It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bucca220
the kilo is very silent but our 688i's and seawolfs/virginia's r deadly silent in my humble opinion 3 kilos firing "Cruise missles" at a U.S. Battle group would be pretty stupid none of the vamps would get through any usns ageis CG/DG, if they did lets just hope CIWS radar is on unlike the mistake israel made
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by planeman
the amount of times I've seen footage on Western news channels supposedly showing one thing when I can tell just from general knowledge of military equipment that it must be stock footage.
That's because the US media, when it come to military systems, has very little specific knowledge. But I though this was the state run media of Iran?
Well...I'd think occupying a country would require a lot of military strength, but if the US attacked Iran, I don't think anybody thinkgs it will be at half strength
Originally posted by Cruelapathy
The U.S. has been restrained from using the bulk of its military strength due to the nature of attacks in Iraq. Don't use that as comparison.
Mmm...I differ, Iran could do some damage to the Navy. Planeman would have to tell if Iran would be capable or not of harming US air, since I regard him the SAM expert. About military bases...well, I really don't think Iran would bomb the US bases in Saudi Arabia, but other bases in the inmediate area would be touched, no doubt. Obliterate population centers? Why, if I may ask, since Iran would only be hitting military assets?? Kinda genocidal...
Iran, at best, could destroy several U.S. military centers. The U.S. would then obliterate Iranian population centres, provided this moved from a realm or tactical intervention to strategic.
Well...the problem is, there is a whole lot more than one missile in Iran's stock, and those Kilo subs are good at hiding in shallow waters...I'd see more than one missile hitting (especially with Phalanx equipped...)
Third, the U.S. has been in this business quite a bit longer. If you think a >mile piece of hardware, which is absurdly small, will be causing any great deal of damage-- Though I will not deny the impact even a single missle striking any ship will have-- to our navy, you've lost it.
I differ with that, your right and obligations end where your coastline ends.
Lastly, although the U.S. has taken to cowboy democracy, we are fully within our rights and obligations to threaten Iran with force.
US has done that, and that doesn't give the world to turn on the US, does it??
They do not listen to the U.N., and rather, mock them.
Ally...apart from Israel, who else is in danger from Iran, if I may ask??
They threaten our allies constantly
Perhaps they want nukes because someone else in the region has them...ever thought of that?
and a nuclear-capable Iran would destabilize the region further
Gas prices would go through the roof if yet another oil producing country is attacked, if gas prices bother you, you may not want war with Iran...
hiking gas prices. [I'm an American. I gotta' talk about gas-prices.] ;]
There's another loose cannon just around the block from Iran, keep that in mind.
Iran is far too much of a loose cannon to have the right to nuclear capability.
Well...US kinda is still at war, Russia has Chechnya, Pakistan and India...well you know their story...and Israel is kinda still occupying half from another country...
Talk about the U.S., Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel all you want-- But they are, relatively, politically stable and not openly on the brink of war.
Well, that's one side of it, but the US supplied weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran before, so accusing Iran for that, when the US not so long ago did the exact same thing is not so valid...
[Which Iran is, regardless of their open announcement, by continuing to supply arms to hostile forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc.]