Comrade Clod
Gay Space Communist
...
I think you may have biases on the matter at hand. Suffice to say, the general opinion of the USA has certainly not gone up.
Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread
- Thread starter GoldRanger
- Start date
...
I think you may have biases on the matter at hand. Suffice to say, the general opinion of the USA has certainly not gone up.
I didn't mean Taiwan here, there is also South China Sea, and a big chunk of SEA region where China may be interested in quite a bit of gunboat diplomacy.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
The South China Sea is quite well covered by land-based air. Carriers will be useful there, but they are not a war-winner by themselves for the PLAN, which has multiple distributed air-bases heavily defended by missiles and guns on their new island bases built up over the reefs. Actually, the Carriers are useful around Taiwan, but more for interdicting any supply or intervention from the United States.
Considering the size of Chinese claims when it's feeling bold...
It may be technically covered, but outside of strategic bombers and large maritime patrol aircraft, 1000-1500km is not a comfortable range for planes operating from mainland China, or even Hainan. It forces reliance on external fuel tanks and/or airborne refueling needs, limited patrol times, and so on. That leaves airfields on the tiny islands and reefs they are claiming, but that has downsides of its own to rely on - protecting those and the supply lines for them also comes to mind as a possible carrier role.
And then there are the countries in the region that are contesting those claims, yet China would certainly want in its "sphere of influence".
If we add all that up, it's why i think China would keep its carriers closer than Middle East, particularly until they get more than the currently planned 3.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
True, but at least I'm aware of them. As for the "general opinion of the USA", I could not care less; mostly because my own opinion of this country isn't that high either. Take Iran for instance; the actual topic of the thread. We created every problem we're currently having with them by overthrowing the legitimate government, putting a puppet in its place, and then refusing to back said puppet when the religious extremists threatened to take over. It is a story that has been repeated time and time again; we deserve to be hated, not because of Trump, but because of us doing crap like that. It's not like we've gotten better either since then; we did the same thing to Iraq, and in a roundabout way ended up creating ISIS.
And we should care why? People didn't like us when we gave them massively favorable trade deals. Why should we continue to protect their trade and then get screwed by said trade?
General opinion of the US in the world regardless of any conceivable action, policy or deal was never going to go up as soon as Trump was elected. The mainstream media outlets and State Department was going to ensure that.
Israel says Iran forced its judoka to throw semifinal to avoid facing Sagi Muki
Local judo chief Moshe Fonti says Saeid Mollaei intended to compete to the end even if it meant squaring off against Israeli, but then Iranian agents arrived at his family home
www.timesofisrael.com
Saeid Mollaei was intimidated in advance of World Championships
Saeid Mollaei was threated in advance of the World Championships. “I am ready to fight for Israel at all time, but my political situation forces that I am in danger. Politics kill me if I fight Israel. Before the World Championships they told me not to fight against, maybe even not fight at all...
www.judoinside.com
Iranian Judo competitor defects after receiving threats from an Iranian diplomat, IRGC intimidating his family, all to get him to refuse a fight with an Israeli competitor. Eventually he had enough.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
One would think they would have wanted him to beat the Israeli, and threatened him accordingly; as I cannot think of any other reason an authoritarian regime like Iran would let any of their citizens participate in an international competition, if not to defeat their enemies.Israel says Iran forced its judoka to throw semifinal to avoid facing Sagi Muki
Local judo chief Moshe Fonti says Saeid Mollaei intended to compete to the end even if it meant squaring off against Israeli, but then Iranian agents arrived at his family homeSaeid Mollaei was intimidated in advance of World Championships
Saeid Mollaei was threated in advance of the World Championships. “I am ready to fight for Israel at all time, but my political situation forces that I am in danger. Politics kill me if I fight Israel. Before the World Championships they told me not to fight against, maybe even not fight at all...
Iranian Judo competitor defects after receiving threats from an Iranian diplomat, IRGC intimidating his family, all to get him to refuse a fight with an Israeli competitor. Eventually he had enough.
It's a recurring pattern with many Muslim regimes, even those who have a peace agreement with Israel, like Egypt. Apparently competing against Israel in sports = legitimizing its existence or something like that. Almost all Arab and many Muslim countries representatives in almost all sports usually quit rather than compete against an Israeli.
It's rare to see someone threatened to that degree though, and even rarer that someone defects.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
While you are correct, the J-20 was almost certainly built precisely for air coverage and anti-ship strike in the 1000 - 1500km zone, and the Chinese are bound to mass produce it in a more refined version. It comes down to a very old question about whether or not it makes sense for a power fighting defensively to have all of its combat assets concentrated in the defensive belt, or to use them to disrupt the ability of the enemy to concentrate offensive power against it.
Is a Chinese carrier more useful in the South China Sea trying to support resupply of the forward island bases, or is it more useful arriving at Chabahar Port to drag the Iranians into the conflict (ala Goeben)? How many USN Carrier Battle Groups does the former counter in operations in the Chinese outer littoral belts versus the later?
Certainly seems meant for it, but in terms of patroling and presence, it's still just a single seat tactical aircraft, as opposed to strategic bombers or even something like Su-34, also a lot depends on how well the engine question finally goes, they still seem in developement, and range or supercruise capability may still be under a question mark.
For one, the comparison in this alternative is not to Iran not tying down US military attention at all, but to the status quo. China may well notice that in this status quo Iran and Middle East in general already are doing a perfectly good job at that even without their open support, which is a great cost-benefit ratio for them, considering that Middle East suddenly becoming a stable, pro-American region anytime soon is not a likely scenario at all.
Also even beyond the "defensive" belt, there are countries that China may be very interested in having a "sphere of influence" over, and that may include major naval presence.
Not to mention that such immediate region naval standoffs in near future may well include Japan and it's F-35 equipped "former helicopter destroyers".
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Certainly, but then one asks the question -- countries near China are already subject to her power. The Chinese, however, have invested enormously in Africa, and to influence the African countries with force that are now economically tied to China, they need carriers in the Indian Ocean. I was just pointing out a war use for them while being trapped in the Indian Ocean, one which by historical precedent might be out of all proportion to their strength.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
I think you quoted me on the wrong thread
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You are absolutely correct; I forgot I had a quote selected. I decided not to reply anymore because, honestly, that thread had gotten silly.
"Peaceful" Iran continues to creep toward Israel. Satellite images reveal Iran is constructing a large base in Syria.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Can you explain?
I understand enough thanks to Isis, Iran got involved in Syria which cost them both money and lives.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
I would like to point out--because it's becoming something like my internet...little thing that sets me off (there's a word/phrase for this, but I'm having a brain-fart)...But while presenting the Shah as a puppet is fair, pointing to Mossadegh as 'the legitimate government' isn't really accurate and misses a whole raftload of complexity and nuance solely to present a Ron Paul narrative of how America fucked-over Iran when the actual historical events are a lot more complicated. Mossadegh was doing his best impression of the typical MidEast dictator by ruling via decree, cancelling elections once his side had 'won', dismissing parliament entirely when even the loaded, pro-Mossadegh reps he did allow began to take issue with his rule, rejecting a dismissal the Shah had constitutional right to present to him, and appealing to a (non-sympathetic, as it happened) military to enforce and ensure his rule thereafter.
And the 'overthrow' attempted by the US and UK in the form of Operations Ajax and Boot actually failed, and the conspirators got either rounded up by Mossadegh's government, went into hiding, or fled from the country*. The successful 'revolution' starred one prominent face from the prior attempts (General Zahedi, who the Shah made PM in Mossadegh's place, and who's gone into hiding after the first attempt failed), but came after a Tudeh party rally in Tehran inspired counter-demonstration (potentially organized by Zahedi and others) and things descended into such a cluster that the Army (which, as mentioned, was unsympathetic to Mossadegh and had a lot of pro-Shah forces in it--and definitely a lot of anti-communist officers, since much of it's leadership was drawn from the old aristocratic families of Iran) stepped in and performed the "coup" of Mossadegh in favor of Zahedi.
*Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the CIA head of station and the 'man with the plan' for Ajax, is even alleged to have been in the process of doing this because he and the CIA felt Iran was a lost cause at that point that was going to drop into the Soviet sphere--when sudden divine intervention lucked-out a win from the jaws of defeat...And, unfortunately, made the 'success' of the operation a model for CIA activities in other parts of the globe like South America.
*breath*
*breath*
*breath*
Uh...Yeah...So...That's my rant about that. Sorry. It's just one of those things that bothers me.
Everything after your first comma I'd agree with though.
Pet peeve. It's your pet peeve.I would like to point out--because it's becoming something like my internet...little thing that sets me off (there's a word/phrase for this, but I'm having a brain-fart)...But while presenting the Shah as a puppet is fair, pointing to Mossadegh as 'the legitimate government' isn't really accurate and misses a whole raftload of complexity and nuance solely to present a Ron Paul narrative of how America fucked-over Iran when the actual historical events are a lot more complicated. Mossadegh was doing his best impression of the typical MidEast dictator by ruling via decree, cancelling elections once his side had 'won', dismissing parliament entirely when even the loaded, pro-Mossadegh reps he did allow began to take issue with his rule, rejecting a dismissal the Shah had constitutional right to present to him, and appealing to a (non-sympathetic, as it happened) military to enforce and ensure his rule thereafter.
And the 'overthrow' attempted by the US and UK in the form of Operations Ajax and Boot actually failed, and the conspirators got either rounded up by Mossadegh's government, went into hiding, or fled from the country*. The successful 'revolution' starred one prominent face from the prior attempts (General Zahedi, who the Shah made PM in Mossadegh's place, and who's gone into hiding after the first attempt failed), but came after a Tudeh party rally in Tehran inspired counter-demonstration (potentially organized by Zahedi and others) and things descended into such a cluster that the Army (which, as mentioned, was unsympathetic to Mossadegh and had a lot of pro-Shah forces in it--and definitely a lot of anti-communist officers, since much of it's leadership was drawn from the old aristocratic families of Iran) stepped in and performed the "coup" of Mossadegh in favor of Zahedi.
*Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the CIA head of station and the 'man with the plan' for Ajax, is even alleged to have been in the process of doing this because he and the CIA felt Iran was a lost cause at that point that was going to drop into the Soviet sphere--when sudden divine intervention lucked-out a win from the jaws of defeat...And, unfortunately, made the 'success' of the operation a model for CIA activities in other parts of the globe like South America.
*breath*
*breath*
*breath*
Uh...Yeah...So...That's my rant about that. Sorry. It's just one of those things that bothers me.
Everything after your first comma I'd agree with though.