[Crimsonsabbath]

Originally Posted by BadassHo

their missile locations will be knocked out first. and we have good anti-missile chain guns on our ships and a row smaller vessels dedicated to anti-missile warfare.

You know, no one is really sure how effective anti-missile systems will be in combat. Anti-missile systems may be one of the most untested combat systems this side of post-WW2-torpedos.

We really don't have much to point at, but what we do have to point at is troubling. The only matchup of a cruise missile vs. an AEGIS cruiser was in the Faulklands and the AEGIS cruiser had all their shit all turned off like idiots and got blasted. A little more contemporary you have the patriot missile batteries of 1991 which did poorly despite media coverage to the contrary. An unknown bug in the targeting system that happened when you left the computers on too long was the culprit. In 2003 we have the most modern missle-shoot-down exchange in which the Iraqi military shot 11 missiles at coalition troops and 7 of them where shot down by upgraded patriot batteries and missiles.

Advanced cruise missiles are a lot harder to shoot down than the stuff the Iraqi military was lobbing at us at the opening stages of the Iraq war and we only got about 60% of those missiles. Obviously we're dealing with different missile systems entirely here so you can't point to the patriot batteries and say, "Well obviously this is how the Navy's entirely and completely different system is going to perform" but given that we don't have much to go on, it's pretty analogous.

But most troubling is that when congress asks the Navy about exactly how much of a threat "carrier killer" cruise missiles like the Klub are... they don't get much of an answer. Now that can either mean two things. It could mean that we have some kind of great defence that we're just keeping secret from the enemy so they don't learn how to defeat our defences. Or, we do not have any kind of a reliable defence against a weapon that can be fired 300km away, skim the sea surface to avoid detection, and then blast a 2nd stage rocket that closes the last 8-killometers to the target in 20 seconds.

Personally, I think the threat of anti-ship cruise missiles is huge from any military that posesses them.

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

there needs to be a congressional hearing on this, publicly aired too and every lobbyist (mainly the AIPAC) or pundit that is calling for in iran testify before congress and let the people decide and if it shows that a war in iran has no merit, call another congressional hearing on why the AIPAC is whispering in backrooms and manipulating our foreign policy for war in iran and hold them accountable

[Heresy]

We can't afford to go to war with Iran.

Not to mention it's fucking stupid to even contemplate. Iran isn't doing anything a sovereign nation wouldn't be expected to do, given who its neighbors are, and who threatens it.

[Jin-Roh]

This article is applicable.

Maybe Ron Paul Was Right - thedailygreen.com

[rammsteiner]

Originally Posted by The Awsat Shark

so you don't believe america is capable of pounding the iranian military with overwhelming force, leaving them incapable/unmotivated to try and close off any straits for fear of another aerial pounding?

They don't have a REASON to go into Iran!!!!

[Crimsonsabbath]

Originally Posted by Jin-Roh

This article is applicable.

Maybe Ron Paul Was Right - thedailygreen.com

Interesting.

[Pridelives]

Originally Posted by Crimsonsabbath

You know, no one is really sure how effective anti-missile systems will be in combat. Anti-missile systems may be one of the most untested combat systems this side of post-WW2-torpedos.
.

LiveLeak.com - Phalanx CIWS Shooting Down A Missile

[RemoWilliams]

WOW, the overwhelming Iranian nuthuggery here is amazing.

The U.S. Navy is more than capable of shutting down that portion of the world with simple battle carrier groups (which half the countries there have none of), and subs.

If Iran got cute. Sure they're a bug up an ass. But logistically they'd be facing a nightmare with a two pronged likely attack from Israel and America, plus the likely Europeans who have interests there that would likely jump in just to STFU the middle east over.

If a Kennedy style blockade/quarantine/war/whatever you wanted were in place by even a tenth of the U.S. Naval fleet? In conjunction with Israel and folks?

Iran is fucked.

They know this. We know this

Unfortunately for Iran, they seem willing to play it out.

Fortunately for Iran, there's a possibility that the next U.S. president will ahve to play it out and that's why Hillary and Obama were slammed with this question today and both failed miserably.

[Piper]

The fact that the US has "leaked" the fact that plans for targets in Iran have been set, it a tactic to get them to back down, and stop supplying/training/manning attacks on US and Iraqi troops within Iraq.

Hillary is now trying to sound tough against Iran, too. She knows, as most in congress do, that Iran is flagrantly waging war against the US in Iraq and the elected government of Iraq. If it doesn't happen before Bush leaves office, then whoever is elected will have to deal with this.

The US election is only a few months away, and the ground is being prepared and the populace being prepared for the eventuality of action against Iran.

Pulling out of Iraq is contingent on Iran being dealt with. If Iran wasn't waging its war in Iraq, we could leave relatively soon. Al-Qaeda is nearly removed, the indigenous insurgents for the most part have now sided with the US against Al-Qaeda, the elected government of Iraq is lead by Shiite muslims, but the "militias" backed by Iran are fighting them and the Sunnis. With Iran knocked out, Iraq can recover and we can leave.

[RemoWilliams]

Originally Posted by Piper

The fact that the US has "leaked" the fact that plans for targets in Iran have been set, it a tactic to get them to back down, and stop supplying/training/manning attacks on US and Iraqi troops within Iraq.

Hillary is now trying to sound tough against Iran, too. She knows, as most in congress do, that Iran is flagrantly waging war against the US in Iraq and the elected government of Iraq. If it doesn't happen before Bush leaves office, then whoever is elected will have to deal with this.

The US election is only a few months away, and the ground is being prepared and the populace being prepared for the eventuality of action against Iran.

Pulling out of Iraq is contingent on Iran being dealt with. If Iran wasn't waging its war in Iraq, we could leave relatively soon. Al-Qaeda is nearly removed, the indigenous insurgents for the most part have now sided with the US against Al-Qaeda, the elected government of Iraq is lead by Shiite muslims, but the "militias" backed by Iran are fighting them and the Sunnis. With Iran knocked out, Iraq can recover and we can leave.

They've only leaked Nuclear Plans.