Looks like Iran might need those missles...

[chicot]

None of those anti-ship missiles have the range to hit a carrier battle group in the Arabian Sea. Even if they did..."having" anti-ship missiles still isn't a big deal. You have to know how to use them.

 

True, but don't you think it would be a bit complacent to assume that Iran, having spent the money to acquire state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles, wouldn't have bothered to find out how to use them properly as well?

[DC Tom]

The Drudge headline is now gone, but the Iran-Iran-Iran echo is still wafting through the intertubes.

 

Gee, that almost never happens...

 

 

You people (not you, Coli) are being idiots. Iran probably was involved. Iran's been fighting an undeclared war with the US in Iraq ever since we invaded. We haven't bombed them yet. We're not going to start now over a single incident that just happened to be reported on Drudge. If anything, from what I've heard this morning, we're going to start bombing Iraq over it.

[yall]

I did read the OP. You say you're not going to jump to conclusions, then you start jumping to conclusions. You've already accomplished what they intended anyway...you took a Drudge headline (that erroneously claimed there was an NBC story) that disseminated factless speculations and passed it along. The Drudge headline is now gone, but the Iran-Iran-Iran echo is still wafting through the intertubes.

 

You claim that IF TRUE, this warrants military action. The title of your thread is "Looks like Iran might need those missles..." How knee-jerk is that?

 

What conclusion did I jump to? Please elaborate? Apparently you can't even understand the word "might". Please read before you quote and jump to conclusions yourself.

 

And if you are wary of the drudgereport, that's fine, as CNN and Yahoo both are running the story right now.

[molson_golden2002]

Gee, that almost never happens...

You people (not you, Coli) are being idiots. Iran probably was involved. Iran's been fighting an undeclared war with the US in Iraq ever since we invaded. We haven't bombed them yet. We're not going to start now over a single incident that just happened to be reported on Drudge. If anything, from what I've heard this morning, we're going to start bombing Iraq over it.

 

Why was Iran *probably* involved? Can you explain your reasoning here?

[DC Tom]

True, but don't you think it would be a bit complacent to assume that Iran, having spent the money to acquire state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles, wouldn't have bothered to find out how to use them properly as well?

 

You don't even know what "use them" means. What's their C3I? Are they set up in an offensive or defensive posture? Concentrated, or dispersed? Mobile or static? How strong are the launch sites' defenses? What kind of support can they give to a strike? How big a strike can they launch to begin with? Can they strike a target in the Arabian Ocean (hell, do you even know where the Arabian Ocean is? I'll bet 75% of the people on this board couldn't find it on a globe. And that's where carriers deploy to, not the Persian Gulf itself).

 

And even if the Iranians manage an ideal strike (every missile launched, on multiple axes, precisely at a CVBG they know the exact location of, with ECM/ECCM support)...you think the US Navy doesn't have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes? They've only been practicing it since World War II.

[DC Tom]

Why was Iran *probably* involved? Can you explain your reasoning here?

 

It's just a reasonable assumption. Anything out of the ordinary (i.e., any nitwit can drive a car bomb into a market or drop an IED at the side of a road; this ambush is one of those events that seems to involve quite a few non-nitwits, it had a certain sophistication and organization to it) that happens in Iraq, if it involves Shi'ites, assume Iran was at least backing it and you'll be right maybe 70% of the time (if it involves Sunnis, assume Syria.) This is because, again, Iran's been fighting an undeclared war with the US in Iraq since we got there. They're loving this. We're the Great Satan, we've projected our military power against them in risk-free fashion for 20 years or so, but now we've put ourselves in a position where they can finally project their military power against us risk-free...not to mention defend the Iraqi Shi'ia population that's been repressed for almost a century, control the Shi'ia holy sites, and control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

 

It's one of the reasons Baker's group recommended talks with Iran (and Syria). They recognize Iran's involvement and strategic interests in Iraq. The administration's failure to engage Iran and Syria diplomatically ("But...but...but...they're the Axis of Evil! We don't talk to Evil!") will end up being their biggest foreign policy error, ultimately. Not that the Iranians would talk anyway; they have the US over a barrel and they know it. That's why they tied recognition of their nuclear program to diplomatic talks over Iraq: either they stop mucking around in Iraq embarrass us by forcing us to accept their nuclear program, or they embarrass us in Iraq...and keep building nukes anyway.

[chicot]

You don't even know what "use them" means. What's their C3I? Are they set up in an offensive or defensive posture? Concentrated, or dispersed? Mobile or static? How strong are the launch sites' defenses? What kind of support can they give to a strike? How big a strike can they launch to begin with? Can they strike a target in the Arabian Ocean (hell, do you even know where the Arabian Ocean is? I'll bet 75% of the people on this board couldn't find it on a globe. And that's where carriers deploy to, not the Persian Gulf itself).

 

And even if the Iranians manage an ideal strike (every missile launched, on multiple axes, precisely at a CVBG they know the exact location of, with ECM/ECCM support)...you think the US Navy doesn't have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes? They've only been practicing it since World War II.

 

Good grief. I never claimed to be an expert in military matters. I freely admit that you know more about this sort of thing than I do. No need for you to go nuts.

 

I'm sure the US Navy does have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes. However, technology has moved on since World War II. The British navy had defences during the Falklands war too, but they were found to be not all that effective against exocets. It may be (don't throw a fit - I'm just suggesting this, not stating it to be a cast-iron fact) that the US Navy defences may turn out to be not so effective against the latest Russian anti-ship missiles. The link that yall provided stated that the carriers were being deployed to "the Gulf" not the Arabian Sea (again, calm down - I'm just stating what I read).

[molson_golden2002]

It's just a reasonable assumption.

Yes, one among many. For instance, they could have been retaliating for Americans doing something in Iraq. We are training and working with Iraqis there and the death squads are part of the Iraqi government. It seems just as reasonable, if not more so, that we arrested some one, or shot some place up or looked at someone or *wrong* and this was retaliation involving people we trained who are working for a militia or local death squad. Has anyone been arrested for this? Is there any evidence available at all?

[Johnny Coli]

What conclusion did I jump to? Please elaborate? Apparently you can't even understand the word "might". Please read before you quote and jump to conclusions yourself.

 

And if you are wary of the drudgereport, that's fine, as CNN and Yahoo both are running the story right now.

 

 

I'm staring at the Yahoo News page right now and their top Iraq story is about how the US botched the training of the Iraqis...whoops, now it's about another car bomb going off. They have a video of ABC titled "Enemy in Iraq really Iran" up (whoops, it's now been re-titled "Iran and Iraq, What's Next?"), and you can bet that's just loaded with facts. [/sarcasm] CNN is, well, CNN. It's not even on the front page of FoxNews.

 

You started the thread. You titled the thread. You were the first poster in the thread to suggest this warranted military action. What conclusion am I supposed to infer from that?

 

1. Link a lie to a emotional event

2. Disseminate "intelligence" based on conjecture and speculation to two media sources

3. Rely on public to virally spread inflammatory, factless headline

4. Retract story when it's already percieved as fact by the vast majority

5. Use that lie to reinforce another lie.

6. Invade Iran

[molson_golden2002]

You don't even know what "use them" means. What's their C3I? Are they set up in an offensive or defensive posture? Concentrated, or dispersed? Mobile or static? How strong are the launch sites' defenses? What kind of support can they give to a strike? How big a strike can they launch to begin with? Can they strike a target in the Arabian Ocean (hell, do you even know where the Arabian Ocean is? I'll bet 75% of the people on this board couldn't find it on a globe. And that's where carriers deploy to, not the Persian Gulf itself).

 

And even if the Iranians manage an ideal strike (every missile launched, on multiple axes, precisely at a CVBG they know the exact location of, with ECM/ECCM support)...you think the US Navy doesn't have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes? They've only been practicing it since World War II.

And if Iran retaliates by attacking oil facilities and/or tankers? To me, that is the real threat they pose. Saudi Arabia is already pumping oil to the hilt now to drive down the price of oil to hurt Iran. Iran could call that economic warfare and use that as an excuse--along with the American bombing--to hit Saudi tankers or oil fields. Just the threat of that being an imminent possibility would drive the price of oil through the roof

[molson_golden2002]

1. Link a lie to a emotional event

2. Disseminate "intelligence" based on conjecture and speculation to two media sources

3. Rely on public to virally spread inflammatory, factless headline

4. Retract story when it's already percieved as fact by the vast majority

5. Use that lie to reinforce another lie.

6. Invade Iran

That is pretty much the play book

[DC Tom]

Good grief. I never claimed to be an expert in military matters. I freely admit that you know more about this sort of thing than I do. No need for you to go nuts.

 

I'm sure the US Navy does have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes. However, technology has moved on since World War II. The British navy had defences during the Falklands war too, but they were found to be not all that effective against exocets. It may be (don't throw a fit - I'm just suggesting this, not stating it to be a cast-iron fact) that the US Navy defences may turn out to be not so effective against the latest Russian anti-ship missiles. The link that yall provided stated that the carriers were being deployed to "the Gulf" not the Arabian Sea (again, calm down - I'm just stating what I read).

 

Offensive and defensive technology tends to develop apace of each other; generally, anti-ship missiles hit at the same rate as kamikazes (about 3% success rate against defenses). And the Falklands War is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about: the Argentinians had excellent command and control, doctrine, and intelligence that allowed them to use Exocets effectively against a British Navy that did not have the C3I or doctrine to fight them (specifically, they weren't the least bit organized to fight an air battle away from their carrier task groups). Once they solved that problem, they stopped the Argentinian attacks cold.

 

Which is my main point: you people worry about Tor-M1s and SS-N-22s and Exocets. It's bull sh--. Weapons are just things. How they're used is what matters...and that boils down to command, control, communications, intelligence, and logistics. The greatest, most unbeatable anti-ship missile in the world isn't going to sink anything if the order to fire can't get from the military headquarters to the missile battery. And those are things that the US historically does extraordinarily well, and Arab and Persian states do extraordinarily poorly.

[DC Tom]

Yes, one among many. For instance, they could have been retaliating for Americans doing something in Iraq. We are training and working with Iraqis there and the death squads are part of the Iraqi government. It seems just as reasonable, if not more so, that we arrested some one, or shot some place up or looked at someone or *wrong* and this was retaliation involving people we trained who are working for a militia or local death squad. Has anyone been arrested for this? Is there any evidence available at all?

 

You think the militias and death squads are independent?

 

Second requirement of a successful insurgency: a secure base of support and operations outside the area of conflict. Castro had Central America. The Afghan mujahadeen had Pakistan and Iran. The Viet Cong had North Vietnam and Cambodia. The Contras had El Salvador. The Iraqi Kurds had Iran.

 

You honestly think that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ias are the first insurgent groups in history to buck this trend?

 

 

(The first requirement of successful insurgency, by the way, is: exist. Castro's group was down to five guys hiding in the mountains at one point, and ended up ousting Batista. As long as an insurgent group isn't completely eliminated, they're winning. Bodes well for the US's future in Iraq...)

[yall]

I'm staring at the Yahoo News page right now and their top Iraq story is about how the US botched the training of the Iraqis...whoops, now it's about another car bomb going off. They have a video of ABC titled "Enemy in Iraq really Iran" up (whoops, it's now been re-titled "Iran and Iraq, What's Next?"), and you can bet that's just loaded with facts. [/sarcasm] CNN is, well, CNN. It's not even on the front page of FoxNews.

 

Are you saying I'm lying, and that it in fact was not up earlier? Yahoo changes it's top stories, which you just proved. If you look under the "more" section I'm sure you'll find a link there. But is that all you have? Is your only point "not everyone is reporting it"?

 

You started the thread. You titled the thread. You were the first poster in the thread to suggest this warranted military action. What conclusion am I supposed to infer from that?

 

1. Link a lie to a emotional event

2. Disseminate "intelligence" based on conjecture and speculation to two media sources

3. Rely on public to virally spread inflammatory, factless headline

4. Retract story when it's already percieved as fact by the vast majority

5. Use that lie to reinforce another lie.

6. Invade Iran

 

Once again, I said it warranted military action "if" it turned out to be true.

 

Why can you not quote that part? Do I have to quote myself? I guess I do... here goes... Please read it this time and try not to completely ignore what I have said:

 

"I'll wait until I see this on NBC before jumping to conclusions, but if this is true (and I mean really true not "oops WMD" true) then Iran should be lit the f*ck up like a christmas tree. "

[pdh1]

The US support of the Contras is slightly more recent than the battle of Hastings.

 

If they captured them and executed them in cold blood, then that is indeed different. However, the quote you provided just says they were killed "in a deadly ambush". I think troops being killed in an ambush (and most especially when they are occupying another country) would certainly come under the definition of "combat deaths".

 

I think you're being somewhat unrealistic if you honestly believe the US can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths, though I suppose that would depend on what your definition of "many" is.

 

 

I will say again, it a good thing we have the soothing words and comments from the President of Iran out there to help ease tensions, or this would really blow up.

 

"Liberalism and Democracy have failed the world"

From his letter to President Bush. You know, the one were he asks to convert to Islam? He is diss'ing you Molson!

[5 Wide]

You don't even know what "use them" means. What's their C3I? Are they set up in an offensive or defensive posture? Concentrated, or dispersed? Mobile or static? How strong are the launch sites' defenses? What kind of support can they give to a strike? How big a strike can they launch to begin with? Can they strike a target in the Arabian Ocean (hell, do you even know where the Arabian Ocean is? I'll bet 75% of the people on this board couldn't find it on a globe. And that's where carriers deploy to, not the Persian Gulf itself).

 

And even if the Iranians manage an ideal strike (every missile launched, on multiple axes, precisely at a CVBG they know the exact location of, with ECM/ECCM support)...you think the US Navy doesn't have defenses against anti-ship missile strikes? They've only been practicing it since World War II.

 

 

The Arabian sea is a practical choice to land the battle group. However, the US has sent 4 mine sweepers to the gulf and the ultimate destination is the gulf for the Stennis group. The Ying-Ji-802 is the major anti ship missile in the Iranian armament with an effective range of 120 km. These missiles fly subsonically at mach .9 and are well within the spectrum of defense that the outer defense shell and last resort Phalanx system can easily handle.

[Johnny Coli]

"I'll wait until I see this on NBC before jumping to conclusions, but if this is true (and I mean really true not "oops WMD" true) then Iran should be lit the f*ck up like a christmas tree. "

 

That you were already musing about leveling another country based on an erroneous Drudge Inflamma-line (that linked to nothing, then dissappeared) speaks for itself.

[chicot]

Offensive and defensive technology tends to develop apace of each other; generally, anti-ship missiles hit at the same rate as kamikazes (about 3% success rate against defenses). And the Falklands War is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about: the Argentinians had excellent command and control, doctrine, and intelligence that allowed them to use Exocets effectively against a British Navy that did not have the C3I or doctrine to fight them (specifically, they weren't the least bit organized to fight an air battle away from their carrier task groups). Once they solved that problem, they stopped the Argentinian attacks cold.

 

Which is my main point: you people worry about Tor-M1s and SS-N-22s and Exocets. It's bull sh--. Weapons are just things. How they're used is what matters...and that boils down to command, control, communications, intelligence, and logistics. The greatest, most unbeatable anti-ship missile in the world isn't going to sink anything if the order to fire can't get from the military headquarters to the missile battery. And those are things that the US historically does extraordinarily well, and Arab and Persian states do extraordinarily poorly.

 

I may be wrong, but my recollection of the Falklands war is that the Argentinians simply ran out of exocets - I think they only had five to begin with.

[RkFast]

Whats worse?

 

The nutty hawks looking to level Iran at the mere drop of a hat?

 

or

 

The pussies who wouldnt want to take action even if aUS carrier group was attacked, complete with a picture circulated on Al Jazeera with Achmeninutjob pressing the "launch" button with one hand and giving a 'thumbs up' to the camera with the other?

 

Try to find the MIDDLE and THINK, losers.

[PastaJoe]

Once again, I said it warranted military action "if" it turned out to be true.

 

And that's the basic problem, based on their performance with Iraq it is difficult to believe anything that this adminstration says without independent verification. What they say is true may or may not be, but they have no credibility when it comes to justifying military action against another country based on just their own word.