What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
3,225
-3
7,157
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of

The Joint Operations Command of the Ministry of Defense announces the success of the F16 strike at 0410 hrs, Yemen time, of the destruction of the ballistic missile launcher Al Hazm Directorate in Al Jawf immediately after it launched two ballistic missiles at Abu Dhabi, which were intercepted successfully by air defenses Video attachment targeting the ballistic missile platform​




These clowns may have actually just blown up an asphalt factory....... :sarcastic:
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
3,225
-3
7,157
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
This reminds me of infamous "Scud hunt" during Desert Storm when the USAF showed footage of Tanker trucks being bomb and claimed that they were Scud TELs.
Yes,this does rather look like it was something deliberate rather than your typical arab military incompetence.
I suspect that the shock of the country coming under actual direct attack,and the resulting fear and uncertainty that it has clearly generated,both amongst the populace and foreign investors,might have led the government to do something like this in some half witted attempt to show that the uae government can act decisively,and that its military is stronk......er....."strong" :sarcastic:
Naturally its showing the exact opposite.........why-oh-why am I not surprised?.:rolleyes:
 

sha ah

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
2,184
0
3,116
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
What do you expect from these tools ? They have the best technology money can buy. They literally have 1000x the budget of the Houthis but despite bombing Yemen all day everyday they can't prevent the Houthis from retaliating and hitting their vital industrial, commercial targets.

Out of frustration, they target Yemeni civilians, women and children, hoping that ordinary people will take out their anger on the Houthis. What they don't understand is that ordinary people will retaliate and strike back at them.

This is really embaressing for these camel herders. Trump even said it "They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. Without us by their side, they would be speaking Farsi in one week" Saudis and Emiratis are so sad.

F 16s in the hands of camel herders...what do we expect...
 

Abid123

FULL MEMBER
Jan 1, 2021
1,279
-4
1,748
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
I am sorry but i dont see North Korean nr.1 Generals getting killed even before they had no nukes. North Korea has a much higher deterrence than IR. Its a no brainer. Lay off the IR propaganda for a bit.
And North Korea has artilerry deterrence over Seoul. Widen your military knowledge please.
I see you and SalarHaqq are discussing "deterrence" here. I am not a expert on this topic but I came across 2 articles that are somewhat related to what you are discussing. You can check them out if you want. I will post the links below.

Part 1:

Part 2:
 

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,798
-12
6,317
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
I see you and SalarHaqq are discussing "deterrence" here. I am not a expert on this topic but I came across 2 articles that are somewhat related to what you are discussing. You can check them out if you want. I will post the links below.

Part 1:

Part 2:

To be honest, there was not much of a discussion with Salarhaqq, i found out the back and forth is not going anywhere and ceased any interactions with him on this matter. Unfortunately he is too brainwashed and extremely biased due to religious reasons. You can not reason with fanatic religious people. According to him, the Iranian government has done things 100% right and all good things we have is because of the supreme leader's benevolence. The reality however is very different and not to our liking. I am not a blind nationalist so obviously i can point out the faults in his arguments.

The articles you posted look very interesting, it seems to confirm (in general) the things i told to salarhaqq.
Worth reading in depth.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,158
2
4,143
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
I see you and SalarHaqq are discussing "deterrence" here. I am not a expert on this topic but I came across 2 articles that are somewhat related to what you are discussing. You can check them out if you want. I will post the links below.

Part 1:

Part 2:


If you pay attention, not a single one of my arguments was rooted in religious considerations, nor was I even referencing religion in any shape or form.

The notion that nuclear weapons deter enemies from even the slightest act of aggression is not accurate, as proven by concrete events of the past. British nuclear bombs did not deter Argentina from declaring war on the UK in 1982 and landing troops on territory London considers its own. Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons did not prevent skirmishes and fighter jets being shot out of the skies. Nuclear powers are subject to attacks by guerilla forces backed by other states. Two or three threatening "Tweets" by Trump, and the Leader of nuclear-armed North Korea went to sit down with the clown and offered to give up his entire nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions - whereas non-nuclear Iran stood its ground and did not go to the negotiating table despite "maximum pressure" being exerted on it. And so on, and so forth.

So yes, if you look at the surface of things, if you restrict yourself to the symbolic level and to the realm of psy-ops, if you react in an emotive way to geostrategic developments, you might think Iran is weak(er than X, Y, Z)... But not if you grasp the entire depth of the situation, irregardless of any religious or ideological talking points.

Which is why arguments put forth by some anti-clerically inclined commenters are regularly fraught with issues of logic. Like suggesting Iran's Supreme Leader was "coerced" by the US and Isra"el" to impose a 2000 km limit on Iranian BM's, but leaving out that to any American president, Isra"el" matters just as much if not more than Washington D.C.. Or conveniently forgetting that the same Supreme Leader ordered an extension of Iran's missile range to 4000 km with the Khorramshahr BM, which was unveiled years ago. Not knowing what to do with the latest demonstrations of ICBM technology and being forced to resort to absurdities such as that "scientists" or the IRGC developed these against the will of the Supreme Leader, when in fact it's of course the Leader and nobody else who gave the military the go ahead for producing these items.

Or take an argument like the one that claims Iran is "afraid" to build nuclear weapons because if it set out to do so, the US would strike and weaken the IRGC... But since those who make such arguments also believe that nukes are the ultimate weapon of invincibility, any weakening of the IRGC in this scenario would thus be temporary and wouldn't last more than a few weeks until the first nuclear device is assembled, after which the IRGC would become untouchable for all eternity, by the logic of those who hold such views. In other terms, this "weakening", which could only be temporary, would be fully worth it and thus, fear of the IRGC getting weakened for a while could never deter Iran from going for nukes if really deemed necessary.

At the end of the day, it's the end result that counts. If like takfiris you believe there's a "secret under the table alliance between Rafidha and Jews" and that the intense conflict between Iran and the US is "bogus", or that Washington does not actually seek to violently overthrow the Islamic Republic and change the status quo in Iran, then well, you're in dire need of medical care. If however you know what's going on and how rabid, intense and vivid zio-American enmity is towards Iran, and how impatient they've been to carry out "regime change" in Tehran, then you need to look at the result first and foremost. What happens along the way, is secondary.

The most respected local user in terms of military-technical knowledge of Iranian forces is PeeD. And as far as I understand, PeeD believes in conventional counter-force. Meaning that Iran has not just successfully deterred her enemies from a conventional military aggression, but is in the process of ensuring deterrence even against hypothetical nuclear strikes, and is doing so purely through conventional, asymmetrical means. I am fully convinced by the validity of this analysis, and I'm confident that most Iranian users would concur.
 
Last edited:

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,873
0
3,573
Country
United States
Location
United States
If you pay attention, not a single one of my arguments was rooted in religious considerations, nor was I even referencing religion in any shape or form.

The notion that nuclear weapons deter enemies from even the slightest act of aggression is not accurate, as proven by concrete events of the past. British nuclear bombs did not deter Argentina from declaring war on the UK in 1982 and landing troops on territory London considers its own. Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons did not prevent skirmishes and fighter jets being shot out of the skies. Nuclear powers are subject to attacks by guerilla forces backed by other states. Two or three threatening "Tweets" by Trump, and the Leader of nuclear-armed North Korea went to sit down with the clown and offered to give up his entire nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions - whereas non-nuclear Iran stood its ground and did not go to the negotiating table. And so on, and so forth.

So yes, if you look at the surface of things, if you restrict yourself to the symbolic level and to the realm of psy-ops, if you react in an emotive way to geostrategic developments, you might think Iran is weak(er than X, Y, Z)... But not if you grasp the entire depth of the situation, irregardless of any religious or ideological talking points.

