What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

I quote by segments, hence my comments are bound to be directly related to what I'm replying to.



I mentioned the US casualties solely to underscore the fact that America's nuclear bombs couldn't prevent them. And if curtailing the neocon plan for a "New Middle East" to a significant degree is not something worth mentioning, and don't know what is. On the other hand, more than two years have passed since Hajj Qasem's martyrdom and we're yet to see Iran suffer any geostrategic setbacks.



Unlike the suggestion I might get paid to post.



Pakistan got sanctioned in 1998 precisely because of its acquisition of nuclear weapons. And these were lifted in 2001 by the Bush junior regime as a reward for cooperation with America's on its so-called "war on terror".

Whilst Beijing had obtained nuclear arms in 1964, the US trade embargo on China was lifted only in 1972. Reason was Nixon's policy of overture towards Beijing, motivated by Washington's desire to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and use it against the USSR and its allies, especially in southeast Asia.

Like Korea, Iran will surely remain sanctioned if she opts for nuclear weapons.
To add to that, the ‘sanctions’ are failing as a policy. Their implementation scope and intent will change. There are better and bigger alternatives for countries who have been sanctioned.
 
Weird logic indeed. According to our friend SalarHaqq we need to be asking ourselves:

Why has India not nuked Pakistan? Pakistan supports militants that kill Indian soldiers.

Why has Pakistan not nuked India? India supports militants that kill Pakistani soldiers.

Why has Israel not nuked Iran? Iran supports Hamas that kill Israeli soldiers.

Why has USA not nuked Pakistan? Pakistans ISI supported many different militant group in Afghanistan that killed US soldiers.

Nope. You need to be asking yourself this:

What makes you so sure that Iranian nuclear weapons would have prevented the US from martyring Hajj Qasem, when the same nuclear weapons failed to preclude any of the events you cite? Because Hajj Qasem's martyrdom is what you and like minded users keep portraying as supposed proof for lacking deterrence on Iran's part.

I myself mentioned the Falklands war to show that nuclear weapons offer not just a lousy type of insurance against skirmishes and proxy strikes, but that even full fledged conventional attack is possible against a nuclear armed state.
 
Last edited:
To be honest no, that isn't the case.



Not really sure why you're misinterpreting my statements and losing the discussion thread. You claimed it was acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and China which made the US lift sanctions on these countries. I showed how this is not the case, since other factors presided over Washington's decision to lift sanctions in these two instances.



China is not a threat to the zionist entity. Zionism is a central part of the ideological basis of the US regime. Zionist symbols are integrated into official United States emblems, zionism is intrinsically linked to freemasonry (as per one rabbi, freemasonry is merely an adapted version of the Kabbala), and masonry in turn is the single most salient element in the US regime's ideological foundations - a simple look at the urban architecture of Washington D.C., seat of federal institutions, will make that more than clear. The dominant Anglo-Saxons settlers in northern America were Puritanical Protestants of zionist persuasion, as evidenced by their belief in Rapture theology.

It's not Japan nor south Korea, nor India, nor any of the countries bordering the South China Sea which US presidents - no matter their political obedience, routinely and ritually praise and portray and the single closest entity to America, with sort of an organic link binding them together: it's Isra"el" and Isra"el" only.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether China will turn against the globalist oligarchy, which largely controls the US regime (including Democrat, classic Republican and fake opposition Trumpist camps). The revolutionary core of the Islamic Republic, however, is pursuing policies that are completely incompatible with the globalist design for a Universal Republic.



It's simply another example of a country against which the US maintained sanctions after it manufactured nuclear weapons. Again, it's necessary to stick to the thread of the discussion, I'm not speaking in a vacuum but strictly reacting to what was said before: here I was responding to the suggestion that nuclear weapons may encourage the US to lift sanctions. And that's not the case, be it with China, Pakistan, Iran or the DPRK.



No contradiction. Nuclear weapons aren't an existential necessity for Iran. Not at this time nor under current circumstances. They may one day become unavoidable, but that's not the case right now.



Where did I claim it's because of the prospect of additional sanctions that Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons at the moment? I'm saying Iran's nuclear program isn't the essential reason behind the US regime's sanctions policy against Iran. And secondly, that nuclear weapons won't add much to Iran's deterrence at this point in time and given the geopolitical context. No contradiction, no hypocrisy, nothing of the sort here.

As for the negotiations, once more I'll have to reference users mohsen and sanel1412's explanations on the subject. While adding that the limitations in question, many of which are subject to sunset clauses, do not deprive Iran of its break-out capability, nor of access to the entire spectrum of civilian nuclear technology. And thirdly, that considering Iran's principled stance at the negotiations, it is not guaranteed at all that the JCPOA is going to be revived in its original form to begin with.



I'm suggesting that the largest nuclear arsenal in the world will not deter an adversary from resorting to specific forms of military action. That the belief according to which nuclear weapons will preclude any and all (military) casualties and damage is incorrect. And, that those US casualties in Iraq weighed more and were more impactful on the geopolitical reality than Hajj Qasem's martyrdom.

Furthermore, one might turn the quoted argument around and declare that it's ridiculous to even envisage that Iran would have used megaton nuclear weapons on the US for the murder of shahid Soleimani.

There's strictly nothing ridiculous about reminding these facts. What they do, however, is to debunk the supposition that in view of relevant parameters, nuclear weapons will improve Iran's security equation the way that has been suggested they would.



- - - - -



What is full scale / non-full scale deterrence? Could you point me to a work of international relations theory introducing the concept?

Secondly, what I'm insisting on is this: Iran has undeniably achieved deterrence against the US on what actually matters in the big picture, on what actually might prove game-changing in the bilateral conflict. As much as I cherish Hajj Qasem, his martyrdom was not a game-changing event in the Iran-US confrontation, it did not trigger a deterioration of Iran's geostrategic standing vis a vis Washington.
I didn't even bother to read most of your nonsense.

1- Your argument that nuclear weapons stop indirect war casualties through proxy warfare is beyond ridiculous.

2- Killing 600+ foot soldiers over a span of 8 years during an invasion bears no geopolitical importance. Assassinating two of Iran's most powerful commanders and top nuclear scientist are extremely important developments of high geopolitical importance.

3- Nuclear triad is an existential necessity for any independent country.

4- Your worthless nonsense about Zionism does not change the fact that China is a greater threat to the US than the Mullah clowns of Iran can ever dream in their wet dreams. Iran doesn't even show up in US mainstream media very often but China is discussed daily. If you think otherwise, you are either completely retarded or a propaganda mouthpiece on payroll. China will soon take the place of the US as the first global power while the best that the Mullahs of Iran can ever dream of is staying a regional power similar to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, even Turkey with all its economic troubles is at a better regional position than Iran today.

5- You didn't answer any of my questions simply because you do not have an answer to them. I can repeat them if you want. Your answers stink of hypocrisy, are completely dishonest, lacks any argument that can be taken seriously, and it sometimes it stoops low to the level of conspiracy theories that anyone with a sane brain would laugh at your face.
 
I didn't even bother to read most of your nonsense.
1- Your argument that nuclear weapons stop indirect war casualties through proxy warfare is beyond ridiculous.

Never made that argument. If you actually bothered to read carefully, since you're admitting you don't, perhaps you'd get it.

2- Killing 600+ foot soldiers over a span of 8 years during an invasion bears no geopolitical importance. Assassinating two of Iran's most powerful commanders and top nuclear scientist are extremely important developments of high geopolitical importance.

Except that noone could show how Iran's geostrategic standing is supposed to have deteriorated as a result. Simply suggesting it did is no evidence. Truth is that no such thing took place, as admitted by US think tank pundits (like shown in the video posted before).

Also, US casualties in Iraq led to a loss of appetite for more wars in D.C.. The "real men" who intended to "go to Tehran" were successfully stopped in their tracks. The division of Iraq into three formally independent successor states never took place. Condoleezza's Rice "new Middle East" whose "birth pangs" she believed to be witnessing never came to fruition.

3- Nuclear triad is an existential necessity for any independent country.

It doesn't offer full guarantee of survival, the defunct and dismantled USSR being a testimony to this.

More over, depending on the context, other means can offer similar levels of security and protection, as demonstrated by Islamic Iran.

4- Your worthless nonsense about Zionism does not change the fact that China is a greater threat to the US than the Mullah clowns of Iran can ever dream in their wet dreams. Iran doesn't even show up in US mainstream media very often but China is discussed daily. If you think otherwise, you are either completely retarded or a propaganda mouthpiece on payroll. China will soon take the place of the US as the first global power while the best that the Mullahs of Iran can ever dream of is staying a regional power similar to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, even Turkey with all its economic troubles is at a better regional position than Iran today.

Anyone dismissing as nonsense the fact that to US decision makers and elites, Tel Aviv counts as much as the US itself is choosing to remain oblivious to the fundamental ground realities of the American regime. There's a reason why the term Isra"el"-firsters in reference to much of the American political class has gained so much currency, being indirectly acknowledged by academia even (see the seminal work of Mearsheimer and Waltz).

Also, if China opts to implement the globalist agenda, then the ruling oligarchy won't care whether China replaces US as the leading world power.

Lastly, being replaced as the leading power onto itself is not necessarily an existential type of threat. The UK regime lost that position too but didn't cease to exist.

Oh, and whatever "mullahs" achieved is magnitudes superior to what a bona fide US and zionist vassal like the former shah regime did. Not to mention that the number of states daring enough to challenge the zio-American order in a systematic way and meaningful way is limited to about a handful out of a hundred and ninety-five.

5- You didn't answer any of my questions simply because you do not have an answer to them. I can repeat them if you want. Your answers stink of hypocrisy, are completely dishonest, lacks any argument that can be taken seriously, and it sometimes it stoops low to the level of conspiracy theories that anyone with a sane brain would laugh at your face.

This represents no more than ad hominems and gratuitous shots. Everything put to me was answered in a sincere, rational, competent enough and fact-based manner. In reality it's constant use of demeaning vocabulary which reflects a need to compensate for a lack of convincing counters.
 
Last edited:
Is their confirmation that some of Irans missiles use thermobaric warheads or is this not confirmed yet?
 
What do you think of Russia's Iskander missiles accuracy compared to Iran's?
FMtAw6EWUAQeWAv

FMtAz0_XMAQeCD8
 
Iran's strike against Ayn-Al Assad managed to destroy a lot of building/assets whereas these pictures show nothing of worth being destroyed other than dirt....

Wtf is going on at Russian high-command?
Either its bad equipment or conscripts that don't know how to fire missiles.
 
Either its bad equipment or conscripts that don't know how to fire missiles.
The missiles themselves would have coordinates locked in prior to launch, so something must have gone wrong during in-flight correction or during the terminal descent phase.

Wow...Russia's performance has been an utter disaster. I can't believe what I'm seeing....
 
The missiles themselves would have coordinates locked in prior to launch, so something must have gone wrong during in-flight correction or during the terminal descent phase.

Wow...Russia's performance has been an utter disaster. I can't believe what I'm seeing....
Not to mention how many missiles were fired. You think they would have tried to take out the base on the first day of the war at least.
 
Not to mention how many missiles were fired. You think they would have tried to take out the base on the first day of the war at least.

They opted or a limited widespread opening strike thinking that they would only face paltry Ukrainian resistance (boy were they fucking wrong lol). Using COIN tactics to achieve their missions objectives but, as you correctly said. They've absolutely failed to nullify advanced TB2 drones (amongst other assets) which are now hidden all over the place and attacking vulnerable sections of Russias long armored columns.

It seems as though they've changed pace and are going a more traditional heavy counterforce route in order to achieve battlefield objectives.
 
Back
Top Bottom