wyly Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) I don't know, but I'm not a believer in Global Warming then go visit waldo in the Health, Science and Technology threads and be prepared to have your denialist beliefs shredded... Edited October 14, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Apparently global warming has been caused by Iran's rapid transformation into a naval superpower. Their once tattered and defeated navy (at the hands of Iraq) now sends shivers to all who behold it. Persia will rule the world once again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 then go visit waldo in the Health, Science and Technology threads and be prepared to have your denialist beliefs shredded... I'm no sheep, I've seen records from the 30s and 40s where the earth heated up too and then cooled down these are natural cycles the earth goes through..has NOTHING to do with fossil fuels and it doesnt help when david suzuki and al gore are jetting around with their mega jets polluting the atmosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 I'm no sheep, I've seen records from the 30s and 40s where the earth heated up too and then cooled down these are natural cycles the earth goes through..has NOTHING to do with fossil fuels and it doesnt help when david suzuki and al gore are jetting around with their mega jets polluting the atmosphere With posts like that, waldo's gonna emerge from his plastic protective bubble in his padded hospital room to try and talk some sense into you. Mostly though, he'll just call you names and link to his favourite alarmist blogs. It's usually pretty entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hard to know at this point. I don't know what the Obama administration would gain from making up this type of allegation against Iran though. the occupy wall street protests are gaining momentum. this could be a distraction. to me, it sounds like a badly written hollywood story. the u.s. government has used fake evidence before (look at 'curveball' just before the iraq war), why wouldn't they do it again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 the occupy wall street protests are gaining momentum. Not really. But it's a good talking point. to me, it sounds like a badly written hollywood story. the u.s. government has used fake evidence before (look at 'curveball' just before the iraq war), why wouldn't they do it again? Yes, so that means that Iran can and will never do anything wrong, ever. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Not really. But it's a good talking point. not really? just like that? you've declared it, so the conversation is over? Yes, so that means that Iran can and will never do anything wrong, ever. Right? iran does many things wrong. try to focus for a second and acknowledge that the US government has used faked 'evidence' to create momentum for wars before. so it's possible that they're the same thing now. ray close, a longtime CIA arab specialist and former chief of station in saudi arabia: "If you were an Iranian undercover operative who was under instructions to hire a killer to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C., why in HELL would you consider it necessary to explain to a presumed Mexican [expletive deleted] that this murder was planned and would be paid for by a secret organization in Iran? "Whoever concocted this tale wanted the 'plot' exposed ... to precipitate a major crisis in relations between Iran and the United States. Which other government in the Middle East would like nothing better than to see those relations take a big step toward military confrontation?" so as bonam said, it's hard to know at this point. it's kind of sad to see so many accepting the story despite the history of u.s. using fake evidence to drum up wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 no I'm informed but apparently you are delusional...you live in some technological wonderland where you envision only the usa having sophisticated uber weaponry... No, not only the USA...of course, their technology is generally better, and far more abundant. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they have a leg up on Iran.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) I'm no sheep, I've seen records from the 30s and 40s where the earth heated up too and then cooled down these are natural cycles the earth goes through..has NOTHING to do with fossil fuel/s and it doesnt help when david suzuki and al gore are jetting around with their mega jets polluting the atmosphere david suzuki has a mega jet? al gore has a mega jet? ...silly comments are the mark of someone who has not studied this much, if it all... ... Edited October 14, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 No, not only the USA...of course, their technology is generally better, and far more abundant. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they have a leg up on Iran.... I don't need to go on a limb to say you have given this much thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 I've given this enough thought to know that the US could easily crush the military forces of pretty much any country on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 oh please oleg, they didn't even take out iraq in a day and it's military was decades out of date...and iran is far better armed than iraq ever was, the key arms being cruise missiles...it's not about defeating the usa it's about giving it a bloody nose and closing down the gulf, the economic damage resulting from that is far greater than the immediate military damage...to say nothing of the damage to the us military planning should it lose it's carriers around which it centers it's global strategy...if carriers are no longer defendable the damage will be in the trillions as the us must completely rethink and redesign it's power projection if inexpensive missiles can neutralize the best naval power... If it is obvious that Iran is responsible for the Gulf being closed to shipping would that not effectively put Iran at war with ALL countries shipping through the Gulf? Including all the other OPEC members? Would we expect that instead of blaming Iran they would say "Sure you kicked us in the gonads Iran but hey! We can see that it was OBAMA who MADE you do it! So we'll support you against the evil USA!" Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 they're already in the 200km zone that's the width of the persian gulf leaving it would require going through the straights of hormoz a 30km choke/death zone...the russian cruise missiles can be launched on visual alone no ground or air radar required, the missiles have their own target acquisition and selection systems... seriously do you honestly believe the iranians aren't already tracking and fully aware of the position of every carrier in the gulf? that's very naive of you... You don’t have clue what you’re talking about…..stop well you’re ahead…….The Sunburn, like many modern missiles has an active radar transceiver incorporated into it’s guidance system……..What this means is that once the launch platform has illuminated a target with it’s own (or another platforms) radar, the missile after being launched, guides itself to the target………The Americans first developed this technology with their BAT glide bomb in WW II………The alternatives to this method are heat seekers and anti radiation……wire and laser guided…….and though now mostly going out of service semi-active homing, which required the launch platform (or another platform) to continually “paint” the target with it’s radar. As for your ,umm, measurements of the Gulf, the important one is the surface area……over 95K sq miles…try to think in a couple of more