Tiberius Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 10 hours ago, row_33 said: Give the Israeli Air Force a Hall pass to run a few errands Why would they do that? They have Trump to do their bidding. I mean, you think this is just a coincidence: Top stories Israel builds Trump a Potemkin village Washington Post 1 day ago Trump Heights, Binyamin Netanyahu’s tribute to America’s president The Economist 9 hours ago I'm sure they just really love the idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Donald Trump promised to bring our troops home. Instead he has pulled out of a deal that was working and instigated another unnecessary conflict. There is no justification for further escalating this crisis—we need to step back from the brink of war. https://t.co/roUHtzRlE8 — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 21, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said: No one likes that we backed out of the Iran deal. You really are deranged if you can actually explain this post. It wasn't a deal. It was extortion. 150 million in cash for the mullahs (who gave money to themselves and terrorist cells, not the country or people) in exchange for building a bomb slower. The "deal" accomplished nothing. Nothing. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It wasn't a deal. It was extortion. 150 million in cash for the mullahs (who gave money to themselves and terrorist cells, not the country or people) in exchange for building a bomb slower. The "deal" accomplished nothing. Nothing. Don't post before your coffee. 1.6 Billion in cash on pallets for Mullahs and 150 Billion in funds released that were actually Iran's that we had a hold on. Pays for a lot of IED's. Edited June 21, 2019 by 3rdnlng 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 42 minutes ago, Hedge said: Beginning of that thread (and I think Trump was being very kind to Obama). What is truly crazy is the responses to that first tweet "the money was working". Working to what? Fund more terrorism? 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: What is the purpose and capabilities of the PQ-4 Global Hawk? What type of surveillance was it designed to perform? Is it the ideal drone to send over another country's air space? The drone that was shot down was actually one of the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance drones for the Navy. There's two prototypes (modified RQ-4As) stationed in the Persian Gulf region; together, they can basically provide full-time high-res radar coverage of the entire Gulf, and reportedly are always in the air to watch the Iranian Navy when a US Navy ship transits the Straits of Hormuz. Given that - their purpose and the nature of the mission, there's no particular reason they'd need to be flown in to Iranian air space. Basically, they're not that sort of platform. Based on that, and what I know of the operators' restrictions and procedure, it probably was in international air space. Not certainly, because mistakes do happen. But most likely. Another point: if this was in the air specifically to support the transit of a Navy ship at the time, and the Iranians shot it down...that's pretty serious. That's not just the loss of a drone. That sends the chain of command's collective asses puckering, wondering if it's the opening of an attack on whatever ship's in transit. 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 President Trump confirms he called off retaliatory attack on Iran ‘10 minutes’ before strike It sounds like the release of this 'story' is designed to send a message to all concerned. . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The drone that was shot down was actually one of the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance drones for the Navy. There's two prototypes (modified RQ-4As) stationed in the Persian Gulf region; together, they can basically provide full-time high-res radar coverage of the entire Gulf, and reportedly are always in the air to watch the Iranian Navy when a US Navy ship transits the Straits of Hormuz. Given that - their purpose and the nature of the mission, there's no particular reason they'd need to be flown in to Iranian air space. Basically, they're not that sort of platform. Based on that, and what I know of the operators' restrictions and procedure, it probably was in international air space. Not certainly, because mistakes do happen. But most likely. Another point: if this was in the air specifically to support the transit of a Navy ship at the time, and the Iranians shot it down...that's pretty serious. That's not just the loss of a drone. That sends the chain of command's collective asses puckering, wondering if it's the opening of an attack on whatever ship's in transit. Yes, thank you. I had already read somewhere a few things about the RQ-4 Global Hawk and figured out that our military's synopsis made sense while that poster's didn't. My post to him was to solicit some answers that he would have to put some thought into. I believe that drone is not stealthy and has the capability to fly at extremely slow speeds at heights of 50,000 feet or more. Certainly not designed to enter another country's airspace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 @sherpa If you feel like sharing, I am curious about a few things. I really like to hear from those who have actually been on the front lines, as it's a perspective that can't ever be fully comprehended by those who haven't been there. Going with the 10 minutes timetable that has been mentioned, if strike aircraft were going to be involved (and were stationed in the immediate vicinity, much closer than 10 minutes flight time), how far into the process had it gotten? Would it be correct to assume that any pre-flight briefings had concluded, that individual targets had been parceled out, and that armaments would have been fully loaded? Would the pilots already have been in their planes awaiting take off, or would they have already been in the air? What would be the overall emotional sense of the pilots after getting called off? Relief? Disappointment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 LIZ SHELD’S MORNING BRIEF: Trump Pulls Back from Iran Strike, Media & Democrats Confused. “Let’s be honest, there are plenty of things the U.S. can do that don’t involve invasion and bombs: bank accounts can be emptied, people can disappear. It can be very dangerous to be an Iranian agent walking freely around Latin America and Africa. Things happen. ‘No comment’.” . Weird, but the Democrats, media and Iran all seem a little disappointed that Trump chose not to attack. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Yes, thank you. I had already read somewhere a few things about the RQ-4 Global Hawk and figured out that our military's synopsis made sense while that poster's didn't. My post to him was to solicit some answers that he would have to put some thought into. I believe that drone is not stealthy and has the capability to fly at extremely slow speeds at heights of 50,000 feet or more. Certainly not designed to enter another country's airspace. Not necessarily, considering they were originally purchased to complement/replace the U-2. But in this case, doctrine's an important qualifier. While the RQ-4A might be used as a strategic surveillance platform over other countries, that would be a mission more likely to be performed by the Air Force. In this specific case, this was a drone modified to support a specific Navy program of maritime ISR, and would be very unlikely to be used for overland missions. Particularly given the scarcity - there were only two in-theater, losing one just eliminated the capacity for full-time coverage of Persian Gulf traffic. The elimination of full-time surveillance actually creates some significant limitations on naval operations in the Gulf. For that reason alone, flying the Navy's BADS-M platforms over Iran would be downright reckless. 9 minutes ago, B-Man said: Weird, but the Democrats, media and Iran all seem a little disappointed that Trump chose not to attack. They're invested in the "Trump unstable warmonger" narrative. It's part of their identity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 20 minutes ago, B-Man said: LIZ SHELD’S MORNING BRIEF: Trump Pulls Back from Iran Strike, Media & Democrats Confused. “Let’s be honest, there are plenty of things the U.S. can do that don’t involve invasion and bombs: bank accounts can be emptied, people can disappear. It can be very dangerous to be an Iranian agent walking freely around Latin America and Africa. Things happen. ‘No comment’.” . Weird, but the Democrats, media and Iran all seem a little disappointed that Trump chose not to attack. they have written scripts for anything possible done by Trump and its outcome, all condemning him no matter what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hedge said: @sherpa If you feel like sharing, I am curious about a few things. I really like to hear from those who have actually been on the front lines, as it's a perspective that can't ever be fully comprehended by those who haven't been there. Going with the 10 minutes timetable that has been mentioned, if strike aircraft were going to be involved (and were stationed in the immediate vicinity, much closer than 10 minutes flight time), how far into the process had it gotten? Would it be correct to assume that any pre-flight briefings had concluded, that individual targets had been parceled out, and that armaments would have been fully loaded? Would the pilots already have been in their planes awaiting take off, or would they have already been in the air? What would be the overall emotional sense of the pilots after getting called off? Relief? Disappointment? I can answer some of that, but a guess at what Trump "called off" would be pure speculation. First, you have to consider the source. Trump saying "ten minutes" is not something I put a lot of credibility in. But, if that's true, it sounds like it was a cruise missile thing. They are easy to abort because its just guys with easy and reliable comm sitting at launch stations, whether in the air, at sea or on land. Calling off a really serious strike is a lot more problematic. People often don't get the word. To answer your question, from a manned aircraft strike package position, the airplanes would have been loaded and ready. On a carrier it would have been hours before, up to about one hour.. Same with the air Force Launch briefings would be very detailed, including tanking, (air to air refueling) plans, search and rescue considerations, post strike egress corridors to make it easier for AWACS or a carrier air wings early warning aircraft to know who was a friend or foe. Specific weapons delivery timing and a whole lot of other things. In addition, though the Air Force has an easier problem, once its launched a carrier strike force does not want to return and land with ordnance. They can, but it is really undesirable because the force of a carrier landing. Pilot are pilots. they get train to do this stuff and do what is necessary. Still, once a significant strike plan is launched, its pretty hard to turn it off, another reason I think this was probably a cruise missile plan against Revolutionary Guard air defenses or other assets. Edited June 21, 2019 by sherpa 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 They made a video with Jack Black and Morgan Freeman selling the Iran deal and are still aghast that Donald Trump is president....? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, sherpa said: I can answer some of that, but a guess at what Trump "called off" would be pure speculation. First, you have to consider the source. Trump saying "ten minutes" is not something I put a lot of credibility in. But, if that's true, it sounds like it was a cruise missile thing. They are easy to abort because its just guys with easy and reliable comm sitting at launch stations, whether in the air, at sea or on land. Calling off a really serious strike is a lot more problematic. People often don't get the word. To answer your question, from a manned aircraft strike package position, the airplanes would have been loaded and ready. On a carrier it would have been hours before, up to about one hour.. Same with the air Force Launch briefings would be very detailed, including tanking, (air to air refueling) plans, search and rescue considerations, post strike egress corridors to make it easier for AWACS or a carrier air wings early warning aircraft to know who was a friend or foe. Specific weapons delivery timing and a whole lot of other things. In addition, though the Air Force has an easier problem, once its launched a carrier strike force does not want to return and land with ordnance. They can, but it is really undesirable because the force of a carrier landing. Pilot are pilots. they get train to do this stuff and do what is necessary. Still, once a significant strike plan is launched, its pretty hard to turn it off, another reason I think this was probably a cruise missile plan against Revolutionary Guard air defenses or other assets. Thank you for the insights! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Asia has most to lose if Middle East turmoil hits oil supplies. “As Trump spelt out in the interview, the U.S. is no longer as dependent on oil from the Middle East as it was, thanks to burgeoning domestic production. Air Force General Paul Selva, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized the message a day later, pointing out that China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea were heavily dependent on supplies moving through the Strait of Hormuz, and needed to protect their interests. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made similar comments.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) Today's events in the Persian Gulf are still low wattage compared to the events of the mid-80s. Back then you had legitimate mining of the Gulf and several small scale offensive operations against the Iranians. The US Navy was in several battles with Iranian gunboats. You had an Iraqi jet fire Exocet missiles at the USS Stark. The USS Vincennes shot down an civilian Iranian air liner. You still had hostages in Lebanon. Edited June 21, 2019 by dpberr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 For what it is worth, Jack Keane is a retired 4 Star General. And if you don't follow this account, you are missing out: She isn't the most humble person, but her analysis is usually next level stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: It wasn't a deal. It was extortion. 150 million in cash for the mullahs (who gave money to themselves and terrorist cells, not the country or people) in exchange for building a bomb slower. The "deal" accomplished nothing. Nothing. And yet Donald Trump's state department is begging Iran to stay in compliance with Obama's extortion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And yet Donald Trump's state department is begging Iran to stay in compliance with Obama's extortion.... No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. How will we stop them? Obama's strategy did stop them and got inspectors in. Trump went in opposit direction and now they are making nuclear material again. That's an Obama step forward and Trump a step back And how are the Mullah's leaving? I thought Murduro was leaving too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 The Iran deal did nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program. That's a lie you've swallowed in full because you don't like to think for yourself. The Iran deal funded terrorism and gave the Mullahs a stay of execution. Nothing more. The people of Iran will be the masters of their nation's destiny. They do not want the Mullahs, even if you do. They do not want terrorists getting funding over the people, even if you do. We have been supporting the people (unlike the past administration who thumbed their nose at the people of Iran in favor of coddling the Mullahs) both in public and in covert operations. Those will continue. Sanctions will continue. There won't be a war, and the Mullahs will collapse from within. It's already happened. You're just on a ten minute delay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. It is political here too... Kerry whispering Biden would be friendlier to Iran so Iran should do A, B, and C ... but don't kill anyone. Killing someone gets you blown up. Trump will bomb you if you do A, B, and C - I promise! (To get the Iranian deal back) And then President Trump declines to escalate. It will be interesting to see Iran's next move - if they cannot provoke US action without killing Americans. Do they back off? Will they kill Americans (I hope not!)? If they kill Americans, then everything changes... and Iran gets that "war" they were hoping for, but at what price to them? Edited June 21, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: It is political here too... Kerry whispering Biden would be friendlier to Iran so Iran should do A, B, and C ... but don't kill anyone. Killing someone gets you blown up. Trump will bomb you if you do A, B, and C - I promise! (To get the Iranian deal back) And then President Trump declines to escalate. It will be interesting to see Iran's next move - if they cannot provoke US action without killing Americans. Do they back off? Will they kill Americans (I hope not!)? If they kill Americans, then everything changes... and Iran gets that "war" they were hoping for, but at what price to them? Who are you to deprive HAHA Gator of a good laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Who are you to deprive HAHA Gator of a good laugh? mea culpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Glad to see an ill advised, reactionary, stupid response wasn't our course. I'm more certain now than ever that what was called off last night was a cruise missile thing, which is very expensive and does little damage. Cruise missiles have small warheads. Kind of the big hat, no cattle thing. Looks cool, but does very little to your adversary. Still, there simply has to be a response. We cannot allow the Iranians, whether it's their central command or rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guard to destroy our stuff in international airspace. Going down that path has no good end. I don't care if it's military, economic, UN driven or any other means, or how long it takes to do something, but we simply cannot allow this to be inconsequential. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: Glad to see an ill advised, reactionary, stupid response wasn't our course. I'm more certain now than ever that what was called off last night was a cruise missile thing, which is very expensive and does little damage. Cruise missiles have small warheads. Kind of the big hat, no cattle thing. Looks cool, but does very little to your adversary. Still, there simply has to be a response. We cannot allow the Iranians, whether it's their central command or rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guard to destroy our stuff in international airspace. Going down that path has no good end. I don't care if it's military, economic, UN driven or any other means, or how long it takes to do something, but we simply cannot allow this to be inconsequential. You brought up something in an earlier post about jets returning to a carrier with ordinance. What’s the procedure for that? Are there conditions where they would shoot them into the ocean to make the landing safer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, CommonCents said: You brought up something in an earlier post about jets returning to a carrier with ordinance. What’s the procedure for that? Are there conditions where they would shoot them into the ocean to make the landing safer? Some stuff is no problem. Air to air missiles, air to ground missiles like anti radiation stuff used to take out radar sites are not a big deal. Dumb bombs are cheap and not worth the weight and risk of bringing them back aboard. More exotic stuff, which is far more expensive, is worth it. Things like flares, which is burning magnesium, providing one million candle power for night stuff, is absolutely not worth it, but fortunately, with the US's night capability, it isn't used much anymore, but would have to be jettisoned prior to landing. Either way, the sailors that work the flight deck don't like weapons on the landing airplanes, and neither does the captain. Lot's of bad things can happen. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, sherpa said: Some stuff is no problem. Air to air missiles, air to ground missiles like anti radiation stuff used to take out radar sites are not a big deal. Dumb bombs are cheap and not worth the weight and risk of bringing them back aboard. More exotic stuff, which is far more expensive, is worth it. Things like flares, which is burning magnesium, providing one million candle power for night stuff, is absolutely not worth it, but fortunately, with the US's night capability, it isn't used much anymore, but would have to be jettisoned prior to landing. Either way, the sailors that work the flight deck don't like weapons on the landing airplanes, and neither does the captain. Lot's of bad things can happen. Can't the shock of landing degrade weapon reliability, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: Can't the shock of landing degrade weapon reliability, too? Good question. Don't know. To your point, most of the stuff I carried ex dumb bombs was pretty sophisticated seeker head stuff, and the electronics guys would always plug into the seeker and test it before launch to validate performance, but other than air to air missiles, which were left on for a day at a time, most of the stuff was offloaded between cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 1 minute ago, sherpa said: Good question. Don't know. To your point, most of the stuff I carried ex dumb bombs was pretty sophisticated seeker head stuff, and the electronics guys would always plug into the seeker and test it before launch to validate performance, but other than air to air missiles, which were left on for a day at a time, most of the stuff was offloaded between cycles. I've read that it does, but not from a reliable source. A2A in particular, since it usually has to withstand multiple cycles. Makes a certain sense...but "makes sense" doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I've read that it does, but not from a reliable source. A2A in particular, since it usually has to withstand multiple cycles. Makes a certain sense...but "makes sense" doesn't make it true. I've been thinking about your post since I read it, and I can't really recall ever having an airplane that was loaded up on a previous cycle with air to mud and not downloaded. We always hooked the sidewinders first thing, and loaded the gun. F-14's did the same with sidewinder and sparrow. I think AMRAAM is the same. What most folks who aren't familiar with carrier aviation don't think about is that weight is a big thing. So is drag when coming aboard. Having a lot of dead weight in the wing pylons was a pain in the rear. For those reasons, you always planned to get rid of whatever you launched with, ex missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol Dirty B Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, GG said: Speaking of, care to refute Sherp’s facts since you called him out on it? Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post. None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post. If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed. I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country. I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda. We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution. I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down. Edited June 22, 2019 by Ol Dirty B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Ol Dirty B said: Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post. None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post. If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed. I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country. I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda. We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution. I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down. There is zero chance it was in Iranian airspace. We are not going to invade Iran, and any talk about "alienating" them should have been had in the 70's. Iran is an "Islamic Republic," and the people who are part of that "Islamic Republic" sailed that ship 40 years ago. The majority of the people aren't interested in being an "Islamic Republic,," The leadership of rogue nations that attack things in international airspace or waters need to pay serious consequences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said: Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post. None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post. If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed. I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country. I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda. We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution. I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down. I asked you some questions earlier in this thread that if answered should have brought you to the conclusion that our drone was indeed in international airspace. DC Tom went ahead and answered those questions with a somewhat full response. Did you not read those posts and learn something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 7 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said: Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post. None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post. Ok, so what's the more likely scenario: 1.) The US sent a $240,000,000 non-stealth drone that was specialized for naval surveilance, one of only two we have in the region, into Iranian airspace for schitts and giggles; or 2.) Iran is pissed off about the sanctions and someone in the IGRC acted out by firing at a non-stealth US drone in international airspace? Iran's story doesn't make sense. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Ok, so what's the more likely scenario: 1.) The US sent a $240,000,000 non-stealth drone that was specialized for naval surveilance, one of only two we have in the region, into Iranian airspace for schitts and giggles; or 2.) Iran is pissed off about the sanctions and someone in the IGRC acted out by firing at a non-stealth US drone in international airspace? Iran's story doesn't make sense. At all. He's chosen to ignore common sense in order to put Iran on an equal veracity level with the U.S. That seems to me like bending over backwards to believe in a country seeped in the art of lying. In fact, even their religion says it's ok to lie to someone outside their faith. We are fortunate here at PPP to have a fantastic array of different professions, educations and experiences. There are few subjects that can't be addressed here by an expert. In this instance not only have we had lay people chiming in with common sense responses but a military geek and an actual navy fighter pilot with experience in the very geographical area in question giving their opinions. "Dirty" knows more though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 If we spent $100 million on an unmanned drone which, by definition, is flown using a GPS guidance system, isn’t it a bit improbable that that system would even allow it to be flown into Iranian air space? If not, we’re all in BIG trouble when we get driverless cars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts