Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Tijani]

even we didn't saw a 3m satellite imagery from Iran our or supposed buddy Russia

and it has nothing to do do with moderating . I'm a moderator not a think tank here , i knew the forum rules that's my job. the rest is my belief as member here and Iran can provide 3m imagery but didn't provide any

Again not relevant to arguments. Iran not providing imagery do not mean that the imagery you Mods have provided must be taken at face value. That is a nonsensical attitude.

I already stated that unless China, Russia or Iran decides to release satellite imagery concerning this matter then it's impossible for us who argue against the once you've provided.

There the only logical and rational venue to argue is to call into question the validity of the source. Instead of actually taking into account our critique people go into emotional condescending mode.

This is the problem of your moderation as has nothing to with your personal viewpoints. It's nothing personal against any of you.

I do not expect any of you to be think tanks. I do though expect the Mods to exercise a mediocrum of rational and logical impartiality to differing perspective then th eir own.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Again not relevant to arguments. Iran not providing imagery do not mean that the imagery you Mods have provided must be taken at face value. That is a nonsensical attitude.

funny you guys logic we don't provide any evident to contradict what you provide but don't accept your evidence , indeed very mature way of continuing a discussion .

I already stated that unless China, Russia or Iran decides to release satellite imagery concerning this matter then it's impossible for us who argue against the once you've provided.

no it they don't provide it while they easily can it mean what is already provided is correct

There the only logical and rational venue to argue is to call into question the validity of the source. Instead of actually taking into account our critique people go into emotional condescending mode.

the logical venue is accepting the validity of fact unless they proven wrong , well unless you are in primary schools

This is the problem of your moderation as has nothing to with your personal viewpoints. It's nothing personal against any of you.

funny part nobody deleted anybody posts regarded this matter and you still complain about moderation ,it seem unless somebody delete post contrary the facts presented you guys won't be satisfied

I do not expect any of you to be think tanks. I do though expect the Mods to exercise a mediocrum of rational and logical impartiality to differing perspective then th eir own.

you are wrong mods have their own view but when they enforce forum rules they they don't include their own view point in their decisions

 

[tsunset]

the question is, if Ukraine had nuke did they had do bomb Moscow ?

They would probably never use the bomb if they had it, if they had it, the west would heavily pressure Ukraine to not use bomb and make them sign a deal guaranteeing it with threats, and if not respected would result in total give up of all aid to Ukraine and not assisting them in case they are nuked

They would only launch conventional weapons at Moscow, with or without nukes, they would be doing the same they are doing right now

 

[Tijani]

funny you guys logic we don't provide any evident to contradict what you provide but don't accept your evidence , indeed very mature way of continuing a discussion .

You failing to understand the whole argumentative structure here.
I've already explained. I'm not arguing against the satellite imagery per say because there is no way in validating it's veracity. Even if I was to provide alternative options we would still be stuck arguing which provider is more authoritative.
Maturity has nothing to with it because you're missing the rational construct underpinning the argumentation.

no it they don't provide it while they easily can it mean what is already provided is correct

No. It doesn't work that way. A lack of an alternative is not proof of veracity. It's actually the other way around. Unless something provided is proving correct then the assumption is that incorrect until proven otherwise. Unless you're arguing against philosophical concepts.

the logical venue is accepting the validity of fact unless they proven wrong , well unless you are in primary schools.

What you doing is neither logical nor rational. It's the other way around. Please read the above.
What you're doing is exact definition of conjecture, and arguing that we need to accept it as fact because we lack alternative is truly irrational. You're accusing me of being in primary school but you're failing basic mathematical logic. As I've stated, your sentence is the literal meaning of conjecture.
"A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work."

