Mil News Current Iran/Iraq/US Tensions and Actions Unfolding

[Ivan le Fou]

It's a matter of doctrine and budget allocation; not technological.

Or, in the case of Iran: all three.

 

[Mardonius]

So back to ballistic missiles, they really are 'the same' as spaceflight.

What does this actually mean? I reacted to someone who foolishly argued that ballistic missiles are 75 year-old technology, which is a ridiculous argumentation to bring forward. These days, ballistic missiles are much more accurate, reliable, have more advanced sensors, advanced paths of trajectory, etc. It is just ridiculous to compare a V2 to a modern missile. Even missiles with conventional warheads can have strategic effects these days.

As the the Air force issue, I agree that Iran could spend a fortune and still be destroyed quickly, but I dont agree that just having missiles will give Iran a lead. USA and others have had missiles for decades, even UK at one time had land based ballistic missiles in many sizes, all gone now.

I appreciate you wont agree, but really its only going to be proved should things kick off. Which I hope wont happen, but I believe it will happen.

It gives Iran a powerful deterrence capability.

 

[BCNTM]

So back to ballistic missiles, they really are 'the same' as spaceflight.

As the the Air force issue, I agree that Iran could spend a fortune and still be destroyed quickly, but I dont agree that just having missiles will give Iran a lead. USA and others have had missiles for decades, even UK at one time had land based ballistic missiles in many sizes, all gone now.

I appreciate you wont agree, but really its only going to be proved should things kick off. Which I hope wont happen, but I believe it will happen.

Q. have you got a missile you can launch in Iran and hit America directly - once you start testing something with that range then you might start to have issues
You can hit Europe - but start building something that can go that little further might land you with a bit of trouble

 

[Mardonius]

Or, in the case of Iran: all three.

Says the guy who can't name one Iranian weapon and spends his precious time by acting as Trump's chief propagandist on this forum.

 

[BCNTM]

It gives Iran a powerful deterrence capability.

That is what Saddam thought when he invaded Kuwait

 

[Fluff]

What does this actually mean? I reacted to someone who foolishly argued that ballistic missiles are 75 year-old technology, which is a ridiculous argumentation to bring forward. These days, ballistic missiles are much more accurate, reliable, have more advanced sensors, advanced paths of trajectory, etc. It is just ridiculous to compare a V2 to a modern missile. Even missiles with conventional warheads can have strategic effects these days.



It gives Iran a powerful deterrence capability.

I went back to @TheKiwi post, I think he was saying missiles are 75 years old, so you should have mastered them. I dont think he means yours are the same as 75 years ago - don't be so defensive.

The problem I see, with the missile only deterrence, is that if someone somehow gets at them, e.g. emp, special forces, earthquake bomb, etc. then your deterrence is gone. Its why we dont rely on Castles anymore. Multilayered defense, distance, recon are the tools of the day.

 

[Fluff]

Says the guy who can't name one Iranian weapon and spends his precious time by acting as Trump's chief propagandist on this forum.

its almost as if he says things just to needle you - pot - kettle.....

 

[Mardonius]

How did you get over the small issue of someone on a no moonlight night dropping a small EMP weapon - unless you light the blue touch paper they are not going anywhere
Unless you intend a first strike, at that stage I am pretty sure what you get back it won't matter what you have got/had

If you are really interested, you can read here how Iran has tried to build a second strike capability:

Missile cities: Iran's second strike capability

The concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are always regarded as irrelevant, once the joker function of nuclear warfare is employed. This intuitive notion is based on two main ideas: There is no credible defense against nuclear weapons Conventional...

www.aerospace-assess.com

 

[Mardonius]

That is what Saddam thought when he invaded Kuwait

Iran isn't going to invade anyone. It's military doctrine is defensive in nature.

 

[BCNTM]

Says the guy who can't name one Iranian weapon and spends his precious time by acting as Trump's chief propagandist on this forum.

I always liked Sha-fag-h - which correct me if I am wrong is Persian for Aurora

In your dreams

 

[Mardonius]

The problem I see, with the missile only deterrence, is that if someone somehow gets at them, e.g. emp, special forces, earthquake bomb, etc. then your deterrence is gone. Its why we dont rely on Castles anymore. Multilayered defense, distance, recon are the tools of the day.

You really think Iran hasn't thought of all these things? It has studied the Americans for decades, and coalesced its entire doctrine and strategy around such lessons learned.

 

[BCNTM]

If you are really interested, you can read Iran how Iran has tried to build a second strike capability:

Missile cities: Iran's second strike capability

The concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are always regarded as irrelevant, once the joker function of nuclear warfare is employed. This intuitive notion is based on two main ideas: There is no credible defense against nuclear weapons Conventional...

www.aerospace-assess.com

yes I have probably already read that - and loads of other articles

As I have said to you before things can go south very very quickly

Unless you can directly hit America they will just sit and fire all their old inventory at you - and once they have run out of stuff near use by date they will fire all the new stuff just to test it

The sad fact is it would be like a hunter clubbing a seal pup

 

[Mardonius]

yes I have probably already read that - and loads of other articles

I doubt that.

As I have said to you before things can go south very very quickly

Unless you can directly hit America they will just sit and fire all their old inventory at you - and once they have run out of stuff near use by date they will fire all the new stuff just to test it

The sad fact is it would be like a hunter clubbing a seal pup

You heavily underestimate Iran, mate.

 

[BCNTM]

Iran isn't going to invade anyone. It's military doctrine is defensive in nature.

So why use proxies to attack other countries?

A nice stable Lebanon would give you a great buffer

Iraq without Saddam is no real threat to you

If you are worried about the Palestinians how about offering them an enclave in Iran

There is a way, there is a choice

You live in the West - we don't want a war - however if it comes it will be short and swift and pretty brutal

Iran in the ME is a big fish in a small pond - against US or Russia or China you are a small fish in a big sea

 

[Fluff]

You really think Iran hasn't thought of all these things? It has studied the Americans for decades, and coalesced its entire doctrine and strategy around such lessons learned.

I've read the report. It seems to focus on a conflict with Israel.

To have a real effect you would need thousands of missiles, 1.8 tons delivered, at the right point, yes it will cause a problem for an airbase, but it wont destroy the airbase.

For a thousand missiles, I guestimate 2/3 wont arrive at the target. So your hitting them with 300 x 1.8 tons.

Israel has 250 fighters, they could deliver that tonnage, accurately in one flight. then in the afternoon they deliver the same. This ignores what US forces did, Saudi, Dubai etc.

So I'm not saying you would lose all your missile bases, but all your power stations, barracks etc are gone. Once gone, they cant defend your underground bases, and then the enemy switches to 'seige mode' and just keep bombing your underground bases.

I dont believe anyone could stay in those bunker's, being hit every 10 minutes by a LGB or a cruise missile, slowly widening the lift shaft until they breach.

But I'm just an Armchair general. The real ones probably have other ideas.

 

[Mardonius]

So why use proxies to attack other countries?

Which proxies have attacked other countries by direction of Iran?

You live in the West - we don't want a war - however if it comes it will be short and swift and pretty brutal

The same short, swift and brutal wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran is a different beast, my friend.

Iran in the ME is a big fish in a small pond - against US or Russia or China you are a small fish in a big sea

Iran is arguably the strongest player in the region.

 

[Fluff]

Which proxies have attacked other countries by direction of Iran?
Your words:
Israel is pretty handy sure, but they are encircled by Iran's proxies that are getting their hands at advanced weapons that are increasingly threaten critical civil and military infrastructure in the country.

The same short, swift and brutal wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran is a different beast, my friend.



Iran is arguably the strongest player in the region.

No-one is saying that Iran isnt the strongest regional player, but your not playing in the local league, your up against the premier league, SCUDS with GPS wont cut it.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I always liked Sha-fag-h - which correct me if I am wrong is Persian for Aurora

In your dreams

Weaponized papier-maché.

 

[BCNTM]

I doubt that.

You heavily underestimate Iran, mate.

It really is a whatever - I saw what the Americans did to Iraq - in fact I could smell it from about 5 miles away

Don't underestimate Iran - just history is not on your side - it's dangerous to believe your own propaganda - good to be nationalistic and proud of your nation, but don't get flattened in the process

What do you think your end game is - what do you do when the oil money runs out?

 

[Mardonius]

It really is a whatever - I saw what the Americans did to Iraq - in fact I could smell it from about 5 miles away

Don't underestimate Iran - just history is not on your side - it's dangerous to believe your own propaganda - good to be nationalistic and proud of your nation, but don't get flattened in the process

What do you think your end game is - what do you do when the oil money runs out?

Seems like you are stuck in the 90s mate, with your Gulf War references. Time to wake up to reality and 2021s military balance.

The red coats don't rule the waves no more and the yanks have lost their global supremacy.