Can the Iranian sink a US Carrier Group?

[Thanas]

Are you truly this dumb? After proclaiming invading Iraq was a bad idea, what makes you think evading an even stronger nation with even heavier defences a better idea?

[AndroAsc]

I really don't know whether Iran could sink a carrier group, but your attitude really makes me wish they could.

By your reasoning, it'd perfectly fine to invade the US, take all their resources and enslave their population - as long as it's in the interest of whatever nation capable of doing so.

I'll bite.

You are prescribing morality to a nation's action and hence condemning invasion. Yes, my personal sense of morality also agrees with you. BUT nations states are inherently AMORAL (check this definition if you don't understand). Nations are not bounded by morality.

And if a nation needs to invade and take the resources of another nation to survive that is fine, because the primary function of the nation is to serve the interest's of its own people. That's why nations were formed the first placed you fucking retard.

Now whether or not invading and stripping the land of resources is the best option is another issue entirely. I personally prefer "soft power" (which is what the Chinese is doing) versus "hard power" (the American war waging approach). On a personal level, I do not think these wars in the Middle East are a good idea because it is terrible PR for us and not to mention expensive and increasing our debt. What I have been arguing is that I can understand why the US might choose to invade oil rich countries for reasons to ensure the future of its people.

Now if your brain is so small that you can't compartmentalize these concepts and must lump everything into one then there is no point to this discussion.

[AndroAsc]

For the retards on this post, who can't help but obfuscate my points, I will reiterate my political stand:
1) Invading another country is not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.
2) I do OBJECT to the ongoing campaign against Iraq/Afghanistan/soon-to-be Iran on the grounds that it is financially and diplomatically unwise. However, my objections are not grounded on moral reasons (like most people).
3) I can UNDERSTAND why US attacked oil-rich countries for its resources motivated by peak oil. Understanding is different from approval or consent BTW. Apparently there are some people who think understanding = approval. Go back to high school and re-learn your English if you cannot comprehend the difference.

GET IT????

[Kryten]

GET IT????

You said, direct quote,

I don't have a problem with it

So no, I don't 'get' how that isn't 'approval or consent'.

[AndroAsc]

Is there any proof that the Iranians even have 'Sunburn' missiles in this kind of quantity?

Nobody knows. To quote the article:
"Iran possesses a build up of anti-ship weapons called Sunburn missiles, which it has procured from Russia and China over the last decade. These are top-notch weapons developed by the Russians as a low-cost challenge to the expensive, tech-heavy weaponry of the U.S., and specifically the aircraft carrier task force. A conflict, which I now assign a high probability to [see Scenario for an Israel Attack on Iran], is going to be a huge test of a global-naval doctrine that Russia and China will watch with tremendous interest. That’s why I think they have armed Iran to the teeth. The big question: How many of these weapons does Iran have? I would suggest thousands, and that this is the real show."

The author opines it is in the thousands. I would not be surprised if this is the case. I would expect the Russians and Chinese to arm Iran with their anti-ship missiles as a proxy war against the US.

[Thanas]

For the retards on this post, who can't help but obfuscate my points, I will reiterate my political stand:
1) Invading another country is not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

So the holocaust was not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

GTFO.

[AndroAsc]

So no, I don't 'get' how that isn't 'approval or consent'.

Some people are so simplistic in their thinking. Let me spell it out fully.

I don't have a problem with nations invading others for resources based on a moral perspective.

And "don't have a problem" does not mean approval, it can mean that one is agnostic about a particular scenario. If I approved of it, I would have worded it more strongly.

[AndroAsc]

For the retards on this post, who can't help but obfuscate my points, I will reiterate my political stand:
1) Invading another country is not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

So the holocaust was not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

GTFO.

Apparently idiots like you do not understand what AMORAL is. From the online dictionary:
1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

[Kryten]

Nobody knows. To quote the article:
[Snip]

To put it more bluntly, do you have a more credible article? The one you have linked to simply makes the assertion that Iran has the missiles, and provides no sources.

[Thanas]

For the retards on this post, who can't help but obfuscate my points, I will reiterate my political stand:
1) Invading another country is not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

So the holocaust was not immoral, because a nation's actions cannot be ascribed with any moral standards.

GTFO.

Apparently idiots like you do not understand what AMORAL is. From the online dictionary:
1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

No, I understand you alright. You think there is no moral quality to killing millions of people because it is a state acting here.

Like I said, you are a short-dicked sociopath.

[Korto]

The basic premise is that in a doomsday and possibly realistic scenario, the Iranians may be able to wipe out an entire US carrier group. Yes, the unsinkable US aircraft carrier,

Aircraft carriers are unsinkable? That's amazing! Maybe in honour of this feat, we should rename them all. I suggest 'Titanic'.
Mate, anything can be sunk, if someone's willing to devote the time, effort, and resources to it. I mean, if someone dropped a big nuke near the ship, presumably the pieces, once they finally hit the water, will sink. The question would be if it's worth all the expediture. I'll assume not, easier (remember, "easier" does not mean "easy") to cripple the thing and let it limp off.
Sinking an aircraft carrier =/= winning against the US (although it would make the US cry, and don't you hate to see a grown country cry), and any thought of Iran winning in that kind of straight-up fight is simply fantasy. They may be able to win as a kind of Vietnam/Afgahistan insugent wear-them-down thing, but that's a different matter.

Iran may be able to make the US inevitable conventional victory more expensive than the US expected or desired, and more embarressing on the world stage, shining them in an even worse light, and that's what Iran would have to call a "Win".
Why is it the US insists on seeing Iran as a threat? A couple of days ago we had bloody John Bolton (US ambassador to Australia) talking about how they were a threat to the US existence.

Now let's get to your main problem.

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

Ohhh...kaaaay....

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

Mate, you're a bloody moron. If you wanted to keep it to the technological, you should have bit your tongue and kept your stupid "clarification" to yourself. This isn't just being a sociopath, this is being a stupid sociopath, you're like the arsonist who not only hangs around the burning building to watch, but is still holding the can of petrol while doing so. Seriously.

Have you read your history books? Wars for resources are the NORM not the exception throughout human history.

Actually, I believe trade for resources is the norm throughtout history, dating right back to the stone-age (when they traded for flint). War just gets all the press.

edit: sorry if this is a DP Thanas, but I'd aready written it all before your warning, and I hate to waste it.

[UnderAGreySky]

1) Russia/China have sold/supplied Iranian with a presumably large number of anti-ship cruise missiles (aka Sunburn missiles).
2) The Persian Gulf is enclosed by land on almost all sides, and the Iranian can move their cruise missile assets into crossfire positions.
3) Once the crossfire is setup, the US carrier group will be spammed with cruise missiles until they sink. Each Sunburn missile carries a 750lb warhead with a speed of Mach 2. One missile can knockout a destroyer. Probably a few will take down a carrier. US anti-missile defenses may not be adequate to deal with such a situation.
4) The US navy has not been tested against this hypothetical cruise missile spam. In the closest analogous battle in modern history during the Falklands war where the Argentinians had 5 Exocets anti-ship cruise missiles, they managed to sink 2 British naval vessels. The Argentians Exocets missiles were sub-sonic and the Sunburn missiles that the Iranian have are super-sonic.

The hardest part about sinking a carrier is knowing where it is in the first place. For that you need airborne radar that is A) powerful enough and B) Can get close enough to track it. While (A) might be doable for the Iranians - I doubt - (B) is right out. Hornets from the carrier will swat any Iranian aircraft attempting to get within that range.

Next, a missile with this high a speed means it you have to know exactly where to hit - there's no time for mid-course updates in a 30-second flight.

Third, what is the delivery platform? Iran has no fighters capable of really carrying and launching this missile, and if they try to do a ground launch then their delivery systems are ripe for pre-emptive strike.

Not that I believe in the efficacy of the missile anyway; it's an old piece of kit and I don't think it or its delivery vehicles will be able to get through the US/NATO physical and electronic nets.

[General Brock]

A government has to do what I needs to do to preserve and protect their people. So the American govt has the duty to preserve and protect Americans. If that means invading countries for oil to pre-empt a peak oil scenario, by all means that's fine. That is what nations do. Remember your history lesson?

My concern is when we are spending too much money fighting "unprofitable" wars, or fighting a war that we cannot win easily.

Presumably you also recognize that attacked countries have the right to defend themselves and Iraq and Afghanistan are a long way from ever returning a trillion dollars.

As far as Iran taking out a CSG, impossible. Unless the carrier is so positioned as to be martyred to cement the war with the American public. It would take a lot to convince Iran to sink nuclear reactor disasters off its shores, though. That's the unspoken threat of any nuclear powered warship off one's shores.

A damaged carrier force effectively mission-killed and leaving station for repairs is probably the preferred and likely outcome for all concerned, assuming open war cannot be averted and the CSG can't avoid the counterstrike.

[AndroAsc]

No, I understand you alright. You think there is no moral quality to killing millions of people because it is a state acting here.

Like I said, you are a short-dicked sociopath.

Yeah whatever. It's moralistic dicks like you who must ascribe moral value to every single fucking thing on this planet. Nation states are by definition amoral entities. If you refuse to analyze nation's actions from this perspective then fuck off.

Your arguments have been nothing but red herrings. And I never did say that genocide was moral. It's dicks like you who can't understand the difference between PEOPLE and NATION. So while Germany's actions in WW2 was understandable, since Germany by itself is an amoral entity, HITLER the PERSON behind the genocide was immoral.

EDIT: And seriously guys, go read up on some basic politics theory before commenting any further. Ascribing amorality to nation state's action is the fucking convention in this field. So stop this shit before you make yourselves look like clowns. From a random quick google:

"Arguably political realism supports Hobbes’s view of the state of nature, namely that the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily A-MORAL."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/

What are you? A bunch of uneducated trolls???

[Grumman]

You are prescribing morality to a nation's action and hence condemning invasion. Yes, my personal sense of morality also agrees with you. BUT nations states are inherently AMORAL (check this definition if you don't understand). Nations are not bounded by morality.

Even if they aren't, people are. Therefore, even if we take it as a given that "the United States" is not at moral fault for mugging innocent bystanders for their resources, every politician who advances this strategy and every soldier who fights for such a cause is.

[AndroAsc]

You are prescribing morality to a nation's action and hence condemning invasion. Yes, my personal sense of morality also agrees with you. BUT nations states are inherently AMORAL (check this definition if you don't understand). Nations are not bounded by morality.

Even if they aren't, people are. Therefore, even if we take it as a given that "the United States" is not at moral fault for mugging innocent bystanders for their resources, every politician who advances this strategy and every soldier who fights for such a cause is.

We are talking about US vs Iran. Two nations. We are not talking about the leaders behind these nations.

[Thanas]

No, I understand you alright. You think there is no moral quality to killing millions of people because it is a state acting here.

Like I said, you are a short-dicked sociopath.

Yeah whatever. It's moralistic dicks like you who must ascribe moral value to every single fucking thing on this planet. Nation states are by definition amoral entities. If you refuse to analyze nation's actions from this perspective then fuck off.

Your arguments have been nothing but red herrings. And I never did say that genocide was moral. It's dicks like you who can't understand the difference between PEOPLE and NATION. So while Germany's actions in WW2 was understandable, since Germany by itself is an amoral entity, HITLER the PERSON behind the genocide was immoral.

Are you kidding me? The Holocaust was understandable?

Let me guess, you also believe that states are not legally obligated to pay reparations for their bad behaviour, right?

EDIT: And seriously guys, go read up on some basic politics theory before commenting any further. Ascribing amorality to nation state's action is the fucking convention in this field. So stop this shit before you make yourselves look like clowns. From a random quick google:

"Arguably political realism supports Hobbes’s view of the state of nature, namely that the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily A-MORAL."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/

What are you? A bunch of uneducated trolls???

