What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Do you agree or disagree that our early missiles were based on SCUDS and North Korean missiles? Do you agree that today, our missile program has surpassed NK's missile program?

Honestly I can only talk on what I've seen about Iranian missile advancements on it's own, I don't know how deep North Korea's missile program is or how far they've gotten so my apologies again bro lol.

But yes, Iran's domestic Ballistic Missile infrastructure was started due to Libya and North Korea providing the basis for it.
 
.
Honestly I can only talk on what I've seen about Iranian missile advancements on it's own, I don't know how deep North Korea's missile program is or how far they've gotten so my apologies again bro lol.

But yes, Iran's domestic Ballistic Missile infrastructure was started due to Libya and North Korea providing the basis for it.
What is the difference, if it would have been provided by the Americans instead of Libyans and North Koreans?

Let me add this, Japans car industry was started with tech they gathered from Japanese moles working for American car manufacturers, today, Japan manufactures cars that Americans can only dream of. Japan reached were it is today by copying and reverse engineering western tech.
 
.
What is the difference, if it would have been provided by the Americans instead of Libyans and North Koreans?

Dadash....shomah vaghe'an fekr mikoni Amrika beh Iran mooshake ballestic midad ?

The United States doesn't readily give out Ballistic Missile technology to allies as that is a weapons platform that falls under a different category, one that is resolutely more sensitive to America's geopolitical goals and would possibly present a national security risk. They don't view it the same way the Iranian military views it and would not have given it to Iran no matter what the circumstance may have been.

If Iran and the United States were to have remained "friends" then Iran's military would have just been another un-noteworthy regional conventionally minded military with a heavy emphasis on an American styled Air-wing.
 
.
Dadash....shomah vaghe'an fekr mikoni Amrika beh Iran mooshake ballestic midad ?

The United States doesn't readily give out Ballistic Missile technology to allies as that is a weapons platform that falls under a different category, one that is resolutely more sensitive to America's geopolitical goals and would possibly present a national security risk. They don't view it the same way the Iranian military views it and would not have given it to Iran no matter what the circumstance may have been.

If Iran and the United States were to have remained "friends" then Iran's military would have just been another un-noteworthy regional conventionally military with a heavy emphasis on an American style Air-wing.

No, they wouldn't just give us the necessary know how to build BMs after the fall of the Soviets, prior to that, yes they would, as their most important goal was to deter Soviet. They would give us the know how and tech to build other armaments. US did however build our first nuclear reactor, they did give us their best fighter jets. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying we should have just bought American tech and requested them to teach us everything. I am saying, there is no difference in receiving American tech while also having your own BM's program, your own AD program etc. If anything, having access to weapons would even make it easier for us to reverse engineer them.
 
.
No, they wouldn't just give us the necessary know how to build BMs after the fall of the Soviets, prior to that, yes they would, as their most important goal was to deter Soviet. They would give us the know how and tech to build other armaments. US did however build our first nuclear reactor, they did give us their best fighter jets. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying we should have just bought American tech and requested them to teach us everything. I am saying, there is no difference in receiving American tech while also having your own BM's program, your own AD program etc. If anything, having access to weapons would even make it easier for us to reverse engineer them.

Ah I see, well idk then to be honest. I just don't exactly view it that way bro lol, sorry
 
.
Ah I see, well idk then to be honest. I just don't exactly view it that way bro lol, sorry
Look at it this way then.

1. You can chose to be friendly with the US, receive US and western tech, you have access to the international market, no weapons embargo, no sanctions, you have shares in big western companies, you make tons of foreign investments, your scientist are not banned from western universities, you have a thriving multi trillion dollar economy, and you also have your own weapons program like we do today. When you are ready, you adopt an anti US and anti Israeli policy

2. You start by adopting an anti US and anti Israeli policy, you receive no US and western tech, you have no access to the international market, there is a weapons embargo, you are sanctioned, you have no shares in big western companies, you are not allowed to make any foreign investments, your scientists are banned from western universities, you have a 400 billion dollar economy, you have your own weapons program, but when you are attacked by Israel and US, you do nothing because you are not ready.

