Iranian capabilities

I find it realy funny how so many arm chair generals are sprouting up over this forum. They all strike me as bored and dumb teens or beer junkies.

So tell me, why do you want millions of Iranians to die? Why do you want thousands of American troops to die? Man, you must have had miserable upbringings to actually want this.

This not a video game, kids, this is reality. When you are badly injured, it actually hurts, it hurts a lot. When you are killed, it actually traumatises your families and ruins their lives, for some it could last the rest of their lives. A mother has to see her own baby die in her lap, because it was shot by a stray bullet. Do you know what it is like? Ask a mother.

A child see's his mothers body split open from a falling bomb. Do you know what that is like? Ask a child.

Kids, get an education in life

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I find it realy funny how so many arm chair generals are sprouting up over this forum. They all strike me as bored and dumb teens or beer junkies.

You can say whatever you want about me, my mom, and my fellow ATSers, but leave the beer out of this or it gets personal for me.
And yes i am an arm chair general. I am perhaps the premier armchair field-marshall of our day. I am rather proud of it for two reasons: 1. this used to tbe the hobby of kings. 2. i haven't had to actually kill anybody so far in doing it.

To give you the short answer to your main point though, it's simple. We dont want anybody to die, but we're not going to sit around thinking happy thoughts while some overzealous religious hatemonger is building nuclear weapons to point at us. I'll admit I had my misgivings over Iraq- there were other options, but one way or another Iran is a probelm we must solve. If there is some creative away around vaporizing them I'd be happy to try it, but this only ends one way- with religious zealots not aiming nuclear weapons at us.

If you want to live in a country where everyone sits around repeating slogans about brotherhood while an enemy prepares to castrate them, I suggest you try India- preferably 40 to 50 years ago if you can get your hands on Titor's Time Machine (i hear its on E-bay). Bhai this, Bhai that- it saved plenty of lives in their war with China.

You can say whatever you want about me, my mom, and my fellow ATSers, but leave the beer out of this or it gets personal for me.
And yes i am an arm chair general. I am perhaps the premier armchair field-marshall of our day. I am rather proud of it for two reasons: 1. this used to tbe the hobby of kings. 2. i haven't had to actually kill anybody so far in doing it.

Yes, and exactly my point. There is nothing at stake for you. All this is for you is talk. For them, it means lives. They are actual men. You are just a silly boy.

To give you the short answer to your main point though, it's simple. We dont want anybody to die

Translation: We don't want anybody to die, we just want to invade Iran, and those who die, are just collateral damage or casualities of war.

but we're not going to sit around thinking happy thoughts while some overzealous religious hatemonger is building nuclear weapons to point at us.

Translation: I am a paranoid schiznophrenic and anyone who dislikes me, is conspiring to kill me.

Do you know that Iran does not have ICBMs? Do you know that China and Russia actually do have nuclear missiles pointed at you? Do you know they are friends of Iran?

I'll admit I had my misgivings over Iraq- there were other options, but one way or another Iran is a probelm we must solve.

Translation: They made fools of us in the Iraq war. But this time they are right! I heard it on CNN!

If there is some creative away around vaporizing them I'd be happy to try it, but this only ends one way- with religious zealots not aiming nuclear weapons at us.

Translation: Darn, I wish we had a deathray! Then we could vaporize everyone!

If you want to live in a country where everyone sits around repeating slogans about brotherhood while an enemy prepares to castrate them, I suggest you try India- preferably 40 to 50 years ago if you can get your hands on Titor's Time Machine (i hear its on E-bay). Bhai this, Bhai that- it saved plenty of lives in their war with China.

Translation: I know nothing about the Sino-India war of 1962. I don't even know that India and China are neighbours!

Once you have grown up and stopped playing video games. You will understand that you actually do have something at stake. Angering Russia and China and the rest of the muslim world will have consequences for you too. I can't say you don't deserve it.

[edit on 12-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

If you think the war in Iraq is difficult, a war with Iran will be multiple times more difficult and will demand much greater sacrifices.

1- Iran is mountainous, compare the green and olivegreen zones in the above two maps.
2- Iranian soldiers will have an high moral compared to the Iraqis.
3- Iran has Silkworm and Sunburn antiship missiles. Especially the last one is a great threat, they were designed to attack carrier groups. Any ship in the Perisan Gulf will be threatened and can be destroyed, remember the Persian Gulf is narrow, also US countermeassures for missiles such as the Sunburn, the RAM, is not yet fully available.
4- Iran can also make their own long range Shahab-3 missiles which can reach Israel.
5- A war may result in the blocking of the Persian Gulf by Iran. They will do that with the above antiship missiles, or by small boats with RPG's, and/or by mines:
Quote: ... Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made advances. It can produce non-magnetic, free-floating, and remote-controlled mines. It may have taken delivery of pressure, acoustic, and magnetic mines from Russia. Also, Iran is negotiating with China for rocket-propelled rising mines.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Blocking the Persian Gulf will endanger the oil supply of the world and the logistics for the US military in Iraq (look where Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait lies). In the 80's of the last century, oil tankers got harassed by small boats, the US intervened and protected them. In that time the USS Stark got crippled by two Iraqi Exocet missiles. Expect this time a much more capable enemy.
6- Millions of Shiites in Iraq will choose side for their Iranian Shiite brothers, and they will create much more chaos in Iraq.

Blobber



[edit on 12-12-2004 by Blobber]

difficult yes,costly,yes but by looking at the map if i was IRAN i would start feeling like Custer(surrounded)

Well-said indigo.

That highlights a real ignorance problem in America. Americans really do not the see the kind of pain and suffering war, and yes, even the United States and the rest of the Western world inflict upon the rest of the world.

I think it's time for a precision bombing campaign on the pro-war Americans. It's sick, but that seems to be the only way to deliver the message... sounds a lot like 9/11 too!

Originally posted by Blobber

5- A war may result in the blocking of the Persian Gulf by Iran. They will do that with the above antiship missiles, or by small boats with RPG's, and/or by mines:

Blocking the Persian Gulf will endanger the oil supply of the world and the logistics for the US military in Iraq (look where Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait lies). In the 80's of the last century, oil tankers got harassed by small boats, the US intervened and protected them. In that time the USS Stark got crippled by two Iraqi Exocet missiles. Expect this time a much more capable enemy.
6- Millions of Shiites in Iraq will choose side for their Iranian Shiite brothers, and they will create much more chaos in Iraq.

Blobber



[edit on 12-12-2004 by Blobber]

Lol fast boats with RPGs against Carriers and Battle groups. C'mon please RPG is the last thing those boats would carry what do they carry you might ask? well I guess we'll know soon enough

Originally posted by zurvan

Lol fast boats with RPGs against Carriers and Battle groups. C'mon please RPG is the last thing those boats would carry

what do they carry you might ask? well I guess we'll know soon enough

See what I have written in the same reply

Blobber

3- Iran has Silkworm and Sunburn antiship missiles. Especially the last one is a great threat, they were designed to attack carrier groups. Any ship in the Perisan Gulf will be threatened and can be destroyed, remember the Persian Gulf is narrow, also US countermeassures for missiles such as the Sunburn, the RAM, is not yet fully available.

In the 80's of the last century they harassed tankers with small boats, that's what I meant - and not that they will attack the US Navy with rpg's: see above antiship missiles.

Blobber



[edit on 13-12-2004 by Blobber]

The Sunburn's are operated by Russians on Russian Sukoi 27's not Irainians.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
The Sunburn's are operated by Russians on Russian Sukoi 27's not Irainians.

www.nti.org

... 5 March 1995
Iran carries out its first full-scale exercises using its newly acquired Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines, following reports that it deployed Hawk anti-aircraft missiles on Sirri Island and other locations in the Gulf. Iran is also said to have deployed Chinese Silkworm and Ukrainian-supplied Sunburn missiles on Sirri Island and other locations in the Strait of Hormuz.

www.nti.org...

Blobber

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Blobber]

I think the last I heard about them was that they are designed to deliver a nuke to the submarine as a part of an attack on a battle group. That would be quite interesting as the turpedo is seen before it is picked up on the sonar actually by that stage there is not sonar to pick it up

Bombing has never won a war................

what about Hirshoima and Nagasaki?

I don't think the Iraq troops are cowardly only of poor morale. I think the avaerage Iraqi would fight long and hard if he fought for a cause he believed in and thought he had even a small chance on winning. Iran could face a simalar morale problem.

Originally posted by bodrul
unlike IRAQ iran have enough firepower to cause a large amount of damage to US forces in the Gulf and if it comes to it alot of damage to Israel


but not enough to win the conflict against the US

lets just see if their armed forces arn't as cowerdly as the IRAQi ones

3- Iran has Silkworm and Sunburn antiship missiles. Especially the last one is a great threat, they were designed to attack carrier groups. Any ship in the Perisan Gulf will be threatened and can be destroyed, remember the Persian Gulf is narrow, also US countermeassures for missiles such as the Sunburn, the RAM, is not yet fully available.

Yes exactly. Iran makes its own version of silkworm (C802) called "Noor" with higher range and higher accuracy.




This is another missile in Iran�s arsenal which called RAAD. It�s supersonic and has the range of 360 Km.



This is another Iranian anti-ship missile called Kosar.



And I believe the fast boat that you are talking about is this. And they fire torpedoes not RPG )

The Sunburn's are operated by Russians on Russian Sukoi 27's not Irainians.

Iran has good amount of sunburns and Iran has modified them so they can be fired from land unit, airplane or ships.

What I meant with those small boats is what Iran has done in the 80's of the last century where they harassed oil tankers. They still can do that, it's still a posibility. Even if the US dominates the Persian Gulf, fast small boats with RPG's and/or machine guns always can harass oil tankers in an asymmetric warfare.

Nowadays however, Iran has much better weapons to attack any vessel, in fact -with real possibility- any military fleet that is in the Persian Gulf. But still, along with that, Iran can also use the small boats (Boghammers) as in the 80's to harass tankers.

The harassing of tankers in those years took such an hight, that western nations intervened and escorted tankers in the Persian Gulf. In that time the USS Stark got crippled by two Iraqi Exocet missiles- the crew saw the Mirage, but they never saw the Exocet until it was too late.

If there is a war, Iran will try to damage any US fleet that is in the Persian Gulf, block the Gulf with mines and anti-ship missiles, and harass any oil tanker daring to use the Gulf.

The whole military doctrine of Iran is to shut off the Persian Gulf in case of a war with the US and to conduct an asymmetric warfare- and they have invested a lot in this doctrine for over a decade. Iran has also analyzed and learnt about US strategies that have been used in Desert Storm and the current war in Iraq. Iran even has commando units to conduct sabotage missions (on oil platforms, terminals etc) in the Gulf, if there is a war.

What I didn't mention in my previous reply is also the following in Iran's arsenal:

1- a dozen mini subs
2- 2 Kilo class submarines
3- a fleet of fast catamarans with anti-ship missiles
4- presumably Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missiles- as stated earlier they also have the Sunburn (Sunburns and Yakhonts are considered to be one of the most dangerous anti-ship missiles)
5- a lot of mines, incl. 3000 EM-52 rising mines
6- a lot of home built missiles (as Persian also stated)
7- many fast torpedoboats (as Persian also stated)
8- etc.

As stated earlier a war with Iran will be much more difficult and will demand much more (US) sacrifices.

Blobber



[edit on 22-12-2004 by Blobber]

Zurvan,

To answer your subject, I think you meant the Yakhont and Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles. They can both carry nuclear warheads (though Iran doesn't have that possibility) and they can both be launched from topedo tubes (though I have to look up whether they fit in Iranian Kilo class submarines).

Blobber

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

You can say whatever you want about me, my mom, and my fellow ATSers, but leave the beer out of this or it gets personal for me.
And yes i am an arm chair general. I am perhaps the premier armchair field-marshall of our day. I am rather proud of it for two reasons: 1. this used to tbe the hobby of kings. 2. i haven't had to actually kill anybody so far in doing it.

Yes, and exactly my point. There is nothing at stake for you. All this is for you is talk. For them, it means lives. They are actual men. You are just a silly boy.

Now now, petty name calling is not generally the way to prove your confidence in your point. It can often betray insecurity in your point and the feeling that you must be aggressive outside of the logical realm in order to keep the arguement from coming down on you.

Now if you'd like to discuss the issue at hand I would be happy to do that. I said that I have not killed anybody and you responded that I have nothing at stake. You missed the point completely. Nobody has anything at stake in an idle conversation about Iran's military capabilities. These ARE NOT actual men. This war is not being fought. We are simply discussing what would happen if such a war were fought. This is an excerise in strategy and politics not entirely unlike a game of chess. Is chess only for warmongers and foolish boys as well?

If the things I said were actually being carried out by men halfway across the world I would shut up, or if the cause was worthy I would go there and lead from the front. Your initial question was "do I want innocent people do be killed?" My answer remains no.

I might add that this armchair general was also a US Marine rifleman. I joined the armed forces and ASKED to be a grunt because I believe that in certain horrible and saddening situations war is in fact a necessity that humans have not yet evolved beyond and I was willing to have a stake in such things and not leave it for others.

To give you the short answer to your main point though, it's simple. We dont want anybody to die

Translation: We don't want anybody to die, we just want to invade Iran, and those who die, are just collateral damage or casualities of war.

If I wanted you to translate my statements I would have called one of my Spanish speaking friends and paid him to type this in Spanish. I want you to take my words at their meaning as is instead. I don't want people to die. I don't want such a war to occur. I merely find the strategic and political conditions which surround a war interesting to discuss apart from the obvious horrors of actually causing a war to happen. I see no difference between discussing what could happen in a war and discussing what could happen on a chessboard just as long as you are not promoting and encouraging the idea that we should actually send men to kill other men.

but we're not going to sit around thinking happy thoughts while some overzealous religious hatemonger is building nuclear weapons to point at us.

Translation: I am a paranoid schiznophrenic and anyone who dislikes me, is conspiring to kill me.

You're a really bad translator. I'll have to find one of those Vagabond-to-english dictionaries and give it to you for Christmas.
My point here is that the war in question could theoretically become necessary if Iran, which is in fact run by violent religious zealots who have supported activities by violent relgious zealots in other countries were to be proven to have an offensive nuclear program with the goal of aiming nuclear weapons at other nations. If that developed then I would support the prosecution of this otherwise theoretical war, and if it were not for the permanent injuries I sustained while training to go to Iraq I would be absolutely willing to go do my part in that war.

Do you know that Iran does not have ICBMs? Do you know that China and Russia actually do have nuclear missiles pointed at you? Do you know they are friends of Iran?

The Chinese and Russians have had these weapons for some time and have demonstrated over that time that they possess them in the interest of deterrence. Iranian leaders on the other hand have regularly made threats of missile attack on the west and the destruction of western civilization. Friends or not, the Chinese and Russians pose no threat of using nuclear weapons on somebody just for worshipping the wrong God.

I'll admit I had my misgivings over Iraq- there were other options, but one way or another Iran is a probelm we must solve.

Translation: They made fools of us in the Iraq war. But this time they are right! I heard it on CNN!

I love the way you translate reasonable statements into foolish ones that you may actually have a chance of refuting. Interestingly enough you didn't even try to refute this point even after translating it. I have experienced this quite often back in school. When a foolish teenager disapproves of the views of someone with whom they can not hope to debate, they twist his words and laugh.
I believe that Iraq was a legitimate threat. I don't believe they made fools of us because I believe the reasons presented existed. Unfortunately we all know those were not the true reasons. They were in it for the oil and not for the WMD or the human rights abuses or any other reason and this is why a serious defense of the legitimate reasons was not attempted after the conquest was complete. In short, we did the right thing in Iraq in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. All the same, the right thing got done at least in part and Iraq is better off than it was.
Iran should also be dealt with. Hopefully in a better way than Iraq, however any solution is better than no solution.

If there is some creative away around vaporizing them I'd be happy to try it, but this only ends one way- with religious zealots not aiming nuclear weapons at us.

Translation: Darn, I wish we had a deathray! Then we could vaporize everyone!

It would be difficult to have made the translation any more opposite to my statement. I said I wanted to avoid vaporizing the Iranians if possible. If it were my call (and unfortunately its not) I'd offer Iran modern missile defenses, technological assistance with its nuclear program, and a military assisstance pact vowing American intervention against any first-strike against Iran if only they would agree not to build any facility which can enrich Uranium or Plutonium to weapons grade.

I believe that you and I would agree that nuclear weapons are a horrible thing, that their spread and production should be limited in every way possible because the existing nuclear powers can never be convinced to disarm so long as other powers are building more. Nuclear weapons are something we should be working very hard to step back from, not something we should be allowing to spread. A war kills people in the thousands or tens of thousands. Nuclear war would kill millions and endanger over 6 billion.

If you want to live in a country where everyone sits around repeating slogans about brotherhood while an enemy prepares to castrate them, I suggest you try India- preferably 40 to 50 years ago if you can get your hands on Titor's Time Machine (i hear its on E-bay). Bhai this, Bhai that- it saved plenty of lives in their war with China.

Translation: I know nothing about the Sino-India war of 1962. I don't even know that India and China are neighbours!

I would love to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't know those two nations are neighbors. As for the Sino-India war, I know enough to tell you that naive politicians blundering towards a war that can only devastate their country is something that I'd prefer that Americans not imitate.

Once you have grown up and stopped playing video games. You will understand that you actually do have something at stake. Angering Russia and China and the rest of the muslim world will have consequences for you too. I can't say you don't deserve it.
[edit on 12-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Talking about this is going to anger China and Russia?
And on the real side of the discussion, if Iran can not be kept from developing weapons, then what to you suggest we do instead of angering China and Russia (who can not directly intervene because of deterrence).
I suppose your idea might be to let Iran have the weapons and wait for them to get into it with Israel and drag us down the slippery slope a few years later?
Our best bet to keep this from escalating is to nip it in the bud. If the world wars didn't make that abundantly clear then maybe people like you will never learn.

@ The vagabond
Bravo! A composed and civilised reply to a low flaming attack. We should all aspire to follow your example. Calling someone silly boy for replying in an thread about the tension between US(Israel) and Iran is something I hope and thought we were above here on ATS. I'm sorry I was wrong..
I don't expect anyone to like my ideas but give me some reasoning as to why not and we'll both might learn something..
And sign me up for arm chair general. Send me an U2U and we'll start a guild

Maybe y'all are just trying to be optimistic, or maybe you believe what the television tells you, but Iran most definitely has nukes. They have a very respectable number of nuclear armed Sunburns. The missles are under the control of Russia of course.. These missles are loaded, one a piece, on the suhkov fighters delivered into Iran by Iraq at the onset of our latest invasion. This is so that when the fighters come streaking over the mountains to make their presence known, Iran can claim it was "Iraqi Resistance" pilots engaged in a daring, no holds barred retaliation, that atomized our advance forces.
What Iran doesn't have, are missles capable of reaching American soil without hefty assistance, like the donation of missle subs from russia for instance. This is the main reason we should keep our greedy little oil-stained fingers out of the middle east -- Nobody over there is in a position to do anything to us as long as we keep our toes off their soil and our ships out of their waterways.

no Muslims would ever harm the US that 9-11 thing was all a misunderstand.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Maybe y'all are just trying to be optimistic, or maybe you believe what the television tells you, but Iran most definitely has nukes. They have a very respectable number of nuclear armed Sunburns. The missles are under the control of Russia of course.. These missles are loaded, one a piece, on the suhkov fighters delivered into Iran by Iraq at the onset of our latest invasion. This is so that when the fighters come streaking over the mountains to make their presence known, Iran can claim it was "Iraqi Resistance" pilots engaged in a daring, no holds barred retaliation, that atomized our advance forces.
What Iran doesn't have, are missles capable of reaching American soil without hefty assistance, like the donation of missle subs from russia for instance. This is the main reason we should keep our greedy little oil-stained fingers out of the middle east -- Nobody over there is in a position to do anything to us as long as we keep our toes off their soil and our ships out of their waterways.