Unless you are trying to argue that Iran has advanced technologically more than USA (that would be funny to see), especially in ways relevant to naval warfare, that's completely beside the point.
More than the United States, no, but relative to where the balance of power was in the 1980s, without a doubt.
Iran has developed pretty strong missile capacity, as the DIA notes:
To achieve its goals, Iran continues to rely on its unconventional warfare elements and asymmetric capabilities—
intended to exploit the perceived weaknesses of a superior adversary—to provide deterrence and project power.
This combination of lethal conventional capabilities and proxy forces poses a persistent threat. The Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force leads Iranian power projection through a complex network of state and
nonstate partners and militant proxies. Iran’s conventional military emphasizes niche capabilities and guerilla-
style tactics against its technologically advanced adversaries. Its substantial arsenal of ballistic missiles is
designed to overwhelm U.S. forces and our partners in the region. Its swarms of small boats, large inventory of
naval mines, and arsenal of antiship missiles can severely disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz—a
strategic chokepoint critical to global trade. Each of these forces are becoming increasingly survivable, precise,
and responsive
And their drone capabilities are very strong, as demonstrated by them repeatedly piercing U.S. air defenses for CBGs since 2016.
I have enough of your word games, stick them you know where.
And yet, you initiated this dialogue and the last three before it. When you didn't get your way each time, you claimed I wasn't worth your time and yet...here you are again. The lack of consistency is noticeable, so why the fakery? You're under no obligation to reply to me on this forum, nonwithstanding your moderator functions.
How the hell are they going to make the free play truly free if there is a shitload of ships and aircraft taking part in the live section and they can't realistically dislocate over tens or hundreds of miles beyond their specific allocated area to not accidentally some civilian traffic?
You seem to not realize the Blue Team was 350 people and OPFOR/Red Team was just 90; it wasn't like they were running entire divisions. The wargame was partly simulated and things like NOTAMs exist for the live action portion.
Quote or shut up. I will require this of you from now on. He said exactly the opposite.
Here you go:
Van Riper had participated in previous war games for JFCOM, including the previous year’s Unified Vision 2001 exercise in which he played the role of a landlocked regional power. At one crucial engagement during Unified Vision 2001, Van Riper was informed by the white cell, or “control,” overseeing the game that the United States had destroyed all 21 of the red team’s deeply buried ballistic missiles, even though the blue team commander never actually knew where they were located. It was simply assumed that in the future the United States would have the real-time radar and sensor capabilities to eliminate them. After the Unified Vision 2001 exercise, JFCOM provided a report to Congress that claimed that the exercise had corroborated the effects-based operations concepts. When Van Riper complained that that was untrue, he was promised, regarding MC ’02, that “next year will be a free play and honest exercise.” On the eve of MC ’02, Kernan even declared: “We have a very, very determined OPFOR, both live and simulation. … this is free play. The OPFOR has the ability to win here.”
What part of "it's not unconstrained" and "you cannot have an unconstrained exercise" do you struggle to understand?
The fact that exists only in your head, and was directly called out in the Pentagon report:
The reaction to the leak was swift. Senior JFCOM and Pentagon officials were livid that the retired lieutenant general had blown the whistle on MC ’02. They emphasized in press conferences that every major concept had been validated (there were 11 in total), while discounting what the OPFOR had been able to pull off. Kernan, who called Van Riper “a pretty slick fellow,” claimed that the exercise was not about winning or losing, despite contrary statements he had made weeks earlier. Kernan also admitted: “You [have] got to be careful about the word ‘free play.’ And I used it, and I wished I hadn’t.” Vice Adm. Martin Mayer, Kernan’s deputy, claimed, “I want to disabuse anybody of any notion that somehow the books were cooked.” Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace declared flatly, “I absolutely believe that it was not rigged.”
Yet, JFCOM itself later concluded the opposite. The final JFCOM report on MC ’02 ran 752 pages long and was not released to the public for 10 years. The report detailed how the OPFOR had initially caught the blue team off guard, in large part because the blue team stuck closely to well-known and practiced U.S. military tactics. Moreover, to the extent that the blue team was perceived to be the winner, it was predominantly due to its quantitatively and qualitatively superior military capabilities. Meanwhile, the report admitted significant limitations and artificialities that were built into the war game. It also details the unexpected shifts in the rules of engagement early on. According to the report, “These changes brought about some confusion and potentially provided the blue team operational advantages.”
Finally, the JFCOM report explicitly acknowledged:
As the exercise progressed, the OPFOR free-play was eventually constrained to the point where the end state was scripted. This scripting ensured a blue team operational victory and established conditions in the exercise for transition operations.
Again, they have demonstrated jack shit, and so did you.
Except I cited an entire article going over a documented incident in 2008 showing the Iranians doing as Riper had been able to do in MC02.
Ah, so in your crazy head Saudi Army is now just as good as US Army, because it was trained by them and has similar gear. Another shocking hit of your military expertise. I don't even know what to say. I didn't know you are such an Arab army respecter, it is a very bold stance to take
Let's completely ignore all we know about performance of the Saudi military and Arab armies in general to fancy your delusional axe you are grinding (that Iran is some kind of secret regional superpower), how about no.
Arabs: Being bad at modern warfare as usual
America: Try to make Arabs better at modern warfare, with poor results
History Learner: Guess Americans are just as bad at it as Arabs then...
While I commend you for openly attacking them based on their race instead of seeking to couch it in other terms, specifically, we were talking about their air defenses, not their armies in general. Your general characterization is wrong on that front as well, but I'll leave that aside to focus in on the point: if the training and the equipment is the same, what is the difference?
No military in existence can operate as if it was a war everywhere and at all times.
Indeed, which is why you should know your original point is a non-starter:
Yes, terrorism is sneaky. Did you know that the USS Cole bombing happened in a fucking port, in peacetime at that? Now try it with a ship underway, on combat footing.
Expecting the enemy to operate under the confines you place on it is rather foolish; as the old saying goes, they get a vote too.
And Iran has no capability to coordinate anything like Pearl Harbor, even a half assed try would get a response that would make Operation Praying Mantis (which was a response to one warship being hit by a mine) look light.
Good thing I didn't argue that. What I did say is that Iran possesses the capabilities to inflict heavy losses upon the United States; read the DIA report I linked to earlier, if you want to see what the U.S. assessment is.
But yeah, Iran has the most of its "shocking successes" when it's doing covert operations against a side that is at peace and doesn't want to smack them back hard for political reasons.
In other words, exactly as everyone else?
In cases where the other side is willing to retaliate, it doesn't end well for Iran.
Nor for the United States, hence why we have always strove to avoid conflict with them.
I'm leaning towards B, except replace the military with those who the military takes orders from, i think the military people around here would agree with my opinion of these people.
And said individuals, and the institutions at large, took an oath to the Constitution to defend it against both domestic and foreign enemies; that they've avoided doing anything about it then takes us back to the characterization I said. Your argument is, when distilled, that they are cowards in one way, shape or form.
OR, you can take the exact tact I'm spelled out here; they're not cowards, nor is it a problem of our political class being insufficiently hawkish (lol, after 20 years of GWOT), but rather that our restraint is based on rational cost-benefit analysis of the costs of such engagement. If you read the DIA report, which is the end work of one of our main uniformed intelligence agencies, you see it's exactly as I present.
www.globalsecurity.org
