err nuclear-powered, was typing fast

actually not sure about the iranian sub capability, but i know it's operational

I might think so too if it wasn't for the fact that we are losing 2 wars right now.

I don't really think it's balls. It's pretty simple. They are like the little kid on the playground that has a big friend that nobody wants to mess with. In this case, China. Nobody wants to fight with China, it doesn't make any sense at all for anyone to want to play with China. North Korea knows China has their back and they know that nobody wants to piss off China too much because the whole world needs China right now.

There is a tipping point though. I don't know what exactly it is, but at some point they are going to make China break and they will be sorry.

Don't put my name in this shit! :mad:

Iran would not have to be invaded. With its ability to make war destroyed, it could do little but try to rebuild and subsequent strikes against those efforts would work quite well.

And I really don't care if the entire country were blasted to rubble as Iran is one of the most serious threats to the entire world that exists today.

"Stone Age" anyone?

The Iranian navy possesses NO nuclear-powered submarines. The Iranians have but THREE and possibly five Soviet-built Diesel-Electric attack subs, only one or two of which are operational at any given time.

Go here for the complete Iranian navy:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iran/ships.htm

Taking out the operational Iranian navy would be like shooting ducks on a pond.

Sally.



Sally.

yea my mistake about the subs, but with the same story with the ships/air force, they don't need a big one for it to be fully effective, and doesn't matter to the strategy anyway

since you have brought up nuking people a few times, curious, if you know the reason why they want to attack Iran in the first place

hahaha my bad

One nuclear armed sub can take out virtually every major city in any country on the earth...that of course is not total annihilation of a country...but for all practical purposes it is. In the case of Iran one nuclear armed sub can take out every major city...multiple times over.

But a carrier group would not have to rely upon nukes to virtually destroy Irans military capabilites. It can use conventionally armed cruise missiles from the surface ships in the group...as well as subs...and its air power.

The Iranian air force and navy is no competition whatsoever to that of a single U.S. carrier group. Once again...can they do damage...yes...but minimal damage. Can they take out a carrier group...no.

The newer subs have Harpoons, Subrocs and Tomahawks, not a good thing to try to piss off, thats the fast attacks, then you look at the boomers, they have ICBM's with multiple nuclear warheads that spread out over a huge area
LMAO, um, I was a submariner in the Navy and that's just too funny, never bring a sword to a gun fight

Nope, nor the tech to guide them
You've never heard of a trident submarine have you, it can take out half the continent, the power they have is fucking scary

NO it isn't they have old tired soviet diesel submarines, they can only stay underwater for maybe 6 hours tops

Simple, they don't. No one "wants" to attack Iran. What is desired is that Iran cease it's nuclear program development. Nothing more. Whether or not a conflict erupts is entirely in the hands of Iranian leaders, as I told you weeks ago in a similar thread.

Fifty nukes!

Ahhhh, its good to be a close and friendly ally with the Americans :pimp

Not only will you save us when someone eventually decides they want our kickin' rad shitty weather and beautiful scenery, you'll also nuke the fuck out of anyone who even tries.

Bro pound it.





And in return, we'll all whine and complain and act like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Kim Jong Il is bat shit crazy.

At least you send us some of your good looking women.

I don't know of anyone who "WANTS" to attack Iran, it's just that you simply cannot have a nuclear-armed loose cannon like Iran running around posing a very real threat to the safety of the entire world. If the choice is between keeping the rest of the world and keeping Iran, I'll take the rest of the world any day. Somtimes you just gotta do what you gotta do!

Could a force attacking Iran experience losses? Sure but minimal losses as Iran has only about enough shit to throw one punch and remember, Iran will not initially be attacked from the sea but rather from the air. Its air force, already in shambles will be decimated, its navy, for the most part outdated and in poor repair will be consigned to the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz and if by that time the army has not deserted, it too will be flamed, carpet bombed, shelled, strafed and otherwise reduced to smoldering piles of carbon as the REAL action from the sea commences. Sea power might well participate in all stages of pulverizing Iranian armed forces but it will begin in the air.

Sally.

Time to squash that little gook

read about the Bosnian war for how effective our 600k missiles are

to save you some reading and make myself smile, apparently hollowed out tanks with heat sources are enough for us to spend 2.6 million dollars firing at nothing

lets switch over to the Afghanistan war, and look at the 40 million people we're in the process of fighting with maybe 50 thousand troops, trillion dollar budgets and world opinion?

we already have lost.

that kidnapped soldier not 80 miles from the nations capital is what bankrupted your country.

and all you are talking to ME like i'm the idiot.

i like you a lot, and it pains me to see someone so involved in the military would miss such a strategy of 'specified and cheap' will always beat 'big and expensive'

You probably are not an idiot...but you are ignorant...about the subject which you are currently talking about. Your post is wrong on multiple counts.

you're damn right i'm ignorant.. i'm 27 year old canadian with a problem with authority haha

but alas, even the ignorant can connect the dots

please. you're canadian and don't really get any second chances with me lol

if you heard that iranians funded a group to use chemical weapons against us, what would you say?

for the record, it hasn't happened. this way anyway

we did it to them!

I think that if it cam down to it, North Korea could be militarily defeated very quickly, maybe in just a few days. A bit of shock and awe would do that, quickly followed up by love-bombing. Flood the country with convoys of free food, beer, TVs, DVDs and whatever and the locals will soon be onboard.

The difficulty is getting to a position where it would be possible to do that. The risk is that they'll just do something crazy if they see a military build-up.

China's also a problem because you can't go launching a military campaign on their doorstep and not expect them to have something to say about it. That said, I think it would be possible to get the Chinese onboard. North Korea's a pain in the ass for the Chinese as much as anyone else and some juicy deals for chinese banks and companies and other concessions could be persuasive.

we were advanced in terms of weaponry during the last war.. i can't imagine how any new one would turn out

You can't make a war just using some fighters aircrafts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_...nd_Force#Tanks



btw this is funny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy..._to_the_launch

Like much else in North Korea, most of it's probably for show. I can't imagine anything like those numbers are in working condition and even if they were, fuel would be a big problem for them.

On top of that it should be a relatively straightforward exercise to wreck the North's command and control structure.

And then we win the wa...



and then

NK have experimented with nuke shit underground, but does anyone believe they have the ability to mount it as a warhead and deliver it on a rocket, like the other atomic powers can... ?

If US comes to NK, KJH can set up you the bomb :p

Btw do you know this song ?

they've make noises like this every few months for the last decade. be aware of history and understand evolutionary psychology.

Whoooooooooooooooosh BANG!!

ooh a pretty mushroom cloud :)


Now where is the fallout going to head, and how many hundred years before anybody that lives within quite a large radius stops giving birth to 2 headed babies with leukaemia?



.

:1orglaugh

I was just listening to this song

Haha .. ok Americans .. we love ya ... we love the fact you carry the big stick but you aren't gonna do shit vs North Korea for a few reasons.

1. South Korea is quite happy with Korea not being unified. Its working pretty well for them and the last thing they want to do is to have to rebuild a shitty country and feed a ton of starving pesants.

2. China.

3. China.

4. China.

Chinese have already smashed the UN (mostly American forces) out of North Korea in 1950, and North Korea is a vital buffer for them in one of the most strategic locations on earth. The US being horribly stretched, and also in serious financial difficulty isn't about to start shit with China. Yes NK would be smashed, no question .. even if they used their few nukes they would be laid to waste, but if China stepped in then the whole situation changes and it doesn't look good for the US.

Hence you see posturing by both sides, but I would be surprised if any side took it past the occasional sinking of a boat. ;)

http://secondeguerremondiale.s.e.pic...t/wc8x3icp.jpg

Come-on drop da bomb!

quoted for truth. Make no bones about it, china could and would win in direct conflict with the US. Hell, first off, all the walmarts would shut down, and most of the US would starve because of it... battle over.

that's not our military, that's presidents like Obama sending more troops to a country we can never win in a war, once we leave, it will go back to the way it has been for centuries. Do you really think we can pull out the troops on schedule?
Assholes like Obama and Bush say we are doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan for the security of the nation, but not one of these assholes will secure our own border from violence and drug smuggling, Fuck them

I have not a clue as to what that even means, so lol it up soldier. :thumbsup


From what I hear Iranians fund plenty of groups.

We (as in Canada) did what to Iran? You're saying Canada funded "a group" to use chemical weapons against Iran?

Link please.


If you're saying the USA did, then my question becomes: what were the circumstances surrounding this alleged event? Because chances are things aren't quite as cut and dried as you're making them out to be.


And I'll say it again, on THIS issue, the one surrounding Iran's nuclear program, their fate is in their own hands. Period. None of your side arguments can change that.

kate bush did it better

His "we" and "our" seem to bounce around between the US and Canada. Makes it difficult to know what he is talking about at times.