You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
PurestEvil on scored.co
2 months ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)3 children
That means either Iran can sink US warships and will do so, or Iran cannot sink US warships and would if they could, or Iran cannot sink US warships and wouldn't do it. I assume you mean they would if they could immediately with certainty.
I mean you literally just need missiles that reach the ships. They are large, easy targets. However it is reasonable to assume it's not in Iran's best interest to heat up a war with the US, even if they have the upper hand. Right now the optics are strongly in favor of Iran, and the US appears desperate to lick the drool from kikes as it obediently started the war by killing 170 children and triple tapping them to kill rescuers. If anything, this way Iran can force its way to make Americans realize their true masters are kikes.
That's essentially the story of the USS Liberty, with the twist that it was a failed false flag attack. Unlike 9/11... which was a successful false flag attack.
2 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
I think it would be good optics for Iran to sink a US warship. They wouldnt want to strike a cilivilan target, as that would just reinforce the narative about them being the bad guys; and US domestic suport for an invasion would massively increase. If they sunk a warship however, it would give them much greater military credibility, and the US has destroyed more than enough of their stuff the justify (military) retaliation. The world would see it as "shooting back" not agression.
Also, hitting a warship with a missile is quite difficult. Modern warships have a multiple layers of different extremely expensive and high performance interceptor missiles, and then point defense machine guns if you get through all that. The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it would be a *massive* saturation strike to deplete the interceptors. Or a very stealthy and very lucky approach with a boat or semi-submersible suicide drone. Iran doesn't have anywhere close to the level of stealth technology needed to sneak up on a US warship by air.
Edit: Saturation strike wouldn't even work, as Iran would not be able to get enough launchers within range of a US ship without being detected via satalite and struck first.
2 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
> I think it would be good optics for Iran to sink a US warship.
That depends. The US would greatly benefit in vilifying Iran. Unless there is a good reason, Iran should not do it. Which is likely also how they think about it.
> and US domestic suport for an invasion would massively increase
Yes, and that's not a desirable outcome. Iran would still have a lot of casualties, and the US would bomb the shit out of civilians. The victory would come at a hefty price.
> The world would see it as "shooting back" not agression.
Probably, yes. So Iran has options.
> The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it
Well, or the uninterceptible missile referenced by OP. I wouldn't be surprised if just a little additional speed couldn't penetrate anti-missile defences anyway, or reducing their detectability, possibly by removing electromagnetic clutter, or just have them shut off mid-flight once they have the ideal movement vector to hit "dumb" (as they move downwards).
> Saturation strike wouldn't even work
It also sounds like a waste of resources, and Iran knows how to fight the US by having them expend 50-100+ times the cost for weaponry.
I agree on your last point. The part of US doctrain that is outdated is the focus on small numbers of extremely expensive high performance weapons. It looks good in limited engements when they kick the shit out of lesser militaries, but against a near-equal, the stocks would be depleted almost immediately.
Iran knows this but I dont think they have the production capacity to capitalize on it, even with each engagement being massively more costly for the US than for Iran. The US also knows it and is trying to adapt. New interceptors are in development that at less than 1/10th the cost of the previous generation. It remains to be seen if this will actually come to fruition without the military industrial complex bloating the project for more profit.
2 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
I don't think it's about midterm elections. It's about eroding the US economy slowly, and weaken its geopolitical position. The uniparty doesn't matter at all. Both parties do whatever israel wants.
I mean you literally just need missiles that reach the ships. They are large, easy targets. However it is reasonable to assume it's not in Iran's best interest to heat up a war with the US, even if they have the upper hand. Right now the optics are strongly in favor of Iran, and the US appears desperate to lick the drool from kikes as it obediently started the war by killing 170 children and triple tapping them to kill rescuers. If anything, this way Iran can force its way to make Americans realize their true masters are kikes.
Also, hitting a warship with a missile is quite difficult. Modern warships have a multiple layers of different extremely expensive and high performance interceptor missiles, and then point defense machine guns if you get through all that. The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it would be a *massive* saturation strike to deplete the interceptors. Or a very stealthy and very lucky approach with a boat or semi-submersible suicide drone. Iran doesn't have anywhere close to the level of stealth technology needed to sneak up on a US warship by air.
Edit: Saturation strike wouldn't even work, as Iran would not be able to get enough launchers within range of a US ship without being detected via satalite and struck first.
That depends. The US would greatly benefit in vilifying Iran. Unless there is a good reason, Iran should not do it. Which is likely also how they think about it.
> and US domestic suport for an invasion would massively increase
Yes, and that's not a desirable outcome. Iran would still have a lot of casualties, and the US would bomb the shit out of civilians. The victory would come at a hefty price.
> The world would see it as "shooting back" not agression.
Probably, yes. So Iran has options.
> The only 2 ways Iran could realistically do it
Well, or the uninterceptible missile referenced by OP. I wouldn't be surprised if just a little additional speed couldn't penetrate anti-missile defences anyway, or reducing their detectability, possibly by removing electromagnetic clutter, or just have them shut off mid-flight once they have the ideal movement vector to hit "dumb" (as they move downwards).
> Saturation strike wouldn't even work
It also sounds like a waste of resources, and Iran knows how to fight the US by having them expend 50-100+ times the cost for weaponry.
Iran knows this but I dont think they have the production capacity to capitalize on it, even with each engagement being massively more costly for the US than for Iran. The US also knows it and is trying to adapt. New interceptors are in development that at less than 1/10th the cost of the previous generation. It remains to be seen if this will actually come to fruition without the military industrial complex bloating the project for more profit.
The C-RAMS on these ships can handle one or two missiles, they probably can't stop a dozen missiles.
Iran may be playing a waiting game for the US midterm elections. As if it will matter.
American politics are just kayfabe for goys; Israeli politics still reflect reality, and that's where decisions are made.