Which is why the arguments of the anti-IR people are systematically fraught with issues of logic. Like claiming Iran's Supreme Leader was "forced" by the US and Isra"el" to impose a 2000 km limit on Iranian BM's, but leaving out that to any American president, Isra"el" matters just as much if not more than Washington D.C.. Or conveniently forgetting that the same Supreme Leader ordered an extension of Iran's missile range to 4000 km with the Khorramshahr, which was unveiled years ago. Not knowing what to do with the latest demonstrations of ICBM technology and being forced to resort to absurdities such as that "scientists" or the IRGC developed and showed these to the public against the will of the Supreme Leader.

Or take an argument like the one that claims Iran is "afraid" to build nuclear weapons because if it set out to do so, the US would strike and weaken the IRGC... But since those who make such arguments also believe that nukes are the ultimate weapon of invincibility, any weakening of the IRGC in this scenario would thus be temporary and wouldn't last more than a few weeks until the first nuclear device is assembled, after which the IRGC would become untouchable for all eternity, by the logic of those who hold such views. In other terms, this "weakening", which could only be temporary, would be fully worth it and thus, fear of the IRGC getting weakened for a while could never deter Iran from going for nukes.

At the end of the day, it's the end result that counts. If like takfiris you believe there's a "secret under the table alliance between Rafidha and Jews" and that the intense conflict between Iran and the US is "bogus", or that Washington does not actually seek to overthrow the Islamic Republic and change the status quo in Iran, then well, you're in dire need of medical care. If however you know what's going on and how rabid, intense and vivid zio-American enmity is towards Iran, and how impatient they've been to carry out "regime change" in Tehran, then you need to look at the result first and foremost. What happens along the way, is secondary.

The most respected local user in terms of military-technical knowledge of Iranian forces is PeeD. And as far as I understand, PeeD believes in conventional counter-force. Meaning that Iran has not just successfully deterred her enemies from a conventional military aggression, but is in the process of ensuring deterrence even against hypothetical nuclear strikes by purely conventional, asymmetrical means. I am fully convinced by the validity of this analysis, and I'm confident that most Iranian users would concur.

I also concur.

IRGC-AEROSPACE forces has reached a level of conventional-counterforce that no other nation of Iran's type can or has matched. The sheer quantity of missiles being produced and put into service from year to year is astonishing. We can point to countless examples of missile cities, we can cite recent articles quoting American defense officials or show footage of underground BM bases but the end point still remains the same. Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent that ensures Iran's territorial integrity/sovereignty from foreign aggressors and their mighty nukes. Undoubtedly in the future we will see Iran greatly expand its nuclear infrastructure, much to the dismay of the Zionist entity, but by then (just like right now) they will only bitch and moan. After-all, their American attack-dog is only becoming more irrelevant as the months and years roll on.

As it stands, Iran has weathered the worst of what the Zionists and Americans can dish out short of all out war. So I seriously don't know what the issue is about.

Iran has attained conventional deterrent due to its massive and ever expanding ballistic missile/cruise-missile/drone apparatus.
 

R Wing

SENIOR MEMBER
May 23, 2016
3,205
9
5,141
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If you pay attention, not a single one of my arguments was rooted in religious considerations, nor was I even referencing religion in any shape or form.

The notion that nuclear weapons deter enemies from even the slightest act of aggression is not accurate, as proven by concrete events of the past. British nuclear bombs did not deter Argentina from declaring war on the UK in 1982 and landing troops on territory London considers its own. Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons did not prevent skirmishes and fighter jets being shot out of the skies. Nuclear powers are subject to attacks by guerilla forces backed by other states. Two or three threatening "Tweets" by Trump, and the Leader of nuclear-armed North Korea went to sit down with the clown and offered to give up his entire nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions - whereas non-nuclear Iran stood its ground and did not go to the negotiating table. And so on, and so forth.

So yes, if you look at the surface of things, if you restrict yourself to the symbolic level and to the realm of psy-ops, if you react in an emotive way to geostrategic developments, you might think Iran is weak(er than X, Y, Z)... But not if you grasp the entire depth of the situation, irregardless of any religious or ideological talking points.

Which is why the arguments of the anti-IR people are systematically fraught with issues of logic. Like claiming Iran's Supreme Leader was "forced" by the US and Isra"el" to impose a 2000 km limit on Iranian BM's, but leaving out that to any American president, Isra"el" matters just as much if not more than Washington D.C.. Or conveniently forgetting that the same Supreme Leader ordered an extension of Iran's missile range to 4000 km with the Khorramshahr, which was unveiled years ago. Not knowing what to do with the latest demonstrations of ICBM technology and being forced to resort to absurdities such as that "scientists" or the IRGC developed and showed these to the public against the will of the Supreme Leader.

Or take an argument like the one that claims Iran is "afraid" to build nuclear weapons because if it set out to do so, the US would strike and weaken the IRGC... But since those who make such arguments also believe that nukes are the ultimate weapon of invincibility, any weakening of the IRGC in this scenario would thus be temporary and wouldn't last more than a few weeks until the first nuclear device is assembled, after which the IRGC would become untouchable for all eternity, by the logic of those who hold such views. In other terms, this "weakening", which could only be temporary, would be fully worth it and thus, fear of the IRGC getting weakened for a while could never deter Iran from going for nukes.

At the end of the day, it's the end result that counts. If like takfiris you believe there's a "secret under the table alliance between Rafidha and Jews" and that the intense conflict between Iran and the US is "bogus", or that Washington does not actually seek to overthrow the Islamic Republic and change the status quo in Iran, then well, you're in dire need of medical care. If however you know what's going on and how rabid, intense and vivid zio-American enmity is towards Iran, and how impatient they've been to carry out "regime change" in Tehran, then you need to look at the result first and foremost. What happens along the way, is secondary.

The most respected local user in terms of military-technical knowledge of Iranian forces is PeeD. And as far as I understand, PeeD believes in conventional counter-force. Meaning that Iran has not just successfully deterred her enemies from a conventional military aggression, but is in the process of ensuring deterrence even against hypothetical nuclear strikes by purely conventional, asymmetrical means. I am fully convinced by the validity of this analysis, and I'm confident that most Iranian users would concur.

I also concur.

IRGC-AEROSPACE forces has reached a level of conventional-counterforce that no other nation of Iran's type can or has matched. The sheer quantity of missiles being produced and put into service from year to year is astonishing. We can point to countless examples of missile cities, we can cite recent articles quoting American defense officials or show footage of underground BM bases but the end point still remains the same. Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent that ensures Iran's territorial integrity/sovereignty from foreign aggressors and their mighty nukes. Undoubtedly in the future we will see Iran greatly expand its nuclear infrastructure, much to the dismay of the Zionist entity, but by then (just like right now) they will only bitch and moan. After-all, their American attack-dog is only becoming more irrelevant as the months and years roll on.

As it stands, Iran has weathered the worst of what the Zionists and Americans can dish out short of all out war. So I seriously don't know what the issue is about.

Iran has attained conventional deterrent due to its massive and ever expanding ballistic missile/cruise-missile/drone apparatus.

Shocked to see this level of discussion on PDF --- it's refreshing and gives me hope that this forum may actually be worth staying on. Keep it up, guys.

All nations must build highly effective deterrence down to the 'gray zone' (under the threshold of open/conventional conflict).

If you have nukes, your adversary will switch to limited conventional options (under the threshold of nuclear response).
When you build conventional counter-force options, your adversary will switch to sub-conventional options (under the threshold of a limited conventional response, unless one wants to test the escalation ladder).
When you build gray zone capacities, then you have proper full-spectrum deterrence. This means heavy investments in intel/spec ops/cyber, etc., and I'm glad to see that Iran has realized this faster than many other developing / middle-income countries.

One of the fun things about modeling deterrence is that beyond assumptions of 'rational actors' (those that understand costs and payoffs, etc.), there is a huge element of leadership and cultural psychology. The one reason I like hardliners is that they understand realpolitik and deterrence between than those who subscribe to abstract delusions about liberalism, cooperation, and the market-will-solve-everything approach.

Just my 2c.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom