U.S President Trump hints at Iran war

[tumppu]

For what reason? A lot of people died during those wars. They led to no good what so ever. Of course it didn't last, that's how it always ends. We had to pay dearly for our wars. We even lost Finland. Perhaps if we had chosen another path, one involving less wars (to whatever extent that was possible in those days), we could still have been one country today.

Sweden has prospered since we chose peace over war. We have nothing to learn from those dark days.

I for one am glad we're not "one country" anymore. We did not willingly join you. It involved crushing of existing communities and religions, forced conversion and years and years of slavery. In many ways you were no better than the russians.

Though you sure have mellowed down a lot in the last 200 years. Not even one more war against denmark? Sheesh.

(this was entirely off topic and for this I apologise, but when swedes start pulling this "finland should/could be ours" crap, we need to react, always)

[Z-Man]

Maybe. I don't think the GOP particularly wants to go to budget-busting war with no reason, either.

So they run the war off-book like the last one so it doesn't show up in the budget. A busted budget is good for the GOP, since it gives them more chances to cut SS and Medicare to balance military spending. (War-time presidents always get re-elected, which is reason enough to start one for them.)

[MMOmaniacs]

U.S President Trump hints at Iran war

OP (Yuans), got it right. Why banned ? U.S military is sending 1500 troops to middle east.

[Thraendil]

I for one am glad we're not "one country" anymore. We did not willingly join you. It involved crushing of existing communities and religions, forced conversion and years and years of slavery. In many ways you were no better than the russians.

Though you sure have mellowed down a lot in the last 200 years. Not even one more war against denmark? Sheesh.

(this was entirely off topic and for this I apologise, but when swedes start pulling this "finland should/could be ours" crap, we need to react, always)

Of course Sweden wasn't better than Russia during that period. They were all brutal and horrible people.

Regarding repressing the Finnish part of Sweden, that is probably true! That, however, is nothing special to Sweden of old. That is how minorities were treated all over the world, including minorities (religious as ethnic ones) in Sweden. The fact still remains that I think it would have been better if we all stayed together. But who knows? The past is the past.

[Breccia]

Once again it's time for Guess the Speaker!

Who else would you think is doing it? Somebody from Nepal?

Of course, that's Michael Bolton, saying the --

"John Bolton."

-- the Secretary of State, saying the mines that damaged oil tankers were Iranian because reasons. Bolton, of course, is finding ways to justify the upcoming invasion of Iran that @Skroe seems convinced won't happen but I'm increasingly convinced will:

Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that but he criticized Iran's actions.

"There's no reason for them to do any of that unless that's part of an effort to reduce the breakout time to produce nuclear weapons," Bolton said. "That's a very serious issue if they continue to do that."

"This is just more graphic evidence that it hasn't constrained their continuing desire to have nuclear weapons," Bolton added. "It certainly hasn't reduced their terrorist activities in the region that we just discussed or their other malign behavior in their use of conventional forces."

As a reminder, John "There is no reason" Bolton was around when Trump unilaterally ended the Iran Nuclear Deal, which Iran was adhering to, and reverted sanctions on the country while they continued to adhere to it. Like other times Trump refuses to pay people he's contractually owed, the Iranians are not big fans of this. There's no reason for them to continue to face these sanctions for enriching uranium, and not enrich uranium.

[ringpriest]

Once again it's time for Guess the Speaker!



Of course, that's Michael Bolton, saying the --

"John Bolton."

-- the Secretary of State, saying the mines that damaged oil tankers were Iranian because reasons. Bolton, of course, is finding ways to justify the upcoming invasion of Iran that @Skroe seems convinced won't happen but I'm increasingly convinced will:



As a reminder, John "There is no reason" Bolton was around when Trump unilaterally ended the Iran Nuclear Deal, which Iran was adhering to, and reverted sanctions on the country while they continued to adhere to it. Like other times Trump refuses to pay people he's contractually owed, the Iranians are not big fans of this. There's no reason for them to continue to face these sanctions for enriching uranium, and not enrich uranium.

You'd think that someone whose job is 'National Security Advisor' would be aware (or would think others might be aware) that the UAE is, along with the Saudi dictatorship, currently at war with the Houthi in Yemen, who have been both threatening and attacking oil infrastructure, which just might make them a possible culprit worth mentioning (although I guess that wouldn't help with the manufactured narrative both the US government and the ostensibly independent media like to create (not to imply that American rivals are better, because they aren't)).

[DocSavageFan]

There will be no war with Iran unless Iran wants that war.

[Skroe]

Once again it's time for Guess the Speaker!



Of course, that's Michael Bolton, saying the --

"John Bolton."

-- the Secretary of State, saying the mines that damaged oil tankers were Iranian because reasons. Bolton, of course, is finding ways to justify the upcoming invasion of Iran that @Skroe seems convinced won't happen but I'm increasingly convinced will:



As a reminder, John "There is no reason" Bolton was around when Trump unilaterally ended the Iran Nuclear Deal, which Iran was adhering to, and reverted sanctions on the country while they continued to adhere to it. Like other times Trump refuses to pay people he's contractually owed, the Iranians are not big fans of this. There's no reason for them to continue to face these sanctions for enriching uranium, and not enrich uranium.

I'm sticking by my projection. This reminds me a HELL of a lot of like the North Korea nuclear "crisis" in 2006 that a lot of people were convinced was going to lead to a war then too. And in that case, North Korea actually detonated a weapon.

A proportionate and meaningful US military "punitive campaign" would involve vastly more resources than the US is even close to mobilizing. It'll need three carriers. It'll need it's entire B-2 bomber force. It'll need probably around 400 tomahawk cruise missiles. If it does it by air and sea, it'll never be sure it destroyed the program. if it sends a incursion force in and out, it would need tens of thousands troops to go into Iran and between 100,000 and 200,000 troops to support them in the region. And an invasion? An invasion of a country the size of Iran with the purpose of destroying the regime would take a force on the scale of the 1991 Gulf War.


It's just that, we're not seeing assets and people dramatically retasked. Hell half the B-1B bomber fleet is cut open for upgrades at the moment.

I'd start worrying if Trump were to order two carriers currently doing training near the US to head to the region and the US started to preposition a mix of 100+ F-15Cs and F-22s, plus several dozen B-52s, in the region. It's not close to doing that.

This is a meaningful discussion because Iran would be a kind of idealized "test case" for one of the major transformative initiatives of the post-Gulf War era, which is to make the US military (namely the US Army in particular) extremely rapidly deployable. The Gulf War build up in 1990 took about a year and change. The Iraq War build up in 2002/2003 took about 6 months. The US is geographically isolated and the heaviest hardware must be transported in large numbers via cargo ship. This includes the stuff designed to support aircraft as well (like the collapsible/transportable climate controlled hangars for F-22s and B-2s).

The focus on mobility since 1992 has a goal of eventually making it so the US can send rapidly respond with a small force anywhere in the world within 48-72 hours, but a very large force in 2-3 weeks. You may remember the "Future Combat System", that was going to replace almost every Army vehicle last decade? It was built entirely around this concept. How close are they to achieving that ambition? A lot closer than they were in 2003, but not there yet. Not by a long shot. In fact, one of the big procurement programs spinning up right now is a massive replacement programs for Naval logistics ships because the vintage 1970s ones are aging out.

This is all a really overly detailed way of saying that the US military would needs months and months to send what it needs to into the region to take on Iran. How many months? Probably three to six or so based on what I read. What we've seen so far isn't even a foundation. It's like saying you're going to build a mansion on an empty plot of land by pitching a tent you bought at Walmart for $22.

[Breccia]

It's like saying you're going to build a mansion on an empty plot of land by pitching a tent you bought at Walmart for $22.

$40 from Gander Mountain, thank you.

My concern is less with specific weapons and troops (which I flat-out don't even need to admit you know way more about than I do) but the posturing. The US Govt is making the case "Iran is a terrorist country, it's okay if we bomb the shit out of them". They're poking the dog until it bites, so they can insist the dog be put down for biting. This will be followed by pearl clutching, "think of the white children", and the mobilization of which you speak.

For the record, I hope you're right. Not even Republicans want this. It's a purely Trumpian setup. And Trump can't even negotiate with North Korea. He stands no chance with Iran. Since the costs Iran will likely ask for, to offset the unilateral penalties Trump placed on them for adhering to the Iran Nuclear Deal, is something the EU can't afford right now, Iran is likely going to publicly start enriching uranium again while flipping the rest of the world off. And Trump will attack them for it, despite this being entirely his goddam steam fault.

[Thekri]

I'm sticking by my projection. This reminds me a HELL of a lot of like the North Korea nuclear "crisis" in 2006 that a lot of people were convinced was going to lead to a war then too. And in that case, North Korea actually detonated a weapon.

I agree with this part. I have been saying in several threads this seems to be a means to support Saudi efforts in Yemen and Syria, not actual war with Iran. We are not postured for war, we are postured for posturing.

A proportionate and meaningful US military "punitive campaign" would involve vastly more resources than the US is even close to mobilizing. It'll need three carriers. It'll need it's entire B-2 bomber force. It'll need probably around 400 tomahawk cruise missiles. If it does it by air and sea, it'll never be sure it destroyed the program. if it sends a incursion force in and out, it would need tens of thousands troops to go into Iran and between 100,000 and 200,000 troops to support them in the region. And an invasion? An invasion of a country the size of Iran with the purpose of destroying the regime would take a force on the scale of the 1991 Gulf War.


It's just that, we're not seeing assets and people dramatically retasked. Hell half the B-1B bomber fleet is cut open for upgrades at the moment.

I'd start worrying if Trump were to order two carriers currently doing training near the US to head to the region and the US started to preposition a mix of 100+ F-15Cs and F-22s, plus several dozen B-52s, in the region. It's not close to doing that.

This is a meaningful discussion because Iran would be a kind of idealized "test case" for one of the major transformative initiatives of the post-Gulf War era, which is to make the US military (namely the US Army in particular) extremely rapidly deployable. The Gulf War build up in 1990 took about a year and change. The Iraq War build up in 2002/2003 took about 6 months. The US is geographically isolated and the heaviest hardware must be transported in large numbers via cargo ship. This includes the stuff designed to support aircraft as well (like the collapsible/transportable climate controlled hangars for F-22s and B-2s).

The focus on mobility since 1992 has a goal of eventually making it so the US can send rapidly respond with a small force anywhere in the world within 48-72 hours, but a very large force in 2-3 weeks. You may remember the "Future Combat System", that was going to replace almost every Army vehicle last decade? It was built entirely around this concept. How close are they to achieving that ambition? A lot closer than they were in 2003, but not there yet. Not by a long shot. In fact, one of the big procurement programs spinning up right now is a massive replacement programs for Naval logistics ships because the vintage 1970s ones are aging out.

This is all a really overly detailed way of saying that the US military would needs months and months to send what it needs to into the region to take on Iran. How many months? Probably three to six or so based on what I read. What we've seen so far isn't even a foundation. It's like saying you're going to build a mansion on an empty plot of land by pitching a tent you bought at Walmart for $22.

This I mostly disagree with. You are severely underestimating the amount of military assets we already have in the middle east, and the speed with which we can get more there. To take just the B-2s for example, we wouldn't forward deploy them, they do most of their combat missions out of Branson, Missouri, and the rest from RAF Fairford. Putting B-2s on the ground in the middle east is not something that is done outside of emergencies. Long Range bombers are best used at long range. For instance, the recent move of B-52s was something that got a lot of attention, but only because we decided to posture over a move that was already planned. They were replacing a wing of B-1s that were already in the area, flying strikes into Afghanistan and Syria (And probably Yemen, Mali...).

As far as a ground invasion, we can mobilize a lot quicker then you think, we don't have to move the heavy hardware, it is already there, in vast pre-positioned yards of equipment. All we have to do is fly in the Soldiers. Now you are correct about our naval logistics ships, which was a major concern in 2014 when we started wargaming what we would do if we had too intervene in Eastern Europe, it just really doesn't matter for the middle east.

So overall I agree we don't seem to be doing anything unusual that would lead anyone to believe we are actually mobilizing for war. However we could launch one much faster then you think. We could probably launch a full invasion somewhere around the second week of July if we made the decision today. Which would give the Air Force and Navy a month and a half to dismantle the Iranian command and control, logistics, transportation, and governmental systems. Which we would want to do first anyway. So we won't, but we totally could.

[LiveFree]

A proportionate and meaningful US military "punitive campaign" would involve vastly more resources than the US is even close to mobilizing. It'll need three carriers. It'll need it's entire B-2 bomber force. It'll need probably around 400 tomahawk cruise missiles. If it does it by air and sea, it'll never be sure it destroyed the program. if it sends a incursion force in and out, it would need tens of thousands troops to go into Iran and between 100,000 and 200,000 troops to support them in the region. And an invasion? An invasion of a country the size of Iran with the purpose of destroying the regime would take a force on the scale of the 1991 Gulf War.

A cruise missile has 16 kilos silver. 1000 cruise missiles fired will take Silver price to $60/ounce.

[Skroe]

$40 from Gander Mountain, thank you.

My concern is less with specific weapons and troops (which I flat-out don't even need to admit you know way more about than I do) but the posturing. The US Govt is making the case "Iran is a terrorist country, it's okay if we bomb the shit out of them". They're poking the dog until it bites, so they can insist the dog be put down for biting. This will be followed by pearl clutching, "think of the white children", and the mobilization of which you speak.

For the record, I hope you're right. Not even Republicans want this. It's a purely Trumpian setup. And Trump can't even negotiate with North Korea. He stands no chance with Iran. Since the costs Iran will likely ask for, to offset the unilateral penalties Trump placed on them for adhering to the Iran Nuclear Deal, is something the EU can't afford right now, Iran is likely going to publicly start enriching uranium again while flipping the rest of the world off. And Trump will attack them for it, despite this being entirely his goddam steam fault.

The thing is, Trump is a known quantity know. He's all posture and everyone knows it.

This in itself, is an interesting and important discussion.

One of the things that Trump was 100% correct about is that the United States under every President since (and including) Bill Clinton had become too predictable. The concept of strategic ambiguity went out the window under a misguided view that predictability was ALWAYS in America's interests and in the interest of global security. So you had John Kerry trying to downplay how small the US strike on Assad for its use of chemical weapons would be before the first cruise missile launched ("a pin-prick!"). You had Obama ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (that none of his successors was ever going to enforce). You had the normalization of the press asking if the US would take certain options (with a high level of specificity) "off the table".

Strategic ambiguity is a cornerstone of national and global security, and more broadly, making America's actions unpredictable in some ways has, and will lead to superior outcomes over an America's whose intent and means is always telegraphed ahead of time.

If there is one thing the US had to get out of the business of, it was that, even if makes people nervous. It's designed to make people nervous. There is security in that uncertainty because historically it encourages a more conservative approach to potential friction points. Opponents will make less dramatic moves because they'll have less confidence of where they'll end up.

The Clinton White House talked too much. The Bush White House talked WAAAAAAY too much. The Obama White House in many ways, was all talk.

And what happened? Every power and opponent in the world was able to guess where and what the US would do.

So Trump was right in that that had to go. Iran SHOULD be afraid that if they launch a measily anti-ship missile at a carrier, we'll nuke every military base they have. That's the way things should be.

But here's the problem: Trump has no discipline. He's a slob of a man. A functionally illiterate ignoramous who doesn't prepare, fabricates, bullshits and speaks for nobody but himself. And everyone knows it.

There was real value in Trump TRYING strategic ambiguity, but doing so requires a messaging discipline that his semi-mobile heap of bile and cholesterol is incapable of producing. Trump has acted with such exstensive lack of messaging disipline that ally and adversary alike know to take nothing he says seriously. It'll almost certainly never happen. Want an excellent example of this? The forthcoming G7 meeting isn't going to issue a communique. Why? Because of Trump. Because they know he'll stage some stupid show where he has to act all tough, even though he is JUST acting and there is no action to his words. So they're skipping the drama entirely. Or the NATO 75th celebrations are being designed specifically to deny Trump a platform to say things he doesn't mean and won't enforce.

Iran sees this. Russia sees this. China and North Korea see this. Trump defeated himself, first and foremost, because he can't stay on message, and that has created a completely correct perception that Trump's America isn't an unpredictable one... it's one that'll do jack shit in nearly every situation the President is personally involved in, because he's too shit at his job to play any kind of role in consistently managing the policy direction.

Iran isn't taking the war threat seriously. Neither is Russia or China or Europe. They're not scrambling their diplomats. They aren't arranging major regional conferences to take the pressure down. The military realities that I laid out are secondary to the Trump they've come to know, who has little power in Washington, no means of accomplishing an agenda, and changes his mind within the span of two conversations.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Trump just wanted to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and it looked like even Republicans were against it so a crisis was manufactured to allow it to happen. I wouldn't doubt if it just has to with him wanting to put a hotel or two in Saudi Arabia because the man is that petty.

[Skroe]

I agree with this part. I have been saying in several threads this seems to be a means to support Saudi efforts in Yemen and Syria, not actual war with Iran. We are not postured for war, we are postured for posturing.


This I mostly disagree with. You are severely underestimating the amount of military assets we already have in the middle east, and the speed with which we can get more there. To take just the B-2s for example, we wouldn't forward deploy them, they do most of their combat missions out of Branson, Missouri, and the rest from RAF Fairford. Putting B-2s on the ground in the middle east is not something that is done outside of emergencies. Long Range bombers are best used at long range. For instance, the recent move of B-52s was something that got a lot of attention, but only because we decided to posture over a move that was already planned. They were replacing a wing of B-1s that were already in the area, flying strikes into Afghanistan and Syria (And probably Yemen, Mali...).

As far as a ground invasion, we can mobilize a lot quicker then you think, we don't have to move the heavy hardware, it is already there, in vast pre-positioned yards of equipment. All we have to do is fly in the Soldiers. Now you are correct about our naval logistics ships, which was a major concern in 2014 when we started wargaming what we would do if we had too intervene in Eastern Europe, it just really doesn't matter for the middle east.

So overall I agree we don't seem to be doing anything unusual that would lead anyone to believe we are actually mobilizing for war. However we could launch one much faster then you think. We could probably launch a full invasion somewhere around the second week of July if we made the decision today. Which would give the Air Force and Navy a month and a half to dismantle the Iranian command and control, logistics, transportation, and governmental systems. Which we would want to do first anyway. So we won't, but we totally could.

Well you'd know better than I would. I was referencing, more than the B-2 though, the "Rapid Raptor" initiative (and it's F-15C offshoot, which is basically 4 fighters + all their equipment in a C-17, anywhere in 24 hours) and comparing that to the time table to move large number of tactical aircraft.

I'm fairly sure though I read that the Army has been moving much of the pre-positioned stockpile stuff in the Middle East (namely, Kuwait) back to Europe and Asia in since 2014.

[Thekri]

A cruise missile has 16 kilos silver. 1000 cruise missiles fired will take Silver price to $60/ounce.

A weird concern. And untrue for a lot of reasons.

First: There is literally no evidence a Tomahawk has that much silver. That is an internet rumor with absolutely no basis in fact. Silver is obviously used in the electronics, but there is nowhere near enough silver plating to constitute 16 kg. Less then one kilo is far more likely.

Second: The US already has 3500 Tomahawks stockpiled. Many of these are nearing the end of their shelf life. The US military loves finding bad guys to shoot their old ordinance at, that is why we dropped the MOAB in Afghanistan a few years ago. The sucker was expiring. So shooting these missiles doesn't change anything, the silver is already a sunk cost.

Third: Silver is currently $14.45 per ounce (Refined bullion, better quality stuff then used in electronics). There is 44,000 metric tons of silver bullion in circulation. IF it was 16 kg per missile, and IF the US immediately ordered all those tomahawks remade, that is 8 tons of industrial use silver that comes off the market. That is less then half a percent of normal annual industrial use. So a quadrupling of the market for that is weird.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you'd know better than I would. I was referencing, more than the B-2 though, the "Rapid Raptor" initiative (and it's F-15C offshoot, which is basically 4 fighters + all their equipment in a C-17, anywhere in 24 hours) and comparing that to the time table to move large number of tactical aircraft.

I'm fairly sure though I read that the Army has been moving much of the pre-positioned stockpile stuff in the Middle East (namely, Kuwait) back to Europe and Asia in since 2014.

They moved a fair bit of it, yes. But there is still a huge amount there. Definitely enough to arm at least two heavy divisions (Probably 1ID and 4ID). Which is enough to get started while the ships bring another 2-4 heavy divisions over (3ID and some combination of 1CAV, 2ID, or 1AD). Add in the light divisions an a lot of marines and you are good to go.

The Airforce can go pretty quick, but I am not as familiar with their mobilization. I assume they would use all their Cargo planes for themselves first, then take Army Aviation over next. Most of the Army would go over on Charter planes.

But we have literally no useful allies in this fight, which is a rather enormous problem. Our entire CENTCOM architecture includes a lot of British, Canadian, and Australian Officers, along with lesser amounts from every other NATO nation. Since none of them would be coming along, replacing them would be a nightmare. In fact, theater control would probably be the biggest challenge involved. Getting the ground troops in would be the easy part.

[Breccia]

Iran sees this. Russia sees this. China and North Korea see this. Trump defeated himself, first and foremost, because he can't stay on message, and that has created a completely correct perception that Trump's America isn't an unpredictable one... it's one that'll do jack shit in nearly every situation the President is personally involved in, because he's too shit at his job to play any kind of role in consistently managing the policy direction.

Hmm.

You haven't convinced me yet, but you're a lot closer. Something to think about.

[Skroe]

Hmm.

You haven't convinced me yet, but you're a lot closer. Something to think about.

Well here is a timely exhibit B:



Trump is legitimately ALL talk. Shit like this discredits him. He his mister zero-follow through.

Same reason we won't get steam catapults in Aircraft carriers easier.

[LiveFree]

Third: Silver is currently $14.45 per ounce (Refined bullion, better quality stuff then used in electronics). There is 44,000 metric tons of silver bullion in circulation. IF it was 16 kg per missile, and IF the US immediately ordered all those tomahawks remade, that is 8 tons of industrial use silver that comes off the market. That is less then half a percent of normal annual industrial use. So a quadrupling of the market for that is weird.

If 1000 cruise missiles are fired, 5000 cruise missiles will be made worldwide. China has moved 100s of giant missiles in military warehouses

[Skroe]

Also not really any place to put this:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...r-ffgx-design/
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/28/loc...r-ffgx-contest

Lockheed has declined to enter an improved Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship / Little Crappy Ship variant into the competition for the new Frigate (that replaced the curtailed LCS program). This leaves just four competitors in - Huntington Ingalls Industries, Austal USA, Fincantieri and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. Austal is the contractor for the other LCS variant, the Independence class, which has almost not chance of winning it in the first place.

This is very good news for the US Navy. The Freedom-class is a piece of crap and could never be sufficiently improved to be a "real" friggate worthy of succeeding the OHP frigates. The Austal Independence class is a similar piece of crap and its weird design makes it winning unlikely.

This means that the new Frigate will either be a (less likely) an improved, up armored and modified National Security Cutter variant (which was designed with a potental frigate variant in mind) or more likely, a European design: the French-Italian FREMM and the Spanish-American Álvaro de Bazán-class F100 frigate.

The smart money is on the F100 because it already impliments Aegis, US Mark 41 VLS and many US technologies. In many ways they're mini-Aegis Destroyers. The FREMM is a great ship but it's only ever had (mostly) French and Italian weapons, sensors and computers integrated on it.

With the F100 variant, the Navy would improve an already very capable ship that has much in common with what they already have. The FREMM would require many more changes. The National Security Cutter would require a lot of changes, and be less capable than either.

So in short, good news for the US Navy and hysterically, a symbol of a growing US-European security relationship despite the age of Trump. The Navy says its going to buy 20 frigates. Really, it's going to buy many, many more over the next 20 years.

[Thekri]

If 1000 cruise missiles are fired, 5000 cruise missiles will be made worldwide. China has moved 100s of giant missiles in military warehouses

Ok, good talk dude. Go buy your silver then.