Newest footages of Iran's underground missile bases

[SOHEIL]

Guys ... Does it really matters !?

Let people to express their opinions !

There is no need to engage ...

People can have their own idea ... Good for them

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You would still need some indication of where the opponent is, especially when he can strike beyond you missile range. Or else you simply have to obliterate any and all bases in the area.

The point of deterrence is having the capability to inflict "unacceptable levels of damage" to a potential adversary.

Now what is an "unacceptable level of damage"? In the modern world, that is very easily achievable. Countries nowadays have a low tolerance for damage on their home soil, and missiles are cheap.

If Israel believed that Iran was incapable of dealing an unacceptable amount of damage to them, they would have taken out Iran's nuclear facilities a long time ago, like they did to various other countries in the region, notably Iraq and Syria:

Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Orchard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penguin]

The point of deterrence is having the capability to inflict "unacceptable levels of damage" to a potential adversary.

Now what is an "unacceptable level of damage"? In the modern world, that is very easily achievable. Countries nowadays have a low tolerance for damage on their home soil, and missiles are cheap.

However, for a country such as the US, which has bases like Guam, but also bases in other countries, and significant aerial refuelling capability matched to long range fighters like the F-15E and bombers like B-52, B-1B, B2, and stand off missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers or more, it is not that simple. What are you going to do? Preemptively rocket all your neighbours, just so they don't help the US? Or what if the US puts assets all over the place, aside from their own teritories? It's adversaries, plural. You would need to hit them all. You don't make a lot of friends that way, which is something to consider as well.

If Israel believed that Iran was incapable of dealing an unacceptable amount of damage to them, they would have taken out Iran's nuclear facilities a long time ago, like they did to various other countries in the region, notably Iraq and Syria:

Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.

You picked up that question by an offensive comment suggesting that:
either this footage is fake (based on your shining visions),
or Iran is weak (cause strong countries don't show off their military capabilities to others!)
or it's for internal consumption.

and I answered that genius western military analysts were saying Iran has just 3 missile launchers (in contradict to what you said about being aware through other means)

Yet, you ignored it and repeated that question again. and I suspect to this very comment you still didn't know what answer I was referring too.

That's the exact meaning of that action.
try harder.

You don't get it, clearly.

Something is true or false, real or fake. So I simply ran down each line of reasoning. I never suggested one thing or another. You on the other hand, never attempted to even do the mental excercise "what if it is this, what are the logical consequences, what follows? and what if it is that,what are the logical consequences, what follows?

It is a free forum, I'm not obliged to constrain myself to pro-Iran statements. In the above excercise, questions are neutrally formulated. If you don't agree with my reasoning, provide an example of your own reasoning, preferably one that is more convincing. Note also that I did leave open the possibility of simple pride in achievement, which we all can identify with. It is typical IMHO that you don't even see that, and acknowledge that in its positivity.

What if the footage is real, why is Iran showing it? What if the footage is fake, why is Iran showing it?

Your 3 missile launcher 'answer' isn't really an answer, not in the last place because it is imprecise about which genius western analists you refer to, and about what they claim (I've never seen anybody claim Iran has just 3 launchers, and I do get to read a lot).

Countries around Iran all have ways and means to learn about Iran's capabilities even it no footage is shown on TV or internet. Some have better/more means than others. Kid yourself not.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

However, for a country such as the US, which has bases like Guam, but also bases in other countries, and significant aerial refuelling capability matched to long range fighters like the F-15E and bombers like B-52, B-1B, B2, and stand off missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers or more, it is not that simple. What are you going to do? Preemptively rocket all your neighbours, just so they don't help the US? Or what if the US puts assets all over the place, aside from their own teritories? You would need to hit them all. You don't make a lot of friends that way, which is something to consider as well.


Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.

Sinking a carrier is like launching a tactical nuke in terms of the damage it would cause. The carrier itself is insanely expensive, it carries around a hundred advanced jet fighters, and 5000-6000 naval personnel.

That is clearly unacceptable damage as well.

USA and Israel aren't shy about launching wars, in the past decade alone USA launched 3 (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) and Israel launched 2 (Gaza/Lebanon). And they do airstrikes basically anywhere they want, from Syria to Yemen to Iraq.

But they never did the same thing to Iran. Clearly they weighed the cost/benefit ratio, and were not happy with the answer. Or Iranian nuclear facilities would have been bombed just like the ones in Iraq/Syria.

Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.

I'm sure they could, the point is whether or not they are willing to absorb the costs of such an action (including the damage from a counterattack). Apparently they weren't.

 

[Penguin]

Sinking a carrier is like launching a tactical nuke in terms of the damage it would cause. The carrier itself is insanely expensive, it carries around a hundred advanced jet fighters, and 5000-6000 naval personnel.

That is clearly unacceptable damage as well.

Cost is a relative term. After all, there may well be some things worth losing a carrier over. Without a relation to what is at stake, it is impossible to make the assessment that loosing a carrier is unacceptable.

USA and Israel aren't shy about launching wars, in the past decade alone USA launched 3 (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) and Israel launched 2 (Gaza/Lebanon). And they do airstrikes basically anywhere they want, from Syria to Yemen to Iraq.

But they never did the same thing to Iran. Clearly they weighed the cost/benefit ratio, and were not happy with the answer. Or Iranian nuclear facilities would have been bombed just like the ones in Iraq/Syria.

You take whatever path gets you to your goal. The comparisons you make are flawed, because the underlying motivation would be different from that of a strike deep in Iran.

I'm sure they could, the point is whether or not they are willing to absorb the costs of such an action (including the damage from a counterattack). Apparently they weren't.

What is 'apparent' isn't necessarily true.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

What is 'apparent' isn't necessarily true.

Yes.

But there was no strike on Iran, so deterrence was successful.

 

[500]

WTF are you talking about? In a course of about one month during the 2006 war your hopeless shyt army killed 1200 innocent civilians and wounded 4500 others. Syrian has been going on since forever.

1100 is TOTAL number of killed (including Hezbollah and other terrorists) according to Lebanese government. Thus obviously exaggerated. Iranians with their giraffe puppet slaughtered 250,000 and ethnically cleansed some 10,000,000 people.

Couldn't even defeat an armed group (hezbollah) , talks shit to Iran...... Well thats not new.

Israel defeated 4 Arab countries in 6 days. You could not defeat 1 in 8 years.

You slaughter poor peasants in Syria but dont dare to send 1 soldier against Israel. Despite talk about destruction of Israel daily in past 35 years. Because ur leaders know very well that if they send their army against Israel it will get slaughtered like chickens. Unlike their baboon followers ur leaders are not dumb.

 

[Arminkh]

looks like I have to copy my comments or else I have to run this debate with each Rohani supporters every few months.

problem starts right away after the part which you have highlighted:
Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day.

this is what you and Mr Zarif claim:
Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using nuclear ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day.

so according to you and Mr Zarif, Iran is called upon gently and in an unbinding way to not use nuclear missiles for just 8 years and after that we are free to do that!

and about the tone;
when you are in court and they ask gently to sit, then you have to sit. here you can't say they asked me gently, so I don't want to sit; unless you don't understand where you are standing.

in fact Rohani used the same trick to halt our nuclear activities for 2.5 years and advertized it as voluntary suspension, yet as we saw it, right away after we restarted our program they sanctioned us. what kind of "voluntary" it was?! the same kind of "called upon".

our enemy's job is to stop our advancements through whatever they can, including this resolutions. but Ahmadinejad didn't give up any of our rights in return of those resolutions, and didn't call them a national glory and didn't lie about what is written in them.

Mr Zarif has accepted a text (2231 resolution) which allows Americans to return the sanctions legitimately without violating the deal, and they will do it. but you can hide your head in the sand and repeat Mr Zarif lies.

Please don't pretend to be a legal expert. So why don't you tell me what does resolution 1929 mean?

Resolution 2231 "calls upon" Iran to stop any ballistic missile activity that can carry a nuclear war head and puts an eight year cap on this limitation.

Resolution 1929 Obliges Iran "Shall not" do any missile activities as described in 2231 INFINITELY. There is not a time limitation on it and if it wasn't because of Resolution 2231 it could continue until eternity.

Are you seriously claiming 2231 is not a better resolution compared to 1929? As far as I'm concerned Zarif is cleaning up a mess that someone else caused. There are limited things you can do when you are in DAMAGE CONTROL mode.

Here is the proof to my claim that 2231 doesn't oblige Iran to stop ballistic missile test:

After missile tests, UN urges Iran act with restraint, 'good sense' - Breaking News - Jerusalem Post

As you can see, UN doesn't say Iran has violated any resolutions.

Here is another one from New York Times. Read the question sepcifically about ballistic missiles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/w...-missile-tests-and-the-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

Both news are from not so friendly nations.

And about giving up rights, Ahmadinejad gave up a hell of a lot of Iran's rights with his actions or inactions. Examples: Right to free trade, Right to selling its oil, right to economic growth,.......

you don't need to sign anything to give up your rights sometimes. When someone breaks the law and becomes imprisoned, he has willingly given up his right of freedom by his actions. Nobody cares if he ever agreed to it or signed anything. Don't tell me Ahmadinejad didn't know that his country will be sanctioned and lose tons of opportunities for not giving up his so called nuclear rights. Because that's an excuse worse than the crime.

Like it or not, we live in a world where countries relations are governed by international law. They may be one sided, they may be unjust. But Iran needs to choose if it wants to abide by those laws or break them. You can't have the best of both worlds. You can't expect the same regulations help you when Russia doesn't deliver your S300 missiles and then ignore them in another instance when you don't like them. I know that's our general attitude towards law as Iranians but world doesn't work that way.

Zarif has aligned those laws with what Iran is doing. Has he made compromises? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But that's the cost of living in a society.

You may think having a nuclear bomb was worth anything Iran lost during last 10 years. Fine, but that doesn't make you a better Iranian than me or Zarif or anyone else who thinks Iran needs economic boost to drive its strategic interests not bomb.

Let me assure you, Zarif is much more Iranian than people like you, who do nothing but hurting this country. Ironically, you people best serve interests of Israel, US and UK.

So only because you are born in Iran (I assumed you are) doesn't mean you are a 'real' Iranian, maybe if you move to Israel, you'll have your interests best served.

You need a positive rating for this!

Good question!

If they are real, the country is strong militarily. But why would a strong country want to advertise like this? Wouldn't potential opponents already be aware of this through other means? So, imho, the show is mostly for internal consumption. But doesn't that suggests there are people on the inside that need convincing or reinforcing?

If they are fake, the country is weak militarily. Then you have a reason to make others on the outside believe otherwise, irrespective of internal sentiments, and perhaps also your own people.

Either way, there is an element of propaganda. Even if it is simply pride in accomplishment (which we all are prone to)


Only if there is a stationary or slow moving target.

Why does US grab every opportunity to show off its military capacities? Doesn't the world know it is a superpower?

Sometimes key to getting into the head of your opponents' military and non military leaders is through their people. Make world people believe that you are really strong and then their leaders will have a much harder time selling the idea of a war with you to them.

We don't have Hollywood on our side so this is the best we can do:

Which Films Does the Pentagon Financially Support?

 

[raptor22]

1100 is TOTAL number of killed (including Hezbollah and other terrorists) according to Lebanese government. Thus obviously exaggerated. Iranians with their giraffe puppet slaughtered 250,000 and ethnically cleansed some 10,000,000 people.


Israel defeated 4 Arab countries in 6 days. You could not defeat 1 in 8 years.

You slaughter poor peasants in Syria but dont dare to send 1 soldier against Israel. Despite talk about destruction of Israel daily in past 35 years. Because ur leaders know very well that if they send their army against Israel it will get slaughtered like chickens. Unlike their baboon followers ur leaders are not dumb.

As if you attacked Iran nuclear facilities despite all those huffing and puffing and behind scene you were pushing American to do it for you ....
And Peretz resigned for nothing usually you guys would resign even when you sweep to victory ....and Olmert pledged in a statement after the report's release to begin work immediately on the panel's recommendations for "systemic" change within the military and civil command. for fun ,,, and finally :

The Winograd committee members said, Israel's diplomatic efforts allowed the country "to stop a war which it had failed to win."

​

And on defeating Arabs in 6 days .. that's good for you but you couldn't defeat a small group like Hezbollah in 33 days ...

​

 

[500]

As if you attacked Iran nuclear facilities despite all those huffing and puffing

* Its u who started a conflict between us.
* Its you who is threatening to destroy us.
* Its you who make every year million people Jerusalem day rallies (no one makes tehran rallies in Israel).
* Its you who burn our flags (no one is doing such retarded things in Israel).
* Its u who write destroy Israel on missiles (ditto).

Israel only said that all options are on table to prevent ur A- bomb. Thats it.

and behind scene you were pushing American to do it for you ....

No evidence for it.

And Peretz resigned for nothing usually you guys would resign even when you sweep to victory ....and Olmert pledged in a statement after the report's release to begin work immediately on the panel's recommendations for "systemic" change within the military and civil command. for fun ,,, and finally :

The Winograd committee members said, Israel's diplomatic efforts allowed the country "to stop a war which it had failed to win."

And on defeating Arabs in 6 days .. that's good for you but you couldn't defeat a small group like Hezbollah in 33 days ...
​

Hezbollah started a war to gain Shabaa Farms. After losing hundreds of men and billions of dollars they achieved nothing. Hezbollah miserably failed.

Same exactly their master Syria did in 1973. They started a war to gain Golan heights. Lost thousand of men, achieved nothing but still claim victory.

 

[Penguin]

Why does US grab every opportunity to show off its military capacities? Doesn't the world know it is a superpower?

Does it? Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't recall the US showing its silo drills on the news during the cold war. Neither did the Russians. Quite the contrary.

Sometimes key to getting into the head of your opponents' military and non military leaders is through their people. Make world people believe that you are really strong and then their leaders will have a much harder time selling the idea of a war with you to them.

In others words, like I said: propaganda

 

[yavar]

Israel only said that all options are on table to prevent ur A- bomb. Thats it.

oh OK thanks for let us know

history will judge Israel whether you people and your regime are bunch of BSers or Israel were really capable of preventing anything .

your hot air means nothing as well as written dreams on papers which you people call UN resolution .

i be back in few years and remind you


here few word from your war minster

Israel's Defence Minister, Moshe Yaalon, said and accused some in the West of being "misled by the honeyed words of part of the Iranian leadership
Iran test-launches missiles 'to wipe Israel off the map' | The Jewish Chronicle

and here Wendy Sherman talking about Iran nuclear program

i think the joke is on Israeli people as for sure Netanyahu and Mossad know

 

[Arminkh]

Does it? Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't recall the US showing its silo drills on the news during the cold war. Neither did the Russians. Quite the contrary.


In others words, like I said: propaganda

You can call it what you like. US has been showing off its might in general in movies like Countdown, Top Gun and more recently Battleship and etc. And specifically the silos are shown in "The Day After" which was staged in 1983 right in middle of the cold war as an example. Many of the scenes are actual clips of actual drills which has been used in the movie.

A much subtler way than that of Iran as it is shown indirectly in the middle of a story against an enemy like Soviet, Imperial Japan or Aliens. But it simply serves the same purpose.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Next up from the "500" lolwut show

1. Israel has killed no civilians, ever

2. Assad personally killed every single person in Syria, and they were all civilians and ISIS killed no one

3. Iran is weak because it with 2 allies could not defeat Iraq with all of Europe, both superpowers and almost all the middle east supporting Iraq

4. Iran started every war, ever

5. Israel only ever conducts "preemptive counter strikes". They're pacifists really

6. All Palestineans are terrorists

7. Israel Stronk

8. Those scientists spontaneously combusted

9. All drones are RC toys, apart from Israeli Mach 10 supermanouevrable lazor shooting Hermes

Neither does Taiwan ;-)

I know you're being sarcastic, but it's only recognised by 21 nations. The majority do not recognise it. I wouldn't say it exists on its own, it's officially part of China, just like "Judea and Samaria" don't exist and are part of Palestine.

 

[VEVAK]

Look like Zarif want to annihilated our Missile programs .... this happen when your Foreign Minister has dual citizenship and his children are born in your enemy soil ....

Your the enemy mardak e ghachag chee! It's clear black market smugglers like you and your friends don't want any sanctions lifted! it's clearly bad for business!