Iran can sink U.S. warships with 'secret weapons', military official says

[Dumbastheycome]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think Iran is a dog, or a rat. Iran's got a leadership, and that leadership makes decisions and sets policies. In the past, when faced with economic pressure, Iran's leadership changed both its tone and its policies. That's how the so-called Iran Deal came about.

 

If you're looking for support of Trump's withdrawal from the agreement, you'll have to look elsewhere. As commented on multiple posts and topics - not a smart nor wise decision.

 

The Trump administration cited other issues (for example, Iran's ballistic missile program and Iran's regional activities) as reasoning and support for the decision to withdraw from the Iran Deal. Granted, the Iran Deal does not actually cover these issues, and the reasoning offered is faulty - but it's not like this makes them go away. The discontent over said issues is shared by European signatories, even if their ideas on tackling them differs from Trump's.

Try  not to  get  too excited. No way do I  support Trump's  or  his administration in the withdrawal  from an International Treaty. I rarely  support  any of the   policies  of  the US  Administration  in  any  aspect.

At the same  time I  have reservations  about the "attitude " of the Iranian  Administration.

Yet  further to that I  can believe that  Iran has  good cause  to  be  defensive to the point of  offensive given the chaos the US  has  connived throughout  the  ME.

Iran certainly  has a identifiable and rational Government which  is obviously  aware of the  machinations  involved  to  domesticate it  again as was until the  Shah was ousted.

On principle  they  defend the right to  sovereignty. The US  finds  renewed  excuse to  destroy  it.

On behalf of  you and myself? Is  Iraq  resolved?  Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Palestine? Anywhere the  US boot  has  been?

 

 

 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Try  not to  get  too excited. No way do I  support Trump's  or  his administration in the withdrawal  from an International Treaty. I rarely  support  any of the   policies  of  the US  Administration  in  any  aspect.

At the same  time I  have reservations  about the "attitude " of the Iranian  Administration.

Yet  further to that I  can believe that  Iran has  good cause  to  be  defensive to the point of  offensive given the chaos the US  has  connived throughout  the  ME.

Iran certainly  has a identifiable and rational Government which  is obviously  aware of the  machinations  involved  to  domesticate it  again as was until the  Shah was ousted.

On principle  they  defend the right to  sovereignty. The US  finds  renewed  excuse to  destroy  it.

On behalf of  you and myself? Is  Iraq  resolved?  Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Palestine? Anywhere the  US boot  has  been?

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't know what "excitement" you're on about, and there was nothing said about you being supportive of Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal.

 

What does "defensive to the point of offensive" cover? Is it similar to "preemptive strike"? Isn't Iran itself well into "conniving" chaos (or put otherwise, promoting its interests) in the region?

 

As for Iran "defending the right to sovereignty" - defending against what? Which current actions are being referenced? The inspections regime and further limitations included in the Iran Deal were a result of Iran breaching international agreements and obligations. And oh, the present Iranian regime would probably be against the one toppled by USA as well. 

 

Reservations? Can't really see any in your post. It's pretty much USA bad, Iran good stuff. Nothing more.

[Morch]

59 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Funny, that's almost exactly what General Curtis LeMay said about North Vietnam. I seem to remember that's not exactly how it turned out.

 

Funny, I seem to recall North Vietnam taking quite a beating, economy stalled and whatnot. But guess all that suffering doesn't count, as long as one can "score" a point.

[Penicillin]

11 hours ago, cnxgary said:

Many many years ago Russia gave Iran what is called Cavitating Torpedos  that once fired releases a compressed gas to displace water and dramaticly increases the speed and distance ( 300 k an hour ) of the weapon. Being that the Straight of Hormus is some 25 miles wide these torpedos can hit any ship within a minute and a oil tanker takes how long to stop or veer off?

Whoa!  I sure hope someone in the US Navy reads the TV news and alerts everyone!

[surangw]

12 hours ago, bluesofa said:

Must be using the wrath of Allah.

 his turbine to  fowl the propellers 

[thaiguzzi]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Funny, I seem to recall North Vietnam taking quite a beating, economy stalled and whatnot. But guess all that suffering doesn't count, as long as one can "score" a point.

