• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iran 'digging 320,000 graves for invaders'

Good thing that a carrier battle group can project power hundreds of miles then, huh? We don't need to send ships in, to open the lanes.

Geo. W. Bush thinks he uinderstands air support because he flew a link trainer on the ground.

The concept of a projection of power fails to recognize mobile guided missles. What are the details of how the projection of force is going to affect two men in a cave with with a mobile missle, and maybe a cell phone. And then maybe 5000 men with 2500 missles, in 2500 hideouts.

How is this projection of force from a carrier group going to significangtly impinge on the missle firing capability of the Iranians in the Stait of Hormuz, and nearby areas? The US and the West uses the most sophisticated helicoptors, and cannot stop Mortars or Katyusha rockets.


"Kiryat Shmona was hard-hit during the 34-day Second Lebanon War, during which Hezbollah fired some 4,000 Katyusha rockets at towns and cities across northern Israel."

Olmert: Katyusha strikes show need for UNIFIL in S. Lebanon - Haaretz - Israel News


The force from an air craft carrier group will not put much of a dent in dedicated terrorists who are dedicated to launcning mobile guided missles.

A carrier strike force is awsome, I am sure, but it is of little help against thousands of terrorists spread out in the mountains with mobile missles.

The reaility is that it would be easy for Iran to shut down the Straight of Hormuz. One question, is whether the order will be given? Another question is how fast can the West get trucks and piplines going to bypass the Strait of Hormuz?

Anyone who doubts that Iran cannot close the Strait of Hormuz, is failing to give the Iranians the respect they are due at the negotiating table. Underestimating Iran's capabilities would be typical of W, and his advisers.



..
 
Last edited:
Its one thing to lob rockets into crowded cities, and with marginal effect at that, and hitting a moving target in a vast body of water. I am not afraid of their supposed ability to strike Naval vessels with any degree of success. They could not even average a rate kill of 1 Israeli per rocket.
 
Its one thing to lob rockets into crowded cities, and with marginal effect at that, and hitting a moving target in a vast body of water. I am not afraid of their supposed ability to strike Naval vessels with any degree of success. They could not even average a rate kill of 1 Israeli per rocket.

Katyusha rockets are not accurate, I agree.

"Iranian Sunburns, Silkworms and Exocets are on mobile launchers, hidden in caves and warehouses throughout a million square miles of mountainous cliffy terrain. The mobile missiles only need a spotter with eyes on the Hormuz, and a wire phone link to the cave. "

Iran has more accurate anti-ship missles. Iran can either stop shipping, or just harrass shipping, with inacruate missles. Iran has both effective and ineffective missles.

Which would you prefer Iran to use in the Strait of Hormuz?
 
Katyusha rockets are not accurate, I agree.

"Iranian Sunburns, Silkworms and Exocets are on mobile launchers, hidden in caves and warehouses throughout a million square miles of mountainous cliffy terrain. The mobile missiles only need a spotter with eyes on the Hormuz, and a wire phone link to the cave. "

Iran has more accurate anti-ship missles. Iran can either stop shipping, or just harrass shipping, with inacruate missles. Iran has both effective and ineffective missles.

Which would you prefer Iran to use in the Strait of Hormuz?

I'm really not worried about it. Honestly. The military is most certainley aware of Irans capabilities, as well as our own. If our Admirals aren't quailing in fear, then I am not. Force Recon, SEALs as well as covert op forces could be used to locate areas where resistance is mounted and airstrikes could take out those areas and launchers. I worked in Marine Aviation, and part of my job was working hand in hand with our intel image analysts, who received imagrey from our overhead aerial reconassaince provided by our F/A-18s via the ATARS system. So I have an idea just how good our aerial recce can be, and coupled with ground intel, we would have an advantage in ship positioning, and first strike capability based on that. Would it be difficult? Sure, nothing in war is supposed to be easy. But I am confident we have the capability to keep the Strait open if we so choose. Plus the US Navy has a robust anti-missile defense in their carrier groups.
 
The US can just stop being a world power, and let the others fight it out among themselves. Isn't that what Obama is saying? Isn't that what Obama's supporters want?

Did you get that from Rush, or did you think it up all by yourself?
 
Did you get that from Rush, or did you think it up all by yourself?

Obama Speech:

"It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August – providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan. This increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance – with fewer restrictions – from our NATO allies. It will also allow us to invest more in training Afghan security forces, including more joint NATO operations with the Afghan Army, and a national police training plan that is effectively coordinated and resourced.

A stepped up military commitment must be backed by a long-term investment in the Afghan people. We will start with an additional $1 billion in non military assistance each year – aid that is focused on reaching ordinary Afghans. We need to improve daily life by supporting education, basic infrastructure and human services. We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. And we must call on more support from friends and allies, and better coordination under a strong international coordinator."

Obama's Speech on Iraq, March 2008 - Council on Foreign Relations

Perhaps Obama is about being a less assertive World Power. Maybe Obama is for war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.

Maybe Obama is for being more assertive diplomatically, and less assertive militarily.

For Iran, Obama seems to favor negotiation,

Obama on Iran: Take off the kid gloves :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Politics

The alternative to an Israeli attack on Iran | csmonitor.com

..
 
Last edited:
I also don't stand by your definition of civilized in order to judge the ME as barbaric; the ME has had many stages in its history including some that would put ours to shame relatively speaking. And it seems that current or recently past history as displayed to us in the USA may be quite propagandized, so I have little faith in the idea of barbarity that they supposedly needed to be saved from.

It can also be good to remember that is was under foreign occupation and involvement from the Turks, British, Soviets and Americans things went downhill for the Arabs and Persians. That the foreigerns have always focused on their own interest.
 
It can also be good to remember that is was under foreign occupation and involvement from the Turks, British, Soviets and Americans things went downhill for the Arabs and Persians. That the foreigerns have always focused on their own interest.

Who was the British (IIRC) diplomat who said words to the effect, "We don't have allies. We have anywhere and everywhere, interests."
 
If Israel does attack are we prepared to instantly take out the subs, and every other threat?

Russia Will Equip Iranian Subs with Missiles - Kommersant Moscow

Iran test-fires sub-to-surface missile - USATODAY.com


"In the late 1980s, Iran and Iraq engaged in a Tanker War where both countries fired on one another’s ships passing through the Strait, but some foreign-flagged vessels were caught amidst the crossfire.

Shipping dropped 25 per cent and the US helped to secure trade." Record oil prices: Iran and the Strait of Hormuz - Times Online

In essence, if Israel attacks, we could be caught off guard and must either wait for Iran to act provocatively against tankers...or be seen as the aggressor and ally of the attack by Israel. Whatever we have done in Iraq will most likely blow up, for certain if we are seen as the aggressor. 320,000 is what we do not have now to deal with Iraq.

It is just plain stupid to attack Iran now, or to think we could handle it now. We couldn't even get enough help with One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

When an Israeli tells Billo the Iraq war was defacto illegal, I do not see how an attack on Iran could be legal, without something similar to One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq and a lack of Saddam's condemnation in light of his previous calls for Jihad under the watch of H32 of UN resolution 687, and his calls that "They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings" in response to what he called "the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people."

Sorry, if Israel attacks Iran and our troops get reamed in Iraq, as a result of the Israeli attack, I will be MAD. How do you spell "Rabid!"
 
Who was the British (IIRC) diplomat who said words to the effect, "We don't have allies. We have anywhere and everywhere, interests."

And ME is an example of what that kind of reasoning leads to.
 
The Persian and Arab sense of Honor, as an individual man, may be different from the Western motivation for prostelitizing and profit.

Bill Clinton tried to get the various factions to see each other's perspectives, by engaging the parties in dialoge. George Bush tried to improve the US military posture in the Middle East, while blaming all the remaining problem on Bill Clinton.

The US has not really built new allies, or deeper ties to existing allies. The Bush policy is manipulating through, Military, Spying and subtrafuge, to keep the oil flowing.

If US Gasoline comes downto $2.00 a Gallon in October, will Bush have won?

If US Gasoline goes up to $5.00 per Gallon in September, does that mean that Bush was an idiot?


..
 
Last edited:
Who was the British (IIRC) diplomat who said words to the effect, "We don't have allies. We have anywhere and everywhere, interests."

Do you feel that attitude has brought about possitive results?
 
How difficult is it to sink a ship with a shoulder missle from 20 Miles from a cave?

Extremely difficult, because there is no shoulder launched missile in existence that can travel twenty miles and sink a ship of any note....especially a U.S. warship.
 
Extremely difficult, because there is no shoulder launched missile in existence that can travel twenty miles and sink a ship of any note....especially a U.S. warship.

How about 50 miles from a fighter jet?

"the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles. "

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

" 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."


Sunburn is not shoulder fired, but is tough to stop.

New Page 1

..
 
Last edited:
How about 50 miles from a fighter jet?

"the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles. "

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

" 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."


Sunburn is not shoulder fired, but is tough to stop.

New Page 1

..

An engineer with a scuba suit, a plastic container a bit bigger than the size of a coke can, a copper cone, and 2 pounds of plastic explosives could do it.

YouTube - Future Weapons: Krakatoa
 
How about 50 miles from a fighter jet?

"the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles. "

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

" 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."


Sunburn is not shoulder fired, but is tough to stop.

New Page 1

..

You are referencing an attack that took place some twenty plus years ago, on a vessel that did not have it's main missile defense systems active. This isn't 1987 and we aren't there as observers. I would like to see an Iranian attack aircraft get within 50 miles of one of our carrier battle groups today. There won't be a functional airbase within 500 miles of those sea lanes and any unfriendly surface vessel, sub, or aircraft coming even remotely close would be neutralized with extreme prejudice and in very short order. As far as land based launch sites...certainly mobile launchers are a threat, but don't underestimate our ability to deal with them. With an active combat air patrol and our boys flying regular interdiction flights I think we would get more than you expect. And of those that rapidly set up and launch there will be very active missile defense systems waiting for them.

Todays U.S. Naval capability is extremely lethal. Compare an Oliver H. Perry frigate like the Stark from 20 years ago to a modern day surface combatant like a Ticonderoga class Cruiser or a Arleigh Burke class Destroyer equipped with the latest AEGIS equipment and Vertical Launch Systems (VLS). They are capable of rapidly launching up to 122 and 90 missiles (of various mission profiles) respectively. They also have guns that can fire almost as far as your Exocet can travel.

Regarding the article you cited about the "Awesome Sunburn" missile...all I can say is that guy is obviously a moron. His claim of the "Rolling Action Missile" system, which is actually the "Rolling Airframe Missile" being untested against a missile like the Sunburn, he's ignorant or insane. The RAM is primarily deployed on amphibious assault ships to enhance their close in missle defense systems.

The Sunburn has a range of about 100 miles and flies at just over Mach 2...he makes this sound as if it is some kind of unheard of anti-ship missile, the likes of which we have never seen. Apparently he has never heard of the RIM-162 ESSM, which travels at over Mach 4 and is specifically designed to take out super-sonic maneuvering cruise missiles like the Sunburn before they reach their target. The Phalanx systems, SRBOC's, and RAM's deal with the threat if it gets in close. The Sunburn is not some amazing super weapon Iran possesses, it's a ASCM, that's it. Sure it can carry a nuclear warhead, so can a lot of missiles. They will launch a nuclear weapon against us ONE time, and then we'll be discussing the sheet of glass that used to be Iran.

