-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Did world war 3 just start?
- Thread starter smokingman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Small, fast-moving target with low reflectivity. At 8000', the a/c wasn't very far above any radar horizon except possibly AWACS type look-down. Most assets watching Iran that night would be quite far away if land based and likely beyond 12 miles off shore
That said, I'm sure that flight was being tracked and so it is possible something showed up on some sensor (but most likely on IR)
Some in this thread would be big fans of the anglo saxon ethno state aspect of a nazi occupation.
1940 Germany was an existential threat. 2020 iran is not.
Last edited:
The way I understand it... Flight control "radar" displays are synchronized with transponders so that it doesn't send back every return, only the ones that are squawking, in order to clean up the display. Anytime you see an aircraft drop off a display it is because it stopped transmitting.
Military radar uses IFF to tag returns, but they have to sort the wheat from the chaff on their display.
I could be mistaken though.
I do know that our ground intercept radar and ECMs will absolutely track a SAM. If there was no military radar or ECM in the area, then I doubt it would show up on any civi equipment.
MH17 had no idea they have been targeted by SAM.
One nice thing I did just think about. When our govt. Says no service members got killed in the iran strikes, we all pretty much believe them. Imagine living in a place where you cant trust them not to make up whole cloth american death statistics like iran did.
Do we know why there's no casualties?
I haven't really followed the news today, or this thread, so sorry if it's been discussed.
Did they target an empty base? Did they warn of the attack? Missed? There missiles just suck?
Yes, because if there were a single injured American it would be the only thing reported for the next week.
"Trump kills American soldiers via his Iran policy."
Do we know why there's no casualties?
I haven't really followed the news today, or this thread, so sorry if it's been discussed.
Did they target an empty base? Did they warn of the attack? Missed? There missiles just suck?
All the above? I think general consensus is they de escalated on purpose.
I don't know if it was posted earlier in this thread but I saw a satellite picture of the air base that was hit that NPR got hold of from somewhere. They did not appear to be unarmed or duds. They did wipe out several buildings. They said the buildings hit, were ones used for storing stuff.Unarmed missiles maybe?
Sadly, there are probably many on the left WHO WISH AMERICAN(S) WERE KILLED in the strike for just that purpose
I mentioned this earlier, and I don't have a cite as it was something I heard on the news (just kind of had it on in the background) that there was speculation that Iran purposely tried to make sure that they didn't kill any Americans (despite the claims of the mullahs). If true, it would make sense. It would be a face saving act for appearances to their people, but it would also lessen the likelihood of a "disproportionate response" from our military, which Trump had promised when they first started making threats immediately after their general was killed.
Maybe unlike Obama's red line in the sand in Syria, they may have thought that Trump's threats might have had some teeth.
Maybe unlike Obama's red line in the sand in Syria, they may have thought that Trump's threats might have had some teeth.
Still an open question on the airliner, but from today's events it looks like those who speculated that the president would take the zero-casualty rocket attack as an opportunity to decock the situation were on the money. With dead or injured Americans, there would be no choice but to retaliate. With (apparently) no American dead on the plane, we can wait and see on that question.
Woke up today and found myself wondering whether Iran's actions in these events might be more about dealing with the threat posed by their own populace than anything else. They're coming out of this with the people refocused on evil America for killing one of theirs and the narrative that they took glorious revenge by killing a bunch of Americans with their amazing missiles and forced the US to back down. They went from shooting protesters in the street to 50-someodd people being trampled to death in a huge pro-war, pro-Islam freakout over their dead terrorist. That's not a bad turnaround for a regime that, like every oppressive authoritarian government on the planet, ultimately fears its own people more than any outside force.
Woke up today and found myself wondering whether Iran's actions in these events might be more about dealing with the threat posed by their own populace than anything else. They're coming out of this with the people refocused on evil America for killing one of theirs and the narrative that they took glorious revenge by killing a bunch of Americans with their amazing missiles and forced the US to back down. They went from shooting protesters in the street to 50-someodd people being trampled to death in a huge pro-war, pro-Islam freakout over their dead terrorist. That's not a bad turnaround for a regime that, like every oppressive authoritarian government on the planet, ultimately fears its own people more than any outside force.
As far as I can tell, this is exactly what he did.
...but more interesting to me, it looks like the Army generals are sporting the new WWII style uniforms.
Been trying to explain to people that Iran is a very different situation from most middle eastern countries.
I guess you're finally starting to see it yourself.
Trump just displayed true strength, the strength of restraint in the face of an easily destroyed adversary.
He not only deescalated the situation, he also offered an olive branch after killing the actual leadership of the country, and he comes out smelling like roses.
Last edited:
I agree that Trump's restraint seems appropriate.
But, it also begs the question, why was Suleimani's death an exception to that restraint?
It doesn't seem like we've actually gotten any specifics on why he had to be killed right now. We may not for a very long time, and I'm ok with that. But, there's been a poor explanation for it. (Explanation is not the same as justification. Many people in the world deserve death; yet we are not pursuing them the same way.)
But, it also begs the question, why was Suleimani's death an exception to that restraint?
It doesn't seem like we've actually gotten any specifics on why he had to be killed right now. We may not for a very long time, and I'm ok with that. But, there's been a poor explanation for it. (Explanation is not the same as justification. Many people in the world deserve death; yet we are not pursuing them the same way.)
My take on reading all that I have read at this point is that we believed him to be the true leadership of the country, and that by taking him out, the doors may be opened to make for a better situation with Iraq and friendlier terms with Iran.
(Possibly the only way we can leave Iraq without fear of it turning into a terrorist state)
