Iran claims to have downed a US UAV

a reply to: 5StarOracle

BS. If there was another aircraft, there's no way for them to know how many people were on board.

Trump warns Iran of ‘obliteration’ in event of war www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Zaphod58

That info could have been given while verifying the facts which is actually good journalism tactics...
The number of passengers should probably have been in brackets...
Even if partially misquoting an original source for added sensationalism...
Scratch that... just looked at it again that info comes from fact checking not even part of the quote...

a reply to: mightmight

Cheers for that mightmight and I'm not disputing the fact that Israel will operate on a Shabbat, heck one eff up and the Israel experiment is game over and a bloodbath and modern expulsion /flight overseas will result for the lucky ones. I was referring to the quantity of your "crazies" who are proportionally growing like wildfire and at some point might cause the military a very real recruitmrnt issue.

Yep I see. It’s interesting either way and obviously having a UAV monitoring tankers is a good idea.



a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There wouldn't be an aircraft flying near a UAV on a mission like that with passengers like that. And there are no aircraft that require that many crew. So either way it's BS.

Iran has executed an ex-defence ministry employee over US spy charge.
news.sky.com...

originally posted by: deviant300
Iran has executed an ex-defence ministry employee over US spy charge.
news.sky.com...

It appears he made a "Big Mistake"

twitter.com...

John Kerry needs to be prevented from going over there and giving them "ideas".

US 'launched cyber-attack on Iran weapons systems' www.bbc.co.uk...

A more appropriate response??

a reply to: jacobe001

I have a pet theory is the none of the Middle Eastern conflicts were never meant to end at all. Like General Clark stated, there is a plan for the region that has been in motion for a good while. It's not about oil, lithium, opium, or anything else. It's about the eventual war between Russia or China. The Middle East is a staging ground for World War 3.

Let's say we conquered and now occupy Iran. The only real players left in the region are US allies. Afghanistan (mostly), Iraq, and Iran would be under US control. Syria might join the list soon, but the ongoing Syrian civil war would more than likely prevent them from fending off American forces in any meaningful manner. Pakistan can be handled by the Indians. The Israelis would serve as buffer should threats move to the west towards Suez.
Libya and Egypt would be the only potential threats in the region. I would doubt the Egyptians would want to get in between a pissing match between superpowers, and since Quaddafi was the only force holding Libya together, doubt they would serve to be much of a threat. Russia would now need to worry about potentially three fronts instead of just Eastern Europe. Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan, Georgia, and Eastern Europe all become potential points for a military push into Russian territory. Naval assets would be available to provide support to a ground invasion from the Black Sea. It also limits the ability of the Chinese to maneuver their forces to counter an American assault. They would either have to go through India (bad idea), or around the northern side of the Himalayan mountains and through Uzbekistan. The terrain is not conducive in the area to a coordinated land assault of the area. Moving through Western China would not prove much easier. The Chinese would also have to potentially contend with American naval and air support along the Eastern Coast. American air assaults could be coordinated from assets on the Arabian peninsula and from Incirlik AFB in Turkey, not to mention the potential support from other NATO forces along the Eastern European border.

American foreign policy, brought to you by Tom Clancy.

On another note, why the sudden escalation by Iran? They have to know that this won't end well for them. Even if they do have workable nuclear weapons, do they have a reliable, long range delivery system? Let's say they have both nukes and a means to deliver them to a target. They can't have many of them, and definitely not any with the level of sophistication (no thermonuclear warheads). Who would they even nuke? Maybe Israel, but the Israelis most assuredly possess a significant amount of thermonuclear warheads and overwhelming retaliation would almost guaranteed. A conventional war with America doesn't seem like a good idea. Best case scenario is that American forces decimate most Iranian military assets and Iran resorts to asymetric means to force the now occupying American force into attrition. Maybe there will be a "criticality accident" at a few Iranian nuclear facilities ala' North Korea on a foggy desert night sooner than later. The Revolutionary Guard should consider issuing SPF 5000 as standard equipment to enlisted men...they might need it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

He needs to do something. The more we do nothing, the more the IRGC pushes, because as stated earlier, it's proof that God is on their side. Look at how far they backed down after Praying Mantis in 88. They got a lot quieter for a long time after getting hammered.

I agree, but killing 150 people because someone lost a drone doesn't compute.

I think he is doing very well, and very glad to see him stand up to Bolton and the war machine.

The downside is, I wouldn't put it past the war machine to kill a bunch of Americans to get their war... I just hope if they try it, Trump gets wind of it and hangs their asses.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No, I agree that a restrained response is called for. But it's got to be something more obvious than a cyber attack. It's a fine line to walk.

A cyberattack not made in conjunction with a military attack in this case seems like a poor use of resources.

Using cyberattacks against military systems allows enemies to defeat them, analyze them, develop countermeasures against them and protect target systems more effectively in the future. It is rare to be able to use the same trick twice, and helping enemies to improve their defenses is not a path to victory.

If a cyberattack occurred as part of a scheduled operation called off at the last minute, which seems the most likely possibility, then the waste of such a valuable strategic weapon has done a grave disservice to the United States.

Whatever the case, I think the President would be well-advised to avoid erratic, capricious, last-minute decisions in the future regarding matters of life and death.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tanstaafl

No, I agree that a restrained response is called for. But it's got to be something more obvious than a cyber attack. It's a fine line to walk.

All I know for sure is, I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions, and I pray every day that Trump makes good ones.

originally posted by: Majic
A cyberattack not made in conjunction with a military attack in this case seems like a poor use of resources.

Using cyberattacks against military systems allows enemies to defeat them, analyze them, develop countermeasures against them and protect target systems more effectively in the future. It is rare to be able to use the same trick twice, and helping enemies to improve their defenses is not a path to victory.
.

I had the same thought. Seemed like a waste of an opportunity to just do the cyberattack. Now they know about that vulnerability and can work to fix it.