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.

 Firehead158 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Russia can mass produce everything by inducing debt that makes ours look good and building everything to a "minimal" QC standard. Their engines are famous for having issues as well. (Wonder where China learned it from?)

[img of a C-130]

Door on the right there is the paratrooper door for those that don't know.

And Dreadclaw I could engage it with my sidearm I suppose, M-9 is kinda like an airsoft pistol

Let me get this straight.

You think...Hahaha...You actually think that their plane can keep up with a 130?

No, I mean we'd engage it! That offense to the gods of flight couldn't chase down a Marine Corps battle herc on it's best day.

So, let me get this straight: Iran couldn't build anything technologically advanced ever and we should all laugh at them?




Then what's the fuzz about nuclear weapons?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, let me get this straight: Iran couldn't build anything technologically advanced ever and we should all laugh at them?




Then what's the fuzz about nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are always going to be a problem.
In the hands of religious fanatics they are an even bigger problem since religious fanatics cannot be argued with.

Iran doesn't need to go all high tech to cause major upsets.

If push comes to shove all they need to do is seed the straights of hormuz with variously weighted oildrums and other containers. Put crates on the sea bed and claim the whole area is mined.

Add in a few real mines for giggles and you have a major headache for the world.

It's also time for another lovely lady avatar.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
All I got from this thread is Mr Burning has Gianna as his avatar. I think. Nice.

She's a classy lady.

She is indeed.

Who is this Gianna?

Type Gianna Michaels into Google images.

Oh, her.

Kayden Kross is better

 purplefood wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, let me get this straight: Iran couldn't build anything technologically advanced ever and we should all laugh at them?




Then what's the fuzz about nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are always going to be a problem.
In the hands of religious fanatics they are an even bigger problem since religious fanatics cannot be argued with.

I think you missed my point; if Iran is completely incompetent, how could they ever build nuclear weapons? Or conversely, if they have the technological expertise to build nuclear weapons, why would they not have the know-how needed to send a monkey into space?

Us westerners, especially the US, have a tendency to belittle the know-how and technological prowess of everyone who isn't us.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, let me get this straight: Iran couldn't build anything technologically advanced ever and we should all laugh at them?
Then what's the fuzz about nuclear weapons?

Iran has historically funded terrorist groups to further its own political agenda. A nuclear weapon could be either a very complex device requires precise machining of the parts and alignment of the explosives to trigger the nuclear payload, or it could simply be radioactive material added to a conventional explosive (dirty bomb). A dirty bomb is relatively simple to assemble and can be fairly low yield so it makes it a suitable gift to any of the groups that it supports.

Also, just because Iran may not have the indigenous capability to manufacture a nuclear device it does not mean that it can't get assistance from another country - Pakistan for example.

As well as that there are legitimate fears that a nuclear Iran could fuel an arms race in the Middle East. Several countries in the region have expressed concern about Iran, including Jordan, Oman, UAE and Saudi Arabia. This has resulted in these countries increasing their spending on conventional military arms and equipment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rather than re-edit my post and possibly throw people I wanted to mention something important that I left out.

Iran has previously made threats in both 2008 and 2012 that in the event of any attack on it that it will close the Strait of Hormuz. This is important because 20% of the world's petroleum travels through this and it is a natural chokepoint, 39km at its narrowest. If Iran had nuclear capabilities it could become much more aggressive over these waters (including disputed boundaries which it claims as its own) and use the threat of force to conduct economic warfare on Iran's enemies in the region and further afield.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, let me get this straight: Iran couldn't build anything technologically advanced ever and we should all laugh at them?




Then what's the fuzz about nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are always going to be a problem.
In the hands of religious fanatics they are an even bigger problem since religious fanatics cannot be argued with.

I think you missed my point; if Iran is completely incompetent, how could they ever build nuclear weapons? Or conversely, if they have the technological expertise to build nuclear weapons, why would they not have the know-how needed to send a monkey into space?

Us westerners, especially the US, have a tendency to belittle the know-how and technological prowess of everyone who isn't us.

Well maybe this answers it.
US made a nuke in 1944. Thats like before the first IPOD like you know.
US made the first 5th generation plane in what the early 00's? 60 year difference and we're good at it.

Iran using foreign scientists to build a bomb is not that hard.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
What are down-swept wings normally for? And why would a plane have two sets of wings, or whatever. Since I am more intrigued by the crashing and blowing up of planes (waaagh), I know nothing about such things.

If this is anything like the F-4, the down-swept wings (F-4 had up-swept) are to cover-up/fix an aerodynamic instability/design issue. The "two sets of wings" would be a wing and a canard(the smaller one in front). Canards are used to increase lift and also enhance stability.