Are we hours away from war with Iran??

Originally posted by stumason
Problem is, those good point systems are placed around the targets that we want to attack.

Thats the worst way to employ those systems, you don't place a highly mobile short range system in a fixed/exposed/predictable location where high altitude aircraft can take as many shots as they want. Even if the Tor-M1 had 100% accuracy against munitions (which it does not) then you could simply overwhelm it with impunity. Since it cannot touch anything above FL20 (20,000 ft) most aircraft don't have to worry about it in the absence of an overlapping sophisticated long range SAM.

Yes Serbia did prove that highly mobile SAM's using harsh terrain and a dense environment while employing a shoot and scoot technique and then shutting off after taking a shot can be a pain in the arse. However times have changed, we did not have LJDAM, AARGM, F-22 and an operational fleet of Global Hawk aircraft back then...

[edit on 25-3-2007 by WestPoint23]

I am going to break with protocol here and add my words from another discussion to this thread as well, for those who are so strongly leaning toward air strikes and war.

I think many are underestimating the radical Islamic nature of the Shi'ite lead nation of Iran, there will be no real war with Iran, we may level their cities, military sites, destroy infrastructure, and suspect nuclear facilities, and in the end it may not really matter, looking at their religious history, and beliefs their cause in part could be martyrdom. They could believe their sacrifice is part of a religious doctrine, planned out centuries ago.

This has been going on for years now, and it may only be talk, however it would be wise to consider all possibilities. And not so quickly dismiss their rhetoric, and threats of retaliation.

A retaliation that could make the attacks of 9/11 seem like nothing.

Do we really know what exchanges happened between North Korea and Iran over the last few years, other than just Missile technology and weaponry? ... And what other than nuclear power technologies has Russia provided the Iranians?... What is the true reason so many Russians are leaving Iran now?

How deep does this rabbit hole really go?

One thing for sure now, it's just a matter of time before we find out.

To me everything, including the capture of the Britons all seems too orchestrated, as if by design, or plan.

I still believe there can be opportunity for diplomacy, if all sides can turn down the rhetoric and actually seek some peaceful solution, then again maybe it will ultimately delay the inevitable.

Just my thoughts.


[edit on 25-3-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
And you all trust Tony Blair, who lied to the public about the WMD in Iraq, and who is about to stand down as PrimeMinister??..

God i wish i could punch all of those here on ATS who are "gearing themselves up" for yet another pointless conflict..

"yeh, lets slaughter those arabs, hell yeh!"...

And you wonder why anti-american sentiment is at an all time high!!

How would you set about resolving this situation, and get those sailors and marines home safe to their families?

That's a thought, how would everyone reading go about sorting this out?
Are we on the right path now?
Would any of you just let them rot there for years?
Would your opinion be the same if they were civilians and/or aid workers?

I personally think the people in charge are doing the right thing to try and bring them all home peacefully, and I hope it will be done and dusted inside this week. If that doesn't work and we still can't extract them, well I just don't know.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thats the worst way to employ those systems, you don't place a highly mobile short range system in a fixed/exposed/predictable location where high altitude aircraft can take as many shots as they want. Even if the Tor-M1 had 100% accuracy against munitions (which it does not) then you could simply overwhelm it with impunity. Since it cannot touch anything above FL20 (20,000 ft) most aircraft don't have to worry about it in the absence of an overlapping sophisticated long range SAM.

Yes Serbia did prove that highly mobile SAM's using harsh terrain and a dense environment while employing a shoot and scoot technique and then shutting off after taking a shot can be a pain in the arse. However times have changed, we did not have LJDAM, AARGM, F-22 and an operational fleet of Global Hawk aircraft back then...

[edit on 25-3-2007 by WestPoint23]

Wether it be the right or wrong way, it is apprently what they have done. I doubt they have the Tor's in fixed positions mind you, if they have sense they will keep them mobile. Otherwise it is $700 million down the drain.

Your right though, with enough saturation, their Air defences should not last too long. But we have to question the value of air attacks alone (as discussed in the other thread). To properly take care of them, we'll need boots and lots of them. Without that, all we're doing is putting off the inevitable.

can we hurry up and get ww111 over with already.lets just run a remote control airplane into a ship and say iran done it.

its going to be interesting to see how the markets react to the threat of potential war with Iran and oil prices too.

Originally posted by infinite
its going to be interesting to see how the markets react to the threat of potential war with Iran and oil prices too.

The broad market won't like it...Gold & Silver will be

Which in my opinion, is one reasons this story is being kept underwater here in the US.

Unfortunately, one of the few elements shoring up this president's abysmal, and flagging approval ratings are the perceived 'record' market highs.

It's possible that US involvement in any military action against Iran on behalf of our ally, could ignite a firestorm on capitol hill from which the current administration may not recover.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1


[edit on 25-3-2007 by OBE1]

You know, Iran doesn't have to have a sustained war. There are many, many options, each of them scarier than the last:

1. We know that Iran is a bedfellow with Russia. Who's to say that they haven't gotten nukes from Russia, either from the government or the less official version of the government, the mafia?

2. Nukes are only part of the problem. if you can believe Beardon, scalar interferometrics create another problem entirely. Rent the Russian rendition of an EM weapon from the mafia and *viola* instant mayhem. Long term isn't needed when you cripple satellite and electrical infrastructure.

3. Once again, From Russia With Love, comes another thread: Red Mercury bombs . Capable of levelling cities (yes, with an S), a large suitcase version would be completely imaginable. 20 of them is also imaginable. There is a lot of oil money going through Iran, you know.

keep in mind that each of these scenarios involves a madman at its helm. Or series of misguided individuals. Now, I do believe that Ahmadinejad is a madman, i don't think he is THAT mad. I do think, however, that the region is well known for its misguided individuals. Obviously.

So, Iran is a player. They have finances. Technology is no longer limited to nations. Russia's collapse changed all of that, unfortunately.

So, the question now is when, not if. And might i remind you that a single nuke in an American city would likely yield an over reaction of a magnitude that the Earth will tremble. It is unfortunate, and the people who predict that it would cripple us are fools. It will not cripple us initially. We are like petulent children, still, and the reaction will make Iraq look meek by comparison.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You know, Iran doesn't have to have a sustained war. There are many, many options, each of them scarier than the last:

1. We know that Iran is a bedfellow with Russia. Who's to say that they haven't gotten nukes from Russia, either from the government or the less official version of the government, the mafia?

2. Nukes are only part of the problem. if you can believe Beardon, scalar interferometrics create another problem entirely. Rent the Russian rendition of an EM weapon from the mafia and *viola* instant mayhem. Long term isn't needed when you cripple satellite and electrical infrastructure.

3. Once again, From Russia With Love, comes another thread: Red Mercury bombs . Capable of levelling cities (yes, with an S), a large suitcase version would be completely imaginable. 20 of them is also imaginable. There is a lot of oil money going through Iran, you know.

I agree that walking into a city with a suitcase nuke or chem is far more dangerous than any ICBM...

However...

What is to stop them from doing it right now?? It is quite possible that the trail on an attack that scale could be followed....?? Or could it??

The question is most definitely when not if.. and I say we are in the hours not weeks before we see action.

The argument of let's not hit them because of a feared terrorist reprisal is flawed..

It is obvious that if we let Iran build up it will be worse than if we cut the head of this thing right now.

Yes there will be more than likely more terrorist attacks as a result... but I say we will continuously live with the fear of more terrorist attacks if we don't.

Half of avoiding a trap in knowing it exists... Is this situation a trap?? What Intel do we have on Iranian sleeper cells??? I would love to be a fly on the wall in MI6 right now....

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

I am hearing a deadline of 48 hours.

Thats how far we could be away from war.

Originally posted by stumason
EDIT: I might add they are quite capable of taking out most types of US aircraft too, but they have some to spare

[edit on 25/3/07 by stumason]

Such aircraft will only go in after Iran's AA capabilities have been removed or reduced.

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- The F-22A Raptor -- Air Force’s most advanced weapon system -- is ready for combat.

"If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us," said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by crisko]

Originally posted by Xfile
IF that were an american ship there would be TWO iranian boats on the bottom right now.

I agree-check out this article which backs up that statement.

U.S. Troops would have defended themselves.

www.spacewar.com...

If Iran fired upon the UK ships, then yes we would of returned fire. Thats why we haven't sank those ships (and the fact our troops were on those boats)

Originally posted by infinite
I am hearing a deadline of 48 hours.

Thats how far we could be away from war.

Where you get his from? I would be interested to read / watch it.

Thanks!

Originally posted by crisko
Where you get his from? I would be interested to read / watch it.

Thanks!

I have been informed by numerous people. Tony Blair is said to have confirmed it.

Originally posted by opinionsarefreeI agree-check out this article which backs up that statement.

U.S. Troops would have defended themselves.

www.spacewar.com...

...and the same article points out that the British boarding party was "heavily outnumbered and outgunned". To start a firefight under those circumstances would have been suicidal and once the party was captured any action from the frigate or its helicopter would have probably killed them as well.

This is time for some careful thought and planning as to how they may be recovered if diplomacy fails, I really don't think that macho posturing is going to be very helpful in the short term.

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by crisko
Where you get his from? I would be interested to read / watch it.

Thanks!

I have been informed by numerous people. Tony Blair is said to have confirmed it.

Do you know if the deadline pertains to your government being given access to those detained or does it refer to out right release?

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by crisko
Where you get his from? I would be interested to read / watch it.

Thanks!

I have been informed by numerous people. Tony Blair is said to have confirmed it.

48 Hours? That aint good, Iranian investigations are still ongoing, there hasnt been any contact with these 15 people whatsoever, and there's a chance that these will be indeed used for bargaining. Now sum that up inside your mind and figure how long that is going to take. Nothing has been made clear yet. Both sides are still accusing eachother on what territory they were taken from. I think a simple excuse like last time (2004) aint gonna cut it. Not with these latest developments.

Has it been said what is going to happen after these 48 hours?

Originally posted by Mammoth

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by crisko
Where you get his from? I would be interested to read / watch it.

Thanks!

I have been informed by numerous people. Tony Blair is said to have confirmed it.

48 Hours? That aint good, Iranian investigations are still ongoing, there hasnt been any contact with these 15 people whatsoever, and there's a chance that these will be indeed used for bargaining. Now sum that up inside your mind and figure how long that is going to take. Nothing has been made clear yet. Both sides are still accusing eachother on what territory they were taken from. I think a simple excuse like last time (2004) aint gonna cut it. Not with these latest developments.

Has it been said what is going to happen after these 48 hours?

For lack of a better term - Boom.

The U.K. is charged with keeping those water safe. Such action cannot be tolerated, especially when one considers that the area is a major artery in the global economy.

Originally posted by timeless test
...and the same article points out that the British boarding party was "heavily outnumbered and outgunned".

Depends on your line of thought, the HMS Cornwall wasn't helpless, it probably had more firepower than all those Iranian ships combined. Personally given this or firing warning shots at the Iranian and not allowing the service memebrs to get captured, I'd go with the latter.