Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[AGRA]

Algeria also has two Project 877EKM Kilos, and Romania has 1 inoperational; but in any case any submarine not destroyed/captured or disabled should be treated very seriously, especially when armed with ASMs.

No they shouldn't. A submarine is not just for Christmas it’s for life. And if you never use it, have no idea how to use, and do not have the special 'value adds' that make it combat effective, then its just a big hump of steel.

To provide an analogy that civilians might understand:

If you go and buy a very fast sports car, and you get your mates together as a 'team'. Do you then think you can enter a professional stock car racing circuit competition and be competitive? Say NASCAR in the USA or V8 Supercars in Australia? You may have a vehicle similar to the likes of Criag Lowndes or Martin Truex, Jr. and you may be a pretty good driver. But are you and your group of mates anywhere in the league of the professionals or as well equipped as they are? I would suspect you would come last in every race if you were lucky enough to survive.

Iran has a very long way to go before than can even meet basic qualifications for being a submarine service. Then they would be up against the best in the world.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It was hilarious. My view stopped right as the Buk was shooting down a Hornet. Which was kind of funny because of all the systems shown, S-300, S-300V and Buk, none are in Iranian service. They just took delivery of some Tors so maybe the rest of the video has these guys?

It was pretty funny. Did you notice that the missile the Hornet fired was an R27, which for those who dont know is a russian built BVRAAM, which it fired at a radar??? nfloorl: Classic....

Somehow i dont think the graphic was originally designed to show how a war with iran would supposadly play out, as you noted only one of these systems are in iranian service. To me it looks like a graphic created to illistrate how various russian missile systems are intended to operate, and in laymans terms outline their capability. Did you notice the sovmerney and kuzentsov? I dont think this cartoon has anything to do with iran, and some 'anti american' kid has labled it war with iran and put it on youtube.

However the whole thing was complete crap, typical platform centric world view point put about by the amateurs like Air Power Australia and vendors of Russian weapons. S-300V shooting down AWACS was particularly hilarious. But all those little red and blue lines shown connecting the systems are meant to operate without opposition interference? And is an AWACS really going to fly into the S-300V's no escape zone? The curvature of the earth people?

LOL, you've been back a few days mate and you hadn't mentioned those boogey men from APA, I had hopes you might have got over your little crusade, guess not huh?

Your minimizeing the effect of counter ISR weapons and general, and the S300 PMU's counter ISR capability in particular. Your right the chances of one of these ground based systems hitting an AEW&C platform are pretty minimal. The opposing force would have to be dumb enough to keep their ISR platform in the NEZ and any ECM used would have to be ineffective. However just haveing the threat there significantly reduces the survailance footprint of an AEW&C platform because you have to keep it out of the threat envilope. This is really significant for JSTARS type platforms that are servierely limited by the radar horizon because they are looking at things on the ground.

Now i know those out there who arnt happy with american military dominance will grab onto this capability and call it the end of AEW&C! Well i'm sorry guys, a single system inst going to achieve that. One or two S300's wouldn't stand a chance against the combined SEAD and DEAD capability of the USAF. Asyemetric encounters are called asymetric for a reason. But in a more symetrical encounter, WARPAC v NATO (what this system was designed for) or two client states with similar levels of capability the counter ISR capability of this system could be very usefull.

Well one shouldn’t complain. The tin pot dictators of the world can go about buying these systems and thinking this gives them a defence capability, one that is purely illusory. The funds can go into Russia to help grow their economy which Ruble by Ruble propels them closer to their natural partnership with the ‘western’ states of Europe, North America et al.

Say what???:unknown

 

[Firehorse]

No they shouldn't. A submarine is not just for Christmas it’s for life. And if you never use it, have no idea how to use, and do not have the special 'value adds' that make it combat effective, then its just a big hump of steel.
Iran has a very long way to go before than can even meet basic qualifications for being a submarine service. Then they would be up against the best in the world.

Well, we disagree on this. Never underestimate an adversary! All you have to do is open up with ASMs & get a lucky shot, not to mention the planting of mines!

 

[shimmy]

Iran?

Perhaps I am very wrong , but I think Iran is no large -scale military threat to the US /Allied forces in Iraq or the Gulf. I think that most of the threats from Iran are very much exaggerated. I think Iran ultimately has nothing but a lot of crazy people who yell and scream but really have nothing but a lot of bodies.
I greatly doubt that Iran can really build a deliverable nuclear bomb-they lack the technology now and I feel they can be stoppped from getting the technology in the future.
I also feel that the majority of the Iranian people want no part of being a major military force.

 

[Chrom]

Perhaps I am very wrong , but I think Iran is no large -scale military threat to the US /Allied forces in Iraq or the Gulf. I think that most of the threats from Iran are very much exaggerated.

That is true.

I think Iran ultimately has nothing but a lot of crazy people who yell and scream but really have nothing but a lot of bodies.

That is false - iranian peoples are just as any other peoples. They are no more crazy than USA ones, and scream about as much.

I greatly doubt that Iran can really build a deliverable nuclear bomb-they lack the technology now and I feel they can be stoppped from getting the technology in the future.

Sure, they cant build A-bomb in the next 5 years. Sure, they can be stopped. However, they certainly have potencial to build it in the future.

I also feel that the majority of the Iranian people want no part of being a major military force.

Sure, they want it no more than EU ones. But iranian peoples also dont want Iran to become lapdog for USA (or any other country) interests. To prevent that they may even accept army service (and how it is different from USA citizens?).

 

[cheetah]

Oil prices will 100% certainly rise to 90$ in the next 2 years and short term may be even 100$. This is NOT including any inflation american $ might suffer. So actual prices in $ might be even higher. They will not be lower than 80$ no matter what - BRIC increase oil consumtion every 3 years more than whole Iraq production.

Price will not be higher than 90$ - 100$ long term becouse at that point it is economicaly viable to use solar, wind, etc. energy sources, and also economicaly viable to extract oil from oil sands and other hard-to-extract places.

As for iranian military... i'm sure Iran cant do much against USA / NATO. Iraqi - style insurgency is of course ensured (in fact, i think iranian resistance will be order of magnitude stronger...), but by very definition of "insurgency" this will occur only after iranian regular army will be defeated and iranian goverment fallen.

You No this is exactly what they said when entering Iraq.That iraqis cant do nothing to usa and we will be in and out in no time that was said after 10years of bombing and sanctions.yet here we are and walk in the park is far from over.
And now people are claiming the same for iran.there is a saying one that dont learn from there past mistakes tend to repeat them.
except in case or iraq most people in iraqi army didnt care for saddam so there werent 2 many that wanted to fight to protect him or his family.iran is a totally different ball game.
iran produces 4million brl oil/day take that out of world markets $90/brl will look like a bargain.i love how some here draw this picture that no big deal it will be over in couple of days and people will go on living happily ever after what is this disney land.

 

[Chrom]

You No this is exactly what they said when entering Iraq.That iraqis cant do nothing to usa and we will be in and out in no time that was said after 10years of bombing and sanctions.yet here we are and walk in the park is far from over.
And now people are claiming the same for iran.there is a saying one that dont learn from there past mistakes tend to repeat them.
except in case or iraq most people in iraqi army didnt care for saddam so there werent 2 many that wanted to fight to protect him or his family.iran is a totally different ball game.
iran produces 4million brl oil/day take that out of world markets $90/brl will look like a bargain.i love how some here draw this picture that no big deal it will be over in couple of days and people will go on living happily ever after what is this disney land.

Please, PLEASE, read what i wrote. Exactly same thing. USA generals were right. Iraqi army was nothing more than short-term distraction. Iranian army will perform exactly as well. Insurgency is something completely different.

USA politicans lied about Iraq situation and iraqians readness to accept USA occupation. Exactly as much as they lie about iranian peoples not supporting iranian president.

Oil prices will not rise higher than 100$ and i already said why. There are lot of alternatives to oil what become viable past 100$ mark. Plus, of course, reduced consumtion in case of increased oil prices.

 

[Chrom]

Come on, current centers of power in Iran came into being with a very clear agenda, and a part of that agenda was anti-USA (well the blame is on the USA in my opinion), nothing has changed.

In the immediate neighborhood a Iranian nuclear test will make things very complex, you will have Israel openly declaring itself nuclear, the resulting situation will see very tense relations in the whole region, Iran might encourage more Insurgent activities targeting Israel, if they feel they have a credible nuclear deterrence, there will be an uneasy peace in another region that has a resource very important to all.

Even if Iran engages in nuclear tests, how much time will it take to mass produce the warheads close to anything that is a deterrence?

The USA will have to stop Iran going nuclear, at all costs, no one can deny that the whole region has a direct interest for the USA, they have a military which can protect that interest, if Iran is hell bent on going nuclear(something they always deny) for the USA the only thing to do is to stop them, diplomatically or militarily.

However it is funny to see a primary school blame game on TV sometimes, that does not feature my nation and its neighbors.
US: bad Iran making nuclear bomb ma'm.
Iran: no ma'm, US lying, he is a big bully.

Is there a way to make sure they are not going nuclear? Will Iran cooperate with that method?

A nuclear deterrence gives Iran the power it seeks, a greater say in regional affairs that will eventually lead to a stand off, might have the stand off right now, with out the nuclear question.

As long as USA feel free to attack any country they didnt like, and UN cant do anything about that - other countries will seek the way to nuclear weapon at any cost. Iran will cooperate or not cooperate - but with solely aim to aquire nuclear weapon.

West can delay it, but cant prevent (except occuping Iran of course). Either way, Iran is not the only anti-west country what seek access to nuclear weapon - and West simply cant occupy them all.

 

[funtz]

What west man, you think Israel will sit tight and let things happen?

With a open nuclear deterrence, and no hope of conventional attack Iran can choke them in the region.

Which anti USA nuclear power aspirant is left, that might have the slightest impact on global power/resource equation.
Iraq is gone, Libya is on the non nuclear path.
North Korea is more interested in integration with the world (thanks to the much criticized China, which did a lot to defuse the situation).

As of now through aggressive policy+diplomatic measures from USA, and brotherly advice from China and Russia (good cop, bad cop), Iran can be coxed into cooperation, if it doesn't military option remains open, it will not go so far, no one has a stomach for war.

If Iran is really thinking about going nuclear no matter what any one says, it will have to face Israel or USA, Israel will not leave any thing intact in Iran, as a result Iran will loose most of its oil resources for the next 5 years, be more dependent on China and Russia for rebuilding the petrochemical infrastructure, in turn leaving it a pawn in their hands, Iran has some intelligent people (i hope), they will see all this, if they are able to convince the radicals, there will be peace very soon.

USA and Israel are not hell bent on waisting money on war, in case no one noticed war is a expensive solution, and the excellent thoughts that Iranians have about USA ensures no US oil company can get any where near Iranian oil resources, to eventually pay for the war, they will much rather see Iran under strict nuclear supervision.

 

[Chrom]

What west man, you think Israel will sit tight and let things happen?

With a open nuclear deterrence, and no hope of conventional attack Iran can choke them in the region.

Which anti USA nuclear power aspirant is left, that might have the slightest impact on global power/resource equation.
Iraq is gone, Libya is on the non nuclear path.
North Korea is more interested in integration with the world (thanks to the much criticized China, which did a lot to defuse the situation).

As of now through aggressive policy+diplomatic measures from USA, and brotherly advice from China and Russia (good cop, bad cop), Iran can be coxed into cooperation, if it doesn't military option remains open, it will not go so far, no one has a stomach for war.

If Iran is really thinking about going nuclear no matter what any one says, it will have to face Israel or USA, Israel will not leave any thing intact in Iran, as a result Iran will loose most of its oil resources for the next 5 years, be more dependent on China and Russia for rebuilding the petrochemical infrastructure, in turn leaving it a pawn in their hands, Iran has some intelligent people (i hope), they will see all this, if they are able to convince the radicals, there will be peace very soon.

USA and Israel are not hell bent on waisting money on war, in case no one noticed war is a expensive solution, and the excellent thoughts that Iranians have about USA ensures no US oil company can get any where near Iranian oil resources, to eventually pay for the war, they will much rather see Iran under strict nuclear supervision.

Israel is certainly WEST by all intents and purposes. Iran (and Iraq for that matter) also was NOT anti-West until pretty recent times. POTENCIALLY anti-West contries with nuclear weapon:
1. Pakistan
2. NK
3. Syria
4. Saudi Arabia / Arabia Emirates
5. Venezuela
6. South African Republic
7. Brasil
8. Mexica
9. Vietnam
10. Cuba
11. Some others what either keep low profile in the fear of USA/EU sanctions or not catched (yet) by western propaganda.

 

[eckherl]

Israel is certainly WEST by all intents and purposes. Iran (and Iraq for that matter) also was NOT anti-West until pretty recent times. POTENCIALLY anti-West contries with nuclear weapon:
1. Pakistan
2. NK
3. Syria
4. Saudi Arabia / Arabia Emirates
5. Venezuela
6. South African Republic
7. Brasil
8. Mexica
9. Vietnam
10. Cuba
11. Some others what either keep low profile in the fear of USA/EU sanctions or not catched (yet) by western propaganda.

Mexico and Cuba.nfloorl:

 

[funtz]

Pakistan=already has it, not excatly in global hotbed of resources and aiming for USA.

N-K=no not any more, not interested in following the news are you.

Syria=years away and too close to Israel, no chance of doing anything with out being blown away by Israel as you must have already seen on the TV.

SA/UAE=ha ha ha do not joke, i will die laughing.

Venezuela=where have you getting any information on them.

South Africa=not anti-USA, what possible implications do they have on USA resource security

Brazil, mexio, vietnam=come on, give me some thing to discuss at least, what do they have to do with USA.

Cuba= they have had a lot of time, why do you think they did not go for it, may be the fear of Direct action "remember the cuban missile crisis", they are far too wise to try to go nuclear and ruin everything they have built.

let me point you to what i said.

"Which anti USA nuclear power aspirant is left, that might have the slightest impact on global power/resource equation."

By the list you gave US should feel a threat from India, France, United kingdom, too, just guessing here ah!.

Israel is in the middle east if you did not notice them, they are the ones Iran/Syria will target as soon as Iran has feels like they have a credible nuclear deterrence.

As soon as Israel feels/gets to know that Iranian nuclear weapon program is about to go active, they will have two options

1. Declare it self a nuclear nation, and play a un easy game of MAD for the rest of its existence, with Iran choking them for ever, economically and diplomatically.

2. go for a full scale attack against Iran and Syria, no holds bar as they say.

Given the already hostile land they are located in Israel will in my opinion go for the No.2 option, and in all probability Iran knows this.
Look at Israels history and then judge the capacity of a pre emptive strike.

 

[Grand Danois]

Arright fellas. Please stick to the thread topic Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

It is derailing fast.

/GD

 

[funtz]

- If Israel or USA have decided that combat losses will not dissuade them from attacking Iran, the Iranians will not have a very bright chance of success, Iran might inflict some or even great losses (i think Iran might inflict a lot of military losses) on USA and/or Israel, but how will they defeat them.

- let Russia or China monitor the nuclear program with IAEA to make sure they get the nuclear energy they are after, and that there is no threat of military action. China and Russia will prefer Iran to support the IAEA and have a peaceful nuclear program, which will dissuade USA and Israel from a preemptive strike, which will be a good thing.

- Might be better to ride the storm out alone, instead of making sure that they attack all the neighbors and invite them to join in the invasion and following occupation of Iran (that will be supported by a lot of nations), at the start of this thread, there was the talk of possible Iranian strategy of inflicting damage upon surrounding oil
nations and increasing the battlefield, which is a great error, it is difficult enough to tackle a single enemy like USA, why increase the invading forces, what Iran should strive for is more diplomatic support not opposition.
So what do you say?

 

[eckherl]

Arright fellas. Please stick to the thread topic Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

It is derailing fast.

/GD

Sorry gents, Chrom blew me away with that response to Funtz. One of my buddies that is at my home watching a football game with me is Hispanic and he wishes to thank Chrom for thinking that Mexico has that kind of global ambition. Chrom - you pulled that comment out of your rear end.

 

[funtz]

Well as this is off topic, i might be banned for this, being as high on warnings as i am.

however here is my opinion none the less.

USA/Israel realizes the power Iran gets from a capable nuclear deterrence.

It does not matter if Iran will attack Israel or not, (with nuclear weapons in Israel and Iran, if sanity and reason win, Iran will not attack Israel).

It is the possibility of Iran achieving the regional power and using it to undermine US/Israeli interests and safety in the region that will propel them towards military action.

Iran does not have the military resources to repel a conventional attack yet, that is what they should go for in the next 10-15 years instead of nuclear weapons right now, build a conventional military that can support the nuclear plans and then go in for the nuclear development, Instead of waisting away lives of their countrymen right now for a nuclear bomb that will not be allowed.

may be sayonara for some time.

 

[eckherl]

Now, you are somehow sure what Iran will definitly attack Israel once it become nuclear capable. I'm sure Iran will not do that.

Besides, IF you think what Israel can steamroll Iran NOW, why it wouldnt be able to steamroll Iran LATER, once Iran will aquire A-bomb? Any particular reason?

Okay Chrom, if you think that I was showing you any disrespect then I do apologize for my remark, but please answer this question for me, with the remarks made by the current leadership in Iran making remarks that they have in the past and currently why should the rest of the world believe that they want to produce just nuclear energy and not have intentions for some other motive. What would Russia and China do or think if we decided to give for example Poland and South Korea and Japan nuclear weapons. I really do hope that that things will simmer down over this crisis between the west and Iran but I know that this is only wishful thinking due to Iranian backing from China and Russia so we should be prepared for a worst case scenario.

 

[Chrom]

Well as this is off topic, i might be banned for this, being as high on warnings as i am.

however here is my opinion none the less.

USA/Israel realizes the power Iran gets from a capable nuclear deterrence.

It does not matter if Iran will attack Israel or not, (with nuclear weapons in Israel and Iran, if sanity and reason win, Iran will not attack Israel).

It is the possibility of Iran achieving the regional power and using it to undermine US/Israeli interests and safety in the region that will propel them towards military action.

Iran does not have the military resources to repel a conventional attack yet, that is what they should go for in the next 10-15 years instead of nuclear weapons right now, build a conventional military that can support the nuclear plans and then go in for the nuclear development, Instead of waisting away lives of their countrymen right now for a nuclear bomb that will not be allowed.

may be sayonara for some time.

So, essencially what are you saying:
Iran shouldnt be allowed a-bomb NOT becouse it will attack someone with it. No!
Iran shouldnt be allowed a-bomb becouse it will be able to hurt USA interests in the region...
And now, to protect its interests (NOT to protect over countries from invasions, becouse as you admitted Iran cant invade anyone...) USA is ready to kill hundreds thousand peoples outright, and let millions others starve and die without medical care (like in Iraq), and completely ruin pretty healthy (by middle east standards) country? And what is guilt of said country? Iran want protect its own interests?

I dont see any particular reason why i should prefer USA interests other Iran ones (unless i live in USA of course).

As such, only viable strategy for Iran will be the ones they employ now. Develop the country industry, take steps close to obtaining full-cycle nuclear technology, make a lot of noise in UN and other international organizations, keep busy USA in Iraq and Afganistan. Develop military in the way to make sure USA will pay dearly for invading - if not military losses, then economicaly (ruining Gulf ship traffic, burning oil fields, making terrorsts attack, etc).

 

[Chrom]

Okay Chrom, if you think that I was showing you any disrespect then I do apologize for my remark, but please answer this question for me, with the remarks made by the current leadership in Iran making remarks that they have in the past and currently why should the rest of the world believe that they want to produce just nuclear energy and not have intentions for some other motive. What would Russia and China do or think if we decided to give for example Poland and South Korea and Japan nuclear weapons. I really do hope that that things will simmer down over this crisis between the west and Iran but I know that this is only wishful thinking due to Iranian backing from China and Russia so we should be prepared for a worst case scenario.

I dont believe what Iran want only civilian nuclear reactor. It doesnt have much sence for them right now (contrary to NK. For NK nuclear reactor DO have merits). Civilian reactor with aim to get close to weapon - this present more logic.

The difference between us is you think what nuclear weapon in iranian hand will destabilize situation in Middle East. I think it will stabilize it much like other examples: USA - USSR, India - Pakistan, India - China, etc.

 

[eckherl]

I dont believe what Iran want only civilian nuclear reactor. It doesnt have much sence for them right now (contrary to NK. For NK nuclear reactor DO have merits). Civilian reactor with aim to get close to weapon - this present more logic.

The difference between us is you think what nuclear weapon in iranian hand will destabilize situation in Middle East. I think it will stabilize it much like other examples: USA - USSR, India - Pakistan, India - China, etc.

So you think that by Iran having nuclear weapons that this will protect them from whom the U.S or Israel.