Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Philosopher]

Sinking an American carrier won't lead to nuclear weapons launch on Iran unless Iran uses nukes. Just mean more bombings. You know conventional bombing kills more than nukes right?

The context of that comment was regarding mass casualties in a single blow. If Iran sinks an aircraft carrier, that will potentially cause the death of 1000's of sailors. I do not buy this "only using nukes will cause nuclear retaliation". The humiliation and level of pressure on any sitting leader would be so much that the use of nuclear systems cannot be discarded. This is especially true when that leader is quick to rash decisions.

 

[Oldman1]

The context of that comment was regarding mass casualties in a single blow. If Iran sinks an aircraft carrier, that will potentially cause the death of 1000's of sailors. I do not buy this "only using nukes will cause nuclear retaliation". The humiliation and level of pressure on any sitting leader would be so much that the use of nuclear systems cannot be discarded. This is especially true when that leader is quick to rash decisions.

Well then don't target the aircraft carriers then.

 

[Philosopher]

Well then don't target the aircraft carriers then.

Well of course they will be targeted, they are a major source of power projection. My point was there is no need to sink them. Target and take out of service, but do not sink.

 

[Oldman1]

Well of course they will be targeted, they are a major source of power projection. My point was there is no need to sink them. Target and take out of service, but do not sink.

Since we are talking about mass casualties, even a floating burning carrier will lead to mass casualties. You saw that during WW2 even when the carriers didn't sink. So as you said, that could lead to nuclear retaliation.

 

[Philosopher]

Since we are talking about mass casualties, even a floating burning carrier will lead to mass casualties. You saw that during WW2 even when the carriers didn't sink. So as you said, that could lead to nuclear retaliation.

Sure, there will be casualties regardless. However I consider a serious difference between sinking a ship and potentially killing all on board and a more targeted strike that could lead to a fraction of those casualties. Far less pressure and humiliation involved there.

 

[Oldman1]

Sure, there will be casualties regardless. However I consider a serious difference between sinking a ship and potentially killing all on board and a more targeted strike that could lead to a fraction of those casualties. Far less pressure and humiliation involved there.

Well whatever, try not to sink the carrier and you won't see nuclear mushrooms then if that helps. Keep the casualties to a minimum. Since if thousands are dead, Trump could still use nukes even if the carrier doesn't sink.

 

[triangle]

Crippling an aircraft carrier is much more feasable and politically less risky than completly sinking it. The naval exercise in 2015 against the famous carrier mock-up showed us that after the initial mass attack on the carrier, heliborne troops boarded the carrier presumably to take command of the carrier.

Now that the carrrier mock-up has been patched up and ready to be used again, it would be interesting to see if the military doctrine of crippling and capturing a carrier is still in place.

It would be quite the sight to see a crippled carrier being towed by a bunch of tugs to a harbor as a war throphy.

 

[Dariush the Great]

Well whatever, try not to sink the carrier and you won't see nuclear mushrooms then if that helps. Keep the casualties to a minimum. Since if thousands are dead, Trump could still use nukes even if the carrier doesn't sink.

dare to nuke us, we will launch thousands of missiles armed with bio chemical warhead to your illegitimate child in the middle east. after that we will come after you as well

 

[triangle]

dare to nuke us, we will launch thousands of missiles armed with bio chemical warhead to your illegitimate child in the middle east. after that we will come after you as well

There really is no need for this kind of rhetoric nor is it realistic. Iran has build sufficient deterrence and A2/AD capability that no country would dare to attack it right on.

 

[Philosopher]

For those of you interested, here is one of the American ground based hypersonic missile solutions.

https://southfront.org/us-army-awards-two-key-hypersonic-missile-contracts/

Seems the world has woken up to the reality of ground based ballistic,hypersonic etc missiles as an offensive arm.

 

[Oldman1]

For those of you interested, here is one of the American ground based hypersonic missile solutions.

https://southfront.org/us-army-awards-two-key-hypersonic-missile-contracts/

Seems the world has woken up to the reality of ground based missiles as an offensive arm.

Umm we had the Pershings and ground based tomahawks. Thats considered offensive weaponry.

You never know. To t

Crippling an aircraft carrier is much more feasable and politically less risky than completly sinking it. The naval exercise in 2015 against the famous carrier mock-up showed us that after the initial mass attack on the carrier, heliborne troops boarded the carrier presumably to take command of the carrier.

Now that the carrrier mock-up has been patched up and ready to be used again, it would be interesting to see if the military doctrine of crippling and capturing a carrier is still in place.

It would be quite the sight to see a crippled carrier being towed by a bunch of tugs to a harbor as a war throphy.

You never know, Trump would rather nuke Iran than let a carrier being capture.

 

[Philosopher]

Umm we had the Pershings and ground based tomahawks. Thats considered offensive weaponry.

I am focused more on the use ballistic or hypersonic type systems. It seems to me that in the past few decades, minus the Iranian IRGC, no other nation had been so after the use of such systems to that extend. Situation is starting to change now, nations have realised just how potent these systems can be. The old ways of waging wars is becoming quickly outdated.

 

[Oldman1]

dare to nuke us, we will launch thousands of missiles armed with bio chemical warhead to your illegitimate child in the middle east. after that we will come after you as well

Umm after that you be long dead. Israel won't sit idle. You know they can hit you.

I am focused more on the use ballistic or hypersonic type systems. It seems to me that in the past few decades, minus the Iranian IRGC, no other nation had been so after the use of such systems. Situation is starting to change now, nations have realised just how potent these systems can be. The old ways of waging wars is becoming quickly outdated.

Including China?

 

[Philosopher]

Including China?

Chinese have a few systems, like the Russians. But when you look at the Iranian situation, for a long time its whole military doctrine was centred mostly around dozens of types of accurate ballistic systems. Furthermore, Iranians have time and again demonstrated the use of these systems. I am not saying Iran is solely responsible for the shift in the world perspective towards missiles, but it certainly played a big role. Here, if you get the time read the recent article by Uzi Rubin regarding this:

Israel and the Precision-Guided Missile Threat
https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-precision-guided-missiles/​

 

[Oldman1]

Chinese have a few systems, like the Russians. But when you look at the Iranian situation, for a long time its whole military doctrine was centred mostly around dozens of types of accurate ballistic systems. Furthermore, Iranians have time and again demonstrated the use of these systems. I am not saying Iran is solely responsible for the shift in the world perspective towards missiles, but it certainly played a big role. Here, if you get the time read the recent article by Uzi Rubin regarding this:

Israel and the Precision-Guided Missile Threat
https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-precision-guided-missiles/​

A few? More like thousands. Similar to Iran in dealing with the U.S. Navy in the whole Pacific Ocean.