• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pentagon: Iran is a formidable force; missile capabilities much deadlier

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...listic-Missiles-Becoming-Deadlier-3697630.php
July 11 (Bloomberg) -- Iran’s military continues to improve the accuracy and killing power of its long- and short-range ballistic missiles, including designing a weapon to target vessels, according to a Pentagon report to Congress.

“Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems by improving accuracy and developing new submunition payloads” that extend the destructive power over a wider area than a solid warhead, according to the June 29 report signed by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The improvements are in tandem with regular ballistic- missile training that “continues throughout the country” and the addition of “new ships and submarines,” the report found.

The report obtained by Bloomberg News was provided to the four congressional defense committees last week to comply with a fiscal 2010 directive to provide an annual classified and unclassified assessment of Iran’s military power. The unclassified version provides the latest snapshot of Iran’s so- called asymmetric capabilities designed to counter the strengths of western militaries.

The report summarizes what’s been said publicly about the status of Iran’s nuclear program and its aid to Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi Shiite groups. It repeats the long- standing U.S. assessment that Iran with “sufficient foreign assistance may be technically capable of flight-testing” an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
Two analysts who follow Iranian military developments said the report provides new details and emphasis on the nation’s conventional ballistic missiles.

Accuracy
“There was a theme that Iran is improving the accuracy and lethality of its missiles,” said Congressional Research Service Iran analyst Kenneth Katzman. “U.S. government reports have previously always downplayed the accuracy and effectiveness of Iran’s missile forces.”

“The report seemed pretty sober and respectful of Iran’s capabilities, crediting Iran with improving survivability,” Katzman said.

‘Formidable Force’
Iran “would present a formidable force while defending Iranian territory,” the Pentagon said in the report. “We assess with high confidence” that over 30 years Iran “has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of targeting U.S. and Israeli interests,” it said. “We suspect this activity continues.”

Iran also continues to develop ballistic missiles with range to reach regional adversaries, Israel and Eastern Europe, including an extended-range Shahab-3 and a 2,000 kilometer (1,240 mile) medium-range ballistic missile, said the report

Missile Emphasis
The report appears to confirm Iran has actively deployed a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile and that the Shahab-3 has improved accuracy and submunitions, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The report also disclosed that Iran is seeking to improve its missile counter-measures against U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Council missile defenses and poses a potential new threat to Gulf shipping, said Cordesman, who this week is publishing CSIS updates to his reports on Iran and the Gulf military balance.

Iran, like China, is “developing and claims to have deployed short-range ballistic missiles with seekers that enable the missile to identify and maneuver toward ships during flight,” the report found.

“This technology also may be capable of striking land- based targets,” the Pentagon said.

Katzman said the language about Iran possessing a “formidable force defending Iranian territory” seemed to be a “signal to advocates of military action against Iran, suggesting any action on Iranian soil will carry risk.”

The Pentagon highlighted three early 2012 war exercises by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ground resistance forces “meant to show offensive and defensive capabilities.”

The maneuvers “were the first significant exercises” conducted by this branch of the Iranian military since 2008, the Pentagon said.

Do we really want to go to war here?
 
The US basically needs to pay Russia off, without them selling their anti-aircraft and anti-missile equipment half these countries would be useless against US attacks.

Not that I have a problem with a nation defending themselves but this is how they have done it.
 

Vyroxis

Banned
Iran has always had the ability to be a threat. Their military overall has been pretty well maintained and upgraded over the years. Could they handle an all out US attack? Not likely. They would, however, put up a hell of a fight.
 

dabig2

Member
I don't think Iran's ability to kick ass was under any doubt. Any war with them would look more like WW2 than Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan. Just massive destruction, bombing, and death.
 

Valnen

Member
People shouldn't treat Iran like a joke..

They are very formidable.

Doesn't matter, whatever they have we could probably counter easily. I'm sure we have a lot of tech the general public doesn't even know about that would put anything any other country could do to shame with the money we spend on military.
 
Doesn't matter, whatever they have we could probably counter easily. I'm sure we have a lot of tech the general public doesn't even know about that would put anything any other country could do to shame with the money we spend on military.

The tech we have made known to the public puts everything to shame.
 

Meadows

Banned
I don't think Iran's ability to kick ass was under any doubt. Any war with them would look more like WW2 than Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan. Just massive destruction, bombing, and death.

lolno

The USA could still annihilate Iran's armed forces within a week. Let alone with NATO help.

The real issue in these countries is insurgency.
 

Iadien

Guarantee I'm going to screw up this post? Yeah.
Doesn't matter, whatever they have we could probably counter easily. I'm sure we have a lot of tech the general public doesn't even know about that would put anything any other country could do to shame with the money we spend on military.

That's not comforting.
 

Griffin

Member
Doesn't matter, whatever they have we could probably counter easily. I'm sure we have a lot of tech the general public doesn't even know about that would put anything any other country could do to shame with the money we spend on military.


The question is not whether USA can destroy Iran's military elements, it's whether USA is willing to sacrifice their allies and military bases in the Middle East for it.

the US could have ended all of this in the past few meetings with Iran and the other countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK0DHdHUfpk&&hd=1&autoplay=1&fs=1

This all could have also ended in 2003 when Iran offered a grand bargain, but Bush declined the offer.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/irans-proposal-for-a-grand-bargain/
 
lolno

The USA could still annihilate Iran's armed forces within a week. Let alone with NATO help.

The real issue in these countries is insurgency.

Iraq took a month and some change after the initial invasion and you think the second- largest country in the Middle East would take a week to defeat?

Lulwut?
 
Iran couldn't hope to defend itself successfully against the USA. It took us what like ... a few weeks to completely annihilate Saddam's entire armed forces, (sure the policing operation after was an utter nightmare).

If it's in uniform or military looking, America can kill it quite easily.

It's just when the 'enemy' look exactly like a 'civilian' that's a very different war.


Might take a little longer. I mean tanks can only go so fast ...
 
Why would the military want to go to war with Iran?

Because they believe everybody in the pentagon just wants to kill people and doesn´t care about their own lives or those of their soliders. They don´t pay attention to the stories where generals talk about war being not the right course of action, asking for military cuts, etc.
 
Why would the military want to go to war with Iran?

The Pentagon would exaggerate threats so the Pentagon get a higher defense budget. The civilian leadership (not specifically this) might ask the Pentagon to strike against Iran´s nuclear reactors because of fears of production of nuclear weapons and to assist Israel with the strike.
 

Griffin

Member

commedieu

Banned
The Pentagon would exaggerate threats so the Pentagon get a higher defense budget. The civilian leadership (not specifically this) might ask the Pentagon to strike against Iran´s nuclear reactors because of fears of production of nuclear weapons and to assist Israel with the strike.

Not buying into fear of Iran's nukes & intentions. Pakistan has nukes. We are fine with that for financial and war machine reasons. No one else should either. I wish there was something citizens could do about their government, well, willing to do. These guys are about to ruin a lot of lives in the world.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
Would I be mistaken to say that although not many countries could really withstand a full-scale invasion from the US, if they could at least inflict casualties more akin to WWII or even Vietnam levels, they might stand a chance of holding out until the majority of Americans who didn't already find the war distasteful to begin with become disgusted with it?
 
Like who? I don´t know anyone that wants war.

Netanyahu and his numerous powerful supporters in the US want a war. The man went to an AIPAC convention, practically called for the US to bomb Iran and was met with rousing applause. the Israel lobby and its neo-con friends want a war, they've been pushing for the US to bomb Iran since 2007. Didnt you read the stories about Bush (thankfully) giving the thumbs down to the "bomb Iran" crowd?
Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Martin Peretz,Lindsay Graham, the list goes on.
 
The Pentagon would exaggerate threats so the Pentagon get a higher defense budget. The civilian leadership (not specifically this) might ask the Pentagon to strike against Iran´s nuclear reactors because of fears of production of nuclear weapons and to assist Israel with the strike.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-13/budget-defense-base-closings/53075444/1

All they want are bigger budgets.

Netanyahu and his numerous powerful supporters in the US want a war. The man went to an AIPAC convention, practically called for the US to bomb Iran and was met with rousing applause. the Israel lobby and its neo-con friends want a war, they've been pushing for the US to bomb Iran since 2007.
Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Martin Peretz, the list goes on.

They don´t want war. They want the apearence of a conflict right around the corner a boogieman. They don´t want to actually start it and fight it. What major military action has Netanyahu ever actually done for being such a war mongerer (I agree his rhetoric is absurd and makes me want to vomit sometimes.)
 
Iran will naturally become a more moderate country as the old people start dying off. Just as the US will become more liberal (or as the rest of the world would see it, centrist).
 

commedieu

Banned

Derrick01

Banned
Is this with or without photoshop?

Iraq took a month and some change after the initial invasion and you think the second- largest country in the Middle East would take a week to defeat?

Lulwut?

If I remember right we were cruising through Baghdad within 3 days of the initial invasion. When the objective is to capture 1 guy who's hiding somewhere that complicates things no matter the size of your invasion force. But their actual military was mostly done in days.
 

kirblar

Member
They don´t want war. They want the apearence of a conflict right around the corner a boogieman. They don´t want to actually start it and fight it. What major military action has Netanyahu ever actually done for being such a war mongerer (I agree his rhetoric is absurd and makes me want to vomit sometimes.)
It's a combination of both. Some legitimately want the fight. Others use them to get a bigger budget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom