Will that be from a very safe distance far far away?
Naval wars at sea are always fought at a distance (see WWI/WWII).
US warships frightened by Iranian boats; War of Terror; US foreign policy, etc...
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Naval wars at sea are always fought at a distance (see WWI/WWII).
The CSIS report states:
"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."
Iran has, however, been able to rebuild some of its conventional capabilities during 1988-2003, and make progress towards acquiring weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iran faced major financial problems until the mid-1990s and could not obtain resupply or new weapons from most Western states. It has since, however, been able toaquire more significant numbers of weapons, particularly land-based weapons. According to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iran imported $20 billion worth of arms during 1996-1999, and $600 million from 2000-2003. Iran signed $1,700 million worth of new arms agreements during 1996-1999 and $500 million in new arms agreements during 2000-2003.
"This level of arms imports, however, is only about 35% to 50% of the level of imports necessary to recapitalize and modernize all of its forces. It also helps explain why Iran lacks advanced new C4I systems, and has not been able to modernize its air forces, ground based air defenses, or develop major amphibious warfare capabilities.
So why is Iran a threat? After reading the paragraphs above one would assume that Iran only presents a minor threat. The difficulty is that compared to other Gulf military capabilities, and especially those of its direct neighbors, Iran is significantly better well off. As the CSIS report says:
"Nevertheless, Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."
The Iranian air forces are well aged and in poor maintenance. While mechanical units can be repaired with indigenous labor, Iranian ability to remanufacture avionics is limited. This does not keep them from trying. However, it is the CSIS assessment (and that of MILNET's sources) that the Iranian Air Force is less than functional.
Other CSIS data supports the fact that Iran has increased their modern aircraft numbers significantly since 1996. From some 290 fighter/attack aircraft in inventory, the air force increased their planes by some 130+, all fairly modern and capable. The Iranians have also added a small number (12) attack helicopters, and have plenty more on order.
The CSIS report is actually a little unclear on the actual numbers of aircraft, their notation for the numbers of aircraft in a squadron differs in the same paragraph and we have a hard time "pulling out" the numbers. For instance in one paragraph the data reads
"Iran has seven air defense squadrons, with 2/20-25, -60 U.S. supplied F-14..."
The total could be up to to 50 F-14, but the "-60" is indecipherable unless this is some foreign export version called the "-60"? In any case, the U.S. aircraft in inventory are very poorly maintained, and the CSIS report also states that the Iranians have not been able to fly with Phoenix missiles since high tech materials required to keep them running have been exhausted and the U.S. has seen to it that Iran has not been able to procure replacements.
There is an effort to develop an indigenous aircraft but that does not appear to be viable yet, as are Iranian attempts to license and build MIG-29s. They have purchased two squadrons of the MIG-29s, very capable aircraft, however, any adversary would simply draw them off and go around these two squadrons, probably to face far inferior aircraft in their stead.
http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html
"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."
Iran has, however, been able to rebuild some of its conventional capabilities during 1988-2003, and make progress towards acquiring weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iran faced major financial problems until the mid-1990s and could not obtain resupply or new weapons from most Western states. It has since, however, been able toaquire more significant numbers of weapons, particularly land-based weapons. According to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iran imported $20 billion worth of arms during 1996-1999, and $600 million from 2000-2003. Iran signed $1,700 million worth of new arms agreements during 1996-1999 and $500 million in new arms agreements during 2000-2003.
"This level of arms imports, however, is only about 35% to 50% of the level of imports necessary to recapitalize and modernize all of its forces. It also helps explain why Iran lacks advanced new C4I systems, and has not been able to modernize its air forces, ground based air defenses, or develop major amphibious warfare capabilities.
So why is Iran a threat? After reading the paragraphs above one would assume that Iran only presents a minor threat. The difficulty is that compared to other Gulf military capabilities, and especially those of its direct neighbors, Iran is significantly better well off. As the CSIS report says:
"Nevertheless, Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."
The Iranian air forces are well aged and in poor maintenance. While mechanical units can be repaired with indigenous labor, Iranian ability to remanufacture avionics is limited. This does not keep them from trying. However, it is the CSIS assessment (and that of MILNET's sources) that the Iranian Air Force is less than functional.
Other CSIS data supports the fact that Iran has increased their modern aircraft numbers significantly since 1996. From some 290 fighter/attack aircraft in inventory, the air force increased their planes by some 130+, all fairly modern and capable. The Iranians have also added a small number (12) attack helicopters, and have plenty more on order.
The CSIS report is actually a little unclear on the actual numbers of aircraft, their notation for the numbers of aircraft in a squadron differs in the same paragraph and we have a hard time "pulling out" the numbers. For instance in one paragraph the data reads
"Iran has seven air defense squadrons, with 2/20-25, -60 U.S. supplied F-14..."
The total could be up to to 50 F-14, but the "-60" is indecipherable unless this is some foreign export version called the "-60"? In any case, the U.S. aircraft in inventory are very poorly maintained, and the CSIS report also states that the Iranians have not been able to fly with Phoenix missiles since high tech materials required to keep them running have been exhausted and the U.S. has seen to it that Iran has not been able to procure replacements.
There is an effort to develop an indigenous aircraft but that does not appear to be viable yet, as are Iranian attempts to license and build MIG-29s. They have purchased two squadrons of the MIG-29s, very capable aircraft, however, any adversary would simply draw them off and go around these two squadrons, probably to face far inferior aircraft in their stead.
http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html
Except when the US decides otherwise (see Hiroshima/Nagasaki)
I don't blame the US for considering such moves threatening. Sure we have a big presence in the Gulf, and that raises tensions, but that's no excuse to tell them "you are going to explode". They could easily have been suicide bombers. Then we would have to kill them, and it becomes and international incident. Iran is trying to provoke us because they know they can get away with it.
We didn't destroy Iraq or Afghanistan. Evil Islamic terrorists did that.
We don't care. They despise us because we have the b@lls to fight evil Islamic terrorists. The rest of the chickens are too scared to stand up to them. Not us. Not W. Not the USA. We will defeat them. We will win. We always do. :bravo:
9/11 was a criminal act...carried out by non military folks. The 9/11 criminals violated every standard of trust and human dignity to murder over three thousand people. The United States in is not a military encampment. And I hope it never becomes such.
Oh really?
Is that true about Vietnam and North Korea? I think before you make comments like that you really should look at history. Even today in Iraq America is only holding its own and whenever it pulls out there's going to be nothing but trouble there, then what? Send the troops back in again to throughout another dictator or other despot?
:shrug:
SAM I don't agree with everything my government does. If fact I disagree with a lot of what George Bush and others have done. But the solution to disagreement is not terrorism.
Yeah but when your government goes lumbering around the world it forgets that it is an immigrant country. For example, the largest immigrant Muslim population in the US is Iranians. What would they think of an attack on Iran?
Yeah, like shooting unarmed women and children in Haditha. Very brave, especially shooting the one year old. Takes a lot of guts to do that.
Vietnam was won by the soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines that went there. It was lost politically. Korea we broke even, even if we gave them more hell than we took. Iraq? We're holding our own? I don't think so, I think we're winning. Actually I know. We won the war against their Army, and we're winning over the populace and taking out insurgents/terrorists by the bundle. At least that's what I saw when I was over there...
Are you kidding? The US has 1000 military bases in over a hundred countries (6000 in the US). They refuse to become a member of the International Criminal Court and have signed (under coercion of deprivation of aid) bilateral immunity agreements with over 20 countries to provide their troops and agents with immunity from prosecution of war crimes. They have stated unequivocally that they are not bound by the objectives of the ICC. They are holding more than 70,000 people without charge or trial subject to torture and indefinite detention. They have 2000 nuclear warheads positioned around the world and maintain an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads to this day (some of which have been updated against the CTBT and NPT, which they reinterpret to suit themselves.) They supply 50% of the arms in the world and are currently occupying Afganistan and Iraq (not counting the half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations).
The American people have NO POWER to change any of this - the ones who are aware of all this, most are clueless.
What more do you need?
Last edited:
Probably ask the Canadians to look into the matter. Hudson Bay is bigger than the entire Persian Gulf, and it's a long way from US waters.SAM said:
There's a lot of jockeying going on in the waters of Iran right now. This isn't an isolated incident, and the US response is calculated, not fear driven.
The US probably wants to be on record as being "threatened", so they can take out any boat they feel like taking out in the future - and so the Iranians know they have reserved the privilege.
The threat from a swarm of small boats is very real - it's part of how those famous war games that showed a US invasion of Iran getting badly beaten played out.
Whats this?
That was a United States Army operation. And it was the correct choice. The alternative would have killed more Japanese in the long term.
Yeah very brave of them to make the tough choice of killing a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians, including women and children, to save the world.
What does this have to do with the 9/11 criminals or their actions? Our military power is spread around the world because we were asked to do so...exception being post WW II occupations. However, if we are asked to leave by the host country, we leave. The American tax payer including me, would like to see less military bases overseas.
- Status