List Of Top Military Countries

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Jeannette, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yes you already said you'd attack innocent countries .
     
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which "innocent countries"? The ones where US air, naval, and military personnel are based, where its leaders have been lobbying the US to engage in its economic warfare against Iran, and which are quite responsible for much that is behind America's misguided policies when it comes to Iran? To make an analogy to an event you have some knowledge about: Its like saying the Brits were "innocent" when it came to the 1953, CIA coup against Dr. Mossadegh! Well, in your mind they were "innocent" but in your mind, innocence or guilt is based on the side you are on and not on what you are doing!
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  3. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't watch them anymore, I try to avoid google aswell, even if I still use youtube.
     
  4. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The cia lead coup agsinst that murderous bastard was a failure. Fortunately your military one succeeded.

    Then of course you ruined it in the 80s and became a terrorist regime.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  5. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I always had a problem with the interdependency of our economic system since all we need is a major natural disaster or a war and everything would collapse - and there's no reason for it. Towns or provinces can become self sufficient in the necessities - and even homes. People shouldn't have to worry about the electricity going out, or about food to eat when they can have indoor produce.
     
    VotreAltesse likes this.
  6. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I have never come across anything that justifies calling Iran a terrorist regime. I might be wrong, and if I am please correct me, but from what I noticed, the term 'terrorists' is used whenever Washington finds it politically expedient.

    By the same token, if it's not politically expedient to call others terrorists, like for instance Al Nusra who have been committing genocide again Christians and Alawites for years, they are termed 'moderates'.
     
  7. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    When the Islamic republic took over the first thing they did was take the US embassy personnel hostage. Then they turned around and invaded Iraq. They support Hamas and Hezbollah and now they are hijacking shipping..

    They are without question a terrorist regime and they alwsys have been.
     
  8. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    37,994
    Likes Received:
    7,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I believe it was Iraq that invaded Iran, and we supported Saddam then, and turned on him later. As for taking personnel hostage, I don't consider that terrorism. Nor do I consider supporting Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism either.

    I do consider entering and bombing sovereign nations and killing civilians an act of terror: US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey. Take your pick.
     
  9. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read the articles. They are from sites that frequently re-publish the information in press releases & official publications uncritically. Quantity over quality - saves on actually paying too many proper journalists. I have spent too many years reading fanciful accounts of Iran's weaponry to take any claim about any weapon seriously until it sees combat.
     
  10. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fallout in China would be worse than it would be in the west if the US suffered a complete economic or social breakdown. China is spending huge sums every year trying to modernize their military and add sea lift capability. Without the US dollars, this effort would collapse. It's very likely that the Chinese economy also crashes. Probably taking down the govt in the process.
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you are saying is simply not true, at least not when it comes to most of the sites I referred to. Indeed, the propaganda content in their reports usually fits the pattern of the general propaganda against Iran, but regardless the reports I was citing weren't doing what you suggest at all. Most of them use western intelligence sources for their reports or, in those cases where they look at Iran's official press releases, they counter that with comments from outside military analysts. Among these sites, the "National Interest" is in fact quite an anti-Iran propaganda site and engages in the usual practices of making fun of Iranian weapons projects you are accustomed and which you follow uncritically. But focusing on the Iranian F-14s, the report was from "Military Watch Magazine". No part of that report did anything like what you suggest. In fact, there is no "official" announcement of any sort by Iran that has or is expanding its F-14 fleet. And while Iran has mentioned being able to overhaul the F-14 on its own, and has shown the F-14 firing the Fakour 90 air to air missile, there are quite a few watchful western intelligence assets who track Iran's F-14 flights and activities and are ultimately the ones who are the sources for the below report you derided on the F-14.
    In the meantime, please refer me to any "official" press release, publication or announcement by Iran saying any of the things stated below. You may disagree with the analysis, but this has nothing to do with what you are suggesting.

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...ts-are-very-bad-news-for-tehran-s-adversaries
    Iran’s F-14 Air Superiority Fleet is Actually Growing; Why More Tomcats Are Very Bad News For Tehran’s Adversaries
    It is good to be cynical and skeptical, but I would suggest you should reserve a greater portion of your skepticism for the anti-Iran propaganda reports you are accustomed to reading. Iranian weapons have been used in many battlefields already. You just need to learn to pay attention. Otherwise, there were Iranian made weapons used by Hezbollah in the 2006 war against Israel, including hitting an Israeli warship and nearly sinking it; Iranian weapons and weapons system used in the Syrian civil war, including long range drone flights from Iran hitting ISIS headquarters as well as long range ballistic missiles fired against ISIS targets; they have been used prominently in various engagements in Iraq. It was an Iranian made anti aircraft missile (3 Khordad) that brought down America's most expensive stealth drone, flying at an altitude which made its operators imagine it would be immune from detection by Iran...
    Or, perhaps, you need someone who has been actually touched by these weapons to tell you about them. How about this fellow whose father was killed in an Iranian strike against a terrorist group sponsored by the US, with an Iranian ballistic missile hitting the headquarters of this Kurdish terrorist group with almost perfect precision, taking it out.

    https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-missile-strike-kurdistan/
    The Messages Behind the Iranian Missile Strike in Iraqi Kurdistan
     
  12. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm curious, where does 'Military Watch Magazine' get its information on Iranian weapons from? Who writes its articles on Iran? Who writes any of its article? Who are the editorial board? On what basis to they present claims about the ability of Iranian weapons systems? Is there actual evidence that these systems can do as they claim?

    This is basically a military blog with pretty pictures that bundles up publicly available information - the sort that you find in official press releases - and passes it off as 'analysis'. The fact that every single one of the links in their articles link back to their own magazine, none of the stories appear to have authors, and the magazine itself puts disclaimers on some content should raise suspicions. Wikipedia is a more reliable source. At least they actually tell you where they get the info.

    You might as well just produce the original press releases from Fars, IRNA or Press TV, or link to a wiki page or Reuters/AFP/AP release that cites the original Iranian sources. its the same info tied up in a different bow.


    My skepticism is based on reading Iranian propaganda:

    Remember the Qaher stealth aircraft?



    Then there was the bizarre attack on a fake aircraft carrier to prove that Iran could hit....a fake aircraft carrier.

    https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931206000588

    And not to forget the regular announcements that an Iranian 'fleet' (of 2-3 ships) will soon be sailing to the Atlantic & visiting waters off the US coast.

    2019 version

    Nov 2017 version

    Nov 2016 version (despite the claims there is no evidence the ships ever reached the Atlantic)

    Jan 2014 version

    .....and regular announcements before that too. Unless this year's version resulted in Iranian ships sailing to the Atlantic or the Carribbean or sailed around Africa whatever the claim is now then that would be 0 times Iran has sailed to the Atlantic despite regular claims it will.

    Iran renders itself a joke with this stuff, so until it actually does something I treat all capability claims as propaganda and i treat any article that can't produce some evidence that the claim is accurate as worthless.
     
    Tim15856 likes this.
  13. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here are some of Iran's newly developed naval warships and assets. You can read about them in the report about Iran's naval forces by the US Office of Naval Intelligence -- another Iranian propaganda site. They operate and conduct their exercises often in close proximity to the US navy.

    Iran's newest addition to its fleet, the Sahand frigate (named after a warship of the same name sunk by the US Navy in 1987). This is Iran's most modern surface vessel or warship and the 3rd frigate in the Mowj class built by Iran in the last few years. (To be sure, the main function of the regular Iranian navy and its larger vessels is to confront regional powers, with the task of confronting the US navy is left to the IRGC navy, its asymmetrical tactics and interesting smaller vessels and weapons).

    [​IMG]

    Report on the Fateh Submarine joining Iran's fleet. You won't find any credible source which doesn't acknowledge the capabilities of the Fateh submarine, which is highly regarded even by US naval intelligence and source. The Fateh is a medium sized submarine, making it both much more maneuverable and harder to detect in the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf compared to western submarines, but also large enough to carry a decent punch.

    [​IMG]

    Ghadir mini sub firing anti ship missile. The Ghadir is a very small submarine and Iran has around 20 of them in operation. This launch was notable because a) Western sources were skeptical that Iran would be able to fire an anti-ship missile from the small, mini sub, Ghadir, which is typically portrayed as only capable of carrying a couple of torpedoes; and b) the system used by the Ghadir to fire its missiles actually makes detection of the site of the launch of the missile, and detection of the sub, very difficult.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Iran's Hormuz 2 anti-ship ballistic missile.

    There are very few countries which have anti-ship ballistic missiles, as it requires high precision to hit a moving ship. But ballistic missiles are capable of carrying much larger payload than the normal anti-ship missiles and can destroy much larger warships, including potentially aircraft carriers.
     
  14. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Having read about that conflict I came to the same conclusion. And there were the Sanger missiles
    in the Yom Kippur war too.
    So what's the future of warfare? Maybe it's missiles, drone, lasers, satellites and cyber-attacks? Oh,
    and submarines are still safe, but with new quantum tech coming they might be exposed one day, too.
     
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not here to tout the credentials of Military Watch Magazine per se, which is sited by some as one of the top 5 publications on military issues. You can read about Iran's F-14 programs in various other sources as well, including the Aviationist. Or even the anti-Iran propaganda "National Interest" Site, once run by former US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger before he died.
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...navy-f-14-tomcats-making-them-even-more-25819
    Iran Still Uses Navy F-14 Tomcats (And Is Making Them Even More Deadly)
    Five decades in, Iran’s F-14s are only getting better and better. And more and more important to the Persian state’s defense.