And we haven't even talked about our substantial carrier or sub based fire power.

I'm not saying are ships are unsinkable, but they it's not going to be a walk in the park. This isn't like a few scrubs with RPG's ambushing a Bradley in Mosul or something. Those truck mounted systems need radar and guidance systems to locate, identify, and lock-on to a target before they will work. You don't just turn them on and ten seconds later you have your target locked and it's missiles away.

I promise you we would lock down the terrain around the Straits of Hormuz and we would make Operation Praying Mantis look like weekend exercise. We would not just sail our boats up there and wait for things to happen. It would be a very violent land, air, and sea campaign. There wouldn't be a stitch of functional Iranian communications or infrastructure within 200 miles of the strait.
 
An engineer with a scuba suit, a plastic container a bit bigger than the size of a coke can, a copper cone, and 2 pounds of plastic explosives could do it.

YouTube - Future Weapons: Krakatoa

Surely you are not going to try and tell me that a two inch hole in the hull of a U.S. warship is going to send it to the bottom are you? Maybe if you had ten scuba divers with thirty Krakatoa's you would have a start. And I can't wait to see them make the swim in the open sea and plant those on a maneuvering warship.

Think about the USS Cole...that's a 40' by 60' hole in the hull you are looking at. It didn't sink.
colenm3.jpg


Or maybe think of the USS Stark. A frigate, one of the lightest warships in the U.S. Navy...here we see it SAILING after two direct hits by Exocets.

stark8fr5.jpg


Still think some PVC with C-4 and a copper cone can sink a U.S. warship?
 
Last edited:
I didn't find it in the article. Any mention of how the sunburn missile locks onto a target, or how it is guided?
 
I didn't find it in the article. Any mention of how the sunburn missile locks onto a target, or how it is guided?

Here is some stuff I found. Depending upon the version Iran is getting, provided they have the proper launch platform, it could be a formidable weapon, but not something that couldn't be defeated. Iranian fighters or other vehicles would be launching at maximum stand off range at best.

Further, being "designed to defeat the AEGIS system" and actually doing it are two entirely different things. I'll bet my money on our tech.
From GlobalSecurity.Org said:
Moskit
SS-N-22 Sunburn


The NATO designation SS-N-22 ‘Sunburn’ is believed to be designated P270 Moskit, the air-breathing variant of the naval missile 3M80 (the designation 3M80 apparently referring to the Mach 3 speed of 1980 weapons). It may have been designed originally to enhance the effectiveness of Missile Cutter Brigades (that is, units of missile-equipped FACs) and Destroyer Brigades hitherto dependent upon the Malachit or SS-N-9 ‘Siren’. It is used on "Sovremennyy" destroyers (eight missiles on each) and on "Tarantul [Tarantula] III patrol ships (four missiles on each). A high supersonic speed was specified to reduce the target’s time to deploy self-defense weapons, indeed the weapon was designed specifically to strike ships with the Aegis command and weapon control system and the SM-2 surface-to-air missile.

The Moskit (3M80) is a ramjet-powered missile with a slim forward body and ovoid nose, and a fatter rear half with four divided air intakes. There are four clipped delta platform wings and four smaller tail surfaces of similar shape organized in cruciform configuration around the fuselage. All the wings and tail surfaces are folded when the missile is in the launcher. Internally the radar seeker is in the nose with the guidance system, batteries and radio altimeter in the remainder of the front compartment, and the 300 kg semi-armor-piercing warhead immediately behind. A fuel tank, presumably with a kerosene-type fuel, occupies the area to the leading edges of the wing and the area almost to the rear edges is occupied by the ramjet. Much of the rear of the missile is occupied by a solid propellant booster through which runs the ramjet nozzle. Actuators are to be found below the tail surfaces.

Fuselage - body of revolution with the ogival form of nose section and the X-shaped wing arrangement and tail assembly. Wing and tail assembly folding, made from the material OTYA and OTYA-Y, longerons - from VKL -3. Four off-axis inlets and air ducts are located on the housing. Front fairing with the radio-transparent spinner (three-layered fairing from the fiberglass fabric scan -3 on the connecting material K -9-70). Skin and intermediate collection it is made from VT -5, tank compartment - made of the stainless steel, longerons - from VKL -3, fairing - from the fiberglass fabric T -10 on connecting K -9-70. Air ducts of welded construction - from the material OTYA-Y, OTYA.

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

The air-launched version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy. The missile is propelled by a dual (rocket-jet) engine operating by the same principle as the Kh-31 engine. The missile, suspended under the aircraft, has a folding wing. The missile is guided by an autopilot during the initial fight stage, with possible correction by the aircraft pilot, and by active radar during the final flight stage.

Raduga continues to develop the system for domestic and export customers. It has continued work on the the air-launched variant, known as the ASM-MSS and Kh-41. In August 2001 Raduga displayed a lightened 3M-80E1, with weight reduced from 4150kg to 3970kg, and range reduced from 120km to 100km.
 
Last edited:
Ah, its as I suspected, radar guided. I don't know much about Naval ships, but I would imagine they have passive ECM gear aboard, that can detect when they are being "pinged" by radar. Aircraft do.
 
Surely you are not going to try and tell me that a two inch hole in the hull of a U.S. warship is going to send it to the bottom are you? Maybe if you had ten scuba divers with thirty Krakatoa's you would have a start. And I can't wait to see them make the swim in the open sea and plant those on a maneuvering warship.

Think about the USS Cole...that's a 40' by 60' hole in the hull you are looking at. It didn't sink.
colenm3.jpg


Or maybe think of the USS Stark. A frigate, one of the lightest warships in the U.S. Navy...here we see it SAILING after two direct hits by Exocets.

stark8fr5.jpg


Still think some PVC with C-4 and a copper cone can sink a U.S. warship?

I dont think it can sink it. But it can definately stop one if put in the excact right spot I must imagine.
 
I dont think it can sink it. But it can definately stop one if put in the excact right spot I must imagine.
And what exact right spot might that be? All of these warships have internal bulkheads that serve to localize and contain any hull breach. Look at the warships pictured. Serious hull breaches were inflicted and yet the vessels were neither sunk nor immobilized.
 
I think there is some kind of Vietnam comparison going on. While I certainly think the war in Iraq was a very bad move, I can't help but point how damn good our military is at it's job. Some people confuse the rather stagnate nature of the conflict in Iraq with some lack of ability on the part of our military, and as such feel compelled to take shots at our military capability whenever the subject comes up. Our guys have not been defeated in Iraq, in fact they haven't suffered a single major loss in the conflict. It just seems like there is this "oh if the U.S. goes after Iran it's gonna really get it's ass handed to it" thing going around. Iran's military is not that competent, tactically or technically. It all depends on how we go after them. If you were to tell me that we were going to try and invade and occupy Iran, I would say we are screwed because of a complete lack of manpower. If you were to tell me that we were going secure the straits of Hormuz I would say that is totally possible.

It will take some time to clear the lanes of mines and secure the terrain around it, but we could very easily deny Iran any meaningful military operations in that area by sheer naval power and strategic bombing by the USAF. We are not talking about holding an entire border here. Iran's resources will dry up much faster than ours will.
 
And what exact right spot might that be? All of these warships have internal bulkheads that serve to localize and contain any hull breach. Look at the warships pictured. Serious hull breaches were inflicted and yet the vessels were neither sunk nor immobilized.

Im just repeating excatly what the ex-Navy Seal said it could do. He knows better than me.

A dude with a scuba and 10 of these definately could :) It injects basically a lance that can travel a crazy ass distance straight through. Im sure there is some spot on the boat where if you put a lance of molten copper through it the ship would have to stop for repiars.
 
Back
Top Bottom