Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[Harlock]

Nope. Baghdad had one of the densest air defense networks in the world (if outdated and not competently staffed, still certainly more than "a trace"). Didn't help them one bit in either war.

Syria also has a serious air defense network and half the middle east is mucking about in their airspace.

Only because they weren't using them because they had no need to. The drones are nominally friendly and apparently had no warning of this strike. If they had decided to shoot the drone down, even a basic MiG would be enough. Drones are only good for plinking undefended terrorists, against even mediocre opposition they will fail.

 

[GoldRanger]

Only because they weren't using them because they had no need to. The drones are nominally friendly and apparently had no warning of this strike. If they had decided to shoot the drone down, even a basic MiG would be enough. Drones are only good for plinking undefended terrorists, against even mediocre opposition they will fail.

Nobody's talking about drones here, we are talking about a nation generally able to do whatever it wants.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Lol no

Maybe if you're a third world tin pot dictatorship, but you don't pull that sort of thing with a nuke power. Not even the yanks are gung ho enough to let their cities get melted in a bucket of sunshine.

Hell, even a trace of air defence systems would stop most of these actions dead.

The level of cope.
Keep telling yourself that. There isnt a missile the US coulnt swat down, not a defense we cant easily dismantle. There is no comparison between America and other countries militarily. We crushed the fourth biggest military in the world in an afternoon.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

The level of cope.
Keep telling yourself that. There isnt a missile the US coulnt swat down, not a defense we cant easily dismantle. There is no comparison between America and other countries militarily. We crushed the fourth biggest military in the world in an afternoon.

No, we couldn't. At least not without going full nuclear; and we would still be fucked by their retaliation.

 

[Harlock]

Nobody's talking about drones here, we are talking about a nation generally able to do whatever it wants.

I'm replying to the notion America can kill a senior member of a foreign nation with impunity within his own country, nominally with drones as that is the context here but we can substitute drones for manned airstrikes and get the same answer. It can't.
I mean try it over Beijing or Paris, it only works on craphole countries, not nations that can actually do something in return. America can do much, but it can't do -anything- it wants. There are limits

The level of cope.
Keep telling yourself that. There isnt a missile the US coulnt swat down, not a defense we cant easily dismantle. There is no comparison between America and other countries militarily. We crushed the fourth biggest military in the world in an afternoon.

Which is why Russia does everything America says? Why Germany is buying Russian gas despite the US putting sanctions down on those exports?
There are limits to American reach, and those limits are based on the fact the US isn't insane enough to pick a fight with a peer.
Conventional military power is worthless when your opponent has a viable nuclear arsenal. America could indeed destroy any opponent, but in doing so is destroyed itself and thats not a victory and certainly nothing to trumpet.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Which is why Russia does everything America says? Why Germany is buying Russian gas despite the US putting sanctions down on those exports?

Yes, the world certainly is blessed that america isnt inclined towards tyrannical conquest, and in fact spent half a century bleeding money (and blood) so that other countries could maintain their sovereignty in the face of the last peer it had, which was inclined towards tyrannical conquest.

the US isn't insane enough to pick a fight with a peer.

PEER, AMERICA.

Hahaha jesus christ, what, did the Covenant start up arming the little countries while I wasn't paying attention? It's not the 70s anymore.

 

[GoldRanger]

I'm replying to the notion America can kill a senior member of a foreign nation with impunity within his own country, nominally with drones as that is the context here but we can substitute drones for manned airstrikes and get the same answer. It can't.
I mean try it over Beijing or Paris, it only works on craphole countries, not nations that can actually do something in return. America can do much, but it can't do -anything- it wants. There are limits

Those countries have competent airforces and SAM services, a heck of a lot more than "trace air defense".

 

[LordsFire]

The level of cope.
Keep telling yourself that. There isnt a missile the US coulnt swat down, not a defense we cant easily dismantle. There is no comparison between America and other countries militarily. We crushed the fourth biggest military in the world in an afternoon.

Sure, there probably isn't a political leader in the world America couldn't waste if it really wanted to. But there's two major caveats to that:

1. The price paid in damaged relations and hostility, not just with the targeted nation, but with other nations, would be steep. Especially because some of those attacks would require very large amounts of firepower, possibly outright nukes.

2. The very reason that America is so powerful, is the same reason that that will not happen. And that reason, is the moral character of the American people. Yes, it is profoundly flawed, yes, it is a very mixed bag, but it is nonetheless true that a combination of disinterest in dominating and destroying other peoples, combined with an interest in building our own prosperity, rather than stealing it from others, are defining characteristics of the American culture. If it were not for these elements of our culture, we would not have become as powerful as we have.


Now, that said, there are some nations that, given their economic prosperity and power, are hilariously vulnerable to American power, mostly EU nations, Germany being the ur-example thereof. From a purely military standpoint, they'd probably be easier to roll over than Iraq was, they're so weak.

And yes, America has no military peer. As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, the US outspent the rest of the world combined for military budget, and as recently as right now, the US still has more ability to project power beyond our immediate region than the rest of the world combined.

It also has no economic peer, as much as the China fanboys want to disagree. An immense proportion of China's economic boom has been based on the West basically just giving them success through ridiculously favorable trade conditions, and an unwillingness to crack down on them for IPR violations. Even with that said, their prosperity is nowhere near as large as it seems, and a large number of factors (export dependency, insane levels of debt, demographic crash) mean their economy is going to implode soon.

The entire EU combined is of a similar weight to the US Economy. Once Britain leaves at the end of the month, that'll no longer be true, and once the impending financial collapse looming over the EU catches up with them, they'll be a rapidly marginalizing market, no longer a unified market, or both.

 

[Harlock]

Those countries have competent airforces and SAM services, a heck of a lot more than "trace air defense".

Indeed, but even if we down grade it to a few mobile SAM batteries the ability to succeed begins to increase exponentially, because now you need several aircraft and a bunch of specialised gear, all of which isn't exactly easy to hide. You can't kill your target if he knows you are now deploying half a carrier group, he'll just sod off somewhere like Bin Laden or Baghdadi.
This removes your ability to kill with impunity. But at any rate the initial quote was nationalist bluster and stated any country, which is bollocks.

Yes, the world certainly is blessed that america isnt inclined towards tyrannical conquest, and in fact spent half a century bleeding money (and blood) so that other countries could maintain their sovereignty in the face of the last peer it had, which was inclined towards tyrannical conquest.

What has that got to do with your absurd statement that America can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants? I gave you examples of people refusing to do what America says despite the US apparently being unchallenged.
Looks like someone is challenging it.

PEER, AMERICA.

Hahaha jesus christ, what, did the Covenant start up arming the little countries while I wasn't paying attention? It's not the 70s anymore.

So you don't think other nations can do the same thing America can? You don't think the Russian strategic command is equal to the US strategic command? In fact in terms of weapons it is superior.
So while this may be hard, stop typing with your erection and try to understand your initial statement was so full of shit it could fertilise every field in Iowa

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

What has that got to do with your absurd statement that America can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants? I gave you examples of people refusing to do what America says despite the US apparently being unchallenged.
Looks like someone is challenging it.

-America fights for generations to ensure a world in which the little countries are free, including free not to do what America says
-Little countries not doing what America says sometimes is somehow counter to this.

So you don't think other nations can do the same thing America can? You don't think the Russian strategic command is equal to the US strategic command? In fact in terms of weapons it is superior.

I mean, of course it cant? Like... Of course?

We own the fucking ocean, guy, every navy on the planet combined is a joke compared to ours. Come back when the Russians stop accidentally sinking their own fucking ships. Or docks, for that matter.

 

[Cherico]

It isn’t every day you can say a missile strike means things are calming down, but hey, it’s the Middle East. The rules are different.

Overnight Jan 2-3 the United States killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s go-to guy for using paramilitary tactics to spread Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. As Soleimani was the lynchpin for much of Iran’s regional strategy, Iran immediately swore revenge. According to Iranian state media, that revenge began last night (overnight Jan 7-8) when the Iranians sent a few missile barrages into Iraq, ostensibly targeting US troops.

The damage was…underwhelming. At present there are no reports of significant damage nor reports of any American deaths. Iran does not shine in the world of conventional weaponry. Several of the missiles did not explode, and one reportedly missed by 20 miles. What the missiles were was loud and splashy and headline-grabbing. It appears the barrage was little more than an Iranian propaganda effort to convince their own people that Iran is not powerless against the United States…which it largely is.

Iran’s strengths, and how it usually engages the United States, are in places throughout the Middle East where the Americans have a large troop presence, or on the territory of America’s regional allies. However, for the last 15 years those troops have been withdrawing, and those relationships have been weakening. Even with recent troop buildups, US deployments in the region are down 75% from their peak. The United States simply does not have many targets in the region the Iranians can go after at all, much less with the sort of paramilitary forces which serve as the backbone of Iran’s power projection capabilities. It was those forces Soleimani commanded, and his skill at that command made him the second-most important person in Iran.

About the only way the Iranians can strike the US directly is in the cyber realm, but it’s hardly like Iran has been holding its cyber capability in reserve. Aside from logging a little bit of overtime, it is unclear what Iran’s cyber warriors can do to hurt the United States that is not already a daily occurrence.

Iran could use its itty bitty navy, combined with mines and missiles and its wildly outdated air power to “close” the Strait of Hormuz, but it’s unclear that the United States would care. The shale revolution largely severed the United States from Middle Eastern oil. And unlike Saudi Arabia or the UAE which both have Strait bypass pipelines, Iran is 100% dependent upon passage through Hormuz to sell its crude. Not to mention that Iran’s customers in East Asia and Europe would quickly and likely permanently switch to other suppliers. Iran closing the strait would be less shooting itself in the foot and more using disposable cutlery to gouge its own eyes out.

Iran seems to recognize this. It hardly means Iran won’t be looking for opportunities to make the Americans bleed, but they now know anything big enough to be a real win would trigger a massively disproportionate response. After all, the Americans have always believed that anything worth doing is worth overdoing – and that was when they cared about the consequences.

I have to admit, I have been rather impressed how Trump has handled this crisis so far. In killing Sulemani there was a far from insubstantial risk this would escalate. Instead, Trump has established a red line around the American withdrawal process while also eliminating the most skilled paramilitary operator in the world who is the individual responsible for the most American deaths in the 2010s.

Trump’s mini-speech to the American people had the normal economic and military boasts, but there was no vitriol. No heavy condemnations of either the Iranian government in general or the missile barrage in specific. No call for regime change. There was even a very direct noting of past (and perhaps future?) points of cooperation in the fight against ISIS. Trump seems to have suppressed his normal need to engage in one-upmanship and gloating and instead has demonstrated a degree of insight and subtlety that are not normally associated with the man. This is doubly notable considering Trump has fired pretty much everyone in his inner circle who can find Iran on a map.

A few things come from this.

One, this is the new norm for US policy, and not simply with the current president. The Americans have been withdrawing from maintaining the global Order for some time, and the combination of killing Soleimani and it not triggering a broader conflict begins the final chapter of the American withdrawal from the region. The United States has demonstrated its tolerance for bullshit is low, and its willingness to deliberately flout international norms is high. If a country chooses to pick a fight with America, everything up to and including the lives of the instigator’s top leadership is up for grabs. And the US really doesn’t care about any sort of regional stability the following day. For countries who are both anti-American and heavily dependent upon international oil trade – think Venezuela or Russia or China – that has got to focus minds.

Second, there is a massive opportunity here. Times of rapid shifting of force levels and operating norms are excellent times to start talks with a clean slate. (Former President Barack Obama tried doing just this with his nuclear deal with Iran a few years back.) If one wants to rewire the Middle East, if the United States and Iran want to have a meaningful negotiation about…anything, now is absolutely the time. It is far from clear the Iranians feel secure enough to do that, and it is far from clear that Trump has any real interest. But that doesn’t mean the opportunity does not exist.

