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

Palmyra
Badges: 20
#61
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Tempest II)
The irony.
Do you believe all the stuff Iran comes out with?
Yes, we should trust the country that told us Iraq had WMD and no RQ-170 was lost (until Iran displayed the mint condition RQ-170 to the world and forced the US to beg for it back).
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#62
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Tempest II)
The captain getting a medal after downing the airliner was ridiculous, but that was over 30 years ago... And you've got to look at in context - who was attacking shipping back in the 1980s? Both Iraq and Iran targeted tankers and USN ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will

I'm inclined to believe that the RQ-4 was in international airspace and that perhaps the US didn't believe Iran would be foolish enough to target it in international airspace? After all, Iran seems to be claiming that it doesn't want war yet also is carrying out attacks on tankers and RPAS. Almost like... I don't know... The Pasdaran are operating off the reservation?
You claimed that if US officers mess up their career is "over", I gave you an example of a monumental **** up (and war crime) and the officer getting rewarded. Unless you can give substantial evidence to the contrary to prove your assertion we'll consider that debunked.


If you look at the history of the veracity of US and Iranian claims re: drones etc you'll see that Iran actually has the better record here. Firstly, with the RQ-170 incident which the US refused to accept happened for a long time and then had to eat their words. Secondly, with the RQ-4 incident Iran was the first country to state it had shot down a US drone, identified the drone correctly as an RQ-4. The US rejected this for 8 hours and then claimed it was a MQ-4C Triton, then later admitted it was an RQ-4 after all. Thirdly, the US claimed the USS Vincennes was in international waters when it shot down the Iranian civilian airliner and killed 300 civilians, then later admitted it was in Iranian territorial waters.

I could present more examples but you're too dogmatically pro-US to even consider the fact that the US might lie or have a worse track record in disclosing the truth to the public than someone else.
Last edited by Palmyra; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#63
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#63
The reality is that the US has imposed economic warfare against Iran but cannot afford to go to war with Iran. Thus Iran feels it has greater leeway to assert itself in the Persian Gulf region because it knows the Pentagon and Trump are both opposed to war with Iran.


1) A few days ago the Houthis launched a cruise missile strike against a water desalination facility in Saudi Arabia.
2) A few weeks prior the Houthis launched an armed drone attack that pierced 500km deep into KSA without being detected and successfully attacked a PG-Red Sea (East-West) oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia, designed to enable it to export oil via other avenues than the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz.
3) Just the other day the operational offices etc of ExxonMobil and other US oil companies were hit by a rocket in Iraq, forcing them to evacuate.

I could go on. People who follow military and political affairs will understand what each of those attacks are in response to and the signals they are designed to send to deter US aggression against Iran.


Persians invented chess and luckily for Iran brash overconfident illiterate businessmen rarely make for good chess players. Tempest II
Last edited by Palmyra; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#64
Report 4 weeks ago
#64
Why cant the US afford to go to get into a conflict with Iran?

I dont think they want one, but with the correct amount of provocation they will retaliate.
If that had been a piloted aircraft and Americans had been lost they would retaliate.
As it is they will fly across a replacement which is probably already in place.
There is no need for such a drone to fly into Iranian airspace, the whole point of being at 50,000 feet is you see a long way.

Time will tell whether it was in Iranian or International airspace.
Also cant see the deal whether it was a Triton or an RQ4, they are pretty similar.
Last edited by 999tigger; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#65
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by 999tigger)
Why cant the US afford to go to get into a conflict with Iran?

I dont think they want one, but with the correct amount of provocation they will retaliate.
If that had been a piloted aircraft and Americans had been lost they would retaliate.
As it is they will fly across a replacement which is probably already in place.
There is no need for such a drone to fly into Iranian airspace, the whole point of being at 50,000 feet is you see a long way.

Time will tell whether it was in Iranian or International airspace.
Also cant see the deal whether it was a Triton or an RQ4, they are pretty similar.
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.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#66
Report 4 weeks ago
#66
(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.
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#67
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#67
(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...?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#68
Report 4 weeks ago
#68
(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...?
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.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#69
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#69
(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.
0
reply
rimstone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Tempest II)
The irony.
Do you believe all the stuff Iran comes out with?
mate im done, clearly it aint worth having a dialogue with you,
70% of people understood what happened here, i cant help the other 30% who are just too stupid to even help themselves, i hope the 70% make sure america and iran don't go to war, and have some kind of relationship that doesnt lead to it, and maybe the other 30% wise up, or don't support war at best, since last i checked no one wants a war in america and the UK... but then again iraq's and syrias happen out of nowhere.. quite literally.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 weeks ago
#71
(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.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#72
Report 4 weeks ago
#72
(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.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 weeks ago
#73
(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.
0
reply
LittleX
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 weeks ago
#74
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:
Last edited by LittleX; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#75
Report 4 weeks ago
#75
(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.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#76
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#76
(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”?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 weeks ago
#77
(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
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#78
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#78
(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.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#79
Report 4 weeks ago
#79
(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
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.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#80
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#80
(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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (153)
17.83%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (75)
8.74%
No I am happy with my course choice (506)
58.97%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (124)
14.45%

Watched Threads

View All