NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7496765.stm

Iran sends missile test warning

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Footage of Iran missile test

Iran has test-fired what it called a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of reaching its main regional enemy Israel, state media say.

The missile, said to have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles), was one of nine launched from a remote desert site.

Iran has tested the Shahab-3 before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions with the US and Israel over the country's nuclear programme.

The US denounced the test and called on Iran to abandon its missile programme.

Iran should "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

'Aggressive language'

The aim of the early morning launch of the "upgraded" Shahab-3 missile was to demonstrate Iran's "determination and power to the enemies who have used aggressive language during recent weeks", state media reported.

"We are ready to defend the integrity of the Iranian nation," said the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' air force, Brigadier General Hoseyn Salami.

Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy
Brig Gen Hoseyn Salami
Commander, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force

Two other types of missile with shorter ranges were also fired as part of the Great Prophet III war games being staged by the Guards.

"Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy," Gen Salami added. "The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance."

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says this is a clear warning from Iran.

It is a response to a recent military exercise by Israel, which was seen as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, he says.

On Monday, an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader said it would respond to any military attack by hitting the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.

Other commanders have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large part of the world's oil flows, and to target the US and its allies around the world if Iran comes under attack.

However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad later insisted his country had no intention to attack Israel. He also said Iran did not fear an attack by the US or Israel over its nuclear activities, dismissing the possibility as a "funny joke".

Mr Ahmadinejad said the economic, political and military situation would dissuade US President George W Bush from any such move.

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," he said during a visit to Malaysia on Tuesday.

New sanctions

The missile test came shortly after the US Treasury announced new financial sanctions on Iranian officials it suspected of involvement in the country's nuclear programme.

Among those targeted were a senior scientist at the defence ministry, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, and three companies believed to be related to the arms industry.

It came as G8 leaders called for Iran to halt uranium enrichment.

Western leaders have been attempting to convince Tehran to stop enriching uranium, which it has continued despite the imposition of sanctions by the UN and the European Union.

Iran denies Western assertions that it is developing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes.

The US also signed on Tuesday an agreement with the Czech Republic to build a radar station near Prague as part of a defence shield to shoot down incoming missiles from what Washington calls "rogue states" such as Iran.

The move drew immediate criticism from Russia, which warned that it would proceed with its own military deployments.

Well, things are heating up a wee bit. Let's hope the Israelies don't act rashly and decide they need to strike. We don't need more warfare in the region right now. (Or ever, for that matter.)

Hopefully, this might make the Israelis stop for a bit and think.
On the other hand, it could also give the war hawks another excuse to attack.

Hopefully, this might make the Israelis stop for a bit and think.
On the other hand, it could also give the war hawks another excuse to attack.

Why would today be any different from what Iran has demonstrated in the past?

These are not new weapons, and the war games happen every year.

Israel already has a layered ballistic missile defense system, and just recently activated a defense system against short-range rockets like those fired by Hezbollah a while back. Iran, on the other hand, has demonstrated that it has 1950s military technology.

Where Iran has an edge is not over Israel. It's called location, and it's right near the Straits of Hormuz. With very low technology, they can make it chaotic for a week or two - by using small powerboats armed with very light weapons and anti-ship missiles fired from coastal sites. Even that would be short-lived, because the US Navy bases most of its exercises in the area on defeating exactly that sort of problem.

Hopefully, this might make the Israelis stop for a bit and think.

We can only hope that the retarded hawks of every faction get placated by those who realize another war in the middle east would simply create a lose-lose situation.

The absolute last thing we need is to get caught up in another war, especially when we're not done with afghanistan or iraq yet. I can only hope that if the USA does invade iran that the UK government doesn't mindlessly follow once more.

Iran should "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
North Korea disagrees.

North Korea disagrees.

I think that across several US Presidents, North Korea learned that it's best to build and shoot missiles, and build and test nuclear bombs, in order to get what you want.

It may take decades, but you'll get what you want (even if it's only attention, aid, and favorable diplomatic treatment in regional talks).

I wonder, if they'll show Irani soldiers in a military firing-range, if the US will call for them to stop using guns.

This will either have no effect or backfire on Iran. Regardless of their feelings towards Israel, this was a Bad Idea. They just made it more likely that Israel will run out of patience and eliminate Iran's nuclear program by force.

Hardly so...

US has demostrated (in his treatment of North Korea) that they negotiate with nations with nuclear weapons. Iran needs to rattle his saber (as pathetic an outdated as it may be) to keep US and specially Isreal doubting while it completes its nuclear program. Once Iran has the nukes US and Israel will negotiate as they did with NK. The problem for Iran is that unlike NK it doesnt has a super power protecting it.

I also sent a warning to Iran via a sweet fireworks display on the 4th of July.


I think this is about the same level of worry on a military scale and i dont care how uber you think Iranian missiles are.

This will either have no effect or backfire on Iran. Regardless of their feelings towards Israel, this was a Bad Idea. They just made it more likely that Israel will run out of patience and eliminate Iran's nuclear program by force.

More to the point, it's like taunting the neighbor's illtempered pitbull with the badly frayed tether. Not that the illtempered pitbull should be out there unsupervised on a badly frayed tether, but why taunt it?

More to the point, it's like taunting the neighbor's illtempered pitbull with the badly frayed tether. Not that the illtempered pitbull should be out there unsupervised on a badly frayed tether, but why taunt it?

This is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6_A7ESaIkA

Personally I think we shouldnt get involved with iran until we are effected, isreal is gettin them selves into deep shit and we shouldnt risk our soldiers lives by fighting another pointless war that we had no involvment in. We shouldnt have been in iraq in the first place. bush just needed some god forsaken excuses. so Basicly, hes a retarded puppet getting mind fucked by dick cheney and his bitches.

This is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6_A7ESaIkA

A compelling argument. :)

War within 2 years? Also Iran says if millitary action is taken against its nuclear facilities it will attack Israel and American fleets in the Persian Gulf.

War within 2 years? Also Iran says if millitary action is taken against its nuclear facilities it will attack Israel and American fleets in the Persian Gulf.

With what? Speedboats? The American Navy will somehow survive.

Yeah, I know, but it'd spark a pretty big war.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I wonder what that meeting in Iran was like.

"Hey guys...guys, I just had a great idea. Lets make the Israelis EVEN MORE PARANOID by showing them that when we get nukes, we can hit their most populous city."
"Hur hur, good idea!"

Your choice of which one was Ahmanedinejad(spelling way wrong) and which one was the supreme leader.
Please. If there was one way to make the Israeli people feel more insecure, this was it.

And as for closing the straight of Hormuz, that isn't really an issue. They tried it during the Iran-Iraq war and failed badly, and that was when we didn't have two of the most advanced and powerful fleets ever to sail the ocean RIGHT THERE. (AKA carrier groups.)
If they try to close the Straight, it will only result in crippling losses to their "Navy", a term which I use loosely, and their Air Force, which is full of obsolete planes and inexperienced pilots.

What about accuracy? I am reminded of Sam Kinison talking about the comparison between the smart bomb(and the fun of having a camera recording the guy sticking his head out the window going 'Oh no!' BOOM! ) and the Scud Missile which he described as "...kind of like the smart bomb. What you do is fire it out of the trunk of your car; sssss..... Then turn on CNN to see where it landed."

What about accuracy? I am reminded of Sam Kinison talking about the comparison between the smart bomb(and the fun of having a camera recording the guy sticking his head out the window going 'Oh no!' BOOM! ) and the Scud Missile which he described as "...kind of like the smart bomb. What you do is fire it out of the trunk of your car; sssss..... Then turn on CNN to see where it landed."

I seem to remember the Sahab-3 series of rockets boasting a much improved accuracy than its granddaddy Scud parents. A CEP of 50m if I remember correctly.

And you may be a Clown First Grade LG, but I doubt even you could fit a fully functional Scud into the trunk of your car. Although I'd definitely watch the effort. :p

I seem to remember the Sahab-3 series of rockets boasting a much improved accuracy than its granddaddy Scud parents. A CEP of 50m if I remember correctly.

Well, it's in the ballpark at least. :p

50 meters off wont matter much if its a nuke payload. Always better to nuke from orbit, though...

Well, it's in the ballpark at least. :p

50m isn't really that far with today's explosives if you aren't going for hardened targets, or if you're loading with chemical warheads.

And you may be a Clown First Grade LG, but I doubt even you could fit a fully functional Scud into the trunk of your car. Although I'd definitely watch the effort. :p

From a distance I hope.

War within 2 years? Also Iran says if millitary action is taken against its nuclear facilities it will attack Israel and American fleets in the Persian Gulf.
Uhu. The Israelis have 8 attack dinghies in that region, I think the losses are acceptable for them, and the idea of Iran doing much against a full carrier group with international carriers and their attendant fleets in the area is dubious to say the least.

The Persians would just get their arses kicked militarily. Although I'd advise the Israelis to move in before Iran gets its 'new' S-300s off the Russians, so that they are in very little danger of being shot down, instead of moderate danger of being shot down.

I predict that the edge of your seat diplomacy and deal/counter deal by the Iranians will continue for about the next 7 years.

They will then atmospherically test a nuclear weapon...... but by a sad irony, the Israeli missile defence system knocks the bomb off course and instead of landing in Tel aviv , lands in the west bank vapourizing several 100 thousand palestinians.

18 minutes later several million Iranians join them in paradise, followed by a full on exchange between the 2 countries

It takes a specialist team from the UN 18 months to discover which smoking hole in the ground is the winner

I seem to remember the Sahab-3 series of rockets boasting a much improved accuracy than its granddaddy Scud parents. A CEP of 50m if I remember correctly.

And you may be a Clown First Grade LG, but I doubt even you could fit a fully functional Scud into the trunk of your car. Although I'd definitely watch the effort. :p

Between the Arrow, THAAD, and PAC-3 that are deployed in Israel, it doesn't really matter much what CEP it has.

PAC-3 has been demonstrated in combat during OIF against multiple simultaneous combat ballistic missile targets - and engaged them in ripple fire without human intervention. It had a 100% hit rate.

Higher, if you count the fact that it shot down a RAF Tornado also without warning, and also without human intervention.

I predict that the edge of your seat diplomacy and deal/counter deal by the Iranians will continue for about the next 7 years.

They will then atmospherically test a nuclear weapon...... but by a sad irony, the Israeli missile defence system knocks the bomb off course and instead of landing in Tel aviv , lands in the west bank vapourizing several 100 thousand palestinians.

18 minutes later several million Iranians join them in paradise, followed by a full on exchange between the 2 countries

It takes a specialist team from the UN 18 months to discover which smoking hole in the ground is the winner
Err wut?

Why would you predict this?

The Israelis are going to bomb the Persians' nuclear site within the next year. Achmujenidad probably knows this, too. Which is why he's showing off somewhat pointlessly.

It is time to make the moslims nations a parking lot. Bush go ahead!:sniper:

I predict that the edge of your seat diplomacy and deal/counter deal by the Iranians will continue for about the next 7 years.

They will then atmospherically test a nuclear weapon...... but by a sad irony, the Israeli missile defence system knocks the bomb off course and instead of landing in Tel aviv , lands in the west bank vapourizing several 100 thousand palestinians.

18 minutes later several million Iranians join them in paradise, followed by a full on exchange between the 2 countries

It takes a specialist team from the UN 18 months to discover which smoking hole in the ground is the winner

1. The three different missile defense systems use "hit to kill". That is, the warhead has no explosives - it directly impacts the target. Even a supposed glancing blow releases megajoules of impact energy - sufficient to completely vaporize any warhead. So there isn't any "knocking the bomb off course".

2. The flight time is probably around 8 minutes.

It is time to make the moslims nations a parking lot. Bush go ahead!:sniper:
Heh a troll ^__^

Wow, I could almost a Godwinish observation on Middle East debates. Note that Godwin only came up with an observation; it's the Internet as a whole that somehow turned that observation into a "You Lose" Rule.

"As a NSG discussion on Middle Eastern geopolitics grows longer, the probability of a proclamation of Israel's infallibility and superiority over every other Middle Eastern nation as a whole approaches one."

Good grief.

Just let Iran attack israel if that's what they want to do, but I'm not going to go fight for israel (not my country) and die for a group of people I don't care for (Israelites).

Good grief.

