Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You would still need some indication of where the opponent is, especially when he can strike beyond you missile range. Or else you simply have to obliterate any and all bases in the area.
However, for a country such as the US, which has bases like Guam, but also bases in other countries, and significant aerial refuelling capability matched to long range fighters like the F-15E and bombers like B-52, B-1B, B2, and stand off missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers or more, it is not that simple. What are you going to do? Preemptively rocket all your neighbours, just so they don't help the US? Or what if the US puts assets all over the place, aside from their own teritories? It's adversaries, plural. You would need to hit them all. You don't make a lot of friends that way, which is something to consider as well.The point of deterrence is having the capability to inflict "unacceptable levels of damage" to a potential adversary.
Now what is an "unacceptable level of damage"? In the modern world, that is very easily achievable. Countries nowadays have a low tolerance for damage on their home soil, and missiles are cheap.
Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.If Israel believed that Iran was incapable of dealing an unacceptable amount of damage to them, they would have taken out Iran's nuclear facilities a long time ago, like they did to various other countries in the region, notably Iraq and Syria:
You don't get it, clearly.You picked up that question by an offensive comment suggesting that:
either this footage is fake (based on your shining visions),
or Iran is weak (cause strong countries don't show off their military capabilities to others!)
or it's for internal consumption.
and I answered that genius western military analysts were saying Iran has just 3 missile launchers (in contradict to what you said about being aware through other means)
Yet, you ignored it and repeated that question again. and I suspect to this very comment you still didn't know what answer I was referring too.
That's the exact meaning of that action.
try harder.
However, for a country such as the US, which has bases like Guam, but also bases in other countries, and significant aerial refuelling capability matched to long range fighters like the F-15E and bombers like B-52, B-1B, B2, and stand off missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers or more, it is not that simple. What are you going to do? Preemptively rocket all your neighbours, just so they don't help the US? Or what if the US puts assets all over the place, aside from their own teritories? You would need to hit them all. You don't make a lot of friends that way, which is something to consider as well.
Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.
Perhaps. Or, they are confident they can do so at any time they choose in the future, and don't want to p... off their Uncle.
Cost is a relative term. After all, there may well be some things worth losing a carrier over. Without a relation to what is at stake, it is impossible to make the assessment that loosing a carrier is unacceptable.Sinking a carrier is like launching a tactical nuke in terms of the damage it would cause. The carrier itself is insanely expensive, it carries around a hundred advanced jet fighters, and 5000-6000 naval personnel.
That is clearly unacceptable damage as well.
You take whatever path gets you to your goal. The comparisons you make are flawed, because the underlying motivation would be different from that of a strike deep in Iran.USA and Israel aren't shy about launching wars, in the past decade alone USA launched 3 (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) and Israel launched 2 (Gaza/Lebanon). And they do airstrikes basically anywhere they want, from Syria to Yemen to Iraq.
But they never did the same thing to Iran. Clearly they weighed the cost/benefit ratio, and were not happy with the answer. Or Iranian nuclear facilities would have been bombed just like the ones in Iraq/Syria.
What is 'apparent' isn't necessarily true.I'm sure they could, the point is whether or not they are willing to absorb the costs of such an action (including the damage from a counterattack). Apparently they weren't.
What is 'apparent' isn't necessarily true.
1100 is TOTAL number of killed (including Hezbollah and other terrorists) according to Lebanese government. Thus obviously exaggerated. Iranians with their giraffe puppet slaughtered 250,000 and ethnically cleansed some 10,000,000 people.WTF are you talking about? In a course of about one month during the 2006 war your hopeless shyt army killed 1200 innocent civilians and wounded 4500 others. Syrian has been going on since forever.
Israel defeated 4 Arab countries in 6 days. You could not defeat 1 in 8 years.Couldn't even defeat an armed group (hezbollah) , talks shit to Iran...... Well thats not new.
looks like I have to copy my comments or else I have to run this debate with each Rohani supporters every few months.
problem starts right away after the part which you have highlighted:
Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day.
this is what you and Mr Zarif claim:
Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using nuclear ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day.
so according to you and Mr Zarif, Iran is called upon gently and in an unbinding way to not use nuclear missiles for just 8 years and after that we are free to do that!
and about the tone;
when you are in court and they ask gently to sit, then you have to sit. here you can't say they asked me gently, so I don't want to sit; unless you don't understand where you are standing.
in fact Rohani used the same trick to halt our nuclear activities for 2.5 years and advertized it as voluntary suspension, yet as we saw it, right away after we restarted our program they sanctioned us. what kind of "voluntary" it was?! the same kind of "called upon".
our enemy's job is to stop our advancements through whatever they can, including this resolutions. but Ahmadinejad didn't give up any of our rights in return of those resolutions, and didn't call them a national glory and didn't lie about what is written in them.
Mr Zarif has accepted a text (2231 resolution) which allows Americans to return the sanctions legitimately without violating the deal, and they will do it. but you can hide your head in the sand and repeat Mr Zarif lies.
You need a positive rating for this!Let me assure you, Zarif is much more Iranian than people like you, who do nothing but hurting this country. Ironically, you people best serve interests of Israel, US and UK.
So only because you are born in Iran (I assumed you are) doesn't mean you are a 'real' Iranian, maybe if you move to Israel, you'll have your interests best served.
Why does US grab every opportunity to show off its military capacities? Doesn't the world know it is a superpower?Good question!
If they are real, the country is strong militarily. But why would a strong country want to advertise like this? Wouldn't potential opponents already be aware of this through other means? So, imho, the show is mostly for internal consumption. But doesn't that suggests there are people on the inside that need convincing or reinforcing?
If they are fake, the country is weak militarily. Then you have a reason to make others on the outside believe otherwise, irrespective of internal sentiments, and perhaps also your own people.
Either way, there is an element of propaganda. Even if it is simply pride in accomplishment (which we all are prone to)
Only if there is a stationary or slow moving target.
1100 is TOTAL number of killed (including Hezbollah and other terrorists) according to Lebanese government. Thus obviously exaggerated. Iranians with their giraffe puppet slaughtered 250,000 and ethnically cleansed some 10,000,000 people.
Israel defeated 4 Arab countries in 6 days. You could not defeat 1 in 8 years.
You slaughter poor peasants in Syria but dont dare to send 1 soldier against Israel. Despite talk about destruction of Israel daily in past 35 years. Because ur leaders know very well that if they send their army against Israel it will get slaughtered like chickens. Unlike their baboon followers ur leaders are not dumb.
* Its u who started a conflict between us.As if you attacked Iran nuclear facilities despite all those huffing and puffing
No evidence for it.and behind scene you were pushing American to do it for you ....
Hezbollah started a war to gain Shabaa Farms. After losing hundreds of men and billions of dollars they achieved nothing. Hezbollah miserably failed.And Peretz resigned for nothing usually you guys would resign even when you sweep to victory ....and Olmert pledged in a statement after the report's release to begin work immediately on the panel's recommendations for "systemic" change within the military and civil command. for fun ,,, and finally :
The Winograd committee members said, Israel's diplomatic efforts allowed the country "to stop a war which it had failed to win."
And on defeating Arabs in 6 days .. that's good for you but you couldn't defeat a small group like Hezbollah in 33 days ...
Does it? Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't recall the US showing its silo drills on the news during the cold war. Neither did the Russians. Quite the contrary.Why does US grab every opportunity to show off its military capacities? Doesn't the world know it is a superpower?
In others words, like I said: propagandaSometimes key to getting into the head of your opponents' military and non military leaders is through their people. Make world people believe that you are really strong and then their leaders will have a much harder time selling the idea of a war with you to them.
oh OK thanks for let us knowIsrael only said that all options are on table to prevent ur A- bomb. Thats it.
You can call it what you like. US has been showing off its might in general in movies like Countdown, Top Gun and more recently Battleship and etc. And specifically the silos are shown in "The Day After" which was staged in 1983 right in middle of the cold war as an example. Many of the scenes are actual clips of actual drills which has been used in the movie.Does it? Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't recall the US showing its silo drills on the news during the cold war. Neither did the Russians. Quite the contrary.
In others words, like I said: propaganda
Neither does Taiwan ;-)
Look like Zarif want to annihilated our Missile programs .... this happen when your Foreign Minister has dual citizenship and his children are born in your enemy soil ....