Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Now that Iran has enough enriched


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
87 replies to this topic

#37 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:59 PM

i know that this is a tender subject for you but even if there were a few battle groups they'd still not be able to do much, especially if they openly provoked iran.

http://en.wikipedia...._Challenge_2002

the falklands showed that huge naval groups are kinda obsolete, and the cole showed that it doesn't take much to knock out even the biggest ship. that said, two weeks of no oil would be absolutely catastrophic. and even if the US navy could without a doubt secure the straits (which the operation above shows it probably couldn't) it's not like the the presence of battle ships would necessarily lower insurance prices.

"nope nothing to see here totally safe."



It still doesn't make Iran the most powerful country in the world, Fiz. Most dangerous maybe.

#38 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,195
  • Reputation: 1,568
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:49 PM

Funny Fiz should use the Falklands, considering the brits won that little engagement precisely because Argentina's Navy could not compete with the Royal Navy, even with the RN's lack of large deck carriers.

The USS Cole was hardly a large ship. And she was in port, at anchor. Had she been at sea, with General Quarters stations manned, she would not have been hurt. Our little ships can move pretty quick, and the crewmen have 50 cal mounts around them.

And here is the key point.

The USN is not going to sit around and wait for the Iranians to shoot a bunch of cruise missiles at us. As soon as they begin trying to interfere with shipping, our carriers, which will be well out of cruise missile range, are going to start taking out their launch facilities. Iranian Cruise missiles only have a range of about a 100 miles, and to be honest, the odds of them actually hitting a target more than 30-40 miles away is slim. But our carriers could hit targets from a 1000 miles out. And Millenium Challenge was an exercise designed to deal with future conditions, not current capabilities.

Fiz, you are out of your league here. I lived and breathed this stuff for years. Iran versus the US in any military capacity would be a mismatch. They know it, and we know it. They might get in a few lucky blows, but they know their military would not be able to stand up very long.

Their one shot at closing the straits of hormuz would be some type of off the wall activity, such as sinking ships the way the Egyptians did in the Suez. Or with mines, and as soon as they do either activity, they are going to suffer some extreme consequences.

#39 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:53 PM

It still doesn't make Iran the most powerful country in the world, Fiz. Most dangerous maybe.


then what is the most powerful country in the world, since you seem determined to play semantics.

one could conceivably wipe out the entire world's economy and the entire ability of the united states to function VERY easily.

the other can send all of its troops anywhere in the world in 2 days, then accomplish nothing and get sucked into an unwinnable conflict against a bunch of poorly trained militia using decades old rifles and rocks to hide behind.

hasn't the past 7 years taught you that perhaps, just maybe, the american military isn't all it's cracked up to be? that it's designed for wars that will never happen again? that its nuclear arsenal means nothing because they can't be used?

are you just trying to rephrase this argument so that it sounds better in regards to the absurd omnipotent american hegemony that neoconservatives fap themselves over? Iran isn't powerful, it's dangerous. They're not smart, they're unpredictable. They don't hate us because we're a belligerent military presence within the reasons, it's because they hate our freedoms. Our religious leader is spiritual and principled, theirs are radical.

#40 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:59 PM

Funny Fiz should use the Falklands, considering the brits won that little engagement precisely because Argentina's Navy could not compete with the Royal Navy, even with the RN's lack of large deck carriers.

i was referring more to the fact that a vastly inferior military managed to sink ships that were thought to be invincible.

The USS Cole was hardly a large ship. And she was in port, at anchor. Had she been at sea, with General Quarters stations manned, she would not have been hurt. Our little ships can move pretty quick, and the crewmen have 50 cal mounts around them.

would the blast that took out the cole, carried by the same time of boats that wiped out the USN in the millenium exercise, be able to sink larger vessels? how about thousands of those little boats, all coming at once, which is exactly what that wargame showed would take out the USN?

And Millenium Challenge was an exercise designed to deal with future conditions, not current capabilities.

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops, evading Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. They also used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's ships without being detected. In the early days of the exercise, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces' electronic sensors, destroying sixteen warships. The equivalent of this success in a real conflict would have resulted in the death of over 20,000 servicemen and servicewomen. Soon after that offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

so which part are future capabilities? people on motorcycles carrying messages? people committing suicide attacks in small boats which has happened, or the launching of cruise missiles that wouldn't be hard to attain?

Fiz, you are out of your league here. I lived and breathed this stuff for years. Iran versus the US in any military capacity would be a mismatch. They know it, and we know it. They might get in a few lucky blows, but they know their military would not be able to stand up very long.

Iran doesn't need to maintain military control of the Strait to effect a 'shutdown'. They need to increase the insurance costs of any company running a tanker through the Strait to unfeasible levels, and that would be really f*cking easy.

#41 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:02 PM

then what is the most powerful country in the world, since you seem determined to play semantics.

one could conceivably wipe out the entire world's economy and the entire ability of the united states to function VERY easily.

the other can send all of its troops anywhere in the world in 2 days, then accomplish nothing and get sucked into an unwinnable conflict against a bunch of poorly trained militia using decades old rifles and rocks to hide behind.

hasn't the past 7 years taught you that perhaps, just maybe, the american military isn't all it's cracked up to be? that it's designed for wars that will never happen again? that its nuclear arsenal means nothing because they can't be used?

are you just trying to rephrase this argument so that it sounds better in regards to the absurd omnipotent american hegemony that neoconservatives fap themselves over? Iran isn't powerful, it's dangerous. They're not smart, they're unpredictable. They don't hate us because we're a belligerent military presence within the reasons, it's because they hate our freedoms. Our religious leader is spiritual and principled, theirs are radical.


You like to throw around 50-cent words, but your argument doesn't add up to squat. America is the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically. Your argument is that Iran is because it could cripple our ability to import oil. Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned. What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government? Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

I don't understand you people who seem determined to play Devil's Advocate to the nth degree. What's in it for you?

#42 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:07 PM

Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned.

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.

What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government?

considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.

Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.

#43 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:13 PM

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.


I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.
considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.


Clearly you are a master baiter.

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.


See above.

#44 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:19 PM

I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?


nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.

#45 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:24 PM

nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.


If a frog had wings it could fly. If the Panthers had stuck to the ground game vs. Arizona they'd be picking out Super Bowl rings. If is a pretty useful word if you like to argue, isn't it?

#46 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,195
  • Reputation: 1,568
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:30 PM

There is a huge difference between a standup conflict between two military forces, and a guerilla insurgency such as Iraq. In a standup conflict between the US Army and the Iraqi army, the US won, and won handily. It wasn't even close. Guerilla warfare works when a side tries to hold a particular piece of land. Thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking Naval and Air Warfare, which is what the US excels at.

Actually taking and holding Iran would be a very difficult and bloody operation. Well holding it would be anyway. But we wouldn't need to hold Iran to prevent them from eliminating traffic thru the straits of Hormuz.

#47 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 35,062
  • Reputation: 9,232
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:41 PM

then here's your chance to prove me wrong. Show us all what you know.


See that's the whole issue with you Fiz... it's not that you come in the Tinderbox to argue your point, it's that you get personal with everything and pronounce in arrogance that you're right and that all the rest of us don't know as much as you about any of these issues. I'm not in here to prove you or anyone else wrong, and everything doesn't have to be an argument. All of your discussions seem intent on putting all the blame on the US for all the ills of the world. You throw around words like "facts" and then don't use them yourself such as when you said...

by any definition at all applied without any biases israel is a terrorist actor in the region. the people are trying right now to elect a party (likud) that likely committed war crimes.


Now I don't know about you, but "likely" doesn't tend to consitute a fact.


Then you said:

what he really was doing was quoting someone saying they would wipe out the israeli regime from the pages of history, which is quite f*cking different than "wipe israel off the map." Nagsheh, which means map, isn't even in what he said. you were lied to and it's your fault because you believed it.


which to me is pure semantics to argue that there is a difference between saying "wipe Israel off the map" and "wipe out Israel from the pages of history..." then accuse Meat of

playing semantics




This all started when I said:

:rofl: Do you really believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology only to "wean itself from a hyrdocarbon economy"?


I didn't mean that this may not be ONE of their reasons but rather that it wasn't the ONLY reason, but you said it like that was all they were doing and nothing else. Does Iran want to be a player in world politics and have their own nukes, absolutely if they can they would.

But the problem I have with you is more your attitude than anything. As Meat said, you're obviously an educated guy and believe strongly in what you're saying, and that's fine, but why have you got to be so arrogant about it?

#48 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,030
  • Reputation: 443
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:52 PM

Iran wants to be respected, they are tired of being ignored. The best thing we can do is talk to them and convince them that the best way to become a global power is to lead by example. The Ayatollah is an intelligent man, he already understands this, he just wants to be treated with respect. They have absolutely nothing to gain by nuking anyone.

Ultimately, they want respect and regional power, neither of which can be gained by being the first example of the US policy of massive retaliation.