Middle East News Thread

[Marduk]

Yes, they need to be in the region before a war, because once a war is declared those bases are destroyed by the Iranians.

USAF is lucky you are not in its leadership.
History has shown how much bloody firepower concrete strips can take and be patched up in days, losing planes on the ground is far worse.

No, it's actually based on the fact they have multiple underground missile bases. The U.S. and Russia don't have thousands of missile silos because they don't have thousands of missiles in the first place, given they are both signatories to arms restrictions treaties Iran isn't a part of.

>multiple
>thousands
See the difference?
I see you are not done with your retarded word games and still think someone will actually fall for them.
Those missile bases are not missile silos according to your very own link.
Hence, your theory about thousands of missile silos is as much hokum as anyone who knows these things expected.
They are glorified underground parking garages for some number of TELs.

The shortest distance (air line) between Tehran and Bandar-Abbas is 653.57 mi.
Distance from Tehrān to Hormozgan is equal to 629 miles.

Combat Range of an F-18: 444 nmi (511 mi, 822 km) combat radius for interdiction mission with 2 × 480-gallon drop tanks

If only there was some kind of stealthy strike fighter (aka optimized for airstrikes) on US carriers with much longer range...

That's an odd claim, given the map you posted showed the line originating in the Persian Gulf. Beyond that, however:

No, the line originates from Oman Gulf, it's on the wrong side of Hormuz Strait to be in Persian Gulf clearly. I see your knowledge of geography is as terrible as it is on military topic.

How many bombs does an F-35 carry on an interdiction mission? I don't think you know what an interdiction mission is...

I see you know less about interdiction missions than me then, and if you haven't realized yet, trying to play your favorite type of word games in topics you are epically clueless in has its dangers. Better at least read the relevant wikipedia article or go play a good flight sim before you humiliate yourself further by talking about what interdiction missions are or aren't.

In stealthy, no external weapons configuration, the main bomb bay can contain 2 (in case of the massive 2,000lb bombs as in the above example) to 8 bombs (SDBs), depending on how big bombs these are.

Well given a single UAV just killed three and wounded dozens more...

When they slept in tents while air defense didn't shoot at the UAVs because it friendly non-IFF UAVs operated there...

So how did a single UAV get through?

By trickery and lack of readiness. If you are interested, you will find this info yourself, if not, as the saying goes, i won't throw pearls before swine.

So given a single UAV managed to do just that...

As above, people on the internet explain it, and you are not worth my personal effort as it,

Well given almost 50 were wounded or killed just a few days ago...

As above, are you stuck on trying to wink wink with recent news as if that constituted an argument?

Good thing we do know from the one time the Iranians did it in 2020, and the answer is the air base was down for sometime.

You: the air base was down for sometime
The quote: " The U.S. defense secretary said the damage was limited to "tentage, taxiways, the parking lot, damaged helicopter, things like that, nothing I would describe as major"
More word games, for shame. Is this your one trick or do you have something else?

Maybe, just maybe, airplanes have less explosive capacity than Ballistic Missiles? All of the attacks to date haven't been using Iranian missiles, but their own local versions using modification kits from Iran.

No, they have more explosive capacity than most non ICBM ballistic missiles. That 300k USD missile you mentioned for example? 500 kg warhead. Even some WW2 fighters could carry a 500 kg bomb, and that's far from getting into modern strike aircraft used by Israel and USA.
Say, that F-35 described earlier, carrying 2 2,000 lb bombs in internal bays alone, used both by USA and Israel.

Local versions or not, any important and technically complex parts of the missiles come in these "modification kits", without them there isn't anything to make "local versions" of.

Good thing we have applicable experience from 2020:

Satellite photos taken Wednesday show that an Iranian missile strike has caused extensive damage at the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq, which hosts U.S. and coalition troops.


The photos, taken by the commercial company Planet and shared with NPR via the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, show hangars and buildings hit hard by a barrage of Iranian missiles that were fired early Wednesday morning local time.​

OMG few damaged buildings, the base is gone, as if the base got nuked off the face of the planet!

At least five structures were damaged in the attack on the base in Anbar province, which apparently was precise enough to hit individual buildings. "Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," says David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.​

At least five buildings damaged? Wow, that base is totally gone!
Do you have more dumb word games to throw at me or can i stop pretending to be impressed?

 

[History Learner]

USAF is lucky you are not in its leadership.
History has shown how much bloody firepower concrete strips can take and be patched up in days, losing planes on the ground is far worse.

Unfortunately for the USAF, the Iranians have demonstrated they can, in fact, shut down air bases for months with even limited attacks. The USAF has never faced this kind of combat, for the record, either.

>multiple
>thousands
See the difference?
I see you are not done with your retarded word games and still think someone will actually fall for them.
Those missile bases are not missile silos according to your very own link.
Hence, your theory about thousands of missile silos is as much hokum as anyone who knows these things expected.
They are glorified underground parking garages for some number of TELs.

Unfortunately, myself and the audience are capable of reading the links contained with the article.

If only there was some kind of stealthy strike fighter (aka optimized for airstrikes) on US carriers with much longer range...

It doesn't exist for strike missions and the only carrier in the region-the Eisenhower-doesn't have them at all.

No, the line originates from Oman Gulf, it's on the wrong side of Hormuz Strait to be in Persian Gulf clearly. I see your knowledge of geography is as terrible as it is on military topic.

No, the line originates in the Persian Gulf as I said, this is the Gulf of Oman:

I see you know less about interdiction missions than me then, and if you haven't realized yet, trying to play your favorite type of word games in topics you are epically clueless in has its dangers. Better at least read the relevant wikipedia article or go play a good flight sim before you humiliate yourself further by talking about what interdiction missions are or aren't.

In stealthy, no external weapons configuration, the main bomb bay can contain 2 (in case of the massive 2,000lb bombs as in the above example) to 8 bombs (SDBs), depending on how big bombs these are.

Cool, now tell me how many are carried in interdiction missions.

When they slept in tents while air defense didn't shoot at the UAVs because it friendly non-IFF UAVs operated there...

In other words, U.S. radars were spoofed. Might want to consider what that means in future combat?

By trickery and lack of readiness. If you are interested, you will find this info yourself, if not, as the saying goes, i won't throw pearls before swine.

Given there's been 160 attacks since October, at what point does the U.S. get ready? Just days before another base was attacked with casualties taken.

As above, people on the internet explain it, and you are not worth my personal effort as it,

And yet, you still reply. You're under no obligation to continue to do so.

As above, are you stuck on trying to wink wink with recent news as if that constituted an argument?

Your inability to counter is most telling, yes. Attack the argument, Marduk, not the man.

You: the air base was down for sometime
The quote: " The U.S. defense secretary said the damage was limited to "tentage, taxiways, the parking lot, damaged helicopter, things like that, nothing I would describe as major"
More word games, for shame. Is this your one trick or do you have something else?

Given the U.S. lied about the casualties at the time, why are you citing the SECDEF as a reliable source?

The U.S. military initially assessed that there were no casualties,[40] which was later echoed by the president.[51][52] President Trump stated that the damage sustained was minimal.[51][52] The U.S. defense secretary said the damage was limited to "tentage, taxiways, the parking lot, damaged helicopter, things like that, nothing I would describe as major".[42] Some soldiers lamented losing all their personal belongings—clothing, books, pictures of their families, and mementos they had carried through more than a decade in the military.[53]​

No, they have more explosive capacity than most non ICBM ballistic missiles. That 300k USD missile you mentioned for example? 500 kg warhead. Even some WW2 fighters could carry a 500 kg bomb, and that's far from getting into modern strike aircraft used by Israel and USA.

Except that was just one type of missile, when Iran has several; the Khorramshahr for example has a 1,800 kg warhead.

Likewise, these are ballistic missiles; their striking power is magnified by their terminal phase. Same concept as Rods from God.

Local versions or not, any important and technically complex parts of the missiles come in these "modification kits", without them there isn't anything to make "local versions" of.

Except, you know, all the materials they can make them out of and do.

OMG few damaged buildings, the base is gone, as if the base got nuked off the face of the planet!

With the airfield cratered, the hangars to store the planes destroyed along with the associated logistics, the air base at large is knocked out. As I've said before, you have have an F-22 but if you don't have the supporting infrastructure, it's just metal.

At least five buildings damaged? Wow, that base is totally gone!

How many buildings on total are at the airbase?

Do you have more dumb word games to throw at me or can i stop pretending to be impressed?

That would be a wasted effort on my part, given you operate entirely in bad faith.

 

[Marduk]

Unfortunately for the USAF, the Iranians have demonstrated they can, in fact, shut down air bases for months with even limited attacks. The USAF has never faced this kind of combat, for the record, either.

Counterpoint: Vietnam, Iraq.

Unfortunately, myself and the audience are capable of reading the links contained with the article.

Fortunately most are better at reading than you. If you can't tell a difference between a missile base, and a missile silo, i have no further commentary.

It doesn't exist for strike missions and the only carrier in the region-the Eisenhower-doesn't have them at all.

I find your F-35 denialism hilarious and pitiful.

No, the line originates in the Persian Gulf as I said, this is the Gulf of Oman:

Cool, now tell me how many are carried in interdiction missions.

2 to 8, depending on the model of bomb.

In other words, U.S. radars were spoofed. Might want to consider what that means in future combat?

Yes, start using IFF in drones (like was planned already) and be in readiness. Few officers may need to be fired for example of the latter.

Given there's been 160 attacks since October, at what point does the U.S. get ready? Just days before another base was attacked with casualties taken.

Ask Biden admin, it's a question for them. I consider them almost as incompetent in these matters as i consider you, and you probably know what i think of you already.

And yet, you still reply. You're under no obligation to continue to do so.

And you are under no obligation to guerilla shitpost threads on this forum, yet you continue to do so. So your complaining about me replying only makes me more eager to reply. That way we can both be unhappy.
Alternatively, you can stop doing that, and i will have nothing to reply to, deal?

Your inability to counter is most telling, yes. Attack the argument, Marduk, not the man.

Much like USA should deal with Iran's militia, sometimes it is necessary to strike the source, not the pawns, and the man is the source of this propaganda bullshit.

Given the U.S. lied about the casualties at the time, why are you citing the SECDEF as a reliable source?

More reliable than you, lol.

The U.S. military initially assessed that there were no casualties,[40] which was later echoed by the president.[51][52] President Trump stated that the damage sustained was minimal.[51][52] The U.S. defense secretary said the damage was limited to "tentage, taxiways, the parking lot, damaged helicopter, things like that, nothing I would describe as major".[42] Some soldiers lamented losing all their personal belongings—clothing, books, pictures of their families, and mementos they had carried through more than a decade in the military.[53]​

Well the damage was minimal and other than word games you have brought nothing to say otherwise.

Except that was just one type of missile, when Iran has several; the Khorramshahr for example has a 1,800 kg warhead.

And as usual for militaries, they have far less of the fancy thing than of the cheap thing.
Which in this case is zero or close.

Khorramshahr | Missile Threat

The Khorramshahr is an Iranian liquid-fueled, medium-range ballistic missile. It is likely derived from the North Korean Musudan (BM-25) missile. Iran first test fired the missile in January 2017, and first publicly displayed it at a September 2017 military parade in Tehran. It has a reported...

missilethreat.csis.org

Iran's state-run Press TV reported that the missile would soon be operational, but did not provide any specific projections.1

Likewise, these are ballistic missiles; their striking power is magnified by their terminal phase. Same concept as Rods from God.

Not in any meaningful manner when it comes to area targets between not being ICBMs and the vectored ,kinetic nature of this energy, as opposed to spherical energy dispersion of explosives.

If you have specific speed-altitude numbers for various possible trajectories of these Iranian ballistic missiles, you are free to leak them, or deliver them to certain agencies that may be interested in case of newer ones.

Except, you know, all the materials they can make them out of and do.

These are ballistic missiles, not RPG rounds. Cobbling them together out of whatever is available will do "wonders" for their reliability and accuracy.

With the airfield cratered, the hangars to store the planes destroy along with the associated logistics, the air base at large is knocked out. As I've said before, you have have an F-22 but if you don't have the supporting infrastructure, it's just metal.

The attitude to the subject of what it takes to actually disable an airfield you demonstrate here is the best proof i could ask for... for your total and unquestionable lack of knowledge of the subject. No, few damaged buildings do not constitute a knocked out airfield, if it was that easy, WW2 would have ended much sooner.


USAF is even thinking of that scenario.

USAF Rapid Airfield Damage Repair (RADR) program to counter threat of long range and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles - International Defense Security & Technology

In the past 100 years, attacking forces have used a diverse array of weapons to target airfields, in

idstch.com

Here's some history and expertise, not that you will understand much out of it, but others may:

"Task One": Airbase Survivability/Recoverability Assessment

www.globalsecurity.org

Long story short, depending on the target's repair assets available, even large air strikes by many aircraft with total of tens of tons of varied, including specialized munitions can disable an airfield's runways for a couple weeks... or a couple days.

How many buildings on total are at the airbase?

You tell me, i didn't bring up that airbase, but i bet it's far more than 5, as you can see on the sat photos.

Given the lack of anything between your ears, that would be a wasted effort on my part.

Given the Putin's turd between your ears, it's better you don't pollute the world with spewing its decomposition products in text form.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yeah. I don't want to go to war with Iran, but I know we'd level the place and take minimal losses.

The issue is we'd get stuck nation building again because domestic politics, and we really have no purpose staying there. That's why we'd lose in the long run: we'd get politically tired. But Iran would become a puppet government of someone nearby, not be a threat anymore, so they'd lose too.

The idea that Iran is an actual military threat to an American invading force is simply laughable.

 

[Zachowon]

They hate us as a concept.
They will also make international trade damn near impossible ans more expensive if we DONT make.sure they suffer.

No nation bu8kding.
Just bomb

 

[History Learner]

Counterpoint: Vietnam, Iraq.

Given the U.S. lost those without the USAF fighting this type of fight, that's now the point you think it is...

Fortunately most are better at reading than you. If you can't tell a difference between a missile base, and a missile silo, i have no further commentary.

Because the bases contain silos for the missiles, otherwise how would they launch? I get you have no further commentary because you can't argue the point, but you could've just saved us the time.

I find your F-35 denialism hilarious and pitiful.

And yet, you're unable to answer the questions about it for obvious reasons.

2 to 8, depending on the model of bomb.

Cool, let's see a source for that and for the range claims because a quick google search reveals you're making it up.

The F-35A has a 590 nautical mile combat radius based on its 18,250 lb internal fuel capacity.

There are no F-35Cs of the U.S. Navy nearby, but even assuming you're referring to those:

The F-35C has a 600 nautical mile combat radius based on its 19,200 lb internal fuel capacity.

So no, launching strikes with F-35s or F-18s isn't possible on Tehran as I said.

Yes, start using IFF in drones (like was planned already) and be in readiness. Few officers may need to be fired for example of the latter.

Again, with 160+ base attacks since October, at what point are U.S. forces "ready"?

Ask Biden admin, it's a question for them. I consider them almost as incompetent in these matters as i consider you, and you probably know what i think of you already.

I'm already aware I'm smarter than you Marduk, no need to continuously bring it up.

And you are under no obligation to guerilla shitpost threads on this forum, yet you continue to do so. So your complaining about me replying only makes me more eager to reply. That way we can both be unhappy.
Alternatively, you can stop doing that, and i will have nothing to reply to, deal?

Or you could just stop replying?

Much like USA should deal with Iran's militia, sometimes it is necessary to strike the source, not the pawns, and the man is the source of this propaganda bullshit.

If you're confusing me with objective reality, than you just contradicted your statement below. Maybe go see a doctor about your hallucinations?

More reliable than you, lol.

But you just established above I'm speaking objective truth, so which way is it? Do try to get your arguments straight, dear.

Well the damage was minimal and other than word games you have brought nothing to say otherwise.

Except it wasn't, as shown by orbital photos taken after. You'll recall the SecDef later backed off his initial claims, as outlined in the article, and conceded to 120 WIA and extensive damage to the base.

And as usual for militaries, they have far less of the fancy thing than of the cheap thing.
Which in this case is zero or close.

Khorramshahr | Missile Threat

The Khorramshahr is an Iranian liquid-fueled, medium-range ballistic missile. It is likely derived from the North Korean Musudan (BM-25) missile. Iran first test fired the missile in January 2017, and first publicly displayed it at a September 2017 military parade in Tehran. It has a reported...

missilethreat.csis.org

Iran's state-run Press TV reported that the missile would soon be operational, but did not provide any specific projections.1

Well good thing they have about a dozen different types of missiles you can choose from. You might also likewise wish to start reading your sources before posting them:

Last Updated
July 31, 2021​

Khorramshahr | Missile Threat

Not in any meaningful manner when it comes to area targets between not being ICBMs and the vectored ,kinetic nature of this energy, as opposed to spherical energy dispersion of explosives.

If you have specific speed-altitude numbers for various possible trajectories of these Iranian ballistic missiles, you are free to leak them, or deliver them to certain agencies that may be interested in case of newer ones.

Except Iranian Ballistic Missiles go orbital just like ICBMs. For someone speaking on this topic, you certainly lack basic details on it.

These are ballistic missiles, not RPG rounds. Cobbling them together out of whatever is available will do "wonders" for their reliability and accuracy.

Agreed, which is why we see huge differences in accuracy and reliability between Iran's force-top notch results-vs what the various militias achieve.

The attitude to the subject of what it takes to actually disable an airfield you demonstrate here is the best proof i could ask for... for your total and unquestionable lack of knowledge of the subject. No, few damaged buildings do not constitute a knocked out airfield, if it was that easy, WW2 would have ended much sooner.

Except it literally does, that's why you didn't address the argument and just went after me again. If you destroy the hangars of an airfield, you destroy their ability to maintain aircraft. If you destroy the logistics of an airfield by taking out munitions dumps and POL facilities, you remove their means of keeping aircraft combat ready. Let's also not forget the Iranians cratered the runways themselves, although that's the less effective way of taking out an airfield.

By all means, however, do explain in detail how you take out an airfield.

USAF is even thinking of that scenario.

USAF Rapid Airfield Damage Repair (RADR) program to counter threat of long range and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles - International Defense Security & Technology

In the past 100 years, attacking forces have used a diverse array of weapons to target airfields, in

idstch.com

Here's some history and expertise, not that you will understand much out of it, but others may:

"Task One": Airbase Survivability/Recoverability Assessment

www.globalsecurity.org

Long story short, depending on the target's repair assets available, even large air strikes by many aircraft with total of tens of tons of varied, including specialized munitions can disable an airfield's runways for a couple weeks... or a couple days.

So a non-existent system and an article from 1989, before the proliferation of the weapons systems being used today? I mean, you can rely on theory from before the Berlin Wall fell....or you can literally observe that the airfield was knocked out of commission for months.

You tell me, i didn't bring up that airbase, but i bet it's far more than 5, as you can see on the sat photos.

Okay, if you can them, then please tell us how many there are. You made the claim, I was challenging you to back it up.

Given the Putin's turd between your ears, it's better you don't pollute the world with spewing its decomposition products in text form.

Too bad for you that's not going to happen.

 

[History Learner]

The idea that Iran is an actual military threat to an American invading force is simply laughable.

How many Patriot Battalions are in the Middle East right now?

 

[Marduk]

Given the U.S. lost those without the USAF fighting this type of fight, that's now the point you think it is...

Irrelevant.
How many US airbases were destroyed by Saddam's many SCUD ballistic missiles?

Because the bases contain silos for the missiles, otherwise how would they launch? I get you have no further commentary because you can't argue the point, but you could've just saved us the time.

I see you didn't even read the article in question.
Ok, let's try again, like in kindergarten, what type of missile launching system does the article you linked refer to?

And yet, you're unable to answer the questions about it for obvious reasons.

F-35's can be based anywhere, and if you haven't noticed, carriers are mobile between region and specific locations alike, they are not tied to one spot. There is no question to answer, just your usual whining.

Cool, let's see a source for that and for the range claims because a quick google search reveals you're making it up.

The F-35A has a 590 nautical mile combat radius based on its 18,250 lb internal fuel capacity.

That's not a casual search, that's a 10 second video's description on some defense news aggregator site i never saw before, which is good with what kind of random numbers it throws.
That's a casual search:

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Combat range: 669 nmi (770 mi, 1,239 km) interdiction mission (air-to-surface) on internal fuel

And for comparison, that's a non-casual search, a DoD unclassified document:

Loading…

www.esd.whs.mil

There are no F-35Cs of the U.S. Navy nearby, but even assuming you're referring to those:

The F-35C has a 600 nautical mile combat radius based on its 19,200 lb internal fuel capacity.

So no, launching strikes with F-35s or F-18s isn't possible on Tehran as I said.

I see you need to dig out some shitty site to make any argument, and pretend carriers with F-35 cannot be moved to the region or convenient position, how on brand for you.

Again, with 160+ base attacks since October, at what point are U.S. forces "ready"?

When Biden puts them on war footing perhaps?

I'm already aware I'm smarter than you Marduk, no need to continuously bring it up.

If you're so smart why do you act retarded?

Or you could just stop replying?

Or you could just use an extension like this:

BlockSite: Block Websites & Stay Focused

Stay focused and improve productivity with our key features: Custom blocklist, Scheduled site blocking and Password protection

chromewebstore.google.com

If you're confusing me with objective reality, than you just contradicted your statement below. Maybe go see a doctor about your hallucinations?

I would never confuse you with objective reality, you never agree with it.

But you just established above I'm speaking objective truth, so which way is it? Do try to get your arguments straight, dear.

As i have established above you have delusions of knowing anything, how sad.

Except it wasn't, as shown by orbital photos taken after. You'll recall the SecDef later backed off his initial claims, as outlined in the article, and conceded to 120 WIA and extensive damage to the base.

Sorry, my trust in your aerial damage assessment skills are somewhere below that for Baghdad Bob's journalistic credibility. And i don't care about your ability to twist clumsy Biden admin worker's statements either, yes, i know you can do it, but who cares about the effect, it's just your bullshit.

Well good thing they have about a dozen different types of missiles you can choose from. You might also likewise wish to start reading your sources before posting them:

Last Updated
July 31, 2021​

Khorramshahr | Missile Threat

Yeah, the ones they don't will introduce "soon(tm)", very scary, shill Iran harder, you're not convincing me.

Except Iranian Ballistic Missiles go orbital just like ICBMs. For someone speaking on this topic, you certainly lack basic details on it.

If you knew anything about the topic you have unwisely picked for your propaganda rants and pretending to know shit about this time, you would know that ICBMs go on a different trajectory with much higher energy levels than the MRBM you propagandize about, and you would not say something as idiotic as ICBMs going "orbital", they do not achieve orbit, their typical trajectory in typical strike role has an accurate technical term, it is sub-orbital. No, ICBMs never complete any orbits, nor have the ability to achieve orbit with their standard payload, hence they don't "go orbital", and MRBMs are even further away from that.
Any nuclear tipped missile that "goes orbital" would count as this and be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

Fractional Orbital Bombardment System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you please go back to the twisted and mind-bending alternate reality where insanity inducing laws of physics not known to man make ICBMs need to go orbital to hit a target and close the dimensional portal behind you?

Agreed, which is why we see huge differences in accuracy and reliability between Iran's force-top notch results-vs what the various militias achieve.

No, all are Iran's missiles, just different models, with different costs and parameters.

Except it literally does, that's why you didn't address the argument and just went after me again. If you destroy the hangars of an airfield, you destroy their ability to maintain aircraft.

No, that's how airfields work in... RTS games. Meanwhile in reality there are even road based improvised airstrip that work without hangars ever existing there at all.

If you destroy the logistics of an airfield by taking out munitions dumps and POL facilities, you remove their means of keeping aircraft combat ready.

That's closer on point. So, how many munition storage bunkers and main fuel tanks did these Iranian strikes destroy?

Let's also not forget the Iranians cratered the runways themselves, although that's the less effective way of taking out an airfield.

Even WW1 munitions can crater runways to one degree or another, but what makes effective and hard to repair damage is in depth and size of craters.

By all means, however, do explain in detail how you take out an airfield.

If i was writing that, i would be getting paid for it, instead of wasting my keyboard on writing a whole fucking book for you to troll about.

So a non-existent system and an article from 1989, before the proliferation of the weapons systems being used today? I mean, you can rely on theory from before the Berlin Wall fell....or you can literally observe that the airfield was knocked out of commission for months.

What makes those new weapon systems of Iran so much better than weapons that world's superpowers had in 1989?
Are you getting even higher on Iran's self-glorificating propaganda?

Okay, if you can them, then please tell us how many there are. You made the claim, I was challenging you to back it up.

You linked the photo, you can (supposedly) count, as i said before, i'm not your calculator, you need to type "calculator" in your windows search bar, click it, it works, trust me.

Too bad for you that's not going to happen.

How are you so sure of that?

 

[Zachowon]

Hangers arnt needed for repairs, they help yes.
He'll, we make tent hangers

 

[Abhorsen]

How many Patriot Battalions are in the Middle East right now?

Literally irrelevant. It's called a carrier group and first strike capability.

 

[Zachowon]

And we have enough to defend important sites.
Missles are a LOT easier to see then that of drones.

And, any mass launch will be casus belli

 

[Scottty]

Any nuclear tipped missile that "goes orbital" would count as this and be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

Fractional Orbital Bombardment System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the page you linked to:

The overriding opinion of US administrators was that the Soviet FOBS did not violate the treaty, mostly for the reason that the system didn't go into a full orbit.[29] For instance, US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara argued that the Soviet Union had only agreed "not to place [nuclear] warheads in orbit," continuing on to point out that the FOBS executes its mission on a "fractional orbit, not a full orbit."[28] Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Subcommittee on Military Applications, countered that the Soviet FOBS was at least a "good faith violation of the treaty," alluding to the notion that the weapon could go into technical orbit.[25]

This is certainly true: the only thing stopping the Soviet FOBS' payload from completing a full revolution around the Earth (and thereby literally going orbital and violating the treaty) was the firing of the system's retrorocket.[29] Even so, McNamara also drew attention to the fact that the treaty did not ban any form of weapons testing—not even the testing of an orbital nuclear weapons system.[33] None of the Soviet Union's test R-36Os were ever equipped with a nuclear warhead; so, even if it were the case that the launches went orbital, they still would not have broken the treaty.[29]

 

[Marduk]

From the page you linked to:

Your point being? Legal technicality of Soviets using retro rockets to not violate the treaty, while also proving that they can make such system?
Either way, that regards FOBS style systems, not typical ICBMs, and then there are Iran's MRBMs which naturally don't have the performance of ICBMs, if they did, they would be ICBMs themselves.

 

[Scottty]

Your point being? Legal technicality of Soviets using retro rockets to not violate the treaty, while also proving that they can make such system?
Either way, that regards FOBS style systems, not typical ICBMs, and then there are Iran's MRBMs which naturally don't have the performance of ICBMs, if they did, they would be ICBMs themselves.

If Iran had ICBMs at all, it would be silly to try to use them for targets so close.

 

[ATP]

Actually no. My posting behavior is way better than yours. People might not like my viewpoints on Ukraine or whatever but I'm confident that any actual comparisons of posting behavior between you and me would show a massive above of difference.

Like seriously just imagine a forum full of people who post like you of every POV. All it would be is posting hour long videos at each other, and then snide passive aggressive one liners when they trigger each other. And like ten mega threads with all the same content.

Meanwhile a forum full of posters like me with every POV. You would have random discussion threads on everything from Valkyria OOB's, to military anime girl appreciation, random over effort Versus matches, topics on everything from Ultima to Resident Evil to Blizz-Activision news, and people spamming War News and Military Porn at each other, and when people post YouTube (and Rumble) videos they'll offer brief synopsis' because they actually watched the video on question and instead of like a half dozen identical megathreads we'd have dozens of threads on all sorts of random ASF topics. And when people disagree they won't drag threads into endless pages of pasta posting, they'll either ignore it and post more of their POV as a challenge, or try to deflect or downplay with shitposting irony.

It'd be a magical utopia in comparison to some Rejectionist thread.

Like I don't even think anyone is interested in what a Multiverse Rejectionist would be like. But the more I think about it, what if there was a NeoCon Husky Khan or a Anarcho-Capitalist Husky Khan, or a ChiCom HuskyCommie or a Hello Kitty Khan... 😵‍💫

Not saying I'd be the most interesting poster in the world but... Definitely top Seventy Percentile.

More Khans - go for it,world need it !

 

[Husky_Khan]

Series of airstrikes launched. Eighty five targets in seven different areas across Iraq and Syria.



And done just as the markets were closing so don't worry, your commodity investments are safe.

 

[Zachowon]

This is the first series of them too

 

[Husky_Khan]

More Strikes This Weekend. Thirty six targets at thirteen different locations across Yemen.



Houthi Helicopters were mentioned in this case as among the targets.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

There should be strikes against Iranian targets that supply these forces.

 

[Zachowon]

There should be strikes against Iranian targets that supply these forces.

They don't want to escalate the conflicts in the ME