Iran declares it can sink US carrier with 'ease' in Persian gulf.
370 replies, posted
Sounds a lot like an 8 year old saying, "My dad can beat your dad up!"
[QUOTE=The Aussie;34283307]If a war did unfold, i think that Iran, WOULD be destroyed, but the US would face bad casualties. Iran seem to be dick waving a lot. There is method in their madness though, i think. They seem like the WANT to be destroyed, maybe they're hoping russia will, like, back them up or something. Who cares, If iran decides to launch the nukes that they have i won't be anywhere near the danger zone, Australia would but the fuck out in this case.[/QUOTE]
Australia would be nuked for sitting out and being pussys
Good lord guys it was a joke.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;34276391]We have the power, but not enough to fund a full out war. This is why Iran is acting tough, cause were weak due to economy problems.[/QUOTE]
we wont have any debt when everywhere is america
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34283352]Australia would be nuked for sitting out and being pussys[/QUOTE]
This is why people hate us
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34283352]Australia would be nuked for sitting out and being pussys[/QUOTE]
Australia isn't lazy, I think their defense forces have helped the US and any other allied forces involved in the Middle-East for however many years now. They did a hell of a fine job in the Pacific during WWII even.
I'm sure U.S. escorts are on the ball. But submarines, well... It's not like making a surface attack, the U.S. navy needs to be very careful. You can be pretty well shielded against air and surface threats using good radar and having a quick response force ready, but a good sub commander poses a far greater threat. Sonar's only as good as the computer or operator.
[QUOTE=>VLN<;34283181]It is [I]possible[/I] that Iran or other Arab nations have sleeper cells in the US with briefcase bombs, (many were lost during the downfall of the Soviet Union); and if we attack, they could decimate major cities. It isn't impossible, and we should be on the lookout, especially if you live within a 300 radius of a major city if we go to war with Iran.[/QUOTE]
where the fuck are you getting this from?
[QUOTE=stupid10er;34284254]where the fuck are you getting this from?[/QUOTE]
Movies and books about the end cold war and the beginning of the war on terror, modified for Iranians or whatever threat it is these days.
[QUOTE=Contag;34283073]yes, and they don't fucking want to, because they know that
why do you think they want to develop the capability to develop nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]Don't tell me you've bought in to that crap about them wanting to develop nuclear weaponry, too.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34283352]Australia would be nuked for sitting out and being pussys[/QUOTE]
Australia has been involved in virtually every conflict the US was for the last 60 or so years
[editline]19th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34284553]Don't tell me you've bought in to that crap about them wanting to develop nuclear weaponry, too.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be smart for them to keep their options open.
That's why I said develop the capability to develop nuclear weapons.
They're not developing nuclear weapons, but they are developing the ability to create them, over time.
That's not to say that there aren't very legitimate uses for the technology that could be used to eventually create nuclear weapons though.
In fact, the increasingly harsh economic sanctions may have provided a bit of a push towards that.
Hell, Iran has even signed the NPT, which is more than can be said of some other countries.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;34283454]This is why people hate us[/QUOTE]
I was joking
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;34284623]Australia has been involved in virtually every conflict the US was for the last 60 or so years
[/QUOTE]
Im aware of this I was responding to the guy saying Australia would sit out a hypothetical nuclear war
Assuming they didn't already do this, submarines are probably escorting the Stennis around by now (as in much better made stealth submarines). Iran is foolish if they think the carrier is just going to fart around by itself. Now this does not make it invulnerable obviously, but it's going to make it far harder for Iran to actually destroy (assuming they ever would, which they won't).
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34284917]-snip-
Oops some of you folks might not be able to use Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
What can you say, the US military has had some issues with defending Liberty
[editline]19th January 2012[/editline]
oh dang you edited it
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34276591]US Stages full land invasion of Iran.
Iran launches nuke and destroys million strong force.
Iran declares invasion of US by 2020.
Iran says new world order by 2025
[img]http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/ahmadinejadpeace.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
you forgot the part where we turn Iran into a smoking radioactive crater.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;34285025]you forgot the part where we turn Iran into a smoking radioactive crater.[/QUOTE]
you forgot the part of your post that wasn't utter shit
[QUOTE=TAU!;34284201]Australia isn't lazy, I think their defense forces have helped the US and any other allied forces involved in the Middle-East for however many years now. They did a hell of a fine job in the Pacific during WWII even.[/QUOTE]
deployed with us in vietnam too
and korea
[QUOTE=Contag;34285096]you forgot the part of your post that wasn't utter shit[/QUOTE]
I disagree to an extent. If the US was to be defeated in a convential war and invasion was a real threat, I would think Nuclear Weapons and indiscriminate bombings on civilians would become standard.
[QUOTE=archangel125;34284237]I'm sure U.S. escorts are on the ball. But submarines, well... It's not like making a surface attack, the U.S. navy needs to be very careful. You can be pretty well shielded against air and surface threats using good radar and having a quick response force ready, but a good sub commander poses a far greater threat. Sonar's only as good as the computer or operator.[/QUOTE]
you know we also can use MAD to detect submarines? it's not just sonar
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34284917]-snip-
Oops some of you folks might not be able to use Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
FYI you can make a Wikipedia link followable without having to disable javascript by appending ?banner=none to the link
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34285141]I disagree to an extent. If the US was to be defeated in a convential war and invasion was a real threat, I would think Nuclear Weapons and indiscriminate bombings on civilians would become standard.[/QUOTE]
I doubt the US will be defeated in a conventional war to the point at which invasion would be a problem. Iran is on the other side of the world and the majority of their military is defense oriented, hence heavy investment in SAMs. I doubt they have the logistical capability to invade.
Also most people here are ignoring the fact that we don't send in carriers alone, they are part of carrier strike groups which include attack subs to shield from enemy subs.
[QUOTE=Fariun;34276446]Sinking of a Multi-Billion dollar US warship leads to swift kick in the nads by tactical nuke for Iran...[/QUOTE]
DUUUR THIS IS LIKE CAWWA DOOTY WITH THE BOATS AND NUKES LOLZ
[QUOTE=DarkCisco;34285171]DUUUR THIS IS LIKE CAWWA DOOTY WITH THE BOATS AND NUKES LOLZ[/QUOTE]
LOLZ US DELTA FORCE WILL HIJACK IRANIAN SUB AND USE IT'S MISSILES TO HIT TEHRAN DURR
[QUOTE=DarkCisco;34285171]DUUUR THIS IS LIKE CAWWA DOOTY WITH THE BOATS AND NUKES LOLZ[/QUOTE]
Really?
Think about it this way, if Iran was to sink a (for example) Nimitz Class Carrier, the death toll would be in the thousands.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34285274]Really?
Think about it this way, if Iran was to sink a (for example) Nimitz Class Carrier, the death toll would be in the thousands.[/QUOTE]
you know lifeboats and damage control exist for a reason right?
hundreds maybe. Thousands? fuck no.
when the Argentines sank the SS Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands War, 12 people died. 150 were rescued. and that's a totally unarmored civilian ship.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285302]you know lifeboats and damage control exist for a reason right?
hundreds maybe. Thousands? fuck no.[/QUOTE]
It would be the monetary value lost with all of those expensive jets and the carrier itself.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285348]It would be the monetary value lost with all of those expensive jets and the carrier itself.[/QUOTE]
he said "death toll", not "monetary loss"
while that would piss us off a fucktonne (enough probably to invade), I'm just saying not that many people would die.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285302]you know lifeboats and damage control exist for a reason right?
hundreds maybe. Thousands? fuck no.[/QUOTE]
I was going on the absolute worst case scenario.
I would think that any attack would be intercepted before damagae was done? I mean there is a reason we have the Phalanx systems and other things? Naval stuff is not really my area of knowledge and the lack of wiki isnt helping (and its showing).
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285372]he said "death toll", not "monetary loss"
while that would piss us off a fucktonne (enough probably to invade), I'm just saying not that many people would die.[/QUOTE]
I dont care what he said, I'm pointing out even if they did evacuate alot of people you still loose billions of dollars while Iran only looses ~50 Million in Missiles and subs.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34285380]I was going on the absolute worst case scenario.
I would think that any attack would be intercepted before damagae was done? I mean there is a reason we have the Phalanx systems and other things? Naval stuff is not really my area of knowledge and the lack of wiki isnt helping (and its showing).[/QUOTE]
Phalanx isn't very effective against swarm tactics ( asymmetric warfare ).
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285392]I dont care what he said, I'm pointing out even if they did evacuate alot of people you still loose billions of dollars while Iran only looses ~50 Million in Missiles and subs.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
Phalanx isn't very effective against swarm tactics ( asymmetric warfare ).[/QUOTE]
well that's a given... why are you even saying that? stating the obvious much?
wait what the fuck are we talking about here. "Swarm tactics" doesn't really apply to this, neither does the phalanx.
If the submarines tried to "swarm", they would create more disturbance and be detected more easily. a single "ninja" sub stands a better chance.
Phalanx is a defence against anti-ship missiles, and if Iran is sane they'll use torpedoes, because firing an AShM vertically basically gives away it's position. Torpedoes do the same but less so, and they can't be intercepted as easily
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.