alephnerdIran launched unsuccessful attack on UK's Diego Garcia
The article kind of downplays the most interesting elements. Not an expert, but to my limited understanding:
* I think this is the longest-range use of a ballistic missile in anger, possibly ever?
* This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe
True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)
These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.
I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
> a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted)
Intercepted? In the UK, by what? London has no missile defence system that I am aware of.
A missile would need to fly all the way over Europe before reaching London. It would be noticed, jets would be scrambled and it would be shot. Just like what happened here.
These were ballistic missiles. They are only vulnerable during the terminal phase, when they are moving at hypersonic speeds. Standard fighter jets aren't going to do it. It would take ground based THAAD, Patriot, or ship based Aegis systems. London might want to budget for that.
They can fly well above any commercial and military aircraft.
Probably by the Sea Viper system from a destroyer parked in the Dover Strait. Now, the UK probably doesn't have enough interceptors or destroyers carrying them to be confident they'll be able to stop a proper all out attack, but that seems to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget in an increasingly unpeaceful time.
> is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
We've been hinting about these capabilities for decades [0]. A lot of what is being brought up now is stuff a number of us touched on during the Obama years.
None of this is really hidden either - it would be brought up in think tanks and even undergrad classes if you attended a target program.
Civilian leaders have always had a hands-off approach to Defense and NatSec policy - once you show them how close to a polycrisis everything is they quickly defer responsibility. It's actually pretty similar to working in a corporate environment - it's all about managing upwards.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...
> it's all about managing upwards
That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.
It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.
There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.
> The outcomes is very different from 2010
Not really. What we're seeing today is similar to what was being discussed in 2010 [0]. Heck, this failed missile attempt confirms capabilities that were being discussed in 2010 [1].
[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/4/22/us-iran-strike-stil...
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...
The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO. In the modern view, Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans. But Iran is a technologically and politically sophisticated country. In terms of the Civ tech tree, it’s higher than any middle eastern country except Israel.
>Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans.
Even from a racist perspective that's completely wrong; Iranians are white, the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans".
> The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO.
Agreed, but it’s not at all surprising to me. Propaganda means that people will project fictitious motives and capabilities on their opponents, even if they are internally inconsistent (e.g. Iran must be attacked because they will threaten the USA mainland vs Iran’s missiles are very inaccurate and barely hit anything).
> we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
Iran has done precisely nothing unexpected in the entire course of this war. Closing Hormuz has been mooted since the 70s. And its IRBM stockpile has been known. This is more a case of something between political leaders and possibly the media being ignorant of even open-source intelligence.
I thought the US president said they didn't expect a number of things that happened.
It also expected a quick intervention, 2 weeks max.
> the US president…
The President is a political leader.
To be fair Trump admins most optimistic timeline was “4-6 weeks maybe longer”. We’re at the end of week 3.
I recall it was 12 days, or 4 weeks. Perhaps I missed an early prediction from the state that it could be 4 to 6 weeks.
The 12 days, and 2 weeks is what I recall most. But reality is what we want to see and hear. Some would say we are at week 4. Some that we are ending week 3.
Reason would be to accept we are taken for fools anyway. Or worse, run by fools.