• 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.

War with Iran

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So now, the USS Einsenhower is traveling to the Iran area..I pray it's going there just to support the Iraq mission, and not for an October surprise from Bush to start a war with Iran. Gulf of Tonkin sound familiar?

God save us from these war hungry imbecilic republicans!
 
You can't launch a major war as an "October Surprise." It's just not physically possible. Even if you just want to half-*** a war like Bush did in Iraq, you still need months or years of planning and preparation.
 
its not the republicans you need saving from,

its the Islamic warriors that want to saw your head off and blow up your malls and shopping centers just before they fly jetliners into your home.
 
Not gonna happen this way. In today's day and age, you can't just lauch a suprise war even half assed without someone seeing it.
 
Hoot said:
God save us from these war hungry imbecilic republicans!
Looks like you may have lost sight of who the enemy is. Here's a hint. Remember what happened to Daniel Perle?
 
Our government isn't that stupid.
 
bismitch said:
Our government isn't that stupid.

While I don't think Bush is stupid, (just obdurate, foolhardy and intransigent) not everyone shares our confidence.
 
If this carrier force is going to be stationed in the Gulf it could be as a prelude to Sanctions imposed by primarily the US albeit without sanction of the UN, with possible assistance or acknowledgement from the UK.

It would be a very dangerous employment and would certainly be seen as a direct provocation, by Iran.

Ah but, as someone has already said, our Government under President Bush would not be that stupid,

Or would they?
 
If this carrier force is going to be stationed in the Gulf it could be as a prelude to Sanctions imposed by primarily the US albeit without sanction of the UN, with possible assistance or acknowledgement from the UK.

It would be a very dangerous employment and would certainly be seen as a direct provocation, by Iran.

Ah but, as someone has already said, our Government under President Bush would not be that stupid,

Or would they?

How on earth would they impose sanctions by going into the gulf? Blow up oil rigs.. thats an act of war. Hijack oil tankers.. another act of war.

Also once in the gulf, Iran can easily block its escape route out of the gulf, just as easy as it can block oil going out of the gulf region.

If the US wanted to impose some sort of oil sanctions on Iran, then it should block access out of the gulf, not in the gulf.

Not to mention that Iran could take pot shots at the carrier group constantly for hours on end while the carrier was trying to get out of the gulf... and maybe thats what Bush wants.

And I doubt Tony Blair would support a direct confrontation at this time as the British forces are even more thinly spread than the US forces and moral according to the news is at an all time low, not to mention Blairs own political future is coming to an end.
 
Hoot said:
So now, the USS Einsenhower is traveling to the Iran area..I pray it's going there just to support the Iraq mission, and not for an October surprise from Bush to start a war with Iran. Gulf of Tonkin sound familiar?

God save us from these war hungry imbecilic republicans!

Hey!!

Where's Caine?

I expected to see some whining from him regarding partisan bickering.

Hmm. Maybe he just hasnt seen the post yet.
 
Iran has nothing that can beat up a carrier group. Usually there are lots of ships loaded up with SAMs in a carrier group to deal with missiles(if they fire first) and the like. The Carrier Group if attacked would probally not try to get out of the gulf, but would retaliate on the missile launch sites.
 
Goobieman said:
Hey!!

Where's Caine?

I expected to see some whining from him regarding partisan bickering.

Hmm. Maybe he just hasnt seen the post yet.


LMAO......

Im glad Im not the only one.
 
bismitch said:
Iran has nothing that can beat up a carrier group. Usually there are lots of ships loaded up with SAMs in a carrier group to deal with missiles(if they fire first) and the like. The Carrier Group if attacked would probally not try to get out of the gulf, but would retaliate on the missile launch sites.
They have successfully tested an under water missile named Hoot. This is a missile in the same class like the Russian VA-111 Shkval or the German Barracuda. I don't see an American Carrier Group having the slightest chance to escape when they use this kind of weapon in the Persian gulf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(missile)
 
Volker said:
They have successfully tested an under water missile named Hoot. This is a missile in the same class like the Russian VA-111 Shkval or the German Barracuda. I don't see an American Carrier Group having the slightest chance to escape when they use this kind of weapon in the Persian gulf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(missile)

Its not a missile, its a torpedo, and it aint all that.
And when the Russians originally came out with it, no one was concerned.
Why?
It has a range of a whopping 7km.

reliability? Remember the Kusk?
One of these blew up in her torpedo compartment and sank her.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20060404.aspx
 
Goobieman said:
Its not a missile, its a torpedo, and it aint all that.
And when the Russians originally came out with it, no one was concerned.
Why?
It has a range of a whopping 7km.

reliability? Remember the Kusk?
One of these blew up in her torpedo compartment and sank her.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20060404.aspx
You took a very biased article and added bias :roll:

The 7 km is from Russian tests in the nineties and as I understand it, it's the range with 80 % hit ratio, not the maximum range.

They say, that the Kursk sank because of it "according to some sources".
You try to make it look like a fact.

The Strait of Hormuz has a 60 km minimum.
Iran has smart technicians.
 
Volker said:
You took a very biased article and added bias :roll:

You took a Wikipedia cite as gospel. :roll:

Iran has a history of making outrageous claims about their military capabilities, none of which are ever verified by outside obervers and none of which ever show up oin the export market.

You're being duped by Iranian propoganda.
 
Goobieman said:
You took a Wikipedia cite as gospel. :roll:
I added a source, which I find informative.

Goobieman said:
Iran has a history of making outrageous claims about their military capabilities, none of which are ever verified by outside obervers and none of which ever show up oin the export market.
Maybe they can keep military secrets and they are not so interested in weapon exports.

Goobieman said:
You're being duped by Iranian propoganda.
Then Wikipedia and BBC and a lot of others are, too, or maybe we are right and you are wrong.
 
Volker said:
Then Wikipedia and BBC and a lot of others are, too, or maybe we are right and you are wrong.

Not likely.

Lets be real - here are the Iranian claims:

“The speed of this missile called ‘Hout’ is 100 metres per second and no ship can escape it”, Fadavi said, adding that the maximum speed of conventional underwater missiles was 25 metres per second. State television aired clips of the missile as it was being fired and moving in the water.

“Currently, only two countries in the world are equipped with such a missile”, he said. “Ships that can fire the Hout missile are radar-proof and cannot be identified”.

"The missiles are also designed to evade sonar detection," Fadavi claimed.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6559

Incredulous at best.
 
Last edited:
Sure the US carrier battle group can fight back but what if it cant get out of the gulf again? The straits leading into the gulf can basicly blocked by a few sucken oil tankers at the right spot. The straits have always been the weak spot in the arab oil, and hence Saudi Arabia and other nations in the area have built massive oil pipelines leading to the red sea and med, so that they would not be totaly crippled by an accident or blockade in the straits.
 
PeteEU said:
Sure the US carrier battle group can fight back but what if it cant get out of the gulf again? The straits leading into the gulf can basicly blocked by a few sucken oil tankers at the right spot. The straits have always been the weak spot in the arab oil, and hence Saudi Arabia and other nations in the area have built massive oil pipelines leading to the red sea and med, so that they would not be totaly crippled by an accident or blockade in the straits.

The upbound and downbound channels are both 3 miles wide, and there is a 2 mile wide buffer between them, making a total width of 8 miles - and this is just the maked passage; there's a fair bit of deep water to the north that can be used as well.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-chart-2888-1580px.html

You need a bit more than a "few tankers" to block the straits.
 
Goobieman said:
Not likely.

Lets be real - here are the Iranian claims:



http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6559

Incredulous at best.
Why is it incredulous? I don't know, which two countries he talks about, but I only know about Russia who has it and Iran and Germany who know the technoloy. The other descriptions don't differ much from what you hear about the Russian or German missiles or torpedos.
 
Volker said:
Why is it incredulous?
A 4x increase in torpedo speed?
Invisible to sonar?
Launched from boats invisible to radar?

This torpedo is supposedly so fast (4x faster than any other) because of "supercavitation". Cavitation of any kind is - guess what - noisy.
 
Goobieman said:
A 4x increase in torpedo speed?
Invisible to sonar?
Launched from boats invisible to radar?

This torpedo is supposedly so fast (4x faster than any other) because of "supercavitation". Cavitation of any kind is - guess what - noisy.
It's supercaviation, one big bubble instead of many small bubbles.

Oh, and the other country is China. Both, Russia and China have this kind of weapons. So, Mr. Fadavi is correct about two countries having it.
 
Volker said:
It's supercaviation, one big bubble instead of many small bubbles.
Doesnt matter if its 'super' or not.

Do Know what cavitation is?

Its when a propellor spins fast enough that the drop in pressure on the low-side of the prop causes the water to turn to gas. The speed at which this happens depends on the depth of the water, but its possible at any depth. Your 4x speed propellors are going to be spinning awfully darn fast, so...

Anyway, when these bubbles of gas fall out of the low-pressure zone, they collapse back to liquid water -- and make a ton of noise.

The props alone will make so much noise that you'll hear it a zillion miles away. No way to stop this; if there were, all torpedoes would be silent.
 
Back
Top Bottom