CDZ Outdated military thinking and an internal resistance to change

[MarathonMike]

I had the same worries as we prepared for Gulf War 1.

Right now, I dunno. I'd rather not end up in a war with Iraq but they would REALLY rather not end up in a war with the U.S. I have a feeling.

Iraq? We're talking about Iran.

There were a lot of reasons why Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 were turkey shoots. Saddam Hussien's military had virtually no airforce, navy, armor, anti-air defenses, and had just lost a catastrophic 8 year border war that had left them exhausted and depleted. What troops he had remaining were either cowardly or disloyal, having joined solely for the free food and shelter.

The pentagon and American public are under the impression that those were conventional wars, which has made them overzealous. Were the US to attack a nation like Iran, this grave misconception would be their unraveling.

Is this debate over if they could sink a carrier btw? Sure, I'll give it to em. They could get lucky or have a decent plan and sink a carrier.

No, a carrier battle group. A carrier by itself is defenseless with the exception of several anti-air guns.

I think it's absurd that MarathonMike believes Iran is incapable of doing this. I know a little bit about Iran's naval composition and defense strategy, and they have more than enough attack ships, missile craft, and bombers to take out several CVBGs. They have enough ground missiles where a naval engagement might not even be nessecary right away.

The doctrine of next generation naval warfare will be the light of small attack craft, submarine warfare, and anti-ship missiles (delivered from air, sea, or land). The pentagon acts like it is still 1945.

I don't recall ever stating that. I have stated several times that thanks to Obama, Iran and it's military have been revitalized and emboldened.

 

[Onyx]

That may be, but that just makes it matter to you because it confirms what appears to be a bias you are predisposed to have.

Whether I have a bias or not, the Millenium 2002 challenge supports me prior notions. For your information, most of my understanding of military science came from crituques of former US officers and pentagon officials. They had the biggest impact on my thought school.

Well, you've remarked upon a wargame from 2002. Military thinking, tactics and tech have without question advanced over the past 15 years.

• The Doctrine of Military Change: How the US Army Evolves
  
• AN ARMY TRANSFORMED: THE U.S. ARMY’S POST-VIETNAM RECOVERY AND THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE IN MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS

There are cool links and what we can see with our own eyes. You act like we don't have eyes.

While no one is arguing that US military thinking hasn't evolved at all, it has done so marginally in the field of conventional war doctrine. That includes, but is not withstanding to how the US military is organized, composed, and which generals are given promotions.

...the U.S. still outspends, by a huge margin, every other nation on the planet. From an equipment standpoint alone, recognizing that equipment is just one dimension of many as goes this topic, you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example,

The US spends the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare in the world, and is still the most inefficient for its buck. Likewise, only a small percentage of defense spending is being used efficiently. Most of it is used to finance defense contractors, whimsical R&D programs that will never go anywhere, pet projects for generals, and to overstock an excessive level of outdated and inefficient equipment.

The extent of sheer idiocy it'd take to orchestrate a simulation like MC02 for the purpose of generating "good PR," particularly only a decade or so after Gulf War I's successes, is beyond even the U.S. military's level of incompetence, but apparently not yours.

You're noticeably confused on what I meant. The good PR was for congress and the generals themselves. Military exercises are a good way for participating and organizing pentagon officials to receive promotions, more funding for their personal projects, and the possibility of greater support from the central government.

Instead of arguing that Iranian equipment is superior to US equipment (in many cases it isn't), the more productive debate is whether it is comparable, or if the US has any significant technological or design edge. Any competent military analyst will tell you that is not the case.

Instead of acting like a petulant child and blobbing thinly veiled personal attacks, you could ask for clarification next time you are confused.

ASYMMETRIC WARFARE: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

• How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict
  
• GLOBALIZATION AND ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE
  
• Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare
• THE LEGAL BATTLE TO DEFINE THE LAW ON TRANSNATIONAL ASYMMETRIC WARFARE

It's quickly becoming obvious that your only debating strategy is copy and pasting irrelevant links.

No one ever claimed that the US military has not made any technological advances or evolved in its thinking. That was fallacious strawman on your part.The reality is that US military doctrine isn't changing fast enough, and in certain areas not at all.

The pentagon is the most inefficient and incompetent institution in the world. The only perceived advantage of the US military in a conventional war, is the ability to spend an excessive amount of money and human lives to solve a problem, and that wont work in countries with a large military infrastructure and conscription able population.

 

[Onyx]

Correction:

....you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example, Iran. You haven't even come close to producing such a comparative analysis nor have you referenced anyone else's credible analysis of that nature.

• United States of America Military Strength

I'll reiterate my response.

Instead of arguing that Iranian equipment is superior to US equipment (in many cases it isn't), the more productive debate is whether it is comparable, or if the US has any significant technological or design edge. Any competent military analyst will tell you that is not the case.
​

 

[Onyx]

I don't recall ever stating that. I have stated several times that thanks to Obama, Iran and it's military have been revitalized and emboldened.

I apologize. I meant to cite Manonthestreet

 

[usmbguest5318]

most of my understanding of military science came from crituques of former US officers and pentagon officials.

Fine, please provide links to their published remarks that corroborate your claims. You are merely an ID/avatar on the Internet to me, as I am to you. Just as provide credible links to corroborate and/or explain my assertions, you need to do the same. Were we colleagues or widely known and well accepted experts on the matter, it would be different, but here, in our anonymity, that is not the case.

While no one is arguing that US military thinking hasn't evolved at all, it has done so marginally in the field of conventional war doctrine.

That's rather a challenging to accept as so given the implementation of initiatives such as the Army reorganization undertaken by the U.S. Army Joint Modernization Command, nee Brigade Modernization Command. Additionally, it would seem that the "Third Offset Strategy" discussed some three years back also militates against accepting the notion that the transformation of the U.S. military is marginal.

Have you some way to quantify or materially qualify the nature and extent of just how "marginal" be the changes the U.S. military have since 2002 effected re: doctrine? I'm asking to give you the opportunity to either substantively substantiate your claims, or failing a willingness or ability to do so, retract them. I'd like to take as credible your assertions, but I'm not going to do so merely because you have made them.

You're noticeably confused on what I meant. .. Instead of acting like a petulant child and blobbing thinly veiled personal attacks, you could ask for clarification next time you are confused.

I wasn't confused. I read what you wrote, and what you wrote was quite clear....You asserted unequivocally that purpose of the exercise was for PR. Now I don't know about where you are, but where I live, one can daily hear on the radio PR-themed ads promoting the military's capabilities, effectiveness, superiority, etc. On television during routine general audience programming, one often sees ads that are nothing but "feel good" spots about one military branch or another.

You didn't mention anything about Congress and military leaders being the target audience you had in mind. Moreover, seeing as the House and Senate have Armed Services Committees and the military's top leaders all have ready access to and detailed information about the specific strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. military, there was no intrinsic reason to presume members of those groups were whom you had in mind as the targets of the PR of which you wrote.

I can often enough figure out what someone means when there's a typo in their writing. I try to do so, in fact. I cannot read one's mind and thereby know what they mean in terms of the substance and context of what they write.

Likewise, only a small percentage of defense spending is being used efficiently. Most of it is used to finance defense contractors, whimsical R&D programs that will never go anywhere, pet projects for generals, and to overstock an excessive level of outdated and inefficient equipment.

Here again, it'd be nice to believe that is so. At the very least, it contributes to an argument that concludes there may be great value in reducing military spending as part of an austerity tactic for extracting greater efficiency from and circumspection over our DoD expenditures. Alas, you've again not provided the first bit of corroborating and credible support for your claim. That the claims are ones that I, you or others may want to believe doesn't mean we should believe them absent sound, empirical and objectively presented evidence (deductive and/or inductive).

As I was clear about before, it's not that I necessarily take exception with the conclusions/assertions you present. Rather it's that I don't see any rigorous and credible evidence from you and that supporting their soundness and validity. The mere fact that you make a claim, even one that I might be predisposed to want to accept, does not make it so.

The only perceived advantage of the US military in a conventional war, is the ability to spend an excessive amount of money and human lives to solve a problem, and that wont work in countries with a large military infrastructure and conscription able population.

Just what countries have you in mind?

 

[usmbguest5318]

...the U.S. still outspends, by a huge margin, every other nation on the planet. From an equipment standpoint alone, recognizing that equipment is just one dimension of many as goes this topic, you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example,

Correction:

....you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example, Iran. You haven't even come close to producing such a comparative analysis nor have you referenced anyone else's credible analysis of that nature.

• United States of America Military Strength

Instead of arguing that Iranian equipment is superior to US equipment (in many cases it isn't), the more productive debate is whether it is comparable, or if the US has any significant technological or design edge. Any competent military analyst will tell you that is not the case.

Chuck Hagel specifically in 2014 wrote of initiatives that he saw as being needed to "sustain and advance" U.S. military superiority. He didn't say "recover."

 

[Onyx]

Fine, please provide links to their published remarks that corroborate your claims.

I don't copy and paste random internet links to corroborate my arguments. That's what low intellect debaters do.

I'll cite experts and third party sources when I believe they are nessecary, but the lack thereof does not make my arguments any less valid. My points don't need to be substantiated by an internet link to be valid.

Have you some way to quantify or materially qualify the nature and extent of just how "marginal" be the changes the U.S. military have since 2002 effected re: doctrine?

You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen. I hope you understand why that is a nonsense question.

I wasn't confused. I read what you wrote, and what you wrote was quite clear....


You didn't mention anything about Congress and military leaders being the target audience you had in mind.

This is a backtrack if I've ever seen one. I'll once more clarify what I meant by PR.

The ulterior motive of these exercises is often to secure promotions and funding. Not to win points with the general public.

Here again, it'd be nice to believe that is so. At the very least, it contributes to an argument that concludes there may be great value in reducing military spending as part of an austerity tactic for extracting greater efficiency from and circumspection over our DoD expenditures.

It is of my educated opinion that the US should drastically reduce defense spending and restructure itself. That is beside the point though.

As I was clear about before, it's not that I necessarily take exception with the conclusions/assertions you present. Rather it's that I don't see any rigorous and credible evidence from you and that supporting their soundness and validity.

The mere fact that you make a claim, even one that I might be predisposed to want to accept, does not make it so.

It's unreasonable to expect me to substantiate common sense conclusions, especially when you don't inherently disagree with them. This is known as meandering, and it has no place in intellectual discussions.

Just what countries have you in mind?

There are 195 UN recognized states, of which at least 60 of them I believe would be incredibly difficult to capitulate. Obviously I am not going to list them all, and I don't see how doing so would be relevant to the debate at hand.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You appear to want me to accept your claims absent credible and sound substantiation. I'm just not going to do that. I don't expect that of others and with regard to my claims about the behaviors and intentions of third parties, most especially the government, and I won't do it for others.

Fine, please provide links to their published remarks that corroborate your claims.

I don't copy and paste random internet links to corroborate my arguments. That's what low intellect debaters do.

I'll cite experts and third party sources when I believe they are nessecary, but the lack thereof does not make my arguments any less valid. My points don't need to be substantiated by an internet link to be valid.

Have you some way to quantify or materially qualify the nature and extent of just how "marginal" be the changes the U.S. military have since 2002 effected re: doctrine?

You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen. I hope you understand why that is a nonsense question.

I wasn't confused. I read what you wrote, and what you wrote was quite clear....


You didn't mention anything about Congress and military leaders being the target audience you had in mind.

This is a backtrack if I've ever seen one. I'll once more clarify what I meant by PR.

The ulterior motive of these exercises is often to secure promotions and funding. Not to win points with the general public.

Here again, it'd be nice to believe that is so. At the very least, it contributes to an argument that concludes there may be great value in reducing military spending as part of an austerity tactic for extracting greater efficiency from and circumspection over our DoD expenditures.

It is of my educated opinion that the US should drastically reduce defense spending and restructure itself. That is beside the point though.

As I was clear about before, it's not that I necessarily take exception with the conclusions/assertions you present. Rather it's that I don't see any rigorous and credible evidence from you and that supporting their soundness and validity.

The mere fact that you make a claim, even one that I might be predisposed to want to accept, does not make it so.

It's unreasonable to expect me to substantiate common sense conclusions, especially when you don't inherently disagree with them. This is known as meandering, and it has no place in intellectual discussions.

Just what countries have you in mind?

There are 195 UN recognized states, of which at least 60 of them I believe would be incredibly difficult to capitulate. Obviously I am not going to list them all, and I don't see how doing so would be relevant to the debate at hand.

You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen. I hope you understand why that is a nonsense question.

Actually, I just want to see something that gives credence to your assertion that the change has been marginal. You can do that by citing details/facts that quantify the nature and extent of the smallness of the changes that have taken place. You admitted that some change has occurred, so merely showing the details of what has changed and what has not will be sufficient.

It is of my educated opinion that the US should drastically reduce defense spending and restructure itself. That is beside the point though.

Well, we agree on that.

It's unreasonable to expect me to substantiate common sense conclusions, especially when you don't inherently disagree with them. This is known as meandering, and it has no place in intellectual discussions.

I haven't seen you present any such conclusions. The fact that one might be disposed to concur with a conclusion does not make it a common sense one. There are all sorts of things that strike people as common sense, yet they aren't even true. Indeed, as Jim Taylor writes, common sense is neither.

There are 195 countries, of which at least 60 of them I believe would be incredibly difficult to capitulate.

If you were to have clicked on the link I provided, you'd have observed that you can make something of an empirical comparison of military might between the U.S. and any of those 194 other nations. You might at least identify the top two or three with regard to which you have the greatest concern. I wasn't expecting you to compare and contrast U.S. military capability with that of some 60 other nations.

 

[Onyx]

You appear to want me to accept your claims absent credible and sound substantiation.

I could care less if you accept my claims. I don't accept your claims simply because there are irrelevant internet links attached.

You don't have a negative position, so you're just trying to assign an arbitrary burden of proof without accepting the burden of rejoinder nessecary in a fair debate.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You appear to want me to accept your claims absent credible and sound substantiation.

I could care less if you accept my claims. I don't accept your claims simply because there are irrelevant internet links attached.

You don't have a negative position, so you're just trying to assign an arbitrary burden of proof without accepting the burden of rejoinder nessecary in a fair debate.

What I'm doing is granting that I have a level of interest in your claims and that I'd like to see your strong evidence for their accuracy. The burden of proof exists because you made the claim and the extent to which you've risen to meet that burden is zero.

 

[Onyx]

What I'm doing is granting that I have a level of interest in your claims and that I'd like to see your strong evidence for their accuracy. The burden of proof exists because you made the claim and the extent to which you've risen to meet that burden is zero.

That isn't how discussions work. I am under no obligation to give evidence for every claim I make, unless those claims are contested by a negating position that has the burden of rejoinder.

Should I be expected to give a detailed mathematical explanation next time I claim 2+2=4? Maybe, if I am debating someone on mathematics and they offer their own contention for why that is false.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What I'm doing is granting that I have a level of interest in your claims and that I'd like to see your strong evidence for their accuracy. The burden of proof exists because you made the claim and the extent to which you've risen to meet that burden is zero.

That isn't how discussions work. I am under no obligation to give evidence for every claim I make, unless those claims are contested by a negating position that has the burden of rejoinder.

Should I be expected to give a detailed mathematical explanation next time I claim 2+2=4? Maybe, if I am debating someone on mathematics and they offer their own contention for why that is false.

I am under no obligation to give evidence for every claim I make, unless those claims are contested by a negating position that has the burden of rejoinder.

Sure...right...Trump seemingly thinks that too, and look where it's landed him.....

 

[Onyx]

Sure...right...Trump seemingly thinks that too, and look where it's landed him.....

No, Donald Trump doesn't back up his assertions even when they are directly disputed and evidence is provided to the contrary.

Professional debate judges will treat a contention as true until the moment it is contested by the opposing position. It's a basic standard for good and reasonable discussion, because often one side will try to rely entirely on assigning an arbitrary burden on to their opposition, without ever making any counter points themselves.

 

[Toronado3800]

I had the same worries as we prepared for Gulf War 1.

Right now, I dunno. I'd rather not end up in a war with Iraq but they would REALLY rather not end up in a war with the U.S. I have a feeling.

Iraq? We're talking about Iran.

There were a lot of reasons why Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 were turkey shoots. Saddam Hussien's military had virtually no airforce, navy, armor, anti-air defenses, and had just lost a catastrophic 8 year border war that had left them exhausted and depleted. What troops he had remaining were either cowardly or disloyal, having joined solely for the free food and shelter.

The pentagon and American public are under the impression that those were conventional wars, which has made them overzealous. Were the US to attack a nation like Iran, this grave misconception would be their unraveling.

Is this debate over if they could sink a carrier btw? Sure, I'll give it to em. They could get lucky or have a decent plan and sink a carrier.

No, a carrier battle group. A carrier by itself is defenseless with the exception of several anti-air guns.

I think it's absurd that MarathonMike believes Iran is incapable of doing this. I know a little bit about Iran's naval composition and defense strategy, and they have more than enough attack ships, missile craft, and bombers to take out several CVBGs. They have enough ground missiles where a naval engagement might not even be nessecary right away.

The doctrine of next generation naval warfare will be the light of small attack craft, submarine warfare, and anti-ship missiles (delivered from air, sea, or land). The pentagon acts like it is still 1945.

In my mind Iran and Iraq were similar military powers in 1990. Both wasted plenty of effort and lives on that war and if I recall had similar results.

Can Iran sink a carrier battle group? I dunno.

Lets compare Iran's weapons now to Iraq's in 1990.

 

[Onyx]

In my mind Iran and Iraq were similar military powers in 1990. Both wasted plenty of effort and lives on that war and if I recall had similar results.

Not true at all. Iraq got its ass kicked. The invasion was a complete failure. They couldn't breach the Iranian forces on the border, and were on the defensive for 6 years of the war. It was a total and utter humiliation for Saddam Hussien.

This is despite having the larger army, using chemical weapons, and being given western assistance (including the CIA).

Can Iran sink a carrier battle group? I dunno.

Of course they can. They can sink several if they use their resources effectively. What do you know about naval science?

 

[Toronado3800]

In my mind Iran and Iraq were similar military powers in 1990. Both wasted plenty of effort and lives on that war and if I recall had similar results.

Not true at all. Iraq got its ass kicked. The invasion was a complete failure. They couldn't breach the Iranian forces on the border, and were on the defensive for 6 years of the war. It was a total and utter humiliation for Saddam Hussien.

This is despite having the larger army, using chemical weapons, and being given western assistance (including the CIA).

Can Iran sink a carrier battle group? I dunno.

Of course they can. They can sink several if they use their resources effectively. What do you know about naval science?

I dunno.

After doing some light reading it seems political infighting in Iran cost them a chance at some early success and up in the land of the Kurds Iran did suffer because of chemical weapons attacks but my opinion does not change. Iran did not accomplish much in the war and neither did Iraq.

Naval science I guess is what we will talk about.

What weapons does Iran have now which makes you think they can sink a carrier group? What is their lead class of submarine? Cruise missile? Mine dropping helicopter?

 

[Onyx]

I dunno.

After doing some light reading it seems political infighting in Iran cost them a chance at some early success and up in the land of the Kurds Iran did suffer because of chemical weapons attacks but my opinion does not change. Iran did not accomplish much in the war and neither did Iraq.

It's not a debate. The Iraqi military launched a failed invasion that was stopped miles into Iran, despite having sent a massive army of over 100,000 infantry, a thousand tanks, several hundred aircraft and attack helicopters. and over a thousand artillery pieces.

What do you mean Iran didn't accomplish anything? They squashed an invasion.

What weapons does Iran have now which makes you think they can sink a carrier group? What is their lead class of submarine? Cruise missile? Mine dropping helicopter?

Lots of missiles and bombers. Any fleet that approached the heavily defended coast of Iran would be showered with death and destruction.

An actual invasion of Iran would would require strategic combined arms. A full land, air, and sea invasion would need to take place at the same.

 

[Toronado3800]

I dunno.

After doing some light reading it seems political infighting in Iran cost them a chance at some early success and up in the land of the Kurds Iran did suffer because of chemical weapons attacks but my opinion does not change. Iran did not accomplish much in the war and neither did Iraq.

It's not a debate. The Iraqi military launched a failed invasion that was stopped miles into Iran, despite having sent a massive army of over 100,000 infantry, a thousand tanks, several hundred aircraft and attack helicopters. and over a thousand artillery pieces.

What do you mean Iran didn't accomplish anything? They squashed an invasion.

What weapons does Iran have now which makes you think they can sink a carrier group? What is their lead class of submarine? Cruise missile? Mine dropping helicopter?

Lots of missiles and bombers. Any fleet that approached the heavily defended coast of Iran would be showered with death and destruction.

An actual invasion of Iran would would require strategic combined arms. A full land, air, and sea invasion would need to take place at the same.

OK. I will be more careful with my words.

So the Iranian military accomplished a stalemate when Iraq invaded. Iran did not overwhelm the Iraqi Army which we overwhelmed a short time later.

Do you know anything about the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iran has? Are they any good? How do they compare the the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iraq had for Gulf War 1?

Iran might be better or comparatively more modern. I don't know. Do you?

FWIW, I think it is AMAZING Gulf War 1 went as well as it did for the U.S. If Iran can't do better I would be equally amazed. But lets see if we can't think of a reason Iran would do better.

 

[Onyx]

So the Iranian military accomplished a stalemate when Iraq invaded. Iran did not overwhelm the Iraqi Army which we overwhelmed a short time later.

Defeating an invasion is not the definition of a stalemate. It's the definition of a victory.

Just as a comparison, the Iraqi military had 1,500,000 soldiers, 5000 tanks, 10,000 armored fighting vehicles, 10,000+ artillery pieces, 450 aircraft, and 180 helicopters by the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq had only 450,000 military personnel by 2003, in which only 90,000 of them were modernized. Half of them were disloyal. Iraq had no military infrastructure, air defenses, and virtually no heavy armor or artillery.

Iraq's biggest weakness in both the Gulf War and 2003 was its lack of air defense. Coalition air forces had full reign of the skies, and could destroy hundreds of tanks on open ground without ever being fired back on.

Do you know anything about the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iran has? Are they any good? How do they compare the the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iraq had for Gulf War 1?

Iran has some of the most advanced missile technology in the world. It is perhaps the #1 focus of their military research, and is critical to their defense strategy. Their airforce is heavily modernized and well trained.

Iran might be better or comparatively more modern. I don't know. Do you?

Yes, they are. Iran has been undergoing a self sufficiency and modernization program for over a decade. They are domestically producing current and next generation equipment. They have an advanced air force, and have been trying to ramp up production of their domestic MBT Zulifiqar.

 

[Toronado3800]

So the Iranian military accomplished a stalemate when Iraq invaded. Iran did not overwhelm the Iraqi Army which we overwhelmed a short time later.

Defeating an invasion is not the definition of a stalemate. It's the definition of a victory.

Just for a comparison, the Iraqi military had 1,500,000 soldiers, 5000 tanks, 10,000 armored fighting vehicles, 10,000+ artillery pieces, 450 aircraft, and 180 helicopters by the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq had only 450,000 military personnel by 2003, in which only 90,000 of them were modernized. Half of them were disloyal. Iraq had no military infrastructure, air defenses, and virtually no heavy armor or artillery.

Do you know anything about the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iran has? Are they any good? How do they compare the the "lots" of missiles and bombers Iraq had for Gulf War 1?

Iran has some of the most advanced missile technology in the world. It is perhaps the #1 focus of their military research, and is critical to their defense strategy. Their airforce is heavily modernized and well trained.

Iran might be better or comparatively more modern. I don't know. Do you?

Yes, they are. Iran has been undergoing a self sufficiency and modernization program for over a decade. They are domestically producing current and next generation equipment. They have an advanced air force, and have been trying to ramp up production of their domestic MBT Zulifiqar.

when I talk about tanks I talk about 75mm long barrels, sloped armor and diesel engines.

Subs we discuss towed arrays, vertical launch tubes, Mark 67 torps, 60 mines, ANBBQ's and that type of things.

What Iranian weapon(s) is(are) the biggest threat to our carrier task force?

I am not up on the Iranian military, I do not know.