Iran v US confrontation

And so it begins

Indeed, although that's sort of the point of drones. They're expendable and can go where you'd prefer not to send manned aircraft.


Fully expect a few nights of bombing coming soon and I'd expect there are already special forces in Iran spotting targets. I very much doubt they will land any troops on the ground though.
 
What they shot down
110526-F-YQ806-362.JPG

RQ-4 Global Hawk
 
This is kind of big, when you see it next to a person. Not what I expected.

It's massive. Designed to carry all the radars and sensors you might need for well over 24 hours flying time.

The armed drones are much smaller and cheaper because they don't have to fly for as long.
 
It's massive. Designed to carry all the radars and sensors you might need for well over 24 hours flying time.

The armed drones are much smaller and cheaper because they don't have to fly for as long.
Can this fully replace the EP-3's and similar?
 
Isn't this exactly why they use drones in the first place? Getting shot down doesn't include a pilot death or capture, removes the human element, makes it less pressing to make any sort of counter strike.
 
Isn't this exactly why they use drones in the first place? Getting shot down doesn't include a pilot death or capture, removes the human element, makes it less pressing to make any sort of counter strike.

Not when petty ego's are involved.
 
Interesting perspective from a military person...:

Global Hawks are large aircraft and this drone was flying in a peacetime environment so it likely had no defensive systems, said Poss, now CEO of ISR Ideas, a consulting firm.

"If we were to employ that in combat: A. The missile launchers would have never been there; and B. There would have been a whole other range of things that we would have done to defend that aircraft," Poss told Task & Purpose on Thursday. "Shooting down a surveillance aircraft in peacetime in international waters is not a statement about the sophistication of your air defenses – it's a statement about your judgment, or lack thereof."
 
Definitely am concerned that the Trump administration is trying to find an excuse for an invasion, I would be utterly incensed if they got away with it.
 
In this map, taken from wiki, there seems to be no international waters in the Strait.
800px-Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg
 
Just found out that the U.S. did not sign the "Treaty of the Sea". Not sure how that complicates the issue of no international waters in the Strait of Hormuz
They signed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
But they have not ratified
United States position[edit]
Main article: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS
Although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions,[5] and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention as it objected to Part XI of the Convention.[6][7]

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes. However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President's constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S. Constitution. In any event, Congress needs to make laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.[8][9]

On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Senate had 34 Republican Senators who indicated their intention to vote against ratification of the Treaty if it came to a vote. Since at least 2/3 of the 100 member Senate (at least 67 Senators) are required to ratify a treaty, consideration of the treaty was deferred again.[10]

Some American commentators, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have warned that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty might create a precedent with regard to resources of outer space

in a similar vein they have signed but not ratified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_States_"Freedom_of_Navigation"_program yet they are trying to enforce it (south china sea)....
 
I wonder what the US would do if another country decided to start flying surveillance drones off their coast?

They seem to think their own acts of provocation are absolutely fine for some reason and everyone should just be ok with letting them do whatever they want.
 
I wonder what the US would do if another country decided to start flying surveillance drones off their coast?

They seem to think their own acts of provocation are absolutely fine for some reason and everyone should just be ok with letting them do whatever they want.
Depends which country it is. If Putin decided he fancied flying a few over the US, I guarantee Trump would say feck all.

This is just pure provocation to justify a heavy handed response. The Israelis do it all the time with their neighbours.
 
The worrying part is Democrats endorsing the view that Iran are a threat.

The solution is simply to go back to the agreement we had with Iran.

Not re negotiate. Why should Iran trust this imbecile.
In the end both the Neocons and Democratic establishment love the defense contractors and everything else that comes with a war. The media loves it too of course.

Can't Iran have another country verify the drone was in their airspace if their version is true? Seems like Turkey, Egypt etc probably monitor Iranian airspace as well.
 
Iran is full of shit, but the US is also full of shit, so if the end result is the US invading another nation, then yeah, they're the baddies.

Agree with this view.

The worrying part is Democrats endorsing the view that Iran are a threat.

Well, there is a difference between saying Iran are a threat and saying that we should invade. Iran definitely are a threat to peace and security in the middle east at a minimum and Dems would be irresponsible to say otherwise.
 
Agree with this view.



Well, there is a difference between saying Iran are a threat and saying that we should invade. Iran definitely are a threat to peace and security in the middle east at a minimum and Dems would be irresponsible to say otherwise.

Which is the country that had been threatening middle east and had been involved in all of the wars in the middle east in the last 2 decades?
 
I wonder what the US would do if another country decided to start flying surveillance drones off their coast?

They seem to think their own acts of provocation are absolutely fine for some reason and everyone should just be ok with letting them do whatever they want.
They would shoot it down just as Iran shot this down. US military/Trump used the drone to provoke hostilities. No other sensible explanation for deploying it in the current situation.
 
I wonder what the US would do if another country decided to start flying surveillance drones off their coast?

See the UFO thread.

In all seriousness, the Russians frequently do it.

Can this fully replace the EP-3's and similar?

Hard to say. In practice the Navy version of it is doing so, but they were never supposed to. There was supposed to be a 737 based plane like the P8.
 
Iran is full of shit, but the US is also full of shit, so if the end result is the US invading another nation, then yeah, they're the baddies.

This time iran really doesnt do anythjng wrong. They're complying fully with the deal, they actually fight isis in the ground. Cant help but rooted for iran. And the us has been a big asshole to everyone this time, china mexico canada eu iran climate change, and trump.
 
The worrying part is Democrats endorsing the view that Iran are a threat.

The solution is simply to go back to the agreement we had with Iran.

Not re negotiate. Why should Iran trust this imbecile.

I read this 3x. I never thought that this line would exist in my lifetime and I'd agree with it.

Usually it's the other way around
 
Which is the country that had been threatening middle east and had been involved in all of the wars in the middle east in the last 2 decades?

You leave yourself open to counter with such a naive question. Search the term Hezbollah and you will find that Iran has actually been involved in more conflicts than the US in the Middle East over the last several decades.
 
They would shoot it down just as Iran shot this down. US military/Trump used the drone to provoke hostilities. No other sensible explanation for deploying it in the current situation.

I suspect this also, same thing with the boat attack which the US claim was perpetrated by Iran.
 
You do know there was an agreement in place right?

Trump broke it. Not Iran.

Right, an agreement to prevent a country who has sworn to annihilate a country off the face of the Earth from building nukes. Can't stand the neo cons as much as anyone but I don't believe in false morality either. Iran doesn't suddenly become innocent just because the Trump admin does stupid crap.