Third, even if the Americans and Iranians dial back the tension and don’t engage in a broader conflict (which is still my bet) that doesn’t mean this is over. There is another player in the game who has a vested in seeing as much American and Iranian blood spilled as possible. The biggest threat to the opportunity for meaningful negotiations, to the American drawdown, and to Iranian security are all the same thing: Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis love having US troops in the region because it forces Iran’s attention to the United States, while providing diplomatic and security cover to Saudi Arabia. Once the Americans really do withdraw for good, the Saudis will be responsible for their own security, and the Saudis do not have a military worthy of the name. What they do have is a bottomless checkbook, a network of terror cells throughout the region, and an inhuman disregard for human suffering.

With US forces both shrinking in number and becoming more concentrated in location as the Yanks prepare for their final withdrawal while pointing bayonets at the Iranians, with the Iranians likely pausing their paramilitary operations both due to obsession with the Americans and the operational loss of Soleimani, Saudi Arabia has the means, motive and opportunity to launch the next ISIS. Never forget that Saudi security policy is responsible for an order of magnitude more American deaths than Iran.

From the Saudi point of view a fresh round of bloodshed that targets both the Americans and Iranians is win-win. It hurts their regional rival (Iran), and increases the case for the Americans to slow (or even reverse) their withdrawal. It’s a total dick move, but that doesn’t make it a dumb one.


Peter Zeihan

 

[Harlock]

-America fights for generations to ensure a world in which the little countries are free, including free not to do what America says
-Little countries not doing what America says sometimes is somehow counter to this.

Oh I see, you fought valiantly so Russia could keep giving you the finger? So that the French could ignore you for decades? It was all some sort of master plan! Well now I'm just in awe, good work...?
I'm sure all those people living under US installed or backed dictatorships who got thrown from helicopters are thrilled. Truly fighting for their freedom in all those little countries.

let me just remind you of what you said, because you seem to be trying hard to avoid it

You know.


I cant even imagine how humiliating it must be, to be any country besides the United States.

I can kind of understand the general bitterness that goes with it. I mean, think about it. You live in a country, a supposedly sovereign state, with a military you're supposed to rely on, a government you're supposed to believe in.
and...

I mean America can do whatever the fuck it wants to you. Your king, president, general, whoever the hell, if he does something America doesnt like, if he says something America doesnt like, America can vaporize him like a bolt from heaven and thats that.

Its a bold statement and I'm sure it applies to many nations, but not all of them by a long shot. It is peak arrogance and thats the sort of thing that leads to overreach and failure. Like I said, try it on Moscow or Paris.

America could annihilate your entire military, your entire culture, your reality, in a matter of days, and does not do so at their pleasure.


Can you even imagine how emasculating it was? To have your highest military athority publicly, instantly, executed by a government across the planet that you have absolutely no recourse against?

Except there is a recourse, one that travels at 5,000m/s and ends in a couple of megatons. And you can't stop it happening.

I mean, of course it cant? Like... Of course?

We own the fucking ocean, guy, every navy on the planet combined is a joke compared to ours. Come back when the Russians stop accidentally sinking their own fucking ships. Or docks, for that matter.

You own the ocean right up until someone puts an SSGN nuke tipped cruise missile into your carrier.

You might have missed it but nukes level the game. The Russian fleet wasn't about matching the USN ship for ship, ton for ton. The USN expected to lose all its carrier groups to tac nukes within days. Its why NATO never bothered building 50,000 tanks and conscripting it's whole population to match Soviet Shock Armies, the plan was to just nuke them.

You seem caught up in this idea that conventional military power decides everything. This isn't 1939, the entire reason Europe has such a small military is because of the mighty atom. Nukes make the entire game pointless. Doesn't matter if your military is a million men and the bomb, or one guy and the bomb. Same result.

 

[GoldRanger]

Oh I see, you fought valiantly so Russia could keep giving you the finger? So that the French could ignore you for decades? It was all some sort of master plan! Well now I'm just in awe, good work...?
I'm sure all those people living under US installed or backed dictatorships who got thrown from helicopters are thrilled. Truly fighting for their freedom in all those little countries.

let me just remind you of what you said, because you seem to be trying hard to avoid it



Its a bold statement and I'm sure it applies to many nations, but not all of them by a long shot. It is peak arrogance and thats the sort of thing that leads to overreach and failure. Like I said, try it on Moscow or Paris.




Except there is a recourse, one that travels at 5,000m/s and ends in a couple of megatons. And you can't stop it happening.





You own the ocean right up until someone puts an SSGN nuke tipped cruise missile into your carrier.

You might have missed it but nukes level the game. The Russian fleet wasn't about matching the USN ship for ship, ton for ton. The USN expected to lose all its carrier groups to tac nukes within days. Its why NATO never bothered building 50,000 tanks and conscripting it's whole population to match Soviet Shock Armies, the plan was to just nuke them.

You seem caught up in this idea that conventional military power decides everything. This isn't 1939, the entire reason Europe has such a small military is because of the mighty atom. Nukes make the entire game pointless. Doesn't matter if your military is a million men and the bomb, or one guy and the bomb. Same result.

You seem to be missing the point.

Assuming the public is fully supportive of the leaders, and America is willing to put its entire might fully and unconditionally to bear behind a war, name the country that can fight the US off without resorting to nuclear weapons? I'll wait.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Oh I see, you fought valiantly so Russia could keep giving you the finger? So that the French could ignore you for decades? It was all some sort of master plan! Well now I'm just in awe, good work...?

Yes, a non american wouldn't understand American ethics. Fighting and dying so that another man might have the liberty to spit in your face later, because a world without that liberty is worse than one where a petty idiot spits in your face. We don't expect you to understand why we built the world you've gotten to enjoy, without making you our slaves, as you would have done to anyone else.

I'm sure all those people living under US installed or backed dictatorships who got thrown from helicopters are thrilled. Truly fighting for their freedom in all those little countries.

Communists aren't people.

Its a bold statement and I'm sure it applies to many nations, but not all of them by a long shot. It is peak arrogance and thats the sort of thing that leads to overreach and failure. Like I said, try it on Moscow or Paris.

If we had to, we would. We've shitkicked the "Muh peer" Chinese military and the fourth largest army on the planet rather effortlessly. France has been a joke for a century, and Russia, as always, talks a big game and fumbles it's own dick off.

Except there is a recourse, one that travels at 5,000m/s and ends in a couple of megatons. And you can't stop it happening.

'What even is missile defense"

Call me when someone, anyone, manages to actually deploy a nuclear weapon successfully outside the US.

You own the ocean right up until someone puts an SSGN nuke tipped cruise missile into your carrier.

Chinese and Russian talk, always talk, every week for the last forty years these dipshits who cant even keep their own lights on have "announced" some stupid wunderwaffle they think is going to render the USN irrelevant. Guess what, we still own the sea.

You seem caught up in this idea that conventional military power decides everything. This isn't 1939, the entire reason Europe has such a small military is because of the mighty atom. Nukes make the entire game pointless. Doesn't matter if your military is a million men and the bomb, or one guy and the bomb. Same result.

The entire reason Europe has such a small military is because they have daddy to cry to if anything goes wrong, that is literally the arrangement, Europe is free of the responsibility of having a military, freeing up trillions of dollars, and in return, Europe rebuilds itself as a good trading partner and bullwark against communism.

Of course, if we'd known the endless, seething depths of Euro-ingratitude, we may as well have not bothered.

 

[Harlock]

You seem to be missing the point.

Assuming the public is fully supportive of the leaders, and America is willing to put its entire might fully and unconditionally to bear behind a war, name the country that can fight the US off without resorting to nuclear weapons? I'll wait.

Well that is rather the point isn't it, nuclear weapons. That immediately removes half a dozen nations from the list which torpedoes the quote referring to any nation. Any nation without nukes.
Though I'd also think there's a fair case for Russia and China due to the sheer size and distances involved and their resources in a conventional sense.

You also qualify the point with 'full support of the people' which was the other point I'd have eventually made. National strength has those three sides, economic, military, political. The main weakness of the US is that political side. That also happens to be its main strength.

Yes, a non american wouldn't understand American ethics. Fighting and dying so that another man might have the liberty to spit in your face later, because a world without that liberty is worse than one where a petty idiot spits in your face. We don't expect you to understand why we built the world you've gotten to enjoy, without making you our slaves, as you would have done to anyone else.

That isn't unique to the US, and don't wrap up this idea America sends its sons to die for the good of all mankind. You didn't liberate Europe from nazism because it was right, you did it because Hitler declared war on you and was becoming a major threat to eliminate.

Find a ladder and step down from the high horse, America made the world to suit itself, to enrich itself and guarantee its own security. Everything else is a side effect for those who helped the US. Woe betide those who didn't right?

Communists aren't people.

And that right there is grade A bullshit. When you make a point like that how am I supposed to take anything else you say as well reasoned debating?

If we had to, we would. We've shitkicked the "Muh peer" Chinese military and the fourth largest army on the planet rather effortlessly. France has been a joke for a century, and Russia, as always, talks a big game and fumbles it's own dick off.

Of course you would, thats why you have nukes too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the US is inferior, far from it, America would glass its enemies if they got uppity. My point is they'd do the same thing to you. Thats not a good thing.

'What even is missile defense"

Call me when someone, anyone, manages to actually deploy a nuclear weapon successfully outside the US.

Your AMB system is experimental, failure prone and designed to beat missiles made in the 70s and 80s. It's weak to countermeasures, decoys and saturation attacks and thats not even counting the new generation of ICBMs specifically designed to beat ABM shields.

Deployment systems have move don since the Enola gay

Chinese and Russian talk, always talk, every week for the last forty years these dipshits who cant even keep their own lights on have "announced" some stupid wunderwaffle they think is going to render the USN irrelevant. Guess what, we still own the sea.

I'd say those nuke torpedoes that they actually have deployed and have been confirmed by the US are pretty good examples of a threat. You can try to deny it but the USN itself didn't expect to survive them in a real war. I'm going to say they know more than you do.

The entire reason Europe has such a small military is because they have daddy to cry to if anything goes wrong, that is literally the arrangement, Europe is free of the responsibility of having a military, freeing up trillions of dollars, and in return, Europe rebuilds itself as a good trading partner and bullwark against communism.

Yes it pretty much is. Not entirely of course as the various Euro Cold War armies were respectably large and funded. But these days, well, who exactly are they going to fight? The only nation able to invade Europe is you

Of course, if we'd known the endless, seething depths of Euro-ingratitude, we may as well have not bothered.

You didn't do it for the gratitude, you did it for the money which is worth a lot more than a Frenchie saying Merci.

 

[Cherico]

Look America is a strong country but it operates under limits like any other one.

yes Sure we could win a fight against most non nuclear armed nations but we also have a strong isolationist streak that you can easily take advantage of. We tend not to do the whole long war thing very well so while beating the US on the battlefield is difficult out lasting it until political will runs out is very doable.

 

[LordsFire]

Well that is rather the point isn't it, nuclear weapons. That immediately removes half a dozen nations from the list which torpedoes the quote referring to any nation. Any nation without nukes.
Though I'd also think there's a fair case for Russia and China due to the sheer size and distances involved and their resources in a conventional sense.

You also qualify the point with 'full support of the people' which was the other point I'd have eventually made. National strength has those three sides, economic, military, political. The main weakness of the US is that political side. That also happens to be its main strength.


That isn't unique to the US, and don't wrap up this idea America sends its sons to die for the good of all mankind. You didn't liberate Europe from nazism because it was right, you did it because Hitler declared war on you and was becoming a major threat to eliminate.

Find a ladder and step down from the high horse, America made the world to suit itself, to enrich itself and guarantee its own security. Everything else is a side effect for those who helped the US. Woe betide those who didn't right?




And that right there is grade A bullshit. When you make a point like that how am I supposed to take anything else you say as well reasoned debating?



Of course you would, thats why you have nukes too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the US is inferior, far from it, America would glass its enemies if they got uppity. My point is they'd do the same thing to you. Thats not a good thing.


Your AMB system is experimental, failure prone and designed to beat missiles made in the 70s and 80s. It's weak to countermeasures, decoys and saturation attacks and thats not even counting the new generation of ICBMs specifically designed to beat ABM shields.

Deployment systems have move don since the Enola gay


I'd say those nuke torpedoes that they actually have deployed and have been confirmed by the US are pretty good examples of a threat. You can try to deny it but the USN itself didn't expect to survive them in a real war. I'm going to say they know more than you do.


Yes it pretty much is. Not entirely of course as the various Euro Cold War armies were respectably large and funded. But these days, well, who exactly are they going to fight? The only nation able to invade Europe is you


You didn't do it for the gratitude, you did it for the money which is worth a lot more than a Frenchie saying Merci.

You know, you're kind of revealing your perspective to be as warped as Shipmaster Sane's.

1. Something like a decade ago, the US ABM shield technology had three layers, and something like 70% intercept rates in tests. Doubtless some of its development budget was cut by Obama (like everything else in the military), but that development didn't stop, and you can bet it's gotten a big chunk more money along with the rest of the military since Trump came into office. The threat of nuclear attacks is taken very seriously, and the DoD is very much determined to remove other nations' ability to inflict that on us.

2. Russia's arsenal is primarily cold-war era hardware. China's arsenal, last I checked, is 80's/90's hardware, and while both may have a few examples of more advanced delivery systems, those two nations have both very sensibly primarily invested in conventional military forces over further nuclear armament, because they know damned well that as long as the US is the World Hegemon, using nukes proactively rather than reactively will get Uncle Sam slapping you down.

3. Actually, yes, the US has many times gotten involved in trying to clean up messes for moral rather than political or economic reasons. Have a look at all the disaster relief and aid work the US miltiary alone does, much less US private charities and foreign aid. Then there's the US getting into things like that mess in Mogadishu, or Bosnia, where there was no meaningful gain available to the US whatsover, aside from moral. That's not to say plenty of our involvements haven't had personal incentives, but that's definitely not the only involvement either. Just because you can't conceive of any kind of international policy that isn't partially benevolent, doesn't mean another nation and culture can't either.

4. Last I checked, no other nation in the world had made a serious attempt at an ABM. Israel might be doing it quietly, and probably would have some success, given their work on defenses against conventional and cruise missiles. But if there was a nuclear exchange across the world, the US would be able to stop an unknown but significant number of missiles, while no other nation would be able to stop a significant number at all.

This all said, Sipmaster Sane's post was still bloody silly and pointless power fantasy. The US trying to off random world leaders would do us more harm than good, and unless we tried for all the major ones at once, after the first couple were taken out, the rest would become massively harder to reach.

 

[Harlock]

You know, you're kind of revealing your perspective to be as warped as Shipmaster Sane's.

1. Something like a decade ago, the US ABM shield technology had three layers, and something like 70% intercept rates in tests. Doubtless some of its development budget was cut by Obama (like everything else in the military), but that development didn't stop, and you can bet it's gotten a big chunk more money along with the rest of the military since Trump came into office. The threat of nuclear attacks is taken very seriously, and the DoD is very much determined to remove other nations' ability to inflict that on us.

2. Russia's arsenal is primarily cold-war era hardware. China's arsenal, last I checked, is 80's/90's hardware, and while both may have a few examples of more advanced delivery systems, those two nations have both very sensibly primarily invested in conventional military forces over further nuclear armament, because they know damned well that as long as the US is the World Hegemon, using nukes proactively rather than reactively will get Uncle Sam slapping you down.

3. Actually, yes, the US has many times gotten involved in trying to clean up messes for moral rather than political or economic reasons. Have a look at all the disaster relief and aid work the US miltiary alone does, much less US private charities and foreign aid. Then there's the US getting into things like that mess in Mogadishu, or Bosnia, where there was no meaningful gain available to the US whatsover, aside from moral. That's not to say plenty of our involvements haven't had personal incentives, but that's definitely not the only involvement either. Just because you can't conceive of any kind of international policy that isn't partially benevolent, doesn't mean another nation and culture can't either.

4. Last I checked, no other nation in the world had made a serious attempt at an ABM. Israel might be doing it quietly, and probably would have some success, given their work on defenses against conventional and cruise missiles. But if there was a nuclear exchange across the world, the US would be able to stop an unknown but significant number of missiles, while no other nation would be able to stop a significant number at all.

This all said, Sipmaster Sane's post was still bloody silly and pointless power fantasy. The US trying to off random world leaders would do us more harm than good, and unless we tried for all the major ones at once, after the first couple were taken out, the rest would become massively harder to reach.

I suppose it depends how you define ABM then, if its just a missile that can intercept a ballistic missile most of the big players have them. Europe does, Japan does, Russia, China, arguably India. But these all tend to be fairly short ranged. The Soviets had an ABM that used a nuke to destroy incoming projectiles, pretty sure the US had similar in the 60s.

But I would suggest most people when defining it will point to the large interceptor missiles designed to catch an ICBM which is quite a bit more complex. For one thing an ICBM has decoys, and the newer Russian ones which are new in service last year have some limited course correction which really messes up interception calculations. They are also about twice as fast as old school ICBMs which again is a major issue.

The system has a 55% success rate against targets, I would say that isn't something I'd put my faith in. I suppose you also have to factor in travel and launch times, catching an ICBM fired over the pole from Siberia is one thing, catching an SLBM fired from just off the coast is another.

I suppose in time it will get better, though you have to factor in your enemy upgrading too. You could spam them of course, but the cost there is prohibitive. It's definitely not an ideal situation to be in and not at the point I'd call it effective in a nuclear war.

For the moral aspects of war, well I'd say there is a difference between peacekeeping and war fighting, and there is plenty to gain from enforcing stability in those nations. But I will hasten to point out that I do think most individuals go to battle for the right reasons, I just don't particularly think governments as entities do.
Not a critique, a naton fights for its own interests and every country has since there were countries. Just real politik

 

[lloyd007]

And here's, in my best guess, the biggest reason why Iran has seemingly stood down so quickly.

82 were Iranian, 63 were Canadian and 11 were Ukranian.

This and the funeral crush that has left another 56 Iranians dead.

It's one thing to be seen as brutal, the Iranian government has both been fine with and encouraged that view basically since its inception, but its another thing to be seen as incompetent. And putting your air defense forces on full alert while letting civilian planes take off at the same time is exactly that. And even though Justin 'Falls Down Stairs Alot' Trudeau probably isn't going to do anything more than be his usual mealy mouthed insipid leftist self, at least Canadians will be reminded of this every time he goes to bat for the Ayatollah.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The level of fuckup here is compounded by the fact that airplane was not entering the AD zone (most common cause of such fuckups) but was taking off from one of the main airports in the country, the AD crew and their superiors should be acquainted with takeoff/landing corridors and thus attack orders should have been countermanded, unless everyone in the chain of command was suffering from mass hysteria, which quite possibly they did.

BTW, here is a story of one near shootdown of an airliner.
One of the side effects of invasion of Czehoslovakia in 1968 was temporary cooling down of relations between Yugoslavia and USSR. So Soviet air force started testing Yugoslav air force response. Thus one day at dusk several squadrons of Soviet jets are flying towards various points at Yugoslav-Hungarian border and Yugoslav fighters from Batajnica and Željava air bases are scrambled. Soviet jets turn at border but one continues on it's path and pair from Željava is vectored to intercept it. It's dark and they get into position to fire and get weapons free command, then the flight leader calls the control that he sees light coming out of side windows. Command fears plane might be carrying out Spetnaz drop, but tell the pilot to wait for their confirmation. They call civilian flight control and wouldn't you know, there is a Swedish airliner in right this quadrant at the exact height their intruder is flying. One Soviet squadron just happened to fly on the same vector towards border and pressure did the rest. The involved are convinced the Soviets did it on purpose, but the people in plane survived because pilot was level headed and the commanding officer on the ground followed protocol instead of rushing the decision.