or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is This Iran's Last Chance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is This Iran's Last Chance?

post #1 of 86
Thread Starter 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Quote:
Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Iran is on a path toward a ``major breakthrough'' in its nuclear program that is ``unacceptable,'' Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz told a Washington audience today.

``It is an existential threat,'' Mofaz said at a forum on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ``We have to make sure we are prepared for every option.''

and:

Quote:
The five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K., plus Germany have proposed an economic and technological incentives package for Iran in exchange for a halt to enrichment.

At talks in Geneva on July 19, European diplomats and U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns gave Iran two weeks to reply to the offer and to their repeated calls for it to halt enrichment.

The current standoff seems to be moving forward, and not in a good direction. It would seem that world powers are making Iran an offer it cannot refuse...or else. Unfortunately, Iran appears to be growing even more defiant. It now has 6,000 operable centrifuges, with a stated goal of having 54,000 (source: MSNBC).

My question is not "should Israel and/or the US attack Iran?" but rather "will there be another incentive (positive or negative) offered if Iran rejects the current proposal?" I am beginning to think there will not be. Israel may conclude that it cannot allow the standoff to continue. Coupled with our political calendar, the odds of attack go up, particularly with an Obama victory. The conventional wisdom is that Israel (and perhaps the US) may not trust Obama to do what, in their view, must be done....thereby triggering an attack this fall.

Thoughts?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 86
The conventional (spelling) wisdom? Where did you get that?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #3 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide



and:



The current standoff seems to be moving forward, and not in a good direction. It would seem that world powers are making Iran an offer it cannot refuse...or else. Unfortunately, Iran appears to be growing even more defiant. It now has 6,000 operable centrifuges, with a stated goal of having 54,000 (source: MSNBC).

My question is not "should Israel and/or the US attack Iran?" but rather "will there be another incentive (positive or negative) offered if Iran rejects the current proposal?" I am beginning to think there will not be. Israel may conclude that it cannot allow the standoff to continue. Coupled with our political calendar, the odds of attack go up, particularly with an Obama victory. The convention wisdom is that Israel (and perhaps the US) may not trust Obama to do what, in their view, must be done....thereby triggering an attack this fall.

Thoughts?

It's not like they border the Strait of Hormuz or anything. It's not like SDW wouldn't get drafted or anything. It's not like gas prices wouldn't be $100/gallon or anything. It's not like Israel wouldn't be the instigator of a 21st century holocaust or anything. It's not like thare would be day long gas lines in the USofA or anything.

Question: What is it with your itchy trigger finger? This has to be at least the 6th time you've started a Duke Nukem Iran thread. Why don't you join a paramilitary outfit and get over there and fight the Iranians yourself G. I. Joe.

Just another boorish SDW thread.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #4 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


My question is not "should Israel and/or the US attack Iran?" but rather "will there be another incentive (positive or negative) offered if Iran rejects the current proposal?" I am beginning to think there will not be. Israel may conclude that it cannot allow the standoff to continue. Coupled with our political calendar, the odds of attack go up, particularly with an Obama victory. The convention wisdom is that Israel (and perhaps the US) may not trust Obama to do what, in their view, must be done....thereby triggering an attack this fall.

Thoughts?


Iran = Russia 1970
No infrastructure, no good housing, no culture, no investments in private industry, old cars, crumbling buildings and bridges (a lot like the US infrastructure) and people enslaved by a totalitarian regime.
They have no $$ to go to war.
Their threat is a political game by the ruling party and clerics to keep their own people thinking they have power. As long as we give them what they want, which is buying into their scam, we are supporting what we supposedly hate.

A common sense person like Obama will be much more likely not to fall for the BS and talk to the Iranian people to expose their leaders for what they are: little Saddams who can only stay in power through bull shit. i.e. mythical WMDs and bedtime stories of super advanced weapons and the big jewish threat. Much like Republicans in this country who need Iran 's bull to spread the old "We will protect you from those bad bullshitters because we have made bullshitting into a religion. Scary, booooooo.

(SDW2001 just defecated into his pants when the word WMD was mentioned)
post #5 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Iran = Russia 1970
No infrastructure, no good housing, no culture, no investments in private industry, old cars, crumbling buildings and bridges (a lot like the US infrastructure) and people enslaved by a totalitarian regime.
They have no $$ to go to war.
Their threat is a political game by the ruling party and clerics to keep their own people thinking they have power. As long as we give them what they want, which is buying into their scam, we are supporting what we supposedly hate.



(SDW2001 just defecated into his pants when the word WMD was mentioned)

Sorry but that is lame.

[edit]except the last sentance
post #6 of 86
laste chanse 2 get macksi box of kleenecks and supplys of popkawn lade in 4 wen the fun startts maibee
post #7 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Iran = Russia 1970
No infrastructure, no good housing, no culture, no investments in private industry, old cars, crumbling buildings and bridges (a lot like the US infrastructure) and people enslaved by a totalitarian regime.
They have no $$ to go to war.
Their threat is a political game by the ruling party and clerics to keep their own people thinking they have power. As long as we give them what they want, which is buying into their scam, we are supporting what we supposedly hate.

A common sense person like Obama will be much more likely not to fall for the BS and talk to the Iranian people to expose their leaders for what they are: little Saddams who can only stay in power through bull shit. i.e. mythical WMDs and bedtime stories of super advanced weapons and the big jewish threat. Much like Republicans in this country who need Iran 's bull to spread the old "We will protect you from those bad bullshitters because we have made bullshitting into a religion. Scary, booooooo.

(SDW2001 just defecated into his pants when the word WMD was mentioned)

It's amazing that there can be people that think like you. Barack Obama has common sense? Iran poses no threat?

Jamac, Iran has medium range missles capable of striking Israel. Were Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't need vast sums of money and an industrial base. They'd need one or two bombs. Don't think they'd do it? Think again. Iran is not Russia. The Russians could at least be counted on to be logical. There are elements of the Iranian leadership that believe it is their duty to help facilitate the return of the 12th Imam by bringing about the end of the word. What better way than to nuke Israel? It would surely result in a massive US response, perhaps even a nuclear one.

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_n...w.cgi/13/10945

Quote:
According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice...

...Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.

Ahmadinejad, who is only the second non-cleric to become president since the revolution, has made clear his immense respect for Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a deeply conservative cleric with close ties to the Hojjatieh-founded Haqqani theological school in Qom.

Iran has repeatedly made threatening statements towards Israel. Need I post them for you? Or, will you stick to the "Ahmadinejad was misquoted" lie?

And tell me...what is Obama going to say to these people? We've already offered them incentives. They've rejected them. Is he going to charm them...convince them that they are wrong and should give up? Really, I'm curious.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Jamac, Iran has medium range missles capable of striking Israel. Were Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't need vast sums of money and an industrial base. They'd need one or two bombs. Don't think they'd do it? Think again. Iran is not Russia. The Russians could at least be counted on to be logical. There are elements of the Iranian leadership that believe it is their duty to help facilitate the return of the 12th Imam by bringing about the end of the word. What better way than to nuke Israel? It would surely result in a massive US response, perhaps even a nuclear one.

It is obvious you prefer communism over theocracy.
Due to the great efforts of Mr. Bush, Iran has become a beacon of radical islam which in many ways parallels communism. How many Russians do you personally know? Communism is logical???
If there would be less of ueber idiotic people in the US like yourself we could move to using communications technology, a field that still is lead by the US (one of the few), to open new markets in countries which oppress their people and built grass root support of free information exchange. This would give everyone a way to form their own opinion AND create wealth through knowledge AND eradicate religious extremism.

Isreal has had plenty of nukes to wipe Iran of the map for decades. The US has plenty of nukes to turn matha earth into Mars. Everyone knows that modern nukes (1965) are about 1000 stronger than Hiroshima.

Ahmoud is right that nukes are 20st century. the technology is 50 years old and has not seen much development. The thing you use to type you idiocies is far more advanced than any current nuke.

By the time Iran's rockets reach Israel, Israels rockets will reach Iran. Before the US get's in the mix there is little left of either countries and little left of their neighbors as well. Knowing we can not trust international intelligence and our own satellite images this could happen today.

You are confused about religion and actual life. Christians have foreseen the end of the world every other week. You think somehow prophecy is truth. Then you also believe Nostradamus who predicted that the Antichrist will take power in the beginning of the 21st century (oops I guess he was right).
post #9 of 86
It is sad to see that some people choose to live in such fear that they will risk the world - and kill thousands of innocent people in the process - just to end their own selfish (and self-made) fears.

---

Israel has a rather well-developed anti-missile system in the Arrow II, which came online in 2000 and is designed for the threat of missile attack. They learned well from the SCUDs back in the first Iraq war. They also now have a rather good AEW system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_II

The US, were it to respond o any aggression against Israel, would most likely not use nukes, eve if that aggression were nuclear itself. The US is currently moving away from a primarily nuke deterrent. Remember how fun the cold war was growing up? We had an enemy! Billions of dollars were wasted on that enemy based on fear and a false representation to the public of the reality of the threat posed (or lack thereof). We sent a guy to the moon at the expense of a large portion of our GDP so that we could develop better missile tech with public funding that didn't require blackness. Why do many in the Us need to have so much fear? Couldn't we achieve much more as a nation if we could come out of the closet?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #10 of 86
I agree with Bergermeister. I know as a selfish person the one thing I am clamoring for more than just about anything else is a world war.

I mean the fact that someone has an anti-missle system explains perfectly why we should allow nuclear weapons and the countries that can create them to proliferate. It goes together like ice cream on caterpillers.

Thank you Berg for showing us all what selfish people we are for desiring to limit nuclear weapon proliferation. I'll go whip myself until I bleed to atone for my sins now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I agree with Bergermeister. I know as a selfish person the one thing I am clamoring for more than just about anything else is a world war.

But it seems that this administration is generous in thinking up ways of starting it.

Quote:
I mean the fact that someone has an anti-missile system explains perfectly why we should allow nuclear weapons and the countries that can create them to proliferate. It goes together like ice cream on caterpillars.

I know, it's seems that everytime we nudge them, they get to brag about their new missiles or even threaten to shut Gulf shipping lanes. Almost makes me want to believe that this "war" could start a little sooner. Before the election perhaps. Iran doesn't seem to have any options until afterwords.

Quote:
Thank you Berg for showing us all what selfish people we are for desiring to limit nuclear weapon proliferation. I'll go whip myself until I bleed to atone for my sins now.

Meanwhile artman @_@ escorts Bergermeister into the next room where there are 100 nonaligned nations backing Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear power.

Thought I'd bump this because it does seem to be the final hurrah for "Teh Legacy ®".
post #12 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

amac, Iran has medium range missles capable of striking Israel.

Blah, blah, blah. Whatever.

Try to think like an Iranian for a moment. Like I have.

I know a literal boatload about US Army logistics, so that helps me a lot.

The Iranians will not develop WMD's, but they most certainly want us to attack them at a time of their choosing. In the dead of summer, stifling summer. Make us think they have WMD's so that our military wears their WMD gear, in the dead of summer no less.

Their goal is simple. Destroy the oil resources pouring out of the Middle East. They have the high ground overlooking the Strait of Hormuz. They have the mobile launchers. They have the low EM technologies to move these assets nightly. They are deep and safe behind enemy lines and we don't have the logistics to reach those targets over land, can't spot them from the air. They have thousands and thousands, many thousands of conventionally armed ballistic missiles. We'd be flying thousands of sorties nightly as the Iranians launch a barrage of conventional ballistic missiles at these oil assets, and some will get through. Enough to cripple oil supplies and send gas prices into the stratosphere. Gas rationing will be mandatory.

They want us to attack them, that gives them all the justification they need to take out a large fraction of the current world's oil supply. Global depression occurs. Game over. We find no WMD's in Iran, major egg on our faces, America plummets into total chaos.

So by losing the battle to us the Iranians actually win the war, an economic war, a war we can't win, no way, no how.

The Iranians are playing us, they are pulling our strings, not the other way around. They are in control, while we are not, at least not while under a hard line war hawkish Republican administration.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #13 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Try to think like an Iranian for a moment. Like I have.

...

The Iranians are playing us, they are pulling our strings, not the other way around. They are in control, while we are not, at least not while under a hard line war hawkish Republican administration.

Hard to fathom, yet when the US already has their military might strapped in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe not. Yet that news about our inept stealth destroyers (ships that would have been a primary weapon used in a situation such as this) is disheartening.

Quote:
One source familiar with the classified briefing said that while anti-ship cruise missiles and other threats were known to exist, those aren't the worst. The new threat, which* didn't exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile. Other sources confirmed that a new, classified missile threat is being briefed at very high levels. One admiral, said another source, was told his ships should simply *stay away. There are no options. Information on the new threat remains closely held.



Quote:
In advance of the discussion Iran announced it had developed a "unique" new surface-to-ship missile with a range of 200 miles. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) hinted the missile would boost Iran's defensive capabilities in the Gulf, the key oil artery where it regularly contests the dominance of the US Navy.

He warned that Iran was ready to force the closure of the Gulf, a development that would push oil prices to levels. He said: "The possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz easily and on an unlimited basis."

Gen Jafari said the development of the missile constituted a blow for unnamed enemies, who had plans for a short war in the Gulf. He said: "We will prolong it."

That smug expression at first made me laugh, I'm not laughing anymore.

and...

post #14 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

It is obvious you prefer communism over theocracy.

Uh, OK.

Quote:
Due to the great efforts of Mr. Bush, Iran has become a beacon of radical islam which in many ways parallels communism.

Not due to the great efforts of Bush. It was a beacon of radical Islam long before him.

Quote:
How many Russians do you personally know? Communism is logical???

Moreso than radical Islam, yes it absolutely is. The Russians didn't want to destroy themselves to help bring about the end of the world. Their aggression was based on power, not religious extremism.

Quote:
If there would be less of ueber idiotic people in the US like yourself we could move to using communications technology, a field that still is lead by the US (one of the few), to open new markets in countries which oppress their people and built grass root support of free information exchange. This would give everyone a way to form their own opinion AND create wealth through knowledge AND eradicate religious extremism.

And we can then carpet the country with teddy bears and lollipops. Are you friggin kidding me? We're going to "fix" Iran by giving the population cell phones and myspace accounts?

Quote:

Isreal has had plenty of nukes to wipe Iran of the map for decades. The US has plenty of nukes to turn matha earth into Mars. Everyone knows that modern nukes (1965) are about 1000 stronger than Hiroshima.

Ahmoud is right that nukes are 20st century. the technology is 50 years old and has not seen much development. The thing you use to type you idiocies is far more advanced than any current nuke.

By the time Iran's rockets reach Israel, Israels rockets will reach Iran. Before the US get's in the mix there is little left of either countries and little left of their neighbors as well. Knowing we can not trust international intelligence and our own satellite images this could happen today.

The point is Iran may not be deterred by our nuclear power, because there is an element of their leadership that wants us to respond with disproportionate force.

Quote:

You are confused about religion and actual life. Christians have foreseen the end of the world every other week. You think somehow prophecy is truth. Then you also believe Nostradamus who predicted that the Antichrist will take power in the beginning of the 21st century (oops I guess he was right).

Deep end calling jamac. Come in, jamac! I'm not confused about anything. The fact is that Iran is not Russia circa 1970. Iran is a very different animal, so to speak. To dismiss the threat Iran may post is exceptionally naive.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The point is Iran may not be deterred by our nuclear power, because there is an element of their leadership that wants us to respond with disproportionate force.

I would believe that we did enter Iraq with "disproportionate force". Maybe mis-proportionate is a better word. But it was not a nuclear force (if you exclude depleted uranium...). We are the only one's who have used nuclear weapons so far, and for an end result. I don't think any nation will intend to use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, only terrorists. And if you are looking for the culprit who'd allow that, it isn't Iran, it is Pakistan.

As franksargent says, Iran is tempting us to do something. If their intention now is to block the Gulf, then we will, or Israel will retaliate.

Any escalation in this matter, if it gets dicey, expect Syria and maybe even Russia (look up Caspian Sea and Oil reserves) or China to be involved. And any stability we have brought to Iraq and Afghanistan will crumble.

But they want us to make the first move. We have 4-5 months of either a stand-off or a skirmish to war as far as this is concerned.
post #16 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

As franksargent says, Iran is tempting us to do something. If their intention now is to block the Gulf, then we will, or Israel will retaliate.

We will provoke Iran into doing something. That provocation would, out of necessity, be an offensive attack by "our side" first.

Say for instance we see what appears to be a massive buildup of ballistic missiles around the Strait of Hormuz. Short of going nuclear, a nightly move of only a few hundred meters is all that is necessary to defend against conventional munitions.

Now also seems to be an appropriate time to get a lay of the land/sea as it were. No military commander in his right mind would would ignore this. The planning phase is in fact the most important part of the exercise, if everything goes according to the plan to begin with. They spend months, and months, and months chewing over a multitude of strategic and tactical plans. They must know where there assent are and how rapidly these assets can be deployed. Ingress and Egress, to use military jargon.

[CENTER]
Mountains, mountains everywhere


Iran has a full 180 degrees of high ground


Plenty of mountains to the west to hide your missile assets


Shipping lanes right in front of you


Persian Gulf (click here for a much larger image) with plenty of rough high ground[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I would believe that we did enter Iraq with "disproportionate force". Maybe mis-proportionate is a better word. But it was not a nuclear force (if you exclude depleted uranium...).

Even if I were to agree with that (and I'm not sure I do), I don't think it's relevant. I was really talking about forcing the US to go nuclear or launch an all out aerial assault. There's one easy way to do that...attack Israel.

Quote:

We are the only one's who have used nuclear weapons so far, and for an end result. I don't think any nation will intend to use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, only terrorists. And if you are looking for the culprit who'd allow that, it isn't Iran, it is Pakistan.

You're thinking like a non-extremist. Logically, no nation would use nukes as an offensive weapon. But we're not dealing with the same Cold War era logic we've dealt with in the past. Consider for a moment that there are those in Iran's leadership that want to bring about the end of the world for religious reasons. In the least, some of these folks believe it is their duty to help facilitate the return of the 12th Imam. Now, is President Tom one of these people? I'm not sure. But he may be, and he's not where the real power lies anyway (the mullahs, of course).

Quote:

As franksargent says, Iran is tempting us to do something. If their intention now is to block the Gulf, then we will, or Israel will retaliate.

That I agree with.

Quote:

Any escalation in this matter, if it gets dicey, expect Syria and maybe even Russia (look up Caspian Sea and Oil reserves) or China to be involved. And any stability we have brought to Iraq and Afghanistan will crumble.

But they want us to make the first move. We have 4-5 months of either a stand-off or a skirmish to war as far as this is concerned.

I don't agree that Russia and China would get involved. We'd have WWIII in about thirty seconds if they engaged American forces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

We will provoke Iran into doing something. That provocation would, out of necessity, be an offensive attack by "our side" first.


Oh boy. Tell me, Frank, how are we doing that?

Quote:

Say for instance we see what appears to be a massive buildup of ballistic missiles around the Strait of Hormuz. Short of going nuclear, a nightly move of only a few hundred meters is all that is necessary to defend against conventional munitions.

Right, it's that simple. Tell that to the residents of Tel Aviv.

Quote:

Now also seems to be an appropriate time to get a lay of the land/sea as it were. No military commander in his right mind would would ignore this. The planning phase is in fact the most important part of the exercise, if everything goes according to the plan to begin with. They spend months, and months, and months chewing over a multitude of strategic and tactical plans. They must know where there assent are and how rapidly these assets can be deployed. Ingress and Egress, to use military jargon.

I'm sure there are plans already developed should we be compelled to act.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1) Oh boy. Tell me, Frank, how are we doing that?



2) Right, it's that simple. Tell that to the residents of Tel Aviv.



3) I'm sure there are plans already developed should we be compelled to act.

1) We aren't doing it. Iran is.
2) Huh? Israel isn't in this calculation, Iran is just using that as a false positive, as a means to an end, their end.
3) Sure. Tactical nukes.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #19 of 86
The US has used nukes offensively.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #20 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

1) We aren't doing it. Iran is.

You said we will provoke Iran into doing something. Did you mean something else?

Quote:
2) Huh? Israel isn't in this calculation, Iran is just using that as a false positive, as a means to an end, their end.

Please clarify. I thought we were talking about the ease of avoiding an attack by Iran. I may have misunderstood.

Quote:

3) Sure. Tactical nukes.

We have more than that, I would think. My understanding is that we have battle plans drawn up for 100s of different scenarios that could develop. Given Iran's posture, we likely have specific plans ready to go.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Even if I were to agree with that (and I'm not sure I do), I don't think it's relevant. I was really talking about forcing the US to go nuclear or launch an all out aerial assault. There's one easy way to do that...attack Israel.

Look at a map. Missiles or not, Iran would be idiots to attack Israel. They haven't attacked anyone in 300 years and Israel will not lay a hand on them unless we give them the nod. They will wait until they are attacked. The closure of the Gulf would end that wait immediately.

Quote:
You're thinking like a non-extremist. Logically, no nation would use nukes as an offensive weapon. But we're not dealing with the same Cold War era logic we've dealt with in the past.

The New Cold War is The War on Terror. After 9|11, we set out to Afghanistan to eradicate the terrorists and the supporters of them. We never succeeded. We allowed the leaders, their followers and their supporters to flee north and east into the mountains and regroup. As the Iraqi Invasion (or diversion...) occurred these terrorist cells found seclusion and protection from warlords on the Afghan/Pakistan border and were eventually smuggled into Pakistan (many others also eventually entered Iraq too). Where they wait, and plan and will eventually attack again. Where? Who knows. But if there will be a nuclear terrorist attack, the line of evidence will definitely come from this region and those players. Not Iran.

Pakistan is on the verge of collapse leadership-wise, their Secret Intelligent agency is a corrupt joke and we have not watched them carefully enough. To me they aren't a threat, they are a disaster waiting to happen. You know they might be impeaching Musharraf? Oh the irony...

Quote:
Consider for a moment that there are those in Iran's leadership that want to bring about the end of the world for religious reasons. In the least, some of these folks believe it is their duty to help facilitate the return of the 12th Imam. Now, is President Tom one of these people? I'm not sure. But he may be, and he's not where the real power lies anyway (the mullahs, of course).

I seriously don't want to go into this. Much of it falls into conspiracy theories (and even Iran has many of them themselves) and religious, cultural and translative mumbo-jumbo. All I can do is hold up a mirror to an exact copy of this religious extremism in America.

Just as powerful, just as influential and just as crazy. It's sad that another war could be started because of religion. But it won't be the first time.

Quote:
I don't agree that Russia and China would get involved. We'd have WWIII in about thirty seconds if they engaged American forces.

What makes you think they haven't been involved? Where could Iran get this new missile and anti-missile technology? Where do you think they get their jets, guns, ammo, ships and tanks? Also remember that Russia and China rely on Iranian oil and other natural resources. I believe that this is the only reason Iran is being so cocky. But Russia and China may have their own agenda...

Iran closes the Gulf, U.S./Israel militarily intervene, and Iran's military and government is defeated and collapses. Then the superpowers pick up the spoils. But we don't know what the aftereffects in the Middle East would be after this either.

So...we all wait.
post #22 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You said we will provoke Iran into doing something. Did you mean something else?

I said no such thing. Iran will provoke us into doing something, Iran will then retaliate. They will provoke us through a war of words, posturing, false positives, innuendos, and etceteras.

Quote:
Please clarify. I thought we were talking about the ease of avoiding an attack by Iran. I may have misunderstood.

I think we are. But you have your cart before your horse, as it were. It's not what they do, but what they trick us into doing. See above.

Quote:
We have more than that, I would think. My understanding is that we have battle plans drawn up for 100s of different scenarios that could develop. Given Iran's posture, we likely have specific plans ready to go.

You assume way too much, we probably have thousands of alternatives, none of which have been cast into a probabilistic framework, which by this very nature is ill defined.

But basically, if you don't know where their assets really are, no strategy short of carpet bombing them with tactical nukes will ever stop them from gaining their ultimate strategy, win an economic war by cutting off world oil supplies. And this will most certainly economically damage the USofA the most. They know this, we know this, and you should know this.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 86
'We'll neutralize S-300 if sold to Iran'

"We" being not the U.S., but Israel...

Quote:
If Russia goes through with the sale of its most advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, Israel will use an electronic warfare device now under development to neutralize it and as a result present Russia as vulnerable to air infiltrations, a top defense official has told The Jerusalem Post.
Russian S-300 missiles.

The Russian system, called the S-300, is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.

While Russia has denied that it sold the system to Iran, Teheran claimed last year that Moscow was preparing to equip the Islamic Republic with S-300 systems. Iran already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia.


Quote:
"Russia will have to think real hard before delivering this system to Iran, which is possibly on the brink of conflict with either Israel or the US, ..."

What it really says: Israel and the US are on the brink of dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran's not welcome in our nuclear club *. Please don't sell them weapons to defend themselves!

* Even though its program, as far as is known, falls within its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which grants non-nuclear states the right to produce fuel for nuclear energy, and such a program was supported by Washington in the past when the Shah, a U.S. puppet, was in power.

Quote:
Also on Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told an Italian paper that a nuclear Iran would be "dangerous to world order."

But a nuclear Israel is perfectly good for world order. Iran's nuclear ambitions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that their very militant neighbor has nuclear weapons!

If Iran and the U.S. were serious about non-proliferation, they would reduce the nuclear incentive, but ironically they're doing the exact opposite: their very own threats urge Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
post #24 of 86
Israel has to attack Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Russia. They have no choice. Tonto says, 'Adios Shlomo!'
post #25 of 86
Mofaz rants make Ahmadinejad sound like Winnie the Pooh. I mean seriously, all the threats here are coming from the U S and Israel. Since when has Ahmadi openly threatened an attack on Israel's nuke bases? They can't do it so they won't say it. Israel needs to get thee into the NPT club and then maybe the little rat may have some say. Otherwise it's 'bomb the fuckers' for the 'good violence' U S and Israel. Fucking nutjobs. Wreck what's left of U S civility dealing with this failed state.
post #26 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Try to think like an Iranian for a moment. Like I have.

If you thought like an Iranian you'd have a proud Persian heritage that spanned a few thousand years, a great desire to be taken seriously as a nation and to be able to tell western powers to fuck off.

A great deal of their posturing and strategic thinking is toward this goal.

Quote:
I know a literal boatload about US Army logistics, so that helps me a lot.

Riiiight.

Quote:
The Iranians will not develop WMD's, but they most certainly want us to attack them at a time of their choosing. In the dead of summer, stifling summer. Make us think they have WMD's so that our military wears their WMD gear, in the dead of summer no less.

Iran has had chemical weapons just as the Iraqis had chemical weapons. Whether they currently have any in useful amounts is debatable.

We have over a decade of experience in MOPP operations in the desert environment. Perhaps your vast knowledge of US Army operations could detail why you feel that US training in the Mojave at the NTC coupled with operational experience that goes back to Desert Storm would leave us at some disadvantage to the Iranians?

The US is very much aware for heat injury problems, especially when operating in MOPP. Our doctrine is not to suit up at MOPP-4 from the get go on the off chance a chem attack will occur.

Deployment of chem weapons is very problematic. Especially against modern mobile forces on the move.

Quote:
Their goal is simple. Destroy the oil resources pouring out of the Middle East. They have the high ground overlooking the Strait of Hormuz. They have the mobile launchers. They have the low EM technologies to move these assets nightly. They are deep and safe behind enemy lines and we don't have the logistics to reach those targets over land, can't spot them from the air.

This clearly indicates you are not thinking like an Iranian. All you see are advantages and not the disadvantages of which they are quite aware. The grass is always greener for your opponent.

Nothing is "deep and safe" behind enemy lines in modern warfare. The US has invested greatly in SOF and the Marines have been playing with the STOM concept for a decade as part of OMFTS.

We will control the air, we will have thousands of UAV hunting for TELs and mobile launch sites. The missiles required to shut down the straits are NOT the same as the small Katyusha rockets used to bombard Israel by Hezbollah.

That said, we have a serious issue with mines, the terrain does favor them from a sea denial perspective and we have our own set of operational challenges.

It is very easy to dream up a scenario that favors one side or the other. The reality is that they would/could have early success until we pounded them into the ground. The force disparity is just too high for their long term success and they directly threaten our national interests. We couldn't avoid a conflict if push came to shove.

The COST of pounding them into the ground is too high for either side to want to engage in.

Quote:
They have thousands and thousands, many thousands of conventionally armed ballistic missiles.

They do not. They have a very limited number of Shihab-3 and 4's. A few dozen at most. Of the Zelzal and Fateh missiles they probably number in the low hundreds. As of a few years ago Syria had the most at 500 missiles.

Iran possess a good but also limited number of cruise missiles.

Of course, all of my knowledge is from open sources (and not your super sekrit army ones) but I don't believe even the Iranians claim more offensive missile capabilities than the Chinese.

Quote:
We'd be flying thousands of sorties nightly as the Iranians launch a barrage of conventional ballistic missiles at these oil assets, and some will get through. Enough to cripple oil supplies and send gas prices into the stratosphere. Gas rationing will be mandatory.

A "tanker" war will be just as disruptive to Iran as its opponents. No oil going out means no Yuan coming in.

Nobody but the Chinese has a shot at a "barrage of conventional ballistic missiles". Your self-claimed authority on the subject leaves a lot to be desired.

Quote:
They want us to attack them, that gives them all the justification they need to take out a large fraction of the current world's oil supply. Global depression occurs. Game over. We find no WMD's in Iran, major egg on our faces, America plummets into total chaos.

So by losing the battle to us the Iranians actually win the war, an economic war, a war we can't win, no way, no how.

The Iranians are playing us, they are pulling our strings, not the other way around. They are in control, while we are not, at least not while under a hard line war hawkish Republican administration.

You know, Bush isn't a complete idiot. And even he knows the difference between a ballistic missile, an anti-ship cruise missile, and an unguided artillery rocket.

Given that your analysis is based on incorrect knowledge and make-believe enemy objectives your conclusion isn't worth much.
post #27 of 86
For those that care to see a reasonable assessment, here's a decent one IMHO (as in it has references and a clue):

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...c.2008.33.1.82
post #28 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

For those that care to see a reasonable assessment, here's a decent one IMHO (as in it has references and a clue):

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...c.2008.33.1.82

Brilliant article! This quote pretty much destroys the argument that Iran would have anything to gain by going to war:

Quote:
Historically, Iran has recognized that closing the straight would be the military equivalent of cutting off its nose to spite its face.

The author is a Doctoral candidate at MIT (which isn't a degree mill by any stretch of the imagination ) so I'm pretty sure she's more familiar with the topic than anyone else in this thread \
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #29 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you thought like an Iranian you'd have a proud Persian heritage that spanned a few thousand years, a great desire to be taken seriously as a nation and to be able to tell western powers to fuck off.

A great deal of their posturing and strategic thinking is toward this goal.



Riiiight.



Iran has had chemical weapons just as the Iraqis had chemical weapons. Whether they currently have any in useful amounts is debatable.

We have over a decade of experience in MOPP operations in the desert environment. Perhaps your vast knowledge of US Army operations could detail why you feel that US training in the Mojave at the NTC coupled with operational experience that goes back to Desert Storm would leave us at some disadvantage to the Iranians?

The US is very much aware for heat injury problems, especially when operating in MOPP. Our doctrine is not to suit up at MOPP-4 from the get go on the off chance a chem attack will occur.

Deployment of chem weapons is very problematic. Especially against modern mobile forces on the move.



This clearly indicates you are not thinking like an Iranian. All you see are advantages and not the disadvantages of which they are quite aware. The grass is always greener for your opponent.

Nothing is "deep and safe" behind enemy lines in modern warfare. The US has invested greatly in SOF and the Marines have been playing with the STOM concept for a decade as part of OMFTS.

We will control the air, we will have thousands of UAV hunting for TELs and mobile launch sites. The missiles required to shut down the straits are NOT the same as the small Katyusha rockets used to bombard Israel by Hezbollah.

That said, we have a serious issue with mines, the terrain does favor them from a sea denial perspective and we have our own set of operational challenges.

It is very easy to dream up a scenario that favors one side or the other. The reality is that they would/could have early success until we pounded them into the ground. The force disparity is just too high for their long term success and they directly threaten our national interests. We couldn't avoid a conflict if push came to shove.

The COST of pounding them into the ground is too high for either side to want to engage in.



They do not. They have a very limited number of Shihab-3 and 4's. A few dozen at most. Of the Zelzal and Fateh missiles they probably number in the low hundreds. As of a few years ago Syria had the most at 500 missiles.

Iran possess a good but also limited number of cruise missiles.

Of course, all of my knowledge is from open sources (and not your super sekrit army ones) but I don't believe even the Iranians claim more offensive missile capabilities than the Chinese.



A "tanker" war will be just as disruptive to Iran as its opponents. No oil going out means no Yuan coming in.

Nobody but the Chinese has a shot at a "barrage of conventional ballistic missiles". Your self-claimed authority on the subject leaves a lot to be desired.



You know, Bush isn't a complete idiot. And even he knows the difference between a ballistic missile, an anti-ship cruise missile, and an unguided artillery rocket.

Given that your analysis is based on incorrect knowledge and make-believe enemy objectives your conclusion isn't worth much.

Let's just say that I do know more than you do, or ever will, wrt Army logistics. I had a security clearance of "Secret" for several years when I was a public government employee. I've worked on Army Logistics (on and off) for over 20 years now. Someone I know who will remain unnamed, received their "Top Secret" clearance as I was one of a handful of interviewees.

As to all your other acronym dumping, same old, same old, we've been there, done that. And your guesswork is no better, or no worse, than mine, so there. Since we know little of Iran's true current capabilities, and they know a lot more about us then we do of them.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #30 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

For those that care to see a reasonable assessment, here's a decent one IMHO (as in it has references and a clue):

www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.82

[CENTER]
Quote:
[/CENTER]
[LEFT]The key question is not whether Iran can sink dozens of oil tankers, which would be difficult. Tankers are resilient targets. Their immense size, internal compartmentalization, and thick hull plates allow them to survive hits by mines and missiles that would sink warships.[/LEFT]
[CENTER]

[/CENTER]
[LEFT]First major hint about this clueless author. This is 100% BS, doesn't even have a modicum of understanding of standard tanker design.

Also, the author is obsessed with the SoH and mining of said SoH. The object isn't just the SoH but the entire Persian Gulf and it's oil infrastructures, ports, oil terminals, pipelines, etceteras.

Also it would be rather obvious that a buildup of USofA sea assets was underway, it's just not that easy to hide 4-5 carrier task groups necessary to conduct meaningful preemptive air strikes throughout the entire Persian Gulf area.[/LEFT]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #31 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Also it would be rather obvious that a buildup of USofA sea assets was underway, it's just not that easy to hide 4-5 carrier task groups necessary to conduct meaningful preemptive air strikes throughout the entire Persian Gulf area.[/LEFT]

Like this USofA sea assets?

Thursday, August 7, 2008
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran

Quote:
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force".

The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.

They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.

Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

Just a Navy refresh, or another step up toward aggression? I seriously do not think anything could happen with the Russia/Georgia/US/Israeli clusterf@ck going on...but I really don't know how far these sick and power hungry world leaders will go to to get what they want...it's getting very, very violent around...well, everywhere.
post #32 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Like this USofA sea assets?

Thursday, August 7, 2008
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran



Just a Navy refresh, or another step up toward aggression? I seriously do not think anything could happen with the Russia/Georgia/US/Israeli clusterf@ck going on...but I really don't know how far these sick and power hungry world leaders will go to to get what they want...it's getting very, very violent around...well, everywhere.

You have got to be kidding me, right?

My thoughts, are given the recent knowledge of USofA air superioriaty, in 1991 and 2003, that Iran would strike first, given this all too apparent demonstration of force. This is just the type of provication Iran seeks to justify their ends. They've seen how the sitting duck or fish in a barrel game works, and the Iranian homies "Won't play that."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Let's just say that I do know more than you do, or ever will, wrt Army logistics.

Perhaps. But then you know nothing about me so how can you make that assessement?

In any case, what does army logistics have to do with a force analysis on Iran or it's anti-shipping capabilities?

Nothing.

Quote:
I had a security clearance of "Secret" for several years when I was a public government employee. I've worked on Army Logistics (on and off) for over 20 years now. Someone I know who will remain unnamed, received his "Top Secret" clearance as I was one of a handful of interviewees.

Mkay. You had a clearance some time ago or perhaps even one now. So what?

Quote:
As to all your other acronym dumping, same old, same old, we've been there, done that. And your guesswork is no better, or no worse, than mine, so there. Since we know little of Iran's true current capabilities, and they know a lot more about us then we do of them.

Except that my guesswork is based on reality and more accurate than yours. At least I know what the relevant acronyms mean.

You didn't read the analysis did you? Did you check open source sites for information? There's various OOBs scattered about on sites like GlobalSecurity.

There's decent analysis on Iran's ballistic missile capabilities (or lack thereof). Oh, and anti-ship ballistic missiles are still conjecture. China MIGHT have one. They might not. Anyone that knows can't say anyway.

But they sure as hell aren't selling any to Iran any time soon.

At least do some BASIC research.
post #34 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Perhaps. But then you know nothing about me so how can you make that assessement?

In any case, what does army logistics have to do with a force analysis on Iran or it's anti-shipping capabilities?

Nothing.



Mkay. You had a clearance some time ago or perhaps even one now. So what?



Except that my guesswork is based on reality and more accurate than yours. At least I know what the relevant acronyms mean.

You didn't read the analysis did you? Did you check open source sites for information? There's various OOBs scattered about on sites like GlobalSecurity.

There's decent analysis on Iran's ballistic missile capabilities (or lack thereof). Oh, and anti-ship ballistic missiles are still conjecture. China MIGHT have one. They might not. Anyone that knows can't say anyway.

But they sure as hell aren't selling any to Iran any time soon.

At least do some BASIC research.

Says who? You? As usual, I'm not impressed.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #35 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You have got to be kidding me, right?

My thoughts, are given the recent knowledge of USofA air superioriaty, in 1991 and 2003, that Iran would strike first, given this all too apparent demonstration of force. This is just the type of provication Iran seeks to justify their ends. They've seen how the sitting duck or fish in a barrel game works, and the Iranian homies "Won't play that."

Chill frank, I've been all ears (eyes actually) with your comments. Just thought I'd set this in here for your perusal. It was actually stolen-er-posted on one of Alex Jones' sites, which came from another thief and finally to the source. We can't trust Scotsmen anymore I guess either...

I agree with your assessment though.
post #36 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[LEFT]First major hint about this clueless author. This is 100% BS, doesn't even have a modicum of understanding of standard tanker design.

You mean the ~3 meter depth double hull design in VLCCs? The hull plate on a VLCC varies from 5mm to 30mm.

Hull plating on the Spruance Destroyer is 16mm of HY-80 steel at the thickest point and as thin as 9mm of carbon manganese. 30mm > 16mm.

The double hull offset of modern warships is not ~3 meters in depth.

Did you even look up weapon effectiveness vis a vis tankers? Let clue you in:

Stark vs Exocet - Exocet wins. Mission kill bordering in ship kill. Most of that was alu superstructure. Part is simply warships are smaller and packed with easily damaged stuff.

Tanker vs Exocet - Tanker often wins. You get a small hole in the side of the ship and sometimes no bang at all. It's filled with crude that isn't all that easy to ignite.

Look at the stats from the last tanker war. Only 23% of tankers struck by anti-ship cruise missiles were sunk or cnsidered Constructive Total Losses (CTL).

http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/tanker_war

Quote:
Also, the author is obsessed with the SoH and mining of said SoH. The object isn't just the SoH but the entire Persian Gulf and it's oil infrastructures, ports, oil terminals, pipelines, etceteras.

Because mining is the best way of closing the straits given our mine sweeping capabilities. Using non-existant anti-ship ballistic missiles is a "non-optimal" method.

Quote:
Also it would be rather obvious that a buildup of USofA sea assets was underway, it's just not that easy to hide 4-5 carrier task groups necessary to conduct meaningful preemptive air strikes throughout the entire Persian Gulf area.

You would know this because of your great expertise in ARMY logistics?

In any case, we have these things called "air bases" located in Iraq and other friendly countries. The 40th and 332nd (plus a bunch of logistics and recon wings) Air Expeditionary Wings are in theater. Getting stuff there from Europe and Asia isn't that hard either with tanker support.
post #37 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Says who? You? As usual, I'm not impressed.

Try rebutting with facts hmmm?

Thus far you've been wrong on nearly every point.
post #38 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Try rebutting with facts hmmm?

Thus far you've been wrong on nearly every point.

A minutia of all sorts of odds and ends facts? Is a minutia of all sorts odds and ends facts. Which you seem to be full of, facts that is.

You also seem to be obsessed with the wrong strategy, it's called thinking outside the box. Try it sometime.

Tankers are virtually useless unless they have something to fill them up with. Go figure. D'oh!

BTW, full on double hull tankers are the exception not the rule, also you go for the fuel tanks or propulson systems, and everyone knows where those are located. D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #39 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Like this USofA sea assets?

Just a Navy refresh, or another step up toward aggression? I seriously do not think anything could happen with the Russia/Georgia/US/Israeli clusterf@ck going on...but I really don't know how far these sick and power hungry world leaders will go to to get what they want...it's getting very, very violent around...well, everywhere.

That was just the normal JTFX (Joint Task Force eXercise) that every battle group does before it deploys over seas. How do I know? I'm retired Navy and have done quite a few of them myself. On the operational end, the countries are always a generic 'Blue' vs 'Orange' (no Red anymore, the USSR is defunct!), whether or not the bad guys were simulating Iran would only be known to the top brass. The OPFOR (Orange) is the battle group that most recently returned from overseas, because they are considered the most battle ready, and can pass on their 'lessons learned'. Basically it consists of ~30 days of war games, then you return home for four weeks of leave/upkeep time, then you deploy. See that the exercise took place in July, but they are just now heading out?

But don't take my word for it.

Quote:
More than 15,000 service members from four countries will participate in Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 "Operation Brimstone", July 21-31 in North Carolina and off the eastern U.S. coast from Virginia to Florida.

JTFEX 08-4 serves as a ready-for-deployment certification event for the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group (TR CSG) and the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (IWO ESG). The exercise will also serve as a Joint Task Force Capable Headquarters sustainment event.

U.S. and coalition naval assets underway for the exercise include the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) with associated units including the British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (RO 7), the Brazilian Navy frigate Greenhalgh (F-46) and the French submarine FS Amethyste (S 605). BNS Greenhalgh is the first Brazilian Navy ship to operate integrated in a U.S. strike group.

The real test is seeing if the currently deployed battle groups head home when relieved, or if they stay on station.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

BTW, full on double hull tankers are the exception not the rule, also you go for the fuel tanks or propulson systems, and everyone knows where those are located. D'oh!

Yeah, on modern tankers they are located several meters below the water line. VLCCs have a draft two to three times as deep as a Nimitz class carrier. I've seen one in dry dock myself, had a 90ft. draft, it was like looking at a cliff side. Short of a torpedo, at best you might be able to set the service fuel tanks on fire, but that would just burn the ship, not sink it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

You mean the ~3 meter depth double hull design in VLCCs? The hull plate on a VLCC varies from 5mm to 30mm.

Hull plating on the Spruance Destroyer is 16mm of HY-80 steel at the thickest point and as thin as 9mm of carbon manganese. 30mm > 16mm.

The double hull offset of modern warships is not ~3 meters in depth.

Modern warships, other than carriers, don't actually have a true double hull. What we call a double hull is just an extra layer of fuel tanks along the bottom of the ship, because modern torpedoes and influence mines are designed to explode under the ship. The side of the ship is just a single layer of relatively thin carbon steel, with a little armor around vital spots like ammo magazines. I was a welder and welding inspector in the Navy, so I've worked on many a hull patch (access hole cut into the side of a ship to remove/install large items in a shipyard).

In fact, during Earnest Will they used the tanker Bridgeton as an impromptu mine sweeper after she struck a mine.

Quote:
On the very first escort mission, on 24 July 1987, the Kuwaiti oil tanker al-Rekkahre, re-flagged as the U.S. tanker Bridgeton, struck an Iranian mine damaging the ship, but causing no injuries. The Bridgeton proceeded under her own power to Kuwait, with the thin-skinned U.S. Navy escorts following behind to avoid mines.



Quote:
Mess Management Specialist 2nd Class Williams Hendrickson scans for mines from the bow of the guided missile frigate USS Nicolas (FFG-47) during an Operation Earnest Will convoy mission in which tankers are led through the waters of the Persian Gulf by U.S. warships.

Despite the caption, you'll notice the tanker is actually in front of the US warship...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #40 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

That was just the normal JTFX (Joint Task Force eXercise) that every battle group does before it deploys over seas. How do I know? I'm retired Navy and have done quite a few of them myself.

Welcome iPoster. Good to hear from another perspective. The only things ominous in your post was...

Quote:
The real test is seeing if the currently deployed battle groups head home when relieved, or if they stay on station.

And we wait. What could this whole Georgia/Russia/USA/Israel thing do with tensions? It's all getting dicey, everywhere.

plus...

Quote:


Despite the caption, you'll notice the tanker is actually in front of the US warship...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is This Iran's Last Chance?