Just let Iran attack israel if that's what they want to do, but I'm not going to go fight for israel (not my country) and die for a group of people I don't care for (Israelites).

Then don't bitch when Israel defends itself.

America waves penis. Iran waves penis. America moves next door, waves penis. Iran waves penis frantically. Its a nasty cycle, with TWO offenders....

Then don't bitch when Israel defends itself.

I don't. My problem is that Israel is buddy buddy with the USA, and the USA expects the whole world to do what they want.

I don't. My problem is that Israel is buddy buddy with the USA, and the USA expects the whole world to do what they want.

Even if the US didn't exist, Iran would want to nuke Israel out of existence.

Well I support Israel

.... :)

Even if the US didn't exist, Iran would want to nuke Israel out of existence.

That's not the point: if the United States wants to go fight another stupid war they can't win, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to come help you.

It is time to make the moslims nations a parking lot.

Heh a troll ^__^

But only because he clarified his intent with his title. Otherwise, it's an ambiguous sentence very much in need of a preposition.

Wow, I could almost a Godwinish observation on Middle East debates. Note that Godwin only came up with an observation; it's the Internet as a whole that somehow turned that observation into a "You Lose" Rule.

"As a NSG discussion on Middle Eastern geopolitics grows longer, the probability of a proclamation of Israel's infallibility and superiority over every other Middle Eastern nation as a whole approaches one."

That doesn't come from nowhere. Israel is by far more militarily powerful than most Middle Eastern countries. They've held their own and even TOOK TERRITORY in the two previous wars they fought against the entire Middle East. Look up the war of 1967. Israel kicked everyone's asses.

Iran is not a true military threat to Israel and therefore Israel shouldn't bother reacting, because the way they react is to smash everything. The old adage about only having a hammer really factors in for Israel.

That's not the point: if the United States wants to go fight another stupid war they can't win, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to come help you.

*sarcasm* yeah its just so much better to turn a blind eye to genocide isnt it. I mean thats what should have occurred in WW2. Why on earth should we have cared about the millions of jews being killed then and why should we now? *end sarcasm*

Whilst its cheaper to ignore any war for the purposes of wiping out a section of the human race (eg South Africa right now) that by no means makes it the right thing to do. I hope that all leaders around the world will show some backbone and help Israel maintain its existance

Between the Arrow, THAAD, and PAC-3 that are deployed in Israel, it doesn't really matter much what CEP it has.

PAC-3 has been demonstrated in combat during OIF against multiple simultaneous combat ballistic missile targets - and engaged them in ripple fire without human intervention. It had a 100% hit rate.

Higher, if you count the fact that it shot down a RAF Tornado also without warning, and also without human intervention.

All three missiles types rely solely on direct impact to destroy the warhead, and at ballistic interception, use trajectory calculation to estimate impact points. Any ICBM capable of delivering self maneuvering warheads makes these missiles of very limited effectiveness against them.

Try again.

All three missiles types rely solely on direct impact to destroy the warhead, and at ballistic interception, use trajectory calculation to estimate impact points. Any ICBM capable of delivering self maneuvering warheads makes these missiles of very limited effectiveness against them.

Try again.

MARV based warheads are pretty advanced technology. It's doubtful that the Iranians have indigenously developed them. And I don't think the Russians would sell them such sensitive technology, both for diplomatic and national security reasons.

Of course, this entire line of reasoning depends on Iran actually having a developed nuclear weapons program, of which there is no evidence of.

I would like to know, however, how effective a kill vehicle would be against warheads carrying a chemical or biological payload.

MARV based warheads are pretty advanced technology. It's doubtful that the Iranians have indigenously developed them. And I don't think the Russians would sell them such sensitive technology, both for diplomatic and national security reasons.

I can't say for certain, but the Iranians are claiming the modified Sahab-3 series are capable of trajectory modification. I don't know about the Russians not making an export variant of the Topol-M series though. Gas sales to Europe are bringing in the rubles, but high grade military hardware still fetches top dollar.


Of course, this entire line of reasoning depends on Iran actually having a developed nuclear weapons program, of which there is no evidence of.


They could easily just load it up with explosives, or cluster munitions, although that's a huge expense for an artillery rocket, so it's not really cost effective.


I would like to know, however, how effective a kill vehicle would be against warheads carrying a chemical or biological payload.

Probably not very, depending on where the warhead was hit. Above a certain altitude, biological and chemical compounds are either spread too thin or exposed to raw solar radiation which breaks them down.

*sarcasm* yeah its just so much better to turn a blind eye to genocide isnt it. I mean thats what should have occurred in WW2. Why on earth should we have cared about the millions of jews being killed then and why should we now? *end sarcasm*

Whilst its cheaper to ignore any war for the purposes of wiping out a section of the human race (eg South Africa right now) that by no means makes it the right thing to do. I hope that all leaders around the world will show some backbone and help Israel maintain its existance



Oh, You mean like how America was right there as the beginning of WW2 on the front lines?

Religions and ethic groups have been wiped out since the dawn of civilization. I see no reason to send /our/ men and women over to die defending a nation that isn't theirs, in a war that isn't winnable, just to look 'good' in the eyes of a political community who cares nothing for no one.

That doesn't come from nowhere. Israel is by far more militarily powerful than most Middle Eastern countries. They've held their own and even TOOK TERRITORY in the two previous wars they fought against the entire Middle East. Look up the war of 1967. Israel kicked everyone's asses.

Iran is not a true military threat to Israel and therefore Israel shouldn't bother reacting, because the way they react is to smash everything. The old adage about only having a hammer really factors in for Israel.

Which to me is a significant contributor to general MidEast animosity towards Israel and the United States. Israel solves almost all of its problems through overwhelming firepower and not only does the United States tend to look the other way or give a slap on the wrist whenever Israel goes too far, it continues to funnel billions of dollars and military hardware to it, in effect condoning the practice of Equestrian Medicine.

Which to me is a significant contributor to general MidEast animosity towards Israel and the United States. Israel solves almost all of its problems through overwhelming firepower and not only does the United States tend to look the other way or give a slap on the wrist whenever Israel goes too far, it continues to funnel billions of dollars and military hardware to it, in effect condoning the practice of Equestrian Medicine.

It takes two to tango. You know you have bad neighbors when they make war on you as soon as your nation actually becomes one. I'm not saying Israel is 100% right, however if they did not defend themselves appropriately they would be wiped off the map and we would see another holocaust in the Middle East.

It takes two to tango. You know you have bad neighbors when they make war on you as soon as your nation actually becomes one. I'm not saying Israel is 100% right, however if they did not defend themselves appropriately they would be wiped off the map and we would see another holocaust in the Middle East.

Why do supporters of the Israeli government want their cake and eat it too? Either the nation significantly overpowers all of its neighbors or it doesn't. Would you call Lebanon 2 "appropriate defense"? What about the countless mass blasting of Palestinian bystanders every time a few rockets almost hit a settlement or a suicide bomber blows him or herself up?

Why do supporters of the Israeli government want their cake and eat it too? Either the nation significantly overpowers all of its neighbors or it doesn't. Would you call Lebanon 2 "appropriate defense"? What about the countless mass blasting of Palestinian bystanders every time a few rockets almost hit a settlement or a suicide bomber blows him or herself up?

Gauthier, you know damned well that the other side isn't all sunshine and happy feelings. Maybe there was some real sense of getting a working nation and all that in the early days, but two generations of near constant guerilla fighting have left all sides bitterly hating one another. Neither side will bring the conflict to the end because you'll always have some numskull willing to bring everyone down with him just for a bit of revenge.

The only real way to get any peace there is to grab both sides, promise utter destruction down to the last man, woman and child, if they so much as sneeze at one another, and follow through with it. Either that or gas the entire region with marijuana.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7496765.stm



Well, things are heating up a wee bit. Let's hope the Israelies don't act rashly and decide they need to strike. We don't need more warfare in the region right now. (Or ever, for that matter.)

LOL The Iranian prez is a real life troll. :p

Don't count on a US attack coming any time soon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p01s05-usfp.html) *yawns*

...the idea of Iran doing much against a full carrier group with international carriers and their attendant fleets in the area is dubious to say the least.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15976&IBLOCK_ID=35

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

Emphasis mine...

The truth is that van Ripen did something so important that I still can't believe the mainstream press hasn't made anything of it. With nothing more than a few "small boats and aircraft," van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.

What this means is as simple and plain as a skull: every US Navy battle group, every one of those big fancy aircraft carriers we love, won't last one single day in combat against a serious enemy.

...

But what van Ripen did to the US fleet...that's something very different. He was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.

That should scare the hell out of everybody who cares about how well the US is prepared to fight its next war. It means that a bunch of Cessnas, fishing boats and assorted private craft, crewed by good soldiers and armed with anti-ship missiles, can destroy a US aircraft carrier. That means that the hundreds of trillions (yeah, trillions) of dollars we've invested in shipbuilding is wasted, worthless.

...

Carriers are not only the biggest and most expensive ships ever built--they're the most vulnerable. Because even one serious cruise-missile hit means the carrier can't launch its planes, its best weapons. They will sink to the bottom with their crews, not having fired a shot.

...

The signs have been there all along. In the Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force, which ain't exactly the A Team, managed to shred the British fleet, coming in low and fast to launch the Exocets. And they did all this hundreds of miles off their coast, with no land-based systems to help.

If the Argentines could do that with 1980 technology, think what the Chinese, Iranians or North Koreans could do in 2003 against a city-size floating target like a US carrier.

...

Anti-ship missiles are easy to make and use, because surface ships are very slow, have huge radar signatures, and can't dodge.

...

Suppose the Iranians use van Riper's method: send everything at once, from every ship, plane and boat they've got, directly at the carrier. Give the Navy the benefit of the doubt and say they get 90% of the incoming missiles. You still end up with a dead carrier.

Now try shifting the scenario to a US-China fight off Taiwan. The Chinese have it all: subs, planes, anti-ship missiles-Hell, they SELL that stuff to other countries! I'll say it plain: no American carrier would last five minutes in a full-scale naval battle off China.

-/-/-

Well, durned if the Iranians showed they'd learned from van Riper even if the US Navy refused to. To celebrate the new year, the neocons decided to send another battle group into the Persian Gulf. And guess how the Iranians reacted. Yup: they sent a bunch of small "civilian" speedboats to harass the frigate screen, zipping and zooming in the US Navy's wakes.

...

If they had any sense they'd realize that the way to deal with big overloaded targets is to saturate their defenses with a swarm of low-cost attackers. If you've got lives to spend, and the Iranians sure do, you spend lives to sink hardware. It's a good trade, when you consider what a carrier costs, and how little the average Iranian life is worth. They're Shia! These guys can't wait to give their lives away. The Kamikazes were squeamish moderates compared to the Revolutionary Guard. And thanks to Silicon Valley and its Chinese knockoffs, you can fire swarms of unmanned rockets instead of Shia martyrs, so you don't even need to spend one life per blip on the US fleet's little screens. You can even send empty rocket tubes as part of the swarm, because in the few seconds the surface vessel has to react, it can't determine which threats are nuke, which are conventional HE and which are decoys.

...

If it was me, and maybe I'm too "cynical" or something, I'd send all my empty missile tubes and expendable suicide squads in the first wave, all at once like van Riper did. I'd count to 90, because 90 seconds would be enough to empty every Phalanx magazine--and you can bet that those scared Navy computer nerds down in the Operations Room would be holding the red buttons down till the barrels were melting when they realized they were under a real attack. Then, while the grunts below deck were hauling the ammo into position, I'd send the second wave with the real stuff. And that, as they say, would be that. A trillion dollars of US Navy hardware becomes an artificial reef.

If I'm wrong, US Navy bosses, why don't you show the taxpayers how invulnerable your battle groups are? Bring van Riper out of retirement and give him the Iranian weapons mix, including speedboats, small planes and soviet-clone antiship missiles. Set up an automated frigate somewhere where we can watch, and let us see that Phalanx knock down every single bee in that sting-swarm.

Of course the Navy won't ever stage a test like that.

...dubious? Hardly.

Which to me is a significant contributor to general MidEast animosity towards Israel and the United States. Israel solves almost all of its problems through overwhelming firepower and not only does the United States tend to look the other way or give a slap on the wrist whenever Israel goes too far, it continues to funnel billions of dollars and military hardware to it, in effect condoning the practice of Equestrian Medicine.