No, but apparently you are for you fail to understand that ever since WWII, state actions have indeed been considered in moral and philosophical categories. You know, the reason why wars of aggressions are considered illegal nowadays.

You are prescribing morality to a nation's action and hence condemning invasion. Yes, my personal sense of morality also agrees with you. BUT nations states are inherently AMORAL (check this definition if you don't understand). Nations are not bounded by morality.

Even if they aren't, people are. Therefore, even if we take it as a given that "the United States" is not at moral fault for mugging innocent bystanders for their resources, every politician who advances this strategy and every soldier who fights for such a cause is.

We are talking about US vs Iran. Two nations. We are not talking about the leaders behind these nations.

The leaders are representing the nation, moron.

[AndroAsc]

Are you kidding me? The Holocaust was understandable?

MOTHER FUCKER!!! Did I ever say that? READ MY FUCKING POST DIPSHIT!!!
"So while Germany's actions in WW2 was understandable, since Germany by itself is an amoral entity, HITLER the PERSON behind the genocide was immoral."

EDIT: Oh before retard boy makes another stupid post. It was HITLER the person who ordered the genocide of the Jews. Germany, the nation state only invaded and land-grabbed its European neighbors. Germany as a nation state would have no reason to kill Jews for fun because it did not provide any strategic/tactical advantage or resources. If you can't see the FUCKING DISTINCTION between the immoral acts of one MAN vs the amoral action of a nation state who was the aggressor in WW2 then don't bother commenting.

Let me guess, you also believe that states are not legally obligated to pay reparations for their bad behaviour, right?

You pay for reparations only if you lose. There is no morals here. Germany paid reparations cause they lost. Simple as that.

No, but apparently you are for you fail to understand that ever since WWII, state actions have indeed been considered in moral and philosophical categories. You know, the reason why wars of aggressions are considered illegal nowadays.

You are a fucking retard. ILLEGAL? There are NO laws governing the action of nation states. This just shows your UTTER FUCKING LACK of understanding of international politics. There is consensus yes. There is collective "norms" yes. But there is no laws governing international politics. So if US chooses to unilaterally and unjustifiedly attack some oil rich country say like Iraq... US is not going to be thrown into a court and sentenced to jail. Oh wait... didn't that just happened in recent history?

EDIT: The "supposed" illegal wars of aggression is bullshit. It is rather a change of consensus in the last century to render such wars as not the norm. Any country can break the norm, and suffer the political and diplomatic consequences. But is there any legality involved? NO...

The leaders are representing the nation, moron.

Go read up on basic political theory. You are fucking retard. Leaders are not usually considered in analyzing nation's actions.

[bobalot]

This is your evidence that war with Iran is imminent? Grandiose historical claims? We don't live in a mercantile economic world any more. Companies can simply buy the resources they need on the free market.

No you dick. The historical evidence was to point out the fact that invading countries for resources is the norm, and there is no need to sprout your gospel of "OMG it is immoral to invade other countries", cause shit like this happens all the time. See my other post of why I think we should analyze a country's action from an amoral perspective.

I didn't even make the "it's not moral" argument. You should try reading what people post.

I pointed out that we don't live in an mercantile economic world any more. We don't even live in a world where large parts of the world are excluded or limited from trade (i.e. the communist block). There is simply no NEED to invade a country for their resources when it's far cheaper to simply buy these resources on the free market.

Peak oil is an eventuality that America has to prepare for, and the US being more dependent on fossil fuels that other developed nations (e.g. Eurozone) and so is more susceptible to this eventuality.

So? How does this prove your claim that war with Iran is inevitable?

Because it might motivate the US to find means to ensure a reliable oil supply for the future? You know, like invading a country in the hopes that you can install a govt sympathetic to your cause?

You just tried to provide evidence for your flimsy claim with more flimsy claims.

1. The U.S will continue to be very fossil fuel dependent compared to other industrialised nations. However, the supposedly inevitably rising price of resources will make alternatives and energy efficiency more economical to pursue making this claim rather dubious.

2. In order to supply this fossil fuel dependency, the U.S will be forced to spend enormous amounts of resources to invade other countries to install client regimes. You have not provided any evidence that this is the most cost effective, or desired option, left for the United States.

But it hasn't played out this way. Over a decade ago, Bush and his friends probably thought it would be more cost-effective to invade and control oil-rich countries to ensure the future of this nation.

He invaded one country. The cost of that war far outweighed the cost of simply buying the oil. This was known from the beginning of the war by most people. In fact, oil production was crippled for years making your claim that "IT WAS ABOUT THE OILZ LOLZ!!! PEAK OILZ!" even more ridiculous.

So in other words, invading Iraq for oil was a bad tactical move and a serious fuckup. Yes, I agree with you. So what was your point? If we didn't invade Iraq for oil, what was it for? The War on Terror? Get real dude...

I'm not going into why they invaded Iraq. I'm pointing out the Iraq invasion showed that invading countries to control their resources is not cost effective and most likely counter-productive in terms of resource extraction, meaning your premise that more invasions are required or inevitable is not supported by evidence.

[Kryten]

If you can't see the FUCKING DISTINCTION between the immoral acts of one MAN vs the amoral action of a nation state who was the aggressor in WW2 then don't bother commenting.

How can you say actions taken by a Nation-State were not actually actions of that Nation-State, just because they were ordered by the head of state? How can you separate a state from it's own government?
And from the Nazi's own point of view, Germany as a nation-state did gain a strategic advantage from the Holocaust-it was aimed against the worldwide Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy that was preventing nations like the U.K. from coming round to their position.

[Thanas]

Are you kidding me? The Holocaust was understandable?

MOTHER FUCKER!!! Did I ever say that? READ MY FUCKING POST DIPSHIT!!!
"So while Germany's actions in WW2 was understandable, since Germany by itself is an amoral entity, HITLER the PERSON behind the genocide was immoral."

EDIT: Oh before retard boy makes another stupid post. It was HITLER the person who ordered the genocide of the Jews. Germany, the nation state only invaded and land-grabbed its European neighbors. Germany as a nation state would have no reason to kill Jews for fun because it did not provide any strategic/tactical advantage or resources. If you can't see the FUCKING DISTINCTION between the immoral acts of one MAN vs the amoral action of a nation state who was the aggressor in WW2 then don't bother commenting.

How about you take a huge dose of STFU right now, shortus dickus? The holocaust was not the act of one man. The entire state apparatus was complicit in it and carried it out. You cannot make the artificial distinction of Hitler the man (who you concede was immoral) and Hitler the leader of the nation and representative of it. When he was signing the execution orders, guess as what he was signing them?

You pay for reparations only if you lose. There is no morals here. Germany paid reparations cause they lost. Simple as that.

Yes there is. Ever since Versailles, there has been a moral condemnation as well, which formed the legal basis for reparations.

You are a fucking retard. ILLEGAL? There are NO laws governing the action of nation states.

Yes there are. Their constitutions govern their actions inwards (and in some cases, like in the German one, outwards as well), and there is international law, including but not limited to the UN charta, that governs the actions among nations states. Your ignorance is telling.

This just shows your UTTER FUCKING LACK of understanding of international politics. There is consensus yes. There is collective "norms" yes. But there is no laws governing international politics. So if US chooses to unilaterally and unjustifiedly attack some oil rich country say like Iraq... US is not going to be thrown into a court and sentenced to jail.

Just because there is no court to punish an action does not make it legal. Oh, and btw, the US took pains to get UN approval to attack Iraq precisely because wars of aggressions would be illegal otherwise.

Oh wait... didn't that just happened in recent history?

EDIT: The "supposed" illegal wars of aggression is bullshit. It is rather a change of consensus in the last century to render such wars as not the norm. Any country can break the norm, and suffer the political and diplomatic consequences. But is there any legality involved? NO...

Yes there is, considering the UN charta is considered universal laws.

Go read up on basic political theory. You are fucking retard. Leaders are not usually considered in analyzing nation's actions.

That statement, in its utter simplicity and arrogance is so very fitting to your debating style. Of course leaders are considered.

[Grumman]

Even if they aren't, people are. Therefore, even if we take it as a given that "the United States" is not at moral fault for mugging innocent bystanders for their resources, every politician who advances this strategy and every soldier who fights for such a cause is.

We are talking about US vs Iran. Two nations. We are not talking about the leaders behind these nations.

But we cannot talk about nations as entities capable of taking action in their own right without also holding them accountable for those actions. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too - giving nations an equivalent to corporate personhood only when it is most beneficial.

[AndroAsc]

How about you take a huge dose of STFU right now, shortus dickus? The holocaust was not the act of one man. The entire state apparatus was complicit in it and carried it out. You cannot make the artificial distinction of Hitler the man (who you concede was immoral) and Hitler the leader of the nation and representative of it. When he was signing the execution orders, guess as what he was signing them?

Hey dipshit SHUT THE FUCK UP. I am not going discuss this with an ignoramus such as you. You obviously have no idea about the conventions and norms for analyzing nation politics.

Yes there is. Ever since Versailles, there has been a moral condemnation as well, which formed the legal basis for reparations.

So is the US repaying Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes there are. Their constitutions govern their actions inwards (and in some cases, like in the German one, outwards as well), and there is international law, including but not limited to the UN charta, that governs the actions among nations states. Your ignorance is telling.

What laws a country enact to govern it's behavior with other countries is different from the international laws you were talking about. Stop bullshiting and obfuscating two separate concepts. The UN is a spineless entity, it does not govern the action among nation states. The fucking UN was formed to ensure that its member would have rights as SOVEREIGN states to do as they please within their own jurisdiction. The UN is an attempt of the superpowers of that time (aka WW2 winners) to impose their idea of international norms to the rest of the world. The UN is not and has never been a legal entity to govern nation behavior. YOU are the fucking IGNORAMUS HERE!

Just because there is no court to punish an action does not make it legal. Oh, and btw, the US took pains to get UN approval to attack Iraq precisely because wars of aggressions would be illegal otherwise.

You fucking IDIOT. Laws and enforcement go hand in hand. If there is no "higher authority" to meet out "punishments" to enforce "the law" there is no legal system. This is why international law is a misnomer. There is no high court to punish or regulate the way nation states behave. The US getting UN approval was more of a POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC maneuver to get support, it was never about complying with LEGAL requirements. You are a real FUCKING IDIOT when it comes to international politics did you know that? Hey International Politics 101: THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAWS (yes, the media always make reference to international laws, but they are not real laws as we know of them in civilian life).

Yes there is, considering the UN charta is considered universal laws.

It is only a law if it can be enforced, and it is unenforceable.

Go read up on basic political theory. You are fucking retard. Leaders are not usually considered in analyzing nation's actions.

That statement, in its utter simplicity and arrogance is so very fitting to your debating style. Of course leaders are considered.

I do not have to talk nicely to FUCKING RETARDS like you who do not even have slightest idea of how academics in the field analyze international politics, and then you try to impose layman expectation on a field that has clearly established that nation states are amoral entities.

[AndroAsc]

Even if they aren't, people are. Therefore, even if we take it as a given that "the United States" is not at moral fault for mugging innocent bystanders for their resources, every politician who advances this strategy and every soldier who fights for such a cause is.

We are talking about US vs Iran. Two nations. We are not talking about the leaders behind these nations.

But we cannot talk about nations as entities capable of taking action in their own right without also holding them accountable for those actions. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too - giving nations an equivalent to corporate personhood only when it is most beneficial.

As I have tried to explain to our dear friend, assigning nation states as amoral entities is a norm when analyzing international politics. The usual "morality" arguments that applies to people do not apply to nation states. I stress that nation states are inherently amoral in their actions - there is no right or wrong simply because it is illogical to judge the morality of their actions.

[AndroAsc]

I'm not going to entertain the ignoramus on this board unless we're discussing about the technical aspects of the scenario I have outlined.

Obviously the largest empty vessels here have no inkling of the norms of discussing and analyzing the action of nation states, so it's an obvious waste of time to debate with these ignorant fools.