(06-20-2019, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Personally I think a "don't shot down anymore of our shit" ultimatum should be given instead of armed conflict, but I couldn't find too much fault if we decided to a retaliatory strike. After all they threw the first stone; target is secondary.

(06-20-2019, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is an honest debate to be had about whether the former deal with Iran was the best way to achieve nuclear disarmament.  Regardless, that is no longer a possibility, so the choice remains with Iran.  Persist in pursuing nuclear weapons and risk war or abandon attempts to make them and completely avoid any risk of war.

(06-20-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You don't get it.  I don't want to keep  loaded gun by my bed, but I do.

Quote:If it makes no sense then just answer the question.  Would Israel insure its safety by giving up its nukes?  If not then why do you say Iran could?

(06-20-2019, 06:12 PM)Dill Wrote: What choice "remains with Iran"?

Quote:Trusting the credibility of the US, they chose to sign a deal explicitly disavowing pursuit of nuclear weapons and allowing their nuclear facilities to be monitored.

Quote:The US chose to trash that deal, though by all of our own measures, Iran was holding to it.

Quote:Iran then chose to adhere to the deal anyway for another year--i.e., chose not to pursue nukes-- without US cooperation.

Quote:But then the US chose to pressure the other signatories to back out as well. Amidst buzz of another goal --"regime change."

Quote:And then, in addition to re-instatement of sanctions, the US chose to send more and more military forces into the Gulf, with drones ranging across Iranian territory.

Quote:So, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,

Quote:your message to Iran is that it must stop doing what it has not been doing or risk war. Nevermind whatever paper we signed.

Quote:With your blessing, the US has chosen to place military assets all along Iran's coast with apparent readiness to violate their sea and airspace, something most nations would not tolerate.

Quote:From the Iranian perspective, how has abandoning pursuit of nukes, signing an agreement, and allowing for inspections, lessened the risk of war?

Quote:The only "choice" for Iran now is to surrender or fight. The choice to fight lies, as it always has, with the US, in the words of Pompeo--"at the time and place of OUR choosing."

(06-20-2019, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ultimatum at a minimum retaliatory strike at the most. But I do wish Iran hadn't have shot down on of our drowns and if we do go to war it's damn sure not because I prayed for it.

Triangulation is using 3 known points to find an unknown point. 

(06-20-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote:

(06-20-2019, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you really arguing that the United States does not have to honor the sovereign air space of other countries?

(06-20-2019, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhh, it's not just used to shoot at things you know?

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: What choice "remains with Iran"?
I believe that's been made abundantly clear.  I know you have a soft spot for anything islamic, so I'll proceed accordingly.

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:So, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,

Evidence like this?   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-uranium.html

Iran threatened on Monday to accelerate its nuclear program in violation of a 2015 nuclear agreement, moving it closer to the ability to build an atomic weapon

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But then the US chose to pressure the other signatories to back out as well. Amidst buzz of another goal --"regime change."

Ahh, "buzz".  Next we'll be contacting Mistress Cleo to see what happens next.

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:And then, in addition to re-instatement of sanctions, the US chose to send more and more military forces into the Gulf, with drones ranging across Iranian territory.

Care to elaborate on "more and more"?

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:With your blessing, the US has chosen to place military assets all along Iran's coast with apparent readiness to violate their sea and airspace, something most nations would not tolerate.

Chortle, thank god they have my blessing, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.  Also, please cite the post in which I gave this move my "blessing".  Or are you just pulling "facts" out of your posterior to support your argument?

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is an honest debate to be had about whether the former deal with Iran was the best way to achieve nuclear disarmament.  Regardless, that is no longer a possibility, so the choice remains with Iran.  Persist in pursuing nuclear weapons and risk war or abandon attempts to make them and completely avoid any risk of war.

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Trusting the credibility of the US, they chose to sign a deal explicitly disavowing pursuit of nuclear weapons and allowing their nuclear facilities to be monitored.

Incorrect, they temporarily suspended such pursuit, they did not disavow further pursuit.  Line two and already a major error.

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The US chose to trash that deal, though by all of our own measures, Iran was holding to it.
They US chose to withdraw from a deal they deemed to be a poor one.  You are correct that Iran was, apparently, abiding by said deal at the time.

Quote:Iran then chose to adhere to the deal anyway for another year--i.e., chose not to pursue nukes-- without US cooperation.
Not really a hardship, considering they'd already publicly stated they don't want nuclear weapons.

(06-20-2019, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You just said they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons.  How can they stop doing something they aren't doing in the first place?

Correct, they have the choice to surrender their attempts to build nuclear weapons, which they've already publicly stated they don't want anyways (seems like an easy choice then eh?), or lose in a war with the United States.  Seems like a simple choice to me, but then I'm not an islamic fundamentalist theocrat who sponsors terrorism.

(06-20-2019, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There have already been ships attacked in the Straight. Granted there is conflicting reports if Iran did it or not, but we know with certainty they didn't attack themselves. We are flying drones over the straight to safeguard other ships from suffering the same fate and a known enemy shoots them down and your option is "send them a bill". 

Hey we might agree on the send a bill stance, we might just disagree on the method of delivery. Personally I think a "don't shot down anymore of our shit" ultimatum should be given instead of armed conflict, but I couldn't find too much fault if we decided to a retaliatory strike. After all they threw the first stone; target is secondary. But none of this changes my original question on what do we do if this continues to happen and your answer was send a bill.   

(06-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is an idea.

Let's get into a tit-for-tat battle with Iran where we send up a drone and they send up a missile to shoot it down. We do this everyday until one side goes bankrupt or runs out of missiies and quits.

Guess who will win that battle?

Plus it occupies the Iranians focus on something other than attacking ships.

Best of all, no people get killed.

Win-win-win.

(06-21-2019, 01:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Here's another idea.

Let's order a strike on Iranian bases in retaliation for the drone--then cancel it at the last minute.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-ordered-military-strike-iran-reversed-sources/story?id=63853570
President Donald Trump ordered a military strike on Iran late Thursday, but reversed his decision after a plan was already underway, according to sources familiar with the matter.  The sources tell ABC News the president’s reason for changing course was unclear, but the reversal was against the advice of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Trump explains:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/jun/20/trump-suggests-a-loose-and-stupid-iranian-officer-shot-down-us-drone-video

Likelihood of war?  Now it's up to Trump and his Iranian equivalent, General Hossein Salami, to exercise foresight and judgment to prevent that. Was going to add "LOL," but American and Iranian lives are in the balance right now.  Not funny.

Trump could recognize that some advisors may be backing him into corners where there are only bad choices.  Or as news of his personal indecisiveness and his NSC's absence of decision-making protocol become public, he may need to "fix that" with some decisive, if ill-considered action.  And that very soon.

(06-19-2019, 03:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But we are not the Iraqi Army of the 80's. Stealth aircraft would remove most of their radar network and would reduce their air defense efficiency. Cruise missiles would come in to finish up the rest. This would probably occur in a 24 to 72 hour time span. Ground attack aircraft would then be free to roam and target tanks and artillery positions in the area. With the heavy stuff removed, the Marines probably wouldn't face much more than small arms when they storm the beach (much to their disappointment). We would probably have the port facilities and area airfields secured within a week after commencement of operations.

Now if I were an Iranian commander, I would take those rockets we have discussed before and pre-target them on beach locations around the port area. They would not stop the Marines, but in that circumstance they could create the most casualties and shut down the port for awhile..

I believe claims of an Emad rocket hitting within 30m of a target are Iranian propaganda. As I have mentioned before, there is evidence to support that Iran's rocket resources are not all that they claim them to be.

A 750kg conventional payload would be a nasty hit... if it hit. But their rockets generally do not have radar guidance. They are either artillery rockets or ballistic missiles which do not have the ability to affect course changes once they are launched. That is an ability for a ballistic missile that only the Russians claim to have right now with their Iskander missile. The Iranians do appear to have some cruise missiles (Soumar, based upon the Russian Kh-55) which would have radar or closed circuit guidance. It would have a substantially smaller warhead.

Hitting a moving target with a guided missile is not easy. Hitting it with a rocket is pretty much impossible. On the backdrop of an ocean or sea, a ship is pretty small and hard to find from a long distance. You need to have the recon and surveillance equipment that can find ships at long range. The Iranians would not have this capability in a wartime situation.

(06-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is an idea.

Let's get into a tit-for-tat battle with Iran where we send up a drone and they send up a missile to shoot it down. We do this everyday until one side goes bankrupt or runs out of missiies and quits.

Guess who will win that battle?

Plus it occupies the Iranians focus on something other than attacking ships.

Best of all, no people get killed.

Win-win-win.

(06-21-2019, 05:24 AM)Dill Wrote: Hey B! A day after you wrote this it struck me--

There are plenty of "beach locations" on the other side of the Gulf.

There are at least three Army bases in Kuwait.

There is a naval base in Bahrain, with who knows how many ships. Sitting ducks.

In Qatar there is one Army base at As Sayliyah, which, last I heard, still had 800 soldiers and probably some 50 civilians.

And finally, smack in the center of Qatar, is Al Udeid, with 11,000 Airmen and rows of B-1 and B-2 bombers on the runway, not to mention all manner of fighter and transport aircraft.

If a third of their medium-range missiles malfunctioned in a swarm attack, I still doubt these bases would be adequately defended. Four or five impacts at Al Udeid would mean tremendous loss of life and equipment. If there were 10-15, I'm sure casualties would be in the thousands. That's just at Al Udeid.

Wouldn't all these sites be "pre-targeted" as well? No need for recon and surveillance equipment.

(06-20-2019, 11:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Back to the subject of who is choosing what . . .

 
No error.  Iran signed a deal declaring their pursuit of nuclear technology was for peaceful purposes--and that hey would NOT undertake the development of nuclear weapons. That the deal is not in perpetuity does not falsify the fact the deal is about explicit disavowal of pursuit of nuclear weapons. This against the background of Fatwas issued by both Khomeini and Khameni declaring production and use of Nuclear Weapons "unislamic."  

 
Iran chose to abide by the deal, poor or not. The US chose to go back on its word--a choice which affects US credibility internationally.

Hence, US the current Gulf crisis is driven by US choices.

And yes, really a "hardship," as the US re-instituted sanctions and set about engineering a collapse of the Iranian economy.  And not only a hardship for Iran: the US decision cost the other signatories billions. The US cajoled them into signing the deal--then just as they began setting up and profiting from business with Iran, the US broke it.  Peugeot, for example: https://en.radiofarda.com/a/french-automaker-loses-10-percent-sales-due-to-lack-of-exports-to-iran/29903758.html

 
They cannot. Just as Saddam Hussein could not turn over WMDs he did not have, Iran cannot "surrender attempts to build nuclear weapons" if it is not attempting to build them. What we see now is a repeat of the Iraq War playbook, complete with connections to Al Qaeda and the need to "protect US interests," and an ultimatum which casts whatever happens as "their choice." No surprise with many players from the previous war leading the show now.  

That is why it is not "abundantly clear" that they have a "simple choice" here.  After they chose NOT to pursue nuclear weapons, the US went back on its word and is now pushing Iran towards war.  Were Iran to agree to some new agreement now, what assurance do they have that the US would keep to it?

So, as I said, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,
your message to Iran is that it must stop doing what it has not been doing or risk war. Nevermind whatever paper we signed.

(06-21-2019, 05:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hmmm...
...cost of a Global Hawk drone: 110 million $
cost of a SAM missile: ~ 100.000 $