dimensions…As for the Straits of Hormuz (I’ve been through a few times) there are numerous ways for a vessel to traverse them unnoticed…….without ships being noticed (Night time/Electronic Warfare/Electronic Countermeasures etc) all things that give the advantage to the CVBG (or any other navy with the means)………warships have been transiting them for decades without incident…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 WRONG! agis vessels do not only defend themselves their prime duty is protection of the fleet...an awac, land based radar AND an agis cruiser ALL failed to detect the exocet missiles that hit the stark...first detection of the exocets was visual from the stark ...and the russian cruise missiles will come in at 2 to 3 times as quickly, from radar horizon about 25-30 seconds until impact... Ahh……no, the first detection of the Iraqi Mirage was from AWACS………I don’t know of any Aegis ships in the Gulf at the the time………There was an older Charlie Adams destroyer (USS Barney?) near by……What the CO of the Stark failed to do, was illuminate the Iraqi Mirage with his fire control radar prior to the Exocets being launched…….a few weeks earlier the older American destroyer in the gulf (again USS Barney?) did light up an Iraqi Mirage and informed him to reverse course or he’d be turned into an aluminium cloud……..As was pointed out, the Stark’s captain was disciplined and the Rules of Engagement for naval forces in the gulf were forever changed……See USS Vincennes incident the following year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) There's also the possibility at this point that the Saudi's will reduce parts of Iran to a burning pile of rubble if the facts as they seem to be are proven or if Iran takes things further. Iran may have picked the wrong (very powerful) neighbour to target. Edited October 15, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 they're already in the 200km zone that's the width of the persian gulf leaving it would require going through the straights of hormoz a 30km choke/death zone...the russian cruise missiles can be launched on visual alone no ground or air radar required, the missiles have their own target acquisition and selection systems... seriously do you honestly believe the iranians aren't already tracking and fully aware of the position of every carrier in the gulf? that's very naive of you... Like derek said, the carriers have to be found first. Now in a wartime scenario, I'd imagine the us would have the area clear around the carriers, making them that much harder to find. As for the radar guiding the cruise missiles, I'm fairly certain the submarines in the area and other aircraft will fix their red wagon. Then there is the potential for other usa aircraft carriers not part of the persian gulf fleet to head over there to engage. Usually the usa likes to mobilize, then attack. The iraqis 20 years ago had a top 5 armed foces in the world based on personnel numbers and an air defence thought impregnable. How did that work out. Do you honestly believe the usa hasn't already come up with a plan to deal with a few cruise missiles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 There's also the possibility at this point that the Saudi's will reduce parts of Iran to a burning pile of rubble if the facts as they seem to be are proven or if Iran takes things further. Iran may have picked the wrong (very powerful) neighbour to target. That's what I figured as well before the discussion turned to sunburn missile capabilities. Iraq under saddam pretty much did the same thing with crappier kit/tactics. I can see iran putting up a fight against the saudis because its a more even match. The usa didn't give all their secrets away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 I can see iran putting up a fight against the saudis because its a more even match. The usa didn't give all their secrets away. I don't think it would be an even match at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_aircraft_inventory We certainly couldn't take them on in an air war (or many other counties in unstable areas). Iran's military would be slaughtered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 There's also the possibility at this point that the Saudi's will reduce parts of Iran to a burning pile of rubble if the facts as they seem to be are proven or if Iran takes things further. Iran may have picked the wrong (very powerful) neighbour to target. Indeed RSAF F-15 Eagles/Strike Eagles, Tornados and Eurofighters with AWACS support vs. Iranian F-4 Phantoms, F-14a Tomcats, Mig-29s and Mirage F1s with no AWACS support……It would be like retro 1991 all over again in the air…….The Saudis are at a disadvantage with Iranian IRBMs……..Maybe, in a Tom Clancy like scenario, Israel teams up with the Saudis (Their embassy was another alleged target)….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6nR_kdk9w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 And I've been looking at the Saudi Army. The number of main battle tanks (including the M1A2 AND the Leopard 2A7+...Canada's tanks only are have 2A7 parts...crazy) would even give the US a run for it's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 And I've been looking at the Saudi Army. The number of main battle tanks (including the M1A2 AND the Leopard 2A7+...Canada's tanks only are have 2A7 parts...crazy) would even give the US a run for it's money. Nah...they're Arabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Nah...they're Arabs. They're well armed arabs. One thing is for sure, they would clean Iran's clocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 They're well armed arabs. One thing is for sure, they would clean Iran's clocks. The Arabs were well armed in ever war they started...and lost. Iran is also a joke in terms of conventional fighting tactics (can we say wave assaults?). Arabs do excell @ partisan warfare...as we've seen over the years....but, toe to toe...they break like little girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 And I've been looking at the Saudi Army. The number of main battle tanks (including the M1A2 AND the Leopard 2A7+...Canada's tanks only are have 2A7 parts...crazy) would even give the US a run for it's money. I'm not sure about the us, the usa is too well trained and would use its air superiority to full effect. The west point x factor is the usa's biggest advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Do you honestly believe the usa hasn't already come up with a plan to deal with a few cruise missiles? The USN has been steadily improving on the concept of the carrier task force since 1942, when the first major success pioneered by Spruance at Midway proved it’s destructive potential…….By the early 80s, with the emergence of Aegis, a CVBG has become the most powerful conventional force on the planet…….They trained and designed such a force to fight a massive Soviet submarine and bomber threat, that was armed with thousands of cruise missiles, rudimentary satellite intelligence, and dozens of extremely long range maritime patrol aircraft (The Bears) all the well with the knowledge that if an attack did occur, there was an even chance that those cruise missiles would be nuclear tipped………The Russians and Chinese militaries of today, combined, don’t equal the capabilities of the Soviets in the 80s……To say nothing of Iran. With all that being said, if a conflict with Iran was to occur, the conventional Iranian military would be debilitated in the same amount of time it took the US SSNs in the gulf and Arabian sea to launch their first strike of Tomahawks and the B-2s from Whiteman to reach Iran…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.