Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

kastor ville said:
I've said this before attacking American war ships or bases is a fool's errand.....we should focus on the real enemy...ISRAEL and UAE. Qatar is also playing a dangerous game...but we're friendly with them. SA has turned the page with Iran...I genuinely think their foreign minister knows the dangers posed by Israel and UAE to the region...we must do everything we can to ally ourselves with SA.
Click to expand...


this will embolden the USA and will weaken IR, even domestically it will weaken the regime.

a fatal mistake, as I understand

however, if IR beats down US Navy and also takes blows.

that will make the regime strong

Regime needs to bleed its enemy, otherwise zio will eat it alive
 
arjunk said:
So was UAE commanded by the Quran to recognize Israel?

Was Iran commanded by the Quran to sign deals with India while it was bombing Pakistani women and children in Mosques of Bahawalpur?

Was Iran commanded by the Quran to kill OIC resolutions condemning Indian settler-terrorist atrocities in Kashmir?

Was Jordan commanded by the Quran to act as an Israeli puppet state?

It takes two to tango. You cannot demand ties on the basis of a religious concept, when only one of the parties believes in it and the other has some wannabe white ethnic superiority complex.
Click to expand...
Would be off topic, apologies in advance.

What we need to understand is that there is a fundamental concept / basic tenet, central to Islam, and then there are fifteenth century Muslims.

Should all Muslim Nation States band together? YES, ABSOLUTELY. Kudos to those who strive to do so.

Do they band together in reality? NOT REALLY.

Do I as an individual have the right to criticise the concept of Ummah? Or should I discourage those who try to band together? NO I SHOULDN'T.

Hope Muslim States grow a spine and support Iran despite the traitors amongst us.
 
Mighty_Dragon_Strike said:
this will embolden the USA and will weaken IR, even domestically it will weaken the regime.

a fatal mistake, as I understand

however, if IR beats down US Navy and also takes blows.

that will make the regime strong

Regime needs to bleed its enemy, otherwise zio will eat it alive
Click to expand...
Well...I understand, but I disagree. We don't want to go to a full on war with a superpower....especially when we are alone
 
Pak-Warrior said:
Incorrect, otherwise media would have caught them lying. Any satellite photos would have come. EU, Russia, China too have satellite imagery available. No one showed any impact at all.

US is not Israel. US is a different ball game. US can completely destroy any nation on earth without consequences except Russia & China. The reason Iran gave only mild symbolic response is because Iran do not want to face US war machine.

And you can't possibly hide nuclear facilities when they have all eyes at you. and even according to you guys yourself your own people 1000s of them are Zionist agents (killed protestors) ? , So if they have that level of infiltration on top of eyes in skies, then why on earth you think you were able to keep some secret nuclear facilities? US/Israel went for nuclear threat and they eliminated it. Iran should have gone for nuclear weapon and its testing long ago, just like what north koreans did. Your govt choose to collaborate with west and see the results yourself.
Click to expand...
Do you know how many underground and sub-mountain facilities Iran has?

I have seen dozens of them on Google Earth. I didn't even look for these facilities. You will find one or more underground facilities near every city in Iran.

A satellite image was released from Al-Udeid showing that a large radar station was destroyed by Iran attack:
1404042016335675133414114.jpg
 
Pak-Warrior said:
A carrier holds near 100 aircrafts and 5000+ sailors. Its protected by multiple layers. Also such a powerful ship like carrier cannot be sunk by few missile hits. Its built at first place to with stand multiple hits. Only things that can sunk a carrier is heavy torpedoes Or tactical nuclear tipped missile.

Also the Will of IRI not issuing such order is pretty much related to kind of destruction US will unleash if supposedly Iran manages to sunk one.
Click to expand...
I asked ChatGPT :
Are thermobaric warheads effective against aircraft carriers when used on ASBMs?

Thermobaric warheads are generally
ineffective at sinking or significantly damaging an aircraft carrier's hull, but they can be highly effective at achieving a "mission kill" by devastating the flight deck.

Limitations Against Ship Structures
  • Airtight Resilience: Modern warships, especially aircraft carriers, are designed to be "buttoned up" with airtight, compartmentalized sections to survive chemical or nuclear environments. Because thermobaric weapons rely on a fuel-air cloud penetrating into cavities to be effective, they struggle against the sealed, armored hull of a carrier.
  • Armor Protection: Carriers have thick deck and side armor. Thermobaric blasts lack the focused "penetrator" energy found in armor-piercing or shaped-charge warheads needed to breach these defenses.

Effectiveness for "Mission Kills"
When used on an Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) like the Chinese DF-21D, the goal is often to disable the carrier's ability to launch aircraft rather than sinking it.
  • Flight Deck Devastation: A thermobaric detonation on or above the flight deck would create a massive fireball and sustained overpressure. This would incinerate aircraft, destroy sensitive radar and sensor arrays, and potentially kill personnel in exposed areas.
  • Sensor Blindness: Even without structural damage, the intense heat and blast can "blind" the ship by destroying its communication and targeting masts, rendering the carrier unable to defend itself or coordinate its air wing.
  • Fuel/Ordnance Ignition: The secondary heat effects could potentially ignite exposed fuel lines or munitions on the deck, leading to catastrophic secondary fires.

Comparison with Other Payloads
  • Kinetic Energy: A heavy ASBM warhead (like a hypersonic MaRV) striking at Mach 10+ carries enough raw kinetic energy to cause massive structural damage regardless of the explosive type.
  • Conventional High Explosive (HE): Conventional "semi-armor-piercing" HE warheads are usually preferred for ships because they are designed to punch through the deck before exploding inside the hull.
Would you like to explore the defensive systems carriers use to intercept these ballistic missiles, such as the SM-6 interception.


How about crews?

While thermobaric warheads are devastating against personnel in the open or in simple bunkers, their effect on a carrier's crew depends entirely on
where the personnel are located during the strike.

Crew on the Flight Deck and Hangar
Personnel in these exposed areas face the most extreme danger:
  • Thermal Obliteration: Those near the ignition point are often vaporized or suffer fourth-degree burns as temperatures reach 3,000°C.
  • Internal Ruptures: The sustained "negative pressure" wave is particularly lethal to internal organs. It causes pulmonary barotrauma (ruptured lungs), burst eardrums, and internal hemorrhaging.
  • Asphyxiation: The weapon "sucks" oxygen from the surrounding air to fuel the explosion, which can cause suffocation for those who survive the initial blast.

Crew Inside the Ship's Hull
For the thousands of crew members below deck, the ship itself acts as a massive shield:
  • Airtight Resilience: Modern warships are designed to be "buttoned up" to survive chemical or nuclear attacks. If the ship's hatches are sealed, the thermobaric fuel cloud cannot seep into the lower decks, rendering the weapon largely ineffective against the interior crew.
  • Mission Kill Impact: While the interior crew may survive, the ship suffers a "mission kill"—meaning the loss of radar, communications, and flight operations personnel makes it impossible for the carrier to continue its primary task.

Medical Challenges
According to the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, survivors of a thermobaric blast present unique challenges:
  • Invisible Injuries: Blast survivors often appear uninjured externally but suffer from cerebral arterial gas embolisms (air bubbles in the blood) that can cause sudden death minutes or hours later.
  • Treatment Difficulty: Standard military field dressings and sandbags are largely ineffective against the pressure waves, and secondary inhalation of toxic combustion gases can cause severe respiratory failure.
 
Amateurs, finally our pathetic leaders are waking up....remember it was a Western educated Iranian that opened your eyes!

www.saba.ye

Iran: Security of Strait of Hormuz is in Tehran's hands, ready for decisive response if war imposed

The political advisor to the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, Mohammad Akbarzadeh, announced that Iran is currently receiving data from the Strait of Hormuz from the air, surface, and underwater, emphasizing that the security of this region depends on Tehran's decisions.
www.saba.ye www.saba.ye
 
A lot of this discussion about an attack on a US aircraft carrier are based on speculation, hope, or pure fantasy. You're hoping the carrier will be within range of IRI defenses while ignoring when it comes to aerial refueling capability, the US is the best in the business. The carrier can simply remain out of range yet the strike package(s) can be refueled all the way in to the target and back

You also seem to be ignoring the level of support that will accompany any US strike on Iran. Satellite reconnaissance has likely tripled in addition to all other intel methods. Any moves to send surface craft out to intercept the CSG will be quickly repulsed.

If Iranian defenses have improved that much since the strikes on Estafan and other nuclear site, then hats off. I'm just a little skeptical, that's all.

Now, regarding Israel. Sure, Iran has already proven it can overwhelm Israeli defenses. In spite of what another member here has stated, 85-90% success rate at stopping in-bound missiles is not good enough. It's that 10% that inflicted considerable damage on Israel. Now consider if the target selection was different; military areas instead of infrastructure.
 
AZ_HighCountry said:
A lot of this discussion about an attack on a US aircraft carrier are based on speculation, hope, or pure fantasy. You're hoping the carrier will be within range of IRI defenses while ignoring when it comes to aerial refueling capability, the US is the best in the business. The carrier can simply remain out of range yet the strike package(s) can be refueled all the way in to the target and back

You also seem to be ignoring the level of support that will accompany any US strike on Iran. Satellite reconnaissance has likely tripled in addition to all other intel methods. Any moves to send surface craft out to intercept the CSG will be quickly repulsed.

If Iranian defenses have improved that much since the strikes on Estafan and other nuclear site, then hats off. I'm just a little skeptical, that's all.

Now, regarding Israel. Sure, Iran has already proven it can overwhelm Israeli defenses. In spite of what another member here has stated, 85-90% success rate at stopping in-bound missiles is not good enough. It's that 10% that inflicted considerable damage on Israel. Now consider if the target selection was different; military areas instead of infrastructure.
Click to expand...


sir, when was the last time, CSG faced a real enemy?
even PAF Mirage, managed to break the CSG defensive cover in an exercise!
 
AZ_HighCountry said:
A lot of this discussion about an attack on a US aircraft carrier are based on speculation, hope, or pure fantasy. You're hoping the carrier will be within range of IRI defenses while ignoring when it comes to aerial refueling capability, the US is the best in the business. The carrier can simply remain out of range yet the strike package(s) can be refueled all the way in to the target and back

You also seem to be ignoring the level of support that will accompany any US strike on Iran. Satellite reconnaissance has likely tripled in addition to all other intel methods. Any moves to send surface craft out to intercept the CSG will be quickly repulsed.

If Iranian defenses have improved that much since the strikes on Estafan and other nuclear site, then hats off. I'm just a little skeptical, that's all.

Now, regarding Israel. Sure, Iran has already proven it can overwhelm Israeli defenses. In spite of what another member here has stated, 85-90% success rate at stopping in-bound missiles is not good enough. It's that 10% that inflicted considerable damage on Israel. Now consider if the target selection was different; military areas instead of infrastructure.
Click to expand...


It's not just attack and defence

Let's for example say, the U.S carriers camp themselves 500km-700km off the coast of Iran

Probably far enough away to be out of range of most Iranian anti ship missiles

And the U.S and Iran fire missiles at each other or U.S starts military action


The U.S is shutting down the economies of multiple states as well shutting down oil and gas supply out of the region, as well as major effect on air travel

India for example is completely blocked going west, as well as most of the gulf states air travel



All for what? Israel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 4 more.
    • Total: 119 (members: 15, guests: 104)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top