China better figure out how to feed themselves before they go starting wars. They're still a net importer of food, especially grains, when the weather is perfect.

12/7/2011 9:48:51 PM

Lack of food wouldn't really hurt the Chinese economy. They have a surplus of people.

12/7/2011 10:53:45 PM

rice provides a lot of energy and you can grow a lot of it in just a couple months. they'd figure something out.

12/7/2011 11:14:52 PM

again, the only folks we cant "beat" are our current dirt-poor foes and their tactics of choice.

china would fight exactly the kind of war we are geared to quash.

its humorous that some people even hint china would stand a chance of defeating us when in reality it would be the most one-sided brawl in the history of the world.

you think sheer manpower on the opposite side of the pacific means anything in the 21st century?

ha.

12/8/2011 8:47:31 AM

Quote :

"its humorous that some people even hint china would stand a chance of defeating us when in reality it would be the most one-sided brawl in the history of the world."

how do you figure sports-fan?

12/8/2011 9:13:13 AM

Quote :

"again, the only folks we cant "beat" are our current dirt-poor foes and their tactics of choice."

You have to define "beat". The problems in Afghanistan are almost completely political. The asymetric warfare that they practice is directly related to our inability to "win the people". In Iraq, we were able to accomplish this through humanitarian aid after the invasion and rebuilding essential infrastructure and services, as well as the surge in 2007 (or '06? I can't recall ATM) which limited oppression from Sadam loyalists.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it isn't one country, or one people, to win. You have tribes A through Z and what we didn't anticipate is that tribes A-K hate tribes L-R and both of those groups hate tribes S-Z. When we went in, we "won the people" of tribes A-K. Tribes L-R were loyal to the Taliban so we had to fight them and tribes S-Z were neutral in the whole thing. However, because we "won the people" in tribes A-K, tribes S-Z are now pissed and want to fight us. It's an endless cycle and is one reason why we're hitting the point now where you say "Well, fuck it." Ever since WWI, we've played an active role in rebuilding almost any country we mount a significant military campaign in (and "win"). West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and a few other countries that we have launched smaller campaigns in... we're not getting "beat" in our military campaign, we're getting "beat" in our campaign to rebuild the place.

Quote :

"you think sheer manpower on the opposite side of the pacific means"

...absolutely. "The world's largest standing army" doesn't so you a lot of good when you don't have two massively important things: (a) Natural resources and (b) Logistics capabilities. The use of the phrase "standing army" is probably the most appropriate thing I've heard in a while when it comes to the Chinese military.

12/8/2011 9:19:01 AM

well lets see, we have a country who:

1) supports tyrannical leaders in africa
2) dismisses pleas from the worlds democracies in containing obvious threats to peace (like iran)
3) imprisons nobel prize winners
4) supports internet censorship
5) persecutes people of tibet to no end
6) is batshit-insane obsessed with taiwan
7) instills fear in literally every one of its asian neighbors (besides NK, great company)
8) and participates in unrestrained cyber warfare

yep. china sounds like a real winner to me-

countries that pursue such agendas are never successful in the end.

i imagine the navy would be the most important branch of our military utilized against china. regardless of what you think about their capabilities against our carriers know this-

our carriers are our babies. you dont think our own military analysts are more than aware of the "threat" against them? since they are our pride and joy im sure our countermeasure systems (whatever they may be) are more than up to the task.

our carriers are the envy of the world and our navy is at least 20 years technologically more advanced than anything in china. furthermore we have between 3-4 million tons of floating warships and china has less than 600,000. its really not a fair fight at all-

12/8/2011 9:56:01 AM

all this makes any conflict with Iran seem lol-able


current iranian missile range:



[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 11:46 AM. Reason : map]

12/8/2011 11:42:54 AM

You people are idiots, just because they couldn't win in a war doesn't mean the couldn't make out life absolute hell. I mean they could mine or attack every tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for starters.

To say a conflict with Iran is 'lol-able' like pack_bryan seems to thinks shows absolutely no thinking skills whatsoever.



[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : a]

12/8/2011 12:09:52 PM

that could be said about many countries-

thanks for making this argument even more pointless!

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 12:12 PM. Reason : the bit about making life hell, i mean]

12/8/2011 12:12:11 PM

Quote :

"You people are idiots, just because they couldn't win in a war doesn't mean the couldn't make out life absolute hell. I mean they could mine or attack every tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for starters."

And they'd be ground into burger meat by NATO. All these theories of Iran doing anything remotely aggressive rely on the assumption that the entire Iranian leadership is fundamentally irrational and suicidal. I know it fits really well into a good vs. evil narrative but it's simply not the case. They rattle swords like any regional power will do, but they're not about to suffer invasion or nuclear wasteage because they hate our freedoms or whatever.

Iran wants nukes because every other nation around their borders is under the US's thumb, and they just got out from under the West's thumb less than a generation ago, and want to stay that way. Having nukes means telling the West to fuck off and stop interfering, and if that's their plan then I say more (nuclear) power to them.

Quote :

" To say a conflict with Iran is 'lol-able' like pack_bryan seems to thinks shows absolutely no thinking skills whatsoever. "

No, it's actually quite lolable. Your outlook requires the assumption that Ahmadinejad and Khomeini are Captain Planet villains, being evil just for the sake of evil no matter what the consequences, and you're calling other people out on their thinking skills? hahahaha

Same with the China paranoiacs. China doesn't want war with the US, the US doesn't want war with China. Any such conflict would simultaneously cripple both economies. The only reason people in the US even thinks about it is because China is poised to surpass us economically, and Americans are hopelessly militaristic so they simply assume this means war on the horizon.

Seriously, why is it so hard to perhaps make the assumption that leaders of other nations might also be rational thinkers who don't want to bring utter destruction to themselves and their own people?


[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 12:23:47 PM

I'm not saying a conflict will happen, I don't think it will at all.

PackBryan seems to thing an actual war with them will be lol-able.

If a war were to happen between Iran-US, something I don't think will happen, it will not be lol-able.

12/8/2011 12:32:11 PM

^it just shows you have no reading skills whatsoever then

i compared an Iran conflict to an all out China conflict

Iran would be a HUGE LOL compared to an actual all out engagement with china

you are allowed to be fucking doucheshit retard if you wish to think otherwise.

12/8/2011 12:52:36 PM

ok what the hell-

iran has released video of the drone in their custody and it looks 100 percent complete. like it was landed gently in their borders.

1) how the shit does this happen?
2) i thought they said they shot it down?
3) this makes the loss of the helicopter in the UBL raid look like nothing, but at least our troops tried to destroy part of it. why was no scheme enacted here?

obama seems hell-bent on giving away our technology to our enemies. i suppose there is always the possibility this is a fiberglass fake piece of shit?

sigh-

12/8/2011 1:42:58 PM

Quote :

"With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News. Among the options the U.S. considered were sending in a special-ops team to retrieve the drone; sending in a team to blow up the aircraft; and launching an airstrike to destroy it. "

12/8/2011 2:45:44 PM

That's actually reasonable.

12/8/2011 2:49:39 PM

Quote :

"1) how the shit does this happen? 2) i thought they said they shot it down? 3) this makes the loss of the helicopter in the UBL raid look like nothing, but at least our troops tried to destroy part of it. why was no scheme enacted here? "

1) Shit happens. American engineering is actually much, much "safer" than in other countries (we have a habbit of enacting a lot of redundancies in anything we build), but these things can still happen. More often than not, if something like this is completely intact, it's likely there was some sort of operator error, whether that was improper maintenance on a receiver for the C2 signal or if the pilot operated it incorrectly. If I was a betting man, I'd argue it was the first.

2) Yeah, they claim a lot of stuff. I remember there was a news story some time ago about Iran shooting down an American UAV near the GOO, and the international and US news were all reporting that no one had anything in the air at the time, implying that Iran really shot down one of their own UAVs and rather than admit they made a mistake, they passed it off as some great military victory.

3) It's hard to tell what would be best in these situations without knowing all the intel on Iran that the White House knows. I am definitely not a fan of Obama, but I'm not necessarily so quick to assume he made a bad call. For all we know, the only thing classified about that aircraft may have been internal and it may have internally deluged it's own system. If so, the cost-benefit might just not have been worth it.

One thing is for sure: it makes the US look bad, especially when it becomes a news story like this across the world. Theater commanders need to make sure their guys don't get complacent working 6.5-7 days a week and are receiving the training they need to stay sharp. I'm sure there are criticisms for Obama, too, but it's difficult to say exactly what...

12/8/2011 2:56:48 PM

well lets pray its a fake fiberglass piece of shit-

12/8/2011 3:04:52 PM

Quote :

"its humorous that some people even hint china would stand a chance of defeating us when in reality it would be the most one-sided brawl in the history of the world. "

the Chinese watched on in horror during the first Gulf War as we systematically annihilated an army structured much in the same way that theirs is. They always assumed that their population alone would provide them safety in numbers, and that proved to be meaningless against an opponent with superior technology. I'm sure their army has advanced quite a bit since, but they've still got a lot of ground to make up.

12/8/2011 3:55:52 PM

Wars are easy to win if you're willing to nuke the entire world.

12/8/2011 4:12:44 PM

that would end in a stalemate when our arsenal gets lobbed back.

12/8/2011 4:15:25 PM

Somehow, that's not comforting.

12/8/2011 7:38:25 PM

iranian ambassador is saying now that it wasnt shot down but rather "brought down by other technological means."

my first thought given how intact it is was some kind of EMP knockdown? still doesnt really explain how it landed so softly.

at any rate, wouldnt that mean the electronics were toast? what else could he be referring to?

12/8/2011 7:43:18 PM

Can you lob back nuclear warheads like cooked grenades?

If so, I find that kind of funny.

12/8/2011 7:43:24 PM

Quote :

"To say a conflict with Iran is 'lol-able' like pack_bryan seems to thinks shows absolutely no thinking skills whatsoever. "

Pretty much.

It's not like we don't close allies and other strategic interests at Iran's front door.

Just because their missiles can't hit us doesn't mean anything. They can hit israel and oil platforms throughout iraq and saudi.

we could easily win any battle, but at what cost to our friends and interests in the area?

This fact alone is more of a deterrent to a war with Iran than any nuclear weapon.

12/8/2011 7:56:32 PM

Ahaha looks like they really did hack that shit and land it pretty much intact. (I assume the flags cover the undercarriage because it was a rough landing.) What kind of american dumbasses designed this shit?

12/8/2011 8:21:41 PM

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111207-covert-intelligence-war-against-iran

^^ all true, but the legitimate threat of force goes a long way.

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM. Reason : ]

12/8/2011 9:26:15 PM

I posted this in the thread in Chit Chat, too.

"

Quote :

"how'd they knock it down without damaging it?"

For many reasons, I don't buy that they "knocked it down" for a second. Knocking down something this size with that small of a radar cross section would be a 1-in-a-million shot.

More realistically, the thing probably lost it's C2 link, fell to the earth, got smashed up, and the Iranians slapped some fiberglass on it, and called it a day.

A few things to note in the video...

I'm as deeply concerned as the next guy with the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irrational, dangerous religious fanatics with an ax to grind. Hence why the GOP primary is so horrifying...

12/9/2011 8:54:40 AM

Quote :

" For many reasons, I don't buy that they "knocked it down" for a second. Knocking down something this size with that small of a radar cross section would be a 1-in-a-million shot. More realistically, the thing probably lost it's C2 link, fell to the earth..."

A couple of things:

-there is always barrage or curtain fire AAA, or many FSU SAMs have optical guidance modes.

-UAVs (at least other than the small local battlefield surveillance ones) don't just go stupid when their links are lost. I can't imagine that something like an RQ-170 wouldn't have at least a GPS and INS backup, if not redundant systems on one or both.


I don't think they shot it down--i'm just addressing a couple of things in your post.

They claim that they took control of it (via cyber warfare?). That seems a little far fetched, too, but I'm not an exPert on that subject (I know a few capabilities, but not technical, in depth understanding).

12/9/2011 10:36:19 AM

^You're right about the link, but I guess when I say "the link is lost", I'm not just talking about the signal; I'm talking about the onboard computer no longer seeing the link... i.e., the C2 on the platform itself is busted. If the actual C2's ability to comprehend what it's receiving is busted, it could fail to "look for it's signal". But you're right, typically if the operator just shut his console down, the UAV would likely have made some attempt to reaquire the signal.

I know they have artillary and SAMS but............. this isn't state-of-the-art, 2011 built equipment. You're talking 10-20-30 year old equipment.

What I would be interested in seeing is if they get it flying again. If they really hacked into it and landed it, it shouldn't be anything to turn it back around, and show those dirty Americans that the Iranians can fly their UAV.

12/9/2011 10:45:42 AM

^ Good point. I'd agree that there's probably a lot of bondo on that thing.

12/9/2011 11:58:15 AM

^Shit, shit. They've already figured out bondo? If they discover the magic of duct tape, we're fucked.

12/9/2011 12:11:44 PM

20-30 year old SAMs are fucking scary! Thats stuff like PATRIOT, S-300 family, and other FSU double-digit stuff. It's the 50-year old ones that are really antiquated, and even then, the F-117 that got shot fell victim to an optical SA-3 shot (the -3 is a 50 year old design)


As far as losing c2 links, most UAVs go into an autonomous profile and simply RTB via whatever routing they've been programmed to fly in that scenario, assing they can't reacquire.

12/9/2011 12:19:29 PM

so what's the story again?

1. they release a virus that plants its way into all our drones.
2. the virus keylogged the flight commands, then it relayed them back to an iranian IP somewhere
3. finally they 'hijack' the drone and fly it safely into an airfield

and now it's on parade? ha

man, why is obama authorizing all these strikes, and recon. just let them build their nukes and join the club.

worst case is they smuggle one into jerusalem, or berlin, or mexico up to LA and nuke a city. who gives a fuck.



</sarcasm>

12/9/2011 1:54:35 PM

honestly if they get a nuke (which i dont think they should but they probably already have) they would be the last people in the world to use it.

Str8Foolish is actually correct about any aggression on their part leading to instant hamburgerification. taking it to the nuclear level would only give the western world an excuse to remove not only them but islam in general from the globe.

the rich middle-eastern fucks in power dont want to give up the "high life" they currently enjoy ruling over these pitiful fiefdoms.

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : they like to act tough on the world stage to make their poor subjects worship them]

12/9/2011 1:59:30 PM

Quote :

"taking it to the nuclear level would only give the western world an excuse to remove not only them but islam in general from the globe."

This is why waaaay back in this thread I was saying Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't exactly best buddies. Saudi Arabia, relatively speaking, has decent relations with the west. All the saber rattling from Iran towards the US and Israel is bad for business.

12/9/2011 2:04:37 PM

Current US military bases. Who's threatening whom?

12/10/2011 9:09:03 PM

That map is incorrect.

For instance, Manas and Ganci are the same base.

I'm not saying we don't have a major presence in the surrounding Iran, something I wish we would draw down, but that map is inaccurate.

[Edited on December 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM. Reason : a]

12/10/2011 9:34:08 PM

according to pryderi, we set up 9/11 as an inside job to get to Iran. Not Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, but Iran.

12/11/2011 2:37:33 AM

Also, some of those bases have been closed for 5+ years on the map. Like Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan

12/11/2011 2:56:10 AM

I'm pretty sure we're not at PSAB in Saudi anymore, either.

12/11/2011 11:07:17 AM

Quote :

"More realistically, the thing probably lost it's C2 link, fell to the earth, got smashed up, and the Iranians slapped some fiberglass on it, and called it a day."

Not sure about the larger ones, but I know with smaller ones like Ravens it happens all the time. Half of the time my PSG left the wire last deployment was to go recover a downed Raven.

Just throwing it out there, but the idea of forces all the way in, say, the P2K provinces being able to attack Iran is pretty laughable.

Oh, and lastly - a ground war with Iran would be babytown frolics. A war with China scares the shit out of me, and it should scare you too.



[Edited on December 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2011 11:29:07 AM

Even if some of those bases aren't still around, the point stands. Imagine if China had bases sprinkled along the Mexican and Canadian border. Would we not feel threatened? Would some of you not become "terrorists"? Would we not try to find some way to defend ourselves?

Oh, and then also pretend that China had been fucking with our political process for the last 60 years. It's okay though, they're just here to maintain stability in the region.

Actually put yourself in Iran's shoes and you'll see why our policies are downright foolish.

12/11/2011 11:47:36 AM

Quote :

"Not sure about the larger ones, but I know with smaller ones like Ravens it happens all the time. Half of the time my PSG left the wire last deployment was to go recover a downed Raven."

That's not the way any but the tiniest and simplest work.

12/11/2011 6:42:55 PM

I tried mentioning this before, but I wasn't communicating it clear enough and just kind of lost interest discussing it, but........... it's not unheard of for a C2 system on a generic unmanned system to "think" it still has a feed but for the link to actually be cut. It's not common, but it does/can happen. That is more what I was questioning may have happened in this case.

Hell, that's one of the reasons why we still put riders on most of our unmanned surface craft until they reach a certain maturity. Not knowing anything about this particular UAV, I would question how far along it is in the acquisition process. If it's not completely IOCed and this was just some kind of initial operational testing, I could see a WTF malfunction like this happening.

12/11/2011 7:01:11 PM

Oh I see. I'm pretty knowledeable about the RF stuff, but that's getting into the microchip logic and stuff. Of course, that would have to happen for long enough for it to run out of fuel, I assume. That seems less likely, and I also wonder if it might end up getting shot by something like an SM-3 if they'd had that sort of time to sort it out. I don't know.

Sentinel had been in use for years...it just wasn't an acknowledged capability.

12/11/2011 8:37:14 PM

Quote :

"If it's not completely Initial Operational Capabilityed and this was just some kind of initial operational testing"

12/11/2011 10:03:15 PM

so this drone thing is just a honepot, right?

12/11/2011 11:18:50 PM

^That's always been my assumption. I'm sure someone can back this up / pick it apart, but isn't there some logic in assuming that, were this drone of the super importance that Iran and the media are pitching it as, that not only would the US Military already have taken measures to retrieve it in the critical hours after crashing, but also hushed it all in the process?

Seems like if there was anything we couldn't stand losing, we would've found a way.

12/12/2011 3:58:07 AM