The Student Room Group

Iran Shoots Down RQ-4 BAMS-D $150m Drone near Persian Gulf

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Palmyra
It's clear that you don't really know what you're talking about so I'll keep it brief for you: Iran owns the escalation game.


Not seeing it owning anything. Big deal it shot down a drone for you to get excited about. So what.
You failed to answer my points, but suit yourself.
If it does escalate then I guess we will actually find out who can live up to the rhetoric.
Original post by 999tigger
Not seeing it owning anything. Big deal it shot down a drone for you to get excited about. So what.
You failed to answer my points, but suit yourself.
If it does escalate then I guess we will actually find out who can live up to the rhetoric.

Iran (allegedly) 1) attacked several civilian oil tankers in the PG/SoH in a month, 2) launched several rocket attacks against the US in Iraq (latest one hit ExxonMobil and forced evacuation), and now 3) shot down a $200m US drone operating in international waters. The US response has been...? :smile:
Original post by Palmyra
Iran (allegedly) 1) attacked several civilian oil tankers in the PG/SoH in a month, 2) launched several rocket attacks against the US in Iraq (latest one hit ExxonMobil and forced evacuation), and now 3) shot down a $200m US drone operating in international waters. The US response has been...? :smile:

So you are smiling because you think Iran can attack the US or international interests with no comeback?
Lets see if they attack American personnel directly and kill some what the response will be.
When Americans start dying then I expect the response will be different. Its a dangerous game to play but one you seem to delight in and get excited by.
Original post by 999tigger
So you are smiling because you think Iran can attack the US or international interests with no comeback?

So, what was the response? I am waiting for you to tell me. As I said, clueless. Stick to threads on barbie dolls or whatever it is you’re interested in.
Reply 64
Original post by 999tigger
So you are smiling because you think Iran can attack the US or international interests with no comeback?
Lets see if they attack American personnel directly and kill some what the response will be.
When Americans start dying then I expect the response will be different. Its a dangerous game to play but one you seem to delight in and get excited by.

Its a fairly simple equation, If Iran pushes too many of America's buttons the Americans will launch missile strikes against the country. I am seriously dubious they're 'capable' of anything more though. The Americans have neither the forces, the cash nor the will to be able to do anything more than effectively slap Tehran around a bit from the air.
On the flip side most of Americas bases in the region are well within range of one of the largest inventory of rockets and missiles in the world... you can debate the cost benefit ratio for the two until the cow comes home but Iran is not Iraq in terms of being able to reply to aggression against it.
To say nothing of Irans allies both in the region and in America itself who could happily be called upon to start letting of bombs left and right.
Original post by Napp
Its a fairly simple equation, If Iran pushes too many of America's buttons the Americans will launch missile strikes against the country. I am seriously dubious they're 'capable' of anything more though. The Americans have neither the forces, the cash nor the will to be able to do anything more than effectively slap Tehran around a bit from the air.
On the flip side most of Americas bases in the region are well within range of one of the largest inventory of rockets and missiles in the world... you can debate the cost benefit ratio for the two until the cow comes home but Iran is not Iraq in terms of being able to reply to aggression against it.
To say nothing of Irans allies both in the region and in America itself who could happily be called upon to start letting of bombs left and right.


I think that underestimates the US. It wouldnt be a land war ofc you would just have to decide how many air assets they were prepared to commit and how serious they wanted the conflict to be. A few cruise missiles is neither here nor there.

If Iran wants to do mass missile strikes at US bases then it would essentially become the nearest thing to a war.

Then you would have to see American resolve, but I dont think they will fall short in missiles or planes. We will get to see who runs out first.
If they want to attack US civilian targets, especially within the US, then that would be a whole other level.

Wait to see what happens. The rhetoric war is dull so easy to switch off from.
Reply 66
Original post by 999tigger
I think that underestimates the US. It wouldnt be a land war ofc you would just have to decide how many air assets they were prepared to commit and how serious they wanted the conflict to be. A few cruise missiles is neither here nor there.

My point was more you cant win a war from the air and America doesnt have the means or will to launch any form of invasion.

If Iran wants to do mass missile strikes at US bases then it would essentially become the nearest thing to a war.

Well considering the only scenario i for see Iran doing that would be in response to US bombing arguably it would already be war

Then you would have to see American resolve, but I dont think they will fall short in missiles or planes. We will get to see who runs out first.

Probably not but who can say

If they want to attack US civilian targets, especially within the US, then that would be a whole other level.

Who said civillian? With that being said why is the US allowed to murder civilians around the world but as soon as someon responds in kind its 'evil'?

Wait to see what happens. The rhetoric war is dull so easy to switch off from.

Indeed.
The thing is Iran is no Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Yemen or Vietnam and even there they kicked American asses and they had to run away like cowards, but it doesn't matter how many civilians they will kill or if it's going to be another never-ending war because you need to use those extremely overpriced toys somewhere because shareholders want to make nice profit and as long they are fighting far away from American borders who cares, right?

The difference is that Iranian revolutionary guards are very well trained, disciplined and strong so the war would be fatal on both sides. I guess this is the reason why the Pentagon changed their war-fighting doctrine and they want to use nuclear weapons :bebored:
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Napp
My point was more you cant win a war from the air and America doesnt have the means or will to launch any form of invasion.

Well considering the only scenario i for see Iran doing that would be in response to US bombing arguably it would already be war

Probably not but who can say

Who said civillian? With that being said why is the US allowed to murder civilians around the world but as soon as someon responds in kind its 'evil'?

Indeed.


1. It would depend what your objectives were. The last thing they would want is to occupy Iranian territory.
2. I am pointing out if its allies decide to attack civilian targets then that would change US public opinion. I would be surprised if they have the ability to attack military targets.Basically if they wanted all out war, then the US might as well forget about smart weapons and adopt the Russian approach.
3. Just wait and see. I dont think much has happened at this stage its same old same old. I cant get excited about a drone being shot down, even an expensive one. In the event attacks on ships were Iranian and the drone was in international airspace it still doesnt have to amount to an immediate American retaliation.
Original post by 999tigger
I would be surprised if they have the ability to attack military targets.

Is a $200m spy drone not a “military target”?
Reply 70
Original post by 999tigger
1. It would depend what your objectives were. The last thing they would want is to occupy Iranian territory.

They don't really have a choice if unseating the government is their goal, which messrs Bolton and Pompeo (the prized twits) seem hell bent on

2. I am pointing out if its allies decide to attack civilian targets then that would change US public opinion. I would be surprised if they have the ability to attack military targets.Basically if they wanted all out war, then the US might as well forget about smart weapons and adopt the Russian approach.

Maybe but then again it'll be an absolute gift for the the nominal enemy if the Americans did that. I might not especially like the policy wonks in DC but theyre not idiots theyre perfectly aware if they start carpet bombing a country itll cause a lot more harm to the cause than good.
With that being said what constitutes a 'civilian' target? An airport, broadcast station, transport networks, political offices etc. are all apparently legitimate military targets. I agree that the salient point is what the hoi polloi think but the legal precedent has been set.

3. Just wait and see. I dont think much has happened at this stage its same old same old. I cant get excited about a drone being shot down, even an expensive one. In the event attacks on ships were Iranian and the drone was in international airspace it still doesnt have to amount to an immediate American retaliation.

Fair play, either way time will tell and all that. I just enjoy spit balling ideas aha.
I was rather impressed when i read the price tag of that thing though.
Original post by Palmyra
Is a $200m spy drone not a “military target”?

Touche :wink:
Original post by Napp
They don't really have a choice if unseating the government is their goal, which messrs Bolton and Pompeo (the prized twits) seem hell bent on

It's not even that. Imagine the US launches 'limited strikes' against Iran. Then Iran retaliates against Saudi oil fields or US bases or US ships in the Persian Gulf or beyond (which it 100% will). Then...? Then the US has to respond and escalate matters once more, so then the two sides get drawn into a full-scale war even though the US did not intend to end up in such a scenario. This is why I say Iran controls the escalation game.
Original post by Napp
They don't really have a choice if unseating the government is their goal, which messrs Bolton and Pompeo (the prized twits) seem hell bent on

Maybe but then again it'll be an absolute gift for the the nominal enemy if the Americans did that. I might not especially like the policy wonks in DC but theyre not idiots theyre perfectly aware if they start carpet bombing a country itll cause a lot more harm to the cause than good.
With that being said what constitutes a 'civilian' target? An airport, broadcast station, transport networks, political offices etc. are all apparently legitimate military targets. I agree that the salient point is what the hoi polloi think but the legal precedent has been set.

Fair play, either way time will tell and all that. I just enjoy spit balling ideas aha.
I was rather impressed when i read the price tag of that thing though.

Touche :wink:

Hard to know until we see what the events are. American deaths , especially civilian deaths are the bigger triggers. I think Pompeo and Bolton are nothing when compared to public opinion. I dont think unseating the government is their goal.

I cant say what the US reaction will be because it depends on events. Double standard or not if Iranian allies start killing American civilians they will be forced to act. Ive seen $140m, but still thats nothing compared to the death or capture of an American pilot. Its a legitimate target if it was in their airspace and not if it wasnt. This remains unclear. Inaction doesnt mean they arent doing anything. I just dont see its serious enough to provoke them yet. They will just be preparing contingency plans.

Just a lot of rhetoric at the moment. The ships are insured, they arent even American.
Original post by 999tigger
Hard to know until we see what the events are. American deaths , especially civilian deaths are the bigger triggers.

So what did the US do against Iran when 307 US (and French) soldiers were killed in Beirut in 1983? Nothing and withdrew from Lebanon.

