Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 3/31/2006 9:14:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 9:15:59 PM EDT by glockguy40]
With this announcement.... its kind of ridiculous for the Iranians to still claim they don't want nukes. MIRV's serve no other purpose.

Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press WriterFri Mar 31, 9:27 PM ET

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile_17

Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously, a development that raised concerns in the United States and Israel.

The Fajr-3, which means "victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, Iranian state media indicated. The announcement of the test-firing is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions.

"I think it demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military program under way," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said in Washington. "I think Iran's military posture, military development effort, is of concern to the international community."

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying how far it can travel depends on the weight of its warheads.

But state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" — suggesting it is of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which can travel about 1,200 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Salami said on television, which showed a brief clip of the missile's launch.

"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," the general said.

He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.

"This news causes much concern, and that concern is shared by many countries in the international community, about Iran's aggressive nuclear weapons program and her parallel efforts to develop delivery systems, both in the field of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

"The combination of extremist jihadist ideology, together with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is a combination that no one in the international community can be complacent about," Regev said.

Yossi Alpher, an Israeli consultant on the Mideast peace process, said the news "escalates the arms race between Iran and all those who are concerned about Iran's aggressive intentions and nuclear potential."

"Clearly it's escalation, and also an attempt by Iran to flex its muscles as it goes into a new phase of the diplomatic struggle with the U.N. Security Council."

Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of which could be directed to a different target.

"From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said.


"But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said.

"If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way," he added. "But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years."

Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called Shahab-3, which means "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Israel and the United States have jointly developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to the Shahab-3.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.

Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military.

Salami, the Revolutionary Guards general, said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.

The tests come amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear program. The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:19:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:20:57 PM EDT
Yes, I find Merv Griffin to be quite scary indeed.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:22:15 PM EDT
MIRV= "May I Request Vaporizing"
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:23:49 PM EDT
...the Russians had nothing to do with this, I'm sure...
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:34:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 9:35:57 PM EDT by rtech]
I thought

Fajr-3
loosely translates into "history" or "used to be" as in, "if we use this, our country will be history. "We used to have a country that used to be called Iran, however that is history...."


"Grandpa, what's an Iranian?"

"People we bombed years ago, Son...."
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:36:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
MIRV= "May I Request Vaporizing"




That is some funny shit right there...
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
...the Russians had nothing to do with this, I'm sure...



Nor the Chinese
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:45:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 9:46:21 PM EDT by Lert]

"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," the general said."It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," the general said.


So they're claiming not just MIRV capability, but MARV, or MAnouverable Reentry Vehicle. That's quite a claim, considering that they've gone from a 1200 mi range, single warhead, bypassing the Multiple RV stage, bypassing the MIRV stage and going straight to MARVs. Added to that, they claim that it is stealthy, too. I'm no aerodynamicist, but wouldn't be just a wee bit difficult to shape an RV (assuming an exoatmospheric flight path, I don't no if you need one for a 1200 mi flight) for reentry and hypersonic stability AND low observability? How do you hide the plasma build up, given that high energy plasma is opaque to RF, and thus has its own radar signature?

Multiple warheads and decoys I can accept, and POSSIBLY MIRVs, but not the rest. Let me be the first to hoist the flag on the Mullahs

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:48:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
...the Russians had nothing to do with this, I'm sure...



Nor the Chinese



Add Pakistan to the list.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:51:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 9:51:31 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By RABIDFOX50:

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
...the Russians had nothing to do with this, I'm sure...



Nor the Chinese



Add Pakistan to the list.



The Pakistanis don't have any operational MIRV capable systems.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 9:53:13 PM EDT
They are taunting us.. They want to engage us.. Why? Yet to be seen.. Maybe the really do want an Armegeddon..

They could have bought the tech from any number of suppliers. China, Russia, N.Korea, Former Soviet state?

The real dance comes when we have to draw the line in the sand. That's coming before Xmas.. They go nuke and we have lost the ME. It is in everyones best interest that Iran, under the current regime, stays out of club nuke.. I think I read recently the CIA says that Iran is closer than initially thought to having an operational weapon. IIRC they said anywhere from 12-18 months tops now..
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 12:40:58 AM EDT
bump for Andy
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 1:48:00 AM EDT
April Fools?
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 1:56:37 AM EDT
It's not a MI(Reentry)V if it's not exoatmospheric. Either way, thats pretty good timing, we have just the itchy trigger finger needed for a weapon like that.

Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:12:02 PM EDT
bump for those that missed this
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:15:13 PM EDT
NO, the Iranians are only interested in a peaceful nuclear program. They aren't interested in atomic weapons.




-K
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:16:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:18:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:
bump for those that missed this



Thanks.

TAG.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:21:06 PM EDT
I gather Iran hasn't thought about whats lurking under the waters of the Persian Gulf....
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:34:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
I gather Iran hasn't thought about whats lurking under the waters of the Persian Gulf....



The Persian Gulf is about 200 feet deep.

Doubt the boomers want to play THERE.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:36:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 7:40:27 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Stealth maneuverable MIRVS?

We need a much bigger BS flag for this one.



There is speculation that Iran has developed maneuverable re-entry vehicles for its Shahab-3B's. The following article details this theory. If true.... developing MARV's may not be that far fetched. As for stealth MARV... that is something entirely different and highly unlikely.

Article as follows:


Shahab-3B: a JDAM with Ballistic Trajectory?

www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml

However, faced with the fact that their likely opponents have a well-developed anti-ballistic missile system in service, and having experienced the imprecision of Iraqi Project 144.5 al-Hussayin missiles first-hand, the Iranians wanted to develop a missile that would not only be precise by itself, but also deploy a steerable re-entry vehicle during the terminal dive phase. Shahab-3B is a result of this effort.


Shahab-3B with its guided re-entry vehicle was presented on the most recent military parade in Tehran, held on 22 September 2004. (Photo: ACIG.org above, Yahoo.com bellow)





During the recent testing the Shahab-3B proved several significant differences over the basic production variant, with the most important changes being done on its guidance system and the warhead, but few small also on the missile body.

The most significant change is a new re-entry vehicle, with terminal guidance system and a new steering method, completely different from the normal re-entry vehicle with spin stabilization of the Shahab-3A.

The new re-entry vehicle has now place for a rocket-nozzle control system so that no spin stabilization is needed anymore - at least not during all of the flight after the boost phase. Nevertheless, this new nozzle-control system enables the Shahab-3B guidance and steering in all phases of the flight, so that course corrections can be done at any time.

The new Shahab-3B was for the first time officially tested only a very short time after the Israeli Arrow ABM system scored a first hit against a SS-1 SCUD ballistic missile. The Iranian defence minister said that the missile would be Iran’s answer to the Arrow and behind this statement are credible reasons.


The new shape of the re-entry vehicle atop the Shahab-3B is most obvious from this photograph. It is very likely that the warhead of this weapon is now not only being guided during most of its flight, but that it can also fly evasive manoeuvres, making it immensely problematic to intercept by any existing anti-ballistic missile defence systems. (Photo: SSN)


Position of the steering nozzle on the RV of Shahab-3B. (Still from IRINN video)

Around one year ago Iran claimed for the first time to have developed and produced a laser gyroscope INS system coupled with GPS as backup. For full-guided flight with trajectory of the Shahab-3B, an accurate INS and/or GPS is needed: laser gyroscope and GPS are two of the most accurate technologies, used for course calculations.

It is not yet known if this technology is also used in the Shahab-3B, but the coincidence is striking, especially as with such an accurate navigation system the Shahab-3 could archive several objectives. The missile could change its trajectory several times during re-entry and even terminal phase, effectively preventing pre-calculated intercept points of radar systems - which is a method nearly all ABM systems using these days. As a high-speed ballistic missile and pre-mission fuelling capability, the Shahab-3 has an extremely short launch/impact time ratio. This means that the INS/gyroscope guidance would also remain relatively accurate until impact (important, given the fact that the gyrosopes tend to become inaccurate the longer the flight lasts). With that guidance system, the Shahab-3B could archive an accuracy of around 30-50m CEP or even less. The Iranians have already proved of developing even more precise systems, then their Fateh-110 missiles have an electro-optical terminal guidance system: Shahab-3B is not known of having anything similar, but should be fully dependent on INS and – likely – GPS.

This new improved accuracy was apparently the reason why the warhead weight has been significantly decreased - to suggested 500kg. This, namely, is sufficient for pin-point target attack capability. Another reason for the 500kg warhead would be the improved range, which is reported to be meanwhile between 1.700 and 2.500km.


Above and bellow: Launch of a Shahab-3B as shown on the Iranian TV. (Photo: IRIB)



Conclusions

The Shahab-3 programme is extremely important for the Iranian defence capability. This weapon is now apparently the main deep-strike weapon system of Iranian armed services, deployed even ahead of fighter-bombers of the IRIAF.

