AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
Sitting Duck in tiny 35km zone lol that is the passage ...
Easy picking , the slow Carrier is in death zone
Iran to take action if US aircraft carrier returns
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
Sitting Duck in tiny 35km zone lol that is the passage ...
Easy picking , the slow Carrier is in death zone
FriendOfPakistan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
If they win a battle, will the US just give up ?
What I said before, Iran is in very good position to win over US right now. Have a look on their way of talking, if that USs aircraft carrier goes there again, the chances are only 50% that it will back
Generally Khan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
I think you missed the part Iran did tried for peaceful resolution, as well as concentrated on self sufficiency, however current sanctions has a goal to completely cripple Iran (without oil export it would be very tough times). Iran cant back down anymore, they want actual resolution of problems, even if its the war, which US/Israel are pushing so hard.
I agree it also gives additional ammo to US/EU, but it doesnt matter after this point, additional sanctions on what - carpets?
It doesn't matter how many times you try and fail at diplomacy, you can always try again. Iran does not have the luxury to fail at diplomacy. Aggressive posturing only plays into the hands of US, EU and it strengthens Israel's propagandist version of military-crazed Iran.
As for what can be further sanctioned, one word "OIL". Iranian oil flows into EU and if sanctioned it will benefit China and India as they wont pay high market prices because Iran simply doesn't have other buyers. 80% of Iranian economy is oil based and EU sanctions will hit Iranian economy hard.
I still think Iranian threats to close down Straight of Hormuz is nothing short of adding fuel to fire and the neo-cons are going to have a field day with this. Can Iran close down Straight of Hormuz? Sure it can. Does it have to remind the world? No it doesn't.
I'll quote Sun-Tzu, "All warfare is based on deception."
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
I don’t know how I would say and whether you will understand or not………
Look, right now there would be two groups, one who would blame US for imposing unnecessary sanctions on Iran which has brought Iran in this position resulting high oil prices, and second, that group who would blame Iran for not understanding US’s/EU’s concerns over Iran’s nuke program. First group would belong to developing countries like India, Pakistan, China, South Africa etc who want to import more oil/ gas from Iran but sanctions don’t allow them. And second group from US+EU who don’t want Iran to have more strengths/ prosperity. And if Iran may be able to demonstrate its strengths, first group would get more strengths over the second group with their say that it’s the developed countries who have created so much uncertainties in the world while Iran is always ready to co-operate with UN’s inspectors and their nuclear program is just for 'peaceful purposes' only.
“Only those get help who can help themselves.”
And, just be with me and see how ‘way of looking’ on Iran by West will get changed once Iran demonstrate its strength. They all will start understanding that Iran is a very responsible country and they have to co-operate with Iran ‘only’, not much options.Thanks
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Most of the Indian, Pakistani and Chinese members here are mainly based in Western countries so they are not really attached with the main mindset of the people of their home countries. I remember, whenever oil prices went higher during 90s and last decade, Indian politicians mainly supported it as it will increase inflow of remittances from the gulf countries and there will be more order for export from there. As, it’s the US+EU who are the main oil importers and will have to pay more, not the developing countries.
We hope India would achieve higher pace of export growth to Saudi Arabia by next 2-3 years
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Great postIt seems Iran decided instead of folding, bring up the heat and see whats cooking
If war happens, Iran has a better chance now than later, and their leadership understands it well.
But I find Iran winning this war before it may even start. Heavily debted US/EU economies are now on the mercy of Iran. any more trouble in Gulf will bring them back to recession. they just cant fund a big war with Iran while high oil prices have already threatened their economies, whether they may even bear their expanses with over $150/ barrel oil price or not, they aren't sure. how they will fund a war?
Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Jan 4, 2012
The gloves are off but the US and Iran are just swinging
US President Barack Obama doesn't want, or intend, to go to war with Iran. But that doesn't necessarily mean he won't do so. Neither Mr Obama nor his Iranian counterparts imagine that their game of brinkmanship could lead to a conflagration that neither seeks, but both sides could make political choices that amount to opting for war rather than compromise.
Iran spent last week test-firing surface-to-surface missiles in war games near the Strait of Hormuz, apparently seeking to signal its ability to close off the sea lane through which some 40 per cent of global oil supplies travel. A couple of Iranian officials even threatened to do just that if Iran is blocked from selling its own oil on global markets - although other, more senior officials quickly walked back that threat.
Nevertheless, the US Navy vowed to prevent militarily any closure of the Strait, creating a media firestorm in the news-starved holiday season Western media.
President Obama, of course, was spending his Christmas break in Hawaii, but he took time off from golf and snorkelling to sign into law a dramatic escalation of US sanctions against Iran - and any company from any country doing business with Iran's central bank. The new measures threaten to exclude any bank or firm that trades with Iran from doing business in the US, which remains the hub of global finance. That legislation could be used to effectively stop Iran selling oil on world markets.
The plummeting of Iran's currency since Monday suggests that the measures are having an impact, although few analysts expect them to change the stance of Iran's leadership. On the contrary, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will hope to rally nationalist sentiment by blaming economic hardships on Western pressure over a nuclear programme that remains popular.
Mr Obama likes to tell himself that economic strangulation is an alternative to war. In signing new sanctions legislations, he believes he is giving Iran a "last chance" to back down peacefully before the US exercises a "military option" to stop Iran from acquiring the means to build nuclear weapons. But the "red lines" are hardly being made clear, and they may not be the same for Washington as they are for Israel, which is constantly threatening to strike.
More importantly, as the former CIA chief analyst Paul Pillar argues: "The United States has made it almost impossible for Iran to say yes to whatever it is the United States is supposedly demanding of Iran."
The dispute has moved beyond the terms of Iran's conflict with the IAEA and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, since the sanctions being imposed now are not authorised by the UN resolutions - and the threat of military action that underlies them has no legal authority from the Security Council.
When the showdown began under President George W Bush, the determination was to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to build nuclear weapons, particularly the technology to enrich uranium.
Iran crossed that "red line" two years before Mr Bush left the White House. Since then, Western powers have not defined the parameters of an acceptable or plausible outcome to the showdown. It remains extremely unlikely that Iran, whose insistence on its "nuclear rights" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enjoys widespread popular support at home, would accept less than the full nuclear fuel cycle - including uranium enrichment - to which it is entitled as an NPT signatory once it has satisfied the concerns raised by the IAEA.
As Mr Pillar notes: "Any feasible change in Iranian policies that could be the basis of a new understanding with the United States and the West would ... very likely include the (continued) enrichment of uranium by Iran." That would mean Iran would keep the means to develop a nuclear weapon but would agree to stronger safeguards against it turning that capability into a weapons program.
That's a goal that can still be achieved: Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran has not, in fact, made a strategic decision to actually build nuclear weapons, even as it uses the rubric of a nuclear energy programme to acquire the infrastructure necessary to do so. This despite the fact that the IAEA has accused Iran of conducting research work and experiments that appear to be aimed at mastering the technology of building nuclear warheads.
The misleading conventional wisdom in Washington is that diplomacy was tried with Iran, and failed. But a group of US foreign policy greybeards, represented by former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers, warned last week that serious diplomacy with Iran hasn't really been tried.
"Military action is becoming the seemingly fail-safe solution for the United States to deal with real and imagined security problems," the ambassadors wrote in the Washington Post. "The uncertain and intellectually demanding ways of diplomacy are seen as unmanly and tedious - likely to involve compromise and even appeasement. President Obama made efforts to engage Iranian leaders in his first year in office but, when rebuffed, turned in a different direction."
Today, when the Obama Administration talks about "diplomacy" on Iran, it means the effort to persuade other governments to support sanctions.
"Without [a] patient search for different ways to deal with Tehran," Mr Pickering and Mr Luers warn, "Washington will be stuck with a policy that will not change Iran's practices or its regime and could lead to a catastrophic war."
Two weeks ago, the Associate Press reported that US Ambassador Susan Rice had told the Security Council that Iran sanctions were not an end in themselves, but a means to "buy time to pursue diplomatic solutions" to the nuclear standoff. Unfortunately, the only constituency from which the US needs to "buy time" are those baying for war and manufacturing a sense of crisis that could end in tragedy.
Tony Karon is an analyst based in New York. Follow on Twitter @TonyKaron
The gloves are off but the US and Iran are just swinging - The National
The gloves are off but the US and Iran are just swinging
US President Barack Obama doesn't want, or intend, to go to war with Iran. But that doesn't necessarily mean he won't do so. Neither Mr Obama nor his Iranian counterparts imagine that their game of brinkmanship could lead to a conflagration that neither seeks, but both sides could make political choices that amount to opting for war rather than compromise.
Iran spent last week test-firing surface-to-surface missiles in war games near the Strait of Hormuz, apparently seeking to signal its ability to close off the sea lane through which some 40 per cent of global oil supplies travel. A couple of Iranian officials even threatened to do just that if Iran is blocked from selling its own oil on global markets - although other, more senior officials quickly walked back that threat.
Nevertheless, the US Navy vowed to prevent militarily any closure of the Strait, creating a media firestorm in the news-starved holiday season Western media.
President Obama, of course, was spending his Christmas break in Hawaii, but he took time off from golf and snorkelling to sign into law a dramatic escalation of US sanctions against Iran - and any company from any country doing business with Iran's central bank. The new measures threaten to exclude any bank or firm that trades with Iran from doing business in the US, which remains the hub of global finance. That legislation could be used to effectively stop Iran selling oil on world markets.
The plummeting of Iran's currency since Monday suggests that the measures are having an impact, although few analysts expect them to change the stance of Iran's leadership. On the contrary, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will hope to rally nationalist sentiment by blaming economic hardships on Western pressure over a nuclear programme that remains popular.
Mr Obama likes to tell himself that economic strangulation is an alternative to war. In signing new sanctions legislations, he believes he is giving Iran a "last chance" to back down peacefully before the US exercises a "military option" to stop Iran from acquiring the means to build nuclear weapons. But the "red lines" are hardly being made clear, and they may not be the same for Washington as they are for Israel, which is constantly threatening to strike.
More importantly, as the former CIA chief analyst Paul Pillar argues: "The United States has made it almost impossible for Iran to say yes to whatever it is the United States is supposedly demanding of Iran."
The dispute has moved beyond the terms of Iran's conflict with the IAEA and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, since the sanctions being imposed now are not authorised by the UN resolutions - and the threat of military action that underlies them has no legal authority from the Security Council.
When the showdown began under President George W Bush, the determination was to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to build nuclear weapons, particularly the technology to enrich uranium.
Iran crossed that "red line" two years before Mr Bush left the White House. Since then, Western powers have not defined the parameters of an acceptable or plausible outcome to the showdown. It remains extremely unlikely that Iran, whose insistence on its "nuclear rights" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enjoys widespread popular support at home, would accept less than the full nuclear fuel cycle - including uranium enrichment - to which it is entitled as an NPT signatory once it has satisfied the concerns raised by the IAEA.
As Mr Pillar notes: "Any feasible change in Iranian policies that could be the basis of a new understanding with the United States and the West would ... very likely include the (continued) enrichment of uranium by Iran." That would mean Iran would keep the means to develop a nuclear weapon but would agree to stronger safeguards against it turning that capability into a weapons program.
That's a goal that can still be achieved: Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran has not, in fact, made a strategic decision to actually build nuclear weapons, even as it uses the rubric of a nuclear energy programme to acquire the infrastructure necessary to do so. This despite the fact that the IAEA has accused Iran of conducting research work and experiments that appear to be aimed at mastering the technology of building nuclear warheads.
The misleading conventional wisdom in Washington is that diplomacy was tried with Iran, and failed. But a group of US foreign policy greybeards, represented by former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers, warned last week that serious diplomacy with Iran hasn't really been tried.
"Military action is becoming the seemingly fail-safe solution for the United States to deal with real and imagined security problems," the ambassadors wrote in the Washington Post. "The uncertain and intellectually demanding ways of diplomacy are seen as unmanly and tedious - likely to involve compromise and even appeasement. President Obama made efforts to engage Iranian leaders in his first year in office but, when rebuffed, turned in a different direction."
Today, when the Obama Administration talks about "diplomacy" on Iran, it means the effort to persuade other governments to support sanctions.
"Without [a] patient search for different ways to deal with Tehran," Mr Pickering and Mr Luers warn, "Washington will be stuck with a policy that will not change Iran's practices or its regime and could lead to a catastrophic war."
Two weeks ago, the Associate Press reported that US Ambassador Susan Rice had told the Security Council that Iran sanctions were not an end in themselves, but a means to "buy time to pursue diplomatic solutions" to the nuclear standoff. Unfortunately, the only constituency from which the US needs to "buy time" are those baying for war and manufacturing a sense of crisis that could end in tragedy.
Tony Karon is an analyst based in New York. Follow on Twitter @TonyKaron
The gloves are off but the US and Iran are just swinging - The National
FriendOfPakistan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
I doubt there will be an intentional confrontation, but there is always a chance of an "accidental" confrontation with neither side backing down. Events could spiral out of control, and rationality will be lost in the process.
The Iraq war ended up ruining the US economy, and many had predicted the dire consequences, yet it happened and the occupation continued for nearly a decade.
The Iraq war ended up ruining the US economy, and many had predicted the dire consequences, yet it happened and the occupation continued for nearly a decade.
But I find Iran winning this war before it may even start. Heavily debted US/EU economies are now on the mercy of Iran. any more trouble in Gulf will bring them back to recession. they just cant fund a big war with Iran while high oil prices have already threatened their economies, whether they may even bear their expanses of with over $150/ barrel oil price or not, they aren't sure. how they will fund a war?
Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
This pretty much gives a general picture of what Iranian Navy has and what they can face.
--------------
Jan 3, 2012
Iran does not have the arsenal to back up its many threats
The recent statements coming out of Iran, including by Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi, have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the West imposes sanctions on Iranian oil exports. But the reality of the regime's limited military capacity makes this seem like more of a bluff than an actual plausible course of action.
One only has to refer back to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, or even the recent capture of a US surveillance drone, to realise that the Iranians should not be underestimated. But it is also important to not allow their strategic bravado and inflammatory rhetoric to influence oil prices and the world economy. The Iranians should not be discounted, but equally they must not be overestimated.
Iran's recent Velayat 90, or "Supremacy 90", manoeuvres were intended to be a show of force to display its capabilities. It deployed anti-shipping missiles, anti-air missiles and small boats that would no doubt be important players if it did try to close the strait.
The exercise involved some actual real-world training, but the dominant component was to send a message to its neighbours. Some of the weapons systems, especially the 1960s-era F-4 fighters and helicopters, would be totally irrelevant and were probably included for reasons of prestige and propaganda. If Iran was more serious about closing the strait, then its manoeuvres would have been much more realistic.
But how real is Iran's capability if it did wish to start hostilities?
Firstly, the consequences of such an attempt must be taken into account. A naval conflict in a strait, where approximately 15 million barrels a day pass through, would send oil prices skyrocketing, greatly damaging the struggling world economy.
There is no doubt that the US and Nato, and possibly other major powers, would retaliate against such a move. An operation to try to restrict shipping in the strait would be an act of desperation and completely counterproductive.
Iran's conventional surface fleet would be sitting targets, and face annihilation from aerial attacks akin to what happened to Libya's mechanised ground forces in the recent Nato-led offensive. Its manoeuvres would be limited to simply trying to survive, which is one reason why Iran has not heavily invested in a surface fleet.
And there would not be much relief under the surface either. Iran's diesel-electric kilo class submarines are certainly much quieter than nuclear submarines, and they are also difficult to detect in the shallow waters of the Arabian Gulf. In 2006, a similar Chinese Song-class submarine approached the US aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, coming undetected within striking distance before surfacing. But diesel-electric submarines need to surface every few days, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
Anti-shipping missiles (ASMs) are another weapon the Iranians could try to use. The location of strategic islands in the Gulf, along with large stockpiles of ASMs, makes them an important part of Iran's asymmetrical warfare doctrine. An ASM base on Qeshm Island at the mouth of the strait would be at the forefront of any attempt to halt traffic.
Iran's ASM models are designed for quick deployment and firing, and it's likely that the ASM crews have been trained to fire quickly and scatter to avoid retaliation. In 2003, Iran fired ASM missiles that had been modified to become guided cruise missiles. US forces had a very hard time locating and destroying the ASM launchers, and captured most of them intact and abandoned, sometimes days after they had been fired.
But nowadays there is much better drone and satellite reconnaissance to pinpoint and destroy ASM launcher and missile locations. Most surface ships in the Gulf are equipped with effective missile-intercept capabilities. If Iran chose to engage in ASM warfare, it could find itself fighting a losing battle of attrition.
Iran does have a fleet of small boats that numbers in the hundreds, some with the ability to fire lethal ASMs, but most are poorly equipped, modified speedboats with Katyusha rocket launchers and heavy machine guns. As the Somali pirate operations have shown, modified small boats can help achieve tactical surprise, but if intercepted by heavier vessels, the battle becomes one-sided due to the poor defensive capabilities and the lack of sophisticated armaments.
Possibly the most effective tool that the Iranians have is their mine warfare capability. The Iranians have an extensive (and underrated) naval mining capability, which can be launched from boats, planes, mini-submarines and even from the shore. Mines are the poor man's most lethal naval weapon. Since the end of the Second World War, mines have seriously damaged or sunk four times more US navy ships than all other means of attack combined.
Iran's naval mining capability looks like the wild card in such a conflict. There is no command and control structure in mine warfare that the US type of "shock and awe" strategy could effectively attack and destroy.
Overall, however, the naval warfare capabilities of the US, Nato and GCC have improved in recent years. There is much better mine countermeasures training, and a much wider choice of aerial and naval systems to deal with mines.
The combination of these weapons does mean that, if it chose, Iran could reduce Gulf maritime traffic through the strait in the short-term. Its limitations, however, mean that the affair would most likely be resolved in a matter of weeks.
Ahmed Al Attar is a security affairs commentator. Follow him on Twitter: @AhmedwAlAttar
Iran does not have the arsenal to back up its many threats - The National
--------------
Jan 3, 2012
Iran does not have the arsenal to back up its many threats
The recent statements coming out of Iran, including by Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi, have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the West imposes sanctions on Iranian oil exports. But the reality of the regime's limited military capacity makes this seem like more of a bluff than an actual plausible course of action.
One only has to refer back to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, or even the recent capture of a US surveillance drone, to realise that the Iranians should not be underestimated. But it is also important to not allow their strategic bravado and inflammatory rhetoric to influence oil prices and the world economy. The Iranians should not be discounted, but equally they must not be overestimated.
Iran's recent Velayat 90, or "Supremacy 90", manoeuvres were intended to be a show of force to display its capabilities. It deployed anti-shipping missiles, anti-air missiles and small boats that would no doubt be important players if it did try to close the strait.
The exercise involved some actual real-world training, but the dominant component was to send a message to its neighbours. Some of the weapons systems, especially the 1960s-era F-4 fighters and helicopters, would be totally irrelevant and were probably included for reasons of prestige and propaganda. If Iran was more serious about closing the strait, then its manoeuvres would have been much more realistic.
But how real is Iran's capability if it did wish to start hostilities?
Firstly, the consequences of such an attempt must be taken into account. A naval conflict in a strait, where approximately 15 million barrels a day pass through, would send oil prices skyrocketing, greatly damaging the struggling world economy.
There is no doubt that the US and Nato, and possibly other major powers, would retaliate against such a move. An operation to try to restrict shipping in the strait would be an act of desperation and completely counterproductive.
Iran's conventional surface fleet would be sitting targets, and face annihilation from aerial attacks akin to what happened to Libya's mechanised ground forces in the recent Nato-led offensive. Its manoeuvres would be limited to simply trying to survive, which is one reason why Iran has not heavily invested in a surface fleet.
And there would not be much relief under the surface either. Iran's diesel-electric kilo class submarines are certainly much quieter than nuclear submarines, and they are also difficult to detect in the shallow waters of the Arabian Gulf. In 2006, a similar Chinese Song-class submarine approached the US aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, coming undetected within striking distance before surfacing. But diesel-electric submarines need to surface every few days, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
Anti-shipping missiles (ASMs) are another weapon the Iranians could try to use. The location of strategic islands in the Gulf, along with large stockpiles of ASMs, makes them an important part of Iran's asymmetrical warfare doctrine. An ASM base on Qeshm Island at the mouth of the strait would be at the forefront of any attempt to halt traffic.
Iran's ASM models are designed for quick deployment and firing, and it's likely that the ASM crews have been trained to fire quickly and scatter to avoid retaliation. In 2003, Iran fired ASM missiles that had been modified to become guided cruise missiles. US forces had a very hard time locating and destroying the ASM launchers, and captured most of them intact and abandoned, sometimes days after they had been fired.
But nowadays there is much better drone and satellite reconnaissance to pinpoint and destroy ASM launcher and missile locations. Most surface ships in the Gulf are equipped with effective missile-intercept capabilities. If Iran chose to engage in ASM warfare, it could find itself fighting a losing battle of attrition.
Iran does have a fleet of small boats that numbers in the hundreds, some with the ability to fire lethal ASMs, but most are poorly equipped, modified speedboats with Katyusha rocket launchers and heavy machine guns. As the Somali pirate operations have shown, modified small boats can help achieve tactical surprise, but if intercepted by heavier vessels, the battle becomes one-sided due to the poor defensive capabilities and the lack of sophisticated armaments.
Possibly the most effective tool that the Iranians have is their mine warfare capability. The Iranians have an extensive (and underrated) naval mining capability, which can be launched from boats, planes, mini-submarines and even from the shore. Mines are the poor man's most lethal naval weapon. Since the end of the Second World War, mines have seriously damaged or sunk four times more US navy ships than all other means of attack combined.
Iran's naval mining capability looks like the wild card in such a conflict. There is no command and control structure in mine warfare that the US type of "shock and awe" strategy could effectively attack and destroy.
Overall, however, the naval warfare capabilities of the US, Nato and GCC have improved in recent years. There is much better mine countermeasures training, and a much wider choice of aerial and naval systems to deal with mines.
The combination of these weapons does mean that, if it chose, Iran could reduce Gulf maritime traffic through the strait in the short-term. Its limitations, however, mean that the affair would most likely be resolved in a matter of weeks.
Ahmed Al Attar is a security affairs commentator. Follow him on Twitter: @AhmedwAlAttar
Iran does not have the arsenal to back up its many threats - The National
Hello_10
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,477
- Reaction score
- -2
Things are not always predictable but, I may say that once there will be a real face to face between Iran and US, Iran would better take the first attempt, before US may strike. And I think, they would start with sinking US’s aircraft carrier which will put them in a better position to deal the circumstances on their own terms. It may even bring them in the position to order rest of military bases of US, based in that region.
But as Iran’s military is more aware of the circumstances of that region, it would be interesting to see whether they prefer for a first strike or wait for the right time. But on my side, I would advise that Iran’s leaders would first discuss the matter with other concerned countries like Russia, India, China and try to get rid off the sanctions without any big confrontation. “War would be the last option”, I read somewhere.
But one thing is sure, any more sanctions on Iran would be considered as an attack on Iran and they would then be allowed to defend themselves
PERSIAN GOD KING
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,361
- Reaction score
- 0
My advice for you is to not mess with whatever it is you're smoking B/C its effecting you badly.
I seriously doubt USA will ever use a nuke again, B/C that would put so many countries on alert, and the funny thing is that you think Iran does not know it can be nuked? so clearly Iranian have done something about it. the Iranian regime is a liar they will never admit they have a nuke.
The usa ships is sitting ducks for many reasons, Iran could jam their communication systems,via blinding orjamming their sats(which they are capable of) here check this
http://hamsayeh.net/society/1429-report-iran-blinded-cia-spy-satellite.html
another way would be to hack into their systems, like the RQ-170. lets not forget missiles and so on.
jamming and blinding US Battle Group. .. dude ... E-3 Awacs can fry ur electronics from a good 100 kms away.. in addition thr willb E-2D.. on board.. plus F-18 Growler ....USA can beat you 100 times over ... so better dont make this an ego issue ... USA can stop you to export oil... which India is one of the biggest importers ... so it will cripple your and india's economy also as oil prices will reach over 200 $.. and no US Ship is duck sitting... they are good 20 years ahead of 2nd most advance military tech in world.. and as far as iran... a good 4 decades ahead...RQ-170 can not b taken as a weakness of USA... thr might b a day whn ur biggest customers/investors will be strong enuff for protect Iran ... but right now no nation on Earth can militarily provoke the MIGHTY USA ///
Chogy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 0
Disagree on NK. First of all, North Korea does not have nuclear weapons. Both of their tests were colossal failures, none yielding more than 2 to 3 kilotons - fizzles. In contrast, the energy released by the jets impacting the WTC were about the same as the NK tests. You don't win a war (or deter) with these.
They have not mastered plutonium bomb technology and couldn't nuke anybody even if they wanted to.
Why is there this automatic assumption that "If country A has nukes, America dare not attack. If Country B does not, America will attack." Iran does not have nukes - we haven't attacked. Venezuela doesn't have nukes, we haven't attacked. Cuba has been cut loose by the USSR since 1991, no nukes, we haven't attacked. You get the idea.
Maybe, just maybe, we haven't attacked because war sucks and we hope certain issues can be resolved diplomatically.
Chogy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 0
Sitting Duck in tiny 35km zone lol that is the passage ...
Easy picking , the slow Carrier is in death zone
Again, there is no need for a nuclear powered carrier and her support ships to transit the straights if a conflict is inevitable. They can stand off in the gulf of Oman, deep blue water, and attack at will.
"We'll launch a missile at the carrier!" - Uh, missiles need targeting data of one type or another. Hitting a moving warship with a ballistic missile is extraordinarily difficult.
I wouldn't worry about a conventional ballistic missile being used as anti-ship because it would be mistaken for a nuclear attack. The U.S. looked at the idea and it would be really bad of course. Even Donald Rumsfeld shot that idea down.
Similar threads
- Locked
