2019/2020 Iran - USA War... Getting There....

[Gaidin]

Yeah, gonna have to rethink that altitude as a primary defence strategy.

.

No they don’t. The drone is not designed for speed or weaponry. It’s a slow drone. If they somehow upped its payload without dropping the ceiling they’d just put more sensor packages on it.

We’ll see if buzzing Iran was worth it.

[conon394]

It's an Eldar Exarch from Warhammer 40k

Yeah, gonna have to rethink that altitude as a primary defence strategy.

The Iranians also managed to hack a US drone years ago and force it to land.


Excuses, excuses; for all the bluster of the American political class, when it comes time to man up, they're nowhere to be seen. War Gods would not only frown at this brazen display of cowardice, but would scorn the very womanly nature of the current state of the american warrior class: too pussy to go to war, after ripping up international agreements meant to ensure peace.

Fact of the matter is, the US leadership opted not to go to war after all that bluster, and instead decided to sit back and play computer games as a worthy 'response' for the downing of the drone. The persians could've also wasted an american spyplane but magnanimously allowed it to escape unharmed.

Lots of people hack each other and being data link dependent is sort a a feature and bug for a drone.

Excuses, excuses

Having trouble with reading comprehension - not an excuse in my post. Drones are slow and vulnerable. They are super cool in Jihad waste lands but were always going to get shot down in a environment a capable opponent. All kinds of Military personal, analysts and academics in the US have been pointing that out for years. The technological feat is not impressive or important although it support those he argue if the US is going to relay on drones its needs a lot more and maybe uber cheap decoy drones. Not the the action by the administration is almost strike are a separate matter.

Fact of the matter is, the US leadership opted not to go to war after all that bluster, and instead decided to sit back and play computer games as a worthy 'response' for the downing of the drone. The persians could've also wasted an american spyplane but magnanimously allowed it to escape unharmed.

Their unsubstantiated claim is fact? 1 Hit 1 Miss by Iran on Drones and you believe they were going his a plane. What type have they said?

[Exarch]

No they don’t. The drone is not designed for speed or weaponry. It’s a slow drone. If they somehow upped its payload without dropping the ceiling they’d just put more sensor packages on it.

We’ll see if buzzing Iran was worth it.

Lots of people hack each other and being data link dependent is sort a a feature and bug for a drone.



Having trouble with reading comprehension - not an excuse in my post. Drones are slow and vulnerable. They are super cool in Jihad waste lands but were always going to get shot down in a environment a capable opponent. All kinds of Military personal, analysts and academics in the US have been pointing that out for years. The technological feat is not impressive or important although it support those he argue if the US is going to relay on drones its needs a lot more and maybe uber cheap decoy drones. Not the the action by the administration is almost strike are a separate matter.



Their unsubstantiated claim is fact? 1 Hit 1 Miss by Iran on Drones and you believe they were going his a plane. What type have they said?

Your American leadership have been howling for war against Iran since at least 2006; here comes an opportunity to bomb, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran and what do American planes do?
They flee from battle, they were 'called off' by the President, the same President who tore up the nuclear deal which would've ensured peace and a non nuclear Iran.
America spends all this time talking about war and how you're going to kill Iranians and conquer Persia for a new american century, and yet when it comes time to do just that, your soldiers puss out. I thought America had warriors? What happened to that? You know who else had cowards among its citizenry? The Western Roman Empire who had to resort to getting migrants to do the fighting for them. America is nothing, if not in absolute decline.

[conon394]

Your American leadership have been howling for war against Iran since at least 2006; here comes an opportunity to bomb, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran and what do American planes do?

Clearly not the Obama administration.

They flee from battle, they were 'called off' by the President, the same President who tore up the nuclear deal which would've ensured peace and a non nuclear Iran.

Trump is an erratic griffter. I have never said anything otherwise. That he likes tough talk but probably can really face the work load and complexity of even a minor action is pretty obvious. Recall Venezuela - he does not. Well the last is a bit much it certainly slowed a nuclear Iran and open up time for relations to change. But peace hardly the simple fact is the Hardliners on both sides loathed the deal.

America spends all this time talking about war and how you're going to kill Iranians and conquer Persia for a new american century, and yet when it comes time to do just that, your soldiers puss out. I thought America had warriors? What happened to that? You know who else had cowards among its citizenry? The Western Roman Empire who had to resort to getting migrants to do the fighting for them. America is nothing, if not in absolute decline.

Unless you have been main lining John Bolton's twitter feed nobody is calling for any of that pretty much most Americans decided after Iraq those kind of bizarre notions are well stupid. In fact I see no weakness in the move to disengage from the Middle East. It is waste of Blood and Treasure with no up side. The money not wasted on a pointless action in Iran builds more new FFs to annoy China in the it fantastical exclusion zone

What happened to that? You know who else had cowards among its citizenry? The Western Roman Empire who had to resort to getting migrants to do the fighting for them.

Ok umm have no ideal what that is supposed to mean. Actually I rather dislike the use of the term warrior. The US has soldiers that do and do not at the behest of the political leadership. In general Iran was baiting the US way bother responding. More importantly the US seemed to lack evidence of sufficient clarity to convince Norway or Japan to invoke collective defense, so realistically the nature of the apparent response were disproportionate to a drone loss. Again Trump has surrounded himself with hawks but after tough talk he really has no inclination to act that is far more messy than declaring victory at a MAGA rally. His lack of a Sec Def with stature is probably the reason the fiasco occurred.

[Heathen Hammer]

Clearly not the Obama administration.

Obama administration bombed Libya (to provide air support for his jihadist buddies from AQ and other similar groups) and tried to do the same in Syria, but in case of latter, Obama's CIA-trained pets ended up on busy ends of Russian jets. If it wasn't for Putin using his pimp hand on Obama in Syria, Iran would have likely been next.

[conon394]

Obama administration bombed Libya (to provide air support for his jihadist buddies from AQ and other similar groups) and tried to do the same in Syria, but in case of latter, Obama's CIA-trained pets ended up on busy ends of Russian jets. If it wasn't for Putin using his pimp hand on Obama in Syria, Iran would have likely been next.

Non of any of that has anything to do with Iran policy.

[Cookiegod]

The Obama administration only settled once it saw that starving the Iranians to death wouldn't work.

Trump isn't the most erratic grifter in his administration. He's still the one to have told his hawks no. Dems have hawks, one inglorious example that was heavily featured in MSM due to Iran being Adam Schiff, a Democrat in the house who's also getting a buttload of cash from the military-industrial complex. Who NOW, NOW that Trump had one of the few moments where he's showed some constraint, opens up about having him impeached.

Claiming no one other than Bolton is harping on about invading Iran is a very bold lie.

[conon394]

The Obama administration only settled once it saw that starving the Iranians to death wouldn't work.

You cannot spin it that way. The framework for relations with Iran was set by the previous administration. The change Obama made was a proactive break from that and one that infuriated UsS allies and the opposition party. At no political cost Obama could have just let inertia carry US policy and maybe ramped up more cyber war. Sorry to say even liberal lefty millennial gay city dwellers in the bay area in the US could care less about Iran's economy.

Trump isn't the most erratic grifter in his administration. He's still the one to have told his hawks no

Getting cold feat at the last minute is not saying no. Not hiring Bolton and his Secretary state and not starting a build up and not ripping an agreement would have been.

Claiming no one other than Bolton is harping on about invading Iran is a very bold lie.

The whole Republican party is as well as Bolton is just the tip of the spear. Did schiff call for ending the nuclear deal?

[Heathen Hammer]

Non of any of that has anything to do with Iran policy.

Syria has nothing to do with Iran's policy? Quite clear that attempt to attack a country in Iran's sphere of influence has something to do with policy in relation to Iran. If it wasn't for Russians stomping the crap out of Obama's jihadist pets in Syria, Iran would be the next on the list.

[Exarch]

Trump is an erratic griffter. I have never said anything otherwise. That he likes tough talk but probably can really face the work load and complexity of even a minor action is pretty obvious. Recall Venezuela - he does not. Well the last is a bit much it certainly slowed a nuclear Iran and open up time for relations to change. But peace hardly the simple fact is the Hardliners on both sides loathed the deal..

All you've displayed is the weakness of a state in permanent decline; the weakness of the WRE was also a lack of cohesion between leaders and political interest groups; if Trump can't even control his own appointees, what point is there in even negotiating or dealing with him in good faith?

Unless you have been main lining John Bolton's twitter feed nobody is calling for any of that pretty much most Americans decided after Iraq those kind of bizarre notions are well stupid. In fact I see no weakness in the move to disengage from the Middle East. It is waste of Blood and Treasure with no up side. The money not wasted on a pointless action in Iran builds more new FFs to annoy China in the it fantastical exclusion zone

Oh yeah, before i forget, China already beat the US in supercomputers, but declined to enter the competition to alleviate fragile american egos.

Chinese decision makers decided to withhold the country’s newest Shuguang supercomputers from the latest supercomputing contest, even though they operate more than 50 per cent faster than the best current US machines, as China does not want to fan the flames of existing trade tensions, said the sources, who declined to be named as the information is private.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/art...ivalry-amid-us

Look at that, the US didn't even have a lead for a year before being utterly humiliated by the might of China,

Ok umm have no ideal what that is supposed to mean. Actually I rather dislike the use of the term warrior. The US has soldiers that do and do not at the behest of the political leadership. In general Iran was baiting the US way bother responding. More importantly the US seemed to lack evidence of sufficient clarity to convince Norway or Japan to invoke collective defense, so realistically the nature of the apparent response were disproportionate to a drone loss. Again Trump has surrounded himself with hawks but after tough talk he really has no inclination to act that is far more messy than declaring victory at a MAGA rally. His lack of a Sec Def with stature is probably the reason the fiasco occurred

Trump's mistake that he is a stupid imbecile who thinks he's brainy, and in accordance with that stupidity he appoints the former CIA director as Secretary of State ffs. Who the is going to deal with the US' SECSTATE in good faith when it's the same guy trying to overthrow nation states like Iran?
Let alone sanctioning a man who's been dead since the late 80s.

[sumskilz]

Regarding the so called build-up, there is none. These are routine rotations being announced as if they are a build-up.

[conon394]

Oh yeah, before i forget, China already beat the US in supercomputers, but declined to enter the competition to alleviate fragile american egos.

No it never did it got good luck on the development cycles and won the top spot on a completely useless benchmark is not very indicative of real world use. Its consonantly has low utilization rates and worse some of it older machines are just siting idle and rotting because their vanity build propose is no longer needed. Those machines when broken in to smaller units are quite useful to gifted to universities or auctioned off. In all honesty I think china is spending poorly and doing itself a disservice.

enter the competition to alleviate fragile american egos.

Right. You realize if I was to published a link saying Japan or the US did same thing you be crowing about they were afraid to compete. Its hard to credit claims with no prof. Its equally possible China had poor results and does't want to advertise the fact. Whatever. The problem for China still remains they kind vanity buying a lot of hardware and loosing sight of the eco system to use it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ch...sed-2014-07-15

Look at that, the US didn't even have a lead for a year before being utterly humiliated by the might of China,

Man by new car could so beat that so last year car of yours... want to race for pink slips, no man I am just talk about it... err well have fun petting it and mumbling to yourself. you Know what they say about Bulls--t and walking.

All you've displayed is the weakness of a state in permanent decline; the weakness of the WRE was also a lack of cohesion between leaders and political interest groups; if Trump can't even control his own appointees, what point is there in even negotiating or dealing with him in good faith?

Trump is not a businessman he is a property guy from NY he runs his admin pretty much the way he runs his private operations. Its not a good way to run a government nor would be a good way to run say Boeing. He is in fact damaging the US but so far not as bad Bucannon and the US bounced back from his admin. But any one president is not a sign of permanent decline.

Trump's mistake that he is a stupid imbecile who thinks he's brainy, and in accordance with that stupidity he appoints the former CIA director as Secretary of State ffs. Who the is going to deal with the US' SECSTATE in good faith when it's the same guy trying to overthrow nation states like Iran?

Well technically he is just sort a former congressmen and Trump loyalist (the only thing Trump values) he was not a the CIA long its not like he was a career officer, just likely put there because the CIA professionals don't much like Trump 9or at least that how he sees it because they churning out reports he does not read and disagrees with based on his gut)

[conon394]

Regarding the so called build-up, there is none. These are routine rotations being announced as if they are a build-up.

There is something of a blip. some additional troops were sent (although not enough to be a the basis of raiding forces) and the USCG is getting suckered in with more planed deployments of medium cutters, since the navy can't seemingly get the LCS operational. The bomber deployment was clearly a signal move.

[sumskilz]

There is something of a blip. some additional troops were sent (although not enough to be a the basis of raiding forces) and the USCG is getting suckered in with more planed deployments of medium cutters, since the navy can't seemingly get the LCS operational. The bomber deployment was clearly a signal move.

So there is the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, but that's not unusual. It left port in April, right about the same time the John C. Stennis carrier strike group left the Persian Gulf. Some B-52 bombers were sent to Qatar, but some B1 bombers recently left Qatar to return to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. I know that some time not too long before those B1 bombers arrived Qatar, some B-52 bombers left Qatar. I didn't see that in the news, but I know because they stopped over in Israel on the way back to the US, and one of the crew is a friend of a friend.

So anyway, that's why I'm skeptical regarding this build-up. It looks like more talk than anything else. If there is a net build-up, it isn't much.

[conon394]

So there is the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, but that's not unusual. It left port in April, right about the same time the John C. Stennis carrier strike group left the Persian Gulf. Some B-52 bombers were sent to Qatar, but some B1 bombers recently left Qatar to return to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. I know that some time not too long before those B1 bombers arrived Qatar, some B-52 bombers left Qatar. I didn't see that in the news, but I know because they stopped over in Israel on the way back to the US, and one of the crew is a friend of a friend.

So anyway, that's why I'm skeptical regarding this build-up. It looks like more talk than anything else. If there is a net build-up, it isn't much.

Like a small blip if anything it looks more like Bolton and likely the Iran Hardliners both looking to wag the dog. All In all it still be nice to Sec Def, the most worrisome thing I have is that Bolton has been going down the chain of command to talk or give suggestions to the local commanders.

[Exarch]

No it never did it got good luck on the development cycles and won the top spot on a completely useless benchmark is not very indicative of real world use. Its consonantly has low utilization rates and worse some of it older machines are just siting idle and rotting because their vanity build propose is no longer needed. Those machines when broken in to smaller units are quite useful to gifted to universities or auctioned off. In all honesty I think china is spending poorly and doing itself a disservice.



Right. You realize if I was to published a link saying Japan or the US did same thing you be crowing about they were afraid to compete. Its hard to credit claims with no prof. Its equally possible China had poor results and does't want to advertise the fact. Whatever. The problem for China still remains they kind vanity buying a lot of hardware and loosing sight of the eco system to use it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ch...sed-2014-07-15



Man by new car could so beat that so last year car of yours... want to race for pink slips, no man I am just talk about it... err well have fun petting it and mumbling to yourself. you Know what they say about Bulls--t and walking.

I understand the fragile american ego is unable to deal with the fact that China not only possesses a faster supercomputer than the US, but also possess MORE supercomputers than the US as well, so i'll try to be generous and allow for that.
Still doesn't deny the REALITY that China already has MORE supercomputers than the US, and they're FASTER. And now thanks to Trump and his team, Chinese firms are set to break the Microsoft/Google Android monopoly. All this should really be for another thread.

Anyway,

Trump is not a businessman he is a property guy from NY he runs his admin pretty much the way he runs his private operations. Its not a good way to run a government nor would be a good way to run say Boeing. He is in fact damaging the US but so far not as bad Bucannon and the US bounced back from his admin. But any one president is not a sign of permanent decline.

American power is in obvious decline; let alone the fact that white western allies like EU refuse to ban a Chinese company that threatens US FVEYEs abilities to spy on everyone, the fact that Iranians were able to keep trigger happy Americans from going to war speaks volumes about the decline of US military confidence. The US loves war, why would it shy away from one with Iran if it wasn't because its leaders are unsure of its ability to win?

[conon394]

I understand the fragile american ego is unable to deal with the fact that China not only possesses a faster supercomputer than the US

My ego is quite OK because the ego race is silly. Supercomputers are needed and all but the hype around the highest bench mark on a piece of benchmark software is silly. Sure China might well have faster one and then it might be Japan or the US and and over and over. The key factor is if they are being utilized at a high rate and right now China is failing at that. You need more than shiny rooms for photo ops you need the infrastructure to use the thing you built. Given the low utilization rates and lack of any comparable Chinese effort in Mainframes (owned more or less by IBM and Fujitsu) it hard not to see vanity and well ego wasting resources. But should table this to an another thread it is OT. Particularly something more than just dick waving about super computers which if have no noticed are not end all be all to computing or computing as needed for getting stuff done.

You might in just go into sneer mode find this interesting

http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/news/st...ith_the_top500

You can more but the super computing center at Illinois explicitly rejected top500 ranking building in favor of memory bandwidth and a stable software/hardware environment to maximize utilization not headlines. It also worth nothing for example the NSA for does not submit its super computers (nor I suspect to any other intelligence agencies of any country) same goes for big tech - so of course in the top 500 we have a slice of computing power but just a slice.

The US loves war, why would it shy away from one with Iran if it wasn't because its leaders are unsure of its ability to win?

Even countries willing entertain war need breaks, the GWOT and Iraq have taken a toll. The opposition party was not interested in an Iran war. Trump dick that he is was not either let's recall he did campaign on no new mid east wars. That he then bizarrely set himself up with republican war hawks is weird I got nothing - but I did not vote for him. The US could win probably win easily as in the first or second Iraq wars if you mean just smashing all Iran's formal military power (and looser rules of engagement than say Serbia) the point is nobody in the US is up for the draft that would be required to occupy Iran and do all of Bolton's fantasy things.

You might compare the Trent affair or the Fashoda incident where you know nations ready for war were at the end of the day not willing to start a war.

What exactly does the US have to go to war on a a downed drone of disputed location a fairly murky set ship attacks. I see no weakness but just rather a real lack of justification after all no ships were US flagged.

[Lusitanio]

war drums on an attack from USA on Iran is getting louder, especially with the latest attacks on two tankers.

All signs point to a false flag. Even the company president of the company responsible for the tankers said publicly that he did not believed on the official story told by the USA officials. Even better, that "attack" barely passed in European new channels because even the European allies know its BS.

However, there are billions to be gained from a war with Iran and that's what the guys who control the military industry and production want. Common sense has prevailed for now, so let's see...

[Cyclops]

...
American power is in obvious decline;..

To my limited knowledge US power continues to grow. China has experienced strong real and relative growth but its coming of a low base. Russia is not in the game and the putative European Superstate has been spoiled (at least temporarily) by Brexit.

A relevant test here is Australian loyalty. We are a British colony, and the Queen is our head of state. In WWII, about 15 seconds after the Royal Navy slipped below parity with the USN we switched to the US alliance and have been in every single one of the wars, just or unjust ever since.

The strategic theory is Australia allies with the power able (or most able) to invade our country successfully. There's only one. Our preparations for a hostile Russia/Soviet Union or Imperial Japan were to deal with raids (the so called "Brisbane Line" plan was a crock).

The UK likes to talk about their "special relationship" but they weren't there for Vietnam, and we never got slapped down by our masters for something like Suez. Five Eyes, naval bases, the Huawei ban, we are a US vassal.

If we jump ship you should say something. I think we'll be friends with Washington for the medium term at least, maybe come back with this nonsense in twenty years and try again?

[Exarch]

You might in just go into sneer mode find this interesting

http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/news/st...ith_the_top500

You can more but the super computing center at Illinois explicitly rejected top500 ranking building in favor of memory bandwidth and a stable software/hardware environment to maximize utilization not headlines. It also worth nothing for example the NSA for does not submit its super computers (nor I suspect to any other intelligence agencies of any country) same goes for big tech - so of course in the top 500 we have a slice of computing power but just a slice.

Somehow i doubt that, if the NSA was so confident with their hacking abilities/supercomputing, they wouldn't need to get the USG to pressure computer companies into installing backdoors for the NSA; it doesn't just scream laziness, it screams incompetence. Snowden's leaks confirmed that, especially with the PRISM program and Echelon, as well as the fact that the NSA committed cyber crimes and hacking against Huawei and despite all of that, failed to find the evidence it would've needed to convince its allies to divest themselves of Huawei. In fact, Huawei's code is open source and free for anyone to inspect, can the same be said of Cisco which has been complicit in USG spying?
No wonder Germany prefers working with China.

Even countries willing entertain war need breaks, the GWOT and Iraq have taken a toll. The opposition party was not interested in an Iran war. Trump dick that he is was not either let's recall he did campaign on no new mid east wars. That he then bizarrely set himself up with republican war hawks is weird I got nothing - but I did not vote for him. The US could win probably win easily as in the first or second Iraq wars if you mean just smashing all Iran's formal military power (and looser rules of engagement than say Serbia) the point is nobody in the US is up for the draft that would be required to occupy Iran and do all of Bolton's fantasy things.

You might compare the Trent affair or the Fashoda incident where you know nations ready for war were at the end of the day not willing to start a war.

What exactly does the US have to go to war on a a downed drone of disputed location a fairly murky set ship attacks. I see no weakness but just rather a real lack of justification after all no ships were US flagged.

A downed drone is enough to declare war for America, especially with truth being the first casualty in war. Wars have been started over less, ie nonexistent threats eg Gulf of Tonkin. All the rhetoric coming from the USG these past few months have been moving us towards war with Iran and yet as i mentioned before, when the time came to draw first blood, the Anglo Americans were overcome by cowardice and shamefully "advanced to the rear".

To my limited knowledge US power continues to grow. China has experienced strong real and relative growth but its coming of a low base. Russia is not in the game and the putative European Superstate has been spoiled (at least temporarily) by Brexit.

A relevant test here is Australian loyalty. We are a British colony, and the Queen is our head of state.

The Five Eyes are merely a continuation of the British Empire, or the white anglo 'WASP' supremacism which even the French and Germans find galling; naturally Australia would be a part of that since all Anglos stick together the way the Aryan Brotherhood sticks together, so even when American power is in decline, Australia has no choice but to stick with its Anglo whites across the Pacific.
This may not be what you believe, but it's what the leadership in Canberra and Sydney believe, the same leadership who were Rhodes Scholars and enjoy Fellowships at American 'think tanks'.