Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292351)

I never meant to imply that Iran could do zero damage. Of course they definitely can deal a certain measure, no question, so on that point I'm not arguing with you.

Let me put it to you this way: You are Iran. You fire off a volley of those missiles against ships in the gulf. I'd hazard a guess it would go something like this: the point or points of origin of your missiles would be pinpointed within seconds via a combo of radar and satellite systems, from not one but from many DOZENS of ships and military installations throughout the region. Within a short period of time, probably minutes, the sites from which you launched your missiles would be utterly evaporated. Rest assured those would be the last missiles those sites would fire.

From that point on it would be game on, and "game on" to the US military in the ME means raining down a veritable shitstorm, constant, targeted, and without end until you (Iran) get your head out of your ass and surrender.

But yes, it's quite possible that the missiles you did fire did some serious damage. Nothing that would win an entire war, but definitely serious. Serious enough to further piss off an already pissed off sleeping giant.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17292312)

right, so what defense, exactly, do they have against a missile that goes mach 2.9 designed specifically for the very anti-missile systems in place? Considering how well the Americans did with the scuds in the exact same area, i'd say the odds are good the iranians are going to blow up billions of dollars worth of equipment in a very short time frame, as well as shutting down one of the most vital economic links of the world.

if you do answer this question, please inform the US Navy.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292367)

So, you are saying Iran would send out a fleet of mobile launchers, or will they be firing missiles from schools, mosques, churches, oil rigs, and residential areas?

Maybe just a combo of all of the above?

That should help make an attack on a country who hasn't attacked anyone, go down pretty damn smooth internationally... don't you think?

Piece of cake, right?

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17292388)

That armada has the capability to shoot down incoming missile's...in addition carrier groups are always escorted by subs and one sub carrying nuclear missile's can completely deystory Iran and most of any other country. Nukes would not be required though to do this as subs carrying non nuclear missile's and the armada's carrying non nuclear missile's...in the form of cruise missile's...combined with the carrier's air power...can pretty much accomplish the same thing.

Their air forces and naval forces are insignificant compared to this single armada...and we have many of this types of armada's...as well as the capability of launching long range bombers from bases in the U.S...and other parts of the world in the form of B1 and B2 Bombers that will arrive above Iran in a matter of hours.

Can Iran inflict some damage...yes...but it would be negligble to the amount of damage they would suffer just from this single armada.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292367)

So, you are saying Iran would send out a fleet of mobile launchers, or will they be firing missiles from schools, mosques, churches, oil rigs, and residential areas?

Maybe just a combo of all of the above?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292367)

That should help make an attack on a country who hasn't attacked anyone, go down pretty damn smooth internationally... don't you think?

Piece of cake, right?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292401)

But in reality, the "attack" comes in the form of them defying most of the world by continuing to develop nuclear capabilities. Their defiance IS their attack. Making them out to be an innocent nation who've never attacked anyone and don't deserve to be bothered etc is just being naive.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292399)

Why are we discussing an attack on Iran again?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292413)

Who is Iran going to bomb if and when they get a nuke?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292399)

Why are we discussing an attack on Iran again?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292422)

Well, because *I* had the tumerity to say that the fleet massing in the gulf could handing pretty much anything Iran has to throw at them, at which point Richard took exception to my statement and implied I don't know what I'm talking about. The discussion has progressed from there because Richard asked "how", as in how the US & co. would go about handling an attack from Iran's special new toy missiles.

That about bring things up to speed?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292422)

Well, because *I* had the tumerity to say that the fleet massing in the gulf could handing pretty much anything Iran has to throw at them, at which point Richard took exception to my statement and implied I don't know what I'm talking about. The discussion has progressed from there because Richard asked "how", as in how the US & co. would go about handling an attack from Iran's special new toy missiles.

That about bring things up to speed?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292428)

I for one would rather not find out, but if I'm reading you right I think you're continuing to be naive.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17292441)

in all fairness, i didn't imply, i politely stated.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292468)

I am not PRO nuclear bombs by any stretch, but why is Iran such a threat, verses Russia, France, Israel, the US, India, North Korea, the UK, Pakistan, and China for example - all of which are nations who currently possess "the bomb" right now?

Why do you believe Iran is willing to risk total destruction by firing a nuke at someone?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292491)

The implication was made because you stated it in such a way as to it being your opinion. "...then I'd say you don't know what you're talking about". You didn't say flat out "you don't know what you're talking about", thus the implication.

I didn't mean to imply anything negative your way by my use of the word "implied". :D

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292491)

The implication was made because you stated it in such a way as to it being your opinion. "...then I'd say you don't know what you're talking about". You didn't say flat out "you don't know what you're talking about", thus the implication.

I didn't mean to imply anything negative your way by my use of the word "implied". :D

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17292508)

My opinion would be that in your list Iran is the only country that is ruled by religious extremists/nuts...and of course Korea is ruled by by a nut also.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292468)

I am not PRO nuclear bombs by any stretch, but why is Iran such a threat, verses Russia, France, Israel, the US, India, North Korea, the UK, Pakistan, and China for example - all of which are nations who currently possess "the bomb" right now?

Why do you believe Iran is willing to risk total destruction by firing a nuke at someone?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292532)

My question to you is, why does Iran need autonomous nuclear capability in the first place?


Again as a personal note only I'll add here that on my list of countries to be entrusted with nukes Iran is about as far from the top as it gets. I doubt it's just my take on it though. I'd wager that if the entire world's population were polled about this the end result would heavily favor denying Iran this capability. In looking back over their history, especially the last 30 years or so, tell me why they deserve to be trusted?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292532)

My question to you is, why does Iran need autonomous nuclear capability in the first place?

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17292396)

maybe he doesn't know that a small group of pissed-off-turned-supreme rulers are controlling the country and a lot of the people there, and abroad, would like to live free?

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17292555)

their major enviromental problem is smog/air pollution.. nuclear plants would solve a lot of problems for them

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292530)

Well, then maybe a precision strike on the religious nuts in charge, is a better idea than bombing a country full of innocent civilians?

If Israel and the US know exactly where the bombs are being developed, then they MUST know exactly where the loony leaders are too, no?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292572)

Maybe as a deterrent against an attack from Israel and/or the US?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292572)

How many Iranians did we help Saddam kill, when we supported Iraq against Iran again?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292572)

A million maybe?

Who knows why they would be upset with us?

Life if full of mysteries like that...

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17292572)

Maybe as a deterrent against an attack from Israel and/or the US?

How many Iranians did we help Saddam kill, when we supported Iraq against Iran again?

A million maybe?

Who knows why they would be upset with us?

Life if full of mysteries like that...

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17292526)

You and I have now educated him...so their should not be anymore questions about the Iranian military power...being insignifcant...compared to the military power of that single armada...let alone the entire military power of the U.S.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 17292686)

I guess my overall point for posting anything to that topic is that the leaders of nations like Iran should themselves realize this, and face the fact that they are in no position to dictate terms to the world, militarily or otherwise. Yet so many of them try to. "We're a soveriegn nation, we can DO WHAT WE WANT" --- well, no you can't. Not when it threatens peace with neighboring countries or in this case basically the entire world.

Iran attaining nuclear capability is a mistake I hope the world finds a way to avoid, period.

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 17288353)

i want this to happen and i will gladly pay 80% of my income in taxes to see it happen...

the economy is in a downward spiral, there is now end in sight to iraq or afghanistan..

now we are slowly inching deeper into pakistan..

fuck it... let's do this..

lets go all in and lets let some nukes fly too...

if you are going to call yourself a superpower, then start acting like one..






.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17291484)

Marine Corps

ASVAB Score - Marine Corps recruits must score at least 32. A very few exceptions are made (about one percent) for some exceptionally otherwise qualified recruits with scores as low as 25.

Education - As with the Air Force, those without a high school education are ineligible. The Marine Corps limits GED enlistments to no more than five percent per year. Those with a GED must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT to even be considered.

Air Force

ASVAB Score - Air Force recruits must score at least 36 points the 99-point ASVAB (Note: The "Overall" ASVAB Score is known as the "AFQT Score," or "Armed Forces Qualification Test Score"). Exceptions are made, however, for a handful of high school graduates who can score as low as 31. In actuality, the vast majority (over 70 percent) of those accepted for an Air Force enlistment score 50 or above.

Education - You're more likely to be struck by lightning than enlist in the Air Force without a high school diploma. Even with a GED, the chances are not good. Only about 1/2 of a percent of all Air Force enlistments each year are GED-Holders. To even be considered for one of these very few slots, a GED-holder must score a minimum of 65 on the AFQT. The Air Force allows a higher enlistment rank for recruits with college credit.

Navy

ASVAB Score - Navy recruits must score at least 35 on the AFQT. The Navy raised this requirement from 31 in 2003 for active duty accessions. Reserve enlistment programs still only require a score of 31.

Education - Like the Air Force, the Navy accepts very, very few recruits who don't have a high school diploma. To be considered for enlistment with a GED, you must score a minimum of 50 on the AFQT. You must also have no drug use, and at least three references from influential members of the community (police, fire, judge, teacher, ect.). Any police involvement, other than minor traffic offenses will also disqualify a GED applicant.

Army

ASVAB Score - The Army requires a minimum AFQT Score of 31 to qualify for enlistment. However, in recent months, the Army has been approving more and more waivers for those with scores as low as 26 (Category IVA). To qualify for certain enlistment incentives, such as enlistment bonuses, an Army recruit must score a minimum of 50.

Education - The Army allows more recruits to enlist with a GED than any other branch. In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent. The Army even has a special program, called Army Prep School, that allows individuals to enlist who have no high school diploma or GED.

Now who is it that is on "crack"...sport?

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 17293031)

Seems to me your using info from 2008. I'm talking 1980.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17291125)

First of all, Iran is HUGE, so it is doubtful anything will happen via "precision" bombings. They most likely have MANY underground nuclear research facilities.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17291125)

In response to an attack, Iran will instantly target all US and Israeli ships in the Persian Gulf, and maybe even shut down the gulf, causing our gas and power prices to skyrocket.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17291125)

You also have to imagine Russia and China will not be very happy, and North Korea will feel even more pressure to do something pro-active, as it watches the second of the 3 "axis-of-evil" countries getting attacked.

Originally Posted by mayabong (Post 17293081)

Isn't that what isreal says? You can't be serious. Either you're jewish or your totally brainwashed by the mainstream media. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years. They havn't threatened anyone. The wipe of the map thing was a total misquote spread through the media. They are signed on to the NPT, they get inspections, they are swapping their fuel.

It does not matter what they do, they are getting attacked either way.

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17293094)

Yes...it does matter what they do. If they do what the powers in the world tell them to do there will not be a problem...their fate is in their hands and only their hands.