World War Three Watch

[SandyCromarty]

Iran and it's people are well aware of how war develops and is won or lost, most of you on this thread have not mentioned or are unaware that Iran was at war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 and for most of that time Iran were on the offensive even though they were outgunned with Iraq's American supplied missile arsenal, the Iraqis even flattened Kharg island thereby crippling Iran's oil output and income yet the Iranians fought on.

BTW I'm probably one of the few on here that has been under extended missile attack and I can tell you there are no fuckin hero's in that scenario.

Edited January 10, 2020 by SandyCromarty

[renton]

9 hours ago, Grant228 said:

Yes, that conflict from 50 years ago had allot of bearing on how America, and any nation would act in a conflict, technology hasn't moved on at all. 

It's about rules of engagement, as much as technology. A missile with a range of 70km is great, but if the RoE requires positive identification of target then your back to a 3km knife fight.

Being able to flatten a few square km with your long range artillery is no good if your in an urban area and RoE requires you to avoid civilian casualties. So you have to go in and clear it street by street.

US high end war fighting equipment can have much of its utility nullified by such considerations. Note also that typically Western nations, and the US in particular will not tolerate large numbers of US casualties in war. 

The Persian Gulf is also a bit of a fucker for an invasion. If you are building up forces for an invasion via Iraq, well, Iran knows all about those likely invasion routes. An amphibious landing in the straits of Homuz? It's so narrow that any assembly of ships will come under range from Iranian shore based artillery/mobile SSM batteries long before they are ready to land troops. Not to mention the economic fallout of turning one of the main petrochemical supply lines into a war zone.

Iran can be indiscriminate in all the ways the US cannot. No doubt they'd eventually occupy Iran, but at a steep price and then only as the start of a new nightmare for them.

[Big Fifer]

I've just watched the video on the BBC article about this. Looks pretty damning tbh. 

[sjc]

4 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

The moment the USA got bogged down in Iran, Russia would take another chunk of Ukraine, China would nab all the wee islands round Taiwan etc.

Ukraine is in the process of making up with the Russians as they now realise that the EU doesn't want them and the US screwed them over in energy deals (both with the existing gas pipeline from Russia and energy expert Hunter Biden).

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

Iran and it's people are well aware of how war develops and is won or lost, most of you on this thread have not mentioned or are unaware that Iran was at war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 and for most of that time Iran were on the offensive even though they were outgunned with Iraq's American supplied missile arsenal, the Iraqis even flattened Kharg island thereby crippling Iran's oil output and income yet the Iranians fought on.

BTW I'm probably one of the few on here that has been under extended missile attack and I can tell you there are no fuckin hero's in that scenario.

No fuckin hero's what - clean trousers?

[Big Fifer]

19 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Could it have been fake?

I mean do people just take random videos of aircraft flying around in the dark expecting something to happen?

I suppose there's a chance, but given peoples desperation these days to video anything slightly out of the ordinary that happens, if you see something missile-like flying through the air at the airport, chances are some no-mark will have whipped their iPhone out.

[Jacksgranda]

5 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

I suppose there's a chance, but given peoples desperation these days to video anything slightly out of the ordinary that happens, if you see something missile-like flying through the air at the airport, chances are some no-mark will have whipped their iPhone out.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Snafu said:

Could it have been fake?

I mean do people just take random videos of aircraft flying around in the dark expecting something to happen?

I normally wouldn't put it past the Americans to fake it, especially with Boeing in the shit they are at the moment, but it stretches belief to think than a nearly unprecedented catastrophic engine explosion would randomly occur at the very time Iranian air defences were on maximum alert. 

[sjc]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I normally wouldn't put it past the Americans to fake it, especially with Boeing in the shit they are at the moment, but it stretches belief to think than a nearly unprecedented catastrophic engine explosion would randomly occur at the very time Iranian air defences were on maximum alert. 

I think it probably was shot down "in the fog of war" but my initial thoughts were of it being faked or even has the plane been taken over remotely? (Former Boeing pilot, Field McConnell confirmed that this has been possible since the mid 90s)

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

In the long run the USA won't go down the military route to deal with Iran but continue to use economic sanctions and bullying.

As a strategy it is as flawed as their military strategy.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

 

3 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Russia and China are developing and testing hypersonic missiles, the US are ahead with their Hypersonic Missiles programme, (at Mach 20), which can be launched from submarines based outside the gulf.

The payload can be conventional warhead or nuclear in all cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/russia-deploys-first-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-capable 

^ Mach 27. Russia also has one at Mach 8. America doesn't have any publicly disclosed hypersonic missiles. Are you talking shit or are you privvy to classified intelligence you've decided to share on P&B?

3 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

BTW I'm probably one of the few on here that has been under extended missile attack and I can tell you there are no fuckin hero's in that scenario.

Thank you for your service.

[sjc]

2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

In the long run the USA won't go down the military route to deal with Iran but continue to use economic sanctions and bullying.

As a strategy it is as flawed as their military strategy.

They did this (along with the British) with Japan for years in the run up to WW2 (Pacific conflict).

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/russia-deploys-first-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-capable 

^ Mach 27. Russia also has one at Mach 8. America doesn't have any publicly disclosed hypersonic missiles. Are you talking shit or are you privvy to classified intelligence you've decided to share on P&B?

Thank you for your service.

The Americans sound well behind though Putin is known to sometimes exaggerate Russia's capabilities.

https://news.usni.org/2019/01/10/report-congress-conventional-prompt-global-strike-long-range-ballistic-missiles

[welshbairn]

4 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Iran and it's people are well aware of how war develops and is won or lost, most of you on this thread have not mentioned or are unaware that Iran was at war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 and for most of that time Iran were on the offensive even though they were outgunned with Iraq's American supplied missile arsenal, the Iraqis even flattened Kharg island thereby crippling Iran's oil output and income yet the Iranians fought on.

Iran were well supplied with American weaponry too, the Shah had only just been overthrown. The thing that stopped Iran winning the war and overthrowing Saddam was the covertly and overtly sanctioned and abetted use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Even when Saddam ordered their use against Iraqi Kurdish civilians there was little outcry from the West, they knew how important they were to stop Iran. A ruinous stalemate was probably their favoured outcome.

Quote

According to documents at the National Archives Archeological Site (College Park, Maryland), the US supported Saddam Hussein's regime in their use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. Reporter Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post stated that Reagan's administration was well aware that the materials sold to Iraq would be used to manufacture chemical weapons for use in the war against Iran. He stated that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it... and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."” According to Reagan's foreign policy, every attempt to save Iraq was necessary and legal.[4]

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran

Edited January 10, 2020 by welshbairn

[renton]

19 minutes ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/russia-deploys-first-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-capable 

^ Mach 27. Russia also has one at Mach 8. America doesn't have any publicly disclosed hypersonic missiles. Are you talking shit or are you privvy to classified intelligence you've decided to share on P&B?

Thank you for your service.

As far as I'm aware, the use of hypersonic velocities means the missile body builds up a hell of a lot of ionized air in front of it, like the plasma that builds up around spacecraft on reentry, and block out electromagnetic signals in both directions through the plasma.

That has an interesting effect on the missile flight path and navigation method. In the first instance it means it has to fly very high for the majority of it's journey, unlike a proper sea skimming system, because otherwise the thermal friction and plasma effects at sea level air pressure would melt it.

Second that in terms of navigation if relies on inertial navigation. That means you tell it to hit a certain coordinate and based on it's starting coordinates it plots a path. No active guidance, no GPS ( because of the plasma effect). Ballistic missiles do the same, but typically they are aimed at things that dont move, like cities.

For those hypersonic missiles to hit a moving target they need some kind of active guidance: i.e. radar. Otherwise they'll fly into the coordinates they were set for which may no longer contain an aircraft carrier steaming 30 kts. That's not to mention the extreme lack of maneuverability at those hypersonic velocities - if it tries to turn it'll hit a solid wall of air and break up (see also, shuttle Challenger). That means, in order to dissipate the plasma make any high G maneuvers it needs and use active guidance to lock its target, the missile needs to slow down to mere supersonic velocities, and also drop down to a low level or it's a sitting duck.

In other words, the hypersonic missile, in its terminal phase is no different from any of the heavy Soviet SSMs deployed in the last couple of generations. As vulnerable to a ship's own surface to air defence missiles as any other.

The advantage of hypersonic systems is that their extreme velocities theoretically allow them to be based outside the strike range of a carrier group, and with it's high altitude  high velocity approach, to bypass the fighters that form the outer line of defence for large naval groups. Once it's in it's endgame however, it's no more or less formidable than any other missile. It's a means of trying to achieve the penetration of a carrier group for countries or powers that dont possess their own carriers, but it's not the wonder weapon that is often touted.

[SandyCromarty]

3 hours ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/russia-deploys-first-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-capable 

^ Mach 27. Russia also has one at Mach 8. America doesn't have any publicly disclosed hypersonic missiles. Are you talking shit or are you privvy to classified intelligence you've decided to share on P&B?

Thank you for your service.

Google -  Missile Defense Advocacy

Enough proof for you?.

The United States:  The United States has invested in research and development of a hypersonic missile called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which uses boost glide technology to propel warheads with conventional—rather than nuclear—payloads.  During a test in 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully struck a target that was located 3,700 km away, demonstrating the long-range and high precision of the AHW.[x]

And I don't appreciate the 'Thank for your service' sarcasm', you obviously need to do some fuckin growing up, but maybe the way the worlds turning and when you're a big boy you might be called up in defense of the country and you'll be facing some incoming where I've no doubt you'll be greeting fer yer mammy.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

8 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Google -  Missile Defense Advocacy

Enough proof for you?.

The United States:  The United States has invested in research and development of a hypersonic missile called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which uses boost glide technology to propel warheads with conventional—rather than nuclear—payloads.  During a test in 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully struck a target that was located 3,700 km away, demonstrating the long-range and high precision of the AHW.[x]

That thing has been tested twice - once in 2011 and once in 2014. In 2014 it blew up. Funding was then withdrawn and a smaller version that's not hypersonic attached to submarines. And I found that out in 10 minutes of googling. 

 

13 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

And I don't appreciate the 'Thank for your service' sarcasm', you obviously need to do some fuckin growing up, but maybe the way the worlds turning and when you're a big boy you might be called up in defense of the country and you'll be facing some incoming where I've no doubt you'll be greeting fer yer mammy.

Yes, sir.

[welshbairn]

[pandarilla]

Genuine question here.

Do the US have nuclear weapons that could be used without ending life on the planet?

Am I not right in thinking that one nuclear bomb fired in anger would f**k us all over? (The dust cloud wiping out huge swathes of farming for years and all the displaced people etc.)

[Fullerene]

6 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Genuine question here.

Do the US have nuclear weapons that could be used without ending life on the planet?

Am I not right in thinking that one nuclear bomb fired in anger would f**k us all over? (The dust cloud wiping out huge swathes of farming for years and all the displaced people etc.)

There were several enormous bombs that were tested last century before a test ban was introduced.

The planet survived all of those.

One reason the test ban was introduced was that the tests increased the presence of radioactive strontium, barium and radium.  When absorbed into the body these go straight for your bones and kill you slowly.