Is War With Iran Our Best Option?

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

Hardly the best option. Problem is I don't think diplomacy will solve anything either.

The problem is the Ayatollahs who run the country and the political parties did you know Tehran is the only capital city on earth with no Sunni Mosque. And there has not been a sunni leader in Iran for hundreds of years.

[Xanama]

Not exactly. I am not a expert on politics but I have heard that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq are the most stable mid eastern countries... Someone correct me if I'm wrong... but no... in my opinion it's not. We have so much to worry about! ISIS, Russia and many other things. Thanks for your time

[Courlany]

Haha, "war" and "best option" in the same sentence, hahahalolol. Ah, the kids these days...

[Benian Republic]

Haha, "war" and "best option" in the same sentence, hahahalolol. Ah, the kids these days...

Ha ha cowards these days.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

Iran actually is a secular and modern country, contrary to popular portrayals from North American media.

Going to war with Iran would likely destabilize and radicalize Iran.

Secular? You're a joke literally a joke what should I expect from your flag? Any way did you know Iran is fighting a war and a genocide against Sunnis the ayatollah may bark all day about unity between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites but he speaks bullshit as a second language. In Baluchistan,Kurdistan,Ahwazistan,and indegoues Sunni areas near Afghanistan and Turkmenistan there is genocide and oppression. Sunni names are illegal in Iran and the names of the companions of the Most beloved Prophet Muhammad(SAAWS) are written on streets for people to drive over and Sunni Imams and Clerics etc are killed daily. Sunni Islamic education is also illegal and Sunni press is banned. So I must ask you what part of this meets the definition of Secular? What because theres tons of Jews in Tehran and there is Christans and Zoroastarians not just Shias? Well remember the sunnis of Iran and the blood they shed for worshipping Allah(SWT) they truly are the strangers of Iran. It is the sings of the last hour when the last of this Ummah curse the first. And by the way the Qu'uran says in the final days the Persians and Yahoodi(Jews) will form an alliance. Well look at America and Iran fighting The Mujahideen in Iraq and Sham(The levant). The Iranian state is run by a Shia dictatorship theocracy similar to Syria and Iraq and god forbid Yemen. So I ask you before you speak think.

[Courlany]

Haha, "war" and "best option" in the same sentence, hahahalolol. Ah, the kids these days...

Ha ha cowards these days.

Haha, says the chap with second-tier civil rights, second-tier political freedoms, and seven top-5% accolades...

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Hardly the best option. Problem is I don't think diplomacy will solve anything either.

The problem is the Ayatollahs who run the country and the political parties did you know Tehran is the only capital city on earth with no Sunni Mosque. And there has not been a sunni leader in Iran for hundreds of years.

The very least of your problems are the Ayatollahs on the nuclear issue.
Aside from the fact that its not an obligation of a country to have a sunni mosque in their capital, there are plenty of nations that do not have one.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Iran actually is a secular and modern country, contrary to popular portrayals from North American media.

Going to war with Iran would likely destabilize and radicalize Iran.

Secular? You're a joke literally a joke what should I expect from your flag? Any way did you know Iran is fighting a war and a genocide against Sunnis the ayatollah may bark all day about unity between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites but he speaks bullshit as a second language. In Baluchistan,Kurdistan,Ahwazistan,and indegoues Sunni areas near Afghanistan and Turkmenistan there is genocide and oppression. Sunni names are illegal in Iran and the names of the companions of the Most beloved Prophet Muhammad(SAAWS) are written on streets for people to drive over and Sunni Imams and Clerics etc are killed daily. Sunni Islamic education is also illegal and Sunni press is banned. So I must ask you what part of this meets the definition of Secular? What because theres tons of Jews in Tehran and there is Christans and Zoroastarians not just Shias? Well remember the sunnis of Iran and the blood they shed for worshipping Allah(SWT) they truly are the strangers of Iran. It is the sings of the last hour when the last of this Ummah curse the first. And by the way the Qu'uran says in the final days the Persians and Yahoodi(Jews) will form an alliance. Well look at America and Iran fighting The Mujahideen in Iraq and Sham(The levant). The Iranian state is run by a Shia dictatorship theocracy similar to Syria and Iraq and god forbid Yemen. So I ask you before you speak think.

I wonder, where did you get all that crap from?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I wonder, where did you get all that crap from?

The official Daesh Twitter of course! Spreading idiotic nonsense 24/7!

The fact that he thinks Syria is a theocracy shows he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

[Benian Republic]

Ha ha cowards these days.

Haha, says the chap with second-tier civil rights, second-tier political freedoms, and seven top-5% accolades...

And? I'm a militaristic badass.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

The problem is the Ayatollahs who run the country and the political parties did you know Tehran is the only capital city on earth with no Sunni Mosque. And there has not been a sunni leader in Iran for hundreds of years.

The very least of your problems are the Ayatollahs on the nuclear issue.
Aside from the fact that its not an obligation of a country to have a sunni mosque in their capital, there are plenty of nations that do not have one.

No Iran is the only country I wrote that learn to read.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

I wonder, where did you get all that crap from?

The official Daesh Twitter of course! Spreading idiotic nonsense 24/7!

The fact that he thinks Syria is a theocracy shows he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

It may not declare it's self as one but the truth is, it is Hezballah and Iran completely back Syria the country is run by Banu Assad Al-Nusayri (The Assad Alawite clan). It is run by clans of Alawites who call all the shots in Syria.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I wonder, where did you get all that crap from?

The official Daesh Twitter of course! Spreading idiotic nonsense 24/7!

The fact that he thinks Syria is a theocracy shows he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Exactly.

The very least of your problems are the Ayatollahs on the nuclear issue.
Aside from the fact that its not an obligation of a country to have a sunni mosque in their capital, there are plenty of nations that do not have one.

No Iran is the only country I wrote that learn to read.

And that is supposed to mean?

The official Daesh Twitter of course! Spreading idiotic nonsense 24/7!

The fact that he thinks Syria is a theocracy shows he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

It may not declare it's self as one but the truth is, it is Hezballah and Iran completely back Syria the country is run by Banu Assad Al-Nusayri (The Assad Alawite clan). It is run by clans of Alawites who call all the shots in Syria.

So? By those standards no country in the world is secular as most politicians follow a certain religion.

[Camelza]

Most certainly not. Not only because war should be almost never considered unless it's the last option in a tragic development, but also because Iran is neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan; it's far more powerful and a US invasion of Iran would result in a scenario worse than Vietnam.

[Napkiraly]

The Islamic Republic of Iran run by a theocracy doesn't sound like secular government.

I wasn't referring to the government.

Except that's what a theocracy is. It's a form of government. Iran's best description would actually be the one provided by the CIA, a theocratic republic.

[FutureAmerica]

The best option is to tighten the embargo. They are already choking on the embargo. An attack will only strengthen their resolve to build a nuke.

[Roski]

The best option is to tighten the embargo. They are already choking on the embargo. An attack will only strengthen their resolve to build a nuke.

>economic sanctions
>weakening resolve

OR

>attacking
>destroying infastructure, confiscating all uranium, removing manufacturing capabilities

Well

A plan to go to war with Iran for no reason is bad enough, but let's not lie about what the effect of said war will be.

[Kubra]

Seeing as the tail as it the rump, I'm definitely closer to the cock than the one stroking its tusks.
Well, this is getting a bit dirty. The point is that whatever failings I have in the field of military science I can at least make the distinction between the varieties of RPG's and the difference between ASM's and ASBM's.
Countermeasure's to ASM's are rather common. Assuming a fair deal of distance between the assailant and the tank, even the most modern man portable anti-tank systems can be countered (quite easily, the TROPHY system Israel uses performs more than adequately against the poorly utilized anti-tank weapons used in Gaza (including the Kornet, which I've here mentioned as a viable tank killer)). ASBM's have none other than potentially being useless against anything smaller than the Nimitz.

RPG-7 and RPG-29 are both anti-tank weapons. RPG-7 is a general-purpose grenadier weapon of the Soviet forces with significant anti-tank capability. Current conflicts have seen western armour and personnel against older warheads of 1970s vintage built to deal with 1970s armour threats. More modern warheads for the RPG-7 are extremely potent, since the system is not limited by warhead weight or calibre, unlike weapons utilising missile canisters or launch tubes.
RPG-29 is a 105mm "rocket launcher". The rocket motor burns out in the barrel and the weapon flies on a completely ballistic arc. It is an extremely potent dedicated anti-tank weapon.
It's fucking colossal.

Meanwhile, the kill probability of an anti-shipping weapon lies in its ability to penetrate the layers of defence around a carrier group. This is why sea-skimmers have been the most popular choice for this role. And why many Soviet-era weapons flew in excess of Mach 2. The lower the altitude, the nearer to the horizon the target is and the less chance they have of spotting the weapon. The faster it travels, the less time they have to react to this threat.
A ballistic anti-ship weapon throws all of these advantages away, since you're launching a ballistic missile. It's easy to spot, it's easy to track, it's easy to evade and engage.
When the Americans were littering Britain with tactical nuclear weapons, they were deploying two main long-range weapons - the GLCM, a truck-launched nuclear Tomahawk variant, and the Pershing-II IRBM. The Tomahawks would launch first, cruising into East Germany and the Warsaw Pact to strike strategic air defence radars. About two hours after launch, the Pershing missiles would launch, striking their targets in about fifteen minutes - immediately after the Tomahawk strike blinds the Soviets to the incoming strategic strike.
Because the Tomahawks were difficult to spot or track, travelling at low altitude, and the Pershings were obvious and visible.

Yeah, I understand that the PG-7VR warhead got a single recorded damaging hit, and the lack of coverage might be perhaps the lack of existing modern warheads in the region.
But really, the effectiveness of later warheads is a moot point. There's no indication of any prevalence of them in the region, while the RPG-29 has seen comparatively widespread use where western armour is concerned.

From the US Naval Institute (a little old, 2009)
http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/c ... ill-weapon
"Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets."
That's quicker than the Pershing, and with far more supporting mechanisms. It's not "just" a ballistic missile.

And, more pertinently:
"Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
This source is, of course, dated. The US has really been developing sea-borne ballistic missile defense they hope capable of defending a carrier group. However, it is unclear if they are capable of intercepting specific chinese and iranian ASBM's, with testing done on unspecified ballistic missiles.
Still, assuming SM-3 effectively counters the DF-21D, there's still the matter of a carrier group being sea-based and far from home. It's simply a matter of exhausting a carrier groups supply of SM-3's or saturating beyond the ability of the group to intercept. After all, carrier groups are not as equipped for ballistic missile defense as, say, the length of the iron curtain. They're far more limited in space than land-based equipment.

[Imperializt Russia]

SM-3 was a passable defence against AShBM attack anyway.

It could also be used to knock out these supporting satellites. The supposedly fearsome P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) missile of the Soviet Navy never truly materialised as the long-range threat it was meant to be because its supporting satellite infrastructure never truly went online.

Mach 10 closing speed and 2000km in 12 minutes is far from impressive. That's just a ballistic missile. Not sure why you find that concept hard to grasp. Being "quicker than Pershing", if true (IIRC Pershing had a longer range and 15 minutes is a ballpark guesstimate) is utterly irrelevant. It's not Pershing and it doesn't do Pershing's job.
Or why you're reading so heavily into a Navy Op-Ed. That's not a report. It's some guy's opinion. People with opinions can be, and often are, wildly off-base.

All missiles have relatively low radar signatures, complex guidance systems, high manoeuvrability and good probability of evading tracking systems. It's called salvo-launching and sea-skimming flight.

[Seraven]

Actually, how does the Israel's civilians stance on Iran? Are they really supporting Netanyahu's intention to attack them or opposing the intention?

[Norstal]

Actually, how does the Israel's civilians stance on Iran? Are they really supporting Netanyahu's intention to attack them or opposing the intention?

His coalition keeps winning the elections, so that's probably a yes. Not that's a good indicator of anything.

[Napkiraly]

Actually, how does the Israel's civilians stance on Iran? Are they really supporting Netanyahu's intention to attack them or opposing the intention?

It's from 2012, but gives a somewhat ballpark to work around. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/why-israeli-public-opinion-opposes-a-strike-on-iran/253842/

[Kubra]

SM-3 was a passable defence against AShBM attack anyway.

It could also be used to knock out these supporting satellites. The supposedly fearsome P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) missile of the Soviet Navy never truly materialised as the long-range threat it was meant to be because its supporting satellite infrastructure never truly went online.

Mach 10 closing speed and 2000km in 12 minutes is far from impressive. That's just a ballistic missile. Not sure why you find that concept hard to grasp. Being "quicker than Pershing", if true (IIRC Pershing had a longer range and 15 minutes is a ballpark guesstimate) is utterly irrelevant. It's not Pershing and it doesn't do Pershing's job.
Or why you're reading so heavily into a Navy Op-Ed. That's not a report. It's some guy's opinion. People with opinions can be, and often are, wildly off-base.

All missiles have relatively low radar signatures, complex guidance systems, high manoeuvrability and good probability of evading tracking systems. It's called salvo-launching and sea-skimming flight.

Sure, you could knock out the satellites, the SM-3 can do that, if it's able to identify the satellite(s) in question, destroy them within this limited timespan, and get out of the now uncorrectable trajectory of the ASBM.
I actually won't comment further on such. It might really work. I'll see if I can dig up anything more in-depth on the matter.

Internet sez mach 8 for the Pershing
The Pershing is the closest analogue to the DF-21D (as it relates to the US, anyways), so it's useful for comparison.

Sure, it can be off base. Here is the part where I'm supposed to retort "like yours".
It could be off base, but we can't make that judgement on the assumption that because it could be off base it is off base. I mean, in what way was he not correct? the SM-3 wasn't even being put out by the time of this article was written. The US navy legit had no means of intercepting ballistic missiles, and it's hard to imagine that their investment in ballistic defense has been motivated by anything other than ASBM's.

On the matter of ballistic missiles didn't you say earlier
"It's easy to spot, it's easy to track, it's easy to evade and engage."
So we can therefore say that not all missiles have these qualities. That, or the DF-21D is not a ballistic missile.
Or do you mean to say that existing ASM's are better in the anti-ship role than a ballistic missile?

[Roski]

SM-3 was a passable defence against AShBM attack anyway.

It could also be used to knock out these supporting satellites. The supposedly fearsome P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) missile of the Soviet Navy never truly materialised as the long-range threat it was meant to be because its supporting satellite infrastructure never truly went online.

Mach 10 closing speed and 2000km in 12 minutes is far from impressive. That's just a ballistic missile. Not sure why you find that concept hard to grasp. Being "quicker than Pershing", if true (IIRC Pershing had a longer range and 15 minutes is a ballpark guesstimate) is utterly irrelevant. It's not Pershing and it doesn't do Pershing's job.
Or why you're reading so heavily into a Navy Op-Ed. That's not a report. It's some guy's opinion. People with opinions can be, and often are, wildly off-base.

All missiles have relatively low radar signatures, complex guidance systems, high manoeuvrability and good probability of evading tracking systems. It's called salvo-launching and sea-skimming flight.

Sure, you could knock out the satellites, the SM-3 can do that, if it's able to identify the satellite(s) in question, destroy them within this limited timespan, and get out of the now uncorrectable trajectory of the ASBM.
I actually won't comment further on such. It might really work. I'll see if I can dig up anything more in-depth on the matter.

Internet sez mach 8 for the Pershing
The Pershing is the closest analogue to the DF-21D (as it relates to the US, anyways), so it's useful for comparison.

Sure, it can be off base. Here is the part where I'm supposed to retort "like yours".
It could be off base, but we can't make that judgement on the assumption that because it could be off base it is off base. I mean, in what way was he not correct? the SM-3 wasn't even being put out by the time of this article was written. The US navy legit had no means of intercepting ballistic missiles, and it's hard to imagine that their investment in ballistic defense has been motivated by anything other than ASBM's.

On the matter of ballistic missiles didn't you say earlier
"It's easy to spot, it's easy to track, it's easy to evade and engage."
So we can therefore say that not all missiles have these qualities. That, or the DF-21D is not a ballistic missile.
Or do you mean to say that existing ASM's are better in the anti-ship role than a ballistic missile?

They are better.

ASMs can get a lot closer than a ballistic missile.

[Kubra]

Sure, you could knock out the satellites, the SM-3 can do that, if it's able to identify the satellite(s) in question, destroy them within this limited timespan, and get out of the now uncorrectable trajectory of the ASBM.
I actually won't comment further on such. It might really work. I'll see if I can dig up anything more in-depth on the matter.

Internet sez mach 8 for the Pershing
The Pershing is the closest analogue to the DF-21D (as it relates to the US, anyways), so it's useful for comparison.

Sure, it can be off base. Here is the part where I'm supposed to retort "like yours".
It could be off base, but we can't make that judgement on the assumption that because it could be off base it is off base. I mean, in what way was he not correct? the SM-3 wasn't even being put out by the time of this article was written. The US navy legit had no means of intercepting ballistic missiles, and it's hard to imagine that their investment in ballistic defense has been motivated by anything other than ASBM's.

On the matter of ballistic missiles didn't you say earlier
"It's easy to spot, it's easy to track, it's easy to evade and engage."
So we can therefore say that not all missiles have these qualities. That, or the DF-21D is not a ballistic missile.
Or do you mean to say that existing ASM's are better in the anti-ship role than a ballistic missile?

They are better.

ASMs can get a lot closer than a ballistic missile.

On what grounds do you suppose such?