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.

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/08/22/iran-inaugurates-nations-first-unmanned-bomber/

"The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship," said Ahmadinejad at the inauguration ceremony...

Well I don't know about y'all but I'm getting the warm fuzzies. Nothing says peace and friendship like a nice unmanned bomber.

Good thing they don't have nuclear capability or a publicly stated hatred and desire to destroy one of their geographically nearby neighbors.

They should call their unmanned bombers ALIENS, and the sci-fi nerds would
celebrate as the world burns down around their ears.

It's a cruise missile, isn't it?

I thought they had had them for years, the Silkworm anti-shipping type.

I think it's fake - the video in which it can be seen flying looks dodgy.

If weapons development is a sign of hostility, then what is one to think of the US?

If weapons development is a sign of hostility, then what is one to think of the US?

It depends if one views the world with real pragmatism.

Practically speaking, the US is the world's cop. I know we don't really WANT to be that, and nobody else really does either (except maybe Western Europe), but at the end of the day, that's how we act, and how everyone views us.

Given that context, it's actually quite different for the US to arm up than it is for Iran. When the local police department gets new equipment, they typically crow about it, and (legitimately) tell the neighborhood how it will make them all safer. By comparison, if one of the houses on the block is sandbagging up its windows, and buying automatic weapons, that's a pretty hostile action in a world that's, ostensibly, being protected by a more powerful entity.

As far as Iran is concerned, I think they'd make a better case if they were focusing on things like anti-aircraft systems, and other defensive weapons that might protect them from Israel. The fact that they're constantly looking for nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems doesn't support their overall argument.

Actually a lot of trouble people see the US not as the world's cop but as the world's playground bully.

The Green Git wrote:http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/08/22/iran-inaugurates-nations-first-unmanned-bomber/

"The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship," said Ahmadinejad at the inauguration ceremony...

Well I don't know about y'all but I'm getting the warm fuzzies. Nothing says peace and friendship like a nice unmanned bomber.

Good thing they don't have nuclear capability or a publicly stated hatred and desire to destroy one of their geographically nearby neighbors.

Good thing that clearly doesn't have the payload to hold a nuke and they already have other platforms for delivering them to israel. This thing looks like a joke (and probably is a PR stunt). Cruise missiles already exist and that is far too small to hold a meaningful payload. Good job on the ridiculous scare tactic over the confetti covered gold colored giant phalice with papercraft wings.

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually a lot of trouble people see the US not as the world's cop but as the world's playground bully.

Shut your mouth! And give me your lunch money!

haha its probably just a model hes just into full scale stuff not 32mm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I think it's fake - the video in which it can be seen flying looks dodgy.

true its like that north korean missle except worse

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a cruise missile, isn't it?

I thought they had had them for years, the Silkworm anti-shipping type.

Not a cruise missile... it's billed as an unmanned bomber and carries a payload of two 250kg devices or one 500kg device.

Thinks jet powered Predator drone.

It looks like a gold lamé V1 (Doodlebug). Congrats for being 65 years behind... ...or 35 if we're going the disco route.

"Disco is not dead, disco is life!" - Tony P.

Actually a lot of trouble people see the US not as the world's cop but as the world's playground bully.

And a lot of people see cops as bullies as well.

Considering that most people have at least a slightly negative feeling towards cops, I felt it was a fair analogy.

Phryxis wrote:
It depends if one views the world with real pragmatism.

Practically speaking, the US is the world's cop. I know we don't really WANT to be that, and nobody else really does either (except maybe Western Europe), but at the end of the day, that's how we act, and how everyone views us.

I've never been a fan of that particular analogy because I think it paints the situation in a manner that is far too consensual. Police in the US may not be the most popular people, but at the end of the day they are the enforcement arm of a popularly elected government. Compare this to the global order that the US oversees, which deals only very rarely in anything approaching consensual action; the circumstances surrounding Iraq being notable in this regard.

Phryxis wrote:
Given that context, it's actually quite different for the US to arm up than it is for Iran. When the local police department gets new equipment, they typically crow about it, and (legitimately) tell the neighborhood how it will make them all safer. By comparison, if one of the houses on the block is sandbagging up its windows, and buying automatic weapons, that's a pretty hostile action in a world that's, ostensibly, being protected by a more powerful entity.

What if that entity is indiscriminately breaking into other houses in order to search for contraband?

Moreover, I have to ask if you then consider civilian firearm purchase in the United States to be a hostile action?

Phryxis wrote:
As far as Iran is concerned, I think they'd make a better case if they were focusing on things like anti-aircraft systems, and other defensive weapons that might protect them from Israel. The fact that they're constantly looking for nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems doesn't support their overall argument.

Long range delivery systems are almost as important to deterrence as nuclear weapons themselves.

Phryxis wrote:It depends if one views the world with real pragmatism.

Practically speaking, the US is the world's cop. I know we don't really WANT to be that, and nobody else really does either (except maybe Western Europe), but at the end of the day, that's how we act, and how everyone views us.

Thing is, whether or not I like an individual cop, he's part of an organisation that is democratically accountable to me. If the cops jerk around me and enough of my friends, we'd vote their boss out of office and get someone else in there. The rest of the world can't decide we don't like the US as world policemen, so the alternative is to trust in their good intentions or arm up for defence.

You make a good point about Iran opting for strategic weapons delivery systems and nuclear development instead of AA weapons and the like, but the scale of defence expenditure needed to defend one's self from the US in conventional war is beyond almost every country on Earth. Unfortunately the only practical form of defense for smaller nations is mutally assured destruction, it was one of the big arguments against the pre-emptive strike argument in the lead up to Iraq - we would actually be encouraging nations to build nuclear weapons.

Police in the US may not be the most popular people, but at the end of the day they are the enforcement arm of a popularly elected government. Compare this to the global order that the US oversees, which deals only very rarely in anything approaching consensual action; the circumstances surrounding Iraq being notable in this regard.

I dunno, I still like the analogy...

The thing is, the police district is the whole world. I'm sure there are parts of the US (the projects for example) who simply don't like the cops, don't trust the cops, and would vote them disbanded if they could. But the larger city likes the cops, and wants them keeping an eye on the projects. So there is a degree of demcratic accountability, it's just that the people getting their door kicked in got outvoted.

Western Europeans tacitly support Americans as world cops. They've been benefitting from it since 1945. They might talk bad about it, but at the end of the day that's just part of the benefit. You've got somebody willing to be an a-hole and take the heat, and you can distance yourself from the choices they make, even as they attempt to protect you (and more importantly themselves).

So, I'm not sure that a truly democratic vote would keep the US Police Department in operation, but in this world we vote with money, not people, and in that respect the vote seems resoundingly in favor of the US as world cop.

Moreover, I have to ask if you then consider civilian firearm purchase in the United States to be a hostile action?

I see your point, but I think we risk delving too deep into the analogy rabbit hole.

I think Iran has a reasonable case to make that they're acting defensively. They were, after all, attacked by Iraq and nobody rushed to their aid. They have no reason to assume that the UN would protect them from invasion, and certainly not from smaller scale tactical strikes.

So, with that in mind, I don't mean for my "cop vs. civillian" analogy to fit 100%. I'm merely saying that Iran is MORE like the civilian and the US is MORE like the cop, meaning that the US arming up is not directly comparable to Iran arming up.

Long range delivery systems are almost as important to deterrence as nuclear weapons themselves.

Certainly true, the current state of human weaponry is much more offensive than defensive, I'm just saying that if Iran wants PR wins, it's a lot easier to explain a static anti-aircraft defense network than it is to explain an offensive weapon.

but the scale of defence expenditure needed to defend one's self from the US in conventional war is beyond almost every country on Earth.

I think Iran has two main goals:

1) Pride: They're building these weapon systems to show that they can do it, and to reap the benefits that these sorts of technological projects can have on a nation. They have similar attitudes towards satellites, space programs, etc. They're just trying to show that they can do it on their own.

2) Israel: They have no real hope of playing the game with us, they just want to be in a position to hurt Israel in a MAD type scenario. This is what Saddam did in 1993, and I'm sure they recongize the destabilizing effect it could have on their enemies when used at a time when things probably can't go any worse for them.

Phryxis wrote:
So, with that in mind, I don't mean for my "cop vs. civillian" analogy to fit 100%. I'm merely saying that Iran is MORE like the civilian and the US is MORE like the cop, meaning that the US arming up is not directly comparable to Iran arming up.

Put that way, I don't disagree with you. Even on a basic level the Iranians are changing their previous behavior, whereas the US is essentially just acting the way it has for the last 80 years. I was merely questioning the idea that developing weapons is a necessarily hostile action. I mean, a really hardcore realist would certainly make that point, and it does follow from a purely zero-sum understanding of power, but I tend to think of power in a complicated manner than that.

Phryxis wrote:
I think Iran has two main goals:

1) Pride: They're building these weapon systems to show that they can do it, and to reap the benefits that these sorts of technological projects can have on a nation. They have similar attitudes towards satellites, space programs, etc. They're just trying to show that they can do it on their own.

2) Israel: They have no real hope of playing the game with us, they just want to be in a position to hurt Israel in a MAD type scenario. This is what Saddam did in 1993, and I'm sure they recongize the destabilizing effect it could have on their enemies when used at a time when things probably can't go any worse for them.

I'd also factor in a desire for regional hegemony. There has, historically, been a three-way race for domination of the Middle East between Turkey, Egypt, and Iran; with Iraq joining the mix after Egypt dropped out following its development of closer ties with the US. Turkey largely removed itself from the contest in seeking membership in the EU, and now defers to Iran by seeking its approval. Iraq lost too much in the wake of Gulf War 1 to be considered a viable candidate. This leaves us with Iran as the only horse in the race, and the overextension of the US has effectively gifted them with a prime opportunity to cross the finish line.

Really, the situation couldn't be much better for them, and they have exploited the opportunity masterfully.