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.

 

A few thoughts for those who think engaging Iran militarily would be disastrous for America

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
If we went to war with Iran we would not win and here is why:
We would have to use tactical nuclear weapons which would immediately turn EVERY nation against us except for Isreal.
If we used conventional weapons Russia and North Korea would immediately jump on board which would lead to a World War that would be fought on our soil. Aside from the west most of the world believes that we have become imperialists. NO imperialist nation has lived long as they let their pride get the best of them which unfortunately leads to their destruction. Ironically, the downfall of Rome was precluded by other nations revealing truth to the people of Rome. America is NOT the most powerful nation in the world and this is one myth that would be dispelled if we continue this policy of invading sovereign nations. Lets face the facts: America is living on DEBT. Lets say for instance that we do attack Iran and are successful in destroying their nuclear energy facilities then what? There is no MONEY, There is no MILITARY, There are no ALLIES. We're already bogged down in a war we won't win and no your saying we would win if we invaded Iran HOW?




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I can always remember it being said within the cold war that any conventional war across Wesern Europe involving massive tank and troop deployment from the East would need to be played out one way or the other within a few weeks else both the Soviet and Nato economies would collapse. War is so very expensive (worse these days too) that money, not weapons or men is the deciding factor.

I also remember hearing that Japan, while I think limited by treaty from having a large standing army, had the protection of their economy on their side. Anyone fighting a war with them would be crippled financially within weeks as multiple sanctions take hold, not only from the Japanese but from those whose own economies depend on them - including the US.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
This thread has got to be one of the worst I have ever come across on ATS for warmongers and trolls who are completely devoid of any common sense and intelligence. They were probably educated at the school of verbal diarrhea, hence the reason there full of ****.

Why do some of the more intelligent members persist with threads like this one. It's not like you can even get through to these people.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
Why do some of the more intelligent members persist with threads like this one. It's not like you can even get through to these people.


Troll-hunting can be entertaining sometimes. Especially when there's nothing good on BTS and you've got time to kill and it's raining outside with nothing to watch on TV plus you've read all the books and magazines in your house.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Umm VOxel. Don't know about the others but after Rome fell we had the Dark Ages then the middle ages and both was hardly better off.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Don't tell a military strategist about clear ideas. How will your navy seals and pilots defend against unstopable russian supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles that Iran has. The missile have 290Km range and can be put on iranian fighters and ships.

There is no way of stoping this one after launch. Also i can tell you more about their long range arsenal if you would like to know. The fact is that iran can sink you carriers as long as they are 2500km from iran. This fact has been told by USA military personal and it's not my own imagination, so get your facts right before you come at me.


Here is a statistic to be familiar with.
The United States spends more on military weapons and research per year the every country in the world COMBINED. The Russian cruise missiles, although advanced, can be eliminated a number of ways:
FOR EXAMPLE

ABL system
COIL ground systems
Metal Storm anti missile systems
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
SBP space-based system
nterceptor missile system

If these systems are deployed near Iran, this would greatly decrease risks from short, medium and long range sub or super-sonic missiles.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
like...i read a lot of really ignorant views on this forum but u take the bisuit fweshcawfee. you think that any other country is going to go 2 war with the u.s. again? not even us brits are that stupid.
the fact is mate, america is on its way out, every 1 has seen it 4 the eveil it is. there'd b a lot less war and death if america just woke up 2moro and realised its dollars r worth pennies in real terms and faded off the world spectrum.
heres hopin' !!!!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Yes I've read about them, and Iran has them in her arsenal. This is fact.
What is also fact is that they are supersonic, and America has nothing to defend against these, besides destroying them before they are launched. Fact...


Actually, that is incorrect. The US has a number of systems that could destroy the russian missiles after launch. For example both the ABL and COIL systems intercept at 186,000 MILES per second (the speed of light) which is ALOT faster then mach 2.8.

Also the Metal Storm interceptor system could destroy the russian missile.

Just to name a few.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

What you don't realize is that the world is sick & tired of America's crazed agenda. You say we can blow the world over ten times.... So what when you are marked as a war hungry bully! It's not about who has the biggest gun anymore. Like Rome, America will self destruct simply because it's christian backed arrogance.


I am always disheartened to read comments like this. As if America is an entity that is evil. Once again, let me state that there is a HUGE difference between what american citizens want and what the current government administration wants.
There are facts:
The majority of americans do NOT want a conflict with Iran regardless of our feelings for it's president.
The majority of americans want our troops out of Iraq.
The majority of americans want both Cheney and Bush impeached.

So when someone says they want america to fall, please understand that you are saying that you want it's people to fall. American citizens are among the most generous in the world. When something bad happens anywhere, we want to help. American citizens are NOT war mongers. Please direct the war mongering comments DIRECTLY to the administration.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

ABL system
COIL ground systems
Metal Storm anti missile systems
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
SBP space-based system
nterceptor missile system

If these systems are deployed near Iran, this would greatly decrease risks from short, medium and long range sub or super-sonic missiles.



I'm sure that these systems are good for missile defense, but this baby is just unstopable, you don't have good enough targeting systems and you cannot see the Missile since it's stealth. It's just impossible to destroy it. Iran has around 200 of these, maybe more next year and all these are from russia.



[edit on 25-9-2007 by FaxMachine]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Actually, that is incorrect. The US has a number of systems that could destroy the russian missiles after launch. For example both the ABL and COIL systems intercept at 186,000 MILES per second (the speed of light) which is ALOT faster then mach 2.8.

Also the Metal Storm interceptor system could destroy the russian missile.

Just to name a few.


You are misinformed, you cannot stop it. There is just no way, if war breaks you will see proof.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
please discuss the topic at hand without attacking eachother.

Thank You

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, that is incorrect. The US has a number of systems that could destroy the russian missiles after launch. For example both the ABL and COIL systems intercept at 186,000 MILES per second (the speed of light) which is ALOT faster then mach 2.8.
Also the Metal Storm interceptor system could destroy the russian missile.
Just to name a few.

You are misinformed, you cannot stop it. There is just no way, if war breaks you will see proof.


No, I am correctly informed. A laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) travels at the speed of light and can intercept any missile in existence at the moment including the one you've mentioned as it travels less then the speed of light.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Russians have technology to turn all American's to little frogs, so how can you use your system if you are a frog?
They might have that tech, but it is not depolyed, also i would like to see the targeting system that would accomplish this.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Our Aegis systems can't hit the Sunburn, but our missiles can.



The SS-N-22 has a semi-deserved reputation as being an uninterceptible superweapon. This is because it is a sea-skimming missile, which makes it hard to detect until rather close range, and it is supersonic, which shortens an adversary's reaction time. It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance.


everything2.com...

Or, if you're interested in our specific answer to the Sunburn, there is the seaRAM missile:



"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles.


www.freerepublic.com...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Sunburn is not invincible. At any rate, I'm sure anti-ship missiles will be among the first targets to be attacked, and we can launch aircraft from nearby land airports until the Sunburn threat is neutralized.

And no, I do not think we SHOULD attack Iran. I do not think we could AFFORD to attack Iran. The problem with economical arguments is that the money doesn't become an issue until *AFTER* we've dropped all the bombs.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Well...I will say it again.

IF it were not for the United States, all you anti-american, hate spewing, root for the enemy people out there would probably living under German rule right now.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat history!

Long live the US. God bless everyone of us!


I agree with Neformore. Further, I am not "anti-American"..... I am anti-American Empire. Absolutely and with no reservations. The whole notion of "empire" is anti-American - should you elect to read what our founding fathers wrote. And your irrelevant comment about German Rule........ It wasn't the U.S. who defeated Nazi Germany. Important yes, crucial, no. It was the Soviet Union. I was not and am not a fan of the USSR but I advise, speak truth or don't speak. And yes, Santayana was right about history. My only amazement is that you know so little history.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Our Aegis systems can't hit the Sunburn, but our missiles can.



The SS-N-22 has a semi-deserved reputation as being an uninterceptible superweapon. This is because it is a sea-skimming missile, which makes it hard to detect until rather close range, and it is supersonic, which shortens an adversary's reaction time. It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance.


everything2.com...

Or, if you're interested in our specific answer to the Sunburn, there is the seaRAM missile:



"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles.


www.freerepublic.com...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Sunburn is not invincible. At any rate, I'm sure anti-ship missiles will be among the first targets to be attacked, and we can launch aircraft from nearby land airports until the Sunburn threat is neutralized.

And no, I do not think we SHOULD attack Iran. I do not think we could AFFORD to attack Iran. The problem with economical arguments is that the money doesn't become an issue until *AFTER* we've dropped all the bombs.



I was not talking about sunburn, this missile i talk about flyes not 60 meters above surface, but 10 meters and with speed of 2.8mach, your systems are not going to stop it.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Also sorry to burst you bubble, but USA will get it's ass kicked in. As patriot Americans i understand your eagerness to defend your uberness.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
LOL, kicked by Iran? Frayed knot.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I just love it when somebody justifies their aversion to attacking Iran on the "we can not afford it" rationalization. What inanity. We can not afford it because that is not what America was created to be about. Read the damn Constitution. Read what the authors of that document have to say about the Republic. Search your souls, if you have them, and ask whether it is 'right' to attack a country that has done us little harm and that poses nor has offered any threat. All in order to steal their resources. Any wonder that the world despises Americans.

ah, talking to the sheep.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join