Can the Iranian sink a US Carrier Group?

[Kryten]

I'm not going to entertain the ignoramus on this board unless we're discussing about the technical aspects of the scenario I have outlined.

Now that we are back on this subject, can we have a source with more credentials than that self-declared 'armchair general' that Iran even has sunburn missiles?

[Thanas]

Hey dipshit SHUT THE FUCK UP. I am not going discuss this with an ignoramus such as you. You obviously have no idea about the conventions and norms for analyzing nation politics.

Oh, I don't? Well then, you stating it makes it certainly so. How about you reply with anything substantive and quit raging like the short-dicked virgin you are?

So is the US repaying Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, because the Afghanistan invasion was perfectly legal and the Iraqis have not sued the US or tried to claim reparations.

What laws a country enact to govern it's behavior with other countries is different from the international laws you were talking about. Stop bullshiting and obfuscating two separate concepts. The UN is a spineless entity, it does not govern the action among nation states. The fucking UN was formed to ensure that its member would have rights as SOVEREIGN states to do as they please within their own jurisdiction. The UN is an attempt of the superpowers of that time (aka WW2 winners) to impose their idea of international norms to the rest of the world. The UN is not and has never been a legal entity to govern nation behavior. YOU are the fucking IGNORAMUS HERE!

Actually, the UN is a legal entity which does, among other things, regulate nation behavior. Which is why we have those things called UN resolutions.

You fucking IDIOT. Laws and enforcement go hand in hand. If there is no "higher authority" to meet out "punishments" to enforce "the law" there is no legal system.

I assume you will also claim that laws which are still on the books but not enforced are still not laws? Your ignorance is showing.

This is why international law is a misnomer. There is no high court to punish or regulate the way nation states behave. The US getting UN approval was more of a POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC maneuver to get support, it was never about complying with LEGAL requirements. You are a real FUCKING IDIOT when it comes to international politics did you know that? Hey International Politics 101: THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAWS (yes, the media always make reference to international laws, but they are not real laws as we know of them in civilian life).

Yes they are. Do you deny that international law is created by consensus among nations and enforced by nation states or organizations like the UN security council? Just because your definition of law is too narrow does not mean it is correct, shortus dickus.

It is only a law if it can be enforced, and it is unenforceable.

The Yale Law Yournal has a good summary on the situation.

I do not have to talk nicely to FUCKING RETARDS like you who do not even have slightest idea of how academics in the field analyze international politics, and then you try to impose layman expectation on a field that has clearly established that nation states are amoral entities.

Please establish your credentials in the field now, as you claim to be an expert.

[That NOS Guy]

I'm not going to entertain the ignoramus on this board unless we're discussing about the technical aspects of the scenario I have outlined.

As others have asked, does Iran even have A.) SS-N-22s? B.) The targeting assets?

Because if it doesn't, and it doesn't, this thread is garbage.

Obviously the largest empty vessels here have no inkling of the norms of discussing and analyzing the action of nation states, so it's an obvious waste of time to debate with these ignorant fools.

Might as well ask what Iran would do to ISAF forces in A-stan with it's army of T-Rexs.

[AndroAsc]

[

As others have asked, does Iran even have A.) SS-N-22s? B.) The targeting assets?

Because if it doesn't, and it doesn't, this thread is garbage.

The point is to discuss about whether an Iranian cruise missile alpha strike can take out a US carrier group, not to speculate if they have 10 or 1000 cruise missiles. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the Iranians have few hundred of the supersonic sunburn cruise missiles.

In my first post I already cited 2 sources. Admittedly it's not the best, but what were you expecting? Classified documents on the US intelligence report of Iranian cruise missile assets? The most reliable source was the following:

In 2001, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is "able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers were not disclosed.

Maybe somebody can get an more updated report?

EDIT: Another report from 2006 states that the Iranian have tested a sunburn missile back then:
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/100226

[Thanas]

^Yes, why don't we assume they got flying ponies that drop atom bombs on them as well.

[AndroAsc]

^Yes, why don't we assume they got flying ponies that drop atom bombs on them as well.

Shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add...

[Thanas]

^Yes, why don't we assume they got flying ponies that drop atom bombs on them as well.

Shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add...

I'll add the following:

If the best you got to support your original scenario is a line that says Iran "might" be trying to get anti-ship missiles, then you got nothing, shortus dickus.

Glad to have been of service.

[Serafina]

Why not assume that they have orbital space lasers?

The point that flew right over your head, AndroAss, is that it's pointless to just speculate "oh let's just assume they have hundreds of missiles". Especially when them having those missiles is utterly unrealistic.

[AndroAsc]

Why not assume that they have orbital space lasers?

The point that flew right over your head, AndroAss, is that it's pointless to just speculate "oh let's just assume they have hundreds of missiles". Especially when them having those missiles is utterly unrealistic.

See the edit. They tested the sunburn in 2006.

[AndroAsc]

^Yes, why don't we assume they got flying ponies that drop atom bombs on them as well.

Shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add...

I'll add the following:

If the best you got to support your original scenario is a line that says Iran "might" be trying to get anti-ship missiles, then you got nothing, shortus dickus.

Glad to have been of service.

Fuck off asshole. They tested a missile in 2006.

[Thanas]

Fuck off asshole. They tested a missile in 2006.

Which you edited in after I had already posted, sweetcheeks.

[AndroAsc]

Even wiki confirms that they have sunburn missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... .28Asia.29

The million dollar question is how many of those do they have?

[That NOS Guy]

WORDS

So, you've got nothing essentially. It's worth having a warplan for everything, but why stop at merely a couple hundred SS-N-22s? You'd have to give them all the infrastructure to back it up which Iran cannot afford to purchase, man, and maintain.

What's the point of giving them a weapon for hypothetical purposes but not the system it's designed to go into?

Might as well ask what Iran would do to ISAF forces in A-stan with it's army of T-Rexs.

[That NOS Guy]

Even wiki confirms that they have sunburn missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... .28Asia.29

The million dollar question is how many of those do they have?

Fascinatingly, the wiki article on the Sunburn which credits Iran as having it has a big fat 'citation needed' on it.

[Kryten]

In my first post I already cited 2 sources. Admittedly it's not the best, but what were you expecting? Classified documents on the US intelligence report of Iranian cruise missile assets?

The evidence from your first source;

I think they have armed Iran to the teeth.

I kind of expected more evidence than a guess.
The second article lists all the nations that we know have Sunburn missiles, because of the Russian's openly conducted arm deals, and appends 'and Iran' to it, without any kind of evidence. The disclaimer given at the site probably puts it better than I could;

We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise.

FAKE EDIT:

Even wiki confirms that they have sunburn missiles.

Operators
Iran[citation needed]

[AndroAsc]

I rest my case. It seems that people are not interested in discussing about the hypothetical scenario I posted. That's fine, no need to be fucking insulting. Middle fingers to you dudes

And That NOS Guy, have you even bothered to read the 2 article? HAS ANYONE? The fucking missile can be launched from a flatbed truck. It's not some uber high equipment. The Russians and Chinese develops these kind of missiles because it was simple, cheap and they could spam it and potentially wipe out a naval invasion force (read: USA). I only hope that the US naval takes the possibility of a cruise missile spam more seriously than you guys, if not lots of American lives will be wiped out in the first skirmish. And it will be disaster if the media uses this incident to play up local support for another 10-year campaign in the middle east.

[That NOS Guy]

I rest my case. It seems that people are not interested in discussing about the hypothetical scenario I posted. That's fine, no need to be fucking insulting. Middle fingers to you dudes

Internet hatred

And That NOS Guy, have you even bothered to read the 2 article? HAS ANYONE? The fucking missile can be launched from a flatbed truck. It's not some uber high equipment. The Russians and Chinese develops these kind of missiles because it was simple, cheap and they could spam it and potentially wipe out a naval invasion force (read: USA). I only hope that the US naval takes the possibility of a cruise missile spam more seriously than you guys, if not lots of American lives will be wiped out in the first skirmish. And it will be disaster if the media uses this incident to play up local support for another 10-year campaign in the middle east.

You're adorable, you know that right? Much in the same way a retarded pug is.

[Terralthra]

You fucking IDIOT. Laws and enforcement go hand in hand. If there is no "higher authority" to meet out "punishments" to enforce "the law" there is no legal system.

I assume you will also claim that laws which are still on the books but not enforced are still not laws? Your ignorance is showing.

While AndroAsc is in many other ways an idiot, there is, in the US, case law stating that laws which are on the books but: go unenforced for long periods of time despite open, pervasive, and notorious violation; and proscribe acts which are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se; may be rendered void by virtue of lack of enforcement. See Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992).

[Thanas]

You fucking IDIOT. Laws and enforcement go hand in hand. If there is no "higher authority" to meet out "punishments" to enforce "the law" there is no legal system.

I assume you will also claim that laws which are still on the books but not enforced are still not laws? Your ignorance is showing.

While AndroAsc is in many other ways an idiot, there is, in the US, case law stating that laws which are on the books but: go unenforced for long periods of time despite open, pervasive, and notorious violation; and proscribe acts which are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se; may be rendered void by virtue of lack of enforcement. See Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992).

Well, I don't know about the situation in the USA, but USA domestic law principles should have no bearing on international laws. Needless to say several nations do indeed have laws on the books that are still valid but unenforced.

[Sea Skimmer]

4) The US navy has not been tested against this hypothetical cruise missile spam.

Do you know what a Vandal or Coyote is in reference to the USN? Well, I dont need to ask that really, I know you don't or else you'd know why you are completely fully of shit just like rense. Since you think rense is a credible source at all, we can already assume you are a complete and utter moron until prove otherwise.

In any case, on a more realistic note confined waters make mines and torpedoes a far greater threat then any effect they have on Iranian missile armament. Limited sea room is a big deal if you come under attack by either weapon, against missiles it makes little real difference. Iran might well be able to sink a US aircraft carrier but I'd worry immensely more about a spread of Shkval fired at close range in the first minutes of a war doing it. Course emulating PEARL HARBOR, one of the greatest strategic blunders in history is just about the dumbest thing Iran could ever do since it'd force the US into an all out war to the death with Iran, which Iran can only loose horribly, while such a war is otherwise highly implausible.

[Chirios]

So is the US repaying Iraq and Afghanistan?

No because neither of those nations are requesting reparations. But other countries have requested and gotten reparations for various acts. The UN was once paid reparations for the death of one of its' state actors.

What laws a country enact to govern it's behavior with other countries is different from the international laws you were talking about. Stop bullshiting and obfuscating two separate concepts. The UN is a spineless entity, it does not govern the action among nation states. The fucking UN was formed to ensure that its member would have rights as SOVEREIGN states to do as they please within their own jurisdiction. The UN is an attempt of the superpowers of that time (aka WW2 winners) to impose their idea of international norms to the rest of the world. The UN is not and has never been a legal entity to govern nation behavior. YOU are the fucking IGNORAMUS HERE!

No he isn't. The UN has legal authority over sovereign states. The ICJ has legal authority over sovereign states. While you might not agree with what the UN does in some situations and while the UN has had difficulty with exercising its authority over the Big Five (the Security Council); it very much does have legal authority.

You fucking IDIOT. Laws and enforcement go hand in hand. If there is no "higher authority" to meet out "punishments" to enforce "the law" there is no legal system. This is why international law is a misnomer. There is no high court to punish or regulate the way nation states behave.

Bollucks.

It is only a law if it can be enforced, and it is unenforceable.

International law is constantly enforced in many situations in many ways.

[weemadando]

4) The US navy has not been tested against this hypothetical cruise missile spam.

Do you know what a Vandal or Coyote is in reference to the USN? If not then please go away. Also since you think rense is a credible source, we can assume you are a complete and utter moron until prove otherwise.

In any case confined waters make mines and torpedoes a far greater threat then any missile armament Iran has. Limited sea room is a big deal if you come under attack by either weapon, against missiles it makes little real difference. Iran might well be able to sink a US aircraft carrier but I'd worry immensely more about a spread of Shkval fired at close range doing it. Course emulating PEARL HARBOR is just about the dumbest thing Iran could ever do since it'd force the US into an all out war to the death with Iran, which Iran can only loose horribly, while such a war is otherwise highly implausible.

The scenario that I've often seen in breathless, crazed fiction is hte "Iran blocks Straits of Hormuz by scuttling a few ships in the lane and mining it". But given that it's a multi-mile wide lane, this too seems a little ridiculous. You can certainly increase navigation hazards and mine the shit out of it, but blocking it entirely seems infeasible, unless I'm missing something.

[Chirios]

While AndroAsc is in many other ways an idiot, there is, in the US, case law stating that laws which are on the books but: go unenforced for long periods of time despite open, pervasive, and notorious violation; and proscribe acts which are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se; may be rendered void by virtue of lack of enforcement. See Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992).

That is true but it doesn't apply to non treaty international law. The US is obligated to comply with and enforce international customary law as well as the "general principles of law as mandated by civilised nations" whatever the fuck that verbose piece of crap actually means.

The scenario that I've often seen in breathless, crazed fiction is hte "Iran blocks Straits of Hormuz by scuttling a few ships in the lane and mining it". But given that it's a multi-mile wide lane, this too seems a little ridiculous. You can certainly increase navigation hazards and mine the shit out of it, but blocking it entirely seems infeasible, unless I'm missing something.

You don't need to block it, just make it so dangerous that people are scared to travel through it.

[bobalot]

I rest my case. It seems that people are not interested in discussing about the hypothetical scenario I posted. That's fine, no need to be fucking insulting. Middle fingers to you dudes

It's shocking. People don't want to discuss a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality? I'M SHOCKED.

I'm surprised this turd of a thread hasn't ended up in the HoS.

[Sea Skimmer]

The scenario that I've often seen in breathless, crazed fiction is hte "Iran blocks Straits of Hormuz by scuttling a few ships in the lane and mining it". But given that it's a multi-mile wide lane, this too seems a little ridiculous. You can certainly increase navigation hazards and mine the shit out of it, but blocking it entirely seems infeasible, unless I'm missing something.

No its too wide and much too deep with the narrower areas being deepest as is pretty typical for straits like this. The water is shallow by ocean standards, but still several hundred feet deep. Even given dozens of the largest tankers or container ships you couldn't make a very worthwhile barrier. You could reduce transit rates, but just declaring war would do that. Also crazy amounts of explosives would start demolishing the wrecks pretty quickly
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... z_full.jpg
Anything much over about ~75m and blockships aren't going to work, though the superstructures could create partial barrier. The main problem is you don't have that any ships on earth that are more then 40m from top of the main deck to the keel, and the best ships for this, huge liners, are not things Iran has.

If you really wanted to use blockships a perhaps better and less ship intensive idea would be to send them against the Arab oil terminals directly and attempt to block them before the Arabs and US can put enough planes in the air to sink the wrecks; since anti ship missiles fired by patrolling warships are unlikely to sink tankers, and the vulnerable bridges could be abandon in favor of controls from a protected position in the engine rooms. Even then it would take multiple successful blockships to block any of the major terminals, the facilities are just too big for the obvious reason that they are designed to handle entry and exit of multiple supertankers per day.

Course 80% of Iranian non oil trade, and I think an even higher fraction of the oil also goes through that waterway, and just a few guided bombs would cut the bridges on the railroad lines that move most of the rest, excluding an oil pipeline to Turkey which might not be destroyed by the US out of hand.