Iran threatening USA carrier group

[BoRED S2upid]

PaulB81 said:

This is not good. Where the US go, the sheep in our government follow

New sheep? Probably wouldn't make a difference but would they really need our help?

[Marf]

jains15 said:

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

Never heard of him.

Explosions at uranium storage facilities
Computer viruses taking down centrifuges

Coinkydink, or state sponsored activities?

[The Black Flash]

Frankeh said:

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.

Well according to Wiki, the F14 has an operational radius of 900Km, plus whatever missile range. That's assuming they wouldn't use cruise missiles from a sub/bomber/other ship which can be 2500Km away.

[threesixty]

Frankeh said:

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 ststorm 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.

If Iran do their homework and the had the right tactics theres every chance they'd achieve at least a short term victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_... makes for an interesting read.

[Kaelic]

The Black Flash said:

Well according to Wiki, the F14 has an operational radius of 900Km, plus whatever missile range. That's assuming they wouldn't use cruise missiles from a sub/bomber/other ship which can be 2500Km away.

Iran has at most 6 F14's left serviceable

US has no F14's left in service so no phoenix missiles either and nothing has "really" replaced it's role.

Am sure the F18's would make mincemeat of any Iranian strike aircraft but imagine if Iran had a couple of exocets and managed to keep under the radar and pop up and shoot.

[roachcoach]

The Black Flash said:

Frankeh said:

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.

Well according to Wiki, the F14 has an operational radius of 900Km, plus whatever missile range. That's assuming they wouldn't use cruise missiles from a sub/bomber/other ship which can be 2500Km away.

They'd need to find the carriers first, unless the russians/chinese are feeding them satellite intel - does Iran have its own recon sats?

As I see it, the yank/iranian thing is pretty much maintaining the status quo, they remind me a lot of this pair. All sabre rattling, no interest in open conflict.


I'd be astonished if the US struck first and more than a little surprised if Iran did actually lose its mind and have a pop at them in a manner which would not be ignored.


IMO, the real risk in that region is Israel losing patience and publicly doing a reactor (or three) over. What with a bunch of arab states in turmoil/teetering internally, they might even think they could get away without provoking a regional conflict by doing it.

[andymadmak]

Frankeh said:

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 ........

Much as you'd like to see the USA get a bloody nose, (and I'm amazed by your silly, simplistic interpretation of the politics of the region, which hits a new low even for you Frankeh) it would be utterly suicidal for the Iranians to do this for a number of reasons:

1, The USA would not take it and do nothing

2, 60% + of the regions oil goes out via Hormuz and that's important to EVERYONE, including the Chinese, (who would NOT want to see an angry USA treating the area as a war zone) so it's unlikely that Iran would have any significant super power assistance in the event that war broke out

3, Wiping out the Iranian infrastructure - which is what the USA would do in the event of an attack on the CG - is not something the Iranian Government will want, as it seeks to cling to power.

Lastly, it's coming up election time in Iran.. so expect BIG rhetoric and teeny weeny actions from Tehran

[Apache]

andymadmak said:

Frankeh said:

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 ........

Much as you'd like to see the USA get a bloody nose, (and I'm amazed by your silly, simplistic interpretation of the politics of the region, which hits a new low even for you Frankeh) it would be utterly suicidal for the Iranians to do this for a number of reasons:

1, The USA would not take it and do nothing

2, 60% + of the regions oil goes out via Hormuz and that's important to EVERYONE, including the Chinese, (who would NOT want to see an angry USA treating the area as a war zone) so it's unlikely that Iran would have any significant super power assistance in the event that war broke out

3, Wiping out the Iranian infrastructure - which is what the USA would do in the event of an attack on the CG - is not something the Iranian Government will want, as it seeks to cling to power.

Lastly, it's coming up election time in Iran.. so expect BIG rhetoric and teeny weeny actions from Tehran

Such is the way of the Middle East, big talk, small trousers. Forget it

[drivin_me_nuts]

... The Iranians do have big trousers though... That's the thing. Thay have fought a recent total war and came out of it battered and pretty much hardened in resolve. TBO I think it's the trousers and what they could do that is the worry.

[Apache]

drivin_me_nuts said:

... The Iranians do have big trousers though... That's the thing. Thay have fought a recent total war and came out of it battered and pretty much hardened in resolve. TBO I think it's the trousers and what they could do that is the worry.

You are mistaking what Dinnerjacket says with what the people want, they have no interest in a war

[rich1231]

drivin_me_nuts said:

... The Iranians do have big trousers though... That's the thing. Thay have fought a recent total war and came out of it battered and pretty much hardened in resolve. TBO I think it's the trousers and what they could do that is the worry.

The were fought to a standstill by the Iraq forces that were oh so much of an issue for the US and its allies to dispose of.

I know you originate from the region but please take off your rose tinted specs if you think the Iranian conventional forces have any chance of lasting in any sort of conflict with the west.

That isnt to say a conflict is wanted but it will be one sided.

Iran will not be permitted to gain nuclear weapons no matter what the postering. The closer they get to that point the more likely the actions to prevent them doing so will escalate to proper conflict. The US has to take action before Israel does.

[Frankeh]

andymadmak said:

Frankeh said:

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 ........

Much as you'd like to see the USA get a bloody nose, (and I'm amazed by your silly, simplistic interpretation of the politics of the region, which hits a new low even for you Frankeh) it would be utterly suicidal for the Iranians to do this for a number of reasons:

1, The USA would not take it and do nothing

2, 60% + of the regions oil goes out via Hormuz and that's important to EVERYONE, including the Chinese, (who would NOT want to see an angry USA treating the area as a war zone) so it's unlikely that Iran would have any significant super power assistance in the event that war broke out

3, Wiping out the Iranian infrastructure - which is what the USA would do in the event of an attack on the CG - is not something the Iranian Government will want, as it seeks to cling to power.

Lastly, it's coming up election time in Iran.. so expect BIG rhetoric and teeny weeny actions from Tehran

I never said it would happen, it's all a big what if. I'm hoping (of course) that it's all just sabre rattling as I don't particularly want to see anyone die and I'd rather not see £3-4 a lire petrol.

1) I never said they would.

2) I realise that. I never said that China or anyone other than Iran would be on the iranians side. They'd be entirely isolated from everyone if they decided to close the strait.

3) I know, I've mentioned that higher up in the thread.

Maybe try reading my posts?

[roachcoach]

rich1231 said:

I know you originate from the region but please take off your rose tinted specs if you think the Iranian conventional forces have any chance of lasting in any sort of conflict with the west.

Depends on a number of factors I think:

>ROE - is it S&D or is it conquer and pacify or other?
>Do Russia/China provide support?
>What do other countries in the region do?
>Definition of 'chance of lasting' I suspect the iraqi/taliban insurgents don't feel 'defeated'.


It might be a lot of things, but if a shooting war did kick off, it wouldn't be 'simple'.


Like I said though I can't see anything coming of this. Unless Israel lose patience and whilst that is definitely coming, we're not quite there yet.

Iran making 'threats' is usually only a benchmark for how long its been since they last made the news.

[thinfourth2]

Apache said:

You are mistaking what Dinnerjacket says with what the people want, they have no interest in a war

Strange that as neither do we

not that we will get a say in the matter

[drivin_me_nuts]

rich1231 said:

drivin_me_nuts said:

... The Iranians do have big trousers though... That's the thing. Thay have fought a recent total war and came out of it battered and pretty much hardened in resolve. TBO I think it's the trousers and what they could do that is the worry.

The were fought to a standstill by the Iraq forces that were oh so much of an issue for the US and its allies to dispose of.

I know you originate from the region but please take off your rose tinted specs if you think the Iranian conventional forces have any chance of lasting in any sort of conflict with the west.

That isnt to say a conflict is wanted but it will be one sided.

Iran will not be permitted to gain nuclear weapons no matter what the postering. The closer they get to that point the more likely the actions to prevent them doing so will escalate to proper conflict. The US has to take action before Israel does.

No rose tinted glasses from me... I am very aware of the situation and the realities of a massive super power. I didn't mean the conventional forces at all, I was refering to the general populace.

The difficulty really us what to do afterwards. If Iran is invaded... Who will be walking the streets on patrol? If it is the Americans, then I think they will have enormous difficulties, far more so than in Iraq. If is NATO, then there might be a different perception and attitude.

A huge number of the populace clamour for change, but the chanage has to come from within. To go down the war route tips loyalties, and allegances into the unknown and volatile. An Iran in chaos a huge flashpoint with potentially far reaching consequences.

[Asterix]

Interesting that it's gone live here (UAE) that they want to buy Patriot systems from the US. Was on the news this morning.

Originally, it only came to light via info from wikileaks that the UAE were screaming for them last year as they had intel Iran was ready to step it up from rhetoric to action. Nothing was mentioned in the press as far as I could see.

[CoopR]

They don't seem to be doing anything worse than they have the past few days, test firing a few missiles and a bit to loudmouthing.

If Iran do try anything silly like lobbing some missiles at the carriers I guess our Type 45's will be steaming down there for their first real test.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Guam said:

I dont think there would be an invasion, I suspect they would just bomb them back to the stoneage by destroying the infrastructure, then leeave the population to do its thing over the next year

They might put SF boots on ground but that would be It I reckon

.. that thought had crossed my mind on a number of occasions. I think the term 'score settling' comes to mind. My fear is that the crazies would take out their frustrations on the general populace.

[Apache]

thinfourth2 said:

Apache said:

You are mistaking what Dinnerjacket says with what the people want, they have no interest in a war

Strange that as neither do we

not that we will get a say in the matter

You mean you weren't asked if you would like to invade Iraq either?.......I thought it was just me

[Rude-boy]

drivin_me_nuts said:

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.

Unlike the Greeks they have learnt the lessons over the years since 449 BC.