Let me put this bluntly: Nukes are not used to halt a CBG, and it would be ridiculous of Iran to waste a nuclear warhead on trying to stop ONE single CBG on a manuever that probably will not work.

Assuming that the Iranians lack the ability to reach the continental United States, what other strategic US assets would be within reach? Why do you assume that they would only have one warhead?

I'm assuming they wouldn't be using two warheads on a single battle group. Not to mention destroying a CBG wouldn't stop the US from crushing Iran.

I'll just stop humoring you. Nobody would use a nuclear weapon in a conventional style attack against a CBG. It's just not worth it.

Again, unless Iran has a death wish they will not use a nuclear weapon unless it is used on them first... In fact any aggressive military movement against the US or Israel is suicide.

The use of a nuclear weapon against a strategic US asset would be a calculated risk by the Iranians, made to show that they mean business in the event that Western powers moved against them.

The purpose being, to see if the Americans would blink, and back off. In any normal case, the US would simply nuke the Hell out of Iran, but since the ruling Iranian regime would be destroyed anyway, what do they have left to lose?

This may not be a realistic situation, but it is a grave concern to the Iranians, which is why they want that nuclear deterrant.

No, that would be suicide and open war.

No shit? It's a calculated fucking risk. A last-ditch attempt made by a desperate government that can't hope to beat its opponent conventionally. When those in power have no chance of survival, what is there for them to lose?

You've got to be kidding... That isn't calculated risk, that is putting a time delay bomb to your fucking head and waiting for it to go boom.

I don't expect them to launch any thing against our military. No that isn't Irans style. They would give a dirty bomb to a terrorist group and smuggle it into the US to get us that way.

Either way, they lose in the end.

Well, in order for anyone to 'lose', you first have to define what their goals are.

We don't even know what "Iran's style" is yet, because they don't have a nuclear bomb to speak of. If they wanted to hand off a dirty bomb to terrorists, they already would have, and a major American city would have been evacuated due to unsafe radiation levels. This is because the key component in a dirty bomb is radioactive material, not a nuclear warhead. Stuff that the Iranians already possess in significant quantities.

Why would Iran even announce that they intend to develop a nuclear weapon if they didn't intend to have it used by Iranians? It's a matter of ego to them. They want us to know that they'd have nuclear weapons, because the prospect of a nuclear Iran acts as a deterrent. Yet, how significant is an Iranian nuclear deterrent to, say, the US, when they are incapable of delivering a warhead to nuclear soil? They would have to target the only strategic American assets within their reach, which would be Carrier Battle Groups.

Unconventional delivery methods such as a suitcase bomb do not act as a deterrent.

They lose because they die. None of the middle eastern countries will ever have a hope in a conventional war against the US, which is why they resort to suicide bomber attacks.

Bradylama: The Iranians aren't going to try and missile attack a carrier group... You've been told again and again how stupid that is. Stealth was right, there is no point in humoring your ignorance. If we attack Iran we will remove any nuclear threat prior to any forces being in danger.

"Unconventional delivery methods such as a suitcase bomb do not act as a deterrent." No that is not a deterrent, to which you are correct. This is what they are going to do once their major nuclear abilities are removed.

And yet it is not the Iranian people who have their finger on the button. If you don't think that the desperation of an endangered government could lead to a nuclear exchange, then it is you who is ignorant to the situation.

You and Gumby are so damn sure that a carrier battlegroup isn't vulnerable to antiship missiles. Just what justifies this confidence? AEGIS, however good a system it is, isn't perfect. It can be beaten, and the Soviets designed the Sunburn missiles specifically to beat AEGIS. Sunburns have speeds approaching Mach 3, and they cut the maximum response time available to a defending vessel to a quarter of what is available against something such as an Exocet (25-30 seconds as opposed to 120-150 seconds). That's not a lot of time to respond, and the more there are, the more likely some will get through.

Yes, the rest of the battlegroup is there to protect the carrier. I know that. The Soviets knew it, too. That's why they developed weapons capable of dealing with the ships in a battlegroup.

No, but I'm damn sure nobody in their fucking right mind would nuke a CBG. Also, Iran aren't the soviets. They aren't completely militarized, and have a weak fighting force. Do you really think they would be able to hurt a CBG with anything they currently have at their disposal? But hey, if it happens, you can call me on it.

Considering they have a bunch of those Sunburn missiles I've been talking about at their disposal, I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

Have a source on that? You brought up the issue has "Russians have probably sold". I hardly consider that evidence. But I welcome any info you can find on it.

This is probably the best article I could find, as it specifically mentions the Sunburn, along with this chart.

You can find specs for the Sunburn itself here and here, if you're interested. The missile exists, and the fact that it does renders false Gumby's and your statements to the effect that USN carrier battlegroups are invulnerable to missile attack.

So the real question is - how would the Iranians deliver the Sunburn?

If I'm a battle commander, my first priority is to neutralize the Iranian's ability to deliver the weapon. That means seeking out and destroying any naval vessels and eliminating airfields where bombers with this weapon can be launched from.

This whole situation screams this...
http://www.anyoldicon.com/gallery/im...l-pistol-2.jpg

These carrier groups are watching for missiles of this type and should it get to close for the effective use of anti-missiles they can rely on the rather large radar guided chain guns. Do remember that Iran is not our friends; we are watching them for this sort of activity. So it isn’t like they can spring a large missile attack on the United States forces. Which is what it would take for even the possibility of getting one missile through our defense. We would see it coming and have our defenses ready.

BTW Lord Styphon I never said they were invulnerable to missile attack however I still stand by my prediction that Iran will never land a hit on an American ship, Russian equipment or not.

Besides the fact that one of these missiles has next to no chance of getting through our defense, even if it did hit a ship it would not destroy it. This would not force the withdrawn of American forces, no quite the opposite. My guess is that Iran knows this, so the whole premise of a missile attack again our carrier group is flawed.

Wouldn't you rather overestimate than underestimate your opponent at war?

David & Goliath?

The question isn't 'Should we launch a preemptive strike on Iran', the real question is: 'Will the world support this decision?'

To answer the former, yes, we should. Not an all out invasion, but we need to target their nuclear facilities. Either that or utilize Night Phoenix's strategy.

Considering the latter question, the reason I brought it up is because - quite frankly - I highly doubt the average citizen would jump on the: "Let's go after Iran!" bandwagon. I just see the similarities of what is happening today with what occurred in Vietnam. While war is inevitable and there are always casualties, the support of the citizens seems to play a major role in influencing war as a whole. Now, there's a major difference between the right decision and the people's decision. At times, both decisions become one, but usually it isn't the case.

Currently, I don't think people would support it. Iraq is on the public's mind, and they aren't interested in another war, even if the war on Iraq was justified (at least for my reasons), people won't support it.

I could be wrong, but just ask anyone if we should go in and take care of the problem. I think we should; Iran threatened us with nuclear fire. I'm not the type to just sit and wait for someone to attack me. I prefer to hit them first; however, not everyone shares this outlook - and it seems as if the majority disagree, but whatever.

That's my two cents.

Iran makes a lot of threats, if everyone thought like you did they would have long since been wiped off the face of the earth.

Tomzilla: People just don't have the stomach for what it takes to win a war.

Polls of our war.
2002
2003
2004
2005

Since when? This whole issue is about preventing Iran getting a nuke. They only said 'harm and pain'.

Iran doesn't have to launch a nuke to really hurt us. They've remained quite passive on Iraq and could stir up a hornet's nest with that. As if Iraq needs it in it's current state. They could reduce or even refuse to export their oil, causing oil to spike well above 100 USD a barrel. People think current gas prices are bad, that would make it all the more worse.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ips...it-cartoon.gif
This was in today's paper. (sorry for the picture quality)

I don't think that the American people are ready to support another war so soon, regardless of how out of hand Iran is getting.