Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
War with Iran? - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: War with Iran? (/Thread-War-with-Iran)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-21-2019

(06-20-2019, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is/was how we navigate. 3 satellites were required. 

To be honest I'm unsure of the point Fred/Dill are trying to make. 


I can see how you got confused considering it involves 2 comments. You tried to claim that you were not anxious for war at the same time you were calling for military action against Iran.

To me those positions seem contradictory.

RE: War with Iran? - Bengalzona - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 06:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well the radar stations etc. exist anyway, and the Iranians used a home-grown missile system called Khordad [some number] to shoot down the drone. 50 km range, and it worked. The system even evolved recently. They don't need any outside systems, the production is self-sufficient, including the Sayyad missiles they launch. Also, even if it weren't, I guess some countries would be happy to help Iran out to shoot down more 100 million dollar US toys.

Now I could not find an estimated cost for these Sayyad missiles. Iran has a mass production of those. So probably it won't be just as high. A generous range would probably be 100.000-2 million (though I doubt it's as expensive to produce as it would be to buy a foreign missile). So best case scenario, the US loses that financial battle 55:1. But probably more around 100:1.

I get it's a good deal for drone manufacturers though, and the folks working there. And that sure creates some tax revenue from the tax-funded production. If that's a sustainable economic model seems a bit questionable though.

This missile, like all home-grown Iranian missiles, is derived from previous Russian designs. So, yeah, they did need an outside system to base it upon. And as we already know from Iranian rockets fired from Yemen, the Iranians do have issues acquiring certain production items (most notably certain ingredients in rocket fuels) and they have a tendency to use replacement ingredients. With regards specifically to SAM's, some of the advanced electronics necessary for a missile traveling at Mach 2+ to acquire and reach its target requires some rare and specifically processed materials that you aren't going to find out in Sanford & Sons' junk yard. It is probable that Iran recycles these materials for older Russian missiles they have in stock. But acquiring new materials through black market sources will be more expensive. Mass production of any particular missile in the world usually only mean a handful of missiles per month in highly developed countries. In Iran, the probably means 2 to 5 at best. Nobody produces these things like they were cannon shells.

Moreover, why should the U.S. worry how much is being spent on our drones when the Saudis are paying anyway?

RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019

(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, 06:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well the radar stations etc. exist anyway, and the Iranians used a home-grown missile system called Khordad [some number] to shoot down the drone. 50 km range, and it worked. The system even evolved recently. They don't need any outside systems, the production is self-sufficient, including the Sayyad missiles they launch. Also, even if it weren't, I guess some countries would be happy to help Iran out to shoot down more 100 million dollar US toys.

Now I could not find an estimated cost for these Sayyad missiles. Iran has a mass production of those. So probably it won't be just as high. A generous range would probably be 100.000-2 million (though I doubt it's as expensive to produce as it would be to buy a foreign missile). So best case scenario, the US loses that financial battle 55:1. But probably more around 100:1.

I get it's a good deal for drone manufacturers though, and the folks working there. And that sure creates some tax revenue from the tax-funded production. If that's a sustainable economic model seems a bit questionable though.

Excellent posts both.

Regarding costs though, I would also add that US must spend millions per hour just to keep all those assets in the Gulf, even if they aren't shooting anything down. 

No doubt keeping their forces on ready alert costs Iran something, but they don't have to project power beyond their borders.

RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-21-2019

[Image: 635636287777691196-benson-iran-04032015-cropped.jpg]

RE: War with Iran? - Bengalzona - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 01:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Excellent posts both.

Regarding costs though, I would also add that US must spend millions per hour just to keep all those assets in the Gulf, even if they aren't shooting anything down. 

No doubt keeping their forces on ready alert costs Iran something, but they don't have to project power beyond their borders.

We just bill the Saudis.

RE: War with Iran? - CJD - 06-21-2019

(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.

I honestly have NO IDEA why he would admit this.

It makes him look wishy washy as ****. And that is one of the key signs of a poor leader.

Also, there is no way their initial brief on the options did not include a potential casualty count. So the way he wrote this it sounds like 10 minutes before the strike, he asked and they re-iterated the potential casualty count. That means he was either not listening during the brief, or didn't even think about it until moments before. 

That shit's crazy.

RE: War with Iran? - hollodero - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 12:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: With regards specifically to SAM's, some of the advanced electronics necessary for a missile traveling at Mach 2+ to acquire and reach its target requires some rare and specifically processed materials that you aren't going to find out in Sanford & Sons' junk yard.

Oh well ok then. I always thought you can build a SAM missile systems + rockets from stuff you find at an ordinary junkyard. For an uranium enrichment facility, sure one also needs to swing by Walmart, I knew that.
Maybe I was too naive.


(06-21-2019, 12:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Moreover, why should the U.S. worry how much is being spent on our drones when the Saudis are paying anyway?

That is fair.


(06-21-2019, 01:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Regarding costs though, I would also add that US must spend millions per hour just to keep all those assets in the Gulf, even if they aren't shooting anything down. 

So Iran just did the US a solid.
Trump is a genius.

RE: War with Iran? - Mike M (the other one) - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Aye.  It's not the final decision...its the peek behind the curtain at the process such as it was.

A "leader" with no moral or ethical compass and only the barest of a "stance" on war who ALSO tries to project himself as a tough guy for his base.

In the end the right decision was made.  that we came within ten minutes of the wrong one because the POTUS didn't seem to know that people could die is what is wrong.

So he was supposed to ask how many would be killed before retaliations plans were even drawn up and ready to be executed?
Hmmm ok whatever. Your bias is very obvious.

RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So he was supposed to ask how many would be killed before retaliations plans were even drawn up and ready to be executed?
Hmmm ok whatever. Your bias is very obvious.

As the CIC...yeah.  He's supposed to make INFORMED decisions.

If we are to believe his tweet he literally asked ten minutes before the strikes.

He authorized them, no?

THEN he asked questions.

This did not need to be a split second decision. He had time to think before authorizing.

(06-21-2019, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Your bias is very obvious.

Mellow

RE: War with Iran? - hollodero - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So he was supposed to ask how many would be killed before retaliations plans were even drawn up and ready to be executed?

Not before plans are drawn up. But most certainly before he gives the order to attack.

RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-21-2019

Trump's going to attack Iran..Stupid Trump

Trump cancels attack of Iran....Stupid Trump

RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-21-2019

(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.

That's one way to interpret it. Another was he informed of the 150 possible casualties much earlier in the MDMP and simply had a change of heart of the launch approached.

Of course the rest of the tweet might explain further as the next time I go to trump's Twitter site will be the first time.

RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's one way to interpret it. Another was he informed of the 150 possible casualties much earlier in the MDMP and simply had a change of heart of the launch approached.

Of course the rest of the tweet might explain further as the next time I go to trump's Twitter site will be the first time.

Glad to help!

First he starts by blaming Obama:
 


Then he says they were "cocked and loaded" when he stopped the entire thing.


 


Now the phrase:  "We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die." makes it pretty clear that he didn't ask or didn't know (maybe didn't hear?) the possible death toll until they were ready to strike.

But there will always be those ready, willing and able to make sure what Trump specifically says is not what he said or meant.  Smirk

RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pointing out the hypocrisy of others doesn't make one a Trump supporter.  I think reporting that we halted the strike was a bad idea. 

That is not what your posts did.  It oversimplified a deeper discussion into the methods and "thoughts" of DJT.

The "over generalizing" that I admitted I do myself sometimes. 

RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019

(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, 10:10 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.

Personally I'm glad we didn't strike.  But I really want to hear from his supporters about the wannabe tough guy backing down.  Again.

(06-21-2019, 01:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I honestly have NO IDEA why he would admit this.
It makes him look wishy washy as ****. And that is one of the key signs of a poor leader.

Also, there is no way their initial brief on the options did not include a potential casualty count. So the way he wrote this it sounds like 10 minutes before the strike, he asked and they re-iterated the potential casualty count. That means he was either not listening during the brief, or didn't even think about it until moments before. 

That shit's crazy.
Agree with the C-dawg here. Would add that the SIGNS were there long before the election.

But I do believe it is worse than you guys think.  A functioning NSC is a difficult thing to construct and manage, and it is the NSC's 4-level process which produces those "options" mentioned above. E.g., intel inputs would normally go directly to interagency policy committees (NSC/IPCs) staffed by military, civilian and cabinet officials and constantly re-configuring to address current foreign policy issues.  Crucial to their selection, organization and functioning are Deputy and undersecretaries. The turmoil in the Defense Department hierarchy alone is a tremendous concern when the US is on the brink of war. The State Department is a shambles of forced retirements and positions not replaced to "cut government spending." It's not clear there is any competent interagency team in place forming the required basis for informed policy options.

It is clear, however, that the NSC is not functioning as it did under Obama, a leader who read in depth on policy issues and insured that subordinates produced policy options and argued them out before the Principals Committee.  The current top dog famously does not want to hear negative assessments and has appointed similar people to key chairs on the principals committee and removed people who check his impulses. This is a weakness which others, like Bolton, can exploit to push their own policy agendas. Bolton would be the PRIMARY FILTER through which all military options flowed to Trump. 

There are other disturbing indicators here. It appears the JCPOA text has been removed from the WH website, replaced by papers on Iran's numerous "violations" and "threats."  This looks like the same pressure to create/frame evidence we saw under Bush, with some of the same people in charge.  So I kind of disagree with C-Dawg on this point--it is indeed possible that Trump has not been presented with all options and the various consequences and cost/benefit ratios of each. It is not clear that such options are being developed in IPCs and moved through the system to the Principals Committee at this time, and if they are, it is not clear they get a hearing there, and if some do get a hearing, it is not clear Trump follows them. He has rejected his presidential daily briefings for weeks at a time in the past. More likely he gets a summary from Bolton and Pompeo, then watches Fox and friends and takes a call from Hannity.  Thousands of American lives (not to mention thousands of Iranian) are on the line now, teetering between war and peace at end of this decision-making process. That's why it matters whether a president reads books (The Guns of August?) and has good impulse control.

Trump does not have a coherent personality. He does not remember his own decisions from one moment to the next; part of his "understanding" of current issues is famously dependent upon the last person he spoke too; the other part are unshakeable dogmas he has been repeating since the 80s' (Debt is good; so are trade wars; our allies are fleecing us). Three sources now--the anonymous times OpEd, and the recent books by Woodward and Wolff--show staffers and cabinet remembers removing orders and actions from his desk so that he will not sign them, knowing he forgets publicly stated foreign policy decisions.  (Thus, for example, was the US KORUS agreement protected.) He has fired pollsters who gave him bad news.

Pulling back from an Iran strike was not likely "the right decision," but another impulsive and undisciplined reaction to events which are boxing him in. As he hears Fox commentators discussing how this indecision looks, there will be tremendous incentive NOT TO LOOK INDECISIVE now. I.e., his decisions are not going to be based on review of coordination and presentation of options with likely costs and other consequences.

One thing working in the US favor here is that, as JJ pointed out, Trump has been an isolationist and critic of foreign wars. Somewhere in the back of his mind might be the possibility that he could go down as a worse foreign policy president than Bush II--the worst of all time--if he pulls the trigger here, commiting the US in a Vietman-level quagmire, while it is plain to all there was another option all along which he publicly trashed.

Final point: that pressure in the back of Trump's mind, coupled with the notion that if we have nukes we should use them, could produce another, heretofore unthinkable option.  The US, after opting out of an agreement it made with a 3rd-world country (which that country was holding to), escalated conflict with that country to the point of war, then took a nuclear short cut.  That would pretty much make the US a rogue state--the most powerful one in history.  Deep state needs to be on alert.

RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Glad to help!

First he starts by blaming Obama:

Now the phrase:  "We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die." makes it pretty clear that he didn't ask or didn't know (maybe didn't hear?) the possible death toll until they were ready to strike.

But there will always be those ready, willing and able to make sure what Trump specifically says is not what he said or meant.  Smirk

You are forcing me to choose between Bfine's interpretation of Trump's actions and Trump's own interpretation.

I choose Trump's. 

Even after this, it is going to be an uphill battle convincing people that Trump is UNFIT to be in this kind of command position. 

No one wants to believe that Trump's judgment is really that bad, that undisciplined. 

But it is, as the entire Gulf and thousands of Americans stand on the brink of war.

RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Glad to help!

First he starts by blaming Obama:
 


Then he says they were "cocked and loaded" when he stopped the entire thing.


 


Now the phrase:  "We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die." makes it pretty clear that he didn't ask or didn't know (maybe didn't hear?) the possible death toll until they were ready to strike.

But there will always be those ready, willing and able to make sure what Trump specifically says is not what he said or meant.  Smirk

(06-21-2019, 03:07 PM)Dill Wrote: You are forcing me to choose between Bfine's interpretation of Trump's actions and Trump's own interpretation.

I choose Trump's. 

Even after this, it is going to be an uphill battle convincing people that Trump is UNFIT to be in this kind of command position. 

No one wants to believe that Trump's judgment is really that bad, that undisciplined. 

But it is, as the entire Gulf and thousands of Americans stand on the brink of war.

Yeah, that's a way of interpreting the tweet and very well may the correct way.

WTS, we can all applaud his care for humanity and second thoughts. Right?

RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 02:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump's going to attack Iran..Stupid Trump

Trump cancels attack of Iran....Stupid Trump

Looks like you've got Trump's back, yet again.

Trump ripped up the Iran deal, re-instated sanctions, then sent yet another carrier group into the Gulf threatening attack if Iran doesn't stop what it isn't doing.  Plowing straight into an unnecessary war.

So yes. Stupid Trump.

Then Iran shot down a drone and Trump vowed to punish this great mistake--then backed down, revealing an undisciplined response process.  

So again yes. Stupid Trump. 

But as I have said repeatedly. He is not the problem.  Who keeps him in office?  There's there's the problem.

RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, we can all applaud his care for humanity and second thoughts. Right?

Maybe too many words, but check my post #289. Unlikely the current commander in chief reads anything that long.

Nothing to applaud here at all.

RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-21-2019

(06-21-2019, 03:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Maybe too many words, but check my post #289. Unlikely the current commander in chief reads anything that long.

Nothing to applaud here at all.

So we agree? Announcing the halt of the strikes were a bad idea.