[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

IAEA inspections are ongoing, but what i find most interesting is that iran is complying.

..

Originally Posted by Looger

hmmm, i could have sworn i posted a huge list of iran's previous violations with the IAEA...

Originally Posted by Looger

didn't ignore it, i responded by saying that iran has aspirations of a bomb.

they're a bunch of sick religious nuts. they want what we deny them. they look east, they look west, they are scared to death of us.

..

Originally Posted by Looger

israel really does look like it'll use nuclear bunker busters to go after a nonexistant nuclear weapons program.

Originally Posted by Looger

i'd like to try but until dimona submits to inspections there's not much point.

the primacy of one people over all others prevents real comparison.

But this is my point, you can't compare the two nations. You have just admitted it yourself -- "they are a bunch of sick religious nuts".

I don't know about you, but whether Israel has nuclear bombs or not is not the point, a nation of Irans record is what's really concerning. One can't really compare the likes of Britain or France having a bomb to the likes to Iran or N.Korea. There is just no accountability for the two latter states, wheres there is for the first. All i'm saying is Israel can be trusted which is far more than i can say for Iran.

Israel having the bomb does not give Iran the right, if anything, Israel has the RIGHT with all thats been said and done (Hezbollah proxy wars). If anything, the nuclear bomb is Israels deterrent, Iran has it's deterrent in population and military size. Israel would never touch Iran unless it was threatened - which could come in the next few years if Iran continues down this road.

Originally Posted by Looger

yep, israel better realize that they cannot be at war forever. it's unwinnable. eventually a neighbour will become powerful

Well i wouldn't go as far as saying that.

Muslims and Jews have never got along, ever. Since Israel was granted by the UN after WWII, it's been surrounded by people who don't want it to be there. Fact is, it's there and it's not going anywhere. Israel has a right to defend that and if that is by Nuclear means - given the shiere population of potential enemys that surrounds it - i don't think thats too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Looger

it's interesting that the full quote of amedinajad included wiping israel off the map as the soviet union was, and where our 'translators' have put israel, he actually said 'the zionist regime'.

So he used some fancy wording, we all know exacly what he means.

Originally Posted by Looger

this holocaust denial is also an interesting accusation, i've heard interviews by people that were there (no not david duke) and it sounds like the tone of the conference wasn't as nuts as people seem to believe.

I'm not really even talking about the conference, just all the sick and disgusting sentances to come out of that regime about Israel and the holocaust.

Originally Posted by Looger

but attacking them will not speed the eventual downfall of these idiots. atacking them will do the opposite.

Then what do you suggest? Your implying this is a walk in the park and not the matter of some nut jobs aquiring the most destructive weapon known to man.

I'm all for talks, negotiations and concessions but the fact is Iran is being defiant. The EU has offered numorous incentives, as have the Russians - who are supplying that country in the first place - if the Russians can't persuade the regime there i don't really think anyone can.

Time just isn't on our side and this is precisely what Iran is using. They are simply stalling all talks and trying to buy there program as much time as possible and it seems to be working quite well.

What is it going to take to wake people up? Iran has already showed it's all too keen on helping others fight Israel, it's only a matter of time before they can do it themselfs. Now nobody knows for sure what Irans asperations are, but like i have said, i'm not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt given their record.

Originally Posted by Looger

not with one, with dozens or hundreds. let's assume the americans are lucky and actually hit a few of the missiles incoming, or maybe a few of their inserted sappers or insurgents stop some of the truck launches. in 2005 russia sold reportedly hundreds of these things to iran.

Originally Posted by Looger

yep, it's a 30 year old design. and nope, the US aegis and phalanx cannot handle it. tested in 1998. too fast for aegis, it's mach 2+ at 10 feet above the waves, and yes the phalanx hits it when it's going mach 4+ in its strike position but it doesn't happen to change a thing

Now your talking battle plans, and this is just so far out of your league, and mine.

If any of this would happen, do you not think all of this would be taken into consideration? Israel or even the United States knows of Irans capabilities more than anyone, they will more than likely know of capabilities that we don't. Fact is, any strike on Irans nuclear facilities would most definitely put all of Irans long range missile capabilities in US-Israel crosshairs. Israel and the United States have enough bombs to knock Iran back into the stone ages.

With that said, the SS-N-22 only has a range of approx 120km and thats not even the entire width of the gulf. The US could easily move there ships out of range or operate them from a different location. All missile launching capabilities would have to be on Irans coastline and that terrain is not suited for hiding weapons systems, US-Israel technology can easily pin point where these systems would be located. Missile systems located further in-land can be much more easily concealed but Iran dosen't posses the means of a knock out blow from that distance. If the sunborn is mounded on an aircraft, it's quite obvious that aircraft wouldn't be in the air too much longer after takeoff but i don't believe Iran purchased any ASMs(air-ship missiles) so there means are strictly from the ground.

The SS-N-22 also uses the "pop-up" maneauver to avoid the last-resort Phalanx guns but it's been proven this missile has a tendancy to malfunction in those final stages and the "pop-up" does not always work, allowing the Phalanx system to make contact. It also relies on radar to function and this is a very vunerable system because it can be easily taken out as radar systems tend to be relatively close to launch sites. But i'll admit, the Phalanx is hardily a threat to the sunburn if the system is executed flawlessly. Hell, the Phalanx system only has around 2-3 seconds to respond to this missile. Fact is, the missile will never get to be in the range of 2-3 seconds anyway.

The AIM-9 Sidewinder (air-toair) also has capabilities of striking the sunburn, only downside is it has to be fired from behind the target from a fighter jet. There is also a variant of this - the shipborn AIM-9.

Also the new AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles which is variant of the AIM-7 Sparrow have capabilities to destroy the SS-N-22 with it's "fire and forget" system, this missile travels at a whopping Mach 4 - far faster than the sunburn. This system also has the luxory of being able to fire multiple munitions at the target simutanously to avoid the possibility of a malfunction to increase the kill probability.

Of course as i have said, the best form of defense is offense and this is where the Sunburn is weakest, US navy ships can simply take them out before they are in range of the missile. When you look at the bigger picture, not just one US navy ship against a Sunburn but AWACS and satellites covering a fleet that has Harpoon (approx. 110-240kms) and Tomahawk missiles(1100kms), the Sunburn is still a serious threat but hardly one that will destroy the American Naval fleet in the Persian Gulf or inflict serious casualties.

Now don't get me wrong, the sunburn is definitely a threat IF USED PROPERLY but the US has systems at it's disposal or it could simply get out of the range of the missile which would render it completely ineffective. The whole idea of the sunburn being the most powerful anti-ship missile currently in service is just a myth. To think the US would put ships in range of missiles of that calibur is quite idiotic, especially when all of which can operate 100% functionally from a distance. Like I said before, with AWACS keeping an eye on an area covering 320kms around the fleet, fleet vessels and fleet aircraft armed with Harpoon missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles, these sunburn missiles may never even leave their launchers. What about US submarines? What about US air power?
Finally, take a look at a map, Iran is effectively encircled. The US has more options than simply sailing the 5th and 7th fleets up the Persian Gulf. (those currently in service in the region)

You also talk of "hundreds" or even "dozens" of SS-N-22s. Can i ask where you got this information from? To my knowloge, and according to globalsecurity Iran only posseses 16 sunburn missiles, nowhere near the "hundreds" range you claim.

Originally Posted by Looger

yeah. how's that going again?

Good and yourself?

Originally Posted by Looger

ask israel, they got an entire tank division wiped out in their latest invasion.

That was urban-ground fighting. Israel and the United States would be doing nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Looger

we have the time and the inspections

Time is not on our side.

Originally Posted by Looger

i'm close to not responding to your posts, you keep throwing insults into your queries and it's quite sad.

clean up your act or i'll just ignore you.

9/11 conspiracy theorists hold a special place in my heart.