Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Originally Posted by Wesker

They have missles that can hit most parts of Europe, and even with conventional warheads this can wreak havoc. Their Su-24 Fencer bombers are very effective low level attack jets that can esily hit Israel and beyond, not to mention U.S. carrier groups. They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.

No Iranian missle will ever touch an American carrier group. Our carriers are far to well defended for that to happen. The anti-missle defense systems on those ships can shoot down planes or missles at more than 1 mile out.

Iran is going to get put in her place, one way or another. They are weak compared to any of the other military powers in the world, especially so compared to the United States. Besides, if Iran were stupid enough to actually use that nuclear weapon on Israel or any other world power they would seal their own fate. Anyone remember the Samson Option?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute

Source Here

These systems have proven to be extremely effective inconjuction with each other in defending our carriers. As for my reference to 1 mile that is the range of the gatling guns.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

In case you haven't noticed, sir, the very source of this dilemma would be the Iranian's desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

You must be in the realm of fantasy to think that a nation would use a nuclear weapon to force the withdrawal of a carrier group via fallout. Besides the cost in building a nuclear weapon, the ecological effects to the countries own region would be horrible. They maybe crazy but they aren't that stupid.

Besides nuclear weapons are not conventional weapons, their main purpose is used as a deterrent. No country outside of the United States has anything close to a conventional nuke.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

This whole situation screams this...


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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

An embargo on Iran might do wonders to their temperament. The surrounding countries and Europe have far more to worry about than the United States does in this case.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lucas-AMN

I smell a draft comming.

I doubt that will happen in the near future. The military has said it frankly that it doesn't want people who don't want to be there and truth be told I wouldn't want to serve next to some asswipe that doesn't want to be there and didn't have the brains to get into college.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Effloresce

Iran is a problem. But see, we have this OTHER unneeded problem in Iraq...

And before anyone says I'm totally anti-war, I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq is ridiculous. Unnecessary and ridiculous.

edit: If there's a draft, this country will go apeshit. Parents and children across the nation will be protesting damn near violently. Believe it.

No there are a good number of reasons why we went to war with Iraq, I don't really care if you agree with them but the fact is we are there and will finish what we started before we leave.

Iran is making themselves a large thorn in the side of a number of large and powerful countries with all of the things they have been saying. Shit rolls down hill, sadly for Iran it will probably roll over them. They will reap what they sow.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

As for compromise, what if the other side isn't willing to compromise? What’s more, why should they when they know they can get away with whatever they want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran in the wrong by violating a number of treaties with its current actions, actions with which there shouldn't be a need to compromise on as the treaties weren't supposed to be violated to begin with?

Iran is beginning to show the world just how off their rocker they really are. I don't think they are capable of backing down because their delusions of grandeur.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Watts

Slightly different situation. I don't think any of those countries have a nuclear reactor that's capable of pumping out weapons-grade plutonium.

Nuclear physics is not my area of expertise. I think there's a difference between the two kinds of reactors and processes applied. Something to do with how the uranium is enriched and processed by the reactor. Plus those countries allow IAEA oversight of their operations. Iran hasn't been forthcoming.

They don't use a reactor to gather weapons grade uranium. Most reactors use less than 20% U235 where as the rest of the Uranium is U238. Weapons grade Uranium is usually greater than 90% U235 even though much lower percents can be used to make a bomb. There are several process' used to separate the two different isotopes of Uranium, however none of them require a nuclear reactor. Most methods rely on the slight differences in physical properties of the two isotopes. Did I mention that it is extremely expensive to enrich Uranium? I believe U238 is what we use in our DU ammunition.

List of countries with nuclear weapons.

Most amazing jew boots