Iran threatening USA carrier group
Discussion
Just another part of the same old same old. What is said in public and what is said behind closed doors are very different. The US has little desire to go to war again and have another 10 year occupation and the pos men in frocks are due another election soon... It's the annual ramp up to Iranian new year.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Just another part of the same old same old. What is said in public and what is said behind closed doors are very different. The US has little desire to go to war again and have another 10 year occupation and the pos men in frocks are due another election soon... It's the annual ramp up to Iranian new year.
i'd hope its purely rhetoric by iran?because if it ever came to conflict iran would suffer the same as iraq - like/dislike the usa when it comes to military might iran would last about a day!
sadly as in iraq, the ordinary soldiers/population would be the victims whilst ' i'm a dinner jacket' and the mullahs would be in a deep shelter
Edited by grand cherokee on Tuesday 3rd January 12:12
I doubt anything will happen but it'd be bloody exciting if something did! I'd rather nothing happened but to be brutally honest I'm almost on the side of the Iranians.
US are just throwing their weight around in the middle east with all these economic sanctions on Iran and if it was the US being bullied this way then they would have showed a lot less restraint than Iran has.
I've been pondering lately what would happen in the event of an attack on Iran by the US. Iran is rumoured to have Moskits which are more than capable of sinking a US aircraft carrier. They probably don't have enough to fully sink one, but it'd sure as hell hurt if they managed to use them.
Alternatively they have a bunch of conventional missiles that they've been testing in the strait recently. Surface to sea with 200KM range.
Not sure how near the US carriers need to get to Iran to launch planes with full weapon loads, I'd be interested on hearing if anyone can answer that.
Just imagine the resulting s
tstorm if Iran managed to skink a US carrier. IMO carriers have been a bit obsolete for a while now, especially the really large ones. They're more of a status symbol than any use in a real war.
Good for posturing and imposing power upon weaker nations but other than that they're just slow moving sitting ducks. A few subs with the Moskits/sunburns onboard would make light work of any carrier group.
US are just throwing their weight around in the middle east with all these economic sanctions on Iran and if it was the US being bullied this way then they would have showed a lot less restraint than Iran has.
I've been pondering lately what would happen in the event of an attack on Iran by the US. Iran is rumoured to have Moskits which are more than capable of sinking a US aircraft carrier. They probably don't have enough to fully sink one, but it'd sure as hell hurt if they managed to use them.
Alternatively they have a bunch of conventional missiles that they've been testing in the strait recently. Surface to sea with 200KM range.
Not sure how near the US carriers need to get to Iran to launch planes with full weapon loads, I'd be interested on hearing if anyone can answer that.
Just imagine the resulting s
tstorm if Iran managed to skink a US carrier. IMO carriers have been a bit obsolete for a while now, especially the really large ones. They're more of a status symbol than any use in a real war. Good for posturing and imposing power upon weaker nations but other than that they're just slow moving sitting ducks. A few subs with the Moskits/sunburns onboard would make light work of any carrier group.
grand cherokee said:
Pork said:
No chance in the Lounge. Maybe ask to move it to the Politic's section? Mods?
thank you - my error
Um yeah, I don't think you understand how carrier battle groups work;
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.ht...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.ht...
grand cherokee said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Just another part of the same old same old. What is said in public and what is said behind closed doors are very different. The US has little desire to go to war again and have another 10 year occupation and the pos men in frocks are due another election soon... It's the annual ramp up to Iranian new year.
i'd hope its purely rhetoric by iran?because if it ever came to conflict iran would suffer the same as iraq - like/dislike the usa when it comes to military might iran would last about a day!
sadly as in iraq, the ordinary soldiers/population would be the victims whilst ' i'm a dinner jacket' and the mullahs would be in a deep shelter
Edited by grand cherokee on Tuesday 3rd January 12:12
Occupation isn't an option... The people are very different to Arabs and have a fierce intolerance to invasion. There are so many reasons not to go to war and the main one is the general population. These are a bright people who know dirty war and they know how to play the long game better than most.
Oakey said:
Um yeah, I don't think you understand how carrier battle groups work;
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.ht...
Iran only have to get lucky once. The US would have to get lucky consistently. http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.ht...
Also, nothing there even hints to a form of defence against a mach 3 missile travelling 60 feet off the deck.
Phalanx wouldn't stand a chance. It'd have roughly 1 second to engage and destroy the missile once it was within range.
Edit: Seems even the US defence secretary agrees with me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd January 12:30
This is not good. Where the US go, the sheep in our government follow
its costing us £4 billion per year to stay in afghan, the US are spending over $100 billion a year. We are there until 2014, so any other conflict we get involved in has to be paid on top of that, when the government is massively in debt, this is not a good idea.
Also, Iran do have 'friends' that we do not want to mess with.
its costing us £4 billion per year to stay in afghan, the US are spending over $100 billion a year. We are there until 2014, so any other conflict we get involved in has to be paid on top of that, when the government is massively in debt, this is not a good idea.
Also, Iran do have 'friends' that we do not want to mess with.
Marf said:
I very much doubt we'd be drawn into a traditional overt combat situation with Iran.
We'll just keep hearing about explosions at this base or that base and computer viruses taking down their systems which will not officially be anything to do with "us".
Someone's been reading Patrick Robinson books We'll just keep hearing about explosions at this base or that base and computer viruses taking down their systems which will not officially be anything to do with "us".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff