sherpa

The TOR M1 surface to air missile has a high explosive frag warhead detonated by a proximity fuse. If it operates properly it will cause lots of holes.

The US should have strong signal evidence of this. Surface to air missile systems can be pretty noisy, and depending on what mode is used, the switch from search to tracking and guidance is very apparent.

Dumb, but not "sinking" Guam dumb.

What you say is OK with me. What you did is post a suggestion of involvement in an illegal activity by people I know and also know were not involved, and your suggestion was clear. That was not, and should not, be taken lightly. That causes me to be suspicious. Shouldn't matter to you. The facts always prevail.

I know what he posted, and I stand by what I said. That isn't important. But.....When you claim some sort of credibility based on honest consideration of facts, your skeletons get exposed.

You didn't go where the evidence lead when you posted that nonsense about Seventh Fleet corruption, and specifically, Adm Pat Walsh's involvement, which you suggested. Once you do that, no matter how honorable your intentions, people who know these folks doubt your ability or sincerity to: "go where the evidence leads" No disrespect intended. Just things remembered, and not admitted.

I honestly want to believe you, but the names of people who have either refused to serve his presidency, along with those who have resigned underpin the doubt I have in him that is made more evident by gross business failures.

Not sure what you mean. I haven't proposed any alternative. I'm in favor of any election, whatever the result. I'm not in favor of this silly impeachment or any other extra-constitutional removal.

I think you are right. The system our forefathers set up was incredibly prescient. There is a difference though, in seeking his removal or pointing out gross incompetence, and a stupid course that could lead to really serious problems. I'm just pointing out the incompetence. Removal is best done via elections.

A step back. Only on social media would an individual like me be asked to defend John Kerry, Robert McNamara or LBJ because I think Trump's nonsense about cultural sites was a stupid, unforced error objectionable to the entire military. In the "only happens here" dept, and this site is more reasonable than most.

I am assuming that there is absolutely no need to deal with this guy's incompetence, whether as a businessman or a leader of a nation in possession of the greatest military and financial capability the world has ever known. I did a bit of financial work, formally and paid, on his "business" a few decades ago when he tried to launch a hostile bid on a company. Thank God he failed. I've watched him "fail" in many other endeavors that ended up in court, and those of a more personal nature that we all know about. I hoped he would work out, because I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for his competitor. He is in over his head, and everything suggests that, at it always has. All that aside, no matter the suggestion of his advanced skilled nuance, never visible in his track record heretofore, he has suggested that the US military will do something it doesn't, and won't do. If this is because he is brilliant, I'll admit it when I see it. What I see is stupid unnecessary nonsense.

He hasn't survived anything yet, and I honestly hope he does. The secret to good leadership though, is being leader enough to not having to "survive an attack from within." A good leader is convincing to the point that the attack never comes. This man is not a good leader at all.

Reagan won. This guy aint.

Please. There is no justifying what he said based on his background as a New York real estate guy, nor his habit of speaking the way he speaks. He now speaks as the president of the United States, and what he said was grossly foolish, ignorant and uncalled for. He clearly doesn't understand this, and there is no excuse, and no defending it.

I'm not going to quote the entire post, but what you are doing is expanding the thing beyond the Iranian borders. Everybody knows the use of human shields, cultural centers, hospitals and other sensitive areas that various groups use, knowing that such areas are almost always off limits to offensive response. My comments are strictly directed to Iranian soil, and they typically haven't done that. If the discussion expands to the entire world, this "trend" is certainly up for discussion, but I'm not going to comment on that.

I hope that we could address a cyber threat without altering real estate.

I have no idea, but I am not aware of them using Iranian locations for those activities. They export that kind of stuff to other places, or at least they have. You can't simply relocate command and control centers, and I doubt they would use such places as storage for any munitions that the world would care about. Their nuc stuff is deeply underground. Anyway, I've never been aware of any military value that would justify any strike on a cultural site there, but who knows. Either way, it was stupid thing for the president to say. Nothing gained, but a ton of speculation that puts us on the defense. The man is a massive unforced error source, and he hasn't figure it out. Such statements make military people cringe. Related, I think the US deployed six B-52's to Diego Garcia yesterday, which argues for a more strategic response, but that would just be a start.

I did answer the question, though it isn't what Trump said. I said "if there is no military benefit to doing so." It's silly to get into hypotheticals, so I won't. Gaming this think before anything happens is a really bad idea, but......... Iranian "ammunition" is not a threat. The US' strategic interest in anything Iranian related would be twofold. One is to protect shipping, which would involve eliminating the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Persian gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. The other is to disrupt and delay their nuclear weapons program, which is almost entirely deeply underground and probably, (I'm guessing here), location known. Tactically, in order to do that, you have to do what the US always does at the onset, which is to take out command and control and air defense capability related to those two objectives. None of that relates to cultural sites, and using such places to train terrorists or store ammunition, per your hypothetical, probably isn't important enough to worry about. Nonetheless, going after a cultural site is anathema to a professional military, which the US is.

I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks.

Sad, but the entire thing is a result of failing to address reality. The greatest example of kicking the can down the road. Does any sane individual with a modicum of knowledge about the Persian thing think for a second that Iran was going to abandon its nuclear program because of a "deal" with American President Barack Obama? Ludicrous. This preposterous view by grossly political Americans, (my party gets it right, yours gets it wrong), flies in the face of reality. There is no chance that Obama was going to stop them just as there is no chance that any diplomacy is going to stop them. Its simply an option to get a bunch of career pols around a table for a photo shoot and add something to a faked resume. Iran has never stopped, and is not going to stop developing this stuff until some other event occurs, and that has been the reality since they decided to pursue this weapons program. Obama, Trump, Lincoln or whomever, it doesn't matter. The theory that some president of the US has the negotiating skill to control such a decision in Tehran or Pyonyang is not supported by any current reality.

So passing on a response when Iran shot down a US aircraft in international airspace supports the thought that he "wanted that war." There is no more clear acts or war than that. On other notes you have mentioned, nobody has any issues with the horrible nature of the Shah, but that has nothing to do with this. On a further note, I do not know of one serious, familiar with their operations, informed individual who ever thought that Iran was going to cease its nuclear weapons program because of the "deal" it had in place. The same for North Korea. They are simply not going to stop of their own volition. Unfortunately, that is the reality.

Very odd for a team to begin its season and end its season in games where a 16-0 lead was blown.

So in your thread starting post you posted: "From day one Trump was intent on doing economic warfare on Iran and now we have seen that escalate to a shooting war. " And an hour ago, you state: "It didn’t start in ‘79, it started way before that." Do you not see the incongruity of your own statements? I'm not the kind of guy that gets into keyboard arguments or piles on, but you are one strange source. The fact is that the "shooting" between Iran, the US and a host of other countries has been going on for decades. From seizing an embassy, blindfolding and parading people around Tehran, the crap they source in the middle east through proxies, mining the Strait of Hormuz, (viewed in international law as an act of war and thus "shooting"), launching missiles, running gun boats at ships in international waters, mining a vessel, including the USS Roberts, shooting a drone in international airspace and a host of other things on their side..... and on ours: Operation Praying Mantis which basically sunk half their fleet, including dropping an LGB down the stack of the Iranian ship Sabalan, (mistakenly attributed to an A-6, but actually done by an F-18 from my old squadron, go Shrikes, and on and on and on. Ya. the shooting just started. '

Nope. Never fired. I got the first intercept of an Iranian hostile after the embassy. Launched of Kitty Hawk and got a com to connect with the E2, early warning aircraft. They linked me to an intercept of an Iranian P3 who was closing on the ship, at 200 miles. Tapped him at 150 miles, and showed him my missiles, two heaters,with the appropriate hand signals, telling him that if he threatened the task force I would kill him. Task Force commander, aboard Kitty Hawk at the time, said that if he gets within 50 miles, I was going to get a cleared to fire, or if they open any doors on the bottom. The speculation was that they had Harpoon, and anti ship missile we had sold them, and that was a reasonable range to eliminate the threat. He closed to 45 miles, my missiles were locked, and I asked for a cleared to fire, and they said no. P3 got to 30 miles, and I said that since it was so close, I would first take out the missile as it dropped, and then the airplane. The guy turned away at 25 miles. I often wonder what would have happened if I simply shot him and claimed an aggressive action within the rules of engagement. North Indian Ocean. Nobody would have known Glad I didn't, 'cause I'm a good guy.

Are you allowed to function in your community? I have spent four posts curing and cleaning up the nonsense you do here. I never said we should have been at war with them. What I said was that that this started in '79, and it is ignorant to not know that.