Oh, I completely agree. It's idiotic.

But I doubt it will change anytime soon. The whole situation has become too locked. Something would have to radically change in order for this to be resolved, and that's not going to happen without some nigh miraculous circumstances.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15976&IBLOCK_ID=35

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

Emphasis mine...



...dubious? Hardly.

The article makes a couple of assumptions that are not valid, like Phalanx CIWS being the only anti-missile defense modern naval ships carry. ECM and long range missiles are the weapon of choice these days for cruise missile protection, extending the window of opportunity to a much greater time and distance than the few seconds Phalanx CIWS usually have to make an intercept.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/us.iran/index.html

(CNN) -- Iran test-fired more missiles overnight, Iranian news media reported Thursday, one day after it tested a long-range Shahab-3 and other missiles in the Persian Gulf region.

Oh dear...

The article makes a couple of assumptions that are not valid, like Phalanx CIWS being the only anti-missile defense modern naval ships carry. ECM and long range missiles are the weapon of choice these days for cruise missile protection, extending the window of opportunity to a much greater time and distance than the few seconds Phalanx CIWS usually have to make an intercept.

The article did not assume that missiles were the only inbound threat. What good is a Standard Mk III AA missile against a speedboat loaded with explosives??

Regardless of the inbound threat, the end result is the same. If a target is oversaturated to the point that missles and guns are both out of ammo, or there are simply too many inbounds to properly engage all threats, then ECM alone is unlikely to save a vessel from a determined attack.

...I doubt very much that circumstances will be any more favorable in an actual conflict than they were in the war-game the articles reference. If we lost 2/3 of the fleet in the war-game, what will an actual conflict look like??

The article did not assume that missiles were the only inbound threat. What good is a Standard Mk III AA missile against a speedboat loaded with explosives??

Regardless of the inbound threat, the end result is the same. If a target is oversaturated to the point that missles and guns are both out of ammo, or there are simply too many inbounds to properly engage all threats, then ECM alone is unlikely to save a vessel from a determined attack.

...I doubt very much that circumstances will be any more favorable in an actual conflict than they were in the war-game the articles reference. If we lost 2/3 of the fleet in the war-game, what will an actual conflict look like??

My guess is that in an actual conflict we'll be much better prepared than we are in the war games. The whole point to the war games are to figure out and solve these problems.

Would we go with no losses at all? Absolutely not. But I think the problem is just a wee bit overstated here. The U.S. Navy is the most technologically powerful in the world, both in sophistication and sheer power. Our fleets are capable of handling some saturation.

(Though admittedly I don't like the prospect very much and would rather we avoid the whole thing entirely. That, however, will probably depend on what Israel wants to do.)

The article did not assume that missiles were the only inbound threat. What good is a Standard Mk III AA missile against a speedboat loaded with explosives??

Regardless of the inbound threat, the end result is the same. If a target is oversaturated to the point that missles and guns are both out of ammo, or there are simply too many inbounds to properly engage all threats, then ECM alone is unlikely to save a vessel from a determined attack.

...I doubt very much that circumstances will be any more favorable in an actual conflict than they were in the war-game the articles reference. If we lost 2/3 of the fleet in the war-game, what will an actual conflict look like??

The hit rate of "swarms" of missiles fired is nowhere near as high as people imagine it to be, especially when ECM is involved. ECM and other countermeasures can't be "overwhelmed" by a saturation attack. If the type of sensor is susceptible to ECM and countermeasures, the missile goes stupid and won't hit anything.

Modern SAM systems like those on US ships, whether long range (Standard), medium range (Sea Sparrow), short range (Rolling Airframe Missile) or very short (Phalanx) are all fully automatic in all aspects of engagement - that is, once on, humans are essentially not in control of the engagement - the systems will lock onto, engage, and fire at multiple targets simultaneously. They will also re-engage in the unlikely event of a miss - in fractions of a second.

Compared to antiquated systems like the Sea Dart, you need more missiles attacking than are defending - with Sea Dart, the low rate of fire and manual engagement makes it far, far easier to overwhelm.

You also must know a lot more about coordinating attacks by missiles, sharing target data, etc., if you're going to do a massive attack - failure to coordinate and have accurate target data (i.e., firing only on bearing data is BAD), you may have a chance at making the US fire a lot of defensive missiles, but you won't hit anything. The Iranians haven't demonstrated any of that ability.

As to the Boghammer threat (small boat attacks), modifications were made to Phalanx across the fleet a few years ago (yes, the Navy has studied the threat) and modified the software to automatically track and engage small boats within a specified distance of the ship. I can't imagine that a small speedboat can dodge several hundred computer-aimed depleted uranium shells delivered in a second or two - or survive such a hit.

Additionally, a new type of canister shell (made to burst at dynamically programmed distances from the ship) was made for the 5" gun - once again, a gun that automatically engages - the shell is specifically designed to sharply raise the odds of a hit on a small fast boat, and designed to shred the boat from one end to the other on a single hit.

The article did not assume that missiles were the only inbound threat. What good is a Standard Mk III AA missile against a speedboat loaded with explosives??

Regardless of the inbound threat, the end result is the same. If a target is oversaturated to the point that missles and guns are both out of ammo, or there are simply too many inbounds to properly engage all threats, then ECM alone is unlikely to save a vessel from a determined attack.

...I doubt very much that circumstances will be any more favorable in an actual conflict than they were in the war-game the articles reference. If we lost 2/3 of the fleet in the war-game, what will an actual conflict look like??

If ECM jamming takes place early enough, you can rule out every kind of cruise missile short of those with inertial and opto-electronic based guidance, that cuts down a lot of ordnance already coming its way. That leaves speedboats and very low flying ground effect aircraft, which unless Russia has been selling their Caspian Sea Monsters on the sly, don't carry a lot of ordnance.

You'd need to get a whole lot of boats, and space them far apart enough that hitting one won't start off a chain reaction of explosions.

I won't say that the US Navy will get off unscathed, but it's really up in the air whether the numerical advantage will play the deciding factor. It will be more along how long Iran can keep the element of surprise in that situation while spoofing US sensor systems with fakes.


Would we go with no losses at all? Absolutely not. But I think the problem is just a wee bit overstated here. The U.S. Navy is the most technologically powerful in the world, both in sophistication and sheer power. Our fleets are capable of handling some saturation.

There is a point where saturation reaches a point that no amount of technical superiority can overcome it. Can Iran field that kind of saturation? No idea.

If ECM jamming takes place early enough, you can rule out every kind of cruise missile short of those with inertial and opto-electronic based guidance, that cuts down a lot of ordnance already coming its way. That leaves speedboats and very low flying ground effect aircraft, which unless Russia has been selling their Caspian Sea Monsters on the sly, don't carry a lot of ordnance.

You'd need to get a whole lot of boats, and space them far apart enough that hitting one won't start off a chain reaction of explosions.

I won't say that the US Navy will get off unscathed, but it's really up in the air whether the numerical advantage will play the deciding factor. It will be more along how long Iran can keep the element of surprise in that situation while spoofing US sensor systems with fakes.



There is a point where saturation reaches a point that no amount of technical superiority can overcome it. Can Iran field that kind of saturation? No idea.

Probably not - as I said, the saturation requires coordination.

It's unlikely that you can coordinate enough small boats to effectively cripple the US fleet in the area. When the day is done, yes a few US ships will be hit - but there won't be any speedboats left, nor any Iranian missiles in reserve.

After that, the US will have legitimate license to bomb missile sites on land, and bomb and destroy harbor facilities. It's called an "act of war" for a reason. It won't be possible to say, "ooh the ebil US started this".

Probably not - as I said, the saturation requires coordination.

It's unlikely that you can coordinate enough small boats to effectively cripple the US fleet in the area.

If you know what ships are there, how many, basic formation and divvy up the targets before sending everyone out with an agreed upon starting signal, you need very little coordination beyond that.


When the day is done, yes a few US ships will be hit - but there won't be any speedboats left, nor any Iranian missiles in reserve.

That's a very dumb assumption. Any tactical planner will always have reserves.


After that, the US will have legitimate license to bomb missile sites on land, and bomb and destroy harbor facilities. It's called an "act of war" for a reason. It won't be possible to say, "ooh the ebil US started this".

That depends on who bombed who first. If American planes strike Iranian facilities first, there is no denying that the Americans started it, as much as you want to whine otherwise.

And all Iran has to do is cripple the launch capabilities of the carriers. That instantly kills off any ability to field long range airpower without rerouting a whole lot of aerial tankers.

If the fleets stock of AA weaponry is depleted after the first saturation, they can always follow on with a second strike of proper air and naval units, picking off the ships at near leisure until ground based air assets can be brought into play.

If you know what ships are there, how many, basic formation and divvy up the targets before sending everyone out with an agreed upon starting signal, you need very little coordination beyond that.


Unfortunately, it's not as easy as that. Iranian Boghammers rely on a mothership for every 5 to 10 boats to coordinate their attacks against single ships. They are in constant radio contact during the engagement (yes, there have been engagements over the past few years).

The US Navy found that when you sink the mother ship (air support carrying cluster bombs is very effective), the boats become uncoordinated (partially through a failure of morale, and partially because they no longer have a bearing to a moving target).

The line of sight from the deck of a small boat to the horizon is painfully short - if you're tracking a manuevering target that's over the horizon, and you lose the mother ship (which has radar), you're blind, and if you go over the horizon, you'll get shot before you can locate your target.

The other problem here is that the mother ship is an active emitter. Active emissions in combat can be lethal mistakes.

Been expecting something like this. Iran showed some pretty impressive missiles when they did some test firing a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as that. Iranian Boghammers rely on a mothership for every 5 to 10 boats to coordinate their attacks against single ships. They are in constant radio contact during the engagement (yes, there have been engagements over the past few years).


The difference between Iranian harassment boats and suicide boats is that one doesn't need to know anything other than what to hit and where while the other one needs to be told when and when to come back.


The US Navy found that when you sink the mother ship (air support carrying cluster bombs is very effective), the boats become uncoordinated (partially through a failure of morale, and partially because they no longer have a bearing to a moving target).

And you're going to prove this, because I'm quite certain shooting someone else's boats is an act of war, and the Iranians would have raised a big fuss over it.


The line of sight from the deck of a small boat to the horizon is painfully short - if you're tracking a manuevering target that's over the horizon, and you lose the mother ship (which has radar), you're blind, and if you go over the horizon, you'll get shot before you can locate your target.


Please. The juiciest target is a carrier. Carriers are big, slow ass targets. it takes one half an hour to even make a full turn. A speedboat, if unchallenged, could run from the shore, bump hulls with the carrier, and run home before it did more than move a few kilometers.

That depends on who bombed who first. If American planes strike Iranian facilities first, there is no denying that the Americans started it, as much as you want to whine otherwise.
Uhu. The Americans won't get dragged into this when the Israelis will bomb their nuclear sites of their own accord to be quite honest.

And you're going to prove this, because I'm quite certain shooting someone else's boats is an act of war, and the Iranians would have raised a big fuss over it.

The Gulf is larger than you think. And the carriers are further from shore than you think.

Moving at 30 knots (which you have to do to maintain air ops). They also change course.

To get to the carrier, you would have to get past all the weapons of the ships around it.

As to sinking Iranian boats - from an email I got from a friend who was there when the boats were sunk by US and UK forces:

The beauty of the PG is that in fact it is really a huge body of water and the key is to deny them sanctuaries ... if they try anything like they did in 1987, which was to station dozens of HSBs and RHIBs under their oil platforms, that just means their oil platforms will be destroyed and that would defeat their principle mission of protecting their waters. The coastal areas where they have to transit from are just a one way shooting range ... the surface MANPAD threat is real enough (we captured Stingers in two Boghammars we sank) but I know from my experience in the 1991 "Battle of Mini-Trafalgar" (Where our US/UK combined air/helo task force obliterated over 70 Iraqi ships and PTGs running for Iran's harbors) that helos can standoff +15 miles, outside of MANPAD range and blast the hello out of them. The British Sea Skua missile really hurt the Iraqis in 91... they sank twelve ships. I met one Lynx helo crew with four ship kills alone. I don't know if the Penguin has been used in combat yet but if the Iranians come out with HSBs they can be struck from 24 miles with them. The only issue is planning for this eventuality happening right away. If the missiles aren't in theater in capacity and the mission planning isn't ready for a 24 hour anti-smallcraft operation then we have to engage with lots of tactical air and that could get interesting since we are still not so good at deconfliction ... especially with civil airliners

In a way, it's a win-win situation for them. If they talk big and we just talk back, then they look tough for starring us down. If we bomb them back to the stone-age then they look like martyrs.

I'm not very sure becoming a martyr counts as winning.

Its more like a lose-lose situation for the US, not a win-win for Iran.

Some of their missiles are Photoshop missiles, which are generally harmless...

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

The Gulf is larger than you think. And the carriers are further from shore than you think.

Moving at 30 knots (which you have to do to maintain air ops). They also change course.

I am aware of the size of the Gulf and the top speed of the Nimitz class of carriers. I also know that with their abominable turn rate, they can't change course very much in a short period of time for any appreciable distance.


To get to the carrier, you would have to get past all the weapons of the ships around it.

Which is what saturation is for.


As to sinking Iranian boats - from an email I got from a friend who was there when the boats were sunk by US and UK forces:

Assuming this friend of yours isn't made up, he's making a few assumptions that will likely not get passed. Like destroying the oil rigs. Russia wouldn't stand for it, and have made some statements regarding what they would consider an attack on Iran to be. Furthermore the current administration is all about keeping oil for themselves, not burning it.

And I'm not going to take the word of some anonymous person regarding acts of war who is neither accountable or identifiable.

I'm not very sure becoming a martyr counts as winning.

Its more like a lose-lose situation for the US, not a win-win for Iran.
More like a lose-lose situation for the whole world.

The US citizens get dragged into another stupid pointless war. The Iranian populace gets the shaft thanks to their radical leader. The entire Middle-East gets destabilized further, with Islamist fundamentalist gaining more clout and power due to another invasion on their soil.

The rest of the world also loses because the world as a whole has just been made an even unsafer place, and Europe, Canada, Australia and all the other western industrialized nations loses out even more because they'll likely be the ones who need to clean up the whole damn mess before world war three starts up.

Which is what saturation is for.
With what, exactly?

I was unaware that the Persians have massive stocks of anti-shipping missiles, to be quite honest.
Assuming this friend of yours isn't made up, he's making a few assumptions that will likely not get passed. Like destroying the oil rigs. Russia wouldn't stand for it
Once it's blown up, it's blown up, and saying "that was bad" won't bring it back.
and have made some statements regarding what they would consider an attack on Iran to be.
Aye, hurrah for platitudes.
Furthermore the current administration is all about keeping oil for themselves, not burning it.
It would be extremely unsound to do, with the price of oil. On the other hand, we could just steal their oil rigs. That would be pretty nifty.
And I'm not going to take the word of some anonymous person regarding acts of war who is neither accountable or identifiable.
Then look up Iraqi shipping losses in the Gulf War...

Let's just hope that this won't evolve into a war. Nobody will benefit from it. Except, ofcourse, for the guys who sell the weapons.

Assuming this friend of yours isn't made up, he's making a few assumptions that will likely not get passed. Like destroying the oil rigs. Russia wouldn't stand for it, and have made some statements regarding what they would consider an attack on Iran to be. Furthermore the current administration is all about keeping oil for themselves, not burning it.

And I'm not going to take the word of some anonymous person regarding acts of war who is neither accountable or identifiable.

Malcolm Nance.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/authors/malcolm-nance/bio/

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/MalcolmNance.php

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/10/missile.iran/index.html

U.S. vows to defend against Iran missile threat

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- responding to Iran's latest test-firings of missiles -- has made it clear Thursday her country is determined to prevent Tehran from threatening the interests of itself and allies like Israel.


Well, there goes that neighbourhood...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/10/missile.iran/index.html

U.S. vows to defend against Iran missile threat

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- responding to Iran's latest test-firings of missiles -- has made it clear Thursday her country is determined to prevent Tehran from threatening the interests of itself and allies like Israel.


Well, there goes that neighbourhood...

It's never been a great neighborhood.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374243,00.html

If oil in an otherwise worthless piece of real estate is reason to fight over a place, we will be fighting over North Dakota soon.

Oh wait, they already have nuclear missiles...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/10/missile.iran/index.html

U.S. vows to defend against Iran missile threat

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- responding to Iran's latest test-firings of missiles -- has made it clear Thursday her country is determined to prevent Tehran from threatening the interests of itself and allies like Israel.


Well, there goes that neighbourhood...

Sounds like the plan all along. Bush visits Isreal. An Isreali minister makes a threat to Iran 2 weeks later. Of COURSE Iran is going to run a misslie test. So now we officially are involved in a war that has nothing to do with us. Anything to sell a burger... err get defense contracts signed.

IMPEACH AND ARREST THE SCAMMERS!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374243,00.html

If oil in an otherwise worthless piece of real estate is reason to fight over a place, we will be fighting over North Dakota soon.

Oh wait, they already have nuclear missiles...
Aye, well there's yer problem :p
Sounds like the plan all along. Bush visits Isreal. An Isreali minister makes a threat to Iran 2 weeks later. Of COURSE Iran is going to run a misslie test. So now we officially are involved in a war that has nothing to do with us. Anything to sell a burger... err get defense contracts signed.
Why would you bother to occupy Iran? Really?

Why would you bother to occupy Iran? Really?
Exactly! No money in that! Plenty of money in defense contracts by pissing them off and conducting military exercises within their borders.

Aye, well there's yer problem :p

Why would you bother to occupy Iran? Really?

It would probably be possible, in a matter of weeks, to destroy the entire industrial and military infrastructure in Iran (including all of the power, water, sewer, bridges, ports, rail lines, pipelines, etc) with conventional weapons alone from the air.

Yes, why occupy?

Exactly! No money in that! Plenty of money in defense contracts by pissing them off and conducting military exercises within their borders.
... the defense contracts of which you're whining are probably the Halliburton/Blackwater deals which are for their help in occupying Iraq, costing the US taxpayer billions per year.

Stuff like "buying new bombs and the like" isn't being done all that much, indeed the JDAM project is being done to cut down on costs from that kind of thing.

It would probably be possible, in a matter of weeks, to destroy the entire industrial and military infrastructure in Iran (including all of the power, water, sewer, bridges, ports, rail lines, pipelines, etc) with conventional weapons alone from the air.

Yes, why occupy?
Aye, well in a related manner, why bomb their cities and the like?

Let the Israelis take out the nuclear site(s). If the Persians then attack US or coalition forces, annihilate their military. But there's no need to harm the civilian population whatsoever.

... the defense contracts of which you're whining are probably the Halliburton/Blackwater deals which are for their help in occupying Iraq, costing the US taxpayer billions per year.

Stuff like "buying new bombs and the like" isn't being done all that much, indeed the JDAM project is being done to cut down on costs from that kind of thing.

Right. JDAM project. So how will these greedy bastards get their contracts now? A war with Iran would certainly do the trick. Bush, Cheney & the cronie bunch have been carefully putting everything in place so one will happen.

It would probably be possible, in a matter of weeks, to destroy the entire industrial and military infrastructure in Iran (including all of the power, water, sewer, bridges, ports, rail lines, pipelines, etc) with conventional weapons alone from the air.

Yes, why occupy?

Yes I agree. We would have all this done before the fisrt 2 weeks are up. (of the year 2075)

Right. JDAM project. So how will these greedy bastards get their contracts now? A war with Iran would certainly do the trick.
I don't see why. Let the Israelis do their thing on the nuclear site(s). Then if they attack us, we hit them with a couple of thousand bombs.

This is small beans.
Bush, Cheney & the cronie bunch have been carfully putting everything in place so one will happen.
Takes two to tango and all that.

Yes I agree. We would have all this done before the fisrt 2 weeks are up. (of the year 2075)
Seeing as we have about 100 planes in the Persian Gulf from Coalition forces, the Israelis have another 100-odd, and we can bring more in from as far as the US itself with in-flight refueling, I don't see why it would take particularly long, especially if you're taking Tomahawk missiles into account.

Seeing as we have about 100 planes in the Persian Gulf from Coalition forces, the Israelis have another 100-odd, and we can bring more in from as far as the US itself with in-flight refueling, I don't see why it would take particularly long, especially if you're taking Tomahawk missiles into account.

And how often does a few hundred planes and a few thousand bombs do us any good? Didn't work very well in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would it work in Iran?

With what, exactly?

I was unaware that the Persians have massive stocks of anti-shipping missiles, to be quite honest.

I very much doubt that you, or I admittedly, know exactly how many anti-shipping missiles they have.


Once it's blown up, it's blown up, and saying "that was bad" won't bring it back.

One could say the same thing about certain US structures that are no longer in existence.


Aye, hurrah for platitudes.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Russia and China do like Iranian oil, seeing as how the Saudis are in bed with America, and Iraq is under their thumb. Threatening that could pose a strategic threat to them.


It would be extremely unsound to do, with the price of oil. On the other hand, we could just steal their oil rigs. That would be pretty nifty.

Then again, doing unsound things seems to have been the American hallmark of the last decade or so.


Then look up Iraqi shipping losses in the Gulf War...

Hotwife was talking about Iranian speedboats being sunk in recent times. I'm looking for evidence that it did happen, not what happened to someone else's boats a decade and a half ago.

Malcolm Nance.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/authors/malcolm-nance/bio/

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/MalcolmNance.php

You do realize I could just as easily construct a statement that the American Navy is doomed in the face of Iranian missiles and then slap on any name to it?

If you were a less dishonest person, I might have taken your statement at face value. But you have a long track record of falsehoods, so unless this guy has said as much in a public statement that went on record, which doesn't appear to be on the links you showed, I'm not buying it.

I can't say for certain, but the Iranians are claiming the modified Sahab-3 series are capable of trajectory modification. I don't know about the Russians not making an export variant of the Topol-M series though. Gas sales to Europe are bringing in the rubles, but high grade military hardware still fetches top dollar.


If I'm Russia, I say no to any strategic arms exports. One, it's not a good idea for me to give my most advanced ICBM to a nation which is at best a business associate. And I doubt the veracity of Iranian claims about having a MARV. That's very advanced for a, as far as we know, indigenous missile program.

They could easily just load it up with explosives, or cluster munitions, although that's a huge expense for an artillery rocket, so it's not really cost effective.

True true. I missle loaded with conventional munitions also doesn't act as any sort of deterrent. They're just simply bigger, more expensive versions of the SCUDs Iraq launched in 1991.


Probably not very, depending on where the warhead was hit. Above a certain altitude, biological and chemical compounds are either spread too thin or exposed to raw solar radiation which breaks them down.
I honestly don't know. I'm sure the Army or Air Force conducted tests at one time or another. I would love to see their results.

I very much doubt that you, or I admittedly, know exactly how many anti-shipping missiles they have.
They supposedly have about 60 medium-weight C-802 missiles, as used by Hezbollah to sink an Israeli corvette, which was supposedly "nothing like ready for it", according to the after-action report.

That and I'd imagine a few of their Koswar light anti-shipping missiles, first tested in April 2006, which would basically be a spitball against a large ship.

Dunno about anything else, but that doesn't look all that dangerous to me.
One could say the same thing about certain US structures that are no longer in existence.
Yes, or British, Turkish, Uzbekhi and Brazilian structures that are no longer in existance, amongst many others... what's your point?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Russia and China do like Iranian oil, seeing as how the Saudis are in bed with America, and Iraq is under their thumb. Threatening that could pose a strategic threat to them.
Not really, seeing as, as you pointed out, the regime will not blow up more oil than need be.
Then again, doing unsound things seems to have been the American hallmark of the last decade or so.
Yes, well there we go.
Hotwife was talking about sinking Iranian speedboats being sunk in recent times.
Sorry for the mix-up and all.

if the Israelis act Rashly. it will be just after the election but before Obama is put in office.

Let the Israelis take out the nuclear site(s). If the Persians then attack US or coalition forces, annihilate their military. But there's no need to harm the civilian population whatsoever.

lol. You seem like a smart person, Yootopia...you know the civilians always get shafted.

And how often does a few hundred planes and a few thousand bombs do us any good? Didn't work very well in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would it work in Iran?

Seriously? Close air support kept the U.S army/marines from being crushed during the Chosin retreat in Korea, the Linebacker II raids during Vietnam were some of the most devestating attacks in history (not to mention the other "fast movers" and the like which were called in for infantry support and won battles), during the first Gulf War coalition (aka U.S. and English, I think also German?) fighter bombers demolished the Iraqi army's resolve, supplies, and infastructure with minimal losses, and air raids in Iraq and Afghanistan have been some of the best ways to get to enemy troops.
The U.S. Airforce, and airforces around the world (especially the IDF's), have been some of the most important and powerful tools in modern warfare. I don't even understand where that came from.

Never mind the fleets of B-52, B-1B, and B-2 intercontinental bombers the U.S. has which could easily reach Iran from bases in Europe and even the United States.

Also, why do people think that if you take out the U.S. carrier presence in the gulf, there is no more air support?
First of all, see above comment. Secondly, people keep forgetting the Air Force bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. Third, the USS Abraham Lincoln is in the gulf of oman. Take out the U.S. carrier presence? Hard hit, certainly. Crippling? Far from it.

And why do people think that the carrier fleets are so fragile? Yes, it is (relatively) easy to damage a carrier to the extant that it is unable to have flight operations. But it is virtually impossible to sink them, and has not been done in the history of modern warfare. Moreover, they are surrounded by Burke-class AEGIS ships, destroyers, and attendant vessels, all of which have the most advanced anti-missile systems in history. There is no point in guessing what is happening, cus it is pure speculation.

As for people objecting to destroying oil platforms, they didn't back in the 80's.

/rant
*Deep breath*
Besides, I don't think the Iranians would attack the U.S. if Israel attacks. Retaliate against them? Certainly. Against the U.S.? All that would do is open up the way for mass retaliatory hits against Iran.

Seriously? Close air support kept the U.S army/marines from being crushed during the Chosin retreat in Korea, the Linebacker II raids during Vietnam were some of the most devestating attacks in history (not to mention the other "fast movers" and the like which were called in for infantry support and won battles), during the first Gulf War coalition (aka U.S. and English, I think also German?) fighter bombers demolished the Iraqi army's resolve, supplies, and infastructure with minimal losses, and air raids in Iraq and Afghanistan have been some of the best ways to get to enemy troops.
The U.S. Airforce, and airforces around the world (especially the IDF's), have been some of the most important and powerful tools in modern warfare. I don't even understand where that came from.

Never mind the fleets of B-52, B-1B, and B-2 intercontinental bombers the U.S. has which could easily reach Iran from bases in Europe and even the United States.

Also, why do people think that if you take out the U.S. carrier presence in the gulf, there is no more air support?
First of all, see above comment. Secondly, people keep forgetting the Air Force bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. Third, the USS Abraham Lincoln is in the gulf of oman. Take out the U.S. carrier presence? Hard hit, certainly. Crippling? Far from it.

And why do people think that the carrier fleets are so fragile? Yes, it is (relatively) easy to damage a carrier to the extant that it is unable to have flight operations. But it is virtually impossible to sink them, and has not been done in the history of modern warfare. Moreover, they are surrounded by Burke-class AEGIS ships, destroyers, and attendant vessels, all of which have the most advanced anti-missile systems in history. There is no point in guessing what is happening, cus it is pure speculation.

As for people objecting to destroying oil platforms, they didn't back in the 80's.

/rant
*Deep breath*
Besides, I don't think the Iranians would attack the U.S. if Israel attacks. Retaliate against them? Certainly. Against the U.S.? All that would do is open up the way for mass retaliatory hits against Iran.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan: Objective not achived. Although as you pointed out about Korea, the firepower might come in handy in a retreat. (but that's about it) The face of war has changed. Home turf is what it's all about now. (in most cases) Even if a Superpower like China were to send 100 million troops to invade America, they would get their ass handed to them in a hat. If we were to invade Iran, we wouldn't even get the hat.

If I'm Russia, I say no to any strategic arms exports. One, it's not a good idea for me to give my most advanced ICBM to a nation which is at best a business associate. And I doubt the veracity of Iranian claims about having a MARV. That's very advanced for a, as far as we know, indigenous missile program.

Russia didn't seem to have any trouble selling their earlier generation strategic arms to business associates. Maybe not now, but I wouldn't bet everything on them not selling the Topol-Ms, or at least a few pointers in the right direction for large sums of money.

As for Iranian claims of a MARV, it can't be dismissed out of hand. We are talking about a nation that went from not having anything more advanced than katyushas to a nearly complete satellite delivery rocket in the space of what, 20 years? They took the lessons of the Iran/Iraq war regarding long range missiles very seriously.

It's not something that can be believed straight away, but it's something that you can't just pass off as propaganda either. The only way to find out is if they do more tests and other countries verify it, or in the event of war.


True true. I missle loaded with conventional munitions also doesn't act as any sort of deterrent. They're just simply bigger, more expensive versions of the SCUDs Iraq launched in 1991.

Depends though. If they made it a very heavy rocket with a dense core, it would make a fairly effective kinetic energy weapon. Still expensive as heck though.


I honestly don't know. I'm sure the Army or Air Force conducted tests at one time or another. I would love to see their results.

I doubt they're going to publish them anytime soon.

They supposedly have about 60 medium-weight C-802 missiles, as used by Hezbollah to sink an Israeli corvette, which was supposedly "nothing like ready for it", according to the after-action report.

That and I'd imagine a few of their Koswar light anti-shipping missiles, first tested in April 2006, which would basically be a spitball against a large ship.

Dunno about anything else, but that doesn't look all that dangerous to me.


I imagine the Iranians would be keeping a very close hand on their missile stockpiles though. From what I remember though, they're rumored to have an unknown number of the Raduga P-270 Moskvits, considered to be the best anti-shipping missiles to date with a target response time of about 30 seconds from launch due to its Mach 3 cruise speed.


Yes, or British, Turkish, Uzbekhi and Brazilian structures that are no longer in existance, amongst many others... what's your point?


America went to war over a few of them. It makes for a suitable excuse to go to war with, now that there is a precedent, although to be fair, it's always been a precedent.


Not really, seeing as, as you pointed out, the regime will not blow up more oil than need be.


It would be an unsound action, which you agreed is the American hallmark of the last decade or so. Dismissing it out of hand now is a little naive don't you think?


Sorry for the mix-up and all.

No problem.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan: Objective not achived. Although as you pointed out about Korea, the firepower might come in handy in a retreat. (but that's about it) The face of war has changed. Home turf is what it's all about now. (in most cases) Even if a Superpower like China were to send 100 million troops to invade America, they would get their ass handed to them in a hat. If we were to invade Iran, we wouldn't even get the hat.

Korea, sure it was. Did we unite the Koreas? No. But the objective was to keep South Korea from becoming communist, and that did succede.
Vietnam, I can argue that the U.S. did not fail, since South Vietnam didn't fall until after we left; however, totally different thread, and I would rather not start a whole argument about that right now. The point is, ask any Vietmese how they felt about American air support. It wont be a happy answer.
Not gonna argue about Afghanistan or Iraq (this time around, that is...I maintain, and fact supports, that air power played a crucial role in the first gulf war).

But I disagree that home turf is what its about.
How long did the Iraqi military last against the U.S.? Three days? We kicked nine shades of hell out of their army and crushed the government...thats when the problems started. AKA why the fuck are we occupying them? grumblegrumble.
So while I think that occupying Iran would indeed be a disaster, the Iranian military wouldn't last particularly long. Especially if they attack U.S. forces in Iraq, which is one of the main concerns. In a conventional military conflict, they have no chance.

Setulan:
My point is there is really no such thing as a conventional military conflict anymore. The civies are going to get involved from now on, no matter where we go.

How long did the Iraqi military last against the U.S.? Three days? We kicked nine shades of hell out of their army and crushed the government...thats when the problems started. AKA why the fuck are we occupying them? grumblegrumble.
So while I think that occupying Iran would indeed be a disaster, the Iranian military wouldn't last particularly long. Especially if they attack U.S. forces in Iraq, which is one of the main concerns. In a conventional military conflict, they have no chance.

The Iraqi military at the time of the 2nd Gulf War was a crippled, starving wreck of it's original form, thanks in no small part to air raids for over a decade and sanctions. You will not find the same thing here in Iran.

Furthermore, in regards to your assertions about American carriers, I must point out that no modern US carrier has ever faced a significant threat in terms of a massed strike. One might as well argue that you are invulnerable because you haven't been killed yet.

Additionally, any response from land based airfields in the Middle East or from Europe will take time. If Iran launches a double knockout blow, first by disabling the carriers and getting the fleets to expend their missiles on a first wave of cheap, massed units, the second with the air force and navy proper, they will be able to do a lot of damage before that response gets there.

This is discounting any possibility of Iranian saboteurs disabling or delaying the land based aircraft from launching in contested areas.

Certainly, the US can then go on to launch any number of strategic strikes from European bases, but at the cost of losing a significant portion of the fleets striking power, a heavy blow to its image of military supremacy and further destabilization of the Middle East.

Of course this assumes that the Iranian attack will achieve a few of its goals, which is a matter left in the air.

Setulan:
My point is there is really no such thing as a conventional military conflict anymore. The civies are going to get involved from now on, no matter where we go.

I agree to a point, but I won't argue it cus its dinner time :p

The Iraqi military at the time of the 2nd Gulf War was a crippled, starving wreck of it's original form, thanks in no small part to air raids for over a decade and sanctions. You will not find the same thing here in Iran.

I know that. But look at the ORBAT for the U.S. and Iran, and see if you can pick out who has the edge from that alone. Again, different thread if you feel like starting it. Unless you start a thread about it, which I will gladly respond to after I eat, I maintain that in a conventional conflict Iran would almost certainly (cus there is no certainty in combat) be defeated by the U.S.

Furthermore, in regards to your assertions about American carriers, I must point out that no modern US carrier has ever faced a significant threat in terms of a massed strike. One might as well argue that you are invulnerable because you haven't been killed yet.

Disclaimer-

There is no point in guessing what is happening, cus it is pure speculation.

I know. I was simply reminding people that the U.S. Navy has spent lots of time and money in protecting said ships from anything the U.S.S.R. could throw against them...and there is no way Iran can match that military capability. I'm not saying they are invulnerable, read my post. I'm saying they will be hard to kill.


Additionally, any response from land based airfields in the Middle East or from Europe will take time. If Iran launches a double knockout blow, first by disabling the carriers and getting the fleets to expend their missiles on a first wave of cheap, massed units, the second with the air force and navy proper, they will be able to do a lot of damage before that response gets there.

I want to argue this point, but it is too vague...what kind of attack are we talking about? Again, another thread. My point wasn't that we wouldn't be hurt, it is that it would not be a crippling blow, and we could respond rapidly to a problem. Sorties from bases in the middle east could be launched in a matter of minutes (I'm assuming that there has been a noticable increase in hostilities that has everyone on edge) to retaliate. And don't forget Old Abe in the Gulf of Oman.

This is discounting any possibility of Iranian saboteurs disabling or delaying the land based aircraft from launching in contested areas.

Please. Aircraft in those places are in concrete hangers with armed guards. Its not like civilians can walk in and touch the pretty airplane.

Certainly, the US can then go on to launch any number of strategic strikes from European bases, but at the cost of losing a significant portion of the fleets striking power, a heavy blow to its image of military supremacy and further destabilization of the Middle East.

It's not really significant? I don't know the exact numbers, but I DO know that we have a pisspot full (a rather technical term for a technical discussion) of carriers, and again, they are very, very hard to completely destroy. A hard hit? Yes. Crippling? No. As for the military supremecy thing, please. The military loses no face when they are surprise attacked by a superior enem force and take damage. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say the U.S. is rather good at recovering from what is thought to be irreparable damage...

Also, if Iran attacks the U.S. fleets, there won't be anything left to stabilize-the entire world will be up shit creek without a paddle.

Of course this assumes that the Iranian attack will achieve a few of its goals, which is a matter left in the air.

Always a big assumption, which is why I find these conversations to be intriguing hypothetical exercises. What if X happens? What about Y? The thing is, we are talking about war. And NOTHING goes entirely right in warfare.

Now if you will excuse me, you have already made me late for dinner. :p

I know that. But look at the ORBAT for the U.S. and Iran, and see if you can pick out who has the edge from that alone. Again, different thread if you feel like starting it. Unless you start a thread about it, which I will gladly respond to after I eat, I maintain that in a conventional conflict Iran would almost certainly (cus there is no certainty in combat) be defeated by the U.S.

I'm not talking about the long term victory of Iran in such a conflict. It is undeniable that the US has more men and material it can throw Iran's way in the long run, but it can't do that in the hour or so it would take for Iran to make that hit with the US fleets.

It would depend on who shot who first, but Iran's ties to Russia does grant it some leeway.


I know. I was simply reminding people that the U.S. Navy has spent lots of time and money in protecting said ships from anything the U.S.S.R. could throw against them...and there is no way Iran can match that military capability. I'm not saying they are invulnerable, read my post. I'm saying they will be hard to kill.

Hard to kill yes, but if they become unable to launch their aircraft and expend their defensive ordnance on the first wave, they will become extra vulnerable, and much easier to kill for the simple fact that the naval air patrol would have to go back to land to resupply.


I want to argue this point, but it is too vague...what kind of attack are we talking about? Again, another thread. My point wasn't that we wouldn't be hurt, it is that it would not be a crippling blow, and we could respond rapidly to a problem. Sorties from bases in the middle east could be launched in a matter of minutes (I'm assuming that there has been a noticable increase in hostilities that has everyone on edge) to retaliate. And don't forget Old Abe in the Gulf of Oman.


Disabling the carrier launch capability would be a crippling blow the fleet, no two ways about it. If I were an Iranian tactical planner, that would be the primary objective. Sinking it would be desirable, but not central so long as it is the first strike of expendable suicide boats, aircraft and missiles that do it. With that done, proper bombers and the like would move in for the kill.


Please. Aircraft in those places are in concrete hangers with armed guards. Its not like civilians can walk in and touch the pretty airplane.


I'm thinking mortar attacks on the airfield, or if they're good, sneak a large bomb under it. Aircraft without a runway are sitting ducks.



It's not really significant? I don't know the exact numbers, but I DO know that we have a pisspot full (a rather technical term for a technical discussion) of carriers, and again, they are very, very hard to completely destroy. A hard hit? Yes. Crippling? No. As for the military supremecy thing, please. The military loses no face when they are surprise attacked by a superior enem force and take damage. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say the U.S. is rather good at recovering from what is thought to be irreparable damage...

In most cases, the lack of losing face can be passed by the loss of infantry, tanks, aircraft and the like. They are tactical assets, meant to be used and lost. Strategic assets like carriers, not so much. They're the most visible sign of American conventional military force projection.


Also, if Iran attacks the U.S. fleets, there won't be anything left to stabilize-the entire world will be up shit creek without a paddle.


So the question to ask is this. Is it really worth it to let Israel and Iran go at it hammer and tongs and risk the shit creek?


Now if you will excuse me, you have already made me late for dinner. :p

Precisely my plan. For while you were replying, I have stolen your dinner! Ahahahaha! :p

I'm not talking about the long term victory of Iran in such a conflict. It is undeniable that the US has more men and material it can throw Iran's way in the long run, but it can't do that in the hour or so it would take for Iran to make that hit with the US fleets.

It would depend on who shot who first, but Iran's ties to Russia does grant it some leeway.

I reluctantly agree with this. Keeping in mind the fickle nature of war, and that none of us actually know all the crap the U.S. and Iran has over there, I feel like anything I say about "Yes we can, we can attack with X, Y, and Z within twenty minutes!" is inherently incorrect.

And not so sure about the Russia factor. It's definitely the wild card, but I'm not sure that the Russians would be too thrilled with the idea of openly supporting a country that just attacked the U.S. Not in public? Probably break open some vodka. But not openly.

Hard to kill yes, but if they become unable to launch their aircraft and expend their defensive ordnance on the first wave, they will become extra vulnerable, and much easier to kill for the simple fact that the naval air patrol would have to go back to land to resupply.

Again, all theory, but going on a limb I'm going to say that they have supplies with the fleet. Which begs the question, how fast can they load? But I think you are underestimating the U.S. reaction time. If there is anybody on NSG who knows (cus I dunno where the hell I would find it online) how long an action of this sort takes, we might be able to put together a more coherent picture. But I imagine within minutes of an attack being picked up by the fleet, there will be lots of planes flying in support.

Disabling the carrier launch capability would be a crippling blow the fleet, no two ways about it. If I were an Iranian tactical planner, that would be the primary objective. Sinking it would be desirable, but not central so long as it is the first strike of expendable suicide boats, aircraft and missiles that do it. With that done, proper bombers and the like would move in for the kill.

Certainly. (More strategy than tactics, but I'll let it slide :p) On the same note, I'm sure that the carrier Admirals also have their own plans for just such a contingency, cus they know just as well as the Iranians how important they are. Neither plan is going to go entirely right, so the question is which side is more flexible? My money is on the Admirals, but I still have faith in the U.S. military :p

I'm thinking mortar attacks on the airfield, or if they're good, sneak a large bomb under it. Aircraft without a runway are sitting ducks.

Theoretically a possibility. Then again, planning so comprehensive a strike would take months of planning, which is all time the U.S. would have to rumble the operation. Your talking about a HUGE undertaking, with limited chance of success. However, if said operation does go through (and however much it hurts, props to the Iranians for pulling off what would be a brilliant operation), you are absolutely correct that it would hamper efforts to support the fleet.

In most cases, the lack of losing face can be passed by the loss of infantry, tanks, aircraft and the like. They are tactical assets, meant to be used and lost. Strategic assets like carriers, not so much. They're the most visible sign of American conventional military force projection.

True, and it would be a rough hit...but then again, we lost most of our Pacific Fleet on December 7th, and it united the country. *shrug* you never know how that kind of thing will work. One thing is for certain though-if they do serious damage to the fleet, thousands of Americans will die...and that will piss of the U.S. like no other. World War Three, here we come.

So the question to ask is this. Is it really worth it to let Israel and Iran go at it hammer and tongs and risk the shit creek?

Ah, and that is where I am torn :( I don't want there to be more violence-war with Iran=my unit gets deployed before I am done college (111th Infantry). On the other hand, I have lots of friends in Israel, and the idea of a nuclear Iran gives me chills.


Precisely my plan. For while you were replying, I have stolen your dinner! Ahahahaha! :p

Aha! I wondered where all my brussel sprouts went! :p

My guess is that in an actual conflict we'll be much better prepared than we are in the war games. The whole point to the war games are to figure out and solve these problems.

I would certainly hope so.

Would we go with no losses at all? Absolutely not. But I think the problem is just a wee bit overstated here. The U.S. Navy is the most technologically powerful in the world, both in sophistication and sheer power. Our fleets are capable of handling some saturation.

Some, sure...but how much can Iran bring to the table? It is impossible for you or I to be certain, and even US intelligence may not know for sure.

(Though admittedly I don't like the prospect very much and would rather we avoid the whole thing entirely.

I agree 100%

That, however, will probably depend on what Israel wants to do.)

I love that the lives of our service men are in the hands of the Israeli government.

The hit rate of "swarms" of missiles fired is nowhere near as high as people imagine it to be, especially when ECM is involved. ECM and other countermeasures can't be "overwhelmed" by a saturation attack. If the type of sensor is susceptible to ECM and countermeasures, the missile goes stupid and won't hit anything.

Hit rate doesn't much matter...all they have to do is have two waves. The first is intended to fail, and it's only goal is to deplete the ships of their missile stocks. The second wave scores kills.

Modern SAM systems like those on US ships, whether long range (Standard), medium range (Sea Sparrow), short range (Rolling Airframe Missile) or very short (Phalanx) are all fully automatic in all aspects of engagement - that is, once on, humans are essentially not in control of the engagement - the systems will lock onto, engage, and fire at multiple targets simultaneously. They will also re-engage in the unlikely event of a miss - in fractions of a second.

I'm aware of the capabilities of our Naval AA systems, but an Iranian attack will not just be missiles. It will be ships (civilian and military), planes (civilian and military), shore based missiles, shore based artillery (if any targets are in range), ship and shore based unguided rockets, and perhaps other threats we can only speculate upon (subs, chem/bio/nuke weapons, etc.)

You also must know a lot more about coordinating attacks by missiles, sharing target data, etc., if you're going to do a massive attack - failure to coordinate and have accurate target data (i.e., firing only on bearing data is BAD), you may have a chance at making the US fire a lot of defensive missiles, but you won't hit anything. The Iranians haven't demonstrated any of that ability.

No, the Iranians have not demonstrated the ability to coordinate an attack on this scale.

Neither has the US demonstrated the ability to mount an effective defense against a saturation attack of this magnitude.

Again, while war-games are not an actual engagement, the fact that we lost 2/3 of a fleet in a war-game to these tactics does not inspire me with confidence.

As to the Boghammer threat (small boat attacks), modifications were made to Phalanx across the fleet a few years ago (yes, the Navy has studied the threat) and modified the software to automatically track and engage small boats within a specified distance of the ship. I can't imagine that a small speedboat can dodge several hundred computer-aimed depleted uranium shells delivered in a second or two - or survive such a hit.

The articles I linked stated the ammo issues with Phalanx. If Phalanx is tied up dealing with surface threats, what stops Iran from utilizing the two-wave tactic I described??

Additionally, a new type of canister shell (made to burst at dynamically programmed distances from the ship) was made for the 5" gun - once again, a gun that automatically engages - the shell is specifically designed to sharply raise the odds of a hit on a small fast boat, and designed to shred the boat from one end to the other on a single hit.

I'm sure that every effort has been made to increase the effectiveness of US naval weapons systems in the event of an attack of this nature, but ships carry only so many missiles and so much ammunition, and in this type of scenario, no target can be ignored.

Does Iran have enough assets to over-saturate our fleet? I don't know, and neither do you...but I'll bet they have more than Van Ripen had to work with in the wargame in 2002, and he took out 2/3 of the US task force.

If ECM jamming takes place early enough, you can rule out every kind of cruise missile short of those with inertial and opto-electronic based guidance, that cuts down a lot of ordnance already coming its way. That leaves speedboats and very low flying ground effect aircraft, which unless Russia has been selling their Caspian Sea Monsters on the sly, don't carry a lot of ordnance.

ECM is something I am not entirely knowlegable about, but I am sure Iran is taking into account. They might be crazy...but they are not stupid, and they have plenty of willing martyrs. Depending on their assets, they might not even bother with missiles in the first wave. Manned boats and planes may be the sole composition of the first wave.

Also, one must consider that both sides are looking for provocation. If Iran suddenly changes its mind and decides to fire the first shot, the warning will be minimal.

You'd need to get a whole lot of boats, and space them far apart enough that hitting one won't start off a chain reaction of explosions.

I'm betting the Iranians are aware of both of those facts.

I won't say that the US Navy will get off unscathed, but it's really up in the air whether the numerical advantage will play the deciding factor. It will be more along how long Iran can keep the element of surprise in that situation while spoofing US sensor systems with fakes.

Again, the USN must engage all incoming targets. How many of those targets in the first wave will be unguided rockets with no warhead??

There is a point where saturation reaches a point that no amount of technical superiority can overcome it. Can Iran field that kind of saturation? No idea.

I hope they cannot....but I'll bet that they can.

I imagine the Iranians would be keeping a very close hand on their missile stockpiles though.
Quite.
From what I remember though, they're rumored to have an unknown number of the Raduga P-270 Moskits, considered to be the best anti-shipping missiles to date with a target response time of about 30 seconds from launch due to its Mach 3 cruise speed.
Uhu. If it hits. Having watched videos of Persian tests of the missile, they seemed to have trouble hitting and destroying immobile ships. Keep in mind also that their maximum range is supposedly about 200km, depending on the version sold - a tomahawk strike can hit at 1,000 miles off.
America went to war over a few of them. It makes for a suitable excuse to go to war with, now that there is a precedent, although to be fair, it's always been a precedent.
Aye we wouldn't be going to war over a few buildings, we'd be going to war if the Persians attacked our fleets in the gulf as a reprisal against the imminent airstrike on their nuclear sites, though.
It would be an unsound action, which you agreed is the American hallmark of the last decade or so. Dismissing it out of hand now is a little naive don't you think?
Not particularly. They're naive, and then there's "raise oil prices massively" naive.

With what? Speedboats? The American Navy will somehow survive.

Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Riper) disagrees with you.

Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Riper) disagrees with you.

Doesn't look like a naval officer to me...

Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Riper) disagrees with you.

