Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:14 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,046
Lot less fun speculating about a war, when you are literally next door, rather than two continents away.

Still, I think the chances of war are pretty high. Trump has basically pushed the Iranians into a situation from where there rapidly are becoming only two options, surrender or take chances with war.
History rarely has people choosing option "A". But, you never force an adversary into option "B", unless you are ready and prepared for war and the U.S manifestly isn't.
  #102  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
What do you think Iranian "surrender" would look like and why isn't that an option for them?
  #103  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Also, why do you think "the U.S manifestly isn't" "ready and prepared for war"?
  #104  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:37 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stainless Steel Rat View Post
To continue, Iran has a population of 80 Million; how many troops do you need to pacify that big a country, one that will (despite the economy and unpopularity of the clergy) unite to throw out the 'oppressor' (that'll be us). It would take a sizable percentage of the entire US Army to take and hold Iran, and it would make the bleeding in Iraq look like a kiddie party.

So no, I don't thing we (or the Israelies) are likely to put 'boots on the ground' in Iran. But bombings and sinkings of Iranian warships...oh yeah, I can see that happening anytime now. The bet in Washington is that Iran would fold rather than raise the stakes...but that's a bet I think we would be foolish to make.

IMHO as always...YMMV.
There's zero practical reason for U.S. troops in Iran; that would be a quagmire that would utterly dwarf the Iraq debacle. Just bomb and strike from above and afar.


For clarification, I don't want a war with Iran, but if there has to be one, using ground troops would be the most colossally wrong way to do it.
  #105  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:52 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Lot less fun speculating about a war, when you are literally next door, rather than two continents away.
.
Don't mistake exhausted gallows humor for "fun", I'm horrified and ashamed of what my government is doing.

Tom Cotton was on some news show where a reporter asked him if we'd win in a war with Iran. Cotton stopped short of holding a ruler to his dick, but just barely. Once again our news media is largely gaming out a possible war instead of beating up officials over the fact that no justification for armed conflict has been put forth.

To respond to SSR, I admit ignorance of the logistics. I was using "war" to cover anything from a sustained aerial campaign to boots on the ground. I suspect that we will be told, as we were in 2003, that we can do this war with few troops, Iranian oil revenue will offset the costs, and we'll be greeted as liberators. Then we'll blow the fuck out of everything, piss away untold trillions of dollars, get into bed with charlatans and marginal figures, and blame the Iranians for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 05-15-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #106  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:57 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Lot less fun speculating about a war, when you are literally next door, rather than two continents away.
Tell me about it.

Personally, though, I don't think Israel will start a war. Bibi Netanyahu is terminally adverse to any sort of risky action; besides, he likes keeping Iran around as a threat. It gets him reelected.

With Trump, though, who the hell knows?
  #107  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:12 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
I don't even know which thread to post this in. I hope this one will do:

Quote:
Iranian Revolutionary Guard spokesman states "We are on the threshold of a comprehensive confrontation with the enemy"
https://mobile.twitter.com/IntelDoge...29083343462400
  #108  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:31 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you think Iranian "surrender" would look like and why isn't that an option for them?
Accepting US demands as are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Also, why do you think "the U.S manifestly isn't" "ready and prepared for war"?

Lets see, a very recent history in the region of the failure of the US Army to enforce the national will on two small countries.
Wars are not aboit dick measuring, or who is more badass. They are entered with a certain objective in mind. Achieving those objectives requires capabilities and political will to obtain their use. The US clearly does not have the military capability to compel Iranian acquiescence to US regional policies, without taking actions which would be politically unfeasible.
Its the Powell doctrine. If its "what is militarily necessary, is politically impossible, you have lost and get out"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There's zero practical reason for U.S. troops in Iran; that would be a quagmire that would utterly dwarf the Iraq debacle. Just bomb and strike from above and afar.


For clarification, I don't want a war with Iran, but if there has to be one, using ground troops would be the most colossally wrong way to do it.
And accomplish, jackshit. And get retaliation all over the region, both through conventional and indirect means. Make Lockerbie look like a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Tell me about it.

Personally, though, I don't think Israel will start a war. Bibi Netanyahu is terminally adverse to any sort of risky action; besides, he likes keeping Iran around as a threat. It gets him reelected.

With Trump, though, who the hell knows?
Thats the problem. He (like his pal Modi) is a phenomenally weak man and weak men will do stupid things. I never expected Modi to actually try air attacks. Yet I spent Feb and March being kepth awake at night by fighters on CAP.
We were extremely lucky to avoid a general war. Don't want you guys to need that luck.
  #109  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:34 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,806
Golly, I wonder what the recently designated by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization Revolutionary Guard spokesman might be reacting to.
  #110  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:52 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't even know which thread to post this in. I hope this one will do:



https://mobile.twitter.com/IntelDoge...29083343462400

Its fucking boilerplate. They **are** on alert. They no doubt are at a much heightened state of readiness and preparation.
Its like the US military saying "maximum readiness".
  #111  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:15 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you think Iranian "surrender" would look like and why isn't that an option for them?
I think the Iranians have a great deal of pride. Their idea of surrender may consist of killing as many as they can before they go down.
  #112  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:51 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Tell me about it.

Personally, though, I don't think Israel will start a war. Bibi Netanyahu is terminally adverse to any sort of risky action; besides, he likes keeping Iran around as a threat. It gets him reelected.

With Trump, though, who the hell knows?
Then, in your opinion, you don't believe the 2015 story in Al Jarida that allegedly, Netanyahu advocated for and asked the IAF to plan a set of airstrikes on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities? The strike that got cancelled when, again, allegedly, the United States informed Israel that military aircraft intruding within either Iraqi or Saudi airspace would be shot down? As IAF aircraft would need to transit either of those countries to reach targets in Iran, that pretty much ended any air strike thoughts.

I thought it far fetched too, as well as stretching Israel's conventional strike capabilities to the limit, but I couldn't dismiss the story out of hand. Ironically, if you assume somewhat rational behavior on the part of Iranian command and control, Israel is not the entity that needs to worry the most about a Shiite bomb, it's the various Sunni-controlled nations in the area. Israel has an unstoppable counter value deterrent to Iranian action, with its Dolphin submarines and nuclear armed stealthy cruise missiles. The Gulf nations, AFAIK, don't.

I still can't see the point in many of the alleged Iranian actions. Now we're supposed to believe that forward basing of tactical ballistic missiles in Basra is likely? Missiles there can't hit anything that Iranian based missiles couldn't. As far as deniability, we're supposed to believe that, in the hypothetical event of a strike against US bases with large numbers of missiles launched from Basra, that the US would accept that the strike was the work of Iraqi based Shia militants, and not from the IRGC? To quote something I read elsewhere, "the US is just supposed to think these guys built multi stage solid rocket motored missiles in their garage like they had Tony Stark working for them"

It's ridiculous on its face.

Exxon is evacuating its production personnel from the Basra area, FWIW.
  #113  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Netherlands and Germany are apparently pulling their people out of Iraq too.
  #114  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:03 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,046
Yeah, I doubt the Iranians lose much sleep over the Dolphin class.
It needs to transit narrow waters to reach Iranian targets. Needing to surface twice.
The IAF is a much more potent threat to them.
  #115  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:12 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Yeah, I doubt the Iranians lose much sleep over the Dolphin class.
It needs to transit narrow waters to reach Iranian targets. Needing to surface twice.
The IAF is a much more potent threat to them.
Nope. With the missiles the US has hard data for, because the USN watched the test, the range of those missiles is at least 900 miles. They can kill Tehran from dockside in Haifa. 35 years ago, the US deployed BGM-109A or TLAM-N. Same type of missile, nuclear armed, subsonic, with high accuracy. It had at least a 1500 mile range. We're assuming the Israelis couldn't have come up with something similar in 35 years? (IIRC, TLAM with that range was prohibited from being sold to Israel)

Make the range 1500 miles, like the 109A, and they can hit practically everything in Iran, from the Eastern Med. No Suez transit or Eliat basing required.
  #116  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Quote:
#Iraq Travel Advisory: Level 4-Do not travel due to terrorism, kidnapping, and armed conflict. USG ability to provide services is extremely limited. On May 15, 2019, the Dept of State ordered departure of non-emergency USG employees from Baghdad and Erbil.
Twitter @TravelGov

I still don't know if anything will happen, but people do seem to be clearing the area, a bit like an old Western showdown on Main Street at noon, between two twitchy gunfighters.
  #117  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:06 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,806
Uncle Sam is standing there alone.
  #118  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:15 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Also, why do you think "the U.S manifestly isn't" "ready and prepared for war"?
If all the US wants to do is bomb a bunch of military sites and call it a day, we're prepared for that. Trump seems to be a good student of Bill Clinton's "wag the dog" school of military strategy in this way.

Prior to Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 there was a massive logistical/personnel buildup that was extensively reported by the media. We haven't seen that happen yet, and and effort like that would be too large to hide even before internet days.
  #119  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:48 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
If all the US wants to do is bomb a bunch of military sites and call it a day, we're prepared for that. Trump seems to be a good student of Bill Clinton's "wag the dog" school of military strategy in this way.

Prior to Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 there was a massive logistical/personnel buildup that was extensively reported by the media. We haven't seen that happen yet, and and effort like that would be too large to hide even before internet days.
Another way to perhaps more easily keep track of a buildup like that, since, as you note, the media hates keeping track of trucks and supply ships, is to keep track of where the US's various carriers are. 1 CVN and 1 LHD, whether it can carry a meaningful amount of F-35s or not, is nothing compared to what was used for Desert Storm (6 carriers), OEF (initially two carriers, then a third, with six used in all), and so on.

Also, see if any of the tactical fighter wings are being deployed to KSA or Al Udeid, as they were for Desert Storm and OIF.

To me, there doesn't seem to be enough materiel yet, in theatre, to conduct the kind of airstrikes against Iran that would result in materially degrading their WMD production capabilities. Even with the proliferation of land attack cruise missiles on surface combatants or with utilizing long range strategic bombers.

Sortie the three carriers that, AIUI, the US can meaningfully sortie at any one time, what with training requirements, overhauls and the like, along with some Gator Navy platforms to carry F35s, and I'll think that something really serious, with regime toppling as the intention, is about to happen. Still more than enough present now though to sink most of the small craft the IRGC can rush into or near the Straits, as well as attrit installations near the Straits. A la Praying Mantis, as was mentioned above.

All bets are off if the IRGC or IRIN get really lucky, and manage to kill the Lincoln, or break a lot of things in Balad or Al Udeid or other places where lots of Americans are. Total KIA casualties in OEF/OIF have been ~5300. Killing the Lincoln can duplicate that in an afternoon.
  #120  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:54 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
All bets are off if the IRGC or IRIN get really lucky, and manage to kill the Lincoln, or break a lot of things in Balad or Al Udeid or other places where lots of Americans are. Total KIA casualties in OEF/OIF have been ~5300. Killing the Lincoln can duplicate that in an afternoon.
Agreed. The US has never seen an aircraft carrier sunk, and I feel like it's way too cavalier about the possibility of this happening. I would put not-distant odds on a carrier being heavily damaged or sunk. Not sure if the US has seriously faced off against a country that has invested a good deal in anti-ship missiles. 1/5 odds on the Lincoln anyone?
  #121  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:27 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,666
Sure glad my kid isn't in the navy anymore. It's going to be awful if this doesn't cool off.
  #122  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:43 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Sure glad my kid isn't in the navy anymore. It's going to be awful if this doesn't cool off.
Iraq lasted what, 8 years... Afghanistan is 18 years and counting. If Iran goes anything like that, my 9-year-old twins may be of enlistment/conscription age because of Trump's idiotic foreign policy and his deranged supporters. Just another log to throw on the fire of my seething rage for him. But hey, nowadays that's just another Wednesday.
  #123  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:45 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Agreed. The US has never seen an aircraft carrier sunk, and I feel like it's way too cavalier about the possibility of this happening. I would put not-distant odds on a carrier being heavily damaged or sunk. Not sure if the US has seriously faced off against a country that has invested a good deal in anti-ship missiles. 1/5 odds on the Lincoln anyone?
Not since, IIRC, Hornet in October 1942. Worse damage control, and luck, and maybe Forrestal gets added to that tally. Ships were smaller then. I think Hornet had less than 2500 men aboard her, counting the aviators. Now, per the Wiki for CVN-72, it's close to 5500. Never mind the mess her reactors might cause from battle damage.

The modern carrier battle group has a lot of things protecting it, and IIRC, an enemy is doing well if they can nail it down to a given 100 by 100 nm patch of ocean, but everybody thought capital ships were largely invulnerable to air attack too in the open ocean, and then came Prince of Wales and Repulse. A lot of the SPY vs spy schtick with ECM/ECCM and accompanying SSMs, I don't think has been tested for real. Things have progressed on both attack and defense since Sheffield got sunk by that Exocet in 1982. AEGIS, provided everything is working (see Fitzgerald collision report) is supposed to be death on flying things. Yakhont is pretty scary compared to Exocet.

I couldn't guess at the odds, but I think they're a lot better for Lincoln in the open environs of the Arabian Sea, than trying to operate in the Persian Gulf. I do think the American public would be horrified at 5000 military dead, but I also think they'd really be split about what to do next.
  #124  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stainless Steel Rat View Post
To continue, Iran has a population of 80 Million; how many troops do you need to pacify that big a country, one that will (despite the economy and unpopularity of the clergy) unite to throw out the 'oppressor' (that'll be us). It would take a sizable percentage of the entire US Army to take and hold Iran, and it would make the bleeding in Iraq look like a kiddie party.

So no, I don't thing we (or the Israelies) are likely to put 'boots on the ground' in Iran. But bombings and sinkings of Iranian warships...oh yeah, I can see that happening anytime now. The bet in Washington is that Iran would fold rather than raise the stakes...but that's a bet I think we would be foolish to make.

IMHO as always...YMMV.
This administration is not at all about dropping massive amounts of ordnance, including nuclear weapons, on Iran.
  #125  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
To me, there doesn't seem to be enough materiel yet, in theatre, to conduct the kind of airstrikes against Iran that would result in materially degrading their WMD production capabilities. Even with the proliferation of land attack cruise missiles on surface combatants or with utilizing long range strategic bombers.
If we start a build-up in the region, then it's on. They're not going to send 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf and not use them.
  #126  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:35 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If we start a build-up in the region, then it's on. They're not going to send 200,000 troops to the Persian Gulf and not use them.
I'm not talking about a troop build up. Even 120,000 will not be enough to pacify Iran. Though it likely could defeat the Iranian military, especially if the ROE was lax concerning collateral damage. I doubt that even the 120k soldier figure being floated around, has any where near enough supplies pre-positioned already. Just people talking out of their tears, as usual. Heck, as I am.

I'm saying they don't have enough stuff there yet to blow up the things the US would likely want blown up. Like how the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia went. They probably do have enough to trash the ports the IRGC small craft operate from, as well as smash a few high value targets. Like Praying Mantis, which went on for quite awhile. Cruise missile diplomacy is also an option.

Be nice if everyone could stop it with the threats already.
  #127  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:44 PM
The Stainless Steel Rat's Avatar
The Stainless Steel Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close to the Saturn V
Posts: 10,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This administration is not at all about dropping massive amounts of ordnance, including nuclear weapons, on Iran.
Do you have more thoughts on this, or is your tongue firmly planted in your cheek?
  #128  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:55 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,125
Is there a good news source for tracking developments in this crisis?

Any speculations on who is mounting attacks? Iran would have no motive, just the opposite, I think. ISTM the attacker is likely to either be a terrorist group (Isis?) or a power trying to provoke war if the attacks are misattributed to Iran. What secret services are powerful enough to mount such attacks in a way that their involvement is undetectable? Russia? Israel? Saudis? All three countries have malignant governments now; which would have the biggest motive?

Last edited by septimus; 05-15-2019 at 09:56 PM.
  #129  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:08 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This administration is not at all about dropping massive amounts of ordnance, including nuclear weapons, on Iran.
I assume 'about' was intended as 'above,' right?

I just wonder if this was done by an AutoSpeller ... or if I have company with my peculiar typing aphasia.
  #130  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:31 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Is there a good news source for tracking developments in this crisis?

Any speculations on who is mounting attacks? Iran would have no motive, just the opposite, I think. ISTM the attacker is likely to either be a terrorist group (Isis?) or a power trying to provoke war if the attacks are misattributed to Iran. What secret services are powerful enough to mount such attacks in a way that their involvement is undetectable? Russia? Israel? Saudis? All three countries have malignant governments now; which would have the biggest motive?
May be a bit far-fetched, but if I were to go full conspiracy theorist I'd guess China. China has a vested interest in extending the United States' "war allergy" by another decade or two (the deep aversion to war left by the bitter experience of Afghanistan and Iraq.) A quagmire in the Middle East would give China a decade or two of freedom to do things in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the South China Sea without fear of U.S. interference.

By extension, Russia could also benefit as well; giving the U.S. a war allergy could prevent U.S. intervention on NATO's behalf.
  #131  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:39 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
[...] I don't think the attacks were false; I'm not sure what to think other than the US can ill afford an overt shooting and terror war with Iran. Bad enough, all of the US servicemen that Iranian ordnance killed during OIF.
You're referring to the Optical Internetworking Forum, right? Maybe something else? If it's not the OIF please spell it out. Thanks!
  #132  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:08 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
You're referring to the Optical Internetworking Forum, right? Maybe something else? If it's not the OIF please spell it out. Thanks!
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the occupation of Iraq. Many, if not most of the deadlier pieces of Improvised Explosive Devices, such as Explosively Formed (Forged) Projectiles, were supplied by Iran, along with training by Iranian personnel, like their Qods Force. A lot of Americans died because of those.
  #133  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I assume 'about' was intended as 'above,' right?

I just wonder if this was done by an AutoSpeller ... or if I have company with my peculiar typing aphasia.
Yeah, meant 'above'.
  #134  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:28 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I tend to believe that if Trump can "own" his opponents without actually going to war with them, he would. I don't think Trump really likes the idea of having to deal with hundreds or even thousands of deaths and dead servicemen/women on his watch.

It's Bolton we should worry about. Remember, George W Bush himself wasn't even the biggest proponent of going to war with Saddam Hussein; he had to be pushed into it by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others. I believe he was leaning in that direction, but actually viewing Iraq as a post 9/11 opportunity remake the Middle East in America's image was something that had been conceived even before Bush took office. Bolton was absolutely cut from that same cloth, and like Dick Cheney, he has absolutely no problem lying his ass off and manipulating what the president perceives in order to create a crisis.

My sense is that Bolton views Iran as an opportunity not only to eliminate Iran, but also as an opportunity to re-do Iraq, particularly since it would remove the foreign influence there. What's disturbing, however, is that the American media simply isn't doing its job. It's like the media has become completely impotent and irrelevant in terms of acting as a check on governmental abuses of power. We could stumble into wars with Iran and North Korea, and I don't think anyone has seriously forced the administration to explain why that would even be necessary. We just accept that they're dangerous 'furrin countries n stuff'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.7fb3c9746437

This could be one of those "plant" stories to find out who their leakers are, but if this is accurate, then this WaPo report would seem consistent with what I've felt, which is that Trump isn't nearly as keen to actually get it on as he is to talk tough. He loves his moments of "fire and fury", he likes having his generals around, but he doesn't want to be blamed for a military disaster. Even he knows he would never be forgiven for an embarrassing military failure.
  #135  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:04 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Even he knows he would never be forgiven for an embarrassing military failure.
It's always risky to make assumption that Trump knows things.

Also - we've been over this time and time again - it's risky to presume knowledge of what colossal missteps would make Trump's base abandon him. Iran turns into a bloodbath? It's because the libs wouldn't be good sports and drop the pesky Mueller business.
  #136  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
This was somewhat interesting news:

Daily Mail - EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Air Force has deployed 20 missiles that could zap the military electronics of North Korea or Iran with super powerful microwaves, rendering their military capabilities virtually useless with NO COLLATERAL DAMAGE

Quote:
The microwave weapons are fitted into an air-launched cruise missile and delivered from B-52 bombers.
That might explain the deployment of B-52s.
  #137  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:59 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,830
I wonder how big the missile is? It took B-52s or similar to carry the old CALCM or AGM-129 but something not that much smaller like JASSM-ER is capable of being carried by smaller aircraft like F-15Es. I think the F-35 can carry it, but not internally. I think.

Interesting that they're able to generate such a strong microwave burst. I'm guessing some type of explosively-generated induced current?
  #138  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:29 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This was somewhat interesting news:
Daily Mail - EXCLUSIVE
The word "news" is working well above its pay grade here.
  #139  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:52 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... Trump isn't nearly as keen to actually get it on as he is to talk tough. He loves his moments of "fire and fury", he likes having his generals around, but he doesn't want to be blamed for a military disaster. Even he knows he would never be forgiven for an embarrassing military failure.
Yes, but the war-mongers will play him like an accordion, backing him into a corner where he feels compelled to act, probably with violent excess. The one certainty is that Trump will not conduct his foreign policy with any clear purpose or intelligence.
  #140  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:58 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes, but the war-mongers will play him like an accordion, backing him into a corner where he feels compelled to act, probably with violent excess. The one certainty is that Trump will not conduct his foreign policy with any clear purpose or intelligence.
This right here. We can be sure Trump will choose whatever action he thinks will preserve his sorry ass. But whether he's capable of weighing such actions on a complex international stage where simply bribing people won't cut it... that's an entirely untested matter. So far it doesn't look promising.
  #141  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
I wonder how big the missile is? It took B-52s or similar to carry the old CALCM or AGM-129 but something not that much smaller like JASSM-ER is capable of being carried by smaller aircraft like F-15Es. I think the F-35 can carry it, but not internally. I think.
I remember reading that they hoped to put it on JASSM-ER, but I don't know if they ever did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Interesting that they're able to generate such a strong microwave burst. I'm guessing some type of explosively-generated induced current?
I've read several different possibilities: chemical explosion, something with a vacuum tube, or an AESA. I don't know what it actually is.
  #142  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Here's a round-up of goings-on and rumors on the Iranian front. First up, Reuters reports the insurance company thinks the ships were sabotaged by the IRGC:

Second, some ominous saber-rattling from Iran:

Third, the IDF may have struck IRGC targets in Syria:

The Syrian IADS appears to have responded:

And apparently the Russians have already forgotten just how dangerous that can be, at least for Syria's allies:

  #143  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:18 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,042
Time for F-22 to get first air-to-air kills....
  #144  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Time for F-22 to get first air-to-air kills....
Or the JSF. I think I heard that the F-22s rotated out and were replaced by F-35s.
  #145  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:49 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,842
US officials have issued a warning to commercial airlines to stay away from the Persian Gulf to avoid the risk of being "misidentified". So I guess if we pull another Vincennes we can say, "Hey, we warned you! It's your fault!"

Also, in a rare display of concern for human life, ExxonMobil has begun evacuating its staff from Basra.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...f-iran-1331724
  #146  
Old Yesterday, 05:40 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,842
The Pentagon is preparing a plan to send 10,000 more troops to the Middle East. Officials say this is still in the proposal stage, and no decisions have been made.

https://apnews.com/a770998e42de4ed98...ign=SocialFlow
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017