Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Roll out the big guns. (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Roll out the big guns.
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It will be interesting to see how these next three months play out. Iran has a fairly capable air defense system--not well-integrated, the SAMs are a mix of old US (Hawks) and Russian (SA-2's etc), but the batteries along the coast had radar active almost 24/7 during OIF, showing a higher-than-expected rate of operability. I'm sure they anticipate Israel's (threatened) actions and will beef up air defense. They're probably buying more Russian SAMs as we speak.

ETA: If Iran does obtain some of the newer, more capable short-range SAMs, it will be interesting to see where they deploy them. Protecting "secret" nuclear facilities, I'm guessing...

Why can't everbody just get along? [Wink]

[ December 12, 2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: roper66 ]

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ssci
Member
Member # 1053

 - posted      Profile for ssci   Email ssci   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because some of us are jerks. [Wink]

[ December 12, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: ssci ]

Posts: 442 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats why the F-15I has a special israeli system that lets the auto pilot take control of the plane at very low hightes of 100-200 meters - way below radar hight. and fly at super sonic speeds at those hightes.

further more, every jet fighter will carry special israeli masking systems. which were quite effective against american radars, in preventing lock-ons (2 years ago, a wing of F-15 from my based deployed at the top gun excersises, and striked 100 kills for only 4 loses against the american rivals) one of the reasons was that the americans could not make a lock on.

getting along? ask Mahmud Ahmadinjad, what Israel has ever done to him and his country, i sure as hell dont know

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thats why the F-15I has a special israeli system that lets the auto pilot take control of the plane at very low hightes of 100-200 meters - way below radar hight.
Maybe for acquisition but not necessarily for tracking-if Iran has any of the new phased array stuff, they're quite capable at low alt. Plus, you're then in the engagement zone for AAA, which historically has brought down more aircraft than SAMs. The speed will likely prevent aimed fire, but curtain fire will be another story. I have no doubt Iran expects the strike, and will have layered defenses around the tartgets.

If Israel goes ahead with the strike, I also have no doubt it will be successful, from an operational standpoint. I just think it will be interesting to see which strategies and tactics Israel uses to get past Iran's defenses. You can bet that every other country in the region will be watching too, and then deciding how much to increase their defense budgets and which new systems to buy, or how much more to support terrorist attacks into Israel.

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What should have been done before should be done now. "You get a nuke, we nuke you. Period. End of Story. A few million dead now better then everyone dead later."
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
probably true roper, but lets deal with the current problem of Iran and its nukes, and not think about non existant things, that the arab countries of the region seek ways to hinder israel and israe have allways managed to stay several steps infront of them

Lewkowski thats a good idea, honest, but i still dont like the "You get a nuke" part of it

because Israel cant tolerate even a single nuke explosion on it,

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alot of this hubbub seems to stem from a view of Iran couched in terms like 'insane'; just like Saddam Hussein was portrayed as a madman. Nations aren't like this, even Iran. Even the nuttiest leaders have to have deputies, ministers, generals and all sorts of staff who should modify things. Stalin had hundreds of nukes under his command, he was the bloodiest tyrant of the lot, but he didn't dispatch even one bomber.

Just claiming 'they ain't like us' doesn't mean they can or will do anything. This kind of 'they're nuts' mentality sidesteps appreciating the bigger issues and actually understanding the politics of the region.

Fewer nightmare scenarios and more defusing situations please.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point here, Cy, is that Iran not-so-secretly-anymore sponsors terrorism. So maybe they won't launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at Israel. The chances are far more likely that they'll give a suicide bomber a small nuke to detonate inside Israel and then deny the connection.

ETA: By it's actions, Iran has consistently proven to the UN, the IAEA, and the world that it cannot be trusted in this matter and that it will pursue WMD development despite international condemnation. Iran refuses diplomatic efforts to defuse the situation. Iran is leading the headlong rush to military confrontation. I don't see another solution at this point. What's your recommendation?

[ December 12, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: roper66 ]

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can anyone give me one example of how using a nuclear device for terrorism is going to strategically benefit Iran?

Can anyone think of a moral principle which allows the U.S. to have nuclear weapons and disallows Iran from having them? Or is it just that Iran having nukes scares the sh*t out of everybody?

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can anyone give me one example of how using conventional explosives for terrorism strategically benefits Iran? Does it matter? They still do it. I've read the psychological profiles of those who sponsor and inspire terrorism. There's nothing rational in there. from a Western standpoint, it doesn't benefit them. From their standpoint, it does. So, we make decisions based on observable actions, not what the strategic benefits may or may not be to terrorists.

There is NO moral principle governing the posession of nuclear weapons. They are the most immoral weapons ever created. All we have is international law to uphold. But just because we got em doesn't mean it's okay for everyone to have em.

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can anyone give me one example of how using a nuclear device for terrorism is going to strategically benefit Iran?
I personally don't think Iran would use a nuclear weapon, but posessing one provides a shield from attack from the likes of the US or Israel. Thus, Iran would be more free to sponsor whatever destructive activities it likes - semi-clandestinely, of course.

quote:
Can anyone think of a moral principle which allows the U.S. to have nuclear weapons and disallows Iran from having them?
I personally don't think this is about moral principles, spirits of equality, or anything like that. This is a practical question. The US and certain other countries already possess these weapons. There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. But that doesn't mean that the weapons should be possessed by every nation on earth. It isn't even really about which nations are 'responsible' or not for that matter, either. It's about the fact that these weapons are truly awful, with little to no real military value, except as a deterrent, and their proliferation should be stopped, or at least delayed as long as possible.

In turn, I'll ask: Can you give me a good reason that any nation which doesn't already possess nuclear weapons should be allowed to develop them?

[ December 12, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In turn, I'll ask: Can you give me a good reason that any nation which doesn't already possess nuclear weapons should be allowed to develop them?
Like yourself, I do not see any overarching principles which delineates who should and should not have weapons. I guess it just comes down to a power equation: If invading them will likely be more catastrophic than allowing them to develop weapons. See: North Korea
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If invading them will likely be more catastrophic than allowing them to develop weapons."

Which is exactly what we're debating when it comes to Iran...

Only, we're coming up with other options than just invade or sit back and watch. Any number of intermediate actions (e.g. air strikes, economic embargoes, etc., ad infinitum) could be brought to bear. The closer Iran gets to developing a weapon, or at least until we think they're getting close, puts more extreme options on the table for a response.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Lewkowski thats a good idea, honest, but i still dont like the "You get a nuke" part of it"

Thats fine for now... but think 200 years in the future, nukes will be easier to make with more technology. The statement should be made and ratified by all countries who currently have nukes. That is if they are all comitted to preventing nukes from falling into everyones hands.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes, but we Are worrying about the Now

besides who knows what will happen 200 years from now? If you whould have said 5 or 10 years but 200 ?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1