Iran launches Operation True Promise - massive missile/drone strikes across Israel, Israel allegedly responds with quadcopters

Status
Not open for further replies.
SolarWarden said:
So which is it a consulate or embassy? Iran embassy still stands and why is a "consulate" next to the embassy? See where I'm going? Some folks here have this delusion that an embassy is considered sovereign when it's not especially "consulates" that host high ranking military generals of their nations.
Click to expand...
Its still all diplomatic territory of Iran in SYria, whether its an embassy or IRGC building doesn't matter- they both have legal diplomatic status, and actually one of the highest diplomatic levels in SYria, for that matter too. Even Israel's allies said it crossed the line and violated international law- more likely reality is that Israel thought and assumed and believed, but incorrectly this time, that it could violate international law (at Iran's detriment) and "deal with the consequences"like usual- just like Israel killed over 150 UN workers in Gaza and brushed off any concerns about such crimes like jay-z did in the dirt off your shoulders video.
 
Here is the deal...

When was the last time you, and I say 'you' generically not personally, re-purpose an AK-47 into something else? Or how about a tank? Or a jet fighter? Or a missile?

Tools of war are designed to be destroyed. Weapons destroys things and kills, yes, but in the risks of war, we also designed weapons to be losses, never for profit. What it mean is that the moment you bought a rifle or even just one bullet, you have essentially used that rifle and fired that bullet.

A $1 million missile to destroy a $30,000 truck is a good deal. The missile was designed to be a one-way weapon never to be recovered. The truck cost less to manufactured but has much greater value, or return-on-investment (ROI), because the truck can be used to transport anything from soldiers to supplies. The truck can be re-used many times. The missile can be used once and because of that, the missile must be overbuilt so that its components do not degrade over time from day of manufacture to day of use. Not only that, the missile can be designed to be used against different targets under different environment, so this requirement will drive up cost.

Same idea applies to the airplane. The value of a UAV is not how much it cost to manufacture it but what can it do over enemy territory, so destroying it with a more expensive manned 'top-of-the-line' fighter is appropriate. We just deny the enemy something much more valuable -- information about ourselves. The SR-71 cost much to manufacture and maintained over the decades, but the cost to our enemies were inestimable based on what the airplane did.

Let me put the issue on a more personal level...

If Mike Tyson gave you a concussion, broken nose, jaw, and several ribs. Are you going to laugh at him because he spent millions in training over the decades just to beat you up in a few seconds?
 
Last edited:
OldTwilight said:
So, They are going to strike and we are going to finish this war in our next strike, then USA or Zions would use nukes or threaten us by it ... then we will reach a point that I should repeat myself in past 15 years , "We should have nukes"
Click to expand...
Once again, why are some of you so hyper about Iran "getting Nukes"? Nukes dont deter coutries from attacking and you cant use them, at least not in modern times anymore, so what value would a nuke do for Iran now? Israel has nukes and that didnt deter Iran from striking Israel! Nukes are overrated, and if a country needs them because they truly lack strong conventional capabilities, then that country will pay a high price for that mistake at some point then.
 
gambit said:
Here is the deal...

When was the last time you, and I say 'you' generically not personally, re-purpose an AK-47 into something else? Or how about a tank? Or a jet fighter? Or a missile?

Tools of war are designed to be destroyed. Weapons destroys things and kills, yes, but in the risks of war, we also designed weapons to be losses, never for profit. What it mean is that the moment you bought a rifle or even just one bullet, you have essentially used that rifle and fired that bullet.

A $1 million missile to destroy a $30,000 truck is a good deal. The missile was designed to be a one-way weapon never to be recovered. The truck cost less to manufactured but has much greater value, or return-on-investment (ROI), because the truck can be used to transport anything from soldiers to supplies. The truck can be re-used many times. The missile can be used once and because of that, the missile must be overbuilt so that its components do not degrade over time from day of manufacture to day of use. Not only that, the missile can be designed to be used against different targets under different environment, so this requirement will drive up cost.

Same idea applies to the airplane. The value of a UAV is not how much it cost to manufacture it but what can it do over enemy territory, so destroying it with a more expensive manned 'top-of-the-line' fighter is appropriate. We just deny the enemy something much more valuable -- information about ourselves. The SR-71 cost much to manufacture and maintained over the decades, but the cost to our enemies were inestimable based on what the airplane did.

Let me put the issue on a more personal level...

If Mike Tyson gave you a concussion, broken nose, jaw, and several ribs. Are you going to laugh at him because he spent millions in training over the decades just to beat you up in a few seconds?
Click to expand...

As always, insightful.

Notion Iran’s attacks were a dollars game and claims Israel and its sponsors spent upwards of 1-billion USD to intercept Iranian missiles were completely hilarious. As you rightfully said, the purpose of weapons is to damage the enemy, not play a game to see how long it takes to get shot down by interceptors.
 
Off topic but modern christians defending Judaism when according to them they “crucified “ Christ is like saying ghazni and khiljis descendants saying Hindus have a right to defend themselves lol that’s crazy work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top