Will the U.S. attack Iran?

Yes - during Dubya's administration

11 (40.7%)

No - they'll do it in the next administration

8 (29.6%)

No - they can't afford another war

8 (29.6%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The HQ-9 system reportedly uses a large HT-233 3D C-band mono-pulse planar phased array radar, which operates in the 300MHz bandwidth and has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees), and is capable of tracking some 100 airborne targets and simultaneously engaging more than 50 targets. The radar system is carried on a Taian TAS5380 8X8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicle.

Look, it's not like I know what I'm talking about. I just searched the internet to see what was available. I love how you act like Iran is going to be totally caught off guard.

If you can tell me how Iran is going to stop several hundred cruise missiles that Bush could launch whenever he felt like it, then please tell us.

[voodoo]

Mom use to be a chem-treat prep person and dad use to be a flight-line inspector and paints the Wichita plant airplanes now?  Christ, you're a regular geek.  Get a dungeon master's manual.

Fixed.

-- Brede

 

[The Muslim Agorist]

The HQ-9 system reportedly uses a large HT-233 3D C-band mono-pulse planar phased array radar, which operates in the 300MHz bandwidth and has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees), and is capable of tracking some 100 airborne targets and simultaneously engaging more than 50 targets. The radar system is carried on a Taian TAS5380 8X8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicle.

Look, it's not like I know what I'm talking about. I just searched the internet to see what was available. I love how you act like Iran is going to be totally caught off guard.

If you can tell me how Iran is going to stop several hundred cruise missiles that Bush could launch whenever he felt like it, then please tell us.

Several hundred cruise missiles... let's say 400. An HQ-9 engages 50 targets, let's use your 50% accuracy statistic, that's 16.
Who knows how many Iran has, if any... we're practically just making up numbers anyway. But you gotta bet they've got strategists over there more intelligent than me. All I'm saying is that it's not going to be a walk in the park. You're acting like we'd fire our first volley and then Iran will be totally disabled and totally defenseless. I think that's naive.

Looking on-line the consensus is that Iran's SAM defense capabilities is a mix of US made I-HAWKs (A Raytheon product, maybe ask ladyattis about it) and Russian built SA-15s and SA-6 with a possible recent or upcoming upgrade to the SA-20 system. Another site reported Russia selling a SAM system called the TOR-M1 and S-300PMU in Dec of 2006. It's hard to find specs on these things, but it doesn't look like the Russian systems are up to par with the Chinese system above... but we're making up numbers anyway. The point is there is a Surface-to-Air Missile Defense System in Iran.

Look... The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military. There's no doubt we could obliterate Iran if we put our mind to it. But that doesn't mean it'll be overnight.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The HQ-9 system reportedly uses a large HT-233 3D C-band mono-pulse planar phased array radar, which operates in the 300MHz bandwidth and has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees), and is capable of tracking some 100 airborne targets and simultaneously engaging more than 50 targets. The radar system is carried on a Taian TAS5380 8X8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicle.

Look, it's not like I know what I'm talking about. I just searched the internet to see what was available. I love how you act like Iran is going to be totally caught off guard.

If you can tell me how Iran is going to stop several hundred cruise missiles that Bush could launch whenever he felt like it, then please tell us.

Several hundred cruise missiles... let's say 400. An HQ-9 engages 50 targets, let's use your 50% accuracy statistic, that's 16.
Who knows how many Iran has, if any... we're practically just making up numbers anyway. But you gotta bet they've got strategists over there more intelligent than me. All I'm saying is that it's not going to be a walk in the park. You're acting like we'd fire our first volley and then Iran will be totally disabled and totally defenseless. I think that's naive.

Looking on-line the consensus is that Iran's SAM defense capabilities is a mix of US made I-HAWKs (A Raytheon product, maybe ask ladyattis about it) and Russian built SA-15s and SA-6 with a possible recent or upcoming upgrade to the SA-20 system. Another site reported Russia selling a SAM system called the TOR-M1 and S-300PMU in Dec of 2006. It's hard to find specs on these things, but it doesn't look like the Russian systems are up to par with the Chinese system above... but we're making up numbers anyway. The point is there is a Surface-to-Air Missile Defense System in Iran.

Look... The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military. There's no doubt we could obliterate Iran if we put our mind to it. But that doesn't mean it'll be overnight.

We're talking about attacking government bureaucrats, what makes you think that the socialist/fascist Iranian government would be MORE efficient than ours, especially with technology?  I'm not saying that they wouldn't be very effective against soldiers on the streets, guerilla warfare is pretty hard to fight against.  But its pretty hard to defend against cruise missiles, and the anti-missile defense system developed by the US gov't is not very effective and Iran definitely doesn't have it.

[The Muslim Agorist]

We're talking about attacking government bureaucrats, what makes you think that the socialist/fascist Iranian government would be MORE efficient than ours, especially with technology?  I'm not saying that they wouldn't be very effective against soldiers on the streets, guerilla warfare is pretty hard to fight against.  But its pretty hard to defend against cruise missiles, and the anti-missile defense system developed by the US gov't is not very effective and Iran definitely doesn't have it.

You know, I hadn't realized that cruise missiles deliver victory in one fell swoop by killing all the  government bureaucrats... one wonders why we even landed in Iraq in the first place... or anywhere for that matter. If we've got a weapon that's impossible to defend against, one wonders why we haven't just taken over the world.

Luckily if we just sit back this question will likely be answered for us...

[The Muslim Agorist]

So, if it's so easy, and the government doesn't care about money... why haven't they done it already?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

So, if it's so easy, and the government doesn't care about money... why haven't they done it already?

Why don't you ask GWB?  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but would you think they'd probably wait for a Gulf of Tonkin type incident?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I just saw a thing on the Military Channel on unmanned aircraft that are remotely flown, stealth to radar and can deliver ordnance and targetting instructions from 60,000 feet above the ground well out of range of SAM batteries while flying for up to 36 hours at a time.  And since SAM batteries aren't effective against incoming ordnace it seems pretty likely that USAF air strikes could easily wipe out the Iranian military infrastructure without even risking any soldiers' lives.

[The Muslim Agorist]

I just saw a thing on the Military Channel on unmanned aircraft that are remotely flown, stealth to radar and can deliver ordnance and targetting instructions from 60,000 feet above the ground well out of range of SAM batteries while flying for up to 36 hours at a time.  And since SAM batteries aren't effective against incoming ordnace it seems pretty likely that USAF air strikes could easily wipe out the Iranian military infrastructure without even risking any soldiers' lives.

If something like that really works consistently maybe you're right. But I still can't imagine it would be completely without consequence... or a good idea.

[Ed]

Guys let go of the hate already. Jesus. Joelberg is a Jew and MuslimNonarchist is a Muslim...we don't need that Israeli/Palestinian conflict bullshit here. Understood? Play nice or YER OUT.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Guys let go of the hate already. Jesus. Joelberg is a Jew and MuslimNonarchist is a Muslim...we don't need that Israeli/Palestinian conflict bullshit here. Understood? Play nice or YER OUT.

Joelbeb is a Jew? *shrugs* I don't care.

We're not talking about Israel or Palestine anyway... we're talking about Iran... And I'm not arguing from any kind of love for Iran, I'm arguing from a contempt for war. I think Iran could use a little "administrative reorganization" I just want the Iranian people to do it.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Guys let go of the hate already. Jesus. Joelberg is a Jew and MuslimNonarchist is a Muslim...we don't need that Israeli/Palestinian conflict bullshit here. Understood? Play nice or YER OUT.

Joelbeb is a Jew? *shrugs* I don't care.

We're not talking about Israel or Palestine anyway... we're talking about Iran... And I'm not arguing from any kind of love for Iran, I'm arguing from a contempt for war. I think Iran could use a little "administrative reorganization" I just want the Iranian people to do it.

Hey hey I don't care if you're a Muslim either, and I'm not saying the US SHOULD bomb Iran, I'm just saying that if Bush chose to do so, he could do a no troops on the ground, bomb from 60k feet campaign with few immediate casualties.  That's all.

[ladyattis]

And he could galvanize the already bullish chinese market with more demand for SAM technologies. Geez, good idea.

-- Brede

[The Muslim Agorist]

Hey hey I don't care if you're a Muslim either, and I'm not saying the US SHOULD bomb Iran, I'm just saying that if Bush chose to do so, he could do a no troops on the ground, bomb from 60k feet campaign with few immediate casualties.  That's all.

Yeah, I agree an attack could be launches without boots on the ground, and with zero US casualties. I've even seen these remote control machine gun robots they've got rolling around Iraq right now... so completely automated warfare is likely the future.

What I'm disputing is the notion that a first strike would be so affective as the prohibit any retaliation.

[AlexLibman]

There's no way anything can be achieved in Iran without at least half a million troops in the region (which Israel could easily provide, if it was to get involved directly, but they won't want an all-out war).  There's no way America can come up with this many soldiers, not even if two-thirds of them speak Spanish.

If the U.S. starts bombing targets in Iran, the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan would multiply by twenty.  The inevitable destruction of Iran's puny air and sea powers and missile launchers would be meaningless - it will be a long s guerrilla war in an area many times larger than Vietnam, and also more populous.  Sealing off Iran's borders will be next to impossible, and the "westerner death toll" will go from thousands to tens of thousands.

Withdrawing will then be many times more discouraging than it is now, because it could lead to a "Greater Persia" with expanded powers in Shia Arab regions, and many more problems for Israel.