(06-21-2019, 06:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: That SAM quote might be reasonable for a shoulder fired missile with a range of 2 to 3 miles. But the types of SAM's that you need to hit a Global Hawk 24 or more miles from your launcher are substantially more expensive, particularly when you have to include the costs of radar tracking stations and command centers. The market cost for a Russian S-400 missile system with 8 launchers, 112 missiles and command and support vehicles is $400,000,000. Your probably looking at around $2 million per missile for the basic missile (9M96E) which would give you about a 40km, or 24 mile, range.

But that is if you have active and open trade with other countries to acquire such missiles. If your trade borders are closed due to some type of embargo (like, say the U.S. got mad at you because you were using centifuges to create high grade uranium and got a bunch of countries together to cut off your trade), then the costs of acquiring such missiles through the black market become astronomical. You could try to save a little money and do-it-yourself. But then your run into astronomical costs for the materials, some of which can be pretty rare and hard to get. And that is provided that you have the necessary brain power and experience on hand to build such things. Otherwise, they don't work. You really sort of want these tings to work. Just saying.

Now, the cost of a Global Hawk drone is substantial. But consider this: we spent almost the exact same amount of money per day to keep the war in Afghanistan going. We've got the money. What's more, producing more Global Hawks will create jobs for people who will pay more taxes. It's like the gift that keeps giving! And, unlike Afghanistan, there is an end game to this operation: eventually, Iran is gonna run out of SAM's.

(06-21-2019, 06:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: That SAM quote might be reasonable for a shoulder fired missile with a range of 2 to 3 miles. But the types of SAM's that you need to hit a Global Hawk 24 or more miles from your launcher are substantially more expensive, particularly when you have to include the costs of radar tracking stations and command centers. The market cost for a Russian S-400 missile system with 8 launchers, 112 missiles and command and support vehicles is $400,000,000. Your probably looking at around $2 million per missile for the basic missile (9M96E) which would give you about a 40km, or 24 mile, range.

(06-20-2019, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: False equivalency, again.  Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  Israel is not a rogue nation. Please do try again.

(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.

Quote:Iranian officials told Reuters on Friday that Tehran had received a message from U.S. President Donald Trump through Oman overnight warning that a U.S. attack on Iran was imminent.


“In his message, Trump said he was against any war with Iran and wanted to talk to Tehran about various issues ... he gave a short period of time to get our response but Iran’s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei to decide about this issue,” one of the officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.



The second official said: “We made it clear that the leader is against any talks, but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision ... However, we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences.”

(06-21-2019, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: C'mon folks...you who voted for Trump because you were tired of that "wimp" Obama and his "apology tours" and wanted a "real man" who is "tough" on our enemies....c'mon and tell me how "smart" Trump is for flip-flopping on this.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/21/trump-canceled-iran-attack-thursday-after-us-drone-attack/1521384001/

Personally I'm glad we didn't strike.

(06-21-2019, 10:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: So Trump did the right thing here.
Why not mock his alleged supporters when he does not.

Also, your impersonation looks a bit weird. Only the one who shall not be named roughly fulfilled that cliché.

(06-21-2019, 10:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump is not a smart man.

(06-21-2019, 10:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Planning the attack, telling Iran about it, then stopping the attack is the WRONG way to act "tough" as his supporters insist he is.

(06-21-2019, 10:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm impersonating no one.  I'm pointing out what they say/said about DJT and how they will spin this into "So you WANTED him to attack?!?!  WE didn't!!!"  after years of bragging about how he would be "tough on our enemies...unlike Obama."

(06-21-2019, 10:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: Interesting that even he admits he waited until 10m before the strike to ask that question...... AFTER he authorized the strike.

(06-21-2019, 10:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

....On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not....


Interesting that even he admits he waited until 10m before the strike to ask that question...... AFTER he authorized the strike.

(06-21-2019, 10:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, I agree with that.


Of course the appearances aren't great and this was not a well executed plan, and there's reason to worry about that.
I'm still glad he wasn't tough and did not actually attack. Others might have followed through without hesitation. It appears Trump hesitated. Good.
I don't go as far as giving him credit, but at least he didn't mess it all up completely.

(06-21-2019, 10:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: You just make those you call Trump supporters on these boards look a bit simplicistic and dull. They're not that dull. Doesn't mean I agree on much, but this seems a bit unfair.

(06-21-2019, 11:13 AM)jj22 Wrote: Honestly, not to defend Trump, but he always came across as a Isolationist. I believe (maybe getting conned) that is who he is at his core (when it comes to stupid wars). I think it's the Hawks from the Bush Administration he's surrounded himself with causing this head spinning flip flopping on war with Iran.

But he is the President. And he knew what he was getting into when he nominated Bolton (he spent years attacking him during the Iraq/Afghanistan war) et al.. So he can't be absolved of all blame. But I do think he is in between a rock and a hard spot (or whatever the saying is) when it comes to talking down the Hawks he's surrounded himself with.

(06-21-2019, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: And that's how low the bar has been set for DJT:  Well, he didn't completely screw it up.

That's sad.

(06-21-2019, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yet they will defend him at every turn.  Yet they did say those things about him and Obama.  (not just here, supporters across the country).

(06-21-2019, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to ask you politely to both retract and delete this disgusting slur against my person and then offer an apology.

(06-21-2019, 11:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: It is. You (meaning the US) should do way better. Sure.
I mean, he admitted to not checking for the number of casualties until the attack he ordered already started. This does indeed get hard to defend. But since the bar is unpleasantly low, at least the thought about that did finally cross his mind.



Yeah those across the country to which your descriptions fit better aren't here. Those that are here might find your depiction of their stances a bit condescending and unfair. And they'd be a bit right.

I sure wished more folks would be as critical of Trump as I think he rightly deserves. Sometimes I feel not doing so is, amongst other things, a bit of an act of defiance. Against, say, unfair condescension.

---

For what it's worth, I agree with that.

(06-21-2019, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: And perhaps I speak with generalities a bit...

(06-21-2019, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: but the central point remains true:  His supporters say one thing about why they like DJT and then spin it away when he is shown to not be any of those things. 

(06-21-2019, 11:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: Perhaps.


I guess most (here) don't even like the guy, but find some things he delivers they do like (judges, taxes, immigration, whatever). Which is a tough spot. Being confronted with unfair generalities (that's a fitting word) possibly is not too helpful to tip the scales.