This step-by-step project was provided with relatively large funding and the mass-production of the Shahab-3 is running already since two years. The Shahab-3B has apparently reached an initial operational capability phase, but it remains unclear if the version is already in production or not.

It is, nevertheless, certain that the new variant should be more expensive than the Basic Shahab-3A, which is why it is believed that the Shahab-3A will remain in production, while the Shahab-3B will only be used against high priority and/or heavily defended targets – perhaps after a salvo of Shahab-3As has forced the opponent to spend his ABMs. Equally, a Shahab-3B might be used to destroy the crucial part of the missile defence area, and the Shahab-3As could then saturate the actual target.

Meanwhile, while a number of sources was announcing a fast development of Shahab-4, Shahab-5 and even Shahab-6 – with some of the variants supposedly becoming capable of carrying satellites into the orbit – there are no traces of anything in this form. Currently, the Iranians first have to build a large number of Shahab-3As and -3Bs. Subsequently they might develop another version, with even more advanced terminal homing. Meanwhile, however, not even such changes like an (expensive) introduction of solid-fuel motor should be expected.


Two out of ten IRIAF Ballistic-missile Squadrons are now known to have Shahab-3A in service. Currently it remains unclear if a separate unit will be equipped with Shahab-3Bs, or if the new version is to enter service with the two existing units, but it is likely that one of the units equipped with older SS-1B Scuds could now be re-equipped with Shahab-3s. (ACIG.org archives)



Link Posted: 4/2/2006 5:51:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 5:56:46 AM EDT by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Doubt the boomers want to play THERE.


Plus, they don't have too. They can launch from the safe waters of the Indian Ocean.

IIRC, we no longer have TLAM-Ns deployed.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 5:55:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 6:07:47 AM EDT by Dave_A]
1) Even a 'stealth' ballistic missile will have one hell of a heat signature... If we are talking about an MRBM then it's gonna burn the 'stealth shit' off on terminal, which is when it's being attacked by missile defenses....

2) Iranian radar being unable to track it is alot different than AEGIS being unable to track it (since the USN currently is king-of-the-hill WRT powerful air defense radar)....

3) More likely, is that they are trying to explain 'testing' of a missile that we did not detect... Emperor's New Clothes - it's a 'Stealth Missile' that no one can see, sir... Yes Sir, it works quite well, I hope you agree...

4) Both the USN and Army have missile defense systems incorporating (at least a backup) IR terminal guidance mode...

5) And of course, if the Blue Suiters ever get their Star Trek toys working right, there's another solution.... Shoot it down on takeoff....
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:38:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Doubt the boomers want to play THERE.


Plus, they don't have too. They can launch from the safe waters of the Indian Ocean.

IIRC, we no longer have TLAM-Ns deployed.



IIRC, all the W80 warheads are stockpiled at Pantex in reserve.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:43:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Doubt the boomers want to play THERE.


Plus, they don't have too. They can launch from the safe waters of the Indian Ocean.

IIRC, we no longer have TLAM-Ns deployed.



they can launch from Lant/ PAc.... if they were in the gulf it woulb be far inside the minimum range i believe, unless they can do full orbits
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 9:49:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 9:53:55 AM EDT by Kharn]

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
I gather Iran hasn't thought about whats lurking under the waters of the Persian Gulf....



The Persian Gulf is about 200 feet deep.

Doubt the boomers want to play THERE.

+1.
Plus, a close shot is actually harder for a boomer to pull off accurately, since the system has less time for course corrections.

Kharn
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 10:00:48 AM EDT
So,glockguy40 you have been a huge proponent that the US do nothing as we would have our asses whipped by Iran much like a red headed stepchild.
My question to you is have you changed your first name legally to Mohammid yet
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 11:00:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 12:21:37 PM EDT by colklink]
double tap
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:37:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 4:03:18 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By colklink:
So,glockguy40 you have been a huge proponent that the US do nothing as we would have our asses whipped by Iran much like a red headed stepchild.
My question to you is have you changed your first name legally to Mohammid yet



First off, I have never advocated doing nothing. I have advocated using harsh sanctions and covert action to undermine the regime. Right now the U.S. and EU are considering targeted sanctions so as to not hurt the Iranian people. I think that is a mistake. If they make the sanctions harsh enough, the Iranian people will feel the pinch, and eventually put pressure on the regime to change their policies as a result. Imposing weak sanctions is bound to fail. Only robust sanctions, aimed at showing the Iranian people that nukes are not worth the trouble, have any chance of success.

And covert action to undermind the regime is essential. While the Iranian opposition is currently demoralized and fractured, we need to help put it back together and get them back into the fight. In reality, nukes are not the real problem in this crisis. The regime is. We have no problem with India having nukes because it is a friendly and responsible country. If the regime in Iran was to change, many of our concerns would be removed... and a new regime might be more likely to give up Iran's current nuclear ambitions.

Military action, in my view, has too high of cost associated with it. We will lose Iraq as a result... make no mistake about it. Iran wil make Iraq a living hell for us there in retaliation. They have the influence there to do it.

Military strikes have no guarantee of success.... we would need perfect intelligence in order to credibly set back Iran's program more than a couple of years. As soon as we bomb Iran, they will embark on a crash nuclear program to gain the bomb as fast as possible; we might actually accelerate their timetable for getting the bomb by taking such action. Having bombed them, you will then have pissed off mullahs with the bomb.... something that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. What about you?

U.S. officials themselves have admitted that military action would only be meant to delay the Iranian program... that stopping it is impossible. That means they realize that at some point they will eventually get the bomb, whether we bomb them or not.

What we need to do is to change the Iranian calculus that having a bomb is beneficial to their interests and their security. Only sanctions and covert action can put the necessary pressure on the mullahs to change course. We can't bomb their program out of existance, and regime change by force is not an option thanks to our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way I see it, what I have suggested is really the only way forward with any hope of actually getting the Iranians to curtail their nuclear ambitions.

In summary, you can kiss my ass if you think I am some peacenik who sucks ayatollah cock. You do not understand the nature of this crisis or the risks associated with the various options at our disposal.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:53:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

U.S. officials themselves have admitted that military action would only be meant to delay the Iranian program... that stopping it is impossible. That means they realize that at some point they will eventually get the bomb, whether we bomb them or not.





is not impossible. but the US does not have the political will to go all the way. and thats what it would take. invasion or nuclear attack. take it to all of the iranians, civilian and military until they unconditionally surrender. anything less only delays the inevitable and makes them mad and probably creates more long term problems than the short term problems it solves.

leave em alone. quit fucking with them. let the situation develop whatever that means and then deal with it. like it or not this IS what will probably happen. we destroy their nuke capabilities but nothing else it will only delay their program and up the tension in the region and perhaps result in some dirty bombs going off in the US, europe and perhaps even some major middle beastern oil fields...

iraq sorta balanced iran. now iraq is gone, power vacuum. for now pakistan has been tamed. saudi's just want to make money with their oil. egyptians blew their chances in the 60s/70s when they were wipped by israel. syria is hobbled because the soviets are gone.. that leaves iran to fill the void. and they are doing it big time..
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:55:42 PM EDT
I wonder how many Trident equiped subs we've got parked in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman?

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:58:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

U.S. officials themselves have admitted that military action would only be meant to delay the Iranian program... that stopping it is impossible. That means they realize that at some point they will eventually get the bomb, whether we bomb them or not.





is not impossible. but the US does not have the political will to go all the way. and thats what it would take. invasion or nuclear attack. take it to all of the iranians, civilian and military until they unconditionally surrender. anything less only delays the inevitable and makes them mad and probably creates more long term problems than the short term problems it solves.



Well... what I meant was, with the current military options we are likely to take, it is impossible. So, I guess you clarified what I was trying to say.

No one believes that using nukes against them or invading them are real options.... as you point out.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
I wonder how many Trident equiped subs we've got parked in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman?



ZERO, Reading the thread helps.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:09:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2006 4:10:09 PM EDT by No-Worries]

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By colklink:
So,glockguy40 you have been a huge proponent that the US do nothing as we would have our asses whipped by Iran much like a red headed stepchild.
My question to you is have you changed your first name legally to Mohammid yet



First off, I have never advocated doing nothing. I have advocated using harsh sanctions and covert action to undermine the regime. Right now the U.S. and EU are considering targeted sanctions so as to not hurt the Iranian people. I think that is a mistake. If they make the sanctions harsh enough, the Iranian people will feel the pinch, and eventually put pressure on the regime to change their policies as a result. Imposing weak sanctions is bound to fail. Only robust sanctions, aimed at showing the Iranian people that nukes are not worth the trouble, have any chance of success.

And covert action to undermind the regime is essential. While the Iranian opposition is currently demoralized and fractured, we need to help put it back together and get them back into the fight. In reality, nukes are not the real problem in this crisis.[/b] The regime is. We have no problem with India having nukes because it is a friendly and responsible country. If the regime in Iran was to change, many of our concerns would be removed... and a new regime might be more likely to give up Iran's current nuclear ambitions.

Military action, in my view, has too high of cost associated with it. We will lose Iraq as a result... make no mistake about it. Iran wil make Iraq a living hell for us there in retaliation. They have the influence there to do it.

Military strikes have no guarantee of success.... we would need perfect intelligence in order to credibly set back Iran's program more than a couple of years. As soon as we bomb Iran, they will embark on a crash nuclear program to gain the bomb as fast as possible; we might actually accelerate their timetable for getting the bomb by taking such action. Having bombed them, you will then have pissed off mullahs with the bomb.... something that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. What about you?

U.S. officials themselves have admitted that military action would only be meant to delay the Iranian program... that stopping it is impossible. That means they realize that at some point they will eventually get the bomb, whether we bomb them or not.

What we need to do is to change the Iranian calculus that having a bomb is beneficial to their interests and their security. Only sanctions and covert action can put the necessary pressure on the mullahs to change course.
We can't bomb their program out of existance, and regime change by force is not an option thanks to our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way I see it, what I have suggested is really the only way forward with any hope of actually getting the Iranians to curtail their nuclear ambitions.

In summary, you can kiss my ass if you think I am some peacenik who sucks ayatollah cock. You do not understand the nature of this crisis or the risks associated with the various options at our disposal.



I don't want to call you naive, but you are.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:10:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
I wonder how many Trident equiped subs we've got parked in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman?


None.

The D-5 has a range of over 4000nm...they can safely stay in deep water and still be able to strike their targets. I don't know if US FBSs even operate in the Indian ocean since their missiles can reach most anywhere in the world from the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:24:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By colklink:
So,glockguy40 you have been a huge proponent that the US do nothing as we would have our asses whipped by Iran much like a red headed stepchild.
My question to you is have you changed your first name legally to Mohammid yet



First off, I have never advocated doing nothing. I have advocated using harsh sanctions and covert action to undermine the regime. Right now the U.S. and EU are considering targeted sanctions so as to not hurt the Iranian people. I think that is a mistake. If they make the sanctions harsh enough, the Iranian people will feel the pinch, and eventually put pressure on the regime to change their policies as a result. Imposing weak sanctions is bound to fail. Only robust sanctions, aimed at showing the Iranian people that nukes are not worth the trouble, have any chance of success.

And covert action to undermind the regime is essential. While the Iranian opposition is currently demoralized and fractured, we need to help put it back together and get them back into the fight. In reality, nukes are not the real problem in this crisis.[/b] The regime is. We have no problem with India having nukes because it is a friendly and responsible country. If the regime in Iran was to change, many of our concerns would be removed... and a new regime might be more likely to give up Iran's current nuclear ambitions.

Military action, in my view, has too high of cost associated with it. We will lose Iraq as a result... make no mistake about it. Iran wil make Iraq a living hell for us there in retaliation. They have the influence there to do it.

Military strikes have no guarantee of success.... we would need perfect intelligence in order to credibly set back Iran's program more than a couple of years. As soon as we bomb Iran, they will embark on a crash nuclear program to gain the bomb as fast as possible; we might actually accelerate their timetable for getting the bomb by taking such action. Having bombed them, you will then have pissed off mullahs with the bomb.... something that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling. What about you?

U.S. officials themselves have admitted that military action would only be meant to delay the Iranian program... that stopping it is impossible. That means they realize that at some point they will eventually get the bomb, whether we bomb them or not.

What we need to do is to change the Iranian calculus that having a bomb is beneficial to their interests and their security. Only sanctions and covert action can put the necessary pressure on the mullahs to change course.
We can't bomb their program out of existance, and regime change by force is not an option thanks to our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way I see it, what I have suggested is really the only way forward with any hope of actually getting the Iranians to curtail their nuclear ambitions.

In summary, you can kiss my ass if you think I am some peacenik who sucks ayatollah cock. You do not understand the nature of this crisis or the risks associated with the various options at our disposal.



I don't want to call you naive, but you are.



You are entitled to your opinion.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:51:44 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:30:53 PM EDT
I really doubt anyone in US DOD is losing sleep over all these "supposed" Iranian tech advancements since the vast majority of them look like propaganda bullshit. If the Iranian people are so pro-west why don't they take matters into their own hands and force a regime change? That way we don't have to worry about invasion, nuking them from orbit, bombing the piss out of nuke facilites, dropping ebombs,etc,etc,etc.
Top Top