Peter Cairns

Kurtz, look on the bright side, they haven't started buying your ports yet..... Worst comment i heard was a report on a meeting in the run up to the liberation of Kuwait where a journalist met rich young kuwaities in a Cairo Casino. When he asked them if they were willing to fight to free there country one of them said, "Why should we, we have our white slaves to do that". MikeyD, Iran knows all about US cap[abilities, but I actually don't think they are concerned, because they have no intention of attacking America. They want to be the most influencial power in the gulf, and to have Islamic government throughout the region, but thats a sort of Islamic Monroe doctrine. They also want to deter Israel and the US from using military power unilaterally against them or their interests. When. and like most here I think it is when they have the ability to make a bomb, they will be in a hugely strengthen position regionally, both to bully there neighbours (without actually using force) and to play the role of leader of the islamic world ( which is what they really want). I don't think the US or UK should be overly worried, but if I was an undemocratic arab leader with an unhappy population who though a nuclear Iran was a great step forward, I'd be worried. Peter.

Two replies in one. Firstly special forces, although the US could get some support on the ground from the likes of the Kurds, it would be nothing like what they had from the Northern Alliance, where they were like in Northern Iraq effectively targeting for an advancing army ( all be it a rag tag one). For one thing you have to cross the Zagros mountains and thats a hard trek even if you don't have to stay hidden. I know the US has some good CSAR and special forces helicopters, but in those conditions and altitude range would be a big issue. As to calling in air strikes, I'd suspect that the iranian sights probably have Laser detectors deflectors and probably even GPS jamming, so anyone "designating" a target from the ground is taking a huge risk, and if anything should make the US think twice about putting people in on the ground lets just mention the word "Hostage", ( I could add the words "Spy" and "Firing Squad"). We could raise the same issues with any pilot that was unlucky enough to bail out. In addition for ever one the US could infiltrate across either border the Iranians could put at least ten the other way, and particularly for the British around Basra thats an issue, in addition West and North west Afghanistan haven't been a security issue really since the invasion, but that could quickly change too. Second point. Iran is pretty near it's quota for opec and has very little additional production capacity. In addition it is one of the members which doesn't like the idea of pumping out it's oil reserves at a high rate just to supply americans who don't like it with cheap gas. So from it's point of view, how do you increase revenue, within a higher quota, or increased production and digging in to your long term reserves? Answer, do something that pushes up the price without having to cut back on your production. The opec target price for oil is somewhere in the region of $35 and I think Iranian production cost are about $10. At 2.5m barrells a day thats about $63m . But make people think there might be a war and hey presto, $75 a barrell gives you an extra $40 profit or $100m a day extra, without having to raise production or invest a penny. Question is, is the Iranian president that clever, Is he thick but the people with the real power, are happy to let him bang his drum and push up the price, or is it just a cock up. I am not really a conspiracy kind of guy, so I think this is probably a bit far fetched but i thought I'd put it in anyway. Peter.

Thanks Moon, Peter.

TanksMucho, eh if you are in Arbritage and derivitives, how come your profilre has you down as a travel agent... Oh and you collect stamps too, gee what a life... Oren-M, Don't rise to the bait mate, especially when it's a maggot.... Apart from anything else, you of all people should beaware of comments about certain types of people not being allowed to be born. Peter,

Moronic Max, Two good questions, Firstly he could be a returnie in the back door, but on the other hand, is it likely that there are two people like that on earth. Secondly, I assume rationality and the problem with any state giving a nuke to nutters is that they'd have to be nuts to either do it, or think they could get away with it. It's fine for an episode of "24", but thats just fantasy entertainment ( like women finding Kiether Sutherland attractive). Once Iran has them like with Russia over Cuba, or China over Korea, we'll all have to tread a bit more carefully, and watch what they say, but it shouldn't be unstable. Look at from Irans perspective, what possible rational reason is there for starting a war, and even if they did, it's pretty much believed that they've had smallpox available for years, which would be a more effective weapon against the US. I remember ages back i used the idea of FBI style offender profiling for saddam, and if you looked at his risk of crimes he had a pattern of attacking weak people in his neighbourhood who he felt threatened and he could rob. Taking on the US would have been like a small town thief, punk, and bully attacking the local Navy SEALs training camp, it just didn't make sense. At some point the US fell in to the trap of saying "he's a mad dictator and if he's mad, his actions don't have to make sense, so we are in danger". For me that just doesn't make sense. Peter.

TanksMucho, Oh and I think you forgot to convert from US gallons to Imperial as well, not being an arbiter of anything i don't have an exact figure, but it's around 4.45 ltrs. I am also with john ( a guy I don't to be honest often agree with), on his comments about your language. As most people on this forum know, I am neither a fan of current US policy or long term Israeli policy towards the West Bank and Gaza. However even though I disagree with guys like Oren and have said so to him, I have never isnsulted him, racially or otherwise, because I don't agree with him. Nor have I attacked Israeli's or jews in particular for their respective governments failings, no more than I blame Americans for Bush, or Germans for Hitler. If we ever needed evidence that Steve etal are hard at work it's the fact that you haven't been booted already for some of that language. I may not have an higher status than member ( though it would be nice, hint, hint) heres some advice for a junior one, "Tone it down or you soon won't be one at all". This was not a political discussion and was doing nicely till you crossed the line. Peter.

Johns right, For all we might not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, all the evidence is that they act as a restraining influence on leaders rather than embolden them. They may help to negate another powers conventional advantage, I doubt that we could have assembled a coalition to get a nuclear Iraq out of Kuwait, and that could lead to escalation which could get out of control. but we just have to live with that. It's an odd thing about revolutionary countries, they talk about spreading and freeing the workers, but once they get in and their feet under the presidents desk, it's amazing how defensive they become. Without Hitler there is no good reason to believe Stalin would have struck east. China has never invaded Taiwan despite the rhetoric, and where revolutionary states have acted such as Afghanistan and Tibet, it has been seen as low risk (although like Saddam in Kuwait , things that look low risk aren't always) and on the margins. For all the talk there really isn't a lot of evidence for Iran attacking it's neighbours. The revolution was in 1979 nearly thirty years ago and by far the worst anti western events were in the first five years, indeed compared to Russia and China the chao's was neither as deep or long lasting. According to the CIA yearbook, Iran exports 2.5m barrells of oil a day, which if we assume a $50 dollar profit at todays prices, makes $45bn a year. Israel has a GDP of $140bn, Iran over $550bn. Given the current situation Israel probably doesn't want, and could ill afford an arms race. If I was the the Iranians and want to undermine Israel, I'd keep up the rhetoric and the occasional missile test etc, and with luck, Israel will bankrupt itself trying to compete with someone who isn't really trying. Peter.

$8 a gallon..... I am paying £1 a litre, and Scotland is an oil exporting nation, see if you can figure that one out. Peter.

Sixxkiller, And why exactly does it put things back 50 years, to what 1956. Lets see whats happened since then, the suez crisis, the Yom Kippur war, rise of the PLO and terrorism, the seven day war, invasion of the Lebanon, and the fall of the Shah. I f you look at Us policy in the middle east since the late fifties it's hardly been a string of successes. Sure Israel is still there, but that's a bit like saying the siege of Leningrad was a victory because it didn't fall, technically true but hardly much consolation for the tens of thousands of people who died. Oh and take a look at whats been happening to Indian/Pakistani relations since Pakistan got nuclear parity, have things got worse, no now that Indian has to be careful about the possibility of a war, surprise surprise they are willing to talk and are taking measure to reduce tensions and build confidence. Gee whiz, now if you were a cynic, you might think that what's really worrying Tel Aviv and Washington is not being able to tell the arabs to "F*%$ OFF" if they don't like US/Israeli policy.... Peter.

If Israel acts then the U is in the firing line anyway. this isn't like the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor site, when they just cut across a small piece of neighbours air space. To hit multiple targets deep in Iran more or less similtanoiusly they will need a lot of aircraft, certainly 50 plus, including AWAC's and Tankers, and they will need to not only fly but loiter over Iraq. That means the US which has air superiority, and indeed as the occupying power, probably has legal responsibility to defend and protect Iraqi airspace. So the US has to decide does it intercept or do nothing. I suspect it's do nothing, in which case as far as the Arab world will be concerned it's an American attack. It leaves the Saudi's in an awkward position, as they will probably have the ability to warn the Iranians ( AWAC's) and will have to decide whether or not to do so. Again if they don't then it will be seen by the Iranains, many arabs, and probably a lot of Saudi's as making them a party to the attack. The Saudi's would have to weigh up the consequences of failure. If this doesn't work and Iran goes nuclear, they will have a very powerful and angry neighbour. I don't if the Syrians will want to get involved, but they will almost certainly warn Iran. Even with the best will in the world, this is unlikely to be a surprise attack. I think the round trip to Iraq and back was about 1,250 miles, this time you could well be talking close to 3,000, depending on the route for some of the units. This article seems to cover most of the points, although I'd have thought flying the tankers as commercial flights be they air charter or frieght as a cover would be an option. Attack on Iran Anyway up shot is I doubt israel can really pull it off with any real chance of success unless of course they go for the nuclear option, or have a ALCM system they aren't telling people about. Peter.

Ronald reagen talked about Bombing Moscow, Pat roberts wants to kill Chavez, and he's not exactly keen on gay people either. Hitler had annexed the Czechs and had already killed hundreds of his own people. True Iran backs anti Israeli groups in Palestine and the Lebanon, but the US backed the Contras and Afghan Rebels, and despite repeated calls for the end of Soviet domination of eastern europe, I don't think that justified a soviet pre emptive strike. Hell given current trade rhetoric comming off capital hill these days, on that basis the Chinese would be launching a nuke a week. Peole are always bringing up the "What about Hitler" line, on the basis that as there was once this terrible guy that wasn't stopped you should shoot first and ask questions latter. That's why ever year so many kids in the states goofing around get shot by people scared of burglars. Peter.

"Missouri Breaks", Jack Nicholson (Rustler) to Marlon Brando ( Bounty Hunter), as Brando opens his eyes from sleeping by a camp fire, "and if your wondering what that noise is it's you, cos I just cut your throat". Peter.

mav1, It's abit labourious and not 100% accurate, but as you move your curor over the map on Google Earth, it gives you the height above sea level of the point it's at, which at least would let you plot the relative heights of key points. Peter.

So far the Iranians haven't broken any treaties, and the best they can be found guilty of is "Knowing how to build an atomic bomb", which isn't actually an offense, under any treaty that I am aware of. Given that the US has just agreed to cooperate on nuclear energy with India and is arming both Pakistan and Israel, it's hardly got the moral high ground when it comes to preventing nuclear proliferation. I am not sure what the threshold is for a radiological weapon, but if Iran has already reached the 3% needed for fuel rods, they can probably contaminate the most expensive real estate in any western capital if push comes to shove. It just depends if we are stupid enough to push and shove that much. Do I want Iran to be a nuclear power, No Do I think they are going to do it, Eventually Yes. Do I think using force will do anything more than delay it, No. Do I think a nuclear Iran would use them in anything other than the type of crisis that we would use them in, No Do I think that kind of crisis is likely, No Do I think that kind of crisis is far more likely if we've been bombing them, YES YES YES YES... We went in to Iraq to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorist, Dictatorships and the failed states that breed and harbour them, and look at the place now for god's sake. Peter.

M1A1TankCommander, Well given the state of Russian right now, you'll love the next generation of simple reliable weapons they will be issuing, STICKS and STONES Peter.

We get paarnoid about the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything to be paranoid about..... Spooks me. Peter.

As often said, "You need three things to fight a war, money money and more money", and if there was an endless supply of it that would be fine. But it's all about Opportunity cost, expressing things you purchase in terms of what you could have purcghased instead. If you can refurbish five F-16's and keep them going for 20more years for the cost of a JSF, and they will still do the job just as well, then it's a better use of finite resources. If there was any real evidence that someone was going to come up with something that could take out an F-15E in the next ten years then fine, bt there isn't. Whether it be, India's LCA, China's L-15 or FC-1, The Iranian, Shafal(?) or the proposed Mig/SU light fighter, everthing comming up is in the F-16 for export class. The only real threat is from variations of the SU-27, a no one has any plans to build or acquire them in numbers to match tthe current US F-15 fleet. let alone it plus Europe Typhoons. Film of up and coming new high tech weapons,is fine for entertainment, but I can't help thinking that the manufacturers are the ones driving this more than actual need and that US tax payers are getting ripped of buying stuff that is far more expensive than they actually need. The which would you rather have line is Okay, but it's a bit like that "buy your wife an SUV, so she'll be safe if there's a crash when taking the kids to school three suburban blocks away". In reality few drivers ever get killed on the school run, as car crashes in the suburbs tend to be low speed bumps, and the biggest killer is kids getting hit by cars, with the highest chance of fatality, yep you guessed getting hit by a "Safe" SUV. Peter. Peter.

Sixxkilller, I've got a G% iMac so I was never going to be at the head of the line. Besides I was trying to flush him out with insults, a bit like depth charging blind to force them to the surface. Peter.

The JSF looks great in these shows but all this doesn't coms cheap I've seen various estimates of the base line unit cost rising from $40m to as much as $100m. Given that you can buy a Korean T-50 which in it's "A" configuration is an 80% svale F-16, which will do most of the run of the mill jobs as well as most airforces need, for about $20m, just how many JSF's will the US be able to export and what will that do to the final unit price. Like the B1B and the PH2000 these are hugely impressive, but also hugely expensive, and pretty much useless in Iraq or afghanistan, so is it money well spent and can we afford it. Pricy though it is compared to the T-72's it's to take out the Javelin at least makes sense. Sure it doesn't have the cost ratio of an RPG-7 to an M1A2, byt it's a good way to take out something you can expect to meet. A single C-17 (costing $300m) can transport a single M1A2 ($5m), but in a Kiowa you can transport 10 Javelins and 100 rounds and combined they probably cost less than the M1A2. So even if I am in danger of being portrayed as a typical Scotsman, obsessed with what things cost, I just don't see the value of a lot of this high tech stuff, given current and even future challenges. Peter.

Hoolaman, THIS IS THE WEB SITE.... They changed the mast head to the picture of the guy in uniform standing beside the riddled billboard saying "SHOCKFORCE". Now that might be a bit minimalist, but technically it's true. Given Steve's persistant absence I tend to think with all the other projects like SC2 on the go they've diverted him to something where his talents are better suited, like loading boxes in the back of a delivery van. Peter. [ April 20, 2006, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

Haven't heard much from steve for a while , even though we have been touching on issues he usually butts in, I mean makes a meaningful contribution too. Come to think of it haven't seen much admin at all, so I have two theories. One, everything is coming along great and they are just overworked putting together the game of the decade, or Two, The damned thing is a turkey they can't get to work and they've all done a runner for Mexico and left the server running to cover their escape. Hope it's One...... Peter.

Lt. Beavis, I am no expert but I'd say the angle of attack would be a factor. If the Javelin hit the front third comming in at say 60", then i'd say the driver is toast, but most of the blast and damage would be directed downwards, so the guys in the rear especially near the back doors might be Ok, though i am not sure about the turret crew. If on the other hand it hit dead centre on say the turret then I'd suspect that anyone who survived isbn't going to be much use for anything. Peter.

Moronic Max, I am not so sure, if the LOS map is so intensive that having it done pregame is to stop LOS calculations slowing performance then you'd want to keep the redrawing to a minimum. So having deformable lines marked and only these checked would seem less CPU intensive than constantly redoing the map. In addition the LOS check on the "possibles" might be able to use essentially the same technique as a LOF check. As to vehicles not blocking LOS well given that where theirs a vehicle you can expect infantry even if you can't see them, it isn't a big issue for me. In the game if there are men behind a moving Stryker, you'll know they are there but won't be able to shoot them, but if it did block sight you might still cover it with suppression fire or overwatch just in case a squad debussed. I would suspect that if a better target emerged the defender would switch to that so it wouldn't really effect realism. Of course you could try thr gamey tactic on advancing your Strykers right up to the enemy with the infantry buttoned up on board, in the hope that he thinks, "I can't see any supporting infantry and the Stryker doesn't block sight so it must be empty", but thats probably a really good way to get them all killed without firing a shot. Peter.

Moronic Max, Yeah but I bet they both had to change their underwear...... Peter.

Why don't we go for the Hollywood option, Wrecked vehicles don't block sight because even if hit by only three rounds from a 9mm Colt, they explode in a fireball and fly in to a million pieces, Peter.