    Yes, what I remember is how a prototype and a development project by Iran to develop a stealth plane was used to make all sorts of claims about the plane being "fake". FYI, even sites like the Aviationist who made those claims began to slightly retract their original reports but, regardless, how can a prototype or mock up be "fake"? It can be poorly designed, it can end up not working, but fake?

    What about it has anything to do with distrusting Iran's reports?

    Iran is focused on developing tactics and missiles to take out the US navy aircraft carriers. The idea that it would use a "real carrier" is absurd. The exercise you allude to was noted by the US Office of Naval Intelligence for the opposite of what you suggest and there are plenty of reports about Iran's capability to sink US aircraft carriers. Here is one from the kind of sites you like to get your information from:
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sink-carriers-how-iran-could-go-war-against-us-navy-54022
    Sink the Carriers: How Iran Could Go to War Against the U.S. Navy
    All about the missiles.
    What about it? Iran is planning such a mission, and undertook one a few years ago, sailed to the Atlantic Ocean, before one of its frigates experienced problems and had to be brought back. And, of course, to arrange such a mission successfully, Iran will need to find countries willing to host Iranian warships. The only country that might be willing is Venezuela, but I am not sure they are eager to engage in behavior that might exacerbate their situation right now.
    None of what you mentioned, even if it contains elements of propaganda which should be expected in any such reports by any country in the world, suggests the conclusions you have been fed to believe.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe modern warfare will be fought and won mostly based on the combination, first and as always, of tactics (being able to devise the right tactics to accentuate your strengths and hide your weaknesses), and in this mix, the kind of systems you mentioned: electronic warfare, cyber attacks, lasers, missiles and drones as well as submarines. The platforms used will become less significant as you won't have the equivalent of "hand-to-hand" combat as much, i.e., "tank v tank" or "plane v plane" combat, as all these platforms can be taken out from a long distances.
     
  17. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We also have the shocking impact of full scale nuclear exchanges. This could render a lot of battles
    moot - it's the first nation who pleas for a ceasefire that probably will lose. That might be democratic
    Western nations.
     
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The dynamics of openly threatening a nuclear war will typically test nerves and perceptions of who could sustain a first strike better and do more damage. But I don't personally think its wise to play such games, as a miscalculation can render not just battles moot, but life on this planet.
     
  19. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Life will continue, but in a total "nuclear exchange" involving India-Pakistan, Iran-Israel, Russia-America and China-America
    will devastate civilization. It could a setback for several generations as vast number of people die of hunger and cold. But
    within a century we will be back to more Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the nature of the species.
     
  20. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Some idiots at the fossil fuel enriched United states apparently believe Nuclear War will save this planet from climate destruction. They are wrong.
    ....and it is not 'the nature of the species'. The 'species' is sick right now. Sickness is not its nature.
     
  21. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Don't forget Germany. Germany is looking like increasing its military spending to the US demanded 2%. It will soon be a world power in the armaments race.
     
  22. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you digest alternative POV's?
    The "fossil fuel" USA industry can thank the anti-nuclear power industry.
    The "nature of the species" IS war. Our genes contain remnants of five hominin species which H.sapiens wiped
    out. Warfare helped develop human co-operation, and maybe even language and some tools. In hunter gatherer
    societies about 20-30% of all young males died as a result of battle traumas. It's the nature of your species.
     
  23. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is not the nature of human beings to be sick. Healthy humans feel empathy. Human beings are currently sick. Some US fanatics due to their dependence and support of fossil fuels believe that we can heal climate destruction by nuclear war. They could not be more wrong.
     
  24. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sick of what? You don't make sense. How can nuclear war "heal climate destruction" ?
    Who of significance is saying this?
     
  25. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who doubts your commitment to pushing Iranian propaganda need only read your replies here. You play word games or reply selectively to avoid responding to the weight and frequency of Iranian propaganda. Indeed, it appears you genuinely believe some of this garbage.

    A case in point: Iran has been announcing that it will send ships to the Atlantic/Carribbean/US coast/circumnavigate Africa at least every 18 months for a decade or more, so it has had a long time to 'plan' such a mission. Yet only one of those missions even took place, and that one barely sighted the Atlantic (or didn't even get close) before breaking down. The latest announcement, which you apparently believe, claimed ships would be in the Atlantic by March. How's that going? Still 'planning' are they?

    Any unbiased observer would see these regular announcements followed by lack of action for the propaganda they are. You don't. Says everything anyone needs to know about the quality of information you are likely to bring to this board.
     

Share This Page