Anyone heard about ....?? - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-04-2010, 04:21 PM Thread Starter
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Anyone heard about ....??

The naval buildup and missile defense ships off of the coasts of the UAE, SA, etc???

Heard only a piece of it on fox yesterday, but would like to know more.

it looks to me like a defense to an Iran counterattack. (hopefully after Israel turns that place to glass )
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-04-2010, 10:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Die Wundergroin Schlägt Wieder Zu!
Posts: 2,484
I heard the same. The Persian Gulf and Red Sea are going to be "surged" with a lot of Aegis platforms (CGs and DDGs). They have upgraded the capabilities of the "standard missile" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3 a lot in the last couple of years. If Iran decides to launch anything, it'll be like a big skeet shoot.
helosailor is offline  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-04-2010, 10:55 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Colony
Posts: 1,024
we've been increasing arms sales to UAE as well
49522 is offline  
 
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-04-2010, 11:46 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
our new arms sales to taiwan has china all bent.

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-05-2010, 07:02 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
there is a lot of money in the UAE and it needs to be protected.

and thats one more reason to get barry out of office, if israel does decide to attack iran, they are going to come to us expecting financial backing, and the way things are going our president will just fork over the 4 trillion dollars it would take

cannonball996 is offline  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-05-2010, 12:53 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
there is a lot of money in the UAE and it needs to be protected.

and thats one more reason to get barry out of office, if israel does decide to attack iran, they are going to come to us expecting financial backing, and the way things are going our president will just fork over the 4 trillion dollars it would take
Name one person who wouldn't help fund that.
Denny is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-05-2010, 01:05 PM Thread Starter
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
Name one person who wouldn't help fund that.

That would be Change I Can Believe In
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-05-2010, 03:25 PM
Resident Curmudgeon
 
mardyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Beautiful East Texas
Posts: 3,232
Nut job Iranian dude has threatened some kind of action on Feb 12th... in case it's a missile launch, we wanna' make sure we're over there close by to get involved, just in case.

mardyn

R.I.P. James E. Berry 01/03/57-- 01/14/05

mardyn is offline  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-05-2010, 07:13 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
Name one person who wouldn't help fund that.
anyone that calls them self a conservative....4 trillion dollars is a lot of money, people went crazy last summer when they found out obama care would cost 1.5 trillion over the next decade. where is the money going to come from?

cannonball996 is offline  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 01:05 AM
DFW MUSTANGS . NET
 
HOOCBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW MUSTANGS . NET
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
anyone that calls them self a conservative....4 trillion dollars is a lot of money, people went crazy last summer when they found out obama care would cost 1.5 trillion over the next decade. where is the money going to come from?
I think 4 trillion is WAAAYYYY overestimating. Any true conservative would support funding an act like this to help spread/defend liberty.

For me, as a conservative, you can't put a price on freedom. It will cost lives and a lot of money, but it's worth it.

HOOCBB is offline  
post #11 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 01:26 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCBB View Post
I think 4 trillion is WAAAYYYY overestimating. Any true conservative would support funding an act like this to help spread/defend liberty.

For me, as a conservative, you can't put a price on freedom. It will cost lives and a lot of money, but it's worth it.
Exactly. Israel has low bid on leveling Iran. As a responsible Conservative of the US, I'll maintain cocsistancy with our purchasing policies and go with the lowest bidder. Hell, they can do it cheaper than we can AND less drama.
Denny is offline  
post #12 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 08:33 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
it cost the US, the strongest country in the world over 2 trillion to win a war in Iraq. need I remind you Iraq's defenses were heavily depleted from the loss of GWI and sanctions over the previous decade. Iran is many times stronger then Iraq ever was, they have been preparing for war with a super power for over 30 years, and have the capacity to fight a long drawn out war with a super power.

to think that Israel could do it any better would be a mistake.

one of the basis of the conservative movement is the notion that the US stop policing the world, yet here I see so called conservatives ready to commit trillions of dollars to doing just that. this could easily end up being the most liberal use of US money in our history.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #13 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 08:42 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
it cost the US, the strongest country in the world over 2 trillion to win a war in Iraq. need I remind you Iraq's defenses were heavily depleted from the loss of GWI and sanctions over the previous decade. Iran is many times stronger then Iraq ever was, they have been preparing for war with a super power for over 30 years, and have the capacity to fight a long drawn out war with a super power.

to think that Israel could do it any better would be a mistake.

one of the basis of the conservative movement is the notion that the US stop policing the world, yet here I see so called conservatives ready to commit trillions of dollars to doing just that. this could easily end up being the most liberal use of US money in our history.
There's a difference between war and nation building... Let's face it... the active, high level "war" phase in Iraq went quickly, and for much less than 2 trillion. Once the "nation building" phase went into effect, in came the politics, insurgents, road side bombs, Iranian special forces, and general expensive and bloody craziness....

The actual time and cost of taking out the nuclear infrastructure and major offensive capabilities of Iran would be MUCH less. I would say about a week using conventional arms.... Fuck the nation building crap... go in and take the shit out and go home... let the politicians handle it from there...

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #14 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 08:49 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Here's an excellent write up of the current build-up in the Gulf at Stratfor.com....
A Defensive Buildup in the Gulf

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #15 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 09:06 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Israeli air strikes would be done without troop occupation. If we're talking boots on the ground, the prices goes up dramatically. Israel couldn't care less about sending anyone in.
Denny is offline  
post #16 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 09:17 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
Israeli air strikes would be done without troop occupation. If we're talking boots on the ground, the prices goes up dramatically. Israel couldn't care less about sending anyone in.
Iran has consistently shown that it is not able to wield nuclear weapons in a responsible way, by constantly threatening Israel at every opportunity. Allowing them to possess nukes would be a very bad idea. Funding Israel and allowing them to send Iran back to the stone age at the appropriate moment makes sense to me.
mikeb is offline  
post #17 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 09:35 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
There's a difference between war and nation building... Let's face it... the active, high level "war" phase in Iraq went quickly, and for much less than 2 trillion. Once the "nation building" phase went into effect, in came the politics, insurgents, road side bombs, Iranian special forces, and general expensive and bloody craziness....

The actual time and cost of taking out the nuclear infrastructure and major offensive capabilities of Iran would be MUCH less. I would say about a week using conventional arms.... Fuck the nation building crap... go in and take the shit out and go home... let the politicians handle it from there...
a week are you kidding me? Iran is 10 times stronger then Iraq was in 2003, they have a much larger military, they have advanced weapons technology, and they have money and resources. not the mention the fact that they have been preparing for a war with the US, they studied our war with Iraq, they know whats coming.

an air strike does no good, the regime is still in place, and they will retaliate. nation building would have to be part of a plan, otherwise you will have to deal with the same problem down the road.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #18 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 10:25 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
a week are you kidding me? Iran is 10 times stronger then Iraq was in 2003, they have a much larger military, they have advanced weapons technology, and they have money and resources. not the mention the fact that they have been preparing for a war with the US, they studied our war with Iraq, they know whats coming.
With 3 Carrier task groups, a large Air Force presence in theater, and a segment of special forces to take out select ground installations if needed, that time frame is doable...

There are very few hardened underground structures that are air attack "resistant" in the Iranian nuclear program... the rest can be reached via air ops and easily dispatched.

As far as "advanced weapons":
Their S-300 ADS isn't fully operational, and even if it was, it wouldn't be a major hinderence to F-22 and B-2 operations.
Within the first 24 hours there would be low-level AH-64 and F-16 wild weasel missions to deal with the SAM "picket" sites that the stealth aircraft did not deal with on the first run.
The best that they could put in the air is some Sukoi Su-30s, while most of the rest of their offensive air force is comprised of approximately 20 Mirage F1s, 40 Mig 29s, 20 F-14s, and a whole bunch of cannon fodder F-5s.... Most of which we could catch on the ground.

Their majority of their Navy with the exception of deployed subs could be dispatched within 72 hours.

Iran is not a "super" power and would be shown to be severely lacking in a mano y mano match if we have the balls to do what we need to do...

Remember, We don't care about the regime at this point... the point is not to go into a major war that requires a lot of boots on the ground... get in, knock their teeth in, and get out... Let politics take over AFTER they've had their asses handed to them...

In general, You over-estimate the capabilities of the Iranians...

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #19 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 10:42 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
With 3 Carrier task groups, a large Air Force presence in theater, and a segment of special forces to take out select ground installations if needed, that time frame is doable...

There are very few hardened underground structures that are air attack "resistant" in the Iranian nuclear program... the rest can be reached via air ops and easily dispatched.

As far as "advanced weapons":
Their S-300 ADS isn't fully operational, and even if it was, it wouldn't be a major hinderence to F-22 and B-2 operations.
Within the first 24 hours there would be low-level AH-64 and F-16 wild weasel missions to deal with the SAM "picket" sites that the stealth aircraft did not deal with on the first run.
The best that they could put in the air is some Sukoi Su-30s, while most of the rest of their offensive air force is comprised of approximately 20 Mirage F1s, 40 Mig 29s, 20 F-14s, and a whole bunch of cannon fodder F-5s.... Most of which we could catch on the ground.

Their majority of their Navy with the exception of deployed subs could be dispatched within 72 hours.

Iran is not a "super" power and would be shown to be severely lacking in a mano y mano match if we have the balls to do what we need to do...

Remember, We don't care about the regime at this point... the point is not to go into a major war that requires a lot of boots on the ground... get in, knock their teeth in, and get out... Let politics take over AFTER they've had their asses handed to them...

In general, You over-estimate the capabilities of the Iranians...
then how do you explain Iraq, it took US longer then a week in Iraq, and they were much more depleted the Iran. and dont forget the US had a long time to prepare for this war and build up our forces.
If Israel were to launch a surprise attack on Iran (no way they could win a war in a week, let alone a year) and then ask for our financial and military support. even if the US agreed to help israel out, it would be more then a week before we could mount a heavy attack. and dont forget the fact that when Israel does launch their surprise attack, Iran will immediately retaliate with chemical and biological weapon on Israel.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #20 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 11:15 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
then how do you explain Iraq, it took US longer then a week in Iraq, and they were much more depleted the Iran. and dont forget the US had a long time to prepare for this war and build up our forces.
If Israel were to launch a surprise attack on Iran (no way they could win a war in a week, let alone a year) and then ask for our financial and military support. even if the US agreed to help israel out, it would be more then a week before we could mount a heavy attack. and dont forget the fact that when Israel does launch their surprise attack, Iran will immediately retaliate with chemical and biological weapon on Israel.
Well, I honestly can't explain Iraq because I, nor anyone else I know that has a background in such things, would have prosecuted the war as it was handled up until the "surge". Of course, it is always easy to play armchair quarterback...

However, major combat operations in Iraq lasted for approximately 6 weeks, from 3/19/03, to 5/1/03. That means things such as an air war, dealing with armored columns, enemy regiments... in other words... conventional war.

6 weeks... It took 6 weeks to dismantle the entire warfighting infrastructure of an entire major country.... and that included a full ground assault with crazy ass logistical trains of hundreds of M1 tanks, APCs, Hmvees and tens of thousands of grunts in combat gear and MOP equipment.

Ever since 5/1/03, it stopped being a conventional war... in my opinion, once you go into "hearts and minds" mode, the military is a blunt instrument... full of force but imprecise. We can go into the myriads of idiot mistakes that I believe the dorkus inept Rumsfeld is responsible for, but that's another thread...

My point is, for the specific and single task of reducing or eliminating the nuclear and offensive capability of Iran... It could be done effectively... by the US.... without a large or persistent ground presence.... within a reasonable amount of time.

The question is, do we in the US have the balls and fortitude to do it and deal with the repercussions, or do we let Iran create a nuclear capability?

That is the real question....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #21 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 12:19 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
Well, I honestly can't explain Iraq because I, nor anyone else I know that has a background in such things, would have prosecuted the war as it was handled up until the "surge". Of course, it is always easy to play armchair quarterback...

However, major combat operations in Iraq lasted for approximately 6 weeks, from 3/19/03, to 5/1/03. That means things such as an air war, dealing with armored columns, enemy regiments... in other words... conventional war.

6 weeks... It took 6 weeks to dismantle the entire warfighting infrastructure of an entire major country.... and that included a full ground assault with crazy ass logistical trains of hundreds of M1 tanks, APCs, Hmvees and tens of thousands of grunts in combat gear and MOP equipment.

Ever since 5/1/03, it stopped being a conventional war... in my opinion, once you go into "hearts and minds" mode, the military is a blunt instrument... full of force but imprecise. We can go into the myriads of idiot mistakes that I believe the dorkus inept Rumsfeld is responsible for, but that's another thread...

My point is, for the specific and single task of reducing or eliminating the nuclear and offensive capability of Iran... It could be done effectively... by the US.... without a large or persistent ground presence.... within a reasonable amount of time.

The question is, do we in the US have the balls and fortitude to do it and deal with the repercussions, or do we let Iran create a nuclear capability?

That is the real question....
so your going with the Clinton Strategy, air strikes from time to time to subdue their nuclear threat.
but your forgetting, sure it would be possible for the US or Israel could subdue Iran's nuclear threat. but you are forgetting that Iran will strike back at Israel, and then both nations will be in a full scale war, and the US will asked to bare the fiscal burden.

cannonball996 is offline  
post #22 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 02:57 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
so your going with the Clinton Strategy, air strikes from time to time to subdue their nuclear threat.
but your forgetting, sure it would be possible for the US or Israel could subdue Iran's nuclear threat. but you are forgetting that Iran will strike back at Israel, and then both nations will be in a full scale war, and the US will asked to bare the fiscal burden.
Well that's more of a What if question I would think...

Well first of all, If Iran's Nuclear capability is taken out, as well as much of their offensive capability, they are no longer a MAJOR threat internationally.... Yes, they can be aholes and do some damage to the new fledgeling government in Iraq by sending a few regiments and T-60s over the border, probably take out some oil wells.... send some suicide bombers to Israel... in other words, do much of what they've already been doing in the past except at a much higher level.

Would we be called in to help? Probably.... but hell, we're already THERE and the infrastructure is largely in place...

Contain the bastards and give them black eyes until they come back to the peace table.

What you are thinking of is protracted major instability in the middle east.

It all comes back to the same question, how important is it to the international community that Iran not have a nuclear capability?

I can tell you for sure that most ARAB nations do not want it, and will silently go along (and help pay in some cases) with just about any plan to take care of the issue. The sheiks in the UAE and other locals lose money when this shit heats up....

Two things are certain in this situation:

1. Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear.... not gonna happen. Its like having a crazy dude high on meth next door with a demolition ball who has every intention of taking out your house just for the sheer entertainment and some "religious" fulfillment... He just hasn't started it up yet..... and if they do it instead of us, it will be much worse for everyone...

2. In a regional conflict, the US cannot go it alone... We can take out the major threat, and we can stem the tide, but others need to step up and take some leadership and share the cost in treasure and blood.... If they don't, and we don't.... sooner or later #1 above will happen, and then let the games begin....

If Iran doesn't back down, something bad is gonna happen for a lot of innocent people in harm's way.... It's frightening.... but to be honest, the thought of a nuclear armed Iran (the world's leading sponsor of terrorism), is even more frightening.... if that's even possible....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #23 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
Well that's more of a What if question I would think...

Well first of all, If Iran's Nuclear capability is taken out, as well as much of their offensive capability, they are no longer a MAJOR threat internationally.... Yes, they can be aholes and do some damage to the new fledgeling government in Iraq by sending a few regiments and T-60s over the border, probably take out some oil wells.... send some suicide bombers to Israel... in other words, do much of what they've already been doing in the past except at a much higher level.

Would we be called in to help? Probably.... but hell, we're already THERE and the infrastructure is largely in place...

Contain the bastards and give them black eyes until they come back to the peace table.

What you are thinking of is protracted major instability in the middle east.

It all comes back to the same question, how important is it to the international community that Iran not have a nuclear capability?

I can tell you for sure that most ARAB nations do not want it, and will silently go along (and help pay in some cases) with just about any plan to take care of the issue. The sheiks in the UAE and other locals lose money when this shit heats up....

Two things are certain in this situation:

1. Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear.... not gonna happen. Its like having a crazy dude high on meth next door with a demolition ball who has every intention of taking out your house just for the sheer entertainment and some "religious" fulfillment... He just hasn't started it up yet..... and if they do it instead of us, it will be much worse for everyone...

2. In a regional conflict, the US cannot go it alone... We can take out the major threat, and we can stem the tide, but others need to step up and take some leadership and share the cost in treasure and blood.... If they don't, and we don't.... sooner or later #1 above will happen, and then let the games begin....

If Iran doesn't back down, something bad is gonna happen for a lot of innocent people in harm's way.... It's frightening.... but to be honest, the thought of a nuclear armed Iran (the world's leading sponsor of terrorism), is even more frightening.... if that's even possible....
I believe Iran will have a nuclear weapon with in a year, so if this sennerio comes to play out, it will be very soon.

there is no way that a quick strike will take out iran offensive capabilities. there would be to many targets spread out over a wide region, Iran will be able to retaliate with enough fire power to do israel substantial harm

cannonball996 is offline  
post #24 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-06-2010, 05:03 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
I believe Iran will have a nuclear weapon with in a year, so if this sennerio comes to play out, it will be very soon.

there is no way that a quick strike will take out iran offensive capabilities. there would be to many targets spread out over a wide region, Iran will be able to retaliate with enough fire power to do israel substantial harm
I agree, whatever is going to happen, it won't be long.

You are right, a quick strike will not take out all of Iran's offensive capabilities, but it would take a away the nuclear genie in the short term, and take a sizable chunk from their command and control abilities.

Feel free to take a look at the following map:


Notice the countries currently in between and around the distance between Iran and Israel.
Most notably Iraq, Kuwait, and in the region... Turkey and the Persian Gulf

Any attempt at retaliating via aviation would be a fool's errand for the outgunned and outclassed Iranian Air Force. They would be ground litter halfway into Iraq.

That leaves Iran's medium range missiles. The Shahab 3 and the brand new and limited production Sajil-2.

Both of these missiles could reach Israel with a conventional or chemical\biological warhead.

The Shahab 3 can only reach the roughly 1,000 mile distance to Israel when the payload is lightened and it is known to be too inaccurate to cause any specific logistical problem for a prepared enemy other than general mayhem and destruction

The Sajil-2 however is new and is a solid propellant rocket which is thought to be much more accurate, however, the numbers are low due to the young age of its production.

However, to get to target, the missiles would need to go through the following defenses to get to the target:

1. Aegis cruisers in the Persian Gulf with SM3 missiles, which have already proven the ability to take out satellites

2. Patriot PAC-3 systems that are currently deployed In Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, and other locations in the area

3. Israeli Arrow ABM system, which is currently deployed and has been field tested against Shahab-3 type targets.


In all, would some get through?

Absolutely... but the state of Israel and its people in general would survive and Iran would have "blown its load" so to speak....

What I'm trying to say is there is no "easy" solution to this.
Whatever happens, its going to be very bad for those caught in the middle.
(Which will be many)

But to be honest, Iran is giving Israel, and by association, the western world very limited options by its belligerence at the negotiating table....

The only other option (if Israel was even OK with signing its own death warrant) is to let Iran have its nukes....

Which is worse? I guess it depends on who you ask....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #25 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-07-2010, 08:52 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
your forgetting that Iran could strike back with small rocket attacks through militant groups that they fund, its been effective in the past. its also difficult to say what would happen, there are a lot of arab states in between, it would be interesting to see where their loyalties lie, especially when such an attack would drastically increase their wealth as the price of oil would sky rocket.
any attack on Iran would spur increased violence and attacks by militant groups in Iraq, US troops in Iraq would have their hands full fighting militants in Iraq

cannonball996 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome