# What is Irans military capibilites?



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2006)

How good is its military? plz explain as much as you like or can. Why is there talk about a possable nuclear attack on Iran when I never heard of any considerations in Iraq of such a attack (unless I just missed it).

Thanks


----------



## Twitch (Apr 18, 2006)

The fruitcake that heads Iran is talking about nuking Israel not being nuked. When the Israelis are ready they'll take out Iran's nuclear facilities just like they did Iraq's. None of the arab nations even combined have been able to defeat litle Israel in combat. They can't fight! Embarassing.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The fruitcake that heads Iran is talking about nuking Israel not being nuked. When the Israelis are ready they'll take out Iran's nuclear facilities just like they did Iraq's. None of the arab nations even combined have been able to defeat litle Israel in combat. They can't fight! Embarassing.




Twitch I am talking about USA's talk (Bush) about a possable nuclear attack on Iran, to be exact their nuclear facility. Why nuclear attack on them? why not air strike or cruise missiles etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2006)

The only pre-emptive action aganist Iran will be to neautrize its ability to make nuclear weapons and that will be a conventional strike. I think a nuclear strike against them is a bit premature. I see a nuclear strike against Iran only if they conduct a pre-emptive nuclar strike. I see their military about the same as Iraq before the first Gulf War....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran


----------



## Erich (Apr 18, 2006)

there will not be any nuclear attack on Iran it will be conventional when and if it will come. Like Twitch said most likely Israel is just flanching at the bit getting materails in order.

as for the military they are still in the stone age with modern day weapons. personally we will not get entirely out of Iraq as the gun-ho approcah of the Iraqui military is far from being ready to discipline their countrymen when need be. Honorable it appears through the media but not ready


----------



## R988 (Apr 19, 2006)

There is no question the US could wipe the floor with Iran in a straight fight. But Iran wont do a straight fight for all it's talking, or it certainly wont limit itself to that. It will use it's favoured technique of terrorism, and will use the entire regions general disdain for the US to it's advantage in gathering suicidal volunteers. The US can't really afford more negative publicity from another war or even attack, and any attack is not going to be able to take out Irans nuclear capability, maybe only delay it at best.

I doubt whether even Israel could pull off the air strike successfully though. Iran does have some pretty advanced air defences from Russia like S300s which they got recently, but luckily not many of them yet. They will have to operate at the furthest limits of their range. Better to use a cruise missile attack, or better yet a small team of sabotuers. The Iranians will be totally expecting an air attack though, since that's what everyone has been talking about.
Knowing how wily and cunning the Israelis are I would try and do anything but that. Perhaps careful intelligence (which the Israelies are known as being rather good at) to pinpoint the major locations that need to be shutdown, then simultaneous raids via Sub launched cruise missile, a feint air raid or two perhaps also launching cruise missiles and commando raids, along with random preplaced bombs in odd locations to cause confusion. 
Or else locate their top nuclear scientists and kill them all off one by one or simultaneously, they will have to go home at some point, not very nice, but it gets the job done, never really bothered Israel before either, I'll bet you could even make it look like an accident or disease as well, that way they will know but can't confirm, and you can play the 'god is killing them because they are doing wrong' card to confuse and scare the ordinary godfearing people.

Time for a few original ideas rather than more limited, risky, ineffective airstrikes or costly, unpopular conventional war.


----------



## Erich (Apr 19, 2006)

interesting you have then special intel to bae your statements ? we knew in Israel in 1980 that Iran was building nuclear facilities but did not let on to the world for good reason. Believe it Israel knows precisely what is going on over on her neighbors turf and could easily take the appropriate action...........when the time comes


----------



## Twitch (Apr 19, 2006)

If we ever get past this era of mullahs and ayatolahs the young majority population in Iran will one day reject all that mumbo jumbo crap as they are quite western in their overall outlook. This area is home to many Persian people and they communicate with family there. I've known many for years and am certain one day the dogmatic religious figures with a stranglehold on the country will be defeated. Problem is when. Certainly not before the nuts build a nuke.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 19, 2006)

I agree with Erich 100%....


----------



## Henk (Apr 20, 2006)

I say nuke them and get it over with. They are just a bunch of idiots anyway, why take the chance and leave them for now. OR, the Israelis should bomb the Nuclear facility's and get it over with. Iraq never had such weapons, it was just the idiot Bush thinking they had. There are many other things behind the Iraq story, but it is now only one big thorn up Bush's ass.

Henk


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 21, 2006)

> Iraq never had such weapons, it was just the idiot Bush thinking they had.


Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction Henk.... Not nukes, but he obviously sent everything else to Syria, and buried what he couldnt send....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2006)

It was quite obvious that Iraq had chemical weapons because he used gas against the Kurds in the '80s. And it's obvious he had the missiles to launch such a weapon against his neighbours. It is not hard to attach an anthrax warhead to a Scud and send it at Tel Aviv. 

Iran has plenty of 'modern' weaponary, such as the F-14 and AH-1J but they don't have any trained engineers or spares to maintain them.


----------



## marconi (Apr 21, 2006)

Only mad man can use nuclear weapons.Especially when Russia is quite close to the target area.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 21, 2006)

I'm pretty sure Iran doesnt have anymore flyable F-14's left in their inventory....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2006)

If they do, there must be like two at the most. And that'll only be in extremely special occasions. Like once a year ... if you're lucky. I'm sure the US would like to get its hands on those 200 AH-1Js sat around not doing anything in Iran though.


----------



## R988 (Apr 26, 2006)

You can see a good overview of Irans airforce recent history and current state (well estimations anyway) here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

I think the USA will attack after they get some more experice hunting disel subs,

For almost a year the US Navy has been hunting a Swedish submarine, the HMS Gotland, off America's west coast. 

The hunt is, of course, a one year training programme - but the Americans now want to extend the contract with the Swedish Navy. 

Time after time, as part of the Americans' training in tracking down smaller vessels, the Swedish submarine and its crew have eluded their pursuers. 

The programme started last summer but the US Navy has said that it would like to hire the Swedish submarine and crew for another year, reported the newspaper Blekinge Läns Tidning. 

That is good news as far as the Swedish submarine flotilla is concerned, and it has already requested the government's permission to continue. 

"Both the Americans and ourselves are interested in a continuation," said Jens Plambeck, chief of staff at the First Submarine Flotilla in Karlskrona. 

The key to the HMS Gotland's success is the Stirling engines which allow the submarine to remain underwater for a unusually long time.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 8, 2006)

> the Swedish submarine and its crew have eluded their pursuers.


And so have every other country that runs diesels against the Americans... Its not too hard for a diesel to elude a nuc....


> The key to the HMS Gotland's success is the Stirling engines which allow the submarine to remain underwater for a unusually long time.


No the key is the fact that electric MOTORS are alot quieter than nuclear reactors.... Usually, the way u get a diesel is when they're snorting, but NS is the professional here...

U know, u are unrealistically pumping ur own countries weapons pal... U sure ur not alittle biased???????


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

well i think they wont attack before they gett a hang on it, and mabye you should look the sterling engine up before you comment on it like that.

Well i have to pump hehe and yeah mabye unrealistically for some

/Skål


----------



## Hunter368 (May 8, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And so have every other country that runs diesels against the Americans... Its not too hard for a diesel to elude a nuc....No the key is the fact that electric MOTORS are alot quieter than nuclear reactors.... Usually, the way u get a diesel is when they're snorting, but NS is the professional here...
> 
> U know, u are unrealistically pumping ur own countries weapons pal... U sure ur not alittle biased???????




Why is that Les b/c everything he talks about is Swedish this and Swedish that on every thread I have seen that he has posted on? lol

I think people have been pretty patient so far.......... including yourself.

tick ... tock ... tick ... tock


----------



## elmilitaro (May 8, 2006)

Good point les.


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

i just tell what i think about gripen, i dont get why you bug me about that sub im prettý sure the US Navy hired the SWEDUSH  sub to get there sonar and stuff uptodate so they can take care of Iran and North Korea, and we are allways willing to help.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2006)

ozumn said:


> i just tell what i think about gripen, i dont get why you bug me about that sub im prettý sure the US Navy hired the SWEDUSH  sub to get there sonar and stuff uptodate so they can take care of Iran and North Korea, and we are allways willing to help.



No I dont think we are waiting for that. As a member of the US military I believe we are waiting until the time is right. Right now we are spread to thin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2006)

ozumn said:


> I think the USA will attack after they get some more experice hunting disel subs,
> 
> For almost a year the US Navy has been hunting a Swedish submarine, the HMS Gotland, off America's west coast.
> 
> ...


 I was in a P-3 squadron. Right now ASW warfare is becoming a lost art because subs are no longer perceived as a major threat. One of our intelligence officers once told me that someday when the threat is real the US will be in a big rush to retrain crews to perform ASW operations. In the mean time the exercises like those with Gotland are keeping the ASW art alive.

With or without the Gotland US Navy ASW squadrons will lean to track anything put in the ocean - they did it for 40 years during the cold war and they'll continue to do it into the 21st century....


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Good point.


----------



## ozumn (May 9, 2006)

yeah guess it was a waist of time going there and a waist of money spend from the US Navy.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

> yeah guess it was a waist of time going there


Going where was a waste of time????

And its spelled waste, not waist.......


----------



## ozumn (May 9, 2006)

San Diego i think it was and sorry for the bad spelling.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18984


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2006)

I'm sure the exercise was of value to both sides a good coastal submarine would make a change of pace for American ASW and the good coastal sub faced different challenges from working in the shallow Baltic both sides probably gained experience and its probably a whole lot cheaper to rent the sub then send P3s and crews away TD


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

> and a waist of money spend from the US Navy.





> San Diego i think it was and sorry for the bad spelling.


Training like what ur talking about here is not a waste of time or money at all... In reality, the US Navy spends far too little time in actual combat operations...

I was correcting ur spelling to help u out, so there's no need to apologize u Swedish Meatball.... Waist is ur midsection or beltline, waste is to use, consume, or expend thoughtlessly...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

I just saw that one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2006)

good lord you guys call it a belt line?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

Yeap and when you get older you will be worrying about it more too.


----------



## zerum (Jun 5, 2006)

You mustn`t be so hard to the Swedes. They havent been in combat since the early 1800.


----------



## ozumn (Jun 7, 2006)

zerum said:


> You mustn`t be so hard to the Swedes. They havent been in combat since the early 1800.



What


----------



## davparlr (Jun 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I was in a P-3 squadron. Right now ASW warfare is becoming a lost art because subs are no longer perceived as a major threat. One of our intelligence officers once told me that someday when the threat is real the US will be in a big rush to retrain crews to perform ASW operations. In the mean time the exercises like those with Gotland are keeping the ASW art alive.
> 
> With or without the Gotland US Navy ASW squadrons will lean to track anything put in the ocean - they did it for 40 years during the cold war and they'll continue to do it into the 21st century....



I have heard that some of the modern conventional subs can be very quiet and capable. I am concerned that a solo strike could do some damage. A destroyed nuclear aircraft carrier would make quite a statement. Of course I don't know the capability of the anti-sub hunters.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap and when you get older you will be worrying about it more too.


uhh... same here... too thin
how does the US navy hunt their subs?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2006)

Hunt whose subs?


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

speaking of the mid-east what is this about al-Zarkawi getting toasted today by an Allied airstrike ? If so he was a marked man and it was just a matter of time before ................ blllllllllllllllllllllltttttttttttttt ........... ? poof


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 8, 2006)

We got a thread about that scumbag Erich....


----------

