US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

[Skipjack]

Right

Ahh alright then...

[Joseph Chikva]

Umm, Ladajo,
When has Iran invaded another country in the last 100 years?

You should divide Iran till 1979 which was allied country for USA and after that date - extremely hostile to USA.

[KitemanSA]

Umm, Ladajo,
When has Iran invaded another country in the last 100 years? By that I mean, when has Iran INITIATED hostilities? They "invaded" Iraq after Iraq invaded them (80-88 War). But other than that...?

I guess that TECHNICALLY the fact that they took over the US embassy could be considered an "invasion" but let us ignore internal strife.

Initiated hostilities? Several times against Israel through Iran's proxy Hezbollah. Several times against Iraq through its Shiite proxy there.

Ok, so the US has initiated hostilities against Iran at least once. I'm not sure how many times the CIA wreaked it's magic, but it is aknowldged at least once. And around the world... Whew, who can count.

Goose, gander, sause?

[KitemanSA]

Umm, Ladajo,
When has Iran invaded another country in the last 100 years?

You should divide Iran till 1979 which was allied country for USA and after that date - extremely hostile to USA.

Joe,
The question isn't whether they are "hostile" toward the US. No doubt they are. But have they initiated "hostilities" (attacked) their neighbors.

Someone said "yes, thru the Hezbelah". To which I pointed out that using that definition, we have attacked them at least once and they us never.

Iran is a country of contrast. There are a goodly number of effectively western citizens living under a theocratic whip. I feel sorry for them.

[Joseph Chikva]

Umm, Ladajo,
When has Iran invaded another country in the last 100 years?

You should divide Iran till 1979 which was allied country for USA and after that date - extremely hostile to USA.

Joe,
The question isn't whether they are "hostile" toward the US. No doubt they are. But have they initiated "hostilities" (attacked) their neighbors.

Someone said "yes, thru the Hezbelah". To which I pointed out that using that definition, we have attacked them at least once and they us never.

Iran is a country of contrast. There are a goodly number of effectively western citizens living under a theocratic whip. I feel sorry for them.

Charged gun will shoot once.
Actually, complaint of American taxpayer about dearness of support of some regimes or/and of present security system goes from ignorance of a real situation. Whether has not a matter did your today’s probable foe something hostile yesterday. But it matters what hostile actions he is preparing today.
As at present dependence of US economy on the crude oil prices, any increase of influence of uncontrollable country at those prices would be extremely dangerous.
The ordinary inhabitant complains on annual 2 billion expenses comes from misunderstanding that very easily there can come situation when American economy will lose 200 billion.
Though I don't understand the purpose of some defense programs. E.g., missile defense. As I am assured that it is impossible to create system reliably shooting down strategic missiles.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Technology changes. From the late 19th century to the mid 20th century no one thought you could make gyroscopes as efficient and accurate as the ones found on ICBMs by the 1980s. People also thought that heavier than air flight was impossible, breaking the sound barrier was impossible, etc.

Admittedly hitting a missile with another missile is pretty hard. Hitting it with a beam of light is somewhat easier. Personally, I think the USAF was on the right track with their jumbo jet with the giant laser in it... IIRC that thing has been cancelled and resurrected at least once, anyone know what its status is with the current budget cuts?

Ladajo: I too have enough of an inner pedant to appreciate your pedantry. The phrase "openly attack" was quite deliberate, and pedantic, on my part. Yes, Iran uses proxies a lot (as I agreed in my last post). They sometimes encourage their proxies into escalating dangerously close to the brink. But so far I would define it as having remained a form of state sponsored low intensity conflict within a larger constellation of LIC going on in the middle east (with the factions involved cutting all sorts of odd ways depending on the specific incident). We'll see if it escalates further. Until open warfare breaks out they still have a chance to back down.

[Joseph Chikva]

Admittedly hitting a missile with another missile is pretty hard. Hitting it with a beam of light is somewhat easier. Personally, I think the USAF was on the right track with their jumbo jet with the giant laser in it... IIRC that thing has been cancelled and resurrected at least once, anyone know what its status is with the current budget cuts?

I think that in case of lasers for effective shooting down of missile that should be painted in black.

about probability of interception of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
What do you think, what is probability of interception for a single shoot? And what is cheaper to create antimissile defense system or to create the warhead with false targets reflecting ability of which exceeds the real warhead's reflecting ability?
What do you think about Israel's technology level and his Iron Dome system? Which as I know could not defend Ashdod and Ashkelon cities from rockets attack. Also recall that those were not mass attack, jamming was not used as well as was not used attack on radar's sites.

Real probability of hit (not probability of kill) of air defense and not missile defense missile varies from 50 to 70%. As I know, this is for fragmentation warhead of interceptor. And probability of hit of a single fragment.
Antimissile interceptor by some reasons has non-explosive direct hit warhead. Will that have higher than 70% probability?
And how effective that system will be in case of mass attack?

Interception of antiship missiles would be much easier than ballistic.
Have we battle proven warship defense systems? USA use two of them: Phalancs and RAM.
Recall two events: Argentina-UK conflict (French antiship missile Exoset has been used) and attack on Israeli destroyer "Eilat".

[KitemanSA]

Charged gun will shoot once.
Actually, complaint of American taxpayer about dearness of support of some regimes or/and of present security system goes from ignorance of a real situation. Whether has not a matter did your today’s probable foe something hostile yesterday. But it matters what hostile actions he is preparing today.

Wha???

[KitemanSA]

Though I don't understand the purpose of some defense programs. E.g., missile defense. As I am assured that it is impossible to create system reliably shooting down strategic missiles.

Current missile defense is aimed more at tactical missiles.

[Joseph Chikva]

Charged gun will shoot once.
Actually, complaint of American taxpayer about dearness of support of some regimes or/and of present security system goes from ignorance of a real situation. Whether has not a matter did your today’s probable foe something hostile yesterday. But it matters what hostile actions he is preparing today.

Wha???

That's so - everything happens first time.

Though I don't understand the purpose of some defense programs. E.g., missile defense. As I am assured that it is impossible to create system reliably shooting down strategic missiles.

Current missile defense is aimed more at tactical missiles.

What do you mean saying "tactical missile"? Range up to 500 km? Like Russian Iskander & USA ATACM?
With the help of which system you can shoot down them? Patriot PAC-2/3, ASTER-30 or Russian S-300/400?
Can you inform me what probability had Patriot deploied in Israel against stone aged Iraqi SCADs during first gulf war?

What do you think, what purposes are declared by developers of THAAD, ARROW-2/3 or GBI? Are those against tactical missiles?
Do you know other missile defense programs? Even in seed stage?

[Diogenes]

For what it is worth.



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... VU.twitter

[Skipjack]

Interesting post Diogenes.
Reading the article, I find the following things noteworthy:
1. It obviously took the CIA a while to find out about an operation by the Mossad that involved fake CIA agents and was done "in the open". What does that say about the quality of the CIA as a secret service?

2. I wonder why the US seemingly was not all that concerned about the Israelis making the US even more of a hate target for the arab world than it already is (thanks btw). This has been kept pretty much completely out of the media and there were no consequences whatsoever. It is all just business as usual.

3. Regardless of the above, I do find the tactics employed by the Mossad very good and actually exactly what I would do... well not exactly. I would make sure that nobody knows who is behind this and I would definitly not make an allie (?) a target by imposing as them.
Doing it as openly as they did, they reduced the effectiveness of this quite a bit, IMHO.

Eithe way, I would certainly call this interesting and noteworthy information, but it does not surprise me at all.

[GIThruster]

"It is deeply irresponsible, to re-write the history of how that war began."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq3 ... r_embedded#!

[Diogenes]

Interesting post Diogenes.
Reading the article, I find the following things noteworthy:
1. It obviously took the CIA a while to find out about an operation by the Mossad that involved fake CIA agents and was done "in the open". What does that say about the quality of the CIA as a secret service?

2. I wonder why the US seemingly was not all that concerned about the Israelis making the US even more of a hate target for the arab world than it already is (thanks btw). This has been kept pretty much completely out of the media and there were no consequences whatsoever. It is all just business as usual.

3. Regardless of the above, I do find the tactics employed by the Mossad very good and actually exactly what I would do... well not exactly. I would make sure that nobody knows who is behind this and I would definitly not make an allie (?) a target by imposing as them.
Doing it as openly as they did, they reduced the effectiveness of this quite a bit, IMHO.

Eithe way, I would certainly call this interesting and noteworthy information, but it does not surprise me at all.

I think they had to pose as us because their mode of operation required it. It's easy for Israel to get agents that sound like Americans because they have so many Americans immigrating to live there. Likewise, it's a great cover because Everyone knows Americans spend money like it's water, and are often brazen and out in the open when being quiet and circumspect would probably yield better results. People know Americans are very interested in this business, and want to do something to stop it, so that even further enhances the believability aspect of it.


I think it was just too easy for them to impersonate American CIA recruiters, and they just couldn't resist the temptation.

[ladajo]

Beo,

Ladajo: I too have enough of an inner pedant to appreciate your pedantry. The phrase "openly attack" was quite deliberate, and pedantic, on my part. Yes, Iran uses proxies a lot (as I agreed in my last post). They sometimes encourage their proxies into escalating dangerously close to the brink. But so far I would define it as having remained a form of state sponsored low intensity conflict within a larger constellation of LIC going on in the middle east (with the factions involved cutting all sorts of odd ways depending on the specific incident). We'll see if it escalates further. Until open warfare breaks out they still have a chance to back down.

Agreed, with an add on. It is possible to box yourself into an open war by purely unconventional means. Wars typically breakout once one party thinks they either have no other recourse (loss of options theory), or one party sees a controllable means to achieve a desired objective (I'll get what I want theory). I personally think Iran entered this long runnig conflict under auspices of thoery two, but are now finding themselves painted into the corner of theory one. The controllable part is fast escaping them, and options are fast being eliminated.