What would you chose?
 
.
Look at it this way then.

1. You can chose to be friendly with the US, receive US and western tech, you have access to the international market, no weapons embargo, no sanctions, you have shares in big western companies, you make tons of foreign investments, your scientist are not banned from western universities, you have a thriving multi trillion dollar economy, and you also have your own weapons program like we do today. When you are ready, you adopt an anti US and anti Israeli policy

2. You start by adopting an anti US and anti Israeli policy, you receive no US and western tech, you have no access to the international market, there is a weapons embargo, you are sanctioned, you have no shares in big western companies, you are not allowed to make any foreign investments, your scientists are banned from western universities, you have a 400 billion dollar economy, you have your own weapons program, but when you are attacked by Israel and US, you do nothing because you are not ready.

What would you chose?

hmmm......see I take issue with the viability of both of those choices as to me they aren't all that realistic. But I guess when you put it that way choice number one would be the most logical as it gives Iran the time and money to get ready for an eventual Anti-Israel/Anti-U.S. campaign but again the United States would have limited the kinds of weaponry it gave Iran since even at the best of times during the Shah-Era the U.S. internally was under pressure to not give Iran every thing the Imperial Iranian Military asked for as it would have upset the balance in the region America was trying to establish. What I think you're missing here is that the United States would not have just given Iran Carte Blanche to order whatever it is they wanted, there are important geopolitical consequences/factors here that need to be addressed amongst a litany of other historical nuances that also should be accounted for. Iran was most definitely not the be all and end all of America's middle-east vision.

See, the way I view it is that since Iran would remained America's ally: Iran would have subsequently just stuck to an American style military that is conventional and heavily reliant on an expansive, expensive American styled Air-wing with all the amenities that come with it. There is very little room for indigenous advancement since all Iran would have needed to do is just buy some more arms from the West and call it a day turning Iran into just another nation that is dependent on others for its own protection.

Keeping that in mind, Iran's current ability asymmetrically would have just not been present (since the previous reasons that lead to it aren't there) and Iran would have to rely on conventional methods which during the Iran-Iraq war proved to be fruitful but way too expensive and resource consuming. This is something that Iran learned rather harshly during the Iran-Iraq war.

Although there is more to war than just missiles and radars etc, Iran's missile inventory keeps Israel, the Persian Gulf States and America on edge due to its sheer size and capability. A conventional military is something Israel and the United States can fight off effectively but an unconventional military is simply another beast.

So I guess when I put it that way, option two does sound more enticing due to its merits but both options realistically have their pros and cons. So it really is something that depends on the person.
 
Last edited:
.
I have mixed feelings about this issue but look at the Iranian economy. It's in ruins and only getting worse. Iran has sacrificed so much over the last few years and decades and what do we have to show for it ? A nuclear program ? But out nuclear program doesn't even power 10 percent of the power grid, not even 5. It's something like 2% and they keep saying it's going to increase but it never does.

If you think about it, right before the revolution Iran was on the verge of receiving nuclear weapons from Israel. Nuclear weapons, never mind nuclear energy. Look how much Iran has struggled and sacrificed just to be able to be a nuclear threshold nation. Back then Iran was on the verge of receiving nuclear weapons on a silver platter.

Then there's also Iran's space program, but in reality I mean how many functioning satellites does Iran have right now ? 1 ? Noor ? Realistically until Iran can successfully launch several large communication / military satellites in space and create a network of sorts, I don't see it as being very beneficial. Certainly not worth the pariah status.

Another benefit that is always pointed at is that "Iran is self sufficient" Okay but look at Korea, look at Japan. Look at Germany for example. All industrious, productive and self sufficient countries and they're all US allies.

Look at China, America's biggest adversary, yet they're America's largest or second largest trading partner. Everything in the US is "made in China" The Chinese have made a fortune from the US. They're America's biggest adversary but they own lots of assets in the US. Meanwhile Iran is economically ruined and thought of as a bogeyman, an evil empire, a pariah state. Honestly this "down with America" nonsense, those protests have cost Iran TRILLIONS of dollars. I don't like Obama but he was right when he said "chanting down with America doesn't create jobs"

In this day and age image is everything and even if your end goal is to combat American imperialism and injustice, being vocal and threatening is not going to help your cause. Imagine if the Chinese, rather than initiating trade with the US in the 80s, began holding protests in the 80s and saying "death to America" Today they would be dirt broke, poor, jobless, with a shattered economy.

You know the interesting thing about conservatives in Iran is that they were in power with Ahmadinejad, however after the economy was ruined, they made Ahmadinejad into a scapegoat and blamed him for everything. Then Rohani comes to power and now they're blaming him for the current state of the economy. Here's the thing though, according to the World Bank, Iran's economy is set to grow in the next 2-3 years. So when the next conservative president comes to power, even if he doesn't do anything substantial, Iran's economy will grow anyways because of groundwork that was laid during the Rohani era. But of course the conservative president will take credit for everything.

My point is that instead of blaming others for the current predicament, the power brokers in Iran should actually take responsibility for their own policies which have ruined Iran economically. People like Khamenei and others should realize, just like the Chinese eventually did after decades, that their policies are not benefiting their country or the people.

What I don't understand is this. If Iran is going to be sanctioned and it's economy ruined, why even hold back anymore. The Europeans are basically going along with the sanctions. Why doesn't Iran just build an ICBM or at least openly build a missile capable of reaching all of Europe and also boost the nuclear program to the point where Iran can at the very least build a nuclear submarine or power at the least 5% of the power grid ? I mean yes I suppose Iran doesn't want to upset China or Russia but in my opinion Iran should still push its boundaries.

hmmm......see I take issue with the viability of both of those choices as to me they aren't all that realistic. But I guess when you put it that way choice number one would be the most logical as it gives Iran the time and money to get ready for an eventual Anti-Israel/Anti-U.S. campaign but again the United States would have limited the kinds of weaponry it gave Iran since even at the best of times during the Shah-Era the U.S. internally was under pressure to not give Iran every thing the Imperial Iranian Military asked for as it would have upset the balance in the region America was trying to establish. What I think you're missing here is that the United States would not have just given Iran Carte Blanche to order whatever it is they wanted, there are important geopolitical consequences/factors here that need to be addressed amongst a litany of other historical nuances that also should be accounted for. Iran was most definitely not the be all and end all of America's middle-east vision.

See, the way I view it is that since Iran would remained America's ally: Iran would have subsequently just stuck to an American style military that is conventional and heavily reliant on an expansive, expensive American styled Air-wing with all the amenities that come with it. There is very little room for indigenous advancement since all Iran would have needed to do is just buy some more arms from the West and call it a day turning Iran into just another nation that is dependent on others for its own protection.

Keeping that in mind, Iran's current ability asymmetrically would have just not been present (since the previous reasons that lead to it aren't there) and Iran would have to rely on conventional methods which during the Iran-Iraq war proved to be fruitful but way too expensive and resource consuming. This is something that Iran learned rather harshly during the Iran-Iraq war.

Although there is more to war than just missiles and radars etc, Iran's missile inventory keeps Israel, the Persian Gulf States and America on edge due to its sheer size and capability. A conventional military is something Israel and the United States can fight off effectively but an unconventional military is simply another beast.

So I guess when I put it that way, option two does sound more enticing due to its merits but both options realistically have their pros and cons. So it really is something that depends on the person.
 
.
I have mixed feelings about this issue but look at the Iranian economy. It's in ruins and only getting worse. Iran has sacrificed so much over the last few years and decades and what do we have to show for it ? A nuclear program ? But out nuclear program doesn't even power 10 percent of the power grid, not even 5. It's something like 2% and they keep saying it's going to increase but it never does.

If you think about it, right before the revolution Iran was on the verge of receiving nuclear weapons from Israel. Nuclear weapons, never mind nuclear energy. Look how much Iran has struggled and sacrificed just to be able to be a nuclear threshold nation. Back then Iran was on the verge of receiving nuclear weapons on a silver platter.

Then there's also Iran's space program, but in reality I mean how many functioning satellites does Iran have right now ? 1 ? Noor ? Realistically until Iran can successfully launch several large communication / military satellites in space and create a network of sorts, I don't see it as being very beneficial. Certainly not worth the pariah status.

Another benefit that is always pointed at is that "Iran is self sufficient" Okay but look at Korea, look at Japan. Look at Germany for example. All industrious, productive and self sufficient countries and they're all US allies.

Look at China, America's biggest adversary, yet they're America's largest or second largest trading partner. Everything in the US is "made in China" The Chinese have made a fortune from the US. They're America's biggest adversary but they own lots of assets in the US. Meanwhile Iran is economically ruined and thought of as a bogeyman, an evil empire, a pariah state. Honestly this "down with America" nonsense, those protests have cost Iran TRILLIONS of dollars. I don't like Obama but he was right when he said "chanting down with America doesn't create jobs"

In this day and age image is everything and even if your end goal is to combat American imperialism and injustice, being vocal and threatening is not going to help your cause. Imagine if the Chinese, rather than initiating trade with the US in the 80s, began holding protests in the 80s and saying "death to America" Today they would be dirt broke, poor, jobless, with a shattered economy.

You know the interesting thing about conservatives in Iran is that they were in power with Ahmadinejad, however after the economy was ruined, they made Ahmadinejad into a scapegoat and blamed him for everything. Then Rohani comes to power and now they're blaming him for the current state of the economy. Here's the thing though, according to the World Bank, Iran's economy is set to grow in the next 2-3 years. So when the next conservative president comes to power, even if he doesn't do anything substantial, Iran's economy will grow anyways because of groundwork that was laid during the Rohani era. But of course the conservative president will take credit for everything.

My point is that instead of blaming others for the current predicament, the power brokers in Iran should actually take responsibility for their own policies which have ruined Iran economically. People like Khamenei and others should realize, just like the Chinese eventually did after decades, that their policies are not benefiting their country or the people.

What I don't understand is this. If Iran is going to be sanctioned and it's economy ruined, why even hold back anymore. The Europeans are basically going along with the sanctions. Why doesn't Iran just build an ICBM or at least openly build a missile capable of reaching all of Europe and also boost the nuclear program to the point where Iran can at the very least build a nuclear submarine or power at the least 5% of the power grid ? I mean yes I suppose Iran doesn't want to upset China or Russia but in my opinion Iran should still push its boundaries.
That is exactly what I am saying. They tell us to chill and wait for the long game and shout death to America, while they send their own children to America and when attacked, they do nothing.
 
Last edited:
.
@sha ah

You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Iran is not a newcomer. Iran is thousands years of history behind it and the plans laid today is for thousand years to come. Iran is not playing the short game unlike most (excluding China). Iran will and should take eventual setbacks in favor of gains not 2 years, 10 years or even 50 years. The foundation that is built will keep get better for each iteration. The goal of IRI is to maximize the NUMBER OF ITERATIONS no matter what. It’s these iterations that will make all the difference.
Iran will not and should not endeavor its current path just to get “even” now, instead of the Superpower status 100 years from now.
 
Last edited:
.
You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Iran is not a newcomer. Iran is thousands year of history behind it and the plans laid today is for thousand years to come. Iran is not playing the short game like most (excluding China). Iran will and should take eventual setbacks in favor of gains not 2 years, 10 years or even 50 years. The foundation that is built will keep get better for each iteration. The goal of IRI is to maximize the NUMBER OF ITERATIONS no matter what. It’s these iterations that will make all the difference.
Iran will not and should not endeavor its current path just to get “even” now, instead of the Superpower status 100 years from now.

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of your post Sina, I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

My apologies lol, I'm quite tired right now and it's hard for me to make out what is what :laugh:
 
.
Although I generally agree with the sentiment of your post Sina, I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

My apologies lol, I'm quite tired right now and it's hard for me to make out what is what :laugh:
Dadash, I’m sorry. I quoted the wrong post. I’ll correct it now. I actually completely agree with that post of yours :)
 
. . . .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom