It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US General Warns Iran

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Sep
And what exactly would you do after this air and sea attack? Where exactly are you planning to hit? There was an article several days ago that said that there are approximatly 350 sites that needs to be hit in order to stop Iran's nuclear program. Now here is my question. Lets just imagine you know where all the centrifuges are. Would Iran just sit back and take all this. What would the S-300s do? What would the FM 90s do? does they US know where all these SAMs are? Does the US know where all the missile launchers are? Does the US know the location of every single iranian cruise missile? Does the US know where all Iranian Shahabs, scuds and the other small missiles that they have been building for 20 years are? And if US strikes Iran what would the Iraqis do? Remember their most influencial leader is Iranian and his accent when he speacks Arabic is Persian. What would Hebolla and Hamas do? What would Fatah do? There is alot of things that have to be taken under close examination before the planees take off.

If we use Cruise missile and Stealth Bombers (F-117 & B-2) then what do Surface to Air missiles matter? they dont.

We know where there stationary military sites are, and that includes launching platforms and nuclear sites, so those would be on the top of the list. Navy ships in the Persian would be launching the cruise missile while stealth bombers would be taking off from Iraq, making there trips short, so they will be able to do several missions the first night. Basiaclly put up a "missile shield" on the Iraq & Iran borber, by using whatever means necessary whether it be by Pac-3 or ABL. As for some hidden sites I'm sure US Spy Sats have confirmed nearly all of them.

"Hebolla, Hamas, Fatah" This isn't a freaken Holy War.

As for the supposed 350 sites..... So? 1 B-2 Bomber could take them all out with 5 trips. But then with the help of F-117's and dozens of cruise missiles that number wouldn't be a problem.




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
"Hebolla, Hamas, Fatah" This isn't a freaken Holy War.

As for the supposed 350 sites..... So? 1 B-2 Bomber could take them all out with 5 trips. But then with the help of F-117's and dozens of cruise missiles that number wouldn't be a problem.


Actually you are right is not a holy war for you or me, but for the Islam radicals in the middle east has been a holy war against the US invasion for a long time.


For the bomber you have to understand that even the best smart bomb will cause civilian deaths if the target is in a populated area.

That alone will enrage the middle east more.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Bless your heart, Sweat, I wouldn't expect you to realize when I'm right or when you're wrong. Don't worry, if you are ever in question, just ask me. I'm here for you, buddy. Always know that I have the facts (which makes me right) and they are only a u2u away.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read a book. You know, those things that hold knowledge between the covers?


Are you currently an orphan who has been in 10 foster homes in a span of six years? I'm starting to believe that.


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
If we use Cruise missile and Stealth Bombers (F-117 & B-2) then what do Surface to Air missiles matter? they dont.

We know where there stationary military sites are, and that includes launching platforms and nuclear sites, so those would be on the top of the list. Navy ships in the Persian would be launching the cruise missile while stealth bombers would be taking off from Iraq, making there trips short, so they will be able to do several missions the first night. Basiaclly put up a "missile shield" on the Iraq & Iran borber, by using whatever means necessary whether it be by Pac-3 or ABL. As for some hidden sites I'm sure US Spy Sats have confirmed nearly all of them.

"Hebolla, Hamas, Fatah" This isn't a freaken Holy War.

As for the supposed 350 sites..... So? 1 B-2 Bomber could take them all out with 5 trips. But then with the help of F-117's and dozens of cruise missiles that number wouldn't be a problem.


Hezbolla is An Iranian orgonization, Hamas and Fatah are mostly funded by Iran. Israel stopped several tons worth of missiles from Iran being shipped to Lebonon. Was that the only trip? They are armed to the teeth.

You didnt mention Iraq so I assume there is no argument there.

The navy ships in the gulf you mentioned will be shooting cruise missiles. What about the Iranian anti-ship missiles. What about the Sunburns? Are they just going to sit there?

The last Gulf War the US was not able to spot even one Scud launcher. How further has the US satilites adanved since then? As for the missile shields, there are no use against the Shahab, they might be able to stop Scuds, but the shahabs are far more adavance.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Bless your heart, Sweat, I wouldn't expect you to realize when I'm right or when you're wrong. Don't worry, if you are ever in question, just ask me. I'm here for you, buddy. Always know that I have the facts (which makes me right) and they are only a u2u away.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read a book. You know, those things that hold knowledge between the covers?


NOTICE: Because Thomas Crowne is always right, arguing, debating, questioning, or even chatting with TC is totally unnecessary. If you ever see TC on a forum, do not engage in any of the above, for he is right. Just ignore the man and let him enjoy his life and fantasy.


Seriously, if you're always right, then you should be somewhere, higher than everyone else, or making lots of money than wasting time here (which ATS is a waste of time, for you, since you're right about everything).

Funniest man on ATS, that Thomas Crowne!
No, oops, didn't mean to piss u off
er, oh
, oh whatever!!!

[edit on 2-12-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
The navy ships in the gulf you mentioned will be shooting cruise missiles. What about the Iranian anti-ship missiles. What about the Sunburns? Are they just going to sit there?

The last Gulf War the US was not able to spot even one Scud launcher. How further has the US satilites adanved since then? As for the missile shields, there are no use against the Shahab, they might be able to stop Scuds, but the shahabs are far more adavance.


Sunburns are not as big a concern as you think. As for the shahab being more advanced than the SCUD, you have no clue about which you speak let alone the technology.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Sep
The navy ships in the gulf you mentioned will be shooting cruise missiles. What about the Iranian anti-ship missiles. What about the Sunburns? Are they just going to sit there?

The Navy Ships that would be in the persian have very powerful radars, and would see the sunburn coming, and there for would not make it a very formatable weapon.


Sep
The last Gulf War the US was not able to spot even one Scud launcher. How further has the US satilites adanved since then?

Are you referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom? If so, Its because there wern't any, The US didn't relize that they still were weak from our last attack on them.


Sep
As for the missile shields, there are no use against the Shahab, they might be able to stop Scuds, but the shahabs are far more adavance.

Yes the Shahab isn't that bad, but the Pac-3 could take it out of the sky, the Shahab-3's top speed it mach 5.6, which puts it within the Patriot's reach.

Also, EdSinger, your last post was meaningless, please try to explain what you mean and your position.


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Are you referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom? If so, Its because there wern't any, The US didn't relize that they still were weak from our last attack on them.


No, I am acctually refering to the great Scud hunt during the first gulf war.


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
As for the shahab being more advanced than the SCUD, you have no clue about which you speak let alone the technology.


Ummmmmmmm, what?. I "have no clue which (I) speak"?


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Navy Ships that would be in the persian have very powerful radars, and would see the sunburn coming, and there for would not make it a very formatable weapon.


If this missile was easy to stop then the US congress would not have tried to pass a resolution to halt the sale of this missie to China. In the resolution i said:

"The supersonic Sunburn missile, which can be mounted on a naval or mobile land platform, was designed specifically to destroy American aircraft carriers and other warships equipped with advanced Aegis radar and combat management systems. The US Navy considers the missile to be extremely difficult to defend against"

"It continues that the Sunburn missile has an over-the-horizon range of 65 miles and can deliver a 200-kiloton warhead in under two minutes. One conventional Sunburn missile can sink a warship or disable an aircraft carrier, causing the deaths of hundreds of American military personnel."

www.fas.org...

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
What I meant:

The Iranian missle might be in the class of a SuperScud, but the above post is correct. A PAC3 Patriot will get it, takes 2 shots just to be sure.
Plus we would not only rely on that one system, BMD has come a lot father than PAC3 - see THAAD & STDMKIV

SUNBURN - Well again a Standard MKIIIER can get it, you dont think we would put a $8 billion dollar ship in range if we did not have a way to defend it do you? Phanlax is actually being phased out as it is to slow to react to modern threats. RAM isnt.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
How operational is THAAD?


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
SUNBURN - Well again a Standard MKIIIER can get it, you dont think we would put a $8 billion dollar ship in range if we did not have a way to defend it do you? Phanlax is actually being phased out as it is to slow to react to modern threats. RAM isnt.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by edsinger]


I dont know much about American anti-missile systems so I am not going to argue about it. But if its easily stopable then why all the talk about this missile? I searched alot of sites most of them I could tell was probebly with people who didnt know what they were talking about but from what I got it had a good chance against American systems. If it doesnt why would the congress make a resolution about it? Again I am not saying the missile is unstoppable but I wanted your opinion.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
I dont know much about American anti-missile systems so I am not going to argue about it. But if its easily stopable then why all the talk about this missile? I searched alot of sites most of them I could tell was probebly with people who didnt know what they were talking about but from what I got it had a good chance against American systems. If it doesnt why would the congress make a resolution about it? Again I am not saying the missile is unstoppable but I wanted your opinion.


The SunBurn is a DAMN good missle, that is why China wants the Sovermeny's so bad, but it can be defended against......AEGIS is not just AEGIS anymore.......RAM can get it, Standard can, I am not sure if an AMRAAM can or not...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
How operational is THAAD?


Not at all........



But the technology that is has (arrow) is already. The THADD is actually a follow on later generation missile.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join