Is War With Iran Our Best Option?

[Kubra]

I'm in a position where I must repeat myself, since I'm apparently not heard the first time.
Look, I haven't said that it can take the US navy, I've said that it can take a Nimitz.
I'm also not gonna say the khalij fars is a good missile, but name more or less indicates its function: deny access to carrier groups to the area in and around the persian gulf. It doesn't need much range for that.
RAM's and sea sparrows, and even the most CIWS's are built for missiles and other moving targets approaching horizontally. That ain't a ballistic missile: it goes up, and it goes down. The practical use of a ballistic missile in this context is that it hits more or less vertically, onto flight decks. I'm not even sure if any CIWS can aim as high as a ballistic missile approaches, once in range. Besides that, RAM's most certainly can't hit outside the range of the Khalij Fars. Where are you getting your info on that? I've got a source saying that Sidewinders can hit ballistic missiles in the boost phase, but that's the shortest phase and when the missile is closest to home turf.
A missile, once it's set in its trajectory and that trajectory is known, is most certainly easy to target, especially at Mach 3. Evasion, well, that depends on when trajectory has been pinpointed. an SM-3 would do the trick. An ASBM relies on its trajectory being unpredictable for as long as the missile itself can sustain. Until then, neither interception nor evasion can properly happen.
Also, the range is 300km, not 300 miles. Considerably smaller, but you don't really wanna cover too much ground at mach 3, yeah?

idk why you want to intercept ballistic missiles with AGM's. Do you mean attacking ground launch positions with em?
I mean, you could do that, assuming that launch positions are right on the coast of the strait of hormuz or the gulf of oman, but putting launch positions some distance inland, maybe 150-200km (from the strait of hormuz, not the persian gulf itself) would ensure that the strait of hormuz and the gulf could be covered while sea-based aircraft would have to do some travel over land before being able to launch their payloads, which works into Irans favour.
And I mean really, why go through these gymnastics when one can just attack from across the persian gulf?

...

Did you seriously just put this paragraph?

We're done here.

if IR were here he'd tell me how I'm wrong, bless him, education is important!
I ain't the one that can't distinguish miles from km
nor am I the one proposing we shoot down ballistic missiles with RAM's
Or, y'know, sticking ASBM's on ships, which is literally the dumbest thing said so far.

[Roski]

...

Did you seriously just put this paragraph?

We're done here.

if IR were here he'd tell me how I'm wrong, bless him, education is important!
I ain't the one that can't distinguish miles from km
nor am I the one proposing we shoot down ballistic missiles with RAM's
Or, y'know, sticking ASBM's on ships, which is literally the dumbest thing said so far.

I tried. Instead, you made false analogies, nitpicked about minor errors (I forgot the k big deal), and now you're making claims about claims I didnt actually make.

[Murkwood]

If our intelligence tells us that they are close to a nuclear weapon and are going for the final "sprint", it's our only option. A potential nuclear Iran must be stopped.

[Kubra]

if IR were here he'd tell me how I'm wrong, bless him, education is important!
I ain't the one that can't distinguish miles from km
nor am I the one proposing we shoot down ballistic missiles with RAM's
Or, y'know, sticking ASBM's on ships, which is literally the dumbest thing said so far.

I tried. Instead, you made false analogies, nitpicked about minor errors (I forgot the k big deal), and now you're making claims about claims I didnt actually make.

lol which claims? I can point exactly where you did what I've mentioned.

[Roski]

I tried. Instead, you made false analogies, nitpicked about minor errors (I forgot the k big deal), and now you're making claims about claims I didnt actually make.

lol which claims? I can point exactly where you did what I've mentioned.

Do it then.

Tell me where I said that
A: I said AShBMs on a ship was a good idea
B: That RAMs would be mesnt for missiles (bc rams can lesve the carrier and reach out and touch you? spot on reading mate)
C: AGMs would be used on missiles.
D: Sidewinders would be used on missiles

[Draakonite]

If our intelligence tells us that they are close to a nuclear weapon and are going for the final "sprint", it's our only option. A potential nuclear Iran must be stopped.

Why? Only to protect american oil acquirement capability?

Nevermind they do that final sprint since the 80s, if you believe israel.

[Salus Maior]

I'd rather not. Considering Ahmadinejad (I think I spelled his name right ) is out of power, I think Iran is not as much as a threat, and nor does it really want to be. At least not to the U.S.

However, I haven't heard a lot about Iran in a long time.

[Kubra]

lol which claims? I can point exactly where you did what I've mentioned.

Do it then.

Tell me where I said that
A: I said AShBMs on a ship was a good idea
B: That RAMs would be mesnt for missiles (bc rams can lesve the carrier and reach out and touch you? spot on reading mate)
C: AGMs would be used on missiles.
D: Sidewinders would be used on missiles

1. You apparently think it a better idea than ground launching, seeing as you bothered to disprove that mythical notion of naval launching.
2. oh, so you want to use em on? Ground targets? Jeez, sorry for overestimating you.
It's a surface to air missile with a range of like 9km. What do you want me to assume it'll be used for?
3. spot on reading mate i made a explicit point of approaching it from the ground attack role.
4. sidewinders do exist in the anti ballistic missile role. Again, what else would you use it for? Ground attack?

[Vasileus]

If our intelligence tells us that they are close to a nuclear weapon and are going for the final "sprint", it's our only option. A potential nuclear Iran must be stopped.

There's never been any proof they've tried to go for Nukes

Even then, what exactly makes the current Iranian regime any better than Pakistan's when they got their nukes?

[Roski]

Do it then.

Tell me where I said that
A: I said AShBMs on a ship was a good idea
B: That RAMs would be mesnt for missiles (bc rams can lesve the carrier and reach out and touch you? spot on reading mate)
C: AGMs would be used on missiles.
D: Sidewinders would be used on missiles

1. You apparently think it a better idea than ground launching, seeing as you bothered to disprove that mythical notion of naval launching.
2. oh, so you want to use em on? Ground targets? Jeez, sorry for overestimating you.
It's a surface to air missile with a range of like 9km. What do you want me to assume it'll be used for?
3. spot on reading mate i made a explicit point of approaching it from the ground attack role.
4. sidewinders do exist in the anti ballistic missile role. Again, what else would you use it for? Ground attack?

1: Because ASMs are superiour ti AShBMs because thry CAN be mounted on ships
2: Since you continue to let the inability to read be shown, the "RAMs" were a metaphor of F/A-18 Fighter Jets that can be launched from Nimitz Supercarriers. "Can reach out and touch you" should have been a dead give away. Once again, spot on reading.
3: Contiuing with false analogies on your part, AGMs would eliminate Iranian FACs armed with ASMs.
4: Regardless if they could be used for that, the US Navy could establish Aerial Dominance before even entering Iranian Airspace, via the use of Sidewinder Missiles. With Aerial Dominance, how are you going to fire Ballistic Missiles if the US already has fighters in the sky?

So
Once again spot on reading.

[Kubra]

1. You apparently think it a better idea than ground launching, seeing as you bothered to disprove that mythical notion of naval launching.
2. oh, so you want to use em on? Ground targets? Jeez, sorry for overestimating you.
It's a surface to air missile with a range of like 9km. What do you want me to assume it'll be used for?
3. spot on reading mate i made a explicit point of approaching it from the ground attack role.
4. sidewinders do exist in the anti ballistic missile role. Again, what else would you use it for? Ground attack?

1: Because ASMs are superiour ti AShBMs because thry CAN be mounted on ships
2: Since you continue to let the inability to read be shown, the "RAMs" were a metaphor of F/A-18 Fighter Jets that can be launched from Nimitz Supercarriers. "Can reach out and touch you" should have been a dead give away. Once again, spot on reading.
3: Contiuing with false analogies on your part, AGMs would eliminate Iranian FACs armed with ASMs.
4: Regardless if they could be used for that, the US Navy could establish Aerial Dominance before even entering Iranian Airspace, via the use of Sidewinder Missiles. With Aerial Dominance, how are you going to fire Ballistic Missiles if the US already has fighters in the sky?

So
Once again spot on reading.

1. Ships which Iran doesn't have. If you ain't got good ships, sea launched ASM's are worthless.
And as I've said earlier: the whole point of ASBM's is for countries with shitty navies to take on a Nimitz. As such, naval launching isn't even an option. So what kind of point do you want to make regarding a weapon that Iran can barely field being better than a weapon it can sort of kinda field?

2. aight quick english lesson
three letters capitalized are acronyms, and the Nimitz really does carry RAM's as the missile with a clear acronym that signifies something very specific. In this context, what does the acronym stand for? Otherwise, I fail to see how this is a metaphore.
3. Iran's FAC's were mentioned waaaaaaaaay back at the start of this debate, like once by me and once by IR, before the debate shifted entirely to the DF-21D and ballistic missiles in general. Stellar reading, tho. I'm impressed you'd remember such a detail, even if it has almost nothing to do with the current debate. I mean, we can talk about Iran's FAC's if you want, I'll make a defense for em, so long as we're on the same page that we're talking about them.
4. as I said

I mean, you could do that [attack ground positons] (sort of the point of air superiority in this context), assuming that launch positions are right on the coast of the strait of hormuz or the gulf of oman, but putting launch positions some distance inland, maybe 150-200km (from the strait of hormuz, not the persian gulf itself) would ensure that the strait of hormuz and the gulf could be covered while sea-based aircraft would have to do some travel over land before being able to launch their payloads, which works into Irans favour.

The Iranian air force isn't at all relevant here. I have made no mention of it, nor has anyone else apart from in the earliest stages, in which I explicitly said that the Iranian air force doesn't matter. SAM's and MANPAD's are the standard air defense for force's on the asymmetrical side of asymmetrical warfare.


once again, spot on reading.

[Imperializt Russia]

Do it then.

Tell me where I said that
A: I said AShBMs on a ship was a good idea
B: That RAMs would be mesnt for missiles (bc rams can lesve the carrier and reach out and touch you? spot on reading mate)
C: AGMs would be used on missiles.
D: Sidewinders would be used on missiles

1. You apparently think it a better idea than ground launching, seeing as you bothered to disprove that mythical notion of naval launching.
2. oh, so you want to use em on? Ground targets? Jeez, sorry for overestimating you.
It's a surface to air missile with a range of like 9km. What do you want me to assume it'll be used for?
3. spot on reading mate i made a explicit point of approaching it from the ground attack role.
4. sidewinders do exist in the anti ballistic missile role. Again, what else would you use it for? Ground attack?

Engaging aircraft.
Sidewinders would be of little if any effect against a target so large as a ballistic missile. They're short-ranged, lightweight and slow.

[Alsheb]

There is not a single scrap of legitimacy for a US war against Iran. Iran has done nothing to warrant military action by the USA, and has never even been a threat to the safety of the United States. It'd make even more sense for the US to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Roski]

There is not a single scrap of legitimacy for a US war against Iran. Iran has done nothing to warrant military action by the USA, and has never even been a threat to the safety of the United States. It'd make even more sense for the US to invade Saudi Arabia.

It has done things to warrant military action.

It just hasnt done enough things

[Rhoderberg]

I'm of the opinion that Iran is neither a military threat, nor would a war with Iran be worth it.

So, no. War with Iran is not our best option.

[Alsheb]

There is not a single scrap of legitimacy for a US war against Iran. Iran has done nothing to warrant military action by the USA, and has never even been a threat to the safety of the United States. It'd make even more sense for the US to invade Saudi Arabia.

It has done things to warrant military action.

It just hasnt done enough things

What things?
Having nuclear power? Establishing close ties to Iran? Supporting political parties in Lebanon?

Please enlighten me as to how that would warrant military action.

[Roski]

It has done things to warrant military action.

It just hasnt done enough things

What things?
Having nuclear power? Establishing close ties to Iran? Supporting political parties in Lebanon?

Please enlighten me as to how that would warrant military action.

None of the above.
>Against Pro-West Countries
>Belligerent to Israel, a US ally
>threw out US-Allied Government.

[Imperializt Russia]

Under Ahmadinejad, those were all true.
They've mellowed under their current leader.

[Earth and its colonies]

He layed out the case pretty good. I agree with him, if war is the only option to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which seems to be the case, we shouldn't hesitate.

I agree with you completely. Its a shame the democrats don't support Israel because I do 100%

[Alsheb]

What things?
Having nuclear power? Establishing close ties to Iran? Supporting political parties in Lebanon?

Please enlighten me as to how that would warrant military action.

None of the above.
>Against Pro-West Countries
>Belligerent to Israel, a US ally
>threw out US-Allied Government.

Still not a reason. Iran has never been a threat to the security of the US, so military action is in no way, shape or form justified.

[Alsheb]

He layed out the case pretty good. I agree with him, if war is the only option to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which seems to be the case, we shouldn't hesitate.

I agree with you completely. Its a shame the democrats don't support Israel because I do 100%

And even if Iran would have nuclear weapons (which even the Mossad says they don't), then how exactly would that be a reason for invasion? The US has thousands of nukes. Israel has an entire stockpile of them. Pakistan has nukes, and so has India.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ever in its existance (since 1979) invaded or attacked another sovereign country, nor displayed any actual aggressive behaviour aside from some angry aggressive talk every now and then. The same cannot be said for the US or Israel.

So please, I have been asking this question for years and never got a reply. What exactly is so bad about Iran having nuclear weapons in the future, that would warrant the total and complete destruction of the country and its people through military action?

[Imperializt Russia]

I agree with you completely. Its a shame the democrats don't support Israel because I do 100%

And even if Iran would have nuclear weapons (which even the Mossad says they don't), then how exactly would that be a reason for invasion? The US has thousands of nukes. Israel has an entire stockpile of them. Pakistan has nukes, and so has India.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ever in its existance (since 1979) invaded or attacked another sovereign country, nor displayed any actual aggressive behaviour aside from some angry aggressive talk every now and then. The same cannot be said for the US or Israel.

So please, I have been asking this question for years and never got a reply. What exactly is so bad about Iran having nuclear weapons in the future, that would warrant the total and complete destruction of the country and its people through military action?

Not that I agree, but a nuclear armed Iran poses a threat to Israel and US interests in the region, namely Israel.

[Dumb Ideologies]

And even if Iran would have nuclear weapons (which even the Mossad says they don't), then how exactly would that be a reason for invasion? The US has thousands of nukes. Israel has an entire stockpile of them. Pakistan has nukes, and so has India.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ever in its existance (since 1979) invaded or attacked another sovereign country, nor displayed any actual aggressive behaviour aside from some angry aggressive talk every now and then. The same cannot be said for the US or Israel.

So please, I have been asking this question for years and never got a reply. What exactly is so bad about Iran having nuclear weapons in the future, that would warrant the total and complete destruction of the country and its people through military action?

Not that I agree, but a nuclear armed Iran poses a threat to Israel and US interests in the region, namely Israel.

Can you or someone else explain to me the US interest in Israel? It seems like more of an international relations liability than an asset to be seen as "Israel's buddy". What am I missing?

[Seraven]

I agree with you completely. Its a shame the democrats don't support Israel because I do 100%

And even if Iran would have nuclear weapons (which even the Mossad says they don't), then how exactly would that be a reason for invasion? The US has thousands of nukes. Israel has an entire stockpile of them. Pakistan has nukes, and so has India.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never ever in its existance (since 1979) invaded or attacked another sovereign country, nor displayed any actual aggressive behaviour aside from some angry aggressive talk every now and then. The same cannot be said for the US or Israel.

So please, I have been asking this question for years and never got a reply. What exactly is so bad about Iran having nuclear weapons in the future, that would warrant the total and complete destruction of the country and its people through military action?

Maybe, because if they have nuclear weapons, they will be the second Muslim (and the first Shiite) nation to have nuclear weaponry. And that poses a threat to Israel, and perhaps USA.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not that I agree, but a nuclear armed Iran poses a threat to Israel and US interests in the region, namely Israel.

Can you or someone else explain to me the US interest in Israel? It seems like more of an international relations liability than an asset to be seen as "Israel's buddy". What am I missing?

They're white, speak English, and buy American military equipment.