affairs by its Pasdaran/Basji-complex. Armed men in uniform who are driven more by politics than by professionality. Not to mention that they may very well share those messianistic tendencies displayed by the national leadership.

Iran militia out in show of force
REUTERS
Send Feedback E-mail this story Print this story
Posted online: Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 0100 hours IST

TEHRAN, NOVEMBER 26: Thousands of members of Iran’s volunteer militia, the basij, paraded and formed human chains in Iranian cities on Saturday as a show of force against international pressure on Tehran’s atomic programme.

In Tehran, some 3,000 basij, clutching automatic rifles and wearing chequered headscarves, paraded before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and chanted “God is the Greatest.”

Iraq on one side and the Afgans on the other, the us military has iran covered with troops in the east and western borders. manifest destiny baby!:sniper:

What's all this "War" shit? God. What ever happened to being badass, and knowing we didn't have to do all that much to crush those idiots by sending over a single assassin? Sheesh.

We should've done that with Iraq - killed Hussein via assassination, sent in the missionaries and ambassadors and diplomats and let them talk out a new government. Less resistance to peace. If worse came to worse we'd still be able to send in the troops.

Same with Iran and N.Korea.

Cut out evil by the root or it will regrow like an annoying weed in your garden. It would be easy to seek out those responsible of evil towards mankind. Many governments however are currently catering to thier profiteering motives and have no interest in ending thier battles as this would slow thier weopons sales and contracts.. Suggestion to those which have the ability to weed out this evil: Do so and you can reap the rewards of true regrowth...

I remember there was thing back in the mid 80's about Nostrodamus predicting that in the 90's a madman in the middle east will use nuclear weapons against new york city and ignite world war III.

Too bad for him the 90's came and went. But Iran's leader reminds of the madman that Nostrodamus said was supposed to started all this back in the 90's.

But he was way off on the timing. And Iran has no nukes that we know of.

I would be very very worried indeed if any of the 3 previous posters were in a position to control or influence U.S. national policy.

Is anyone of you actually known as Dick, Scooter, or George W??

EDIT: make that the 4 previous posters...

I remember there was thing back in the mid 80's about Nostrodamus predicting that in the 90's a madman in the middle east will use nuclear weapons against new york city and ignite world war III.

Too bad for him the 90's came and went. But Iran's leader reminds of the madman that Nostrodamus said was supposed to started all this back in the 90's.

But he was way off on the timing. And Iran has no nukes that we know of.

Nostrodamus was a tard that made thousands of "predictions" (guesses) and 99% of them didn't come close to coming true, and the 1% that did were only true if you bent the rules a little bit ("If you take this prediction and switch these two words and write this word backwards you get 'Sadaam', so he obviously predicted the Iraq war." that kind of bullshit).

I would be very very worried indeed if any of the 3 previous posters were in a position to control or influence U.S. national policy.

Is anyone of you actually known as Dick, Scooter, or George W??

EDIT: make that the 4 previous posters...

*shrugs* I'd rather send James Bond than have hundreds of thousands of people die by doing it in a less elegant and stealthy manner.

I find it very strange to assume that the decision to employ unconventional weapons would be delegated to the Military. If it were so, Iran would be even more than an odd duck than we have assumed so far, since as far as I know, no country on earth fails to place such matters under policy-control.

Furthermore, we mustn't forget the large part played in Iran's military affairs by its Pasdaran/Basji-complex. Armed men in uniform who are driven more by politics than by professionality. Not to mention that they may very well share those messianistic tendencies displayed by the national leadership.
Oh I agree on the decision part. But the guys who turn the keys and press the white buttons are military. Even in Russia they were ordinary non-political people. A political officer would be around, but one guy for a base...yeah. There was a case where the Captain of a Soviet destroyer shot his political officer and announced a mutiny. It's easily done, especially when the cirumstances are extreme.

The only question is who is physically present at the location of the WMDs. You can bet your ass it won't be the extremists, because they have no reason to wait for an order. ;) Were there any suggestion of ideological elements being given physical control of such weapons, it would be reason enough for the army to break down the door.

Oh I agree on the decision part. But the guys who turn the keys and press the white buttons are military. Even in Russia they were ordinary non-political people. A political officer would be around, but one guy for a base...yeah. There was a case where the Captain of a Soviet destroyer shot his political officer and announced a mutiny. It's easily done, especially when the cirumstances are extreme.

The only question is who is physically present at the location of the WMDs. You can bet your ass it won't be the extremists, because they have no reason to wait for an order. ;) Were there any suggestion of ideological elements being given physical control of such weapons, it would be reason enough for the army to break down the door.

The thing is, I'd bet physical control would be by Pasdaran, not the regular Military. ( And I still have to assume that the Pasdaran is irrational from our point of view, and indeed by most conceivable standards. ) Did anyone see the PLA curbing the acts of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in the PRC? If anything, large parts of the PLA actually joined the fun.

( don't you just love set-ups in which EVERYONE fuctions as a political officer... )

However - do you know what a society driven by messianistic ideals perceives to be its most essential interests, and when it considers these interests under threat?

You mean like... a prophet or son of god, that's coming back 2000 years or more after he left, to kill off all the non-Christians?

Wait... that's US, isn't it....

I have been watching Iran for a very long period - and one of the most ... disturbing ... trend I saw during the period it was pretty much my personal bailiwick ( 1988-1996 ) was that the regular military of that country evolved from the dominant fighting arm of that country into being mostly a provider of service-infrastructure to the Militia.

Until quite recently, I considered Iran to be fairly sane.
Heck - twas one of my longest-standing 'oddities' that I felt that Iran would be the primary source of good info on when to get serious in dealing with the Taliban - which I found a very worrying element when it started taking over what was essentially a NationZero situation. Treating Iran as a potential ally wasn't exactly a popular view.

I think it was vindicated, though. Iran was pretty much begging the international community to solve the Taliban Equation before 911 occurred. If only we had been listening...

But recently, I've come to the conclusion that Iran has shifted from realpolitik to Messianism - and we have to assume that Iranian society is no longer rational.

You mean like... a prophet or son of god, that's coming back 2000 years or more after he left, to kill off all the non-Christians?

Wait... that's US, isn't it....


Most of us can pretty much predict what macrotrend the US is following.
Including predicting such things as invading Iraq on highly tenuous data.

However - if you happen to be the one person who can with some accuracy predict the unpredictable actions of Iran, you will easily get a well-paid job with RUSI.

For the Iranian Enigma is growing beyond comprehension - there is a dearth of people who even have a clue as to what that country perceives as its national interest.

For the Iranian Enigma is growing beyond comprehension - there is a dearth of people who even have a clue as to what that country perceives as its national interest.

Selfpreservation, honour, the desire to be a local superpower and economic growth ?

Selfpreservation, honour, the desire to be a local superpower and economic growth ?

They obviously don't care much about the last one; Ahmadinejad's rantings are chasing away foreign investment like there's no tomorrow which drives down employment and growth rates, with the result being souring opinions against the theocrats.

The Iranian regime needs to get rid of him fast if they want sustainable growth and political stability.

The Iranian regime needs to get rid of him fast if they want sustainable growth and political stability.
They will find it more easy to do if they are not given a greater enemy to unite them.

That is why I have problems with the way America conducts wargames.What would you(or any other player) do if you were the Iranians.. How would you strike back at the US?

What would you(or any other player) do if you were the Iranian General.. How would you strike back at the US?

I am not that stupid.

I am not that stupid.would you elaborate

would you elaborate

Let me put it to you this way!

I wouldn't.

Let me put it to you this way!

I wouldn't.
He said "strike back". Presumably that means the US has already opened hostilities, so what have you got to lose by resisting?

Let me put it to you this way!

I wouldn't.so if a stronger Army bombs your Country.. You would sit on your puss?

so if a stronger Army bombs your Country.. You would sit on your puss?
That's what I thought. I mean, if you're in the prison shower, better get beaten to death than bend over and offer to lube up. :rolleyes:

so if a stronger Army bombs your Country.. You would sit on your puss?

The only way I would strike back is to draw them into a ground fighting and force them to fight street to street and house to house. I cannot engage them at sea and I cannot engage them by air. I would litterly force them to fight in the streets and force them to bust down the doors. I'll force them to utterly bomb my country and destroy every building. Think about the international reaction if the US Military actually did that.

He said "strike back". Presumably that means the US has already opened hostilities, so what have you got to lose by resisting?

The wonderful feeling of having the moral high ground ? Iran still has not done *anything* illegal as far as we can prove - while it has every reason to do so. I could definately understand a desire to have a deterrent against invasion after the way the US invaded Iraq and the proximity of a hostile nuclear power. I can also understand a desire for actually getting nuclear power after you have signed a treaty that is intended to allow you to, provided you do not make weapons.

Of course, this is based on the silly concept of "innocent till proven guilty", which noone believes anymore nowadays.

They will find it more easy to do if they are not given a greater enemy to unite them.

That's why we should avoid attacking them and encourage them to trade more with Egypt to open their economy and expose their people to a much more Westernized country. Trade and cultural interaction is going to get rid of the Mullahs, not a war.

The only way I would strike back is to draw them into a ground fighting and force them to fight street to street and house to house. I cannot engage them at sea and I cannot engage them by air. I would litterly force them to fight in the streets and force them to bust down the doors.I think you are underestimating the US Military brains.. I know Bush's title is "Commander-in-Chief".. but he does not make the operational calls. ;)

They US strategists would not be "drawn" to urban warfare..

This is a more likely scenario*snip*
Let us not forget Serbia, the military technology of which was of a similar level. In a land war, their army's 7 years of combat experience and prepared urban, mountain, forest positions would have been a bloody challenge. Their AA defences were sufficiently good that helicopter gunships and A-10s were not used, and aircraft had to stay above 5000m. Yet what did they achieve? Survival of their military by hiding, loss of a squadron of MiG-29s because they were hopelessly outnumbered, and shooting down one F-117.
.
In another words.. The US army would bomb from the safe (far away) distance..

The question remains.. How would you strike back?

I think you are underestimating the US Military brains.. I know Bush's title is "Commander-in-Chief".. but he does not make the operational calls. ;)

They US strategists would not be "drawn" to urban warfare..

Your right. Because they are squimish about killing civilians. I can use that to my advantage. If they actually want to get anywhere, they're really going to have to attack the urban area of Tehrain. If they want to take the country, they'll have to attack and take Tehrain.

This is a more likely scenarioin another words.. The US army would bomb from the safe (far away) distance..

The question remains.. How would you strike back?

I did not write what you said I wrote in the 2nd quote :D

As to striking back. See what their operational pattern is. Once I find out what their operational pattern is, I exploit it just like Yugoslavia did.

As to striking back. See what their operational pattern is. Once I find out what their operational pattern is, I exploit it just like Yugoslavia did.As Tactical Grace pointed out.. Yugoslavia Was concerned about keeping their Army somewhat intact.. And they did not strike back.

wahtever good or bad was all that.. Yuogoslavia is now in the shitters..

As Tactical Grace pointed out.. Yugoslavia Was concerned about keeping their Army somewhat intact.. And they did not strike back.

Your right they didn't. Howver, Iran is a much larger country.

A massive coalition could fairly easily take care of Iran's military capability without urban warfare. However I regret that the political viability of an allied strike on Iran is seriously hampered... thanks once again to the neocon assholes in the US and the mess they have made out of the war on terror.

A massive coalition could fairly easily take care of Iran's military capability without urban warfare. However I regret that the political viability of an allied strike on Iran is seriously hampered... thanks once again to the neocon assholes in the US and the mess they have made out of the war on terror.

Now now. You do not know that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704034/

They now have one of the world's fastest underwater missiles and they are planning terrorist attacks around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/

Since I am about to log off till tomorrow morning, have fun discussing.

What I love is the circular logic of all of this.

The US has been making threatening noises about invading Iran ever since "hostilities ended" in Iraq. Iran obviously has every reason to believe that the US will invade if they want to, with or without the support of the international community, and whether or not Iran really is a threat to the international community. However, if they arm to defend themselves, the US only uses this as further rationalization for invading them.

Another thing that is getting ignored in this shuffle. This so called torpedo was developed by the USSR and it is very inaccurate and very short range.

"Iran preparing for all out war"

My first reaction is- so?


It reminds me of an Eddie Murphy bit when someone told him that Michael Jackson was mad at him. He was like "so? I'll fuck Mike up. He don't weigh but a buck o' five."

Likewise, Iran can be as pissed as they want. Because the South Carolina Militia can take their pansy ass.

As Tactical Grace pointed out.. Yugoslavia Was concerned about keeping their Army somewhat intact.. And they did not strike back.

wahtever good or bad was all that.. Yuogoslavia is now in the shitters..

Yugo also had the help of the friendlyneighborhood double agent to get them flight plans.

And America gave them the helping hand of using the SAME flight-corridors for the entire war. They will never make that mistake again

To further discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_war_games_6

They got a picture of what appears to be the multiple warhead missile being launched from land.

I would have been concerned as soon as they started making their own shit.

The second torpedo is supposedly more powerful than the one from yesterday.

The torpedo was tested in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow entrance of the Gulf and a vital corridor for oil supplies

The US govt is saying that while Iran is making great improvements, they are exagerrating their capabilities.

The previously tested torpedo, the Hoot (what kind of a name is that?) can reach speeds of 223 mph.

Apparently neither the US or any one else has been able to verify whether Iran's claims are true or not. Maybe Iran is a difficult country to infiltrate or something.

Iranians are worried about war with the US. The Iranian government is using the exercise to show off its new systems and assure its own people that their country can hold its own against the US.

Iran has 3 Kilo class submarines that were purchased in the 1980's and has since developed and built its own subs, of which there are two.

Not only are they building tanks and missiles, but now they are building submarines.

What ever the veracity of their claims, I think the missile tests prove they can easily close of the straight of Hormuz. If they do that, then US ships will be cut off and vulnerable like sitting ducks. If they have multiple warheads on their missile, they could cause a deal of damage to US troops. And being as he is anti semitic zealot who talks a lot like Hitler, it's very likely that should war come, Iran will strike out against Israel to try and bring the Israelis in. They will do this in an effort to turn the whole Islamic world against the US and its European allies.


US training doctrine is certainly fucked up cause they never accounted for our enemies having this shit or being as smart as we are. Especially that last part. We always assumed we were the most brilliant people on the planet, the idea that other people in other nations could be just as smart tactically and strategic wise was incomprehensible and offensive to the way the guy's in charge thought things should be. But think about it, if you're shooting at a guy, do you really expect him to just stand there, fall over and die? I think that's unrealistic. And lets not forget that Iran does have many chemical and biological warheads which it is very much willing to use in self defense. War with Iran, even if Europe and our other allies do help us, is in my opinion, a very bad idea.

I think you are underestimating the US Military brains.. I know Bush's title is "Commander-in-Chief".. but he does not make the operational calls. ;)

They US strategists would not be "drawn" to urban warfare..

This is a more likely scenarioin another words.. The US army would bomb from the safe (far away) distance..

The question remains.. How would you strike back?

A real possibility is:

The US begins its attacks with bombs and missiles. Bombs and missiles get dropped for like 7 days at least, assuming they can find the targets. Attempts at finding Iranian radar have failed because Iran keeps its radars turned off so we can't find them.
Those radars will be turned on in the event of an attack. Iran will use its anti air batteries, and what planes it has.

Next, they will start firing their missiles and deploy their subs.

1. They will seek to immediately shut down the straight of Hormuz so the US ships will be stuck in the gulf. That will make the US vulnerable to the Iran's so called torpedos. However, bear in mind, as noted earlier, how US fleets are patterened. They have a lot of anti air guns and missiles on board. Those torpedoes would have to make it through a rain of anti aircraft fire from the target ship and the other ships in the group just to make a dent. Odds are not exactly in favor of the missile getting through. To use it against subs, they would have to know where the subs are. Not exactly likely, unless the subs surface and stay in the same spot. But US commanders are not that dumb.
While this is happening, the new Fajr 3 will be fired at American forces in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar. Some of the warheads may contain chemical or biological agents. But if they do, the US may respond with a tactical nuclear strike as per US policy.
Missiles will also be fired at civilian population centers in Israel. The aim being to kill as many jews as possible and bring Israel into the war and get the muslims in the other nations to rise against their own pro US governments and take a more active stance against America and Europe.

But due to more experience in the area of advanced warfare the US will still win, but a lot of Americans will die. Much much more than have died in Iraq. Iraq will look like a simple walk in the park by comparison. And let us not get in to the habit that Iran will just let its ground forces and tank divisions just sit around like ducks. They will try to use them. Indeed, Iran has already stationed most of its ground forces right next the Iraq/Iran border. If the US attacks whether by ground air or sea, the Iranians will launch a mass ground invasion of Iraq against US forces.

War with Iran is not a good idea. Bush knows this. That's why he's trying to do everything he can to solve the issue diplomatically and with sanctions. If anything, we may end up doing what we did with Russia. Just trying to isolate them.


Another likely scenario for the war to start is if Israel goes on its own and bombs suspected Iranian reactors. That will cause Iran to go to war with the US cause we are right next door, we are hostile, we are Isreal's allies.

Iran is not Iraq. They're more intelligent. Iran is not Serbia. They're more belligerent and insane.


That is what I think.

What I love is the circular logic of all of this.

The US has been making threatening noises about invading Iran ever since "hostilities ended" in Iraq. Iran obviously has every reason to believe that the US will invade if they want to, with or without the support of the international community, and whether or not Iran really is a threat to the international community. However, if they arm to defend themselves, the US only uses this as further rationalization for invading them.
And Iran responds by further arming itself and holding exercise and the cycle goes on.

"Iran preparing for all out war"

My first reaction is- so?


It reminds me of an Eddie Murphy bit when someone told him that Michael Jackson was mad at him. He was like "so? I'll fuck Mike up. He don't weigh but a buck o' five."

Likewise, Iran can be as pissed as they want. Because the South Carolina Militia can take their pansy ass.
I think the South Carolina militia, as brave as they might be, will be clobbered by the Iranians.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be temporary. They could destroy a few ships, but they would quickly run out of ammunition and their assets would be destroyed as soon as they make their presence known. No platfrom would survive to make a repeat attack.

Also don't expect the new stuff to get deployed. It's weapons lab, prototype stuff. At best, every army fights with what it developed 10 years ago.

Don't worry about their subs and air force. It's not exactly open seas, so subs are useless. Their air force would be wiped out as you can't really use it in an unconventional fashion.

The Falklands are a excellent illustration of a war between two equivalent-technology entities, and as far as the Strait of Hormuz goes, that's the book. The side with ASW sank all the subs, no contest. The side which took a fleet into a narrow channel lost most of the ships. Shore-based anti-shipping missiles work. The side with the best trained pilots won air superiority - at a cost. A land campaign even against conscripts yields a 3-1 kill ratio if their defensive positions are well-chosen, not the 10-1 to which the West is accustomed. Invading Serbia in 1999 would have been a disaster for NATO for this reason, (as well as the huge gap in experience making things worse).

Really what each side can achieve before a stand-off is reached is limited:

- The US can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and naval/shore defences.
- Iran can destroy a small portion of US naval forces.

At that point there's not a whole lot you can do. It's Serbia vs. NATO - the defenders' ground army intact, dug in and and waiting, the attackers' forces having reached the limit of what they can achieve with mild casualties. It's a political decision then, do both sides agree to go home, or do the attackers commit themselves fully? I suspect the US will trade a few ships for the Iranian nuclear facilities, and leave it at that. Air strikes are a questionable strategy for dealing with Iran in the first place, taking it further is just stupid.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be temporary. They could destroy a few ships, but they would quickly run out of ammunition and their assets would be destroyed as soon as they make their presence known. No platfrom would survive to make a repeat attack.

Also don't expect the new stuff to get deployed. It's weapons lab, prototype stuff. At best, every army fights with what it developed 10 years ago.

Don't worry about their subs and air force. It's not exactly open seas, so subs are useless. Their air force would be wiped out as you can't really use it in an unconventional fashion.

The Falklands are a excellent illustration of a war between two equivalent-technology entities, and as far as the Strait of Hormuz goes, that's the book. The side with ASW sank all the subs, no contest. The side which took a fleet into a narrow channel lost most of the ships. Shore-based anti-shipping missiles work. The side with the best trained pilots won air superiority - at a cost. A land campaign even against conscripts yields a 3-1 kill ratio if their defensive positions are well-chosen, not the 10-1 to which the West is accustomed. Invading Serbia in 1999 would have been a disaster for NATO for this reason, (as well as the huge gap in experience making things worse).

Really what each side can achieve before a stand-off is reached is limited:

- The US can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and naval/shore defences.
- Iran can destroy a small portion of US naval forces.

At that point there's not a whole lot you can do. It's Serbia vs. NATO - the defenders' ground army intact, dug in and and waiting, the attackers' forces having reached the limit of what they can achieve with mild casualties. It's a political decision then, do both sides agree to go home, or do the attackers commit themselves fully? I suspect the US will trade a few ships for the Iranian nuclear facilities, and leave it at that. Air strikes are a questionable strategy for dealing with Iran in the first place, taking it further is just stupid.

Perhaps, but the fear is that many of the outposts along the Iran Iraq border will get overrun by them. If there is a ground campaign, the 2,000 casualties that people are whining about from Iraq, will pale in comparison to the 150,000 casualties we will get if we try to invade Iran. Not to mention that many of the insurgent groups in Iraq right now, work for Iran. And Iran now has a good deal of its operatives in Iraq, where they can do a lot of damage. A direct war would result in more frequent and deadlier encounters between US forces, their allies and a combined insurgent/Iranian force.

Really what each side can achieve before a stand-off is reached is limited:

- The US can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and naval/shore defences.
- Iran can destroy a small portion of US naval forces.

At that point there's not a whole lot you can do.

Iran can proceed to use guerilla/terrorist tactics against the USA.

And Iran responds by further arming itself and holding exercise and the cycle goes on.the question is
Who started the cycle.. US or Iran?

The wonderful feeling of having the moral high ground ? Iran still has not done *anything* illegal as far as we can prove - while it has every reason to do so. I could definitely understand a desire to have a deterrent against invasion after the way the US invaded Iraq and the proximity of a hostile nuclear power. I can also understand a desire for actually getting nuclear power after you have signed a treaty that is intended to allow you to, provided you do not make weapons.

Of course, this is based on the silly concept of "innocent till proven guilty", which noone believes anymore nowadays.Iran would still have the Moral-High-Ground..

When you are striking back against an Aggressor/invader.. you still have the Moral-High-Ground.

Whoever strikes first.. is the evil side. (whatever happens after.. is the fault of whoever started the war)

... use guerilla/terrorist tactics against the USA.The US strategists and spy agencies.. Do agree with you.. and they have warned Bush about this.

Iran would still have the Moral-High-Ground..

I would love to hear you explain this statement.

When you are striking back against an Aggressor/invader.. you still have the Moral-High-Ground.

Define it.

Whoever strikes first.. is the evil side. (whatever happens after.. is the fault of whoever started the war)

Ya know? To a point you are right about this.

I would love to hear you explain this statement.
The explanation is on the same post..
Ya know? To a point you are right about this.Oh good!! you found it ;)

The explanation is on the same post..Oh good!! you found it ;)

Right now, Iran doesn't have the moral high ground you know?

Right now, Iran doesn't have the moral high ground you know?Whoever starts the War does not have it.. I have yet to see Iran bombing or attacking the US..

But I already Seen the US army bombing and invading Iraq. ...After Bush declared them (Iran, Iraq, NK) the "axis-of-evil"

Hoever starts the War does not have it.. I have yet to see Iran bombing or attacking the US..

And what if the attack was justified even if Iran doesn't start it?

But I already Seen the US army bombing and invading Iraq. ...After Bush declared them (Iran, Iraq, NK) the "axis-of-evil"

And if you care to actually split the hairs, Iraq is still the responsible party because it was their invasion of Kuwait that started this whole mess.

And what if the attack was justified even if Iran doesn't start it?just like Iraq was Justified :D :D ;) :D

just like Iraq was Justified :D :D ;) :D

Nice dodge. Now answer my question.

Right now, Iran doesn't have the moral high ground you know?

Ranting and raving doesn't exactly make you worse than people who go around starting wars of aggression on trumped up/feeble excuses.

Otherwise Fred "Thank God for IEDs" Phelps, Pat "somone kill Chavez" Robertson and Ann "We should kill them all" Coulter would be sitting in jail about now

And if you care to actually split the hairs, Iraq is still the responsible party because it was their invasion of Kuwait that started this whole mess.Do you really think that excuse can fly?

Ranting and raving doesn't exactly make you worse than people who go around starting wars of aggression on trumped up/feeble excuses.

Otherwise Fred "Thank God for IEDs" Phelps, Pat "somone kill Chavez" Robertson and Ann "We should kill them all" Coulter would be sitting in jail about now

Well your 2nd part has a minor problem with a thing called Freedom of Speech though I htink that all 3 belong in a mental ward.

Nice dodge. Now answer my question.The answer is NO. ..no excuses ..no bullshit .. You attack first.. You start the War, you Lose the Moral-H.G.

I told you all the answers are on post #140

Well your 2nd part has a minor problem with a thing called Freedom of Speech though I htink that all 3 belong in a mental ward.

And apparently so does the president of Iran. He can rant and rave all he wants really, and there isn't anything anyone in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined can do to stop him from an ethical standpoint. He's just doing his usual blather.

For example, if we took say Fred's "God will punish (insert person, city, nation) for something or another" and Ahmadinejad's "Isreal should be destroyed", are you really going to say "punish the latter, but not the former. The former's just enjoying his freedom of speech" and not look like a completely hypocritical bastard?

Now if Fred slipped a hitman/terrorist/whatever a bunch of cash and a picture, or if Ahmadinejad actually gave orders to say, launch missiles at US forces, that'd be a different story altogether. That would be taking action from a pronouncement of intent. Neither so far, have done any such thing so far as we know.

Well your 2nd part has a minor problem with a thing called Freedom of Speech though I htink that all 3 belong in a mental ward.
I agree that Phelps and Robertson should be placed in padded cells, but Ann Coulter is simply doing what she does best: rant. If we locked up all the ranters, NS General would be seriously depopulated! Won't somebody please think of the children! :D

The difference is Phelps & Robertson aren't in charge of a country. Regardless of what spews out of their mouths, they can't really do much about it. Ahmadinejad can. Or at least do a hell of a lot of damage trying.

The answer is NO. ..no excuses ..no bullshit .. You attack first.. You start the War, you Lose the Moral-H.G.

I told you all the answers are on post #140

So your telling me that if the UN Authorizes the war against Iran, that the UN would not be in the right?

I agree that Phelps and Robertson should be placed in padded cells, but Ann Coulter is simply doing what she does best: rant. If we locked up all the ranters, NS General would be seriously depopulated! Won't somebody please think of the children! :D

Oh yes. Your right. My apologies.

This Iranian government is problematic. As I have said before, they're not being real smart.

Now they're bragging that they have an uber-new helicopter. Heh!

Oh yes. Your right. My apologies.
Good man. Good man. :D

The difference is Phelps & Robertson aren't in charge of a country. Regardless of what spews out of their mouths, they can't really do much about it. Ahmadinejad can. Or at least do a hell of a lot of damage trying.

So just because your in a position of authority, you can't rant? I didn't know there was a law against that.

He can rant all he wants. It's only when he turns ranting into action, then it becomes a problem. Used to be, back then in the cold war, it was fine to rant and rave, so long as you didn't turn the key/press the red button. Then there'd be hell to pay. Why's it different now?

Good man. Good man. :D

*bows head in shame*

yeah. the admin has this strange notion that cutting income and increasing expediture makes a better economy. . . .

maybe if iran would shake a real stick, and not the cheesy plastic replica they have now.
sorry but 500mph torps and mid range missiles capable of carrying nuks to Isriel who they have sworn to destroy in a fair stick indeed.
also, have you seen clips of their naval exercises? They aren't driving fishing boats with outboards, those are quality destroyers that they most likly got from the Russians, they can't stand up against the US navy but its a much more technologicly advanced military.

*bows head in shame*
Oh feck off! :D

So your telling me that if the UN Authorizes the war against Iran, that the UN would not be in the right? *hint* ask yourself this question:
Can the UN lose the Moral-high-Ground?

So just because your in a position of authority, you can't rant? I didn't know there was a law against that.

He can rant all he wants. It's only when he turns ranting into action, then it becomes a problem. Used to be, back then in the cold war, it was fine to rant and rave, so long as you didn't turn the key/press the red button. Then there'd be hell to pay. Why's it different now?

Yes, he can rant, but it's stupid to pretend there's no difference between the leader of a country ranting, and a few stray loons ranting. And as far as the Cold War goes, we KNEW the Soviets weren't crazy. Our danger there wasn't the rants, it was the risk of a misjudgement. We're not sure about Ahmadinejad. Maybe he's just spouting off, or maybe he actually believes what he says, and thinks he can get away with it.

sometimes the UN can lose the Moral-high-Ground

by sanctioning an invasion of a country threatening to wipe one of its neighbours off the face of the planet?

sorry but i think the moral high ground is pretty secure in this case

Yes, he can rant, but it's stupid to pretend there's no difference between the leader of a country ranting, and a few stray loons ranting. .how about a stray loon president... Is that dangerous or what? ;)
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/austin/bush_points_of_light.jpg

Yes, he can rant, but it's stupid to pretend there's no difference between the leader of a country ranting, and a few stray loons ranting. And as far as the Cold War goes, we KNEW the Soviets weren't crazy. Our danger there wasn't the rants, it was the risk of a misjudgement. We're not sure about Ahmadinejad. Maybe he's just spouting off, or maybe he actually believes what he says, and thinks he can get away with it.

I'm pretty sure quite a few people thought Khrushchev was ranting quite badly too and possibly loony, what with the missile crisis and all that. But that's a moot point.

I've yet to see a person rise to the top of the heap and throw it all away on a prospect that he should very well know is a complete loss. There are simply too many people who got into their positions and are comfy there to let it all go down the drain on the orders of one man. That being said, even if he did think that way, the clerics would pull him down before such a thing happened. Or the military would stage a coup. Take your pick. Iran has it's own ways of dealing with fringe lunatics intent on driving it to the ground.

In a way, you have a system of checks and balances there. Just a lot bloodier.

by sanctioning an invasion of a country threatening to wipe one of its neighbours off the face of the planet?Iran has never threatened to attack Israel/US first.

It will defend itself.. but will not attack first.

I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US.

Post# 140 stands undefeated.

Iran has never threatened to attack Israel/US first.

It will defend itself.. but will not attack first.

I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US.

Post# 140 stands undefeated.

Well it could easilly launch a pre-emptive attack on israel now if it felt like it

it certainly has the technology and the army to do so, combined with the president being outspoken on the matter stating on one ocasion "israel is a tumor on the face of the region and should be wiped off the map" (along those lines) and has said similar things since. Its not the sort of language that should be coming from someone who wants to preserve the peace in the region

Iran being probably the last country on the planet who should be allowed to attain nuclear capabilities

also noting i recognise the right for Iran to have nuclear energy, but when they're being so secretive about it and refuse to cooporate with the UN nuclear watchdog, you can't help but suspect something

a country also has the right to defend itself if attacked, but when you start provoking other nations into attacking you or to make sanctions against you, you have to accept the consequences, even if it is all a big bluff to begin with

- also nothing, the iranian republican guard has already been reported to be supplying the bombs used by certain shi'ite insurgents in southern Iraq against the British army. Yet more provocation. They really are asking for conflict, its like the school bully calling somebody names then crying when there is retaliation

Iran reminds me of a little boy trying to play in a big boy's game. It's inevitable that they're going to get hurt. :(

*hint* ask yourself this question:
Can the UN lose the Moral-high-Ground?

Is this rhetorical considering all of their scandals?

Iran has never threatened to attack Israel/US first.

He just threatened to wipe Israel off the map. OOPS!

It will defend itself.. but will not attack first.

Sure about that?

I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US.

Show me a quote where he did considering he has rockets that can hit Israel.

Post# 140 stands undefeated.

Nope

Iran has never threatened to attack Israel/US first.

It will defend itself.. but will not attack first.

I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US.

Post# 140 stands undefeated.
He just threatened to wipe Israel off the map. OOPS!He never said "Iran will Wipe off Israel".

A friend of mine (he is Iranian) said that the translation of what he said is more like "Israel should not exist".. and a Week later he added "..I should not exist in Palestine (but in Europe)"

But even if it was "Israel should be wiped out of the Map"... It is NOT equal to "WE will wipe out Israel".. or "I will wipe out Israel"

So No.. He has never threatened a preemptive attack Israel/US
Post#140 stands undefeated

Show me a quote where he ....
You want me to show you a Quote were the President of Iran says "Israel should have been created in Europe" ????

I am not sure what quote you want... wazAllAbout?

You want me to show you a Quote were the President of Iran says "Israel should have been created in Europe" ????

He said that it should be wiped off the map. That is threatening the political integrity of another nation. You cannot say stuff like this and expect to get away with it.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is threatenin the political integrity of another nation.

*snip*

Who is this friend? Could it be perhaps that his translation could've been wrong?

He said that it should be wiped off the map. That is threatening the political integrity of another nation. You cannot say stuff like this and expect to get away with it.

If I tell you "Bush should be wiped off teh map".. Do you think you would ever have a case against me?

If I tell you "Bush should be wiped off teh map".. Do you think you would ever have a case against me?

Advocating the Death of the President of the United States? You bet I would.

Who is this friend? Could it be perhaps that his translation could've been wrong?A taxi driver.. and college student..

I dont know..

What I know is that.. The President of Iran did say later.. "Israel should have been created in Europe.. "

Advocating the Death of the President of the United States? You bet I would.Let me say it then
"The Chimp-in-Chief AKA Il_Bushio should be wiped of the map"

He said that it should be wiped off the map...
You cannot say stuff like this and expect to get away with it..
I have news for you.. I fully expect to get away with it.
:D :D :p :D

post #140 stands undefeated.

A taxi driver.. and college student..

I dont know..

What I know is that.. The President of Iran did say later.. "Israel should have been created in Europe.. "

Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

As to being created in Europe, that isn't what he said OceanDrive2. He said that it "Be moved to Europe" not created in Europe.

Let me say it then
"The Chimp-in-Chief AKA Il_Bushio should be wiped of the map"

*calls the FBI*

post #140 stands undefeated.

Sorry but I already showed you that Iran has stated that Israel must be wiped off the planet.

As to being created in Europe, that isn't what he said OceanDrive2. He said that it "Be moved to Europe" not created in Europe.moved to Europe? OK.. fine with me.. I would like to see Israel moved to Europe or the US.

Les correct that mistake..

moved to Europe? OK.. fine with me.. I would like to see Israel moved to Europe or the US.

Les correct that mistake..

How about ummm no!

moved to Europe? OK.. fine with me.. I would like to see Israel moved to Europe or the US.

Les correct that mistake..Why? Neither the US nor Europe are ultimately responsible for the Israeli declaration of independence.

Advocating the Death of the President of the United States? You bet I would.

So how come Pat isn't in jail for advocating the death of a national leader? Or does this special law seem to only apply when you advocate the death of the President of the USA even if you don't live there?

For example: Bush should eat another pretzel, a dozen at a time. Or maybe go cycling. In rush hour traffic.

Now then. Come get me.

So how come Pat isn't in jail for advocating the death of a national leader? Or does this special law seem to only apply when you advocate the death of the President of the USA even if you don't live there?

If he advocated for the Death of the President of the United States, he would be placed under investigation and watched mightly carefully. Advocating the death of another head of state.... Welcome to Freedom of Speech.

For example: Bush should eat another pretzel, a dozen at a time. Or maybe go cycling. In rush hour traffic.

Now then. Come get me.

This isn't advocating the death of the President :rolleyes:

Sorry but I already showed you that Iran has stated that Israel must be wiped off the planet.I was aware of that statement.. :rolleyes:

But...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10697691#post10697691
This is the challenge:
"I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US."

Post# 169 is undefeated.

Saying "God should do it".. or saying "Someone should do it" is not what I asked for..

*snip*

They didn't say should. The President of Iran said ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OUT!

If he advocated for the Death of the President of the United States, he would be placed under investigation and watched mightly carefully. Advocating the death of another head of state.... Welcome to Freedom of Speech.if US Citizens (And US soldiers) have special privileges when they are in another countries.. Might as well make special rules for the chimp too.. right?

Fair and Balanced(not only FOX apparently;) )

They didn't say should. The President of Iran said ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OUT!ist the same... still not say "I will do it.."

Its like when I say "The Colts must win this year.."
Post #169 and #140 are still undefeated.

Why? Neither the US nor Europe are ultimately responsible for the Israeli declaration of independence.Maybe they are responsible.. maybe they are not responsible..

All I ask is for a tiny bit of peaceful land...To stop the the nonsense.. To stop the Bloody massacres.. to stop all the Death-and-misery.

How about Rhode Island ??

Maybe they are responsible.. maybe they are not responsible..

All I ask is for a tiny bit of peaceful land...To stop the the nonsense.. To stop the Bloody massacres.. to stop all the Death-and-misery.

How about Rhode Island ??Don't be silly. Moving Israel would solve none of the problems now.

Don't be silly. Moving Israel would solve none of the problems now.Why is that?

Why is that?Human nature. You should be used to it by now.

He said that it should be wiped off the map. That is threatening the political integrity of another nation. You cannot say stuff like this and expect to get away with it.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is threatenin the political integrity of another nation.
You mean like the US did to Iraq?

Let's look at Bush's shopping list....."Axis of Evil".....Iraq (gottem), Iran (next?), and North Korea (on hold).

The US doesn't say stuff, they just do it over trumped up charges.

Bush started this latest nonsense with his "Axis of Evil" pronouncement back in October 2002.

If he advocated for the Death of the President of the United States, he would be placed under investigation and watched mightly carefully. Advocating the death of another head of state.... Welcome to Freedom of Speech.
At the very start of the Iraq war, the US tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein with bombs:

U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/)

Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html)

U.S. Launches 'Decapitation' Strike Against Iraq; Saddam Personally Targeted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81607,00.html)

This isn't advocating the death of the President :rolleyes:
Looking for some moral high ground?

You can't find any.

They didn't say should. The President of Iran said ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OUT!
Proof please. I do believe that Ocean Drive also issued you the same challenge but you have not been up to the task so far.

Iran can play at being a superpower all it wants. The reality is that the time of Xerxes is over. They'd be flattened in a heartbeat if they indulged in total war.

At the very start of the Iraq war, the US tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein with bombs:

U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/)

Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html)

U.S. Launches 'Decapitation' Strike Against Iraq; Saddam Personally Targeted (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81607,00.html)


Looking for some moral high ground?

You can't find any.
why yes, yes we did, our navy after war was declared launched missiles at the COMMAND CENTER OF THE MILITARY. even if your opposed to the war in Iraq you must say that Saddam is not a good person to say the least and if he is the leader of an opposing army I see no problem with shooting at him, he is the head general, he even fancys himself a military leader, thats the price he pays for being in charge, and being an Jerk

Iran can play at being a superpower all it wants. The reality is that the time of Xerxes is over. They'd be flattened in a heartbeat if they indulged in total war.
yes, its not a matter of if we can win, but the cost, also the United States people are not used to total war, there is outcry against a easyer war against Iraq, but yes beating their normal army is not a question of if

You mean like the US did to Iraq?

Let's look at Bush's shopping list....."Axis of Evil".....Iraq (gottem), Iran (next?), and North Korea (on hold).

Two things. 1) We didn't advocate wiping any of these nations off the map and 2) two of those nations we are or were legally at war with.

*snip*

Here's the thing. If he was wearing a military uniform at the time of the attack then taking him out would be 100% legal. If he was in a suit and we tried to take him out, then it would be illegal.

I do believe that Ocean Drive also issued you the same challenge but you have not been up to the task so far.yup
Post #169 is still undefeated..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10697691&postcount=169
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel/US first.

It will defend itself.. but will not attack first.

I challenge you (or any one) to provide a News link were Iran says it will/would/could launch a preemptive attack on Israel/US.

"wish talk" (someone should/must/ought to wipe...) is simply not enough to Bomb Iran..

...two of those nations we are or were legally at war with.Legal in the US?

Here's the thing. If he was wearing a military uniform at the time of the attack then taking him out would be 100% legal. If he was in a suit and we tried to take him out, then it would be illegal.#1) I think any fashion rules of engagement are Bullshit

#2) After a Tomahawk cruise missile hits a president (any president) how-on-earth are you going to figure what-the-hell was he wearing?

Legal in the US?

Last time I checked, we are still at war with North Korea as is the UN.

#1) I think any fashion rules of engagement are Bullshit

So if we borrow this logic, then it should be legal to knock off any head of state regardless of what they are wearing then.

#2) After a Tomahawk cruise missile hits a president (any president) how-on-earth are you going to figure what-the-hell was he wearing?

Hit the building he is in, there'll be enough to know. Hit him directly and you'll have a point.

Here's the thing. If he was wearing a military uniform at the time of the attack then taking him out would be 100% legal. If he was in a suit and we tried to take him out, then it would be illegal.

So it would have been completely legal to have shot Bush down just before that "Mission Accomplished" propoganda stunt of his?

So it would have been completely legal to have shot Bush down just before that "Mission Accomplished" propoganda stunt of his?

Since he was in a military uniform yes. Legit military target.

Originally Posted by Virginian Tulane
If anyone would care to be cool in my book, read Debt of Honor, Executive Orders, and The Bear and the Dragon, by Tom Clancy. Much of that might be stylized and exaserbating, but remember, we didn't think that anyone would be stupid enough to turn an airliner into a precision-guided munition, either. But Tom Clancy did.

<3 those books. They should be made into movies along with Red Storm Rising. Helluva lot better then the stuff thats coming out nowdays.

as for Iran attacking Israel

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/international/middleeast/26cnd-iran.html?ex=1287979200&en=ac28fc488a56d88f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


let me guess, your going to say "he just says it Should be done.. not that he's going to do it!" Alright.. fine. Then i guess in your world we should wait until israel is being invaded and nuked by Iran before we do anything. Perfect.

Last time I checked, we are still at war with North Korea as is the UN.
Technically, the war between North and South Korea has not ended. (Or should I say "formally"?)
Technically, the US never went to war but only participated in a "police action" in Korea.
However, a ceasefire involves a state of peace (albeit possibly temporary). As such, the UN is not at war with North Korea (if the UN has ever been formally at war with the country in the first place)

I doubt you would find anyone in the UN who would agree with your interpretation of the facts.

let me guess, your going to say "he just says it Should be done.. not that he's going to do it!" Alright.. fine. Yes.

That is exactly what I have been saying for the last 4 pages.. Now would you please explain this to Cornelius.. (I cant get tru his head..to his brain)

Here's the thing. If he was wearing a military uniform at the time of the attack then taking him out would be 100% legal. If he was in a suit and we tried to take him out, then it would be illegal.
Where did you get this idea from, by the way?

Technically, the war between North and South Korea has not ended. (Or should I say "formally"?)

So what is the Peace Treaty Called?

Technically, the US never went to war but only participated in a "police action" in Korea.

Samething in my book.

However, a ceasefire involves a state of peace (albeit possibly temporary). As such, the UN is not at war with North Korea (if the UN has ever been formally at war with the country in the first place)

A cease-fire does not end a war. All it does is freeze people in place. That is what we have. The war is frozen but not over.

I doubt you would find anyone in the UN who would agree with your interpretation of the facts.

Not my fault they don't understand what a cease-fire agreement is.

America would have to be pretty dumb to start a war with Iran right now. Granted, we could, and would roll over the Iranian navy and airforce pretty quick, were would we get the manpower to actually invade, and then occupy Iran? We're stretching ourselves just holding on to Iraq, not to mentiont he fact that Iran is much bigger, more populous and has much rougher terrain.

If we went to war with Iran, Iraq would ignite, were having problems with a Sunni majority insurgency right now, war with Iran is going to bring the Shi'ites in against America, and theres a whole lot more Shi'ites than Sunni's. We would see terror attacks world wide. It be especially bad in the Middle east and Central Asia(Goergia, Azerbaijan exc...note, America is putting in a multi Billion $$ pipline in Azerbaijan right now, wouldn't be surprised at all if that went up). These terror attacks, added to the temporary closing of the Hormuz straits(along with it the sinking of multiple tankers before shipping stops) and the fact that Iran, which I'm pretty sure is #2 behind Saudi Arabia in oil exports(have to check that) and I know is #2 in natural gas reserves behind Russia, would not be shipping any oil or gas to the world would send gas prices skyrocketing which in turn would send the stock market spiralling. And the situation wouldn't get better till a bit after Iran was fully occupied, which would take a much longer time than Iraq.

Iran not only is bigger than Iraq, but has much rougher terrain, and a much better equipped military. Back to my first point, were are we going to get the men to invade and occupy Iran from? With the Shi'ites in Iraq rising, were going to need more troops in Iraq to hold it down so pulling men from there isn't a possibility. What happens when rising casualties starts biting into what troops we scraped together to invade Iran with? How long till the public faced with record high gas prices that would only keep going up and rising casaulties, plus constant news stories about a new terror attack over in X country, how long till the public demands a pull out? we've suffered 2,000 dead in iraq over a few years and the Public is reaching its breaking point, we would probaly suffer more than 2,000 dead in the first few weeks if an invasion is attempted, and if we strike Iran we will have to invade Iran unless theres a revolution which is highly unlikely.

They can't do total war on American soil....but we can't on them either. Nothing will happen I bet.

The thing to remember is that during the Iran-Iraq war, when their backs were to the wall Iran threw everything they had at Iraq. Iraq resorted to actually training soldiers and using chemical weapons. To counter, the Iranian air force did regular raids against Bagdad. The Iranians also made extensive use of child soldiers.

After the revolution in Iran, the US sunk a bunch of their bigger ships, and the ships of frigate class or larger are having maintenance and resupply problems without Western support. With the drying up of military backers (except for China and North Korea coming to their rescue in the last few years), because nobody in their right mind back militant religious nut cases (see Mujahideen), Iran has fended for itself.

First they started building their own tanks, jets, and other military platforms by reverse engineering NATO and Soviet models. This includes all those Soviet built jets that Iraq flew to Iran so they wouldn’t get shot down during the First Gulf War, but then didn’t give back to Iraq. They have a bunch of factories building their own weapon platforms much the same way Copyright Infringing factories in China create their own versions of the latest car models from the US and Europe, four days after they hit the market (nothing like a car with the front end of a Mercedes and the back end of the Cadillac).

Their subs are very good Russian diesels, considered the quietest in the world. The fleet of missile boats they bought from China will be used to harass any coalition shipping (assuming anyone would join the US). They bought state of the art SAM batteries from China, rated better than what NATO has on hand these days, and you can expect them to deploy them on approach routes to their nuclear energy sites (assuming the people in charge have half a brain). There are some concerns being raised about the Nuclear Deal that the US signed with India today, to share nuclear technology with them. One point of concern was that India is a port of call for Iranian warships.

The US have enough concerns without being worried about phantom missiles and torpedoes. Next thing you know you’ll be seeing a live report of the new Iranian stealth plane, better than anyone else’s, with a camera view of the empty sky to prove it.

To be honest though the US would still pulverize Iran. The US fights its battles in standoff mode and pulverizes everything from a distance. If troops meet resistance, they hold up until artillery, missile batteries, or air strikes take care of it. It’s strategy that’s designed to minimilise casualties, to play better in the all important media stage, but at the same time it’s a strategy that weakens the fighting spirit of the soldiers. If the US ever gets into a scrap on foreign soil with an actual military power, it’s a strategy that will cost them dearly.

It will be very messy though, because Iraq was a very secular state compared to Iran. Many Iranians alive today remember the occupation of the US puppet, the Shah, who they rebelled against. It will be very hard to sell the same story of spreading democracy when the last time you had your feet on the ground it was backing a dictator. The rebellion against any US occupation in Iran will make Iraq look like a tourist destination.

The Bruce

I think that the most likely action against Iran by the US will either be airstrikes or tomahawk missiles, launched from a carrier group. There may be special forces involved to help paint targets, but that would be the extent of forces on the ground (it’s not like special forces haven’t already been sneaking over the border into Iran to have a look around). I'm more inclined to believe that they'll just hit the place with tomahawks, unless they're going after bunker targets in which case it's going to have to be an airstrike.

If they have enough progress on one of their X-projects to put them into use, they probably will.

WTH is as "underwater missile" ?

Don't they call them torpedos ?:confused:

from what i have read..it is an underwater torpedo...but it is more like a missile.

it is also a copy of a russian design they abandoned..as we did...because of it's complete uselessness.

apparently it can go 223 mph underwater..and they may have acheived that.however...from my limited understanding of the technology..it is totally inaccurate to the point you would need a sub or surface ship to launch it well within easy kill zones of almost any modern warship/sub

i dont see any navy allowing any armed vessel from iran within arms reach.

also,to overcome drag coefficients from water..to achieve the speeds claimed,i believe the russian version created a gas bubble around said weapon,but was horribly inaccurate and easily detectable.
not to mention,a minor coarse correction by the target or of the missile at those speeds would cause a miss almost everytime,this is not an air to air missile..but a projectile travelling at great speed,the slightest turn in it's trajectory would have to overcome incredible drag from the water,which would kill it's velocity,and it's ability to change coarse fast enough to re acquire the target befor counter measures would be deployed.

so i cll bullshit.

i also pray the iranians revolt against the loonies that are running the country,because god forbid they attack us or the israilis...especially with a nuke...because a whole bunch of decent,nice iranians(i have alot of iranian friends,and love them)would be unfortunately killed...for the ignorance of their so called leaders.:(

The US have enough concerns without being worried about phantom missiles and torpedoes. Next thing you know you’ll be seeing a live report of the new Iranian stealth plane, better than anyone else’s, with a camera view of the empty sky to prove it.


I completely agree with this.

Then i guess in your world we should wait until israel is being invaded and nuked by Iran before we do anything. Perfect.

Well, the last time someone said "We're not going to wait for him to nuke us. We're going to take him out first", it all turned into a big load of hooey. So excuse me if I'm a bit leery of anyone claiming pre-emptive action.

The Russian were working on the supercavitating torpedo since the 50’s (the original idea was to have a torpedo that could attack a US Boomer sub before it could launch its ICBM’s). During the 70’s when the first prototype was built, the aim was to provide a vengeance weapon for subs to fire if they heard the approach of enemy torpedoes. The idea was that when you launched the supercavitating torpedo, the enemy would attempt to turn away from the attack and shear the cables of wire guided torpedoes.

During the 90’s had a lot of guidance problems (that would be the small fin sticking out of the gas bubble). They’ve solved a lot of those problems and the next generation of them went into production by 1998. Apparently they are also working on a longer range version of this torpedo. The Russians never abandoned the design at all, although US attempts to create their own or steal the plans from Russia have been a complete failure. I’m a bit shocked about reports that the first generation of the Russian Shkval has been featured in international arms dealing shows (like the one hosted by the UK). So there might actually be more to this than meets the eye.

The most notorious accident with one of these torpedoes was the Kursk, which is believed to have been caused by the mixing of some unfamiliar gases from the torpedoes with some spilled fuel, resulting in the explosion inside the sub (analysis of the explosion by monitoring sensors in the area have proved the explosion was internal). A lot of what the West learned about the supercavitating torpedoes development from this accident, because of all the investigations into the subsurface disaster.

It’s doesn’t really matter if this torpedo is detected because ships can’t maneuver fast enough to evade torpedoes coming at them at 230mph underwater. The gas bubble that the torpedo encases itself in allows the torpedo to ignore the previous drag problems that affected their maximum speed. Previous torpedoes could even be outrun by modern warships or defeated with counter measures. There is work underway to develop an underwater kinetic gun to deal with torpedoes (like this) but it will be a while until ships actually start getting outfitted with them.

The Bruce

By featured in arms shows, I mean that the video was only allowed to be viewed by a select clientele of potential buyers. The video only shows the supercavitating torpedo from the rear, so no one can get a good look at the interesting items on the front (cavitator, ventilation ports, etc).

http://diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Kursk_images/storm_2.gif

By all accounts the Shkval-E is the only version being sold. Unlike later generations the Russians developed, this one doesn’t turn and isn’t wire guided. They're also not as fast as the newer torps, with these ones only capable of 200mph underwater. Arms shows that this older model was featured at include Abu Dhabi and Athens. There is speculation that Iran bought some, but there is no proof. Still from what digging I've done, it's more than possible that they got their mitts on some first generation supercavitating torpedoes. Fun...

http://diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Warpdrive_underwater.htm


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/de669aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Even if you assume that they have this wonderful torpedo that will do 200 mph, and have the guidance systems in place for it that will get it to its' target, they still can be bombed back into the stone age from a very comfortable distance, and a measure of healthy caution (just staying away from Iranian shores, for instance) will prevent any Iranian nutjobs from ever being able to use it.

So relax. It's much ado about nothing, either way you look at it.

Here's the thing. If he was wearing a military uniform at the time of the attack then taking him out would be 100% legal. If he was in a suit and we tried to take him out, then it would be illegal.
There ya go, snipping my post and then answering with something that doesn't even reflect the snippage.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702986&postcount=197

You are trying to soft pedal around the more difficult points. :p

Even if you assume that they have this wonderful torpedo that will do 200 mph, and have the guidance systems in place for it that will get it to its' target, they still can be bombed back into the stone age from a very comfortable distance, and a measure of healthy caution (just staying away from Iranian shores, ...Lets asume for a second that it happens like that..

If you were Iran.. How would you strike back?

It'd be nice if we could just sit back and fling missiles and launch airstrikes at Iran, but if we went that far we would have to finish it because of one economics, and two Iran would hit back.

Economically, gas prices would go soaring, which would kill the stock market. iran has the second largest reserves of natural gas(Right behind Russia) and one of the largest reserves of oil, all of which would become off limits to the world if we struck Iran. On top of that, the oil flow coming out of Iraq would be seriously slowed down by attacks, especially down around Basra were up to now its been fairly peacefull and quiet. After the first few oil tankers got themselves missiles in the Gulf shipping would halt through the Hormuz straits, meaning even less oil on global markets. The newest source of oil for America, the Caspian, also happens to border Iran. American companies have invested a few billion dollars into a pipeline that runs through Azerbaijan to bring Caspian oil to market, I'm doubting that pipeline which is only a handfull of miles from the iranian border and the American run oilfields off the Azerbaijani coasts that the pipeline services would last very long. Also, I wouldn't be suprised if President Chavez down in Venezuela made some noises about the massive amount of oil venezuela supplies America, thats if he didn't cut off shipments altogether. He already hates Bush, he's called Bush a drunk, a murderer a thief and many other names, he only needs an excuse to punish Bush.

All of that would send gas prices soaring, and the panic that would follow in the economy would only send it up further. People went crazy when gas was $3, imagine gas at $6, $7 or higher, imagine the effects on the economy and the stock market. And it probaly wouldn't end untill peace was made with Iran, which would most likely have to come through an invasion.


Thats only economically, if we struck Iran they would strike back as hard as they could. They have a huge arsenal of missiles, which could be fired at oilfields and refineries in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states or at U.S. mtargets in Iraq. GPS guided iranian missiles would pound the Green Zone and American military bases in Iraq real quick after we struck Iran. it wouldn't be that hard for an iranian agent, or even a Shi'ite sympathizer to sit a mile away from the Green Zone and paint the area. Even if we managed to wipe out half of Irans missile force on the ground the remaining missiles would be enough to flatten a lot of American installations in Iraq. On top of that the relatively calm Shi'ite's in Iraq would form their own insurgency against what would probaly be a weakened American military after the Iranian strikes. We're having enough trouble with the Sunni majority insurgency, a Shi'ite insurgency raging alongside it would be disastrous. And the Shi'ites would be recieving plenty of help from across the border. Iran has the ability to produce MBT's, modern jet aircraft, missiles, APC exc and is more than capable of keeping an insurgency supplied and flaring if we don't invade Iran. They'd probaly also do the same, although to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan, a place most people seem to have forgotten about. We would be dealing with a world wide wave of terror attacks and a possible alliance between Al Queda and a much better organized and funded Hexbollah/Al Quds/the Pasdaren/the rest of the Iranian military.

We can't strike Iran unless were willing to finish the job and invade, which we aren't in a position to do.