|
deathbysnusnu posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 This is a war game. Does Iran actually have working anti-Ship missles? Also, that war game assumes Iran could have equal or greater battlefield vision.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Doesn't Russia support Iran? Would the pro-Russia wing of Trump's administration intervene? No, because Flynn has some back-asswards retarded worldview where ISIS and Iran are linked with Pyongyang and Havana in some sort of anti-American super-alliance. He seemingly has zero regard for the relationship between Iran and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
deathbysnusnu posted:Iran has their own line of anti ship cruise missiles. Launch 80 of them at an aircraft carrier that's in a narrow gulf with enemy territory running its entire length and my money is on the missiles. I know this because Iranian state media said so!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I know this because Iranian state media said so! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_(missile)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
We're not going to war with loving Iran. We'll probably put up a lot of awful sanctions that creates a completely unnecessary humanitarian crisis that will help destabilize Central Asia for years to come and set back Iranian progress decades but there won't be a war in the traditional sense. Not only would the American public simple not stand for any deployment of ground troops but Putin would NOT take it lying down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Yo so if Trump presidency is so bad why havn't they moved up the Doomsday clock?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:We're not going to war with loving Iran. We'll probably put up a lot of awful sanctions that creates a completely unnecessary humanitarian crisis that will help destabilize Central Asia for years to come and set back Iranian progress decades but there won't be a war in the traditional sense. Not only would the American public simple not stand for any deployment of ground troops but Putin would NOT take it lying down. I also doubt that there will be an actual shooting war with Iran, but let's not pretend Putin wouldn't cut bait with Tehran double-quick if America was stupid enough to stick its head into that meatgrinder, so that he could play in the Eastern European sandbox while we're distracted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:Yo so if Trump presidency is so bad why havn't they moved up the Doomsday clock? I bet they will by the time he starts officially starts appointing cabinet members. Frankly the clock should be at like one or two minutes to midnight anyways because we're hosed regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:Yo so if Trump presidency is so bad why havn't they moved up the Doomsday clock? it moved up 24 hours the second trump was elected we are already dead
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Sailing a carrier group into the straits of Hormuz would absolutely nuke world oil prices, to say nothing of what the us could actually do in the country. Someone post cefte.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I bet they will by the time he starts officially starts appointing cabinet members. They're thinking about it: quote:The election of Donald John Trump as president of the United States has international security implications that the Bulletin, its array of expert authors, and its Science and Security Board will explore in coming weeks, months, and, very likely, years. The Age of Trump is upon us, raising an obvious question: How can those who are concerned about existential threats—most notably, nuclear weapons and climate change--best respond to a Trump administration, so as to increase the odds that humanity will be preserved over the long-term? There is no obvious answer to that question, but that is all the more reason to look hard for best options. And then to look harder. http://thebulletin.org/responding-age-trump10143 Also the clock is currently at 3 minutes til midnight and it wasn't changed after Paris or the Iran deal, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Citations: Almost entirely Iranian state media That's the thing about opaque regimes with autocratic tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
The most we would do is actively fund and arm whichever regional power(s) that wants to fight Iran on the ground. Go straight back to the Cold War era proxy war handbook.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:We're not going to war with loving Iran. We'll probably put up a lot of awful sanctions that creates a completely unnecessary humanitarian crisis that will help destabilize Central Asia for years to come and set back Iranian progress decades but there won't be a war in the traditional sense. Not only would the American public simple not stand for any deployment of ground troops but Putin would NOT take it lying down. Counterpoint : Donald Trump will be President in less than 2 months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The possibility of nuclear war, which is unlikely imo, should be less terrifying than the certainty of crippling global warming and sea level rising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Sailing a carrier group into the straits of Hormuz would absolutely nuke world oil prices, to say nothing of what the us could actually do in the country. Uh we do it all the time? CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower transited the straight in July, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The most we would do is actively fund and arm whichever regional power(s) that wants to fight Iran on the ground. Go straight back to the Cold War era proxy war handbook. MEK is already lobbying the incoming administration about getting off the terrorist list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Citations: Almost entirely Iranian state media Are you saying the missile doesn't exist? That the Chinese version is so much better than the export version? Or that it can't actually hit an aircraft carrier?