Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:new update

Washington has announced no such plans, but has said a military option is always on the table if Iran cannot be otherwise prevented from developing atomic weapons.
.

So.. as we know that Iran will not be dissuaded from continuing with the development of a nuclear capability, can we assume that military action is an inevitability?

Interesting that at the last UN meeting, Russia vetoed and asked Hillary Clinton 'what is the endgame here?'

Things are following a path remarkably similar to what happened in Iraq. Last time around I believe that Colin Powell was the reason that the US tried to go through the UN at all (many Hawks favoured just a unilateral approach, and Powell at least tried to create some kind of international consensus and legitimacy), I wonder if they will try this route again? As long as military action is not specifically excluded from the mandate, there is no way that Russia and China will ever allow it to pass.

My prediction: 5 years from now in a nutshell: Next Republican government, US and UK go into Iran, supported by 'New Europe' (handful of eastern European countries that agree with the US and want business deals), a lot of people meet a gruesome end, another country drops 30-40 places on the 'quality of life' index. I'm only half joking here, there is a depressing feeling of inevitability about this whole thing.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad.

Come again?

Were the Sandinistas bad, or were the Contras bad?

And that's before we get into what terrorism really is.

An old cold war joke:

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

The people they buy thier weapons from.

@sebster
/defends genocidal maniac (sexocidal?)
/toots own horn
/defends terrorists

par for the course

Apologies if this been covered already (I haven't gone back through all seven pages of "They're crazy!" "No, they're not!" "Yes they are!" etc.), but I read an interesting article about Iran's naval forces.

Apparently they've built their navy with an asymmetric approach involving lots and lots of small attack boats. They know they can't go toe-to-toe with our navy, so they plan to flood the gulf with said attack boats and pepper our big ships with torpedos and missiles. The interesting thing is that in simulations conducted in both Iran and the U.S., this approach was shown to give our naval forces fits. Clearly Iran can't truly win with this approach, but experts think they could harass and delay and shut down the gulf for a while.

gorgon wrote:Apologies if this been covered already (I haven't gone back through all seven pages of "They're crazy!" "No, they're not!" "Yes they are!" etc.), but I read an interesting article about Iran's naval forces.

Apparently they've built their navy with an asymmetric approach involving lots and lots of small attack boats. They know they can't go toe-to-toe with our navy, so they plan to flood the gulf with said attack boats and pepper our big ships with torpedos and missiles. The interesting thing is that in simulations conducted in both Iran and the U.S., this approach was shown to give our naval forces fits. Clearly Iran can't truly win with this approach, but experts think they could harass and delay and shut down the gulf for a while.

It's called the Jeune Ecole naval strategy, and was developed by France as an attempt to counter Brains battleships over a hundred years ago.

Unfortunately, whilst it looks good on paper, it tends to fall down flat when hit with reality. In other words, the aerial advantage such as that given by two or three aircraft carriers means you can literally strafe and obliterate smaller ships at will. And secondly, two or three carrier fleets combined have as many destroyers practically (the ship designed to counter torpedo boats), as they will have torpedo boats. Not to mention longer range guns and missiles and radar systems.

The Iranians are in no position to take on the US Navy, and I doubt they ever will be. If all it took to run you Yanks to ground and off the high seas was a handful of torpedo boats, the Soviets would have done it a long time ago.

Indeed, an attack on the US navy is a declaration of war. It only stops at "just their navy" if we decide it does. Else it means:
*their navy dies
*their air force dies
*maybe their CnC gets obliterated.

We'll see in April.

gorgon wrote:
Apparently they've built their navy with an asymmetric approach involving lots and lots of small attack boats. They know they can't go toe-to-toe with our navy, so they plan to flood the gulf with said attack boats and pepper our big ships with torpedos and missiles. The interesting thing is that in simulations conducted in both Iran and the U.S., this approach was shown to give our naval forces fits. Clearly Iran can't truly win with this approach, but experts think they could harass and delay and shut down the gulf for a while.

If you are referring to the massive naval simulation the US Navy ran, I think a lot of that was down to the maverick commander they used to lead the 'bad' side. Can't remember his name sadly, but the stuff he came up with turned the standard naval strategy on it's head, and the US navy were only able to beat him through essentially 'cheating' - something they had to do as there was some serious discontent coming from the upper-echelons of the Admiralty, after some of the capital ships were destroyed in the simulation.

sounds like Billy Mitchell (gulp).

Pacific wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Apparently they've built their navy with an asymmetric approach involving lots and lots of small attack boats. They know they can't go toe-to-toe with our navy, so they plan to flood the gulf with said attack boats and pepper our big ships with torpedos and missiles. The interesting thing is that in simulations conducted in both Iran and the U.S., this approach was shown to give our naval forces fits. Clearly Iran can't truly win with this approach, but experts think they could harass and delay and shut down the gulf for a while.

If you are referring to the massive naval simulation the US Navy ran, I think a lot of that was down to the maverick commander they used to lead the 'bad' side. Can't remember his name sadly, but the stuff he came up with turned the standard naval strategy on it's head, and the US navy were only able to beat him through essentially 'cheating' - something they had to do as there was some serious discontent coming from the upper-echelons of the Admiralty, after some of the capital ships were destroyed in the simulation.

Yeah, that sounds like the simulation in question. IIRC, the article said the U.S. Navy ended up changing the victory conditions after the fact so that they "won". This after they lost a carrier and maybe a cruiser?

gorgon wrote:

Pacific wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Apparently they've built their navy with an asymmetric approach involving lots and lots of small attack boats. They know they can't go toe-to-toe with our navy, so they plan to flood the gulf with said attack boats and pepper our big ships with torpedos and missiles. The interesting thing is that in simulations conducted in both Iran and the U.S., this approach was shown to give our naval forces fits. Clearly Iran can't truly win with this approach, but experts think they could harass and delay and shut down the gulf for a while.

If you are referring to the massive naval simulation the US Navy ran, I think a lot of that was down to the maverick commander they used to lead the 'bad' side. Can't remember his name sadly, but the stuff he came up with turned the standard naval strategy on it's head, and the US navy were only able to beat him through essentially 'cheating' - something they had to do as there was some serious discontent coming from the upper-echelons of the Admiralty, after some of the capital ships were destroyed in the simulation.

Yeah, that sounds like the simulation in question. IIRC, the article said the U.S. Navy ended up changing the victory conditions after the fact so that they "won". This after they lost a carrier and maybe a cruiser?

Wasn't this the Kobayashi Maru, and yes Kirk cheated!

Andrew1975 wrote:
Wasn't this the Kobayashi Maru, and yes Kirk cheated!

If you can't win, change the game.

An axiom for all the younglings.