- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Iran deploying S-300 SAM sites around nuclear sites
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:15 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:15 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The sanctions had been in place for years. They were not going anywhere. The only way the sanctions were going to fail is if we lifted them. And that's exactly what that worthless big-eared idiot Obama did. That stupid piece of dog shite freed up and gave back billions to Iran. Without that cash, Iran can't afford what is arguably one of the world's most advanced air defense systems. So yeah, frick Obama and the rest. The blame for this lays squarely at their feet
Boom
1
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:15 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Think that is why they are trying their best to push the F-35 into being cleared?
I doubt the F-35 could eveade a S-300 battery.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:17 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I doubt the F-35 could eveade a S-300 battery.
I have my misgivings about that "wonder weapon" myself. I sure hope that we have something that could defeat it.
Suddenly these "multiple" provocations (I read the count was over 100 this month alone) by the Iranian navy it starting to make sense...
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:17 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Boom
Boom my arse. What do you mean the sanctions will fail? Fail how? Newsflash. Iran was continuing its nuclear program with or withut sanctions. That wasn't going to stop.
You should look it up, there is some serious research on the dubious 'results' sanctions produce. Sanctions alone are not a good or productive policy.
quote:
Suddenly these "multiple" provocations (I read the count was over 100 this month alone) by the Iranian navy it starting to make sense...
U.S. - Iran provocations / encounters are nothing new in the Persian Gulf.
This post was edited on 8/30/16 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:20 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
U.S. - Iran provocations / encounters are nothing new in the Persian Gulf.
I realize that, sir. However, the number this month alone is more than the past couple of years.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:22 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
There's continued sanctions. Does that hurt Iran? Yes. Would Russia have moved through with the deal? Nope. But Iran would have kept pursuing a nuclear bomb (which I have no doubt that was their end goal) and would have slowly but surely worked their way there. In short, sanctions can slow but cannot stop determined progress.
And you think the answer is to cut a deal with them that gives the the bomb even sooner?!?!
quote:
There's also the option of an attack against nuclear facilities. Israel has done it against Iraq and Syria after all. However, Iran is much larger, further away for Israel, has more robust terrain and has better means of disrupting commerce in the Persian Gulf. Plus there is no telling what kind of fallout or conflict would have happened if there was an attack. Not to mention, that doesn't stop Iran from discontinuing its program.
No fall out could be as bad as Iran getting the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
quote:
deal is far, far from perfect. It has plenty of glaring issues. But a deal is probably the best of those 3 options as it stripped Iran of a lot of its progress and will make it harder for them to hide stuff (although its far from impossible).
Please tell me you're not dumb enough to actually believe this deal in any way hinders Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We can't even inspect their facilities when we want without giving them enough of a notification to hide anything they don't want seen. And even then they can still tell us to go frick ourselves.
quote:
And now there is no going back, because if the next administration withdrawals we will not be joined by Europe, Russia, or China. If we withdrawal, we will be alone in it.
Again, thanks to Obama.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:23 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The S-300 is no joke. That's for sure. It can shoot down just about any fighter, bomber, and even cruse missiles.
For Russia yes, for someone like Iran it's just wasting everyone's money and delaying the inevitable. The US or Israel's first strike would be to take them out using long range missiles. If they shoot them at our cruise missiles we'll just shoot cruise missiles until they run out of S-300s.
ETA: also, most things like this take some actual real world experience to use properly. If the USor Israel strike, it would be faster and harder then their army will know what to do with. Anyone outside of Russia and China just don't have the money to spend on training to prepare for the type of quick strike that would happen in the real world.
This post was edited on 8/30/16 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:24 pm to gamatt53
quote:
Shouldn't you be glad they are protecting this stuff instead of leaving it wide open for terrorist attack/theft?
Doesn't fit the narrative
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:27 pm to baldona
quote:
For Russia yes, for someone like Iran it's just wasting everyone's money and delaying the inevitable. The US or Israel's first strike would be to take them out using long range missiles. If they shoot them at our cruise missiles we'll just shoot cruise missiles until they run out of S-300s
The S-300 is an autonomous system. You don't have to aim it like a AA gun. Basically it identifies targets on its highly advanced radar and the only human input it needs is to be given clearance to fire. And once it fires, there's not many things it's not going to hit (and obliterate) short of a ICBM launched nuclear warhead on final terminal decent.
This post was edited on 8/30/16 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:27 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
And you think the answer is to cut a deal with them that gives the the bomb even sooner?!?!
Verified by IGOs, the US, and European governments alike that they've already given up most of the HEU and deactivated a huge % of their centrifuges. Their breakout time is already much greater than it was.
quote:
No fall out could be as bad as Iran getting the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
So you'd actually choose war over the deal? I don't ask that in a condescending tone. I'm genuinely curious as to your answer and how you think that could possibly play out.
Surely you don't think pure sanctions can work do you? The DPRK model isn't working out so well.
quote:
Please tell me you're not dumb enough to actually believe this deal in any way hinders Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We can't even inspect their facilities when we want without giving them enough of a notification to hide anything they don't want seen. And even then they can still tell us to go frick ourselves.