What did the US do against Iran when 500 soldiers were killed or injured in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996? Nothing and withdrew from Saudi Arabia.

What did the US do against Iran when Iraqi shia militias killed 600 US soldiers? You guessed it - nothing and (largely) withdrew from Iraq.
Its a crazy world we live in, where a country with literally 50x less financial resources and a fraction of the military budget or capability can provoke the larger power, knowing that the larger power can't really do anything back, or at least any action taken back would hurt the larger power far more.

Its a very unusual position historically to be in, but its where we are. Obviously there will be some american's who will think 'well, in all out war, we will crush them!' and they would be right, but all out war is an impossibility, it doesn't exist like it used to, and likely never will.

American can't use their nuclear dominance for obvious international reasons..
They can't use their dominance in numbers/population, because the value of human life has, for the first time, vastly exceeding the value of war/conquest in the past century (in western nations)
They can't use their military and technological superiority, because you can never truly win against an opponent who would die before giving up, and eventually it will become too costly in terms of life/money to keep going (see basically every US war since WW2)

All, the absolute most they could do is send in a few strikes, bomb a few targets.. but for what? A show of force? Its not going to threaten a nation like Iran away from actions, it will provoke them to do more.. so why bother?

There is no positive path forward for the US here, and they know it. Iraq/Afghanistan were the last straws.. they showed that even against incredibly week opponents, you can't win if they are prepared to die, and they showed that the US population really doesn't have the resolve to handle prolonged conflicts. There is no desire for war with Iran among the American people, and any president who started one would become the most unpopular president of the past century, given the costs that it would incur.

Its a crazy time we live in.. in the previous era, Iran would be finished by now, it would be defeated and occupied (as it was), but in this era.. Iran actually has the advantage over the larger nations in conflict situations like these.. and it seems to fully know it, and is prepared to act on it.
Original post by fallen_acorns
Its a crazy world we live in, where a country with literally 50x less financial resources and a fraction of the military budget or capability can provoke the larger power, knowing that the larger power can't really do anything back, or at least any action taken back would hurt the larger power far more.

Its a very unusual position historically to be in, but its where we are. Obviously there will be some american's who will think 'well, in all out war, we will crush them!' and they would be right, but all out war is an impossibility, it doesn't exist like it used to, and likely never will.

American can't use their nuclear dominance for obvious international reasons..
They can't use their dominance in numbers/population, because the value of human life has, for the first time, vastly exceeding the value of war/conquest in the past century (in western nations)
They can't use their military and technological superiority, because you can never truly win against an opponent who would die before giving up, and eventually it will become too costly in terms of life/money to keep going (see basically every US war since WW2)

All, the absolute most they could do is send in a few strikes, bomb a few targets.. but for what? A show of force? Its not going to threaten a nation like Iran away from actions, it will provoke them to do more.. so why bother?

There is no positive path forward for the US here, and they know it. Iraq/Afghanistan were the last straws.. they showed that even against incredibly week opponents, you can't win if they are prepared to die, and they showed that the US population really doesn't have the resolve to handle prolonged conflicts. There is no desire for war with Iran among the American people, and any president who started one would become the most unpopular president of the past century, given the costs that it would incur.

Its a crazy time we live in.. in the previous era, Iran would be finished by now, it would be defeated and occupied (as it was), but in this era.. Iran actually has the advantage over the larger nations in conflict situations like these.. and it seems to fully know it, and is prepared to act on it.

Don’t agree with everything you wrote but overall very agreeable, +1 :smile:
Reply 76
Original post by Palmyra
So what did the US do against Iran when 307 US (and French) soldiers were killed in Beirut in 1983? Nothing and withdrew from Lebanon.

To be honest i'm still somewhat confused as to why the Yanks call that a terror attack, i mean a military barracks is kind of the definition of a legitimate target..
Reply 77
Apparently trump nearly launched a war...
http://nzh.tw/12242786
Original post by Napp
To be honest i'm still somewhat confused as to why the Yanks call that a terror attack, i mean a military barracks is kind of the definition of a legitimate target..


As far as the Americans were concerned they were there as peacekeepers - not invaders. They were operating under rules of engagement deemed appropriate for peacekeepers which made it difficult for them to deal appropriately with a truck bomber.

If they'd got their invasion hats on they'd probably have chosen a more defensible and hardened barracks and a robust set of RoE.
Reply 79
Original post by Joinedup
As far as the Americans were concerned they were there as peacekeepers - not invaders. They were operating under rules of engagement deemed appropriate for peacekeepers which made it difficult for them to deal appropriately with a truck bomber.

If they'd got their invasion hats on they'd probably have chosen a more defensible and hardened barracks and a robust set of RoE.

Maybe to start with, thats before they sided with one of the militias though at that point they became just another party to that quagmire.

Quick Reply

Latest