And how did the link you provided prove anything exactly? There isnt a US military officer on the planet that believes Iran has any naval capabilities capable of winning a war with the US Navy.

Gee... Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper is the guy that sunk the gulf US fleet during the Millennium Challenge 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002).

Gee... Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper is the guy that sunk the gulf US fleet during the Millennium Challenge 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002).

Having participated in many exercises in the 1980s (Army), I can tell you that these "simulations" have no bearing on reality. Just because you get your ass whipped in "an exercise" doesn't mean that the very same thing will happen in reality.

Most of our opponents in exercises (being other Americans) are far more skilled than our enemies.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330937574&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

srael Air Force (IAF) war planes are practicing in Iraqi airspace and land on US airbases in the country as a preparation for a potential strike on Iran, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network on Friday.

The report, which was also carried by Iranian news outlets, claimed that recently massive IAF overnight presence was detected in several American held airbases.

Iraq denied on Friday reports claiming the Israeli Air Force has been practicing for a possible attack against Iran in its airspace.

According to the sources, former military officers in the Anbar province said IAF jets arrive during the night from Jordanian airspace, enter Iraq's airspace and land on a runway near the city of Hadita. The sources estimated the jets were practicing for a raid on Iran's nuclear sites.

The sources also said the American bases in Iraq might serve as a platform for the IAF from which to attack Iran. If Israeli warplanes will take off from Iraq, they can reach Bushehr in five minutes - a "record time," the sources said.

After reports of a massive IAF exercise over the Mediterranean surfaced several weeks ago, an Israeli official told the times that the drill was "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel was the "strongest country in the region." Sending a thinly veiled warning to Iran, Barak said Israel "has already proved it did not shy away in the past from acting when it fears its vital interests are at stake."

If I were living anywhere near Natanz, I would think about moving immediately. Once they bomb the centrifuge facility, the nearby area is going to be contaminated with radioactive material from the centrifuges.

And how often does a few hundred planes and a few thousand bombs do us any good? Didn't work very well in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would it work in Iran?

How could you forget about Kosovo?

Most of our opponents in exercises (being other Americans) are far more skilled than our enemies.
How very narcissist of you. This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes countries lose a war they would otherwise have won had they not underestimated their opponent and overestimated themselves.

How very narcissist of you. This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes countries lose a war they would otherwise have won had they not underestimated their opponent and overestimated themselves.

Im not sure what your smoking but in this case, estimating that the US Navy > Iranian Navy is a pretty safe bet war games of any sort not withstanding.

How very narcissist of you. This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes countries lose a war they would otherwise have won had they not underestimated their opponent and overestimated themselves.

Ever seen what it would take to sink an aircraft carrier?

You couldn't pack enough explosives in a Boghammer speedboat.

You think they haven't spent the past few years changing the loadout on surface ships specifically to counter the small boat threat?

You believe that the SM-3 (which didn't exist at the time of the exercise) isn't deployed and operational in the Persian Gulf? So that we can shoot down ballistic missiles in flight now (and just about anything else)?

You believe that we don't fly more surface attack aircraft on patrol with weapons specifically meant for the small boat threat? Mmm?

You believe we haven't changed anything at all?

Or that we've just designed and built AND launched a submarine type specifically meant to combat the Iranian diesel subs in littoral waters?

Or that the entire Navy has shifted its focus to battle in the littoral areas?

Looks like:
a) You underestimate the US Navy
b) You don't know anything

That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Iraq switch from "Hey it's gonna be a walk in the park" into a military and financial catastrophe.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Iraq switch from "Hey it's gonna be a walk in the park" into a military and financial catastrophe.

You'll notice that the Army changed tactics, and the surge worked.

You'll notice that the Navy has radically changed since the exercise - to defeat the kinds of threats posed in the exercise.

You're continuing to assert that it's "business as usual".

You'll notice that the Army changed tactics, and the surge worked.

You'll notice that the army changed tactics three years after the initial invasion and the following catastrophic occupation that followed.

My point is exactly this: that if the initial invasion hadn't been planned out by people so overconfident that it'd be a walk in the park and there would be no opposition, people welcoming US forces as liberators, then perhaps the adequate number of troops would have been committed initially instead of three years later.

Saving a couple thousand soldier's and several thousand civilian's lives, as well as three years of all-out civil war in a destroyed country in the process.

Can you start to see where I'm getting at now?

You'll notice that the army changed tactics three years after the initial invasion and the following catastrophic occupation that followed.

My point is exactly this: that if the initial invasion hadn't been planned out by people so overconfident that it'd be a walk in the park and there would be no opposition, people welcoming US forces as liberators, then perhaps the adequate number of troops would have been committed initially instead of three years later.

Saving a couple thousand soldier's and several thousand civilian's lives, as well as three years of all-out civil war in a destroyed country in the process.

Can you start to see where I'm getting at now?

It took time in the Army because it came from the bottom up - a CPT Travis Patriquin came up with the strategy three months into the war. It circulated up almost immediately, and was stomped on by CIVILIANS at the Pentagon.

Until the CIVILIANS at the Pentagon were desperate, no one wanted to listen to the idea and let the Army change the tactics the way it wanted to.

Can you start to see where I'm getting at?

The Navy is ALREADY changing and HAS BEEN changing, so it's not taking the three years. Because it has PERMISSION to do so.

Changing major policy, tactics, weaponry, strategies - all of that requires APPROVAL by CIVILIANS at the Pentagon.

From Dr. Strangelove: "Do you remember what Clemenceau said? He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought."

Well, it's a joke in a movie, but it's accurate. The typical civilian has NO capacity for this sort of thought, and zero experience in it. The idea on how to change the strategy in Iraq to a winning one came from a military officer - not a civilian. And if you remember, it was civilians like Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush who got us into this - not the generals.

Obviously you missed the point. Oh, well.

It's not the fact that they're civilian that made them close-minded to military and tactical changes. It's the fact that they were convinced they could not possibly lose and nothing could go wrong that made them ignore sound advice.

If anyone, military staff or civilians, think going into Iran will be "a walk in park" just because you've got bigger guns, better planes and CAGs and aegis destroyers, then you're opening yourself up for the same sort of debacle.

A trained professional soldier driving a state-of-the-art armored vehicle can get gutted by an untrained local wielding a bone knife if he lowers his guard because he's overconfident and thinks he can't possibly be taken by surprise.

EDIT: In other words, all of the stupid childish dick-waving "We're better than they could ever hope to be!" in this thread is what leads to most of the recent debacles of the US army whenever that sentiment is shared by those in charge, be them civilians or army staff.

How could you forget about Kosovo?

My point exactly. It's worked one time since Korea. The only way to achieve any kind of goal in a conflict with Iran would be go get most of the world to support us. The Bush forign policy has made sure that that will never happen.

Obviously you missed the point. Oh, well.

It's not the fact that they're civilian that made them close-minded to military and tactical changes. It's the fact that they were convinced they could not possibly lose and nothing could go wrong that made them ignore sound advice.

If anyone, military staff or civilians, think going into Iran will be "a walk in park" just because you've got bigger guns, better planes and CAGs and aegis destroyers, then you're opening yourself up for the same sort of debacle.

A trained professional soldier driving a state-of-the-art armored vehicle can get gutted by an untrained local wielding a bone knife if he lowers his guard because he's overconfident and thinks he can't possibly be taken by surprise.

EDIT: In other words, all of the stupid childish dick-waving "We're better than they could ever hope to be!" in this thread is what leads to most of the recent debacles of the US army whenever that sentiment is shared by those in charge, be them civilians or army staff.

Don't you see? When they get overconfident and fine themselves gutted in such a debacle, that suddenly becomes a convenient justification for Staying the Course, because all of a sudden there's Evil People Out There who need to be "brought to justice" and that someone overconfident getting gutted is a sure sign that "the region is unstable" and thus we need to increase our military presence in order to "bring freedom and democracy" to the area.

Apologies if this has been posted already.

Saw in the papers today a funny thing on this.

Apparently 3 of the missiles fired and one did not. The photo at the revolutionary guards website had a photoshopped picture with a really amateurish fix...some guy took one of the bigger missile with its trail, zoomed out a bit and pasted it on the one that did not fire...:p

My point exactly. It's worked one time since Korea. The only way to achieve any kind of goal in a conflict with Iran would be go get most of the world to support us. The Bush forign policy has made sure that that will never happen.
Err... what about the first Gulf War, as well?

Err... what about the first Gulf War, as well?

Pardon me but if the first Gulf War was a victory then wtf are we doing there now?

If anyone, military staff or civilians, think going into Iran will be "a walk in park" just because you've got bigger guns, better planes and CAGs and aegis destroyers, then you're opening yourself up for the same sort of debacle.

A trained professional soldier driving a state-of-the-art armored vehicle can get gutted by an untrained local wielding a bone knife if he lowers his guard because he's overconfident and thinks he can't possibly be taken by surprise.
Iran is not going to be a war of occupation.

So problems such as "your tanks can get mobbed", or "IEDs can kill you" are not a threat. If we do attack Iran, it'll be another war where we use precision guided munitions to destroy key Persian targets and then watch as the whole thing pretty much returns to the status quo ante bellum and all that.

Also I would love to hear cases of state-of-the-art armoured vehicle drivers being gutted by untrained locals with bone knives. War of Abyssinia notwithstanding.

Pardon me but if the first Gulf War was a victory then wtf are we doing there now?
The first Gulf War was a victory because we repelled Iraqi forces attacking Kuwait, and generally annihilated their armed forces.

The second Gulf War was not particularly related to the first, and was about oil. What we're doing there now is kicking about ensuring that the Persian government doesn't exert more influence on Iraqi politics and its economic situation that us.

Iran is not going to be a war of occupation.

So problems such as "your tanks can get mobbed", or "IEDs can kill you" are not a threat. If we do attack Iran, it'll be another war where we use precision guided munitions to destroy key Persian targets and then watch as the whole thing pretty much returns to the status quo ante bellum and all that.


Until one day when a Persian walks into a dark room in a dark building on a dark street somewhere and buys some black market WMDs. (athough my guess would be it has already happened)

The first Gulf War was a victory because we repelled Iraqi forces attacking Kuwait, and generally annihilated their armed forces.

The second Gulf War was not particularly related to the first, and was about oil. What we're doing there now is kicking about ensuring that the Persian government doesn't exert more influence on Iraqi politics and its economic situation that us.

Hahahaha! Save that for the tourists. But thanks for reminding me. It was not once but actually twice that a Bush has declared victory in Iraq! Even though we went back and forth, several times to Iraq in the 90s, invaded again in 2003 and are still there now. LoL! Priceless! :p

Hahahaha! Save that for the tourists. But thanks for reminding me. It was not once but actually twice that a Bush has declared victory in Iraq! Even though we went back and forth, several times to Iraq in the 90s, invaded again in 2003 and are still there now. LoL! Priceless! :p

Now be fair. Bush the Elder was actually intelligent. He knew that overrunning and occupying Iraq would be a terrible idea and lead to a neverneding occupation liberally sprinkled with guerilla attacks here and there, even though Saddam Hussein was easily in a position to be knocked off a decade or two earlier.

Dubya on the other hand thought he could "finish Daddy's job" and now look what we got.

You'll notice that the army changed tactics three years after the initial invasion and the following catastrophic occupation that followed.

My point is exactly this: that if the initial invasion hadn't been planned out by people so overconfident that it'd be a walk in the park and there would be no opposition, people welcoming US forces as liberators, then perhaps the adequate number of troops would have been committed initially instead of three years later.

Can you start to see where I'm getting at now?

A valid point. But you can bet that Army officers (and Navy, Marines, etc), will not be underestimating the Iranians. And if the shit hits the fan, said officers will be able to run the war the way they want to for at least the first few hours before politicians screw it up.

And people did welcome us as liberators. Unless you think the U.S. troop tearing down the statue of Hussein with hundreds of cheering Iraqis was fake?

Obviously you missed the point. Oh, well.

It's not the fact that they're civilian that made them close-minded to military and tactical changes. It's the fact that they were convinced they could not possibly lose and nothing could go wrong that made them ignore sound advice.

Not arguing it in theory, but are you really going to tell me that the upper echelons of the U.S. military are that stupid? So I'm going to have to say that yes, civilian being totally oblivious to facts had alot to do with the current problem.

If anyone, military staff or civilians, think going into Iran will be "a walk in park" just because you've got bigger guns, better planes and CAGs and aegis destroyers, then you're opening yourself up for the same sort of debacle.

I have not met a single man or woman in uniform who thinks that a war with Iran would be a cake walk.

A trained professional soldier driving a state-of-the-art armored vehicle can get gutted by an untrained local wielding a bone knife if he lowers his guard because he's overconfident and thinks he can't possibly be taken by surprise.

Quoted cus I love bone knives, and the image of a shirtless guy climbing on to a tank with a knife behind his back while an oblivous tank crewman was napping made me laugh. :p

[/QUOTE]EDIT: In other words, all of the stupid childish dick-waving "We're better than they could ever hope to be!" in this thread is what leads to most of the recent debacles of the US army whenever that sentiment is shared by those in charge, be them civilians or army staff.[/QUOTE]

Just reiterating that no, I have never met a soldier who is that overconfident. Especially those who have smelled the smoke. Civilians? Yes. Lets just hope the next president listens when his generals talk. sigh*

Until one day when a Persian walks into a dark room in a dark building on a dark street somewhere and buys some black market WMDs. (athough my guess would be it has already happened)

Why is it assumed that WMD's are so easy to get? I don't understand this kind of talk. If they were so easy to procure, why havn't we been attacked? Why doesn't Iran have nukes already? How come Israel, target number one for terrorists, hasn't been gassed/virus bombed? The fact is, WMD's are either a)virutally impossible to obtain (such as nuclear arms, biological weapons), b) virtually impossible to contain safely (such as nuclear, biological, AND chemical weapons), or a combination of the two.

Until one day when a Persian walks into a dark room in a dark building on a dark street somewhere and buys some black market WMDs. (athough my guess would be it has already happened)
Ah yes. Am super scared etc.
Hahahaha! Save that for the tourists. But thanks for reminding me. It was not once but actually twice that a Bush has declared victory in Iraq! Even though we went back and forth, several times to Iraq in the 90s, invaded again in 2003 and are still there now. LoL! Priceless! :p
Uhu... how was the first Gulf War not a success, then?

The second has been débâcular in the extreme, granted. But the first was very much a success.

Uhu... how was the first Gulf War not a success, then?

The second has been débâcular in the extreme, granted. But the first was very much a success.

QFT

I never understand when people say that the First Gulf War was lost, and I've heard it a bunch recently. The objective was not to knock out Saddam, it was to kick him out of Kuwait. An operation which most certainly succeded.
(I'm a desert shield baby :p)

Why is it assumed that WMD's are so easy to get?
Because the nation in question (Iran) borders Russia and does a lot of business with China.

I don't understand this kind of talk. If they were so easy to procure, why havn't we been attacked?
Their missiles cannot reach The West.

How come Israel, target number one for terrorists, hasn't been gassed/virus bombed?
We know for sure that Isreal has nukes. How come they have not used them on Iran? How come the US, China & Russia havn't launched? The answer to all these questions would be the same.

The fact is, WMD's are either a)virutally impossible to obtain (such as nuclear arms, biological weapons), b) virtually impossible to contain safely (such as nuclear, biological, AND chemical weapons), or a combination of the two.

Just not true. Hell we have a bio weapon plant here in a small Alabama town. And if an Iranian eventually died as a result of transporting and securing such weapons, it would'nt be that much of a bother to them.

Here you go:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashim.htm

Looks like the NYT is going to say the whole missile test was a fake.

Here you go:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashim.htm

Looks like the NYT is going to say the whole missile test was a fake.

I had heard there was only one missile and they did some sort of cut & paste to make it look like more.

In any event, I think the NYT plan is the best. They should even ridicule them and maybe Iran will conduct another test. (the more tests they run, the more we can learn about their missile capability)

Because the nation in question (Iran) borders Russia and does a lot of business with China.

No argument there, but it doesn't change the fact that countries don't up and decide "Huh, I want to give WMD's to my unstable neighboring country!"

Their missiles cannot reach The West.

And? If it is as easy as you say to get warheads, it shouldn't be that hard to get the delivery systems.

We know for sure that Isreal has nukes. How come they have not used them on Iran? How come the US, China & Russia havn't launched? The answer to all these questions would be the same.

What incentive have the chinese had to launch? The US and Russia didn't launch cus of MAD. Israel doesn't obliterate its neighbors because they know of the huge negative fallout they will get, especially from the US.

Iran doesn't care about world opinion, doesn't care how many of its people die, and has a sworn enemy who they have vowed to wipe off the map. You do the math.

Just not true. Hell we have a bio weapon plant here in a small Alabama town. And if an Iranian eventually died as a result of transporting and securing such weapons, it would'nt be that much of a bother to them.

Again, I ask-then why don't all those countries in Africa get them to suppress their own people? How come every third world dictatorship and its neighbor have don't have them? And as for the not being bothered by one of their own people dying, see my above comment.


In any event, I think the NYT plan is the best. They should even ridicule them and maybe Iran will conduct another test. (the more tests they run, the more we can learn about their missile capability)

Amen to that.

No argument there, but it doesn't change the fact that countries don't up and decide "Huh, I want to give WMD's to my unstable neighboring country!"
'Countries" don't control the black market.


And? If it is as easy as you say to get warheads, it shouldn't be that hard to get the delivery systems.
? :confused: ?
How are you going to fit a missile into a suitcase or a truck? The movement of missiles are easily detected by satellite.


What incentive have the chinese had to launch?
Maybe over all those Chinese we killed when they were helping North Korea and Viet Nam.

Israel doesn't obliterate its neighbors because they know of the huge negative fallout they will get, especially from the US.
They bombed Lebanon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping and Bush patted them on the back. He HAS condemed Isreal on many occasions which amounted to absoluty nothing.

Iran doesn't care about world opinion, doesn't care how many of its people die, and has a sworn enemy who they have vowed to wipe off the map. You do the math.
No arguement there

Again, I ask-then why don't all those countries in Africa get them to suppress their own people? How come every third world dictatorship and its neighbor have don't have them?
While I'm sure some black marketeers would sell them, my guess is there is/was a very limited supply.

'Countries" don't control the black market.

Absolutely correct. In that case, answer me this-how many nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have dissapeared and could plausably be on the black market?


? :confused: ?
How are you going to fit a missile into a suitcase or a truck? The movement of missiles are easily detected by satellite.

And...?
In an earlier post, you said the only reason we hadn't been hit by a nuclear weapon is because-
Their missiles cannot reach The West.


Maybe over all those Chinese we killed when they were helping North Korea and Viet Nam.

First of all, they didn't develope nukes until 1964...long after the Korean war. Secondly, can you source that Chinese troops were killed in Vietnam? (That isn't meant to be snide. I actually have never heard that U.S. and Chinese forces clashed in that conflict).
Regardless of whether or not they did have nukes during Nam, and we did kill their troops, MAD would apply. Not really an incentive.

They bombed Lebanon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping and Bush patted them on the back. He HAS condemed Isreal on many occasions which amounted to absoluty nothing.

Actually, the primary reason was because of the repeated rocket strikes into Israeli settlements. And there is a world of difference between a conventional conflict and a nuclear one. You know as well as I do that you can't even compare the two.


While I'm sure some black marketeers would sell them, my guess is there is/was a very limited supply.

...which is my point.

PS-in response to an earlier post which I missed, we dont know for sure that Israel has nukes. By which I mean that there is no definitive proof, but you would have to be a complete and total moron to think they don't.

Absolutely correct. In that case, answer me this-how many nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have dissapeared and could plausably be on the black market?

A rather impossible question isn't it?

First of all, they didn't develope nukes until 1964...long after the Korean war.
They couldn't still be pissed?



Actually, the primary reason was because of the repeated rocket strikes into Israeli settlements. And there is a world of difference between a conventional conflict and a nuclear one. You know as well as I do that you can't even compare the two.

You have to admit. Isreal has been hawkish as hell the past few years. The region was stable until Sept 2000 when Arial Sharon walked into the Muslim church with 1000 armed guards. (as a show of force) Some rocks were thrown (anybody would have known that would happen) the throwers were shot which was followed by several years of violence.

A rather impossible question isn't it?

The point is that it IS impossible. There is no way to tell how many illegal WMDs are floating around. All you can do is go off of the facts you know. We KNOW that WMD's are some of the most protected things ever created. We KNOW that if terrorist groups some how obtained WMDs, they would be used post haste against either the U.S. or Israel, and none has been.

Using these things we know, we can assume that no, no WMDs have been obtained recently by those who would use them against us.

They couldn't still be pissed?

Certainly they can. Frankly, during what should have been an overwhelming victory thanks to their numbers and surprise, they got their asses handed to them in what was one of the most effective fighting withdrawls EVER.
Digressing...Pissed enough to risk war against the worlds greatest superpower?
Keeping in mind their econonmy was still in a very early developmental stage.


You have to admit. Isreal has been hawkish as hell the past few years. The region was stable until Sept 2000 when Arial Sharon walked into the Muslim church with 1000 armed guards. (as a show of force) Some rocks were thrown (anybody would have known that would happen) the throwers were shot which was followed by several years of violence.

Not denying it. I never liked Sharon.

However, if you fire rockets at somebodys house, and they have the potential to strike back? Don't be surprised. Not getting into a debate about Israeli/middle eastern ethics.

Suffice it to say that my uncle, aunt, and two little cousins were in a mall that got hit by katushyas.

Quoted cus I love bone knives, and the image of a shirtless guy climbing on to a tank with a knife behind his back while an oblivous tank crewman was napping made me laugh. :p

It did happen, but with an AK-47 instead of a knife.

They couldn't still be pissed?

What would be the point of fomenting an unprofitable conflict when they can continue to send cheap exports to America, using American debt to build up their infrastructure and capabilities?

It did happen, but with an AK-47 instead of a knife.

...meh.
I still like the knife. What sounds more badass, eh?

...meh.
I still like the knife. What sounds more badass, eh?

I have to admit that I cannot help but reluctantly admire the cojones one needs to have in order to willingly assault a tank armed only with a knife.

I have to admit that I cannot help but reluctantly admire the cojones one needs to have in order to willingly assault a tank armed only with a knife.

I would only need a few things to beat a tank in a fight. Two carabiners, a crowbar, and a knife.

Having participated in many exercises in the 1980s (Army), I can tell you that these "simulations" have no bearing on reality. Just because you get your ass whipped in "an exercise" doesn't mean that the very same thing will happen in reality.

Most of our opponents in exercises (being other Americans) are far more skilled than our enemies.

No bearing on reality? If so then why do you think the following have happened?

Ever seen what it would take to sink an aircraft carrier?

You couldn't pack enough explosives in a Boghammer speedboat.

You think they haven't spent the past few years changing the loadout on surface ships specifically to counter the small boat threat?

You believe that the SM-3 (which didn't exist at the time of the exercise) isn't deployed and operational in the Persian Gulf? So that we can shoot down ballistic missiles in flight now (and just about anything else)?

You believe that we don't fly more surface attack aircraft on patrol with weapons specifically meant for the small boat threat? Mmm?

You believe we haven't changed anything at all?

Or that we've just designed and built AND launched a submarine type specifically meant to combat the Iranian diesel subs in littoral waters?

Or that the entire Navy has shifted its focus to battle in the littoral areas?

Looks like:
a) You underestimate the US Navy
b) You don't know anything

Having participated to similar exercises in 1994-1995 (NATO High Command) I can tell you that getting your ass whipped in "an exercise" usually leads to operative changes.
Exactly as happened (to a certain degree) to the US Navy after Millenium challenge 2002.
Exactly as should have happened to the US Army after Millenium Challenge 2002.

Analysis: Iran Fired "Same Old Missiles"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/11/world/main4255073.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4255073

one thing to say and its this:


THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE FUCKEDBY THE EARTHS POLITICAL DUMBASSES
:gas::gas::gas::gas::gas::gas::gas::gas:


thats it

I have to admit that I cannot help but reluctantly admire the cojones one needs to have in order to willingly assault a tank armed only with a knife.

:D uh huh. I mean, if two guys go into a bar and one says he took out a tank with an AK-47, and the other says he took out a tank with a knife, we both know who gets the free drinks.

one thing to say and its this:


THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE FUCKEDBY THE EARTHS POLITICAL DUMBASSES


I think "is being" would be more appropriate....