|
Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad
(Post 12040260)
A USN Poseidon has been (understandably) scouring the depths for quite a few hours prior to their arrival.
|
Not only a Russian or Chinese sub ... and it will be well aware of any others
|
Originally Posted by MissChief
(Post 12040247)
Deception is permissible in war, and to protect oneself or the community, according to the Koran. Seemingly both the USA and Iran are adopting this tactic.
|
https://mei.edu/publication/irans-re...as-apocalypse/
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the Rising Cult of Mahdism: Missiles and Militias for the Apocalypse |
I would imagine America will enter the conflict with a little concern. It only takes one drone or missile to hit something vital and a mighty warship can be sent to the bottom. Not to mention air assets.
Add to that fog of war and it can all go tits up very quickly. You also have to consider that Russia or China may have slipped them a few things. Gary Powers will testify to that. |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 12040487)
Iran or any other country for that matter is never going to use a nuclear device as a first strike offensive weapon. It would be absolute suicide.
Your error is that not everyone views the world from a western Judaeo-Christian mindset. Whether an individual decides to run amok with a machete which will end in their near certain death or an organisation chooses to commit an atrocity that will unleash revenge across a multi-faceted array of intelligence, resources and co-operation with 21st century technology, the same parameters apply. To a very different mindset, the act is always more important than the consequences. In some parts of the world, it is still the middle ages and those guys have some rather nasty toys and a particular set of beliefs. |
There was an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday, covering the start of the war in Ukraine. The Brits and Americans could not convince the French, Germans, broader Europeans or the Ukrainians that war was coming. Even on the night of the invasion, the Germans didn't believe it! No one thought the Russians were that crazy. Plus, we had blotted our copybook with the 2003 Iraq invasion.
There is a track record of countries not believing another is going to do something insane. And you don't need to be a religious fundamentalist to do things few others in the world can understand. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng...e-plans-russia |
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 12040512)
Really! Put Iran in a position where there is about to be a regime change as a result of a large conventional attack by US forces and ask yourself how the mad mullahs might react if they had an operational nuclear weapons capability!
I have no love for the regime in Iran but to suggest they want nuclear weapons to deliver a strike against an enemy risking total annihilation for their entire country is nonsense. |
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12040605)
The same can be said for hijacking and slamming airliners into skyscrapers, the Pentagon etc. etc. The response is always going to be overwhelming and on an industrial scale that your society cannot even think about matching. And yet....... it happens.
Your error is that not everyone views the world from a western Judaeo-Christian mindset. Whether an individual decides to run amok with a machete which will end in their near certain death or an organisation chooses to commit an atrocity that will unleash revenge across a multi-faceted array of intelligence, resources and co-operation with 21st century technology, the same parameters apply. To a very different mindset, the act is always more important than the consequences. In some parts of the world, it is still the middle ages and those guys have some rather nasty toys and a particular set of beliefs. The acts of individuals are very different to the acts of a nation state. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Are they on your list of people with different beliefs. This warmongering idiocy has to stop. Remember Iraq and the lies over WMDs. |
Re Post 2736
A USN Poseidon has been (understandably) scouring the depths for quite a few hours prior to their arrival. Aaaah ! ... The Ghosts of ZP-14 |
at least 15 kc-46a pegasus seen on the ground at lajes field in the azores, located in the northern atlantic roughly 900 miles from the coast of portugal, a major stopping-off point for aircraft on the way to bases in europe and the middle east from the americas. Aerial-refueling tankers positioned at lajes could also potentially support long-range bombers heading towards iran, with tankers stationed at lajes providing refueling for the b-2s that struck iran’s nuclear sites last june in operation midnight hammer. |
this is worth a look
|
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 12040618)
Yes, that's called a deterrent. It's the reason we have nuclear weapons. The reason we don't have Russian military assets positioning throughout the North Sea threatening to bomb the hell out of London. FAFO.
I have no love for the regime in Iran but to suggest they want nuclear weapons to deliver a strike against an enemy risking total annihilation for their entire country is nonsense. As has already been correctly pointed out to you, your last sentence, to use your vernacular, is absolute tosh. That is precisely what Iran would be prepared to do. You are falling into the trap of judging Iran and trying to predict its actions and responses based on western values. Iran doesn’t run on western values! |
"Put Iran in a situation where it knows it is about to lose a conventional war and ask yourself if you are 100% confident that Iran’s ideology would prevent it from going out with a big yellow flash!"
but people are saying on other threads that Russia might start firing off N weapons if they looked like losing in Ukraine. Thats the whole point of N weapons - they're something you can use when you're losing a conventional war - applies to everyone who has them. " Iran doesn’t run on western values!" Neither does China, Pakistan, India, Russia, NOK or Israel |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 12040805)
"Put Iran in a situation where it knows it is about to lose a conventional war and ask yourself if you are 100% confident that Iran’s ideology would prevent it from going out with a big yellow flash!"
but people are saying on other threads that Russia might start firing off N weapons if they looked like losing in Ukraine. Thats the whole point of N weapons - they're something you can use when you're losing a conventional war - applies to everyone who has them. " Iran doesn’t run on western values!" Neither does China, Pakistan, India, Russia, NOK or Israel |
Guess those KC-46's are not as worthless as some would lead you to believe.
|
I still hold the same opinion on the KC-46, It was all politics and nothing about capabilities, I won't rehash the questionable competition than led to the purchase,
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 12040805)
" Iran doesn’t run on western values!" Neither does China, Pakistan, India, Russia, NOK or Israel
|
Video
The massive USAF airbridge to support future strikes on Iran continued overnight, with dozens of airlifters moving additional air defense assets and munitions into the Middle East. "You don't fly 70 cargo planes into a single base for a 'limited strike.' The airbridge we saw overnight confirms that the Pentagon is prepared for a weeks-long air campaign, not a one-off event. By moving THAAD batteries and bunker-busters simultaneously, the U.S. is signaling it is ready to both take the punch and deliver a knockout blow. |
Video with interesting comments about the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which apply whether the attack is on Monday, Tuesday or a later date….
White House Inside Source tells @JohnKiriakou Trump has decided to ATTACK IRAN on Monday or Tuesday. According to John’s source, Vice President JD Vance & DNI Tulsi Gabbard are ONLY 2 dissenting voices. Rubio, Hegseth & Joint Chiefs of Staff all on board. |
So the decision is made by White House staff?
|
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 12040977)
But neither do they (including Pakistan) run on an ideology that doesn't care too much about its own survival and one which regards 'martydom' as a pathway to paradise!
Did you get sucked in by Colin Powell's UN presentation too? How many railway carriages full of WMD factories did they find? We were told Iraq was the same, the regime would lob biological and or nuclear missiles at Israel and could reach the UK in 45 minutes. All of it utter garbage, made up by the Bush/Blair administrations to convince a willing public that regime change was necessary and it had bugger all to do with oil. Yeah right! You're being played, again. |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 12041051)
Another load of reactionary bowlarks.
Did you get sucked in by Colin Powell's UN presentation too? How many railway carriages full of WMD factories did they find? We were told Iraq was the same, the regime would lob biological and or nuclear missiles at Israel and could reach the UK in 45 minutes. All of it utter garbage, made up by the Bush/Blair administrations to convince a willing public that regime change was necessary and it had bugger all to do with oil. Yeah right! You're being played, again. The reason to deny Iran nuclear weapons is simply because if this regime obtains them and then has to choose between capitulation or using them, the risk of them using them is far too high. It is an entirely different situation to Iraq. Estimates vary but I have heard a figure of over 30,000 protestors murdered in Iran in the last month. And these are all innocent protesters, not Hamas terrorists! Are you ok with that? I’m not sure I can explain it more simpler than that! |
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 12041052)
You are obviously not understanding what is written as you are ‘replying’ to sentiments that have not been expressed!
The reason to deny Iran nuclear weapons is simply because if this regime obtains them and then has to choose between capitulation or using them, the risk of them using them is far too high. It is an entirely different situation to Iraq. Estimates vary but I have heard a figure of over 30,000 protestors murdered in Iran in the last month. And these are all innocent protesters, not Hamas terrorists! Are you ok with that? I’m not sure I can explain it more simpler than that! I disagree, the intent of everyone with nuclear weapons must be assumed to be that they will use them if threatened with overthrow. Putin's Russia, Iran, N Korea, Israel or the USA. The trigger never has been that the country had to be under threat of total destruction. The threat has always been the button will be pressed if whatever regime controls the weapons believes it is facing destruction/end. Believing the "threat" is less than that is simply avoiding facing reality. |
NYT: https://archive.is/20260222060606/ht...ezeshkian.html
Inside Iran’s Preparation for War and Plans for Survival In early January, as Iran faced nationwide protests and the threat of strikes by the United States, the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, turned to a trusted and loyal lieutenant to steer the country: Ali Larijani, the country’s top national security official. Since then, Mr. Larijani, a 67-year-old veteran politician, a former commander in the Revolutionary Guards Corps and current head of the Supreme National Security Council, has effectively been running the country. His rise has sidelined President Masoud Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon turned politician, who has faced a challenging year in office and continues to say publicly that “I’m a doctor, not a politician” and that no one should expect him to solve the multitude of problems in Iran. This account of Mr. Larijani’s ascent and the decisions and deliberations of Iran’s leadership as the Trump administration threatens war is based on interviews with six senior Iranian officials, one of them affiliated with Mr. Khamenei’s office; three members of the Revolutionary Guards; two former Iranian diplomats; and reports from the Iranian news media. The officials and members of the Guards spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss internal government matters....... Mr. Khamenei has instructed Mr. Larijani and a handful of other close political and military associates to ensure the Islamic Republic survives not just American and Israeli bombs, but also any assassination of its top leadership, including Mr. Khamenei himself, according to the six senior officials and the Guards members..... According to the six senior officials and the Guards members, Mr. Khamenei has issued a series of directives. He has named four layers of succession for each of the military command and government roles that he personally appoints. He has also told everyone in leadership roles to name up to four replacements and has delegated responsibilities to a tight circle of confidants to make decisions in case communications with him are disrupted or he is killed. While in hiding during the 12-day war with Israel, Mr. Khamenei named three candidates who could succeed him. They have never been publicly identified, but Mr. Larijani is almost certainly not among them because he is not a senior Shiite cleric — a fundamental qualification for any successor. But Mr. Larijani is ensconced in Mr. Khamenei’s trusted circle, which includes his top military adviser and former commander in chief of the Guards, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi; Brig. Gen. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former Guards commander and current speaker of Parliament whom Mr. Khamenei has designated as his de facto deputy to command the armed forces during the war; and his chief of staff, the cleric Ali Asghar Hejazi. Some of this planning is the result of lessons drawn from Israel’s surprise attack in June that wiped out Iran’s senior military command chain within the first hours of the war. After the cease-fire, Mr. Khamenei appointed Mr. Larijani as the secretary of the National Security Council and created a new National Defense Council, headed by Adm. Ali Shamkhani, to manage military affairs during wartime. “Khamenei is dealing with the reality in front of him,” said Vali Nasr, an expert on Iran and its Shiite theocracy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “He is expecting to be a martyr and thinking this is my system and legacy, and I will stand until the end,” Mr. Nasr said, adding: “He is distributing power and preparing the state for the next big thing, both succession and war, aware that succession may come as a consequence of war.” Iran is operating on the basis that U.S. military strikes are inevitable and imminent, even as both sides continue to engage diplomatically and negotiate on a nuclear deal, the six officials and three Guards members said. They said Iran had placed all of its armed forces on the highest state of alert and was preparing to resist fiercely. The country is positioning ballistic missile launchers along its western border with Iraq — close enough to strike Israel — and along its southern shores on the Persian Gulf, within range of American military bases and other targets in the region, the three Guards members and four senior officials said..... But the Iranian leadership is preparing not just for military and security mobilizations, but also for its own political survival. These deliberations, described by six officials familiar with the planning, touch on a range of matters, including who would manage the country if Mr. Khamenei and top officials were killed, and who could be “the Delcy of Iran” — a reference to Delcy Rodríguez, the Venezuelan vice president who made a deal with the Trump administration to run the country after the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro. Mr. Larijani sits atop the list, the three officials said. He is followed by General Ghalibaf, the Parliament speaker. Somewhat surprisingly, a former president, Hassan Rouhani, who has been largely cast out of Mr. Khamenei’s circle, also made the list....... |
Originally Posted by 42psi
(Post 12041074)
I disagree, the intent of everyone with nuclear weapons must be assumed to be that they will use them if threatened with overthrow.
Putin's Russia, Iran, N Korea, Israel or the USA. The trigger never has been that the country had to be under threat of total destruction. The threat has always been the button will be pressed if whatever regime controls the weapons believes it is facing destruction/end. Believing the "threat" is less than that is simply avoiding facing reality. |
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 12041115)
I think you are too quick to ‘assume’ that you understand the thinking behind the ideology which drives the Iranian regime’s thinking. Try thinking about it the way they think about it rather than how the west thinks about it.
Nope, I have no idea of their thinking. I refer to the thinking of how we view it. The only way to consider any country with nuclear weapons us to understand they will use them when it suits them to do so. It doesn't matter what we think is reasonable. |
United States Air Force - Middle East Activity 21 February Summary
Since the 15th January, there has been at least 249 C-17/C-5 flights from US Air Force bases and Army Airfields in the United States, Europe and Japan, to CENTCOM. There have been 58 KC-46 and KC-135 Stratotankers deployed over the past few days to Europe, representing around 15% of the entire USAF tanker fleet. The base with the most amount of flights has been Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, with around 147 inbound flights. Since the 19th February, there has been an additional 21 that have either arrived, or are en route to, CENTCOM. A further 10 Army-related flights, 6 Air Force-related, and 5 Navy-related flights are currently in-progress. Coronet East 045 Boeing KC-46 Pegasus 2x #AE63C4 21-46088 - GOLD 02 #AE5BC1 16-46016 - GOLD 12 Two KC-46 Pegasus tankers have re-positioned from McGuire AFB to Bangor ANGB on a Coronet East 045 tasking. Receivers are unknown, rumours range from USMC F-35B/Cs to "AK" F-22s from Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan Five C-17 flights from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany have been made to Jordan, all supporting the deploymnet of F-16s from Spang over the past week. Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar Al Udeid has seen a continuation of flights from Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station, bringing it to a total of 12 from Puerto Rico. There has been a notable increase of Army-related flights from Dover Air Force Base to Al Udeid, with four in the ~24 hours. Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia The movement of support equipment for the 'AV" F-16s from Aviano Air Base in Italy appears to be being carried out by C-5s, which would mean less than the usual 10-14 flights we see for a deployment. In-progress Army Flights There are currently ten in-progress flights from Army Airfields, or are on Army support codes. 4 from Robert Gray AAF, two from Pope AAF and another four from Dover AFB. In-progress Air Force Flights There are 6 in-progress air force flights, three from Bangor ANGB, and one each from Langley AFB, Roosevelt Roads NAS and Elmendorf AFB. The flights from Bangor are potentially to support the vast number of tankers that have deployed to Europe over the past few days. Flights from Roosevelt Roads and Langley will be support for F-35s and F-22s. The interesting one here is a C-5 from Elmendorf AFB - REACH 1872. Along with a Coronet positioning in the North East of CONUS, there is a remote possibility of "AK" F-22s from Elmendorf Air Force Base being deployed. In-progress Navy Flights There are five in-progress Navy flights, with three from Roosevelt Roads and two from Naval Station Norfolk. This is probably to support the now two Carrier Strike Groups. |
Originally Posted by 42psi
(Post 12041117)
Nope, I have no idea of their thinking.
I refer to the thinking of how we view it. The only way to consider any country with nuclear weapons us to understand they will use them when it suits them to do so. It doesn't matter what we think is reasonable. Your last sentence is proof positive that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. |
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS
(Post 12041336)
Then apply that 'logic' and ask yourself which way Iran will go when cornered by conventional weapons.
Your last sentence is proof positive that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. are you suggesting that a 'Western' nation when faced with the same threat would not use nuclear weapons? |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 12041342)
In that case, no country should be allowed to have them, or,
are you suggesting that a 'Western' nation when faced with the same threat would not use nuclear weapons? If we adopt the position that no western (or any current nuclear) nation would launch a first strike, then doctrine requires strong conventional forces to ensure that we can defend ourselves conventionally. That is where the west has gone badly wrong in that last 3 decades imho. |
Wait. Something is really not right here. Just 8 months ago on live TV, President Trump stated the following after US attacks on Iran:
"Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated" Is he now saying that in just 8 months, Iran has managed to completely rebuild its nuclear program again? In 8 months! Last night the US administration claimed "Iran is probably a week away from having an industrial grade of nuclear bomb making material" Was Trump's administration lying 8 months ago or are they lying now? Was the first operation a total and utter failure? More people should be calling these things out and holding politicians to account. No one has learnt from the Iraq WMD fiasco of 2003? |
In his Fox interview, Witkoff said: "I don't want to use the word 'frustrated'... because he [Trump] understands he's got plenty of alternatives, but he's curious as to why they haven't... I don't want to use the word 'capitulated', but why they haven't capitulated. "Why, under this sort of pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power that we have over there, why haven't they come to us and said, 'We profess that we don't want a weapon, so here's what we're prepared to do?'" The envoy added: "And yet it's hard to sort of get them to that place." |
Originally Posted by Bonkey
(Post 12041458)
Wait. Something is really not right here. Just 8 months ago on live TV, President Trump stated the following after US attacks on Iran:
"Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated" Is he now saying that in just 8 months, Iran has managed to completely rebuild its nuclear program again? In 8 months! Last night the US administration claimed "Iran is probably a week away from having an industrial grade of nuclear bomb making material" Was Trump's administration lying 8 months ago or are they lying now? Was the first operation a total and utter failure? More people should be calling these things out and holding politicians to account. No one has learnt from the Iraq WMD fiasco of 2003? Does anyone really take anything Trump says at face value? We all klnow by now, surely, that the man spouts random fantasies and bs as the mood takes him and much of it is only tenuously connected to reality. Anyone with an iota of military knowlege or experience shpuld know that any claim of "completely and totally obliterated" is likely to be just hyperbole, especially when issued minutes or hours after a strike on the other side of the world on hardened targets under a mountain with no humint to back up the claim. Indeed that claim was made iirc so soon after the event that I dount even Iran had any idea of the extent of the damage. The limitations of the weapons available and the depth of rock they needed to penetrtate made it almost certain that they would probably achieve little. Trump spouts whatever comes into his dizzy head on the spur of the moment, little he says can be taken at face value, let alone be believed as factual. |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 12041489)
A reality check is needed here.
Does anyone really take anything Trump says at face value? We all klnow by now, surely, that the man spouts random fantasies and bs as the mood takes him and much of it is only tenuously connected to reality. Anyone with an iota of military knowlege or experience shpuld know that any claim of "completely and totally obliterated" is likely to be just hyperbole, especially when issued minutes or hours after a strike on the other side of the world on hardened targets under a mountain with no humint to back up the claim. Indeed that claim was made iirc so soon after the event that I dount even Iran had any idea of the extent of the damage. The limitations of the weapons available and the depth of rock they needed to penetrtate made it almost certain that they would probably achieve little. Trump spouts whatever comes into his dizzy head on the spur of the moment, little he says can be taken at face value, let alone be believed as factual. |
B-52 or B-2 AAR?
Update : One tanker of each pair turned back at Sunda Straight and the other continued on and went dark after the Straight. (Usually indication one topped up the other to full before RTB). Two pair of KC-135R/T Stratotankers, FRESH61/62/71/72, which departed earlier from Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, are currently heading southwest over the South China Sea, possibly towing bombers or fighters while strangely avoiding land, with the tankers preparing to enter over the Indian Ocean, likely enroute to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....58adbcec25.png |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12041527)
B-52 or B-2 AAR?
Update : One tanker of each pair turned back at Sunda Straight and the other continued on and went dark after the Straight. (Usually indication one topped up the other to full before RTB). |
Originally Posted by artee
(Post 12041555)
Is this the same Diego Garcia that Starmer has (allegedly) told the Americans that they can't use to attack Iran?
|
Am I the only member ford bartless?
|
Originally Posted by Bonkey
(Post 12041507)
My post was somewhat satirical. Just a sobering thought to think this man is in charge of the world's largest military force and nuclear capability.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:04. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.