Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 50 of 50

Thread: Here Comes the BOOM

  1. #31
    Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    11,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.
    Very possible.
    Trump: Lock him up.

  3. #33
    Guess they are banking on getting political cover from Trump's escalation and rhetoric, and on being able to climb down before full-blown war. Someone needs to find and pimpslap the fuckwit that included QS's assassination in those PowerPoint slides.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #34
    If Trump doesn't hit back hard he'll ensure he's a 1 term president. You can't hit a target (a terrorist) and then threaten Iran with overwhelming response if they retaliate and then let them launch attacks on American military forces without responding. If he blinks like he did when Iran took down the drone at the last second we'll have truly become a paper tiger.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Multiple missile attacks on bases all over Iraq, by IRGC. Uncharacteristically foolish. War, I guess.
    Unfortunate. I'd really hoped they'd limit their retaliation to striking at and/or through proxies. Hitting Iraqi facilities, striking in Syria, etc. I can guarantee that the minimum response we're going to get from this administration is counter-retaliation via missile/drone/air-strikes against Iranian military assets and bases in turn which they're going to reply in kind to. It used to be that Russia would start getting pissed about that kind of action but I don't know how their relations with Iran are doing these days. I hear conflicting things about cooperation and rivalry in their shared defense of Assad's regime in Syria. If Russia doesn't take an overt or tacit pro-Iran stance here, they'll certainly still take advantage of our committing assets there to push harder with Ukraine. And Trump will let them because he's decided to blame Ukraine for his problems here at home and tried to make them a scapegoat.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-08-2020 at 02:28 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Unfortunate. I'd really hoped they'd limit their retaliation to striking at and/or through proxies. Hitting Iraqi facilities, striking in Syria, etc. I can guarantee that the minimum response we're going to get from this administration is counter-retaliation via missile/drone/air-strikes against Iranian military assets and bases in turn which they're going to reply in kind to. It used to be that Russia would start getting pissed about that kind of action but I don't know how their relations with Iran are doing these days. I hear conflicting things about cooperation and rivalry in their shared defense of Assad's regime in Syria. If Russia doesn't take an overt or tacit pro-Iran stance here, they'll certainly still take advantage of our committing assets there to push harder with Ukraine. And Trump will let them because he's decided to blame Ukraine for his problems here at home and tried to make them a scapegoat.
    I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

    Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.

    Realistically I still rate the chances of an all-out war with Iran as fairly low (albeit much higher than it was a week and a half ago), but I wouldn't rule out an extended period of standoff strikes and proxy fighting in Iraq. Sort of a war-lite, since no one actually wants to deal with a real war.

    Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft. Whatever they have in mind, there's no indication that the US military is in any way positioned to engage Iran in anything more than a limited set of strikes.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

    Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.

    Realistically I still rate the chances of an all-out war with Iran as fairly low (albeit much higher than it was a week and a half ago), but I wouldn't rule out an extended period of standoff strikes and proxy fighting in Iraq. Sort of a war-lite, since no one actually wants to deal with a real war.

    Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft. Whatever they have in mind, there's no indication that the US military is in any way positioned to engage Iran in anything more than a limited set of strikes.
    Or the power of the sun. (TikTok meme reference)

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I've honestly given up trying to predict this administration's likely actions on Iran. In a normal administration, it's likely this kind of attack would result in reciprocal standoff strikes against Iranian missile, radar, and air defense installations. The risk of escalation would be high, but the strikes would likely be calibrated in intensity to send a message without necessitating a massive response (or putting, say, a US pilot in danger of being shot down). Then again, I would have said the same thing after Iranian attacks that downed a large intelligence drone and seriously damaged Saudi oil infrastructure, and the administration's response was... crickets.

    Frankly I have no idea what they'll do and I doubt it'll appear to be part of a coherent strategy to confront Iran and/or de-escalate the situation. I think Trump is winging it.
    Oh, it certainly wouldn't be part of a coherent strategy, and it would not be to de-escalate things. The administration's response was crickets before because Trump's ego was never engaged on the topic and consequently he didn't care at all about what the Iranians did/were doing. Now his ego is engaged and it's going to be motivating his selection of responses. At this point what I'm hoping is that we're going to be making stand-off strikes and that while Iran may do some of its own as well they'll quickly switch to proxy fighting (and maybe low-scale harassment like getting mortar strike teams and such in position to do some shelling on US facilities, also with help from local proxies). Trump will give himself a pat on the back for his tough response and things will peter out.

    Just to remind everyone: if the US actually was planning on, say, toppling the Iranian regime or defeating the Iranian military in detail, they'd need at a minimum several hundred thousand troops, half a dozen carrier battle groups, and a few hundred other aircraft.
    It would also be absolutely pointless. The significant Iranian military isn't all that important for their activities across the broader Middle East, we could maybe topple the current regime but we'd never manage to either facilitate or install and keep installed a friendly one. We could maybe give rise to a bunch of bickering factions and tribal interests but if we did plenty of them would be perfectly willing and able to continue the same kind of policies in the Middle East and against our interests as the current regime. We could make life worse and more unstable for a bunch of Iranians but we can't change much vis a vis Iran and the Middle East or Iran and us, with or subsequent to our use of military force.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    11,198
    If you were talking about any country in the Gulf region other than Iran I would agree with you. However it is Iran we are talking about and that country is not likely to fall apart in case of a regime change, not even a violent one.

    I think the smartest the US can do now is lash out at specific Iranian facilities. Try to limit casualties but strike hard enough and decisive enough for the clique in Tehran to get the message. I'm sure our friends in Jerusalem have some sensible suggestions.
    Trump: Lock him up.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    If you were talking about any country in the Gulf region other than Iran I would agree with you. However it is Iran we are talking about and that country is not likely to fall apart in case of a regime change, not even a violent one.

    I think the smartest the US can do now is lash out at specific Iranian facilities. Try to limit casualties but strike hard enough and decisive enough for the clique in Tehran to get the message. I'm sure our friends in Jerusalem have some sensible suggestions.
    To me the primary goal would be to eliminate their ability to fight back. Hit airfields, locations of where they are firing ballistics, power grid etc. It shouldn't be tit for tat it should be sustained around the clock bombing for a few days.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    To me the primary goal would be to eliminate their ability to fight back. Hit airfields, locations of where they are firing ballistics, power grid etc. It shouldn't be tit for tat it should be sustained around the clock bombing for a few days.
    That's assuming they'd fight back in symmetrical warfare. In practice, the fight back will be in other countries and not limited by any of the targets you just mentioned.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  12. #42
    It sounds like the Iranians gave advance warning to the U.S. where they were lobbing missiles, presumably to prevent casualties that would likely draw harsh reprisals. The U.S. did something similar when they bombed Syria for using chemical weapons. It's possible Trump might say something like "hah, they tried to hurt us but couldn't" and leave it at that. If that happens, it makes me wonder about all this.... I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I recognize there's a lot more that underlies something like a high level assassination than is represented in the media.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    , locations of where they are firing ballistics
    Talk about pointless. AFAIK those were truck-mounted short-range ballistic missiles. Mobile launchers, Lewk.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    It's possible Trump might say something like "hah, they tried to hurt us but couldn't" and leave it at that. If that happens, it makes me wonder about all this....
    Huh, Trump did exactly that. Almost like Iranian leadership isn't as pissed as they want to appear. Or maybe they're more afraid than pissed? Something doesn't smell right about all this.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Huh, Trump did exactly that. Almost like Iranian leadership isn't as pissed as they want to appear. Or maybe they're more afraid than pissed? Something doesn't smell right about all this.
    Historically, I think Iran has had a habit of taking their time exacting revenge. The missile attacks weren't, I think, intended as revenge, or even as retaliation in the conventional sense. More a well-calibrated signal intended to help both parties climb down a little without losing face.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #46
    Trump shit the bed on this one. He openly claimed massive response if Iran retaliated and then when they fire on our troops he mewls about increased sanctions. Basically just sent a signal to other countries that they can feel free to ignore our warning and take pot shots at our troops whenever they want. I like a lot of what Trump has done domestically but this is embarrassing.

  17. #47
    They claim they will hit harder ’soon’.
    Not sure what kind of resources they have in order to do that.

  18. #48
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,998
    Quote Originally Posted by rille View Post
    They claim they will hit harder ’soon’.
    Not sure what kind of resources they have in order to do that.
    Considering they destroyed a Saudi oil refinery, are connected to numerous terrorist groups, and are next to a vital shipping lane, lots.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  19. #49
    Congress needs to debate (and update) the War Powers Act and AUMF right away. And those (R) who want a powerful executive should be re-thinking that.

  20. #50
    White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike Cites No Imminent Threat

    Totally normal to lie to the legislature about an action that risked setting off a war.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •