Iran claims to have downed a US UAV

a reply to: face23785

You don't have a lot of experience with the military, do you. Heh. The leadership would bury this as deep as they could, because it would risk funding and embarrassing them for allowing things to get that bad, and hope their successors dealt with the problem.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

If we stay out of the Straits, then military to military, the US would be able to handle the Iranian military fairly well. It would hurt, but it wouldn't be as bad as people think. If we insist on trying to get into the Straits, then it's a totally different discussion. A US general playing Iran in an exercise was able to destroy a CBG in the Straits in about 15 minutes, using nothing more than what Iran had in their arsenal at the time. It was such a one sided fight that they reset the exercise and handicapped him.

Which is why we do such exercises.

We already know the best strategies to deal with them.

Yes our strategy is great, we're great at picking only on countries with less military prowess than us, Strangely. Never those our own size. Never.

Should we attack China then so you don't have to feel like a bully? Grow up. The real world doens't work like a schoolyard playground.

Why are we attacking anyone less they attack us on our soil...?

Why are we happy to dismantle false flags and fakes when mass shootings occur at home, but Iran attacking 3 ships in 2 weeks for one reason or the other, and Iran shooting a US drone unprovoked, we buy it with no questions asked.

If we're looking at track records, I don't think you should be believing that Iran blew up ships in the only logistical trade salvation it has.


Suprisingly 3 weeks ago, Iran just announced that the nuke deal Trump reneg'd on, was at a point where it can have nukes.

Trump is one for one.

You people forget that.

Trump will get his "one", just depends on what it is.

You take a swipe at Trump, he' bite back. Not reactionary, but from a cunning perspective.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Tempter
Ugh, it REALLY looks like war is coming.

Are we really going to war over a #ing UAV?

The most you're likely to see is a limited retaliatory strike like we did in Syria. There were a bunch of "War with Syria is here!" predictions here and that it would pull in the Russians if we attacked Syria. We attacked Syria, twice. No war. No Russian involvement.

Wrong.

Russia was involved in Syria. Even sent its only carrier there too.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

And did nothing to stop our strikes there. They escalated their own strikes to test their weapons systems in actual combat.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

You don't have a lot of experience with the military, do you. Heh. The leadership would bury this as deep as they could, because it would risk funding and embarrassing them for allowing things to get that bad, and hope their successors dealt with the problem.

I served 13 years in the Air Force. I'm certainly aware of how far up their asses some of the brass can keep their heads. But I'm also aware there are some who are consummate professionals and take what they do very seriously, more seriously than advancing their own careers.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Gosh I missed where Russia attacked US assets, can you link to that for me?

no retalitary strikes on US assets is what the poster meant, maybe english in not your first language so you misunderstood the statement?


Again excuse my ignorance on the Russian retalitory strikes for US strikes on Syria, thank you for linking to it in advance.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Tempter
Ugh, it REALLY looks like war is coming.

Are we really going to war over a #ing UAV?

The most you're likely to see is a limited retaliatory strike like we did in Syria. There were a bunch of "War with Syria is here!" predictions here and that it would pull in the Russians if we attacked Syria. We attacked Syria, twice. No war. No Russian involvement.

Wrong.

Russia was involved in Syria. Even sent its only carrier there too.

Completely failure to understand what I was talking about. People were saying if we attacked Syria, it would start a war with Russia. That didn't happen.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Gosh I missed where Russia attacked US assets, can you link to that for me?

no retalitary strikes on US assets is what the poster meant, maybe enlish in not your first language so you misunderstood the statement?


Again excuse my ignorance on the Russian retalitory strikes for US strikes on Syria, thank you for linking to it in advance.

Someone understands the subject matter enough to make inferences.

a reply to: face23785

And they were very very few and very very far between. Once you hit the Pentagon, it's all about your career. I've seen many people that were thought of as great commanders hit the Pentagon and do a total 180.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

You don't have a lot of experience with the military, do you. Heh. The leadership would bury this as deep as they could, because it would risk funding and embarrassing them for allowing things to get that bad, and hope their successors dealt with the problem.

I served 13 years in the Air Force. I'm certainly aware of how far up their asses some of the brass can keep their heads. But I'm also aware there are some who are consummate professionals and take what they do very seriously, more seriously than advancing their own careers.

Truth.

My experiences in the Army as well.

Kinda a low blow, huh? Oh well..

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

If we stay out of the Straits, then military to military, the US would be able to handle the Iranian military fairly well. It would hurt, but it wouldn't be as bad as people think. If we insist on trying to get into the Straits, then it's a totally different discussion. A US general playing Iran in an exercise was able to destroy a CBG in the Straits in about 15 minutes, using nothing more than what Iran had in their arsenal at the time. It was such a one sided fight that they reset the exercise and handicapped him.

Which is why we do such exercises.

We already know the best strategies to deal with them.

Yes our strategy is great, we're great at picking only on countries with less military prowess than us, Strangely. Never those our own size. Never.

Should we attack China then so you don't have to feel like a bully? Grow up. The real world doens't work like a schoolyard playground.

Why are we attacking anyone less they attack us on our soil...?

Why are we happy to dismantle false flags and fakes when mass shootings occur at home, but Iran attacking 3 ships in 2 weeks for one reason or the other, and Iran shooting a US drone unprovoked, we buy it with no questions asked.

If we're looking at track records, I don't think you should be believing that Iran blew up ships in the only logistical trade salvation it has.

Suprisingly 3 weeks ago, Iran just announced that the nuke deal Trump reneg'd on, was at a point where it can have nukes.

The question is why is Iran attacking our assets and the assets of other countries, especially neutral countries like Japan, that aren't on their soil. But sure, keep up this childish view that the rest of the world is so nice and the US are the real bad guys.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

And they were very very few and very very far between. Once you hit the Pentagon, it's all about your career. I've seen many people that were thought of as great commanders hit the Pentagon and do a total 180.

And I've served with commanders that did their stint in the Pentagon and wound up doing much less grande work because they didn't do what you're describing. Some folks in the military really do care about serving their country.

The officer world is a lot of politics, that's not news to me. That doesn't necessarily translate to keeping a catastrophic invasion plan the way you're describing. I have great respect for your views and love your posts but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

a reply to: Arnie123

There are some, but by far the majority in position to have seen and learned from that report are far more concerned with covering their ass, and burying something like that, than actually learning from it. Look at Serbia. In Vietnam they flew the same flight paths to targets night after night, and lost dozens of aircraft. You'd think they'd have learned from that, right? And yet, in 1999 an F-117 was lost after flying the exact same flight path, at about the same time, for the third night in a row.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

There are some, but by far the majority in position to have seen and learned from that report are far more concerned with covering their ass, and burying something like that, than actually learning from it. Look at Serbia. In Vietnam they flew the same flight paths to targets night after night, and lost dozens of aircraft. You'd think they'd have learned from that, right? And yet, in 1999 an F-117 was lost after flying the exact same flight path, at about the same time, for the third night in a row.

I guess my experiences are different as we were tasked out with Bde and some higher ups to work with contractors on CBRN related equipment.

I've tested so many CBRN devices that never made it beyond their prototypes.

When it comes to Chemical, Biological and Nuclear related issues, we take NO CHANCES and learn from all our mistakes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was the guy in the Marines that typed up the classified reports on war games. What happened and what was reported rarely coincided. I was also part of the "agressor" team, and we won often, but the reports I typed stated otherwise.

it was one of the reasons I didn't re-up, but then again that was back in the dark ages, when teletype was still a thing, and email wasn't.

Trumps says he doesn’t think it was intentional and could be human error

a reply to: Arnie123

That's how it should be, but it seems like the only ones that get to any kind of real leadership position are political animals. I've met some outstanding unit level guys, even an amazing AMC commander. But all the upper leadership in the Air Force at least come up from one group, who are basically trained to be arrogant pricks.

a reply to: thedigirati

It hasn't changed a whole lot. Exercises should see the "bad guys" winning more often than not. It's how you learn. But the thinking is that if they lose too often, it shows that they have an unprepared unit, or are poor leaders.

originally posted by: blackbird9393
Trumps says he doesn’t think it was intentional and could be human error

Sounds like he's giving them an out. Basically signalling to them "Hey, say this is what happened and we don't need to respond."

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

But all the upper leadership in the Air Force at least come up from one group, who are basically trained to be arrogant pricks.

This here is certainly accurate. If you weren't a pilot, good luck getting your star. There are few exceptions.