dre Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) This is true, they very well could be used against a freighter or ferry…….once. Shore based defences have been obsolete for centuries. They could be used to target ships in the Suez canal possibly, or they could wind up in Iran to sink oil tankers in Straits of Hormuz. They arent going to help these countries win a conventional war against the west . But they could be used to make any conflict there very damaging to a global economy thats already in crisis, and any spike in oil prices would result in these middle eastern countries having even MORE capital with which to cause problems. Theres value as a deterrent IMO. These countries want to be able to say... "You can beat us... but we can make it real messy and costly". Edited December 1, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 OK...then what is Iran going to do? What's the plan for victory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 No. They lost their main advantage of air superiority as they have retired their fighter aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, thus their carrier has Helicopters. The fact that the Royal Navy has also shrunk in the last 3 decades also further increases the dificulty in mounting and winning such an operation today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 They could be used to target ships in the Suez canal possibly, or they could wind up in Iran to sink oil tankers in Straits of Hormuz. They arent going to help these countries win a conventional war against the west . But they could be used to make any conflict there very damaging to a global economy thats already in crisis, and any spike in oil prices would result in these middle eastern countries having even MORE capital with which to cause problems. Those high oil prices would be useless if there is a blockade preventing sale of said oil. It would help Canada out most of all. There's no rise in capital without demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 They could be used to target ships in the Suez canal possibly, or they could wind up in Iran to sink oil tankers in Straits of Hormuz. They arent going to help these countries win a conventional war against the west . But they could be used to make any conflict there very damaging to a global economy thats already in crisis, and any spike in oil prices would result in these middle eastern countries having even MORE capital with which to cause problems. Theres value as a deterrent IMO. These countries want to be able to say... "You can beat us... but we can make it real messy and costly". See "Tanker War".......The world didn't end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 OK...then what is Iran going to do? What's the plan for victory? iran doesnt want war... they want to build up their nukes and be left alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 OK...then what is Iran going to do? What's the plan for victory? Iran/Syria know for a fact theres no "plan for victory". They will lose in ANY conflict against the west and they will lose badly. They know this as well as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Iran/Syria know for a fact theres no "plan for victory". They will lose in ANY conflict against the west and they will lose badly. They know this as well as you do. So there must be another reason Iran is bat-sheet crazy enough to poke the West like it has been doing. All wars need a plan for victory otherwise it's just like Viet-Nam. Fruitless. So if they can't win a military victory, we're left with crazy religious reasons for wanting a war. Death to Israel seems to be the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 They lost their main advantage of air superiority as they have retired their fighter aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, thus their carrier has Helicopters. The fact that the Royal Navy has also shrunk in the last 3 decades also further increases the dificulty in mounting and winning such an operation today. They don’t need their carrier(s) in the South Atlantic……They built a large airbase there after the war…….My point, then or now remains, once HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano, the entire Argie fleet went home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 iran doesnt want war... they want to build up their nukes and be left alone Yeah...right. That's what folks were saying about Mr Hitler back pre-1939. Even after Czechoslovakia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 So there must be another reason Iran is bat-sheet crazy enough to poke the West like it has been doing. All wars need a plan for victory otherwise it's just like Viet-Nam. Fruitless. So if they can't win a military victory, we're left with crazy religious reasons for wanting a war. Death to Israel seems to be the reason. Israels been threatening Iran for years prior to Ahmacrazyjad On the world stage Iran is the wimp being bullied by NATO and Israel so to defend itself it tries attaining nukes so no longer they can be bullied Remember how the US and Israel overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government? Iran didnt poke the west the west poked and poked and poked Iran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 They don’t need their carrier(s) in the South Atlantic……They built a large airbase there after the war…….My point, then or now remains, once HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano, the entire Argie fleet went home. The Royal Navy scraped together everything they had to get there, and achieve air-superiority. If the Argentinians were to invade and conquer those Islands, Placing their Aircraft in position to achieve air-superiority the RN cannot do a thing, and invasions to not work well without air support. D-day would have been a complete failure if the Germans Controlled the Air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 See "Tanker War".......The world didn't end. See my posts... Im NOT claiming the world would end. And this is entirely different environment than the 1980's. THe global economy is already struggling to stave off collapse. In any case... Im not saying that strategy would be successful. Im explaining the likely strategic reason for having such weapons, and point out that you guys talking about this in the context of Syria trying to win a major naval battle against the west was really quite silly. Of course thats not going to happen, and Syria knows this as well as you do. Thats NOT why they purchased these weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Israels been threatening Iran for years prior to Ahmacrazyjad On the world stage Iran is the wimp being bullied by NATO and Israel so to defend itself it tries attaining nukes so no longer they can be bullied Remember how the US and Israel overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government? Iran didnt poke the west the west poked and poked and poked Iran How has Israel threatened Iran? Can you prove this? And by threaten I don’t mean informing them that if you obtain nukes we will attack you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yeah...right. That's what folks were saying about Mr Hitler back pre-1939. Even after Czechoslovakia. you cant justify war because you think ahmadinejad is hitler 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 See my posts... Im NOT claiming the world would end. And this is entirely different environment than the 1980's. THe global economy is already struggling to stave off collapse. In any case... Im not saying that strategy would be successful. Im explaining the likely strategic reason for having such weapons, and point out that you guys talking about this in the context of Syria trying to win a major naval battle against the west was really quite silly. Of course thats not going to happen, and Syria knows this as well as you do. Thats NOT why they purchased these weapons. If Syria was capable of anything, the Israeli Air force would have had a hard time putting Syria’s nuclear ambitions on hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 The Royal Navy scraped together everything they had to get there, and achieve air-superiority. If the Argentinians were to invade and conquer those Islands, Placing their Aircraft in position to achieve air-superiority the RN cannot do a thing, and invasions to not work well without air support. D-day would have been a complete failure if the Germans Controlled the Air. Hey, I know a thing or two about maritime aviation……..There is no creditable threat of Argentina retaking the Falklands with how their current inventory stands, much of what, is what’s left from the Falklands war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 you cant justify war because you think ahmadinejad is hitler 2.0 And you cant wait for him to commit genocide before you decide to stop him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 So there must be another reason Iran is bat-sheet crazy enough to poke the West like it has been doing. All wars need a plan for victory otherwise it's just like Viet-Nam. Fruitless. So if they can't win a military victory, we're left with crazy religious reasons for wanting a war. Death to Israel seems to be the reason. Irans terrified that the west is going to attack THEM. There were three countries named in the "axis of evil". They want to get left alone like NOrth Korea, instead of sacked like Iraq. And they SHOULD be scared. The US has a history of provoking Iran, interfering in its domestic affairs, and directly supporting invasions of Iran by Iraq. So if they can't win a military victory, we're left with crazy religious reasons for wanting a war. Death to Israel seems to be the reason. A military "victory" for Iran would simply be to not get sacked like Iraq did. The reason Iraq got sacked and North Korea didnt was because North Korea has put themselves in a position where they could do a whole lot of damage if there was a war, even though they would be guaranteed to lose. This makes it unlikely that there WILL be a war. This is what happens when some Twit goes around describing a group of entire nations as "Evil" and then destroys one of them. The other ones get real nervous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Hey, I know a thing or two about maritime aviation……..There is no creditable threat of Argentina retaking the Falklands with how their current inventory stands, much of what, is what’s left from the Falklands war. I am not implying there is a threat, all im saying is the main advantage the British had, is now gone. If the Argentinians were to get a hold of those Islands, there is very little the British could do without say EU or US support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Israels been threatening Iran for years prior to Ahmacrazyjad Really? When? On the world stage Iran is the wimp being bullied by NATO and Israelso to defend itself it tries attaining nukes so no longer they can be bullied Is it? How is it being bullied? Describe. Remember how the US and Israel overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government? You mean when the Iranian military threw that communist out in 1953 for being too friendly with the Soviets? The same one who stole the British owned oil wells? Ah yeah...he got his. With CIA help, thank goodness. It was the era he lived in...you chose your sides carefully...unlike today where we have Canadians openly siding with Canada's enemies. Iran didnt poke the west the west poked and poked and poked Iran I remember the 1970s. Pity you do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Unlike you, I'm not under the illusion that Russia is our friend...just more friendly. But did'nt President Goober look into Putin's eyes and see his soul?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 If Syria was capable of anything, the Israeli Air force would have had a hard time putting Syria’s nuclear ambitions on hold. If I said that Syria was "capable of anything", then your reply might make some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Nato is flat broke. Why on earth would you want to start a gigantic war over nothing whether or not you can "curbstomp" your opponent? I believe I did say if necessary. I'm saying that NATO has no reason to be afraid of Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 you cant justify war because you think ahmadinejad is hitler 2.0 Yes you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.