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

funny part nobody deleted anybody posts regarded this matter and you still complain about moderation ,it seem unless somebody delete post contrary the facts presented you guys won't be satisfied

I never accused anyone of deleting any post. I simple stated:

"This is the problem of your moderation as has nothing to with your personal viewpoints. It's nothing personal against any of you."

you are wrong mods have their own view but when they enforce forum rules they they don't include their own view point in their decisions

Wrong in what exactly? I was answering you post about you not being a think tank.

"I do not expect any of you to be think tanks. I do though expect the Mods to exercise a mediocrum of rational and logical impartiality to differing perspective then th eir own."

I don't believe you read this properly. I only directed it to you as Mods because right or wrong we, I, do expect more from those of you who are moderators. I do not expect emotional and condescending responses to members of this forum question your reasoning or criticise your statements.

I really hope now that one of you doesn't feel the need to delete my post for being off topic like the last time. I am only answering back. Thank you.

 

[Hack-Hook]

They would probably never use the bomb if they had it, if they had it, the west would heavily pressure Ukraine to not use bomb and make them sign a deal guaranteeing it with threats, and if not respected would result in total give up of all aid to Ukraine and not assisting them in case they are nuked

They would only launch conventional weapons at Moscow, with or without nukes, they would be doing the same they are doing right now

the question was if Ukraine had nuke would the war would have started at all

 

[Hack-Hook]

You failing to understand the whole argumentative structure here.
I've already explained. I'm not arguing against the satellite imagery per say because there is no way in validating it's veracity. Even if I was to provide alternative options we would still be stuck arguing which provider is more authoritative.
Maturity has nothing to with it because you're missing the rational construct underpinning the argumentation.

No. It doesn't work that way. A lack of an alternative is not proof of veracity. It's actually the other way around. Unless something provided is proving correct then the assumption is that incorrect until proven otherwise. Unless you're arguing against philosophical concepts.

What you doing is neither logical nor rational. It's the other way around. Please read the above.
What you're doing is exact definition of conjecture, and arguing that we need to accept it as fact because we lack alternative is truly irrational. You're accusing me of being in primary school but you're failing basic mathematical logic. As I've stated, your sentence is the literal meaning of conjecture.
"A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work."

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I never accused anyone of deleting any post. I simple stated:

"This is the problem of your moderation as has nothing to with your personal viewpoints. It's nothing personal against any of you."

Wrong in what exactly? I was answering you post about you not being a think tank.

"I do not expect any of you to be think tanks. I do though expect the Mods to exercise a mediocrum of rational and logical impartiality to differing perspective then th eir own."

I don't believe you read this properly. I only directed it to you as Mods because right or wrong we, I, do expect more from those of you who are moderators. I do not expect emotional and condescending responses to members of this forum question your reasoning or criticise your statements.

I really hope now that one of you doesn't feel the need to delete my post for being off topic like the last time. I am only answering back. Thank you.

you doubt the validity of those satellite imagery , good prove the are wrong or doctored
here who make an assumption without any attempt to provide any sort of backing for it

 

[Hack-Hook]

"A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work."

are you aware this is the definition of what you are doing here?
in fact what you are doing is somehow weaker

 

[Tijani]

you doubt the validity of those satellite imagery , good prove the are wrong or doctored
here who make an assumption without any attempt to provide any sort of backing for it

Once again you're continuing a line of reasoning that is neither logical nor rational.
I've explained several times now. If you provide information then you need to validate the veracity of the information provided.
I have no claim nor do I assume. You and another made the claims and the assumption of veracity on your part.
My critique is that it's not rational to assume that we must accept the veracity of those claims on face value. How this is controversial to you is beyond me.
I provided a rational and logical line of argumentation based upon the fact that the basic assumption you provided cannot and should be the basis for further discourse.
Since I on my part cannot provide alternatives imagery to the ones you've provided, and explained why it wouldn't provide a meaningful response, I simply critiqued your base construct. I provided evidence that fact. This has apparently not resonated with you.
Since we unable to further this discussion amicable I suggest we cease. Thank you.

 

[Tijani]

are you aware this is the definition of what you are doing here?
in fact what you are doing is somehow weaker

Please show me a single sentence that I've written that's been conjecture. Please entertain me.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Please show me a single sentence that I've written that's been conjecture. Please entertain me.

the notion that satellite imagery are fake

 

[Hack-Hook]

Once again you're continuing a line of reasoning that is neither logical nor rational.
I've explained several times now. If you provide information then you need to validate the veracity of the information provided.
I have no claim nor do I assume. You and another made the claims and the assumption of veracity on your part.
My critique is that it's not rational to assume that we must accept the veracity of those claims on face value. How this is controversial to you is beyond me.
I provided a rational and logical line of argumentation based upon the fact that the basic assumption you provided cannot and should be the basis for further discourse.
Since I on my part cannot provide alternatives imagery to the ones you've provided, and explained why it wouldn't provide a meaningful response, I simply critiqued your base construct. I provided evidence that fact. This has apparently not resonated with you.
Since we unable to further this discussion amicable I suggest we cease. Thank you.

what is acceptable prof for
mathematically proving that the images are not fake?
flash news its not a mathematical problem . consider it like a biological matter
the fact is only one Arab worker died from the falling of of the booster on his head , do dent in Israel operation in Gaza happened , missile hit 500m of mossad head quarter m no Israeli base stop operating ......
the missile are not just enough accurate for such operation in such distance

 

[Tijani]

the notion that satellite imagery are fake

Please do you best to actually read what I'm writing.
Let me write it again in plain and simple English.
Your assumption that the satellite imagery provided is accurate is an irrational and illogical assumption is what I've been writing. This partly due the nature, history, circumstances of the providers and partly due available evidence concerning Iranian missiles. Henceforth I explained why you shouldn't expect people to take these imaginary at face value. This is as far as one can get from conjecture. It obviously your prerogative to believe want you want.
As I've previously stated. It's pointless to continue this discussion because you're being obstinate and condescending. Please, feel free to continue your refusal to actually read what I've been writing.

 

[Hack-Hook]

providers and partly due available evidence concerning Iranian missiles.

please elaborate on that

 

[Tijani]

please elaborate on that

Please read my post critiquing @Persian Gulf stands on the matter. I'm done for today. Night night

 

[Persian Gulf]

how many 1,500kg warheads (containing 1,000kg TNT) impacting at mach 5 with 100m CEP are needed to cause "total destruction" ( > 90% of buildings destroyed) of a 50sqkm city target (Tel Aviv)? [DeepSeek]

(official claims for Khorramshahr-4 missile: 1500kg warhead, re-entry velocity of mach 8, 30m CEP)

assuming:

(1) 25% of the missiles malfunction

(2) 25% of the remaining missiles are intercepted (can fire 500-1,000 cheaper Rezvan/Emad class MRBMs to deplete the c. 500-700 Israeli ABM interceptors first, ensuring negligible interception rate for subsequent Khorramshahr waves)

--> 2,150 Khorramshahr-4 missiles needed

--> 540 malfunctions
--> 400 interceptions
--> 1,200 successful impacts

--> cost = c. $4 billion (assuming $2 million cost per missile)

if impact velocity is increased to mach 6 (official claim for re-entry velocity is mach 8) and CEP improves to 80m CEP (official claim is 30m CEP), this reduces the number of missiles needed (with same assumptions) to 890 missiles and cost falls to $1.8 billion

--> $2-4 billion needed to ensure total destruction of Tel Aviv
--> cost will increase significantly to account for maintenance, storage, development of associated launchers / logistics, but even assuming (very conservatively) total cost of $10 billion, still extremely feasible for IRI to build this capability over a c. 5 year period

given 2000km range of K-4, these 890-2,150 missiles could be distributed across 10-20 missile bases with only 50-200 being stored in each base. silos are also an option given IRGC claim that K-4 can be stored in launch-ready state for 10 years.