I seem to recall that Vietnam had 3 odd million dead inc civilians, and America lost 52,000 dead, virtually all military.

So, yes "Vietnam took quite a beating" inc stuff they still pay for today like UXO and Napalm birth defects, but, what exactly did those 52,000 dead American soldiers advance in the name of Freedom & Democracy?

The "Domino Effect" never really happened, and i seem to recall that Vietnam is doing just fine under the same Commie govt that has run the country since 1975.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Thaifriends said:

Iranis must watch film Crimson Tide and learn how a chief of the boat could be crazy war monger and to give extra flavor, their POTUS needs a new war.

 

These are fox threats from Iranians as they dont have anything especially economics is shattered.

 

One dissapointing situation for the US, all its partners are on Iranian side due to economics.

Since Trump became POTUS the USA doesn't have as many partners as before.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, thaiguzzi said:

I seem to recall that Vietnam had 3 odd million dead inc civilians, and America lost 52,000 dead, virtually all military.

So, yes "Vietnam took quite a beating" inc stuff they still pay for today like UXO and Napalm birth defects, but, what exactly did those 52,000 dead American soldiers advance in the name of Freedom & Democracy?

The "Domino Effect" never really happened, and i seem to recall that Vietnam is doing just fine under the same Commie govt that has run the country since 1975.

 

My post wasn't about how righteous the USA and its foreign policy are. You might as well save the sermons. One poster alleged that the USA can "sink Iran back to the stone age", another poster replied that this isn't exactly how things turned out with regard to North Vietnam.

 

Millions dead and the county suffering great destruction doesn't sound like a great result - regardless of whether the USA lost or not. If you wish to praise the Vietnamese government, go right ahead. I don't think it was a great place to live in during the years following the war, and I'm not taking your "doing just fine" view seriously either.

 

 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Since Trump became POTUS the USA doesn't have as many partners as before.

 

This is correct. Then again, it doesn't seem to help Iran much. Unilateral sanctions laid by the USA seem to have an effect, with most country complying (differing degrees, for sure). Iran's threats about disengaging from the agreement weren't received well either. No effective economic resistance to USA sanctions, not much by way of effective diplomatic effort to solve the situation as well. And no military backup - other than in some posters' imagination.

 

The Trump administration manage to alienate many allies and partners, but Iran doesn't seem able to capitalize on that so far. 

[Uptooyoo]

15 hours ago, Tom1959 said:

Try it,and 24 hours later Iran will look like the surface of the moon!

No, the moon has many small craters, Iran will have only a single massive one.

[GroveHillWanderer]

16 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

After Iran sinks a U.S. aircraft carrier, sending 5,000 crewmen to a watery grave, a single Ohio-Class Submarine slides silently from under the polar ice-cap and launches one of its 24 missiles. Fifteen minutes later, Iran evaporates. 23 missiles to go with 17 other Ohio subs standing ready for any other nation wishing to intervene. Better think really hard before you strike at the U.S. Navy.

And the fact that, depending on wind direction, the nuclear fallout could kill hundreds of innocent civilians on the territories of US allies such as Turkey, the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (potentially also Israel) doesn't give you any pause for thought?

[bristolboy]

17 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

   After Iran sinks a U.S. aircraft carrier, sending 5,000 crewmen to a watery grave, a single Ohio-Class Submarine slides silently from under the polar ice-cap and launches one of its 24 missiles. Fifteen minutes later, Iran evaporates. 23 missiles to go with 17 other Ohio subs standing ready for any other nation wishing to intervene. Better think really hard before you strike at the U.S. Navy.

Your invocation of nuclear retaliation isn't exactly the product of thinking really hard.

[Elkski]

I think most of you underestimate how few people it would take to develop a land based rail gun to penetrate a ship in the straight? At 22,000 mph there is no  100% defense.  Correctly placed with modern gaiming algorithms and optics and the USN would not even know what happened for weeks.  You guys who think one Nuke is all that's needed to solve problems are not informed.  Do we want to be the country who begins the final days of darkness?

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Elkski said:

I think most of you underestimate how few people it would take to develop a land based rail gun to penetrate a ship in the straight? At 22,000 mph there is no  100% defense.  Correctly placed with modern gaiming algorithms and optics and the USN would not even know what happened for weeks.  You guys who think one Nuke is all that's needed to solve problems are not informed.  Do we want to be the country who begins the final days of darkness?

Well whatever sort of new weapon Iran may or may not have, the fact is that the Persian Gulf is a very bad place for a large navel ship - particularly a carrier - to be. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Funny, I seem to recall North Vietnam taking quite a beating, economy stalled and whatnot. But guess all that suffering doesn't count, as long as one can "score" a point.

Vietnam's economy may have been set back somewhat but they were hardly "bombed back into the Stone Age." Or are you saying that a society with nothing other than rudimentary stone tools was still able to defeat the US? What does that say about US 'military might?' And any economic setback they might have had for a while seems to have been fairly comprehensively overcome.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

And the fact that, depending on wind direction, the nuclear fallout could kill hundreds of innocent civilians on the territories of US allies such as Turkey, the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (potentially also Israel) doesn't give you any pause for thought?

Probably not. They are only keyboard warriors anyway and simply don't care about anybody else.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Vietnam's economy may have been set back somewhat but they were hardly "bombed back into the Stone Age." Or are you saying that a society with nothing other than rudimentary stone tools was still able to defeat the US? What does that say about US 'military might?' And any economic setback they might have had for a while seems to have been fairly comprehensively overcome.

 

So which is it? If Vietnam's economy was only "set back somewhat", the USA maybe wasn't all that evil, eh? Picking on the "stone age" thing is hardly the point. Spin it however you like, Vietnam didn't come out from that conflict unscathed, but incurred heavy damage and loss of human life. And mending relations with the USA played a large part in the "comprehensively overcome" part.

 

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Probably not. They are only keyboard warriors anyway and simply don't care about anybody else.

 

The poster you responded to seems to think that the destruction visited on countries such countries as Vietnam isn't a big deal. Got to love keyboard warriors, eh?

[Dumbastheycome]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So which is it? If Vietnam's economy was only "set back somewhat", the USA maybe wasn't all that evil, eh? Picking on the "stone age" thing is hardly the point. Spin it however you like, Vietnam didn't come out from that conflict unscathed, but incurred heavy damage and loss of human life. And mending relations with the USA played a large part in the "comprehensively overcome" part.

 

 

 I do  believe that  most would attribute the comprehensive overcoming was not due to reparations made by the US or any  "mending" of relations. The US promised assistance, but never gave it, instead the US introduced an embargo on them. It was the Russians  who aided Vietnam.

In typical US foreign "policy" it was not until the  1990's after Vietnam rebuilt that trade relations  were "normalized" to take advantage of economic gains in trade.

Spin it however you like the US has a legacy  of destruction and /or suppression for sole advantage.

Iran is a fly in the quack ointment.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

 I do  believe that  most would attribute the comprehensive overcoming was not due to reparations made by the US or any  "mending" of relations. The US promised assistance, but never gave it, instead the US introduced an embargo on them. It was the Russians  who aided Vietnam.

In typical US foreign "policy" it was not until the  1990's after Vietnam rebuilt that trade relations  were "normalized" to take advantage of economic gains in trade.

Spin it however you like the US has a legacy  of destruction and /or suppression for sole advantage.

Iran is a fly in the quack ointment.

 

Do you actually bother to read and understand posts before commenting?

There wasn't anything said about reparations made by the USA, nor was the "mending" bit presented as a USA thing. With all due respect to the Russians, I doubt they can be labeled as being responsible for the country's current (relative) prosperity. But thanks for acknowledging that improved relations with the USA have something to do with it.

 

There was no spin, and no claims such as you imply regarding USA foreign policy. If anything, the poster I was replying to seemed to try and minimize the destruction visited on Vietnam by the USA. My point was that regardless of being right or wrong, countries entering a direct conflict with the USA come out of it  in a bad shape. Some posters seem to feel that Iran can somehow withstand this, while displaying disregard for the lot of everyday Iranians under such conditions. For some posters this seems a small price to pay if there's some imaginary point to score vs. the USA.

 

Your last line got about as much meaning as the rest of your post.

[Dumbastheycome]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do you actually bother to read and understand posts before commenting?

There wasn't anything said about reparations made by the USA, nor was the "mending" bit presented as a USA thing. With all due respect to the Russians, I doubt they can be labeled as being responsible for the country's current (relative) prosperity. But thanks for acknowledging that improved relations with the USA have something to do with it.

 

There was no spin, and no claims such as you imply regarding USA foreign policy. If anything, the poster I was replying to seemed to try and minimize the destruction visited on Vietnam by the USA. My point was that regardless of being right or wrong, countries entering a direct conflict with the USA come out of it  in a bad shape. Some posters seem to feel that Iran can somehow withstand this, while displaying disregard for the lot of everyday Iranians under such conditions. For some posters this seems a small price to pay if there's some imaginary point to score vs. the USA.

 

Your last line got about as much meaning as the rest of your post.

lol. If you were to lower your sensitivity to my posts you would heed your own instruction as to comprehension.

The US all but inflicted  genocide on Vietnam, and neighbouring  countries then absconded  from  agreed reparations as well as embargo. The Russians  aided Vietnam to re establish itself to a huge  degree. It was only  when Vietnam was then able to resume  more international  capacity the USA then took best self interested advantage of that which they had  previously destroyed  according to their foreign policy.

To  date  the US  has made  token effort  to compensate those  hundreds of thousands  of Viet Citizens  who  have  and continue to  suffer congenital hereditory damage  from the poisons poured on them in the  form of chemical (weapons). In point of  fact  nor have  they  even  made  compensation to their own  Veterans who also suffer same. Unlike the other  Governments of  nations that to this  day still pay  compensations  to their own  veterans of that  stupid  contrived  war!

Yes! The US dragged others into that  conflict but  most Americans  seem to choose the same false perception  that the USA  is  some  solitary  saviour!  Did  the  USA  win WW2 ? No ! It was  an Allied effort that culminated  in the  US use of  a weapon  of  mass destruction  against a  civilian  population of a  country that was already on the  verge of capitulation.

It disgusts  me that  in many parts of the world I have  heard many red  neck americans  flippantly express"Just effin nuke em all"  as the simplistic solution  to any resistance to US  aggression and domination !

At the same time I have come to know  many younger expat Americans  who after several  years separated from the propaganda within the  USA  who are horrified  by their more real world perceptions of  US  activity.

Your  own declared  objection to  the  current POTUS obviously does  not  retract  from  your  equally  obvious  defense  of the assumed overall superior status  of the USA. And  that despite your tokenist apologies.

Whilst  Trump is definitely not suited  to  his  personal perceptions  of his  role  it  is more than likely  he is  suitable to his hyena installers in that he is the  agent  for the  retrenchment of the  US  into a isolationist nationality in  the  face of global economic  disintegration.

It is  sad  that  in that process there is a covert militaristic  emphasis on trying to  control and collect and/or deny to others the  worlds greatest asset of these times: oil 

Without compunction the US has repeatedly used its"allies" via the UN in support of it's  domination and if deemed necessary dismissed them in defiance of the UN !

But the overall factor  behind  the induced  paranoia  about  nuclear potentials is  not  to do  with the  destruction of  innocents. Historically human genocide preceded Hitler by many hundreds of  years.

Wide spread  utilisation  of  nuclear  devices  would   obliterate virtually all effective  electronic  systems. The world  would stop!

Despite  the  humanitarian appeal of the horror  of ensuing death  by starvation or  radiation the elite in the bunkers awaiting a slower and  more appropriate death  from that which they  wreaked would more  likely regret the loss of power  and wealth !

Now in the  face of  the rejection of the assumption that as a "fair weather" friend the  US is being taught what fair weather friends should  understand. A "regime" is  a  regime and not one has demonstrably lasted forever.

What  ever  ensues  from  the  fall of  the last  may not   be  better but  that is  what  humans  have the unfortunate  capacity   for.

Scratch the itch? Yes.  No  comprehension. lmfao !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

 

@Dumbastheycome

 

Again, do you actually read posts before commenting or just make up imaginary arguments to address?

 

It doesn't matter how you construe the mending of relations between Vietnam and the USA. The fact stands that it became a major driver with regard to Vietnamese economy. Being ignored, embargoed or boycotted by the USA is not a good place to be. Not making a moral judgement, just an observation.

 

There wasn't anything in my posts which hails USA foreign policy or practices as righteous, you could stop beating that false drum now. Same goes for all that reparations and compensations bit - nothing to do with my posts or my point. I get it that you don't like the USA much, thanks.

 

Once more - given said USA practices which you describe in dire terms, would it be advisable for Iran to risk such consequences? To what end and towards which goal? Plus, who makes the decision - the people? Their leadership? Some posters suggest Iran should stand its ground no matter what, and that Iran is both willing and able to take it. I say, that it can't and shouldn't. This isn't a view infused with how the USA is right, but more to do with how such things might pan out for your average Iranian.

 

The superior status of the USA is a fact - not necessarily in terms of moral high ground, best behavior or bring righteous, but more to do with sheer power. I don't so much "defend" this, as state that it's there, regardless of how some may feel about it. I'm not sorry if it hurts your sensitivities, such is life. Wouldn't know what "tokenist(?) apologies" you're on about - unless by that you mean not engaging in fiery rants favored by yourself and others. Not my thing. That would be the rest of your muddled tirade - which still doesn't have a whole lot to do with my posts.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Dumbastheycome

 

Again, do you actually read posts before commenting or just make up imaginary arguments to address?

 

It doesn't matter how you construe the mending of relations between Vietnam and the USA. The fact stands that it became a major driver with regard to Vietnamese economy. Being ignored, embargoed or boycotted by the USA is not a good place to be. Not making a moral judgement, just an observation.

 

There wasn't anything in my posts which hails USA foreign policy or practices as righteous, you could stop beating that false drum now. Same goes for all that reparations and compensations bit - nothing to do with my posts or my point. I get it that you don't like the USA much, thanks.

 

Once more - given said USA practices which you describe in dire terms, would it be advisable for Iran to risk such consequences? To what end and towards which goal? Plus, who makes the decision - the people? Their leadership? Some posters suggest Iran should stand its ground no matter what, and that Iran is both willing and able to take it. I say, that it can't and shouldn't. This isn't a view infused with how the USA is right, but more to do with how such things might pan out for your average Iranian.

 

The superior status of the USA is a fact - not necessarily in terms of moral high ground, best behavior or bring righteous, but more to do with sheer power. I don't so much "defend" this, as state that it's there, regardless of how some may feel about it. I'm not sorry if it hurts your sensitivities, such is life. Wouldn't know what "tokenist(?) apologies" you're on about - unless by that you mean not engaging in fiery rants favored by yourself and others. Not my thing. That would be the rest of your muddled tirade - which still doesn't have a whole lot to do with my posts.

 

"The superior status of the USA is a fact - ". And there  we  have  it.

Indisputable? Demonstrable?

No. It is  merely the blagging  of a  desciple to the propaganda !

Agreed is  that the US  has  a military presence it  has no reserve in  demonstrating.

Blanket   bombing. Missile strikes  against an individual  with   multiple  civilian  collateral   waste.

Etc etc ! And  yet  you  offer " I don't so much "defend" this" ........!

Wouldn't  know  what tokenist  apologies I am "on  about" ?

You   subscribe to the  militaristic philosophy that   might is  right ?

And therefore  any  challenge by even those  in a  defensive   situation are  illegitimate  by reason  of inferior to  military suppression?

You  confirm  you are an Americon. !

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The poster you responded to seems to think that the destruction visited on countries such countries as Vietnam isn't a big deal. Got to love keyboard warriors, eh?

Is  it  that in this  response you  gloat the destruction visited on  countries such as  Vietnam is  some illustration  of  validation for the "superior" demonstration of?  When in fact the US cut and  run  from that particular contrived conflict  due to  the  proper  condemnation of  it  by it's  own citizens.

Offer  some  genuine rebuttal to  wide  opinion  instead  of snide misinterpretations of that opinion as being some incorrect "inference" to  your  own  opinion.

Or is  it  difficult  for you to  comprehend and  consider  there  are aspects  to opinion that  are  broader or  amazingly  narrower  than  your  own personal perspective of a  topic?

 

 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

"The superior status of the USA is a fact - ". And there  we  have  it.

Indisputable? Demonstrable?

No. It is  merely the blagging  of a  desciple to the propaganda !

Agreed is  that the US  has  a military presence it  has no reserve in  demonstrating.

Blanket   bombing. Missile strikes  against an individual  with   multiple  civilian  collateral   waste.

Etc etc ! And  yet  you  offer " I don't so much "defend" this" ........!

Wouldn't  know  what tokenist  apologies I am "on  about" ?

You   subscribe to the  militaristic philosophy that   might is  right ?

And therefore  any  challenge by even those  in a  defensive   situation are  illegitimate  by reason  of inferior to  military suppression?

You  confirm  you are an Americon. !

 

 

 

At present the USA is in a superior position on multiple fronts. Militarily, economically and by extension (even under Trump) diplomatically. The situation vs. Iran makes a good example of all three, discussed in detail on many posts, including this topic. You wish to go the easy way and call it propaganda, go right ahead, doesn't change reality.

 

Kindly stop making things up, or work on them comprehension issues. Acknowledging how things are is not a "defense", nor an "apology" (not even a tokenist(?) one). Where did I subscribe to any philosophy? Whether you like it or not, might often decides the outcome. It ain't always pretty. It ain't always nice. It ain't always right. Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away, and posting emotional rants on tirades does not carry much weight either.

 

Similarly, I don't think that there was any blanket argument offered with regard to Iranian "defense" (guess its an eye of the beholder thing) being illegal. I did say that the outcome of such actions will probably not be beneficial to the Iranian people, and that by doing so Iran would help fuel the Trump administration narrative. Other potential Iranian actions discussed (attacking third party countries, blocking the Strait of Hormuz, withdrawing from the Iran Deal) will almost certainly result in wider international reactions.

 

There wasn't any full pledged endorsement of the Trump administration actions, or USA policy - other than in your mind.

 

Quote

You  confirm  you are an Americon. !

Not really. But do seek help. And a spellchecker.

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Is  it  that in this  response you  gloat the destruction visited on  countries such as  Vietnam is  some illustration  of  validation for the "superior" demonstration of?  When in fact the US cut and  run  from that particular contrived conflict  due to  the  proper  condemnation of  it  by it's  own citizens.

Offer  some  genuine rebuttal to  wide  opinion  instead  of snide misinterpretations of that opinion as being some incorrect "inference" to  your  own  opinion.

Or is  it  difficult  for you to  comprehend and  consider  there  are aspects  to opinion that  are  broader or  amazingly  narrower  than  your  own personal perspective of a  topic?

 

 

 

Where did you spot any gloating? My point was quite opposite. The destruction inflicted by the USA on countries it had direct conflicts with is a serious matter. I wouldn't wish it on the Iranians, and hence I object to posts by those making light of it.

 

Why would I need to offer a "rebuttal" of fake views which aren't my own? You keep insisting on things I haven't posted, implied or claimed. And as for your last muddled remark, guess you know what you're on about, I've no idea.

[DaRoadrunner]

On 5/26/2019 at 9:05 AM, Alan Michael said:

Yes Iran can sink US ships, but the US can sink Iran back to the stone age too.

Iran never left the stone age, just like those who follow the Quran.

[Scott]

Troll posts reported and removed.