Tams
Member
It's interesting that the newer Ford doesn't have an F-35C wing.
Yeah, the Iranian forces and regime are done for.
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
It's interesting that the newer Ford doesn't have an F-35C wing.
Yeah, the Iranian forces and regime are done for.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
If the attack happens, it is crucially important for it not to turn into another Afghanistan or Iran. It should be closer to the effective Desert Storm or 12 day war at least. Whole world will be watching as you basically have 30% of the whole USA military there.
War on Terror and Afghanistan made USA look kinda incompetent and also demonstrated the limits of USA in protracted, multi state conflicts. This time, there is only one country.
Last edited:
Warspite
Member
If Iran last 12 days I would be shocked, with what they have in the region the States should more than have enough to deal with Iran and what ever Russia/China can fly in but they are STILL moving forces to the area, AWACS are on their way now and reports of more F-35 flying to the middle east today. When is enough enough?
They will have learn from Afghanistan/Iraq, I suspect that's why you will not get boots on the ground but what happens after the IRGC have been bombed out of existence and the ayatollah/other leaders have moved into their Moscow flats is anyone's guess. All the middle management that has spent decades exploiting the people and doing who knows what to them are not going to turn change because they cant.
Gp1
Member
2 CSG. Allocation a third CSG to the same region would put a burden on maintenance, crew, and the rest of the world coverage.
From what I read, on normal conditions, the Navy usually deploys 3 - 4 CSG (the 1/3 rule) at once with 3 or 4 on home port waiting for rotation and the rest on maintenance and overhaul.
Plus the Ford (and the others) already stretched it's deployment once.
It's not a simple operation.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I expect some boots on the ground. They will have to capture some locations and control some areas. They goal would be to change the regime, so some control will have to be introduced. Even if temporary. It is not about bombing or leaving anymore. I don't expect WW2 or WW1 era conflict with a march on Tehran or anything though.
The most important is the decision of Artesh whether they join the fray or not. I doubt they want to die for IRGC but at this point it is unknown what is going to happen.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Donald mac Ronald
Member
I think Iran is about to find out they cant fuck America around like Russia has done.
Iran is about to find out why the USA doesn't have universal healthcare.
Gp1
Member
Final Pieces Moving Into Place For Potential Attack On Iran
The latest flurry of U.S. assets heading to the Middle East includes many of the missing capabilities needed for a sustained air campaign.
www.twz.com
Next weekend...
Last edited:
Light_Crusader25
Member
This is bad news...It seems that a war is inevitable...
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Great news for the Iranian people
LimanimaPT
Member
Call me when Theodore Roosevelt shows up, that guy likes a good fight. Maybe Eisenhower.
Heh heh, I do kinda wonder if the sailors of a ship emulate the personality of the namesake, consciously or subconsciously.
Tams
Member
As a result, there's nothing you can do about tyrannical regimes like Iran's slaughtering their people.
You also benefit from a friendly or ambivalent power like the US meaning you don't get invaded.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Svalr93
Neo Member
What happened to '' no more wars ''?
Assuming you mean Europe, who is invading Europe?
NATO without the US is still larger than the US is alone and the only real threat to Europe is Russia who can't even handle Ukraine alone lol.
I don't think any EU member or close EU ally like Norway etc have to be worried honestly.
Altho personally I'd like to see more nuclear powers in Europe, especially at least one Nordic country ( Sweden could resume its nuclear program for instance ) and include all of the Nordics and the Baltics in a nuclear umbrella.
But this idea that Europe would get invaded without the US I think is quite silly.
Probably the biggest benefit has been that Europeans didn't continue fighting each other after WW2 and at this point there's like zero chance of that.
Iran definitely isn't invading Europe lmao.
Assuming you mean Europe, who is invading Europe?
NATO without the US is still larger than the US is alone and the only real threat to Europe is Russia who can't even handle Ukraine alone lol.
I don't think any EU member or close EU ally like Norway etc have to be worried honestly.
Altho personally I'd like to see more nuclear powers in Europe, especially at least one Nordic country ( Sweden could resume its nuclear program for instance ) and include all of the Nordics and the Baltics in a nuclear umbrella.
But this idea that Europe would get invaded without the US I think is quite silly.
Probably the biggest benefit has been that Europeans didn't continue fighting each other after WW2 and at this point there's like zero chance of that.
Iran definitely isn't invading Europe lmao.
Last edited:
Svalr93
Neo Member
Tbf if you want to project power that's kinda necessary.
That's also why I find it silly to act like Europe should spend as much as the US does, because Europe doesn't actually reap the same benefits from it and the US was never interested in sharing.
If Europe is going to spend as much then Europe is going to demand more influence and benefits from that spending too and become more involved and at times US and EU interests may not align.
Altho I'd definitely want to see us not go down the rabbit hole of getting involved with the mess that is the Middle East.
The Iranian government tho can go to hell that's for sure.
Hope the Iranian people can be free one day.
As far as governments to topple it's hard to sympathize with the Iranian government at all.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
To be fair it used to be good - one of the best - before they started to enroll everybody from those who could not afford it and went into "social studies" to illegals.
Nobody expects another 20 years war
Wars happen.
Last edited:
Solarstrike
Member
Svalr93
Neo Member
To be fair it used to be good - one of the best - before they started to enroll everybody from those who could not afford it and went into "social studies" to illegals.
Nobody expects another 20 years war
Lets be real here the goal post is being moved, at least be honest about it and we all know why it's being moved.
Edit: As far as wars to get involved with this isn't exactly a bad one, but I for sure think the narrative would be very different if someone else was president...
And I also don't believe that this is actually about some legitimate concern for Iranians I think it's just more of a coincidence that it happens to be a more '' good '' reason to get involved but it's ultimately just a convenient excuse.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh yes, because the global narrative has been nothing but homers to the current president. And oh so critical to their establishments prior.
Odinnii
Member
I'm no experts, but wouldn't hypersonics targeting warships be the biggest threat?
How will they deal with that?
Svalr93
Neo Member
Oh yes, because the global narrative has been nothing but homers to the current president. And oh so critical to their establishments prior.
No one is really criticizing the current establishment for the Iranian thing because ultimately the Iranian government has like no support other than Russia and China.
I am not going to get into a debate about this because ultimately it's a bit off topic, but there are very good reasons why the narrative overall is negative.
If anyone spoke and interacted with the US in the same way as the US government is with its own allies the US would be on the warpath.
You can't behave the way that the current admin is doing and be so antagonistic and blatantly disrespectful and then complain when you get like 1% of the same energy back, none of it is new either it's all an extension of the first term and has only gotten worse.
Afaik there's lasers you can use to shoot them down and Patriots can shoot them down altho keep in mind that none of this is 100% the Iron Dome still misses a lot of missiles too and those are extremely shitty makeshift ones.
I wouldn't be so confident honestly, war rarely goes as planned and as soon as it starts things go wrong real fast.
There's also different types of hypersonic missiles, ones with a set path and ones that can change path and basically evade the latter ones I dunno if there's any good way to shoot down.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They've been speaking to the US this way for decades. Your illusion is just being shattered.
Svalr93
Neo Member
Who is '' they ''?
If you're talking about Europe then you're the one being delusional here you're not living in reality.
We literally went to war on your side after 9/11, including non-NATO members who had zero obligation to.
The US has had an amazing reputation all across Europe for the longest time it's only recently that it has truly gone down the shitter.
Like when it's even going down the shitter in Canada maybe it's time to reconsider.
Edit: Again with the '' Ok. '' lmao.
Every time.
I'd really love to see in an alternate universe where the US was on the receiving end of even like 10% of the same behavior of the current US admin all hell would break loose.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ok.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
People give hypersonics too much cred. The existing ones lack maneuvrability and they are just the ballistic missiles at this point due to that. USA has enough defense against threats like that. Iran has been under sanctions and pressure from deaths of various scientists that I doubt they have anything truly threatening at this point.
Europe has been doing that for years. "You can't act this way or that way", "You must defend us from Russia while we are buying their gas", "You are stupid for wasting money on the military and also - pls continue defend us" etc. etc.
The current admin just shows the current feeling and the real situation. What do you think is going (and would happen) if USA removed Starlink, stopped supplying Ukraine with military support and intelligence, removed sanctions from Russia and so on?
Ok, no point to engage with you then. You are not even arguing in good faith.
Last edited:
Svalr93
Neo Member
I was under the impression that those more maneuverable ones were a thing already but I guess maybe not?
You may be right but I also think it helps to be a bit cautious who even knows what they have stored underground and ultimately no defense is 100% accurate.
That's also where speed comes in tho just don't let them attack.
Edit: Again this is off topic, but the US already has stopped supplying Ukraine with military support and pulled intelligence most of it is supplied by Europe now.
The US doesn't exist in a vacuum either if you think the US could sustain itself and keep things as they are without Europe you're incredibly naive.
The US also trades with its own adversaries all the time this is a bizarre thing to get up on a high horse about, also no serious EU official is calling the US stupid for spending money on its militaries you're talking about randoms online I am talking about the actual administration.
The US haven't defended Europe against anyone since WW2 and there has never been a real threat.
Assuming I am arguing in bad faith because I don't like how the current admin is interacting with and speaking to Europe is just bizarre.
But I guess you just want a MAGA echo chamber.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Yeah. It is kinda like with homeless - when you give them something for free long enouh, they riot, attack you when you stop doing that.
Svalr93
Neo Member
Except that last time Europe wanted to rearm the US threatened Europe with violence, the US never wanted Europe to be an equal partner the US always wanted Europe to play support so the US could just run around and do whatever it wants without anyone questioning it.
The US has benefited immensely from this relationship and with being allowed to operate with impunity on European soil and with everyone flocking to suck up to the US and buy US weapons including in cases when those weapons are outdated and underperform compared to European alternatives.
Millions of American jobs depend on this and are in jeopardy.
And ultimately Europe haven't really benefited all that much really again who is going to war with Europe who is the US defending Europe from here?
Russia stands zero chance against the EU and Europe also has nukes of its own, specific European nations are under threat in the Baltics but EU members aren't the EU has its own defense alliance and like I said NATO without the US is larger than the US is alone and more than great enough to deal with Russia.
Also a reputation hit is in fact not inevitable, Europeans even agree that Europe should start becoming more independent and powerful in this regard none of that was actually controversial.
What was controversial is how demeaning and disrespectful the messaging from this administration has been and officials going to Europe to rant about free speech and lecture Europeans about Democracy and '' cultural genocide '' etc ( which is hilariously hypocritical ), ffs the current admin literally went to Poland and helped to push the far right party over the edge and helped them win and is actively getting involved with trying to steer European politics and support anti-EU leaders and parties.
Meanwhile this admin and its voters flip out over a random Canadian ad and act like it's Canada trying to '' influence American politics '', imagine if European leaders went to canvas and influence elections in the US in the same way all hell would break loose.
There is a way to communicate '' we want to move our attention elsewhere, so we'd like you to step up more '' without behaving like a petulant child about it.
Things are changing and this will all hurt the US with time, you're becoming less powerful and less safe as a result in the long term.
Like this is just silly Europe has always done exactly what the US wanted, and then always gets flack from it when the US changes its mind.
That's honestly one of the best arguments by Europe should decouple because this is just silly and unsustainable.
Last edited:
rorepmE
Member
Well it's a good thing you're not in charge.
Hope is not a good substitute for defense.
Bojji
Gold Member
Is USA at any real risk of being attacked?
rorepmE
Member
Are you talking about the European Defense Community (EDC) Treaty?
Hari Seldon
Member
The problem with maintaining your own nuclear force is that it is insanely expensive and practically useless. What happens if Russia decides to take the Baltics? Are you going to launch nukes over this and be completely destroyed by Russian nukes? It is better to use that money for conventional forces, it gives you a lot more options than just having nukes does.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
From within? Yes. Been that way for some time, as all western nations.
Last edited:
Hari Seldon
Member
Japan and Korea, which we are treaty bound to protect, is definitely at a real risk of being attacked.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
You always should aim to bring the war to enemy's soil instead of waiting for the attack. It is like waiting for enemy soldiers to build up at you border and thinking that "hm, it is ok they are only for sightseeing".
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
From north Korea? But it doesn't affect life's of Americans living in United States.
USA has amazing defensive position, between two oceans and with only Canada and Mexico bordering it. While real enemies are thousands of kilometers away.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
You still have countries like Cuba, Canada and even chinese elements within USA borders. Even Panama Canal for example. Or Arctic. Ballistic missiles are no joke and there is a space race. Despite all of the seas. It is not like the past where ship travel or plane travel were a complicated matter. Hell, you even have balloons, cartels, visas etc. And that's just a basic, near-border dimension. If you go beyond that you will have issues like the control over straits that gives leverage over countries, goods shipment and such.
Foreign policy evolves - nobody is fighting over spices anymore for example - but conceptually nothing changes.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Guy campaigns on no war, guy starts wars anyway. What is this, 2003?
Similar threads
- Locked