If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

2012-02-27 02:10:58

#426

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty sure that stuff gets thoroughly X-rayed from about a zillion different angles.

That would be in violation of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations. That shit can't be searched or seized if marked properly. Which was why people thought the Soviet Embassy had nukes inside.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 06,00.html

No, Kennedy continued, it was his understanding that the Soviets had brought the components of an atomic device into the building in inspection-free diplomatic pouches and assembled it in the upstairs attic. "If things get too bad and war is inevitable," he said, "they will set it off and that's the end of the White House and the rest of the city." I laughed. Still suspending his bite of fish, Kennedy said, "That's what I'm told. Do you know something that I don't?" No sign of mirth. The conversation moved on.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-02-27 03:00:44

#427

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.

And what makes you think we know where all of Pakistan's nukes are (they may even have a problem with that)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-27 03:07:45

#428

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

FEOS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.
And what makes you think we know where all of Pakistan's nukes are (they may even have a problem with that)

US air force even lost a nuke before lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Unite … s_incident

2012-02-27 03:08:25

#429

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

FEOS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.
And what makes you think we know where all of Pakistan's nukes are (they may even have a problem with that)

Ignorance makes him think that.

2012-02-27 04:09:23

#430

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5518|foggy bottom

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Spark wrote:
Yes, I can see so many good things about invading a highly militarised state that has been on a high level of war readiness for the entirety of its existence as a nation-state, and has dozens of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to boot.
Yes yes, because Pakistan stands a better chance than Iraq did. Back in '03 before the March invasion the Iraqi military was among the largest in the world

no it wasnt

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-27 04:25:51

#431

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

Dude they were like defintiely in the top 50.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-27 04:27:52

#432

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

Army of 400,000 is still pretty big tbh.

2012-02-27 04:28:01

#433

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:
FEOS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.
And what makes you think we know where all of Pakistan's nukes are (they may even have a problem with that)
US air force even lost a nuke before lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Unite … s_incident

Nah. We knew where it was...sort of.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-27 06:57:50

#434

coke: Aye up duck!; +440|6968|England. Stoke

Shifty should get a job at Janes or something.

2012-02-27 10:35:50

#435

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6731|Kakanien

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan. They're harboring AQ better than Saddam did.

worst troll ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2012-02-27 12:34:33

#436

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6991|Cambridge, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.

Also Pakistan saying they'll nuke India if they're invaded is like saying I'll

Ah yes because US intelligence has been so good recently I expect you probably no every single site and capability.

2012-02-27 16:45:01

#437

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.

Also Pakistan saying they'll nuke India if they're invaded is like saying I'll
Ah yes because US intelligence has been so good recently I expect you probably no every single site and capability.

You're kidding right? Every few weeks there's a "x amount of bad guys killed in drone strike." I hear the Pentagon has war plans for invading any nation. I'm sure they keep track of nuclear weapons. Especially when Pakistan harbors AQ and the likes. Wouldn't want those nukes to fall into the wrong hands. You can never be too paranoid with nukes.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-02-27 16:47:56

#438

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.

Also Pakistan saying they'll nuke India if they're invaded is like saying I'll
Ah yes because US intelligence has been so good recently I expect you probably no every single site and capability.
You're kidding right? Every few weeks there's a "x amount of bad guys killed in drone strike." I hear the Pentagon has war plans for invading any nation. I'm sure they keep track of nuclear weapons. Especially when Pakistan harbors AQ and the likes. Wouldn't want those nukes to fall into the wrong hands. You can never be too paranoid with nukes.

lol. yeah US so good at tracking nukes they lost their own for 36 hours

2012-02-27 16:48:52

#439

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5518|foggy bottom

broken arrow was a shit movie

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-27 17:13:35

#440

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5732|Ventura, California

Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Ah yes because US intelligence has been so good recently I expect you probably no every single site and capability.
You're kidding right? Every few weeks there's a "x amount of bad guys killed in drone strike." I hear the Pentagon has war plans for invading any nation. I'm sure they keep track of nuclear weapons. Especially when Pakistan harbors AQ and the likes. Wouldn't want those nukes to fall into the wrong hands. You can never be too paranoid with nukes.
lol. yeah US so good at tracking nukes they lost their own for 36 hours

No plan is perfect

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-02-27 21:42:08

#441

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6975

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:

You're kidding right? Every few weeks there's a "x amount of bad guys killed in drone strike." I hear the Pentagon has war plans for invading any nation. I'm sure they keep track of nuclear weapons. Especially when Pakistan harbors AQ and the likes. Wouldn't want those nukes to fall into the wrong hands. You can never be too paranoid with nukes.
lol. yeah US so good at tracking nukes they lost their own for 36 hours
No plan is perfect

Just like the US thought Saddam had WMD's and all the intel to back it up right.

2012-02-28 00:35:59

#442

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:
Just like the US thought Saddam had WMD's and all the intel to back it up right.

They never believed that, any more than they really believe Iran having nukes would be a threat to anywhere.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-28 02:37:50

#443

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Just like the US thought Saddam had WMD's and all the intel to back it up right.
They never believed that, any more than they really believe Iran having nukes would be a threat to anywhere.

Nah. The US didn't believe it. Neither did all those other countries who said the same thing. It was all just a giant conspiracy.

picardfacepalm.jpg

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-28 03:24:42

#444

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6411|what

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Just like the US thought Saddam had WMD's and all the intel to back it up right.
They never believed that, any more than they really believe Iran having nukes would be a threat to anywhere.
Nah. The US didn't believe it. Neither did all those other countries who said the same thing. It was all just a giant conspiracy.

picardfacepalm.jpg

All those other countries?

Do you remember the dismissive way the countries who objected were treated?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2687403.stm

"Old Europe". lol

2012-02-28 03:59:20

#445

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Just like the US thought Saddam had WMD's and all the intel to back it up right.
They never believed that, any more than they really believe Iran having nukes would be a threat to anywhere.
Nah. The US didn't believe it. Neither did all those other countries who said the same thing. It was all just a giant conspiracy.

picardfacepalm.jpg

You mean Britain and Israel?

Blair has been throroughly discredited, and Israel never had any credit.

So where did those truckloads of WMD go then?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-28 03:59:49)

Fuck Israel

2012-02-28 08:03:38

#446

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

More than Britain (not just Blair) and Israel.

And Reaps: you're mixing the burden of the argument. Multiple countries agreed that the intel pointed toward an active WMD program...they just disagreed on how to deal with it. That was the source of disagreement, not that Iraq was a problem.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-28 08:18:10

#447

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6731|Kakanien

FEOS wrote:
More than Britain (not just Blair) and Israel.

Multiple countries agreed that the intel pointed toward an active WMD program

intel that was provided by the us because almost any other country within the coalition of the willing lacked (and still lacks) the means of gathering reliable intel themself. some of the intel was even made up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2012-02-28 12:26:57

#448

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6991|Cambridge, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Can't launch nukes if we know where they're all at before we even start invading them and destroy their silos and any other means of deployment. I'm not saying it's an easy task but it would not be impossible.

Also Pakistan saying they'll nuke India if they're invaded is like saying I'll
Ah yes because US intelligence has been so good recently I expect you probably no every single site and capability.
You're kidding right? Every few weeks there's a "x amount of bad guys killed in drone strike." I hear the Pentagon has war plans for invading any nation. I'm sure they keep track of nuclear weapons. Especially when Pakistan harbors AQ and the likes. Wouldn't want those nukes to fall into the wrong hands. You can never be too paranoid with nukes.

I would expect they can report how many people they shot with their remote control planes, they are looking at them ffs.

"I blewd up 2 today"
"WOW how did you know ! "

I have war plans for invading any nation, doesn't mean they would work, or that they are any good, or that I know everything.

If you're intelligence is soo amazing then why do you have Guantanamo bay? For all the people that you cant prove did anything wrong... right?

2012-02-28 13:01:00

#449

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6850

Dilbert_X wrote:
So where did those truckloads of WMD go then?

You mean other than all the ones "chemical" Ali used against the Kurds,
all the chemical shells they launched at coalition troops during Desert Storm,
The Iraqi modified scud missiles designed for chemical payloads that US forces destroyed,
link, link, link, link

If you dig, there may be pictures of blown up chemical scuds on BF2S.
Wiki has details of the Al Anfal campaign

Short version:
After the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's military was weakened.
Saddam exaggerated his chemical WMD capabilities, to compensate for his conventional military's weakened state.
US politicians decided to play along with Saddam's exaggeration.

We really should've finished the job in 1991, and removed Saddam from Iraq then
- regardless of how much Wolf Blitzer cried about the "highway of death", or how often he wet himself live from the Baghdad Hilton.

2012-02-28 17:44:30

#450

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6411|what

rdx-fx wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So where did those truckloads of WMD go then?
You mean other than all the ones "chemical" Ali used against the Kurds,
all the chemical shells they launched at coalition troops during Desert Storm,
The Iraqi modified scud missiles designed for chemical payloads that US forces destroyed,
link, link, link, link

If you dig, there may be pictures of blown up chemical scuds on BF2S.
Wiki has details of the Al Anfal campaign

Short version:
After the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's military was weakened.
Saddam exaggerated his chemical WMD capabilities, to compensate for his conventional military's weakened state.
US politicians decided to play along with Saddam's exaggeration.

We really should've finished the job in 1991, and removed Saddam from Iraq then
- regardless of how much Wolf Blitzer cried about the "highway of death", or how often he wet himself live from the Baghdad Hilton.

None of those were given as reasons for a new invasion. So try again.

BF2S Forums If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer