And yet, I still induce you to waste your life replying to me. If I am clown, then you are my biggest joke.
So you are proud of wasting people's time. Thanks for admitting to being a troll.
So your "mainstream, serious naval experts" was not multiple people as claimed, but actually one guy who was never in the U.S. Navy and who's degree was in aerospace engineering. I looked at his biography, nothing there makes him an expert and you claimed you could cite multiple. No wonder you dodged the hard questions I asked, yet again.
And here, dear viewers, we have History Learner doing his usual "make the discussion about his inability to read provided quotes like a person who can in fact read" quote tricks History Learner is always doing.
Let's see if what he claims is true:
www.navweaps.com
Curriculum Vitae
1972
Graduated from University of London with a BSc in Chemical Engineering
1972-1978
Worked in a naval research establishment gaining endorsement to BSc for Marine Engineering.
1978-1982
Employed as an analyst on the world chemical and oil tanker industry.
1982-1988
Systems analyst specializing in defense and naval electronics.
1988-1990
Worked for Janes Information Group as defense market analyst.
For one there is no degree in aerospace engineering. On the other hand, there are such things as a degree in Marine Engineering, you know, quite relevant to technicalities involving ships, and working for Janes, which, if you don't know what that is, you probably shouldn't be discussing naval warfare.
Why the fuck do i even try to humor your source requests if you are going to read in them completely different things than can be found written in them?
Iran flew surveillance drone over US aircraft carrier
Wow, they did in fact fly a drone over a carrier, which was undergoing a scheduled maneuver, and get this, they took photos! US Navy on suicide watch...
Some other countries do the same as an attempt at intimidation like China and Russia, except unlike Iran they can afford full size (and very much non stealth) jets to do that.
Recently released footage of Chinese naval fighters overhead a U.S. Navy warship comes amid heightened tensions in the Taiwan Strait.
www.thedrive.com
BRUSSELS: NATO said Friday that two Russian fighter aircraft had conducted an “unsafe and unprofessional approach” toward alliance naval ships on routine operations in the Baltic Sea. NATO’s maritime command said the jets flew over “the force at an altitude of 300 feet (91 meters) and a distance...
www.arabnews.com
As you can see in the NATO press release, it is a sign of being unprofessional, but that's not a capital offense or act of war, so if the plane was shot down, it would be by accident.
Here you have some dude flying a civilian drone over UK's carrier, not while in a common waterway, but in fact in its own port, a much ballsier move (he could get a fine for this).
So congratulations to Iran, they have proven that they can do what any dude with a drone from Alibaba can do.
The U.S. also has about half of those in port at any one time for maintenance, refueling, etc. If all U.S. carriers are busy in the Middle East, that also opens up nice opportunities for the Norks and Chinese, no? I don't doubt the U.S. could win such a conflict against Iran, I've said that since the beginning, but the costs are going to be heavy and you've just outlined one of them.
So? That's a still a lot of carriers left to fuck them up, and your fanboying of Iran's military strength and defeatism regarding US military capabilities does not convince me, don't see other people being convinced either.
So, again, that counters your point because you said the U.S. couldn't do that.
I said it couldn't do that politically and legally, not technically, stop clowning around again.
No actually, I said this had been happening multiple times since 2015. The above article I quoted was from 2020; would you like to try again, or do you accept you're getting an L on this one too?
So? As i said, whether these overflights get shot down is a matter of leadership decision, the technical capability is there. If the leadership decides that they want them to get shot down, or for any reason one day that they are at war in Iran, these drones will no longer be allowed to get anywhere near that close. Until then...
The part in which you fail to understand is it only takes one drone crashing into a loaded flight deck to mission kill a carrier, if not sink it, making the costliest engagement of the U.S. since the Vietnam War in one blow.
Depends on the drone, and there are many, many other ways many countries could do a one-off perfidious attack against a US warship. That's true of any country's warships since ages, i'm not sure what kind of eureka are you trying to squeeze out of this fact. But if you think no Navy officers thought of this ever before you, then you are worthy of being called a clown.
They didn't give a shit about international law when they killed Solemani in early 2020, so that's not a valid excuse.
Soleimani wasn't killed under, in or over international waters you kek.
And yet, you conceded the U.S. did exactly this with an airliner full of civilians. Would you like to try again?
By accident. And they want to avoid those happening more, do you struggle with understanding that?
And we have the Pentagon, in writing, saying that wasn't meant to be the case. Continuously repeating an argument I've already established is baseless in the words of the DoD tells me you have no real retorts at this point.
You not being able to read DoD materials like a person with a three digit IQ is no problem of mine nor DoD.
You posted two officials engaging in CYOA, to which I responded to by showing their Pre-Game statements which contradicted their later statements as well as the official DoD review of the exercise. If you can easily ignore the fact third party expert review, then yeah, the problem is indeed with you taking another L in this argument so far.
No, they are contradicted only in your head.
But it does, that's why you've been reduced to raging here than actual arguments.
No, you have been reduced to clowning, and exactly the same muh quotes clowning and malicious analphabetism you present in other threads.
Again, we see that ineffectual rage coming out because you're losing.
Again, ineffectual clownery coming out, in addition to armchair psychology and declaring victory, so typical of you.
Good thing I wasn't talking about the boat capture, no?
Well if you are talking about drones flying over international waters, i've explained that to you already, too many times.
Which is a remarkable thing to say, given you keep trying to compare armored combat between Egypt and Israel in the 1960s as somehow relevant to U.S. trained and equipped Saudi Arabian Air Defenses in 2019. As I've had to ask you many times, please try to be consistent in your argumentation.
These texts are not limited in scope of reference to armored combat in Egypt and they all refer Saudi Arabia by name, you can ctrl+f that, read them then get back to me. So unless for some reason the Saudi air defense manages to commit such an unique acts of incompetent idiocy that it will warrant its own, separate, more scathing reviews than other Arab militaries, you will have to be satisfied with that.
What I'm trying to say here is what I've said multiple times: it only takes one surprise attack to make this the most costly U.S. war since Vietnam.
I think you are greatly confused about what "mission kill" means, how much explosives can a drone carry, and what does it take to cause a total loss of a carrier with all hands.
But then again, that is just one more thing among many, usually much simpler things you are greatly confused about.
By the way any country with submarines and long range torpedoes has a better chance of actually pulling this off, though it's still not guaranteed to work.
Rather than seeking to start such a conflict and losing tens of thousands of American casualties, I prefer disengagement and diplomacy. That you see fit to be frugal with other people's sons, whom you have no connection with, does confirm many of my views of you.
Ah, so you are a defeatist, could have saved your keyboard a lot of wear by just saying that.
Given I'm not a blood thirsty psychopath, unlike someone else in this thread, no.
I'd rather be an actual blood thirsty psychopath than someone as pathetic as you.
But proves they did use live ammo, and did this multiple times. Really kills your whole argument, even if you don't actually double check the date lol.
In a different incident. For warning shots. Which doesn't kill my argument, as it's completely besides it, ships using warning shots at sea is a pretty common practice. Hell, even the more laid back western navies do it sometimes.
A U.S. Coast Guard vessel fired 30 warning rounds at Iranian boats that came within 150 yards of U.S. ships transiting throug the Strait of Hormuz.
abcnews.go.com
Either way, it's a cop out after you got caught. Let's not pretend otherwise; I make no judgements on your personal views, but when you seek to double back on them, that's very telling.
Yes, i got caught using the term "includes", and you have admitted not understanding the full logical implications of that term, i can live with that.
Do i need to start writing in lawyerspeak like "includes but is not limited to" for you to stop pretending to be dumber than you are?
So, in other words, you have no prove of any of your claims. Just knowing you took the L here is sufficient for my purposes.
Yes, i know reading a few pages worth of an article is too much effort for your meager reading skills. Sometimes even one sentence is enough for them to fail, poor you.
Just knowing you took the L here is sufficient for my purposes.
And for the observers, here are few choice quotes from one of them:
In general, the militaries of the Fertile Crescent enforce discipline by fear; in countries where a tribal system still is in force, such as Saudi Arabia, the innate egalitarianism of the society mitigates against fear as the prime mover, so a general lack of discipline pervades.
As for equipment, a vast cultural gap exists between the U.S. and Arab maintenance and logistics systems. The Arab difficulties with U.S. equipment is not, as sometimes simplistically believed, a matter of “Arabs don’t do maintenance,” but a vast cultural gap. The American concept of a weapons system does not convey easily. A weapons system brings with it specific maintenance and logistics procedures, policies, and even a philosophy, all of them based on U.S. culture, with its expectations of a certain educational level, sense of small unit responsibility, tool allocation, and doctrine. The U.S. equipment and its maintenance are predicated on a concept of repair at the lowest level and therefore require delegation of authority. Tools that would be allocated to a U.S. battalion (a unit of some 600-800 personnel) would most likely be found at a much higher level — probably two or three echelons higher — in an Arab army. The expertise, initiative and, most importantly, the trust indicated by delegation of responsibility to a lower level are rare. Without the needed tools, spare parts, or expertise available to keep equipment running, and loathe to report bad news to his superiors, the unit commander looks for scapegoats.
No Arab ruler will allow combined operations or training to become routine, for these create familiarity, soften rivalries, erase suspicions, and eliminate the fragmented, competing organizations that enable rulers to play off rivals against one another. Politicians actually create obstacles to maintain fragmentation. For example, obtaining aircraft from the air force for army airborne training, whether it is a joint exercise or a simple administrative request for support of training, must generally be coordinated by the heads of services at the ministry of defense; if a large number of aircraft are involved, this probably requires presidential approval. Military coups may have gone out of style for now, but the fear of them remains strong. Any large-scale exercise of land forces is always a matter of concern to the government and is closely observed, particularly if live ammunition is being used. In Saudi Arabia a complex system of clearances required from area military commanders and provincial governors, all of whom have differing command channels to secure road convoy permission, obtaining ammunition, and conducting exercises, means that in order for a coup to work it would require a massive amount of loyal conspirators. The system has proven to be coup-proof, and there is no reason to believe it will not work well into the future.
Note that in none of these comments it states that Arab forces trained by US instructors, or at least Saudi air defense staff, are totally excepted from these broad statements and learn to be just as good as their teachers, quite the opposite.
And as I said before: what relevance does armored combat in the 1960s have to do with Saudi Air Defenses in 2019? You seem to want to engage in double standards on this, as I noted earlier.
You seem to engage in selective, malicious analphabetism, as i have noted earlier.
Far less than the United States. Iran didn't take over 4,000 KIA in Iraq to become dominant there, after all.
Source: your ass.
As far as we do know, some years ago it took estimated 200k to 600k KIA to win a phyrric self proclaimed victory\stalemate over Saddam's army which USA later has defeated twice with very limited losses.
Well good thing I can vote in American elections and you can't, eh?
For you, yes, for USA, no.
Have you already forgotten we were arguing over a DIA report that was stating exactly this?
No, we were arguing about the relevance of the exercise to the balance of forces between Iran and USA. I personally don't give a shit about the wording of the report and it is irrelevant to this thread, despite you insisting on bringing it up, unlike the abovementioned.
Did the word Iran ever appear in said proceedings? Would shock me if it did, and probably why you didn't cite it; you couldn't.
I've linked the article, not the proceedings, and yes, the word Iran very much appears in the article, thanks for confirming you didn't read it by the way.
Or you are claiming CNN's comments with "uproar and consequences" in the title are not representative of swamp's anger?
I'm not sure how I can make the jump to reason when I've said this the last three posts; that you just figured it out speaks very lowly of your abilities here, frankly. If you could be bothered, you might find it useful to go back to my post before the last where I explicitly say I don't think that's the reality. That would, however, require you to have a shred of good faith argumentative ability, which I have never seen a spark of in our engagements.
Dude, this thread is about Middle East, not about what you feel about me and our interactions. You're not my girlfriend, i have no reason to care about your feelings, so i don't.
That's a funny way of avoiding direct questions and "forgetting" you were the one who originally brought it up. You can try with all your might, Marduk, and you still can't beat me at all this year.
You are right, people can't beat you through a computer screen, which is a very lucky thing for trolls like you. I can however mock you, and that i'm doing all this year.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/SYOMBWD4L5HCLFY44X6BPB6M5A.jpg)
