Iranian Air Deffenses are irreallivant to western powers. Nothing they have is modern enough to matter to a western preemptive attack. We know the old radars and ECM/ECCM sets and without updates, they will be useless against ANY western power with enough just cause to get American help in the form of EW data. I dought that many if any Iranian air assets will get off the ground and those that do will not last long, Vs any opposition, not from a third world country!

A senior US military officer I know says it is wiser to assume the enemy is smart and capable. If you are wrong, there is less potential harm to operations, than if you assume he can't do anything, and you are wrong. Certainly there are indications third world air forces can fight. [Technically, in fact, IDF is a "third world air force." But I refer to India and Pakistan. Also to Argentina.] Assuming they cannot get off the ground might be a big mistake. And assuming F-14 directed fighters might not be a real threat to attackers might be a bigger mistake. It is not just specs that matter, but how you use what you have. I have a complex simulation of the Falklands, and I can win as either side, flying missions virtually unstoppable against professional military players on the other side. Tactics actually matter.

"Iranian Air Deffenses are irreallivant to western powers. Nothing they have is modern enough to matter to a western preemptive attack. We know the old radars and ECM/ECCM sets and without updates, they will be useless against ANY western power with enough just cause to get American help in the form of EW data. I dought that many if any Iranian air assets will get off the ground and those that do will not last long, Vs any opposition, not from a third world country" -- Shooter ---- "A senior US military officer I know says it is wiser to assume the enemy is smart and capable. If you are wrong, there is less potential harm to operations, than if you assume he can't do anything, and you are wrong. Certainly there are indications third world air forces can fight. [Technically, in fact, IDF is a "third world air force." But I refer to India and Pakistan. Also to Argentina.] Assuming they cannot get off the ground might be a big mistake. And assuming F-14 directed fighters might not be a real threat to attackers might be a bigger mistake. It is not just specs that matter, but how you use what you have. I have a complex simulation of the Falklands, and I can win as either side, flying missions virtually unstoppable against professional military players on the other side. Tactics actually matter" -- ElCid ---- I know I'm busting on you again about this general subject, but Shooter is on target regarding any reasonable US scenario against Iran (i.e., at least a few carriers nearby, a few AEFs deployed in theater, many of our bombers operating from forward locations like Diego, England, and Missouri). Why do you so frequently play the "don't underestimate" card; it would be fine if you only played when people were actually underestimating, but Shooter, for example, never said "they cannot get off the ground". He said "I dought that many if any Iranian air assets will get off the ground and those that do...." Likewise, he didn't say, "...or that F-14 directed fighters might not be a real threat to attackers." He said "Nothing they have is modern enough to matter to a western preemptive attack" and regarding those aircraft that do launch, "...and those that do will not last long,...." I see a definite difference in both instances, don't you? None of his statement necessarily assumes anything, and certainly doesn't connote that we will face zero opposition and take zero losses. A reasonably constructed air campaign *will* succeed, period. Some losses are inevitable, but they will not inflict enough to create defeat or even a "Pyrric" victory. "A senior US military officer I know says it is wiser to assume the enemy is smart and capable." Wiser than what, the presumptive alternative of assuming the enemy is dumb and incompetent? It shouldn't take being a senior US military officer to figure that out. It's even wiser to assume nothing, and credit your enemy with being as smart and as capable as you know he is, including that he therefore can be unpredictable and capable of surprising you at least to that same degree to which he is smart and capable. Another no-brainer. However, reality necessitates making assumptions at times, doesn't it--assessing enemy capabilities. Your commander is best served when you tell him what you know is true and what you think is as close to true as you can assess given the information available, and why. He can then decide how much "fudge factor" to add into his decision-making using available resources. Displacedjim

problem is gas centrifuge units(for enriching uranium) is rather small. a cylindrical device about 5 ft tall and 1 ft dia. it can be hidden anywhere, in caves, inconspicuous buildings, and even in ... wine cellars ..

why would they want to attk? they could launch a few tehn they would be killed. "MAD"

I've recently read some stories about the Iranian stock market diving after some "not nice" exchanges between Britain/EU and Iran. A harbinger of instabilities to come?

Regarding "problem is gas centrifuge units(for enriching uranium) is rather small. a cylindrical device about 5 ft tall and 1 ft dia. it can be hidden anywhere, in caves, inconspicuous buildings, and even in ... wine cellars .. " ---- Boots on the ground.