I don't like it either. I don't like the money it unfroze either and what that money will likely be going towards. But I promise you that having the IAEA have access is better than the 0% access we were getting last time.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:27 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
This. And the S-300 will take out anything in our inventory... Nothing is safe.
Do you (or anyone else) know if they would be disrupted by an EMP? I remember reading that alot of military hardware is hardened against an EMP, but after one is used that that things have to be reset (similar to a breaker).
Could an EMP be used and then immediately after have the missiles start falling, before the systems could be reset?
Or how many missile are in a S-300 battery? Could it just be overwhelmed? Like if the battery has 75 missiles could 150 cruise missiles be launched?
I know nothing about this and I was just wondering if either of those ideas would work. If not is there anything that would work.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:29 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The S-300 is an autonomous system. You don't have to aim it like a AA gun. Basically it identifies targets on its highly advanced radar and the only human input it needs is to be given clearance to fire. And once it fires, there's not many things it's not going to hit (and obliterate) short of a ICBM launched nuclear warhead on final terminal decent.
Everyone always says this, but it's not true. If it was, we'd have these guys using them to shoot down Airliners and stuff on the reg. The more technologically advanced we get, the better you generally have to be trained to for real world good results.
Saying a 5 year old could do it is usually just some general trying to get more funding.
This post was edited on 8/30/16 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:32 pm to Spaceman Spiff
I feel like i'm reading this differently than everyone else.
If they are putting up SAM sites, these are just for defense... so they want to protect their nuclear sites, that sounds like a smart plan to me?
what am i missing?
eta: do we feel like they are about to do some attacking and expect retaliation so they are defending these ahead of time?
If they are putting up SAM sites, these are just for defense... so they want to protect their nuclear sites, that sounds like a smart plan to me?
what am i missing?
eta: do we feel like they are about to do some attacking and expect retaliation so they are defending these ahead of time?
This post was edited on 8/30/16 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:33 pm to gamatt53
I don't want Iran and Terrorist to have them.
Terrorist flying airplanes into these facilities would grant all of my wishes.
terrorists taking nuclear bombs out of Iran and using them for their own good is worse than Iran having them.
Iran is doing this to defend against Israel and/or a suddenly non-cooperative US.
Terrorist flying airplanes into these facilities would grant all of my wishes.
terrorists taking nuclear bombs out of Iran and using them for their own good is worse than Iran having them.
Iran is doing this to defend against Israel and/or a suddenly non-cooperative US.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:33 pm to heypaul
shrike and harm... shrike and harm
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:34 pm to theGarnetWay
What has been verified? You seem to forget that there are several sites that they refuse access to.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:36 pm to Darth_Vader
For those of you getting worked up about the SAMS, it isn't that big of a deal as far as an airstrike goes. Do you know much about this facility? Because I know a little.
It isn't going to be hurt by an airstrike. It is DEEP underground and very hardened.
The SAMS are to keep anyone from flying an assault force close enough to go down there and destroy the place. That is an issue. So don't think jets, think helos full of guys with guns and explosives.
It isn't going to be hurt by an airstrike. It is DEEP underground and very hardened.
The SAMS are to keep anyone from flying an assault force close enough to go down there and destroy the place. That is an issue. So don't think jets, think helos full of guys with guns and explosives.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:39 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
What has been verified? You seem to forget that there are several sites that they refuse access to.
The amount of HEU they shipped out and the centrifuges that were put offline are two big considerations that I can think off the top of my head.
Truth be told. We may be in disagreement about to handle Iran as a whole. But I think we can agree on this:
I appreciate our military's professionalism, restraint, and diplomacy when dealing with the Russians and Iranians when they harass our stuff. But when they do it as much as they do and are probably training for a real life attack.. well let's just say I wouldn't be sad to see the Navy blow at least one of their boats out of the water.
Again, I know there'd be diplomatic fallout and all the stuff that comes with it.. but it'd be an enjoyable headline to read.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:40 pm to baldona
quote:
Everyone always says this, but it's not true. If it was, we'd have these guys using them to shoot down Airliners and stuff on the reg. The more technologically advanced we get, the better you generally have to be trained to for real world good results.
Saying a 5 year old could do it is usually just some general trying to get more funding.
You might want to do some research on the S-300 series. It's virtually idiot proof.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 2:48 pm to baldona
quote:
Everyone always says this, but it's not true. If it was, we'd have these guys using them to shoot down Airliners and stuff on the reg.
These are not low-altitude, shoulder launched, short-range anti-helicopter weapons that you're thinking of - that terrorists might acquire/employ.
This is the big league, anti fast mover, long range, high altitude system that the Russians use themselves. Now, the original design is dated, at just under 40 years, but it has been consistently updated, primarily for export. The Russians (Russia is big, baw) still field the systems, but have a couple of newer designs to fill the same role in critical areas. This thing is multi-role, is able to destroy ground targets and undergone successful tests against ballistic missiles.
So, you're making an apples to plutonium comparison here.
quote:
Saying a 5 year old could do it is usually just some general trying to get more funding.
Nobody said this.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News