US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday

[Steeljack]

and why should we be concerned if this happens? crude oil prices would surely skyrocket

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.

The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.

full article

[3sgTe]

and another reason kaya sasalakayin ng U.S. ang iran kasi nalaman nila na nka acquire ng sate of the art bagong air defense system ang iran from russia w/c is quite deadly.. not nuclear arsenals but can be used this system also for launching nuclear missiles.. nabasa ko lately sa newsweek..
heto yung video link about tdun sa bagong air defense system from russia.. and also russia has the most powerful air defense system w/c is the TOR-M1 missile and Gauntlet SA-15 as of this era..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YI72CSiexQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLfmNOOBYLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PBQ8265Xm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khspfofd21I

[Jun aka Pekto]

and another reason kaya sasalakayin ng U.S. ang iran kasi nalaman nila na nka acquire ng sate of the art bagong air defense system ang iran from russia w/c is quite deadly.. not nuclear arsenals but can be used this system also for launching nuclear missiles.. nabasa ko lately sa newsweek..
heto yung video link about tdun sa bagong air defense system from russia.. and also russia has the most powerful air defense system w/c is the TOR-M1 missile and Gauntlet SA-15 as of this era..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YI72CSiexQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLfmNOOBYLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PBQ8265Xm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khspfofd21I

I thought the SA-15/TOR-M1 is designed to counter low-flying to mid-altitude attack aircraft. Mid-altitude extends to around 18000 ft. The SA-15 is useless against aircraft flying higher. Jury's still out on whether it can counter US cruise missiles or other battlefield missiles the way the US Patriot can. I'm curious myself to see how effective this Russian air defense system will be.

A nuclear warhead will need at least a Scud-sized missile for delivery. The SA-15 is way too small.

[3sgTe]

I thought the SA-15/TOR-M1 is designed to counter low-flying to mid-altitude attack aircraft. Mid-altitude extends to around 18000 ft. The SA-15 is useless against aircraft flying higher. Jury's still out on whether it can counter US cruise missiles or other battlefield missiles the way the US Patriot can. I'm curious myself to see how effective this Russian air defense system will be.

A nuclear warhead will need at least a Scud-sized missile for delivery. The SA-15 is way too small.

atleast gawin nilang nuclear warhead ang bawa't isang tor missile.. hehe.. pero sana wag.. mukhang madugo na naman to... mahal na araw pa.. ako din curious regarding russian armaments used by iran and their performance in a war.. mukhang hindi pipichugin ang iran

[BlueBimmer]

takot pala us of a dito?

[silverbx986]

it's not going to happen. i don't think US can afford another war.

[3sgTe]

takot pala us of a dito?

not actually takot.. medyo insecure lang sila.. hehehe! kasi sobrang daming ganito ang na acquire ng iran from russia.. bka kasi kung saan saan ikalat ng iran to shut down surveillance units ng us.. nabubuking na kc ang iran about their nuclear scuds.. hehehe

[Jun aka Pekto]

atleast gawin nilang nuclear warhead ang bawa't isang tor missile.. hehe.. pero sana wag.. mukhang madugo na naman to... mahal na araw pa.. ako din curious regarding russian armaments used by iran and their performance in a war.. mukhang hindi pipichugin ang iran

Ummmmm. Besides being too small for nuclear warheads, those missiles also have short range. Common sense dictates the missiles be stationed far away from the reach of US forces inside iraq. If that's the case even assuming each SA-15 has a nuclear warhead, if Iran launches those missiles, they'll still land inside Iran not too far away from where they were launched.

But at least on paper, the TOR-M1 looks formidable on paper versus tactical aircraft. But then, so did a lot of Iraq's SAM air-defense systems.

[Jun aka Pekto]

If this is true, you'd think China and other nations would be sending warships to deter the US from doing so since the resulting war zone will threaten their oil supply lines. Good Friday... That's April 6. 6 days away..... Start the countdown.

[3sgTe]

lalo na sa mga to...










e di tataas na presyo ng langis????? db jun?? naku po!

[Jun aka Pekto]

lalo na sa mga to...










e di tataas na presyo ng langis????? db jun?? naku po!

That's more like it. If I was Israel and US forces in Iraq, I would really be worried.... I'd be much more worried than just oil prices going up if Iran attains the capability to fit them with nuclear warheads. It's like giving a kid a loaded handgun.

[n2knee]

i already paid $4.00/gal yesterday, so i say bring it on. i have a bicycle just in case.......

i don't think the US can afford to have three wars going on at the same time...the US military is already stretched thin due to it's nation-building and counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the prospect of waging a third war against Iran will bring severe negative effects in the US military.

first, a third war will increase the demand for use of the military outside our own soil. so instead of having to rotate the units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military would have Iran as part of their rotation. increased and more frequent rotational deployments reduce the number of units ready at home for contingencies thay may happen quickly. think about what happened during the hurricane katrina. we were short handed, because most of our units were either serving in Afghanistan or in Iraq. some are stationed in other countries, but the bulk of it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. the result was chaos in New Orleans.

a third war would also lead to a more lenghty deployment of the military units, which means that our soldiers will be taken away from home and away from their love ones (i'm glad i'm out). this may reduce morale if sustained over the long term. this is probably the reason the recruitment rate is steadily dropping in the last few years. heck, why would i want to join if i know they're going to sacrifice me after my training? knowing the life expectancy of a US soldier in Iraq is only a few months, why bother joining the military? the cost-benefit is not worth taking a risk for in my book.

[n2knee]

oh...naalala ko pala, the $1+ billion military budget may not be approved (there is a very strong possibility)......so saan kukuha ang US military ng pera para sa third war?

[Jun aka Pekto]

think about what happened during the hurricane katrina. we were short handed, because most of our units were either serving in Afghanistan or in Iraq. some are stationed in other countries, but the bulk of it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. the result was chaos in New Orleans.

The Louisiana Army Guard was there. They just weren't called out in time due to stupidity from both state and federal governments.

heck, why would i want to join if i know they're going to sacrifice me after my training? knowing the life expectancy of a US soldier in Iraq is only a few months, why bother joining the military? the cost-benefit is not worth taking a risk for in my book.

The USAF is at full capacity. I read the AF Times recently which had an article saying the AF is overmanned by 40k troops. Not sure about the other services, though.

[n2knee]

The USAF is at full capacity. I read the AF Times recently which had an article saying the AF is overmanned by 40k troops. Not sure about the other services, though.

the army and marines failed to meet their quotas (i'm talking about new recruits not re-enlisted troops), because, in my opinion, the possibility of being sent for at least one tour of duty, which may last from 6 - 12 months in Iraq/Afghanistan and the high rate of soldiers KIA are one of the many reasons why recruitment is down. additionally, the low unemployment rate here in the USA is also a factor in the decrease of recruitment rates in the Army and Marines. it is very interesting to know that the US Air Force is overmanned as you mentioned. i would be interested to find out the number of USAF casualties in the two wars since the invasion began. maybe there is a correlation between the recruitment rates in the three military branches and the number of casualties suffered in each branch.

[Jun aka Pekto]

i would be interested to find out the number of USAF casualties in the two wars since the invasion began. maybe there is a correlation between the recruitment rates in the three military branches and the number of casualties suffered in each branch.

OT
There definitely is a correlation between recruitment rates and casualty rates. The very nature of who goes to combat is different among the services. The ground pounders (marines and army) naturally have the bulk of casualties. Most air force and navy casualties are aviators. But, gleaning articles from Stars & Stripes and AF times, an increasing number of air force personnel are being given tasks normally allocated to the ground pounders, including combat. I would imagine it's the same with the navy.

It is tough to be in the service nowadays citing the factors you mentioned earlier. I've done my time to king and country before the current conflicts. If I have to do it again......... I don't know. At my age, they're going to have to dangle a nice fat carrot before I bite.

[GasJunkie]

^^^^

:rofl01: