How will a US attack on Iran affect the rest of us?

[ClarkafromSmallville]

Need some tissue?



Hilarious.
Go back and read my post genius. You'd find that's exactly what it relates to.
See paragraphs 1 & 2 of my post prior to this one... duh. Oh wait I've bolded them just for you.

Please stop making an ass of yourself by not reading what's been posted - especially when it's relevant to the questions your asking.
It only encourages people to wind you up even further. Which seems easy to do.



blah blah blah
You can manage to type your weak ass retorts but you can't manage to figure out that yes it's a very good probablitity that it's neccessary to 'battle test' countermeasures.

That's got to be dumbest question ever.
It's like asking if new airplane designs need to be tested before they're put into commmerical use. But hey if you had bothered to read my post instead of just wading in with your lame response.. you'd understand that.

Hey why doesn't the military just design rifles (or any weapons for that matter) in a labratory and just start shipping them out. Be damned it they don't work in the real world. Oh what? That receiver jams when it's sandy (as the M16 variants in Iraq have?) or what how about the tread on those jungle boots doesn't exaclty work on sand... damn... if we'd tested them under real world conditions in combat or closely simulated... we'd know that and your boys would be getting killed less.

Why on earth would anti-missle countermeasures require and less scrutiny in effectiveness?!?!

Thank sweet Jesus we haven't got some genius like you running the military.

You start a thread and then pollute it with crap.
Get a clue hapless.

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

Although you are basically correct, such an outcome is not worth the corresponding loss of civilian life that would take place.




Eventually, yes - But preferably closer to home.

 

[canthelpbutwait]

There is some prime sea front real estate with your name on it....
15 feet off the end of you nearest deepwater pier.
Don't forget to take your cement waders there champ.

 

[FamilyFollower]

A great deal of Modern military hardware hasn't been "battle tested", yet is still widely deployed and depended on, both for offence and defence. Two relevant cases: The Russian "Moskit" ASM, and the Russian Shkval Torpedo, both of which Iran is expected to use as defence against American naval power. Neither have been "battle tested".

Likewise, the American side will be primarily depending on the AEGIS system for ASM defence. AEGIS is a mature system, but has not been "battle tested" against the aforementioned threats. The Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapons System), the "Last line of defence" against incoming missiles for American ships is not so mature, and nor has it been "battle tested" against the aforementioned threats.

Such examples abound.


Perhaps slipthejab should contact the American high coofftopicnd and inform them of the "necessity" of "battle testing" their countermeasures before deploying. They may not be aware that their projections, simulations, planning, and exercises are insufficient preparation, and that "Battle testing" countermeasures is "necessary" before going into battle.


(Note: Name calling is unnecessary and juvenile. Do not expect replies to messages that contain name calling or insults.)

 

[Nickkay]

Care to cite a source on that?
ISBN or link will do.

So referring to you earlier rehtorical question it's plain to see that NOT battle testing such weapons leaves much room for error. So when you chime in with 'why does it matter?'... I think it's rather laughable. Obviously it matters. I think it's safe to assume that any military will prefer to have battle tested weapons as opposed to those right off the showroom floor.

Whether or not they do is another issue. But simply by stating the fact that many weapons are NOT battle tested doesn't neccessarily make this desireable for a military nor does it mean that the US is keen to rush into battle with Iran and use it's anti-missile countermeasures against missiles they've not met up with before in real time battle.



Again... please provide a credible source,
Again ISBN or link will do.

And yet again - surely you must realize (then again...) that it's to any militaries advnatage to have actually used in real battle situtations the weaponry they plan to deploy right? Not that it's always possible - that's obvious - but it's not too hard to see why it 'matters' is it not?



You sound more and more like a Vietnam era technocrat with every word.
I think if you studied history just a bit harder you'd find that the Vietnam era was replete with scenarios that had never been run in war games and that the cost of that was a rather high bodycount.

War games and simulations leave much to be desired compared to real live use against an unpredictable enemy. It's rather common sense.

According to yourself:



The results determined from real live battles compared to that of simulations will differ greatly. There are any number of factors that are largely unaccounted for in simulations of any kind. Again this goes back to what many in the Vietnam era refused to listen to and the bodycounts as a result were staggering. Eventually costing the US the war. You ask why is it neccessary and then you attempt to back that up by saying many systems are NOT battle tested. While that may be true it doesn't have much to do with whether or not it's actually neccessary. It's a non sequiter.




Note:
Pull your head out. If you actually read what was posted instead of running around like a squealing like a fat girl in an icecream shop then your thread would be more informative and less of an embarrassment to yourself.

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

Here is a relevant article:



The bold is mine. And it's emphasis clearly shows the spin doctors hard at work in the rest of the article. Let's see....

They shot at 9 and managed to get 5. Not a very impressive record. A tad over half. Not exactly the sort of odds you want to go into battle with is it.
I bet they're not feeling 100% secure that this sort of system hasn't been battle tested. They are however feeling secure in that the money being spent is nice, fat and apparently readily available.

 

[MrsTorres]

another article:


I think it's pretty clear what is spin - and what the actual shortcomings of having a system that is NOT battle tested. Obviously generals have to keep their jobs - enter the spin doctors - so they're going to paint it in the best light possible. But don't think for one minute they wouldn't rather be using a system that has actually preformed well under actual battle conditions rather than using scripted scenarios.

I wonder if you're still confused as to why it matters that weapons be battle tested? Will a kill rate of 5 out of 9... it doesn't take a whole lot of thinking.


Here is more:





hmmm... still wondering?

 

[Alvin]

Such systems may not have been battle tested but they have been tested thoroughly, Phalanx is a pretty hardy ILDS which is incredibly effective (which is why so many other nations navys have bought it).

 

[Sexy601~]

Like us or not we're still YOUR first line of defense, so show some respect.

 

[KibaKira]

Not very relevant.

Your article pertains to defence against ICBMs, and has little bearing on a discussion of defence against Cruise ASMs. Ranges between the two types are different, propulsion is different, guidance is different, application is different, and countermeasures requires against them are different.




ICBMs aren't brought to "battles". They are strategic weapons launched at fixed targets over intercontinental distances.




5/9 would be an extraordinary kill rate against ICBMs - It is currently not possible, despite the dog-and-pony-shows put on by those with a vested interest in overselling AICBM technology.

This will likely change as the technology matures, however.

 

[Aruthy]

Actually, the sea, our size, and good international relations have been our "defence" - Not that we have ever been in danger of being conquered (by anyone other than the US).

I have no respect for America, or Americans (Although I am increasingly appreciating your president).

 

[smithers]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Yet is has every bearing on your silly point that battle testing weapons is unimportant - that is essentially the main theme of what you've implied. Which again simply isn't true.



Nice dodge.
It makes no difference to the stance you've taken. The underlying point is that they are weapon that would be better off battle tested than run in simulations that are not really all that realistic. Even the governments mouthpieces realize this.



Err... no 5/9 is hardly an extraordinary kill rate. Not the kind of kill rate you're likely to find many people feeling secure about. That is unless they spin doctors trying to bilk the US taxpayer out of more money.

Hapless_Marine - you did a good job of dodging much of the issue. We could really care less if your a missile geek or if you pull out facts out of thin air but can't manage to learn how to cite properly. That doesn't any more make your silly stance any more valid than does a ham and cheese sandwhich.

So please continue your verbal mastrubation over military technology in this less than stellar thread. It's what we've come to expect from you.
You're basically just jizzing in your pocket.

 

[tomas]

ROTFLMAO!!!!
Who would want to conquer Canada?!



Another typical brain-dead blanket statement that we've come to expect from the likes of you. Hapless give it a rest... you're an idiotic broken record and not a very exciting one at that. Or not... continue on... it's only you who is being BBQ'd.

 

[amye]

Like, why would anyone want a country with you in it , you hoser.



Like, DUH!!! I needed your statement to gleen this information. I think not. It's interesting that you mention respect. You want us to respect, but you have ZERO Respect for us. In that I refer to all Americans and many menbers of MAP.

Let's just agree to disagree, you keep yourself in Canada and I'll continue to protect yours and my borders.

Unless you'd like to roll sometime that is.

 

[AmberJ]

Now we're getting close to home here. I work with this project. Let me give you some non-classified details. To make the numbers 5/9 look even worse. The launch platform sends both Alaska and Kwajalein the coordinates that their 'missles' will be following. So we know when and where the missles are directed. That makes the numbers even worse.

 

[JoeyT]

I was waiting for you to pop in.
When I read the report I noticed your island name in there.

Somehow Hapless-marine seems to think that 5/9 is some sort of brilliant ratio of hits to misses.

 

[hasank]

Interesting. Do tell more. Do you think ABM defence against ICBMs is viable? Do you think they can be, and do you have a feeling for how many years it will take?

 

[basschica95]

I cannot imagine how you think that America is somehow protecting Canada's borders. Our north border is arctic waste. Our East border is ocean. Our Western border is Ocean. We are (traditionally) a well liked nation with formidable natural defences.

There is a small border dispute with Denmark in the NE - America appears to have failed to "protect" that border.

I am curious to hear what Canadian borders you think the US is protecting, and how they are protecting them.



How irrelevant and thuggish.

 

[Metagross]

This is a martial arts forum after all. To roll with someone is to offer peace on the mat. I guess you missed that one.




Hey slip, wanna roll?

 

[DreWong]

Yeah, because we're always menacing Canada.



I wouldn't have guessed you are so diplomatic.
(You must be around the same IQ level as our current puppe..er President; that's somewhere between fern and a crustacean.)