Author Topic: US special forces 'inside Iran'  (Read 10237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
(and given that Israel won't disclose what or how many weapons they have, they can use that factor too)


Its pretty much common knowledge at any rate just do a quickie google search for "how many nuclear weapons does Israel have" or something like that.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb

 

Offline Zarax

  • 210
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...
The Best is Yet to Come

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
US special forces 'inside Iran'
It's true. The Israili military is practically a mini-US. It even uses most of our tech.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Umm, I think those hostile nations have pretty much showed their inability to invade Israel Aldo, whereas Israel currently occupies territory which belonged to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The poor little Israel argument kinda falls flat on its face there. :rolleyes:


Unless said nations employ biological / chemical weapons.  In which case all bets are off the table.  Also I don't believe there has been a united Arab attack upon Israel since 1967(?).  And Israel would only need to fail once in order to render your argument invalid; so having some form of ultimate deterrent is presumably useful in that scope.

As I said, I'm not in favour of anyone having nuclear weapons.  But how many other nations in the world are there surrounded by multiple hostile nations who refuse to even recognise that nations existance, and who have attacked said nation in coalition with each other?

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline Gank

  • 27
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Zarax
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...


Well Lebanon, then Yom Kippur, then the 6 days war, counting backwards, first one was a disasterous failure for Israel, went in to sort out the PLO and ended up creating Hez'bollah, along with cedeing lebanon to syrian control, Yom kippur was a victory for Israel, although it cost them an awful lot. So really they've been going downhill since 67.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?


Valid question.... the crux of the argument would seem to be that Irans government are just generally not very nice blokes, and you wouldn't trust them much to behave responsibly (i.e. not go nuts and use them, or accidentally lose them or pass them to terrorists, etc)

Of course, the side of that is, if they did so, it would surely mean their own destruction from reprisals.  So the only practical use they have for nukes, is to scare people with; i.e. deterrent.

It's a thorny issue - if we can't stop everyone from having nukes, what right have we to stop individual cases?

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by vyper
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?


I've been thinking about this myself, and I think it has to do with the fact that we don't want anyone else getting nukes. We had to get them first, but we were going against another super power. Once they left, then we had no more need for our nukes. We just keep them as a "detterant" for a war that will never come.

Unfortunately, if small, volatile nations such as India, Pakistan, and Iran get nukes, then that war might actually become a reality. Be honest: Who in their right mind would launch an attack against the United States? No one. But an attack against India? A definate possibility. It's also a possiblity that India would be overrun, thus, India as a last-gasp effort, would launch it's nukes. That won't happen to the US, we're much too big and powerful.


My mind is wandering, so it's hard for me to formulate a thought, basically what I mean is:
 
They might actually use them. We won't have to. The only enemy we would've used them against dissappeared years ago.

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


Valid question.... the crux of the argument would seem to be that Irans government are just generally not very nice blokes, and you wouldn't trust them much to behave responsibly (i.e. not go nuts and use them, or accidentally lose them or pass them to terrorists, etc)

Of course, the side of that is, if they did so, it would surely mean their own destruction from reprisals.  So the only practical use they have for nukes, is to scare people with; i.e. deterrent.

It's a thorny issue - if we can't stop everyone from having nukes, what right have we to stop individual cases?


NPT
Besides it's just not realistic, right or sensible to hold all countries to same standards. It's pretty sensitive to think of, say, Belgium as more "moral" country than for example theocracies or DPRK.

Is it morally right to allow both the nice guy and the retarded dwarf mongoloid with history of aggression access to big pointy sticks? Strawman, yeah I know.
lol wtf

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Unknown Target


I've been thinking about this myself, and I think it has to do with the fact that we don't want anyone else getting nukes. We had to get them first, but we were going against another super power. Once they left, then we had no more need for our nukes. We just keep them as a "detterant" for a war that will never come.

Unfortunately, if small, volatile nations such as India, Pakistan, and Iran get nukes, then that war might actually become a reality. Be honest: Who in their right mind would launch an attack against the United States? No one. But an attack against India? A definate possibility. It's also a possiblity that India would be overrun, thus, India as a last-gasp effort, would launch it's nukes. That won't happen to the US, we're much too big and powerful.


My mind is wandering, so it's hard for me to formulate a thought, basically what I mean is:
 
They might actually use them. We won't have to. The only enemy we would've used them against dissappeared years ago.


But in all cases, the effect of starting a fully-nuclear confrontation is worse that defeat........incidentally, I wouldn't exactly describe India as small and volatile - it's the worlds largest democracy by a country mile (1bn).

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
US special forces 'inside Iran'
India has 3.5 times as many people as the US. And they are by no means small. The actual chances of India being invaded and taken over are miniscule. Same deal with Pakistan.

The most dangerous nuclear power, in my mind, is Russia. They can't control their nukes, the infrastructure is old and unreliable.

 

Offline Gank

  • 27
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unless said nations employ biological / chemical weapons.  In which case all bets are off the table.  Also I don't believe there has been a united Arab attack upon Israel since 1967(?).  And Israel would only need to fail once in order to render your argument invalid; so having some form of ultimate deterrent is presumably useful in that scope.


The point would be Israel has never been in danger of being overrun by the arabs. The only war the arabs have started if you leave out 48 was the 73 war, which was launched to retake territory the Israelis captured in 67, a war they started. Afaik theres never been a war between Israelis and arabs fought on actual Israeli ground. So its nice to say in principla they need a deterrent, but the reality is they dont.

Quote
Israel has also developed, with U.S. financial assistance, the Arrow theater defense missile, which has become one of the only functioning missile defense systems in the world.

Umm, SA-10, predates the arrow by 20 odd years.

 
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Zarax
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...


The 6-day war... that was in 1967 I think... the Yom Kippur war which we barley survived (beginning of the movie sum of all fears) was in 1973

The 6-day war was the only war that we started out with the upper hand.


Quote
Originally posted by Unknown Target
It's true. The Israili military is practically a mini-US. It even uses most of our tech.


A mini US? Well as a nation we have a very different culture. And while the US sits with a comfortable 1.675 million man army (approx) not including NG and a population of close to 300mil, we have a population of 6.5 mil and a standing army of a about 3 million.

There is not much about Israel that is similar to the US... except that its a democracy but even THAT is debated :lol:

We do however use allot of your tech. I wouldn’t agree on "most" because Israel develops allot of its own technology from scratch or upgrades on what we get from other countries (mostly the US) we buy our own tech when we can to support the local establishments and because its cheaper then importing it.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb

 

Offline Gank

  • 27
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Splinter
The 6-day war... that was in 1967 I think... the Yom Kippur war which we barley survived (beginning of the movie sum of all fears) was in 1973

Umm, I think you'd better read up on that war, because while you took loses, the arabs didnt even get near the pre 67 borders. Hardly qualifies as barely surviving.

Quote
Originally posted by Splinter
The 6-day war was the only war that we started out with the upper hand.

Um, those british and french forces attacking egypt with you in 56 might say different, and I dont think you were really the underdog in lebanon either.

Quote
Originally posted by Splinter
There is not much about Israel that is similar to the US... except that its a democracy but even THAT is debated :lol:

In the US or Israel?

Quote
Originally posted by Splinter
We do however use allot of your tech. I wouldn’t agree on "most" because Israel develops allot of its own technology from scratch or upgrades on what we get from other countries (mostly the US) we buy our own tech when we can to support the local establishments and because its cheaper then importing it.

Its also a major source of income with sales to China, Idia and the like.

 
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Gank


The point would be Israel has never been in danger of being overrun by the arabs. The only war the arabs have started if you leave out 48 was the 73 war, which was launched to retake territory the Israelis captured in 67, a war they started. Afaik theres never been a war between Israelis and arabs fought on actual Israeli ground. So its nice to say in principla they need a deterrent, but the reality is they dont.

 
Umm, SA-10, predates the arrow by 20 odd years.


Just quoting the site. Also it said "One of the only" not "the only"

I'm sure you'll find out why it said that if you research both missiles and look at their differences and similarities personally I cant be bothered it works its had a 95% rate of success and that’s good enough for me.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb

 
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Gank

Umm, I think you'd better read up on that war, because while you took loses, the arabs didnt even get near the pre 67 borders. Hardly qualifies as barely surviving.


Well of all of them it was one of the most difficult... we were really caught on our back foot and for a while there it was a serious thing. If you read some of the stories... the Syrian tank general who brushed past our defenses and was standing in the upper Galilee with a clear road to central Israel decided suddenly that it was "to easy" and it had to be a trap and he didn’t continue when in fact we hardly had a single tank in the area let alone an ambush.

Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Um, those british and french forces attacking egypt with you in 56 might say different, and I dont think you were really the underdog in lebanon either.


Was there a war in 56? Meh all these wars are adding up in my head I get them mixed up. Whatever dude your probably right. But Lebanon wasn’t a war it was an "operation" or so they call it. So I didn’t really count it.

Quote
Originally posted by Gank
In the US or Israel?


Heh probably both but I meant Israel.

Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Its also a major source of income with sales to China, Idia and the like.


Indeed... I assume you meant India? :p
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb

 

Offline Gank

  • 27
US special forces 'inside Iran'
war   Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôr)
n.

   1.
         1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
         2. The period of such conflict.
         3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
   2.
         1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
         2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

I believe the Lebanon invasion would fall under this definition.

95% success? Thats impressive. What exactly has it shot down? Because missiles seem to hit Israel quite regularly from Lebanon and Gaza.

And yeah i did mean india.

 
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
war   Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôr)
n.

   1.
         1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
         2. The period of such conflict.
         3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
   2.
         1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
         2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

I believe the Lebanon invasion would fall under this definition.

95% success? Thats impressive. What exactly has it shot down? Because missiles seem to hit Israel quite regularly from Lebanon and Gaza.

And yeah i did mean india.


scuds mostly and the most accurate simulations avaliable of the shabib 3(sp?) missles Iran has, the ones that can reach Israel.

The Arrow 2 missile approaches the target at a maximum speed of Mach 9, or 2.5km/s, at a maximum altitude of 50,000km.

The system is designed to intercept as many as 14 incoming missiles. The first test of its ability to launch multiple missiles at different targets was conducted in January 2003.

The Arrow missile is launched before the threat missile's trajectory and intercept point are accurately known. As more trajectory data becomes available, the optimum intercept point is more precisely defined and the missile is guided towards the optimum intercept point.

The intercept altitudes are from a minimum of 10km up to a maximum of 50km. The maximum intercept range is approx. 90km

The kill vehicle section of the missile, containing the warhead, fusing and the terminal seeker, is equipped with four aerodynamically controlled moving fins to give low altitude interception capability. The warhead is a high explosive directed blast fragmentation warhead developed by Rafael, which is capable of destroying a target within a 50m radius.

The Arrow 2 system can detect and track incoming missiles as far way as 500 km and can intercept missiles 50-90 km away. The Arrow 2 uses a terminally-guided interceptor warhead to destroy an incoming missile from its launch at an altitude of 10 to 40km at nine times the speed of sound. Since the missile does not need to directly hit the target--detonation within 40-50 meters is sufficient to disable an incoming warhead. The command and control system is designed to respond to as many as 14 simultaneous intercepts.

Quote
Arrow 2 tests:

Test 1 (July 30th, 1995): Designed to test the steering, control and cruising systems of the Arrow. The test was conducted without a target missile.

Test 2 (February 20th, 1996): Another successful experiment. This time a target missile had not been launched as well.

Test 3 (August 20th, 1996): Successful interception. The Arrow successfully destroyed the target missile.

Test 4: (March 11th, 1997): Another successful interception. The Arrow destroyed the target missile this time as well.

Test 5 (August 20th, 1997): The missile was destroyed by ground orders due to malfunction in the missile's steering system.

Test 6 (September 14th, 1998): The missile was launched towards a virtual target created by a simulator. The test was successful.

Test 7 (November 1st, 1999): Full systems test. The missile was launched towards a virtual Scud target and successfully managed to hit and destroy it.

Test 8 (September 14th, 2000): The Arrow was launched towards the target missile Black Sparrow launched from an F-15 fighter jet simulating a Scud. The Arrow hit and destroyed the target.

Test 9 (August 28th, 2001): Full systems test wherein the Arrow was launched towards a Black Sparrow target missile, simulating a ballistic missile flight. The interception was conducted at a range larger than 100 kilometers at higher altitudes than before. The Arrow hit its target and destroyed it.

Test 10 (January 5th, 2003): Full systems test that did not include interception. Four missiles were launched towards four simulation targets in order to examine the interceptor's performance on special flight conditions and the system's ability at a sequence of launches.

Test 11 (December 16th, 2003): An test that examined the improved systems added as a result of a contract with the US, enabling the Arrow to intercept at a high ceiling.


http://israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html

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.

(as far as I know/think... disclaimer: some of this I just cant be bothered to look up ATM I have some more debates on other forums to get to ;))
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb

 

Offline Gloriano

  • silver dracon
  • 210
  • Oh
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Well if they bomp only military targets then it's good thing, but I hope they don't send invasion forces. There or it will be another big mess.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.- Nietzsche

When in despair I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won; there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.- Mahatma Gandhi

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
India has 3.5 times as many people as the US. And they are by no means small. The actual chances of India being invaded and taken over are miniscule. Same deal with Pakistan.




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.