Israel strikes on Iran

[357Mag]

No excuse ...

Iran Air flight 655 | Background, Events, Investigation, & Facts | Britannica

Iran Air flight 655, flight of an Iranian airliner that was shot down by the USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 people on board. The passenger plane, which was in Iranian airspace, had been incorrectly identified as a fighter jet.

www.britannica.com

TSR -

Thanx for the info !

With regards,
357Mag

 

[Archibald]

The Long Shadow of War: The story of the shootdown of Iran Air flight 655

In 1988, the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians. Today, there remain multiple viewpoints about who is to blame.

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

 

[357Mag]

The Long Shadow of War: The story of the shootdown of Iran Air flight 655

In 1988, the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians. Today, there remain multiple viewpoints about who is to blame.

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

The Long Shadow of War: The story of the shootdown of Iran Air flight 655

In 1988, the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians. Today, there remain multiple viewpoints about who is to blame.

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

Archibald -

Howdy !

Thanx for the info link !


With regards,
357Mag

 

[Forest Green]

No excuse ...

Iran Air flight 655 | Background, Events, Investigation, & Facts | Britannica

Iran Air flight 655, flight of an Iranian airliner that was shot down by the USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 people on board. The passenger plane, which was in Iranian airspace, had been incorrectly identified as a fighter jet.

www.britannica.com

How would you feel about a country that visually identified an aircraft as a passenger plane and still shot it down with a fighter plane anyway around the same time?

 

[357Mag]

TSRJoe and Forrest Green -

Howdy !

Gentlemen…I only now have taken note of red circled arrows at the top of the comments box. While I had not noticed these in the past, it appears they are intended to draw repeat attention to comments/links you have posted on the “ Israel Strikes Iran “ post.
More specifically, these were included for my edification. If I missed that distinction,
I apologize that did not pick up on that !

Please be assured, my previous comments were not intended imply that the U.S. Navy did not make a grave mistake in the shoot down of the Iranian airliner. Moreover, U.S.
“ compensation “ paid to Iran because of the incident, did not “ gloss things over “.

I will opine that a contributing factor to the USS Stark attack was Iran’s belligerence and attacks on oil tankers during the “ Tanker War “; IRAQ making the attack on the Stark notwithstanding. The USS Stark was present to provide protective escort to tankers in-opposition to Iran’s irresponsible actions against them. The 37 U.S. sailors died as a result of the attack in the Stark.

Today, amid other mischief; Iran is hurtling towards the 46th anniversary of ” Hostage Crisis “. Every day they more closely approach their “ day of reckoning “ ( IMHO ).


With regards,
357Mag

 

[Scott Kenny]

As regards any postulated U.S. use of a notional “ conventional” armed ICBM or SLBM on Iranian nuclear facilities…

Those who the U.S. would not want to potentially alarm, would need to be prior-informed of any impending launch(es), and the intended terminus of the trajectory.
This is not an unknown practice.

This is not as sensational idea as it may sound. Even for attacks using aircraft and cruise missiles, Iranian airspace defenses would first be neutralized, which is something
the Israelis recently demonstrated. If Iran were to some how cobble together any form of ABM defense, the U.S. and/or Israelis would also take these out prior to attacking the nuclear sites.

Given that Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities cannot reasonably be further hardened on short notice, Iran would be left to watch the attacks unfold.

Right, there's ways to set something up for a deliberate attack on Iran or North Korea. (What you described is the standard process for doing test launches, BTW.)

The problem is that this only works for deliberate attacks on what might as well be a non-resisting target.

You can't make a general policy of loading some ICBMs or SLBMs in the field with conventional warheads and the rest with nukes, and then use the conventional warheads on one of the Nuclear powers that can strike the US.

 

[publiusr]

The Stratolaunch Roc would need air support—but I could see a one-off bomb dropped on Fordow.

 

[357Mag]

Right, there's ways to set something up for a deliberate attack on Iran or North Korea. (What you described is the standard process for doing test launches, BTW.)

The problem is that this only works for deliberate attacks on what might as well be a non-resisting target.

You can't make a general policy of loading some ICBMs or SLBMs in the field with conventional warheads and the rest with nukes, and then use the conventional warheads on one of the Nuclear powers that can strike the US.

Scott -

Howdy ! Always nice to hear from you.

As regards your final paragraph, above…

IF, and I say IF the U.S. did put conventional warheads on a special-use clutch of ICBMs
( example ); I should imagine their use would be laid out in some specific guidance; and not some “ general policy “.

And of course as is widely thought, Iran is not ( yet ) a “ nuclear power “.
Preventing that from happening would certainly be one postulated mission for a notional U.S. convention warhead ICBM. However, in today’s reality, breaching Iran’s deeply buried sites is
the MOP’s raison d’etre; N’est-ce pas ?

 

[quellish]

And LM did some research on a SLBM delivered bunker busting RV.

This RV is what is used on ATACMS.

 

[TsrJoe]

And such use would pretty much amount to a declaration of war by the US. something I'd hope even they (or its proxies) would not be stupid enough to do against another sovereign state no matter how much 'under threat' the hawks on the hill felt

On that note il get back to researching 'secret projects'

 

[357Mag]

And such use would pretty much amount to a declaration of war by the US. something I'd hope even they (or its proxies) would not be stupid enough to do against another sovereign state no matter how much 'under threat' the hawks on the hill felt

On that note il get back to researching 'secret projects'

TSRJoe -

Thanx Joe. You have been providing some great information !


With regards,
357Mag

 

[Forest Green]

And such use would pretty much amount to a declaration of war by the US. something I'd hope even they (or its proxies) would not be stupid enough to do against another sovereign state no matter how much 'under threat' the hawks on the hill felt

There's no telling what the next administration will be stupid enough to do.

 

[357Mag]

All -

Not hard to list the many negatives that would be associated with a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

None the less, for Israel…. certain exigencies prevail.


With regards,
357Mag