Seems Iran got another US drone.

[Kalyyn]

You know in most of these thread eventually the nuclear issue comes up, which it has here already, and I keep wondering:

How the hell the only country who has ever used the fucking bomb and still has thousands of them gets to be the nuclear bomb police?!

Obviously because we have the most experience with them!

[soulcrusher]

UN is the nuclear bomb police. The US is just the only country with enough extra military resources that it has any desire to engage in a foreign war.

The trouble is it's not enforced equally. You can't pressure Iran and ignore aggressive nuclear religious zealot Israel.

[Caliph]

"The Iranian military says it has captured an unmanned US drone aircraft in its airspace over Gulf waters.

The Revolutionary Guards said they had brought down a ScanEagle - one of the smaller, less sophisticated drones employed by the Americans.

Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi told the Fars news agency that the drone had conducted several reconnaissance flights over the Gulf in recent days.

The US said it was looking into the reports."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20591336

If it's true, it's pretty retarded. I don't know why the US would use 'less sophisticated' hardware when they have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar once. If it is true, maybe they're doing it to try and provoke a reaction, pretty fucked up.

I'm pretty sure violation of airspace like that can be seen as an act of war, it was ignored the first time and the US didn't even get a slap on the wrist. I wonder what now. Maybe they 'lost control' and it 'strayed into Iranian airspace' again.

wHAT would the US do if iran was sending drones over its territorial waters. hmmm.

[ringpriest]

Remember that we're dealing with a nation lead by dillusional, psychotic, leaders who have a history of fabricating lies" and attempts to rewrite history.

Are you talking about the US or Iran?

[Beavis]

The trouble is it's not enforced equally. You can't pressure Iran and ignore aggressive nuclear religious zealot Israel.

Sure we can. It pays to have friends in high places.

[CellarDoor]

The Eu butthurt in this thread is amazingly strong.

On topic: Is anyone really surprised that the U.S. is flying drones over Iran? You guys are acting like this means full-scale invasion or some shit. My favorite part of this thread is Kangodo providing zero sources as usual, but hey if it helps your argument and no one calls you on it lying always works!

[Deleted]

And I don't you understand how B2s work.

I do. And I also understand how expensive they are. And all the flaws they have even with the upgrades.

Man it aint the 80's anymore.
You don't have enough economic support to withstand a full on war with Iran.

[Beavis]

I do. And I also understand how expensive they are. And all the flaws they have even with the upgrades.

Man it aint the 80's anymore.
You don't have enough economic support to withstand a full on war with Iran.

Airstrikes are not the same thing as an invasion. Between our drone fleet, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and JDAMs, the US has the ability to strike any target on the planet with relative impunity.

[Doktor Faustus]

The Eu butthurt in this thread is amazingly strong.

On topic: Is anyone really surprised that the U.S. is flying drones over Iran? You guys are acting like this means full-scale invasion or some shit. My favorite part of this thread is Kangodo providing zero sources as usual, but hey if it helps your argument and no one calls you on it lying always works!

Love Americans (been there a couple of times, was treated very well), loathe the American 'stewardship' of the world.

With power comes great responsibility.

[Palmatum]

I'm very aware of that fact. Right now they've got a handful of WuZhen-5 recon drones and they're field testing the Chengu Pterodactyl. If you could see the specs on these things, you'd know they're garbage. The Pterodactyl is generations behind even our old Predator drones (never mind our new Avenger model) and the WuZhen-5 is basically an RC plane with a camera on it.


Anyway, the Navy says that they are not currently missing any drones. Looks like Iran is making shit up again...

I'm no more likely to trust US Military sources in this matter than Iranian.

---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 09:08 AM ----------

The Eu butthurt in this thread is amazingly strong.

On topic: Is anyone really surprised that the U.S. is flying drones over Iran? You guys are acting like this means full-scale invasion or some shit. My favorite part of this thread is Kangodo providing zero sources as usual, but hey if it helps your argument and no one calls you on it lying always works!

The fact is, if it's true, the US is doing something it shouldn't be. You can't masquerade around about freedom and all that other good stuff if you're going to violate another nation's airspace just because you don't want them to have something.

No matter who you are, you shouldn't be able to circumvent the official channels and get away with it.

If Iran was flying drones in US airspace then I'd imagine there would be several air bases in Iran under plumes of smoke by now.

[Deleted]

Airstrikes are not the same thing as an invasion. Between our drone fleet, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and JDAMs, the US has the ability to strike any target on the planet with relative impunity.

Yeh thats true. but i feel like i should add... You can strike FREELY any target on the planet THAT CANNOT RETALIATE.
Drones and stealth aircrafts are expensive and the loss of a few of them would make your generals think twice.
And dont think Iran can't and won't fight back. As said before, Iran isn't Iraq nor Afghanistan. Its a fully sustainable country full of resources that has been on the alert from you guys a good few years now.

Mind you, i dont doubt the destructive force of the USA army.
I just think you shouldnt get the last 2 events, iraq and afghanistan as an example.
For two reason.
First neither of them had a proper army able to counter your aircraft attacks.
Second because in both cases you showed how, yes, things go amazingly easy when, before a ground invasion, you airstrike the place to oblivion.
BUT
when it comes down to a ground invasion, even a run down iraq, hell even afghanistan, with guerrilla tactics, can hold you in a headlock, while public opinion drops dramatically.

Think how it would drop if you had to fight a proper army, old school ground invasion. People just wont accept it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 10:16 AM ----------

Sure we can. It pays to have friends in high places.

Yeah... Which ones were the good guys again?

[soulcrusher]

Airstrikes are not the same thing as an invasion. Between our drone fleet, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and JDAMs, the US has the ability to strike any target on the planet with relative impunity.

great attitude. blast people to bits from the saftey of home. you dont like it when you get hit back though do you. i guess thats always the case with bullies. cant actually fight for toffee just spend their time picking on the little guys.

[Deleted]

great attitude. blast people to bits from the saftey of home. you dont like it when you get hit back though do you. i guess thats always the case with bullies. cant actually fight for toffee just spend their time picking on the little guys.

True.
That's why I think it won't work against Iran.
They aren't really "little guys"

[N-7]

just stop it. our airspace has been breached many times, it was a regular occurrence during the cold war, and surprise surprise, no invasion. but stay classy on the hyperbole

Because of MAD. If Iran even dare to fly near USA even in international space, it would probably lead to invasion.

---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:27 AM ----------

I don't blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons, even as a deterrence. However, I don't blame Iran's neighbors or anyone else for wanting them to not have nuclear weapons. Theocracies can be hard to predict and are generally not as stable as republics or democracies. Meanwhile the most realistic case isn't that Iran would use nuclear weapons aggressively, but that they would 'lose' bombs or enriched material and it would turn up inside groups seen as terrorist organizations by many places, which would then detonate the dirty bombs inside their territory.

Also, proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad, mmmkay.

Pulling that arugment again? Pakistan a country that have shitload of terrorists in it didn't "lose" bombs, so why would Iran?

---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:28 AM ----------

Are you talking about the US or Iran?

Probably US... :P

[soulcrusher]

True.
That's why I think it won't work against Iran.
They aren't really "little guys"

sadly in this case i would have to disagree with you. america would do what it always does and obliterate everything from afar. 1.5 million dead iraqis, mostly civilians are testament to that. there arent many countries in the world capable of withstanding the firepower they could bring to bear. ofc the ones that could, they wouldnt dare attack. but then not many countries want to waste so much of their GDP on a needless pissing contest either. maybe thats why their economy is going down the toilet and well all be speaking chineese soon.

[saffi]

Whats the point in having laws, policies, and procedures if some countries are just going to ignore them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...445_story.html

If Iran ONLY wanted nuclear power plants (which the Russians offered to help them build for much less then a research then build cost), then why do they refuse the UN inspectors access to places?

Someone asked the same question about Iraq, and then went to bomb them. Guess what? No nuclear weapons.

Also, the rules are made by the US for the US. It's kinda ironic that THEY are the ones telling other people to not have nukes. It's like me pointing a gun at someone's head to prevent them from buying guns.

[obdigore]

Someone asked the same question about Iraq, and then went to bomb them. Guess what? No nuclear weapons.

Also, the rules are made by the US for the US. It's kinda ironic that THEY are the ones telling other people to not have nukes. It's like me pointing a gun at someone's head to prevent them from buying guns.

Iran signed on to play by the rules, and they aren't. And before you start whining about Isreal, perhaps you should read who signed the NPT and who didnt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons

[Ryuukon]

Because of MAD. If Iran even dare to fly near USA even in international space, it would probably lead to invasion.

And what does MAD have to do with invasion? Nothing? Nothing at all?

Oh, by the way... your tinfoil hat has a crinkle on the left side. That is a weakness our Mass Mental Control satellites can exploit. Our Weather Control satellites had been programmed to blow the wind in just the right direction to create that crinkle. Just saying...

[saffi]

Iran signed on to play by the rules, and they aren't. And before you start whining about Isreal, perhaps you should read who signed the NPT and who didnt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons

Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.

[obdigore]

Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.

Implying that the US 'doesnt have the money' is a foolish assumption. Refusing UN inspectors is breaking the rules, and a cause to be suspicious. Why you think that somehow the US strongarmed every other nation to sign onto this treaty and is the sole voice in enforcing it I have no idea, but your tinfoil hat might need to come off at some point.