What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

"I have underscored that kill ratio comparisons are irrelevant", but I am happy to bring up 600+ US soldiers that were killed like 15 years ago for something that happened just 2 years and 2 of Iran's most important commanders were killed without any lethal retaliation. LOL

See the thread of the discussion.

1) I cited a standalone figure, not a ratio.
2) The reason I did this is not to say "wow, Iran caused so many US casualties, see how strong Iran is", but to show that absolute nuclear deterrence against any and all use of force, is a flawed notion.

And I believe that when America's nuclear weapons fail to prevent 600+ US military casualties, then this becomes pretty evident.

At the same time, when I realize that the US is responsible for over 500,000+ deaths of Iranians, it suddenly becomes irrelevant. LOL

Bringing up numbers of Iranian martyrs of the Sacred Defence is not relevant to my above described argument, which was solely about the limits of nuclear deterrence.

But even so: Washington failed in its attempt to have Saddam halt the Revolution, and Washington also failed to topple the IR via Saddam. These were their goals - rather than to kill more Iranians than Iran would kill American troops.

Dude, stop writing your nonsense. I know you're not Iranian because you have admitted it before on your own. I think you are an Afghan Hazara or something, but I don't know for sure. I think you type these long answers because you're on a payroll and you're paid by the number of words that you type. So, just cut it short. I don't have time to read long answers that only hit around the bush and avoid the real matter.

Quite unfortunate an ad hominem, is it not.

You say if Iran was armed with megatonne nukes, we would be sanctioned. I didn't know that we aren't sanctioned now. There are more sanctions on Iran than on North Korea currently. And again, since when you care about sanctions? I thought sanctions were a good thing?

You: "Iran needs megatonne nukes for deterrence (...) the situation is nowhere as good as you pretend it is because (...) our economy is bleeding from their unilateral sanctions."

Me: If you believe sanctions are bad for Iran, then the proposed solution for deterrence, ie megaton nuclear bombs, would be useless in this regard.

Hope this clears it up.
 
Last edited:
.
Lol what a hypocrite, aren't you the one who's 100% for sure living in the west, supporting the same system to be imposed on Iran and your own mother and sister are free to see on adult websites? Your fake outrage is pathetic and obvious to see. Apart from where I was born, where have I brown nosed anyone other than Iran? Whereas one doesn't need to look far to see your credulous bache kooni pandering to the enemies of Iran. We will never let your ilk have a significant footing in Iran, ever! Cope!

Doorghgooye kesafat! Agair rast migi kheyli pas bache kooni hasti ke miyay inja jelow e ma Amrikaro suk mizani, valad e zena! Familit bikhod kardan shaheed shodan baraye yel haroom zadeye mesle to! Nanat va babat faghad shahr-e-no baladan becharkhoonan dar gharb, va harshab bache sarbazaye amrikayi miyan koon e nanato jer midan, kharkoste. To ye bache yahoodi hasti, bayeed midonam che migi. Boro koon bede!
I am living in Tehran, fagg*t. Unlike you whose dream is to steal Iran's money and spend it in London for your English masters to pimp your mother and sister in England. You were never born in England. You're just embarrassed about using your real flags, madar jendeh.

Boro bache kooni. Felan boro to landan koonet ro bede. Felan ooni ro ke daran mikonan khahare jendeye pooste ghahveyie toye ke donbale kire sefid poost o siah poost oftade balke ye haroomzadeh mesle toro berine. Bache yahoodi toye kooni hasti ke to mahde zionism khaharo madareto harshab dari midi daste mardaye gheyre irani. Bede khaharo madareto khodam barat bokonam, beshin tamasha kon bebin chejoori namooset jigh mizanan roo kiram.

See the thread of the discussion.

1) I cited a standalone figure, not a ratio.
2) The reason I did this is not to say "wow, Iran caused so many US casualties, see how strong Iran is", but to show that absolute nuclear deterrence against any and all use of force, is a flawed notion.

And I believe that when America's nuclear weapons fail to prevent 600+ US military casualties, then this becomes pretty evident.



Bringing up numbers of Iranian martyrs of the Sacred Defence is not relevant to my above described argument, which was solely about the limits of nuclear deterrence.

But even so: Washington failed in its attempt to have Saddam halt the Revolution, and Washington also failed to topple the IR via Saddam. These were their goals - not just to kill more Iranians than Iran would kill American troops.



Quite unfortunate an ad hominem, is it not.



You: "Iran needs megatonne nukes for deterrence (...) the situation is nowhere as good as you pretend it is because (...) our economy is bleeding from their unilateral sanctions."

Me: If you believe sanctions are bad for Iran, then the proposed solution for deterrence, ie megaton nuclear bombs, would be useless in this regard.

Hope this clears it up.
You have been defeated completely by my arguments. I just love to see how you are now trying to change the subject.

Yeah, bringing up the number of Iranian martyrs is relevant because apparently on some stupid level you think killing 600+ soldiers who most of them were probably a bunch of low-life trigger happy scumbags is a big deal while you are trying your best to downplay the significance of Soleimani's assassination.

And saying that you are not an Iranian is NOT an ad hominem attack but rather a fact that justifies your long meaningless posts that add really nothing.

Again, another stupid remark on your part which is completely irrelevant to what I said. I believe megatonne nukes would end Iran's nuclear sanctions just like it did for China and Pakistan. However, you seem to be such a big fan of US sanctions on Iran, thinking that it is good for Iran. So, even if they sanction us, you should be up for it. So, why not? Don't have the cojohnes to build nukes?
 
.
Tokhme a yahoodi, YOU are critisizing, not WE! Know the difference. Not only that, but youre also suggesting that we should capititualte to the west because some mirage sanctions relief. Therefore, the only one here with the extra X chromosomes is definitely you. Sell out MKO terrorists like you only know how to come here and spread wide, because in reality Iran has built a formiddable independent state leaving sore losers like you behind in her wake. Keep crying, because that's all you will ever do.

To too khabet mibini, chon rastesho bekhay hitch ensani nemiyad shortesho darare baraye hamjenbaz e mesle to. To faghad ba film sooperaye khahareto jagh mizani, oonam mesle ye zan chon kiret enghadr koochike haha! Ama midoonim tamame sarbazaye amrikayi miyan kos e nanato va khareto mizaran, harshab. Babat enghad bigheyrato o kooni has dash koonesham midad be sarbazaye Amrikayi, nachari.
Tokhme sage semitic, it's not your fault that your mother was a party wh*re that had to use drugs and you got retarded, but it is your fault that you talk when you are retaded. Your mother should've taught you not to speak when intelligent people are speaking. After all, she shouldn't want you to go through what she and your father have been through all their lives.

Yadesh bekheyr, mamanet dishab ke dashtam mikardamesh khaterate panahande shodanetoon be Engilis ro dasht ta'reef mikard ke chetori baraye inke to o pedaret ba poolaye dozdi oonja panahande beshin majboor shod bekeshe payeen be mamoora jolo cheshme pedaret bede ta befrestanetoon camp e panahandeha. dorost nist ke madaret ro intori bahash bar khord koni. Doroste madaret jendast, amma ye kam roosh gheyrat dashte bash. Kheili masire sakhti ro baraye inke to o pedare koonit engilis panahande beshin tey karde. Khaharet ham dare rahesh ro ba eftekhar edame mide albate. Behar hal vaghti kolle khanevade kooni o jende bashan hamin mishe dige
 
. .
Iran, Russia, Israel, China, North Korea, U.S., U.K. and many others all operate very actively within the sphere of covert operations. So I truly do think that the downing of the E11-A was just another part of this "shadow-war" each side partakes in, It is what it is.

Moreover brother, my position has always been that the IRGC AEROSPACE MISSLE FORCE'S response should have been significantly more comprehensive. There were many more targets to be obliterated at Ayn Al-Assad but the IRGC decided to go after only so many. What the Americans had to say on the matter is of little to no consequence. We know from first-hand reports of Danish soldiers that were stationed at Ayn Al-Assad during the attack that "when they came out of their bunkers, helicopters were cut in half and there was widespread destruction".

I think the level of damage done was considerably more than what the Americans showed and the cover-up/clean up job was done as fast as possible so the story that came out downplayed Iran's operation in order to save-face. Apart of me also thinks that Iran knew that it could only take so much away from the Americans as, again, neither side didn't wants to engage in a costly war so the IRGC took the downing of the E11-A as enough of a blood-revenge to satiate the need for immediate reprisal. Ayn Al-Assad was as more of a show of strength than a "revenge operation".

It should be noted that, even though Iran has grown its military strength significantly over the recent years. There is no wish to get into a conflict that will see many of those gains destroyed or rolled back. Iran isn't suicidal in this regard.

 
.
When we would all discuss in a TV Show......you would be in place of following guy here.

Kuni Farda miam Hamelat mikonam.
Ooni ke hamele shode felan madare jendate ke hamelash kardam to bache kooni mozallef pas oftadi
 
.
this is the result of investigation
American military authorities opened an investigation into the incident.[4] The aircraft's flight data recorder was recovered.[2]

The investigation concluded that the crash was caused by a broken turbine blade on the left engine compounded by pilot error.[1] The crew misidentified which engine had failed. As a result, the pilots mistakenly shut off power to the right engine, believing the left engine was still intact. The failure to restart the correct engine in the air, and their attempt to return to Kandahar Air Base, substantially contributed to the mishap. With no working engines, the aircraft lacked the necessary altitude and airspeed to glide to the nearest base, forcing them to make an emergency landing on the snowy terrain, which proved too rugged to land safely.

honestly do you believe a Bombardier Global Express (Global 6000) can't show engine pressure ?
 
.
this is the result of investigation


honestly do you believe a Bombardier Global Express (Global 6000) can't show engine pressure ?
All indicators and signal lights were off, all displays were also off and didn't show the correct engine failure, none of the crew could see or hear or notice the sudden cut of engine noises.


Because the missile which broke that turbine blade had destroyed everything else too.:lol:
 
.
You have been defeated completely by my arguments. I just love to see how you are now trying to change the subject.

I quote by segments, hence my comments are bound to be directly related to what I'm replying to.

Yeah, bringing up the number of Iranian martyrs is relevant because apparently on some stupid level you think killing 600+ soldiers who most of them were probably a bunch of low-life trigger happy scumbags is a big deal while you are trying your best to downplay the significance of Soleimani's assassination.

I mentioned the US casualties solely to underscore the fact that America's nuclear bombs couldn't prevent them. And if curtailing the neocon plan for a "New Middle East" to a significant degree is not something worth mentioning, and don't know what is. On the other hand, more than two years have passed since Hajj Qasem's martyrdom and we're yet to see Iran suffer any geostrategic setbacks.

And saying that you are not an Iranian is NOT an ad hominem attack

Unlike the suggestion I might get paid to post.

I believe megatonne nukes would end Iran's nuclear sanctions just like it did for China and Pakistan.

Pakistan got sanctioned in 1998 precisely because of its acquisition of nuclear weapons. And these were lifted in 2001 by the Bush junior regime as a reward for cooperation with America's on its so-called "war on terror".

Whilst Beijing had obtained nuclear arms in 1964, the US trade embargo on China was lifted only in 1972. Reason was Nixon's policy of overture towards Beijing, motivated by Washington's desire to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and use it against the USSR and its allies, especially in southeast Asia.

Like Korea, Iran will surely remain sanctioned if she opts for nuclear weapons.
 
.
I quote by segments, hence my comments are bound to be directly related to what I'm replying to.



I mentioned the US casualties solely to underscore the fact that America's nuclear bombs couldn't prevent them. And if curtailing the neocon plan for a "New Middle East" to a significant degree is not something worth mentioning, and don't know what is. On the other hand, more than two years have passed since Hajj Qasem's martyrdom and we're yet to see Iran suffer any geostrategic setbacks.



Unlike the suggestion I might get paid to post.



Pakistan got sanctioned in 1998 precisely because of its acquisition of nuclear weapons. And these were lifted in 2001 by the Bush junior regime as a reward for cooperation with America's on its so-called "war on terror".

Whilst Beijing had obtained nuclear arms in 1964, the US trade embargo on China was lifted only in 1972. Reason was Nixon's policy of overture towards Beijing, motivated by Washington's desire to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and use it against the USSR and its allies, especially in southeast Asia.

Like Korea, Iran will surely remain sanctioned if she opts for nuclear weapons.
You quote by segments but your answers are full of nothing to be honest.

So, you are basically saying that Pakistan and China can convince the US to lift sanctions but Iran is not capable of that?!
China is more an existential threat to the US than the Islamic Republic can ever dream to be. If the US can have normal ties with China, why not with Iran? Korea is not an energy super power. Iran is an energy super power. Comparing North Korea to Iran with our impressive natural resources (oil, gas, helium, minerals, human resources) is again another meaningless argument that you have come up with.

And how long Iran has been under sanctions without building nukes? Definitely more than China and Pakistan combined. We could as well build nukes because we are going to stay under sanctions no matter what. After all, you have said it yourself, times and times again, that the West's problem with us is not the nuclear program and it's only an excuse. So, for how long do you wish to continue your blatant lies and hypocrisy and contradict yourself?

And again, your hypocrisy is clear. You say sanctions are good for Iran. So, what's the problem? Build nukes and let them sanction us. Don't you argue all the time that sanctions have already reached their maximum and cannot be extended further? So, what's the problem? Oh, are you saying that Iran should negotiate with the US and accept their limits on our nuclear program? Your hypocrisy is disgusting.

You mentioned the US casualties for a point that is even ridiculous to mention. Nobody uses nukes for proxy warfare casualties. The fact that you are even mentioning it is beyond ridiculous and insane. Are you suggesting that the US should nuke Iran because of indirect war casualties in Iraq? Even when Iran has never accepted responsibility for those casualties and has always denied them as baseless accusations? Or do you think the Taliban have established deterrence against the US because the US didn't nuke them for their attacks on US personnel? What kind of weird logic is this?
 
Last edited:
.
SalarHaqq if you are reading this then you should know that Iran has not achieved deterrence against the US. Having your number 1 general assassinated by the US proves this. The only US enemies to have achieved full scale strategic deterrence are North Korea, China and Russia.
 
.
@SalarHaqq and @QWECXZ

Wow, what a deep analysis and discussion, keep the good work 👍

الإختلاف في الرأي لا يفسد للود قضية

I still can't make my choice on who's right and who's is wrong 😁, the matter is very complicated and Iran is known to be walking on an narrow edge, can't blame it too much ....

@Daylamite Warrior , please stick to the topic, no need to call names and turn it personal, if you have ideas or analysis, you welcome, if not, no need to trash the thread, you still can report to mods if you feel being insulted or whatever.

Good night all 👋
 
.
You mentioned the US casualties for a point that is even ridiculous to mention. Nobody uses nukes for proxy warfare casualties. The fact that you are even mentioning it is beyond ridiculous and insane. Are you suggesting that the US should nuke Iran because of indirect war casualties in Iraq? Even when Iran has never accepted responsibility for those casualties and has always denied them as baseless accusations? Or do you think the Taliban have established deterrence against the US because the US didn't nuke them for their attacks on US personnel? What kind of weird logic is this?
Weird logic indeed. According to our friend SalarHaqq we need to be asking ourselves:

Why has India not nuked Pakistan? Pakistan supports militants that kill Indian soldiers.

Why has Pakistan not nuked India? India supports militants that kill Pakistani soldiers.

Why has Israel not nuked Iran? Iran supports Hamas that kill Israeli soldiers.

Why has USA not nuked Pakistan? Pakistans ISI supported many different militant group in Afghanistan that killed US soldiers.
 
Last edited:
. .
You quote by segments but your answers are full of nothing to be honest.

To be honest no, that isn't the case.

So, you are basically saying that Pakistan and China can convince the US to lift sanctions but Iran is not capable of that?!

Not really sure why you're misinterpreting my statements and losing the discussion thread. You claimed it was acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and China which made the US lift sanctions on these countries. I showed how this is not the case, since other factors presided over Washington's decision to lift sanctions in these two instances.

China is more an existential threat to the US than the Islamic Republic can ever dream to be. If the US can have normal ties with China, why not with Iran?

China is not a threat to the zionist entity. Zionism is a central part of the ideological basis of the US regime. Zionist symbols are integrated into official United States emblems, zionism is intrinsically linked to freemasonry (as per one rabbi, freemasonry is merely an adapted version of the Kabbala), and masonry in turn is the single most salient element in the US regime's ideological foundations - a simple look at the urban architecture of Washington D.C., seat of federal institutions, will make it more than clear. The dominant Anglo-Saxon settlers in north America were Puritanical Protestants of zionist persuasion, as evidenced by their belief in Rapture theology.

It's not Japan nor south Korea, nor India, nor any of the countries bordering the South China Sea which US presidents - no matter their political obedience, routinely and ritually praise and portray and the single closest entity to America, with sort of an organic link binding them together: it's Isra"el" and Isra"el" only.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether China will turn against the globalist oligarchy, which largely controls the US regime (including Democrat, classic Republican and fake opposition Trumpist camps). The revolutionary core of the Islamic Republic, however, is pursuing policies which are completely incompatible with the globalist design for a Universal Republic.

Korea is not an energy super power. Iran is an energy super power. Comparing North Korea to Iran with our impressive natural resources (oil, gas, helium, minerals, human resources) is again another meaningless argument that you have come up with.

It's simply another example of a country against which the US maintained sanctions after it chose to manufacture nuclear weapons. Again, it's necessary to stick to the thread of the discussion, I'm not speaking in a vacuum but strictly reacting to what was said before: here I was responding to the suggestion that nuclear weapons may encourage the US to lift sanctions. And that's not the case, be it with China, Pakistan, Iran or the DPRK.

And how long Iran has been under sanctions without building nukes? Definitely more than China and Pakistan combined. We could as well build nukes because we are going to stay under sanctions no matter what. After all, you have said it yourself, times and times again, that the West's problem with us is not the nuclear program and it's only an excuse. So, for how long do you wish to continue your blatant lies and hypocrisy and contradict yourself?

No contradiction. Nuclear weapons aren't an existential necessity for Iran. Not at this time nor under current circumstances. They may one day become unavoidable, but that's not the case right now.

Build nukes and let them sanction us. Don't you argue all the time that sanctions have already reached their maximum and cannot be extended further? So, what's the problem? Oh, are you saying that Iran should negotiate with the US and accept their limits on our nuclear program? Your hypocrisy is disgusting.

Where did I claim it's because of the prospect of additional sanctions that Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons at the moment? I'm saying Iran's nuclear program isn't the essential reason behind the US regime's sanctions policy against Iran. And secondly, that nuclear weapons won't add much to Iran's deterrence at this point in time and given the geopolitical context. There's no contradiction, nor hypocrisy in these statements.

As for the negotiations, once more I'll have to reference users mohsen and sanel1412's explanations on the subject. While adding that the limitations in question, many of which are subject to sunset clauses, do not deprive Iran of its break-out capability, nor of access to the entire spectrum of civilian nuclear technology. And thirdly, that considering Iran's principled stance at the negotiations, it is not guaranteed at all that the JCPOA is going to be revived in its original form to begin with.

You mentioned the US casualties for a point that is even ridiculous to mention. Nobody uses nukes for proxy warfare casualties. The fact that you are even mentioning it is beyond ridiculous and insane. Are you suggesting that the US should nuke Iran because of indirect war casualties in Iraq?

I'm suggesting that the largest nuclear arsenal in the world will not deter an adversary from resorting to specific forms of military action. That the belief according to which nuclear weapons will preclude any and all (military) casualties and damage is incorrect. And, that those US casualties in Iraq weighed more and were more impactful on the geopolitical reality than Hajj Qasem's martyrdom.

Furthermore, one might turn the quoted argument around and declare that it's ridiculous to even envisage that Iran would have used megaton nuclear weapons on the US for the murder of shahid Soleimani.

There's strictly nothing ridiculous about reminding these facts. What they do, however, is to debunk the supposition that in view of relevant parameters, nuclear weapons will improve Iran's security equation the way that has been suggested they would.

Even when Iran has never accepted responsibility for those casualties and has always denied them as baseless accusations? Or do you think the Taliban have established deterrence against the US because the US didn't nuke them for their attacks on US personnel? What kind of weird logic is this?

- - - - -

SalarHaqq if you are reading this then you should know that Iran has not achieved deterrence against the US. Having your number 1 general assassinated by the US proves this. The only US enemies to have achieved full scale strategic deterrence are North Korea, China and Russia.

What is full scale / non-full scale deterrence? Could you point me to a work of international relations theory introducing the concept?

Secondly, what I'm insisting on is this: Iran has undeniably achieved deterrence against the US on what actually matters in the big picture, on what actually might prove game-changing in the bilateral conflict. As much as I cherish Hajj Qasem, his martyrdom was not a game-changing event in the Iran-US confrontation, it did not trigger a deterioration of Iran's geostrategic standing vis a vis Washington.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom