I honestly don't believe that the US currently has the stomach to attack any nation that can actually retaliate in any meaningful way. That's just my personal opinion.
After 2003, the US had a large number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's military was not nearly as formidable as it is today. Iran had a mere sliver, a very small fraction of the air defense hardware and missile capability that it has today. The US didn't do it back then. Would they do it now ? I highly doubt it, unless the US / Trump had no other choice. For example if Iran seriously attacked them first and inflicted severe casualties.
Could the US launch 1000 missiles in one night. Yes, it's possible but we haven't seen anything like that before and such an operation would require a large amount of time to setup. Iran would see the forces being built up. Would they stand idle by and do nothing ? Or perhaps Iran would wait for the US to strike first simply for political reasons ? To be able to say the USA started the war ? Hmmm interesting prospect. Not sure what the correct answer would be.
Earlier, when I said 200-300 in one shot, that was an average number. I believe I heard it on a youtube channel talking about a contingency plan of USA attacking Turkey. I think it was Binkovs ? Yes he's a damn puppet but he does do some serious analysis and research as well, that can't be denied.
Realistically it's just an average number. I mean another thing to consider is this. After the assets launch their missiles, they're in a sense possibly vulnerable after that right ? I mean in theory they've launched missiles, so they could then be identified and targeted by a formidable enemy after that right ?
You always want to keep some reserves don't you ? In case let's say the enemy identifies and retaliates ? I mean I don't see the US military unloading everything in one shot. Think about it, what's more efficient, 1000 at once and then another week or more before another attack, considering maintenance and re acquisition of weapons, in the meantime some of your assets are now more vulnerable ?, Or would it be better to just have a constant flow of 200 every night, Constant pressure ? and constant protection for your assets ? The ability to retaliate or suddenly identify and destroy /40/60/80 targets at any given point ?
Yes undoubtedly Russian equipment has been destroyed but every weapon system has weaknesses and limitations. We saw what Iran / Houthis was able to do to Aramco that one night and the Patriots didn't even shoot down one single target.
In the case of Israel, they're using very advanced modern equipment against mostly older Soviet era gear in Syria. However there has never been a successful attack on a base housing Russian troops, defended by a Russian S-300 / S-400 battery. I believe some Turkish proxy groups or even Turkey tried to launch some assets at Hmeimim air base but allegedly the Russians shot it down.
With Turkey, they saturate the air with their drones. Yes they did destroy 10+ export Pantsir systems but they lost 20+ of their drones in the process. So was the Russian equipment useless or was it just a numbers game ?
If a SAM system has 4 missiles and you launch 8 cruise missiles at the system, we all know what the end result will be.
Of course the Pantsir is a medium range SAM. The ones in Libya were export version I might add, being operated by inexperienced people. If you had a multilayered system, so let's say Pantsirs, Tors, BUK, S-300, S-400 all working together and operated by experienced professionals, then it's a whole different ball game.
Of course let's also remember that afterwards, 3 Turkish HAWK SAM batteries were later destroyed allegedly by Egyptian / UAE Rafales at Watiya airbase. After that Turkey suddenly lost interest in expanding to Sirte.
Does that mean the HAWK is a useless system ? Of course not.
At the end of the day, it all depends on a wide range of particular circumstances and variables. Usually you don't find the truth in extremes, but for the most part somewhere in between, in the gray area.
Really? You based on how many were launched during Gulf War 1? So less than 300 were launched during that conflict? Okay how about during 2003 Invasion of Iraq when more than 800 missiles were launched? Or back during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 more than 400 were launched? Come on you got to do better than that. That's like saying U.S. launched a few aircraft in this so and so conflict so that must mean they can only launch a dozen aircraft. Of course the Russians would like to deny and claim they shot down this many considering in the past how much Russian equipment has been destroyed in Libya and Syria either by Israel and Turkey and so on. If there was a conflict with someone like Iran or China with that many targets, you will see something like 1000 or more being launched. All this with the SSGNs, and LRASMs that can be launched on smaller aircraft, etc. Yeah the first casualty would be the truth. Use the Iranian civilian plane being shot down and Iran saying they had nothing to do with it and admitted later they did as an example. I believe they try to sugar coat it by saying American EW was involved. Think its true?
Really? You based on how many were launched during Gulf War 1? So less than 300 were launched during that conflict? Okay how about during 2003 Invasion of Iraq when more than 800 missiles were launched? Or back during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 more than 400 were launched? Come on you got to do better than that. That's like saying U.S. launched a few aircraft in this so and so conflict so that must mean they can only launch a dozen aircraft. Of course the Russians would like to deny and claim they shot down this many considering in the past how much Russian equipment has been destroyed in Libya and Syria either by Israel and Turkey and so on. If there was a conflict with someone like Iran or China with that many targets, you will see something like 1000 or more being launched. All this with the SSGNs, and LRASMs that can be launched on smaller aircraft, etc. Yeah the first casualty would be the truth. Use the Iranian civilian plane being shot down and Iran saying they had nothing to do with it and admitted later they did as an example. I believe they try to sugar coat it by saying American EW was involved. Think its true?
