[IceFire]

I think the missiles you speak of are nothing more than glorified rocket artillery.  The advantage is that the actual weapon is so small that tracking it with a weapon like the Arrow or Patriot is probably insanity of the first degree.

You can shoot down big missiles but the homemade ones probably not.

Nobody has come up with a solid defense system against small arms fire, rockets, RPGs, and motar launchers.  There just isn't the sensitivity of sensors, quickness of computer calculation, and the speed of firing that would be required.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Splinter
Not Iran... no one is threatening its survival only its acquisition of WMDs.

And also do you have a link from a viable news source about  "Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war."? Sounds interesting.

The US is threatening to invade, overthrow the government, occupy the country and presumably turn Iran into a client state. Thats enough. Not to mention that for several hundred thousands people (if Iraqi figures are anything to go by) it will be a matter of survival, or lack thereof.

Israel has probably the most advanced army in the region, has the political (and military) backing of the United States, and several of the surrounding countries are buddying up to it (Egypt, Jordan etc). Iran on the other hand has...what? Surrounded on all sides (except on the North, and even there you have Uzbekistan), facing perhaps the world's most powerful military, and pretty much without allies (militarilly speaking). They have far more reason to be afraid that Israel. Hence, at present, they have a more legitimate need to possess a nuclear deterant than Israel does.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Unknown Target




India's situation is volatile. All of those nations are in a volatile state, because they have enemies on all sides, and they're all ready to kill each other.

Don't buy into the "the world is one big warzone, except the West" strory. India has 1 main enemy, and that is Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers and both have large standing armies. No one is going to be attacking anyone. and they're working on peace talks.

Don't give me any BS about "volatile". There are two wars going on in the "the region" right now, excluding internal rebellions and border skirmishes, and we both know who is to blame. Talking about how so-and-so is a "destabilizing force" can't help but strike me as very ironic.

[Unknown Target]

The Middle East has always been a hot spot. India and Pakistan are big enemies, and the reason no one's attacking is cause it's pracically a mini-cold war in there right now. If you look at the situation and compare it to the US vs. Russia cold war, it's very similar. Too similar for comfort.

[Rictor]

Yes, but if you notice, the US and USSR didn't attack each other directly. And since India and Pakistan don't have the influence to start a proxy war off somwehere, that pretty much leaved us with a state of peacful mistrust. Armed, but peaceful. Neither is going to attack the other, and no one else will either.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Splinter
Anyway as I was saying the missiles launched from Gaza are usually Quassam missiles very short ranged up and down really no time to intercept them and a waste of money considering their very low lethality and accuracy

The ones from Lebanon again are mostly smaller shorter ranged missiles and allot are anti vehicular missiles... non ballistic.

So it hasnt actually shot down any real targets? Patriot was claimed to have something similar when it first entered service and I shouldnt need to remind you what happened there.

Btw all missiles are ballistic, least artillery ones, and I believe the Hezzys use grads, 220mm artillery rockets. Probably not worth wasting an arrow on though in salvos they're probably more dangerous than a scud or shabib.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but if you notice, the US and USSR didn't attack each other directly. And since India and Pakistan don't have the influence to start a proxy war off somwehere, that pretty much leaved us with a state of peacful mistrust. Armed, but peaceful. Neither is going to attack the other, and no one else will either.

I've never trusted standoffs. They always seem to come out  bad.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Gank


So it hasnt actually shot down any real targets? Patriot was claimed to have something similar when it first entered service and I shouldnt need to remind you what happened there.

Btw all missiles are ballistic, least artillery ones, and I believe the Hezzys use grads, 220mm artillery rockets. Probably not worth wasting an arrow on though in salvos they're probably more dangerous than a scud or shabib.

sure it has... check the quoted part of my last message.

all missles are ballistic? what about like RPGs? and like TOW missles... or do they just have less of a visible arc or something? (not being sarcastic I just dont know.)

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Rictor


The US is threatening to invade, overthrow the government, occupy the country and presumably turn Iran into a client state. Thats enough. Not to mention that for several hundred thousands people (if Iraqi figures are anything to go by) it will be a matter of survival, or lack thereof.

As far as I have been able to see all that has been threatened are surgical air strikes on its nuclear facilities not invasion... granted it’s a possibility. But the losses and the sheer manpower required... Iran has a standing army of 12.5 million people! That’s more then 6 times what the US has. So yeah it would have to be a draft in the US.

Originally posted by Rictor
Israel has probably the most advanced army in the region, has the political (and military) backing of the United States, and several of the surrounding countries are buddying up to it (Egypt, Jordan etc). Iran on the other hand has...what? Surrounded on all sides (except on the North, and even there you have Uzbekistan), facing perhaps the world's most powerful military, and pretty much without allies (militarilly speaking). They have far more reason to be afraid that Israel. Hence, at present, they have a more legitimate need to possess a nuclear deterant than Israel does.

Egypt and Jordan will never be allies to Israel... peaceful neighbors at best. But believe me they would have outright civil war if they ever helped us. Israel currently has no reason to be afraid of massive invasion because of the nukes... the peace agreements and the cease-fires and lack of all out wars in the recent past have been because of our nuclear deterrent. Iran isn’t being threatened causing it to need nuclear weapons! It’s seeking nuclear weapons causing the US to threaten her. The chicken came first in this scenario.

[Gank]

Real as in live, not drones.

And rpgs are ballistic, Tows are wire guided. Basically if its fired without any means of redirecting its flight its ballistic. Like throwing a stone.

Btw Pakistan and India clash regularly on the border, its far from a peaceful standoff although it may look that way to the uninformed. The most recent was the Kargil war, in 99.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Splinter
the peace agreements and the cease-fires and lack of all out wars in the recent past have been because of our nuclear deterrent.

Actually the US bought the ceasefires with  2 billion dollars of aid to egypt a year. Jordan has always been the most inclined to talk to Israel, although it recieves substantial US aid too.

[Ghostavo]

Last time I checked Israel had the 4th most powerful army in the world, what has happened since then?

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Gank
Real as in live, not drones.  

test results 3, 4, 8, & 9

3 and 4 were real missles 8 & 9 were real missles simulating other missles

Originally posted by Gank
And rpgs are ballistic, Tows are wire guided. Basically if its fired without any means of redirecting its flight its ballistic. Like throwing a stone.

OOOOOOOH for some reason I always though ballistic was a missile that is launched up and then comes down... not the straight firing kind. Yeah... I'm dumb.

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Last time I checked Israel had the 4th most powerful army in the world, what has happened since then?

per capita or as is?

[Rictor]

Gank: I said excluding border skirmishes. I meant that it is unlikely to come to total war between the two nations, the type of war which would result in either side resorting to nuclear weapons. The kind of war thats being fought can go on for a long time without either side making substantial territorial gains (if any).

[Ghostavo]

as is... or else the US wouldn't be the most powerful (China has the largest army in the world)

[Gank]

Originally posted by Splinter
3 and 4 were real missles 8 & 9 were real missles simulating other missles

Fired under test conditions not actual battlefield. What I mean is its unproven in actual combat.

Originally posted by Splinter
for some reason I always though ballistic was a missile that is launched up and then comes down... not the straight firing kind. Yeah... I'm dumb.

Well, none are really fired straight, gravity acts on all of them just on short ranged stuff like rpgs its not as noticable. Guns are ballistic weapons for example. Basically anything thats unguided is ballistic.

Originally posted by Rictor
Gank: I said excluding border skirmishes. I meant that it is unlikely to come to total war between the two nations, the type of war which would result in either side resorting to nuclear weapons. The kind of war thats being fought can go on for a long time without either side making substantial territorial gains (if any).

Ah well see your use of the word peaceful threw me off, cos Kashmirs far from that.  

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
as is... or else the US wouldn't be the most powerful (China has the largest army in the world)

I meant per capita like soldiers to civilians ratio and amount of technology for size and for the national income and blah blah blah.

If you basically took everyone’s population cut it all down to a specified number then divided all their weapons and fighting man power into that number by... yeah anyway its complicated useless figures.

Anyway it would be to difficult to tell. As I was saying before the US has a current standing army of 1.675mil without the national gaurd. Israel has 3mil so technically since we are on the same levels in most technology areas some the US has higher others we do and experience in certain kinds of fighting and wars we both have our expertise areas... I would say technically China could beat the US... I dont think they have as an advanced military technology program but in sheer numbers....

Its really difficult if not impossible to say.

Why do you ask anyway?

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Gank


Fired under test conditions not actual battlefield. What I mean is its unproven in actual combat.

Right. But how much diffrent can a real life missle launched at a real life target act then a real life missle launched at a real life target thats not going to kill people when it lands if its not destroyed.

Originally posted by Gank

Well, none are really fired straight, gravity acts on all of them just on short ranged stuff like rpgs its not as noticable. Guns are ballistic weapons for example. Basically anything thats unguided is ballistic.

Right. gotcha.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I guess we'll have to see how this all turns out.

Bush invades Iran, I buy you all a beer. Bosche beer, of course.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Splinter
Right. But how much diffrent can a real life missle launched at a real life target act then a real life missle launched at a real life target thats not going to kill people when it lands if its not destroyed.

Ask the guys manning the patriots during the gulf war. Its success rate in testing was 96% iirc, while in combat it was 70-40%