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Sailing a carrier group into the straits of Hormuz would absolutely nuke world oil prices, to say nothing of what the us could actually do in the country. It's also the scenario where Iran has the best chance to sink a carrier. I don't think they could win the war, obviously, but US naval command drastically underestimates the danger posed by cheap anti-ship missiles fired in mass quantities. cheese posted:I mean, its not like we were taking bold, earth changing strides to stop global warming under Obama. We are in a car sliding on an iced out road towards a cliff at 70 mph and at best, we took our foot mostly off the gas over the last 8 years. Trump is going to put his foot back down on the gas, but we were going over that cliff either way. I'm not trying to sound fatalistic/accelerationist here but I have not see a single thing over the last few years to suggest that anything done under Obama was going to reverse or even massively slow the rate of climate change. Hence why we're still hosed. The fact that we think that anything even matters, socially or economically, more than "holy poo poo the human race will literally go extinct in the next two odd hundred years if we don't fix this poo poo yesterday" is a testament to how incapable we are of taking the threat seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
cheese posted:I mean, its not like we were taking bold, earth changing strides to stop global warming under Obama. We are in a car sliding on an iced out road towards a cliff at 70 mph and at best, we took our foot mostly off the gas over the last 8 years. Trump is going to put his foot back down on the gas, but we were going over that cliff either way. I'm not trying to sound fatalistic/accelerationist here but I have not see a single thing over the last few years to suggest that anything done under Obama was going to reverse or even massively slow the rate of climate change. Cash for Clunkers, duh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
House Republicans have gone into some detail as to their main priorities at the beginning of next year -Repealing the overtime rules that go into effect on Dec 1st -Removing the new regulation of financial advisors which requires them to actually act in the best interests of their client and not just to their benefit -Ending DACA -Pushing for a fiscal 2017 budget that would begin the repeal of Obamacare -(later in the summer) pushing for a 2018 budget that would work on 'tax reform' (terms are not stated but it probably would be those upper bracket tax cuts along with either cuts to corporate taxes and/or cuts to capital gains I would imagine. I would assume a repatriation 'holiday' may also be involved) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/house-republicans-donald-trump-231636
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:House Republicans have gone into some detail as to their main priorities at the beginning of next year Nothing surprising, just the usual bundle of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
There is a lot of really stupid or baseless statements and assertions ITT about the Navy and the Arabian Gulf right now
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
A) The Chinese themselves don't have missiles that can reliably hit a moving target at MRBM range. It hasn't ever even been tested on a moving target. And if the Chinese missiles can't do it the Iranians can't either. B) The missile that the Iranians have are outranged by US carriers. C) Launching missiles requires using launch platforms either on land or ship, both of whom can be destroyed with very little effort by US forces D) Even if for some reason the US didn't use its colossal range and firepower advantages to neutralize the missiles and literally just sailed right up the coast no fucks given, hitting moving targets even in the straight of Hormuz isn't as simple as just pointing and shooting or raining them down at random hoping to get a hit. Reliably locating, tracking, and hitting a target requires having extremely accurate and precise information covering the entire battlespace. Basically, US forces would get bogged down on land if they tried to physically invade. The notion of magic missiles sinking the US navy is a fantasy that's been pushed in autocratic propaganda from the USSR to Iran to China to North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It's also the scenario where Iran has the best chance to sink a carrier. I don't think they could win the war, obviously, but US naval command drastically underestimates the danger posed by cheap anti-ship missiles fired in mass quantities. lol this isn't true at all. They've literally been building up their doctrine to combat this sort of thing since the mid 2000's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A) The Chinese themselves don't have missiles that can reliably hit a moving target at MRBM range. It hasn't ever even been tested on a moving target. And if the Chinese missiles can't do it the Iranians can't either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A) The Chinese themselves don't have missiles that can reliably hit a moving target at MRBM range. It hasn't ever even been tested on a moving target. And if the Chinese missiles can't do it the Iranians can't either. You actually do not know what you are talking about and should stop. Signed, A surface warfare officer
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
A ship that was ambushed on regular patrol by an enemy that they didn't know had missiles and wasn't employing any countermeasures or evasive protocols is not an apt analogy friend. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Boon posted:You actually do not know what you are talking about and should stop. Correct me then because I'm curious as to your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Boon posted:You actually do not know what you are talking about and should stop. What do you think? Personally, I'm basing what my expectations for such a conflict might look like on the Falklands War. In the sense that "just because you can win easily doesn't mean it'll be free." Especially in the context of a war of conquest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It's also the scenario where Iran has the best chance to sink a carrier. I don't think they could win the war, obviously, but US naval command drastically underestimates the danger posed by cheap anti-ship missiles fired in mass quantities. If you want to find a silver lining, it may be that the election of Trump at least galvanizes a section of liberals to take climate change seriously as something they actually have to personally do something about, where a Clinton victory would see the ineffective status quo blissfully continue. For me personally, I am a scientist working in a tangentially related area, and this has inspired me to try and participate in outreach aimed at educating/convincing the public- and I think, in retrospect, I would not be doing it if Clinton won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:
The BBQ Chicken Fajitas are pretty good. You hosed up by not going to Oyamel though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
Crain posted:
Oh god, now the racists will cry and bitch about their victimhood some more like they always do. The horror, the horror
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A ship that was ambushed on regular patrol during peacetime by an enemy that they didn't know had missiles and wasn't employing any countermeasures or evasive protocols is not an apt analogy friend. Any ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz can be tracked and targeted just as easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Convergence posted:If you want to find a silver lining, it may be that the election of Trump at least galvanizes a section of liberals to take climate change seriously as something they actually have to personally do something about, where a Clinton victory would see the ineffective status quo blissfully continue. For me personally, I am a scientist working in a tangentially related area, and this has inspired me to try and participate in outreach aimed at educating/convincing the public- and I think, in retrospect, I would not be doing it if Clinton won. Honestly I don't think outreach is the problem. I'm of the opinion that I am incapable of understanding most higher level science past a surface level, but I listen to scientists and thus I understand what I need to about global warming. Most people don't want to listen. Especially when what they hear is "I might have to be less rich to facilitate your plan to stop a thing that will happen after I die." I legitimately think humans in the aggregate are too selfish to stop global warming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Any ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz can be tracked and targeted just as easily. With what? Why would the US Navy sail through it without neutralizing Iranian coastal defenses first?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Convergence posted:If you want to find a silver lining, it may be that the election of Trump at least galvanizes a section of liberals to take climate change seriously as something they actually have to personally do something about, where a Clinton victory would see the ineffective status quo blissfully continue. For me personally, I am a scientist working in a tangentially related area, and this has inspired me to try and participate in outreach aimed at educating/convincing the public- and I think, in retrospect, I would not be doing it if Clinton won. Individual action is just not enough. Coordinated global governmental action is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Correct me then because I'm curious as to your opinion. I did. Antiship missiles are of course one of the biggest concerns that face the surface fleet, especially because our own surface to surface capabilities we've allowed to atrophy in favor of IAMD (Integrated Air and Missile Defense) and long-range, carrier-based strike. The US Navy has a lot of advantages and some stellar defense systems, but the Gulf is a nightmare because the surface radar and low horizon pictures are cluttered, limited by the short ranges (radar return doesn't work great over land, and the gulf isn't very wide) and missiles are a gently caress load cheaper than a ship and thereby they aren't likely to come in onesie and twosies. When it comes to land-based ASCM's, priority is on finding and targeting, which is where Tomahawk and carrier-based aviation comes into play. But they're not static and Iran isn't just sitting them out in the open. Shore based radars, generally, are easily found and targeted, but anyone that has ever been in the gulf knows that there is not a single place you go that Iran doesn't know exactly where you are (think fishing fleet) As to the missiles themselves? I have no idea why you think they're not capable. Beyond all of that, there's a million considerations about the very topic that you are discussing before we even get to the point where missiles are exchanged - all of which has been thoughtfully considered and planned too, which you guys wouldn't know. So I wonder why you feel comfortable making bold assertions instead of just asking. Also, Trab is right about transiting and you should also listen to Stultus. Boon fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:With what? Why would the US Navy sail through it without neutralizing Iranian coastal defenses first? Hubris. That's the thing I think you're not accounting for. Remember, Trump is going to largely appoint the same dumb fucks who ran Iraq. What makes you think they've learned their lessons on arrogance or underestimation of adverse conditions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:With what? Why would the US Navy sail through it without neutralizing Iranian coastal defenses first? Because we sail through the straight while not at war? You might have not heard of this "surprise attack" thing before, the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! might help explain the concept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:29
|
|