News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[Art]

It would be hard to assess the reliability of Iran's reports about its missile test. In the past, their accounts have always reported success regardless of the outcome. If the account of the latest test were accurate, then it would be an incredible leap for Iran's missile technology. I'm not sure it's completely beyond the realm of possibility, but it's certainly unlikely.

Iranian missiles

A valid point however they seem to be getting serious assistance in missile technology. They are now claiming to have also successfully tested the world's fastest underwater missile capable of taking out submarines and large warships.

Iran test fires 'world's fastest' underwater missile
233mph 'Whale'

Iran last Friday test fired what it claims is the world's fastest underwater missile - reported to have a top speed of 360km/h (233mph), according to the BBC.

Special Republican guard troops fired the weapon - dubbed "Hoot" or Whale - and successfully destroyed a derelict ship in the Gulf as part of Iran's "Holy Prophet" war games. Iranian TV interrupted normal broadcasts to show footage of the test.

As SOS said let's hope diplomacy prevails this time.

 

[Cyrus]

I have serious reserves that Iran managed to make a torpedo that is faster than anything the United States has. If anyone, I would expect that from the Russians ten+ years ago, not the Iranians. Sounds like BS propoganda to me.

 

[newp175]

It looks like Iran is being deliberatly provocative. And there is no way they develloped the iranian Shkval equivalent without a lot of help from the russians.

 

[russ_watters]

I have serious reserves that Iran managed to make a torpedo that is faster than anything the United States has. If anyone, I would expect that from the Russians ten+ years ago, not the Iranians. Sounds like BS propoganda to me.

It appears to me to be a copy of a Russian idea of a rocket-propelled torpedo. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were able to launch it and achieve 200+mph speeds, but I doubt highly that the'll be able to make a deployable torpedo/undersea missile with it.

I haven't heard that the US is researching the idea, but frankly, our submarines are so far ahead of anyone else's that our torpedo technology is practically irrelevant.

 

[russ_watters]

Iran has wanted to normalize relations with the U.S. But we have a president (Bush) who is a hard-liner who has planned to preemptively change the Middle East. Our president is famous for spin and rhetoric (oh yes, and lies). So now Iran has a president (Ahmadinejad) who has been concerned about a preemptive attack, and on occasion uses rhetoric to gain support from his base.

Israel is very capable of defending itself, and it's high time the U.S. stops taking the Zionist's side. Also, those who promote eradication of all Infidels are no larger in number than those who promote a crusade...

The U.S. has practiced plenty of aggressive behavior and rhetoric. Maybe it's time to try diplomacy and sincerity toward peace.

There are two sides to that story, of course:

The US has its favorites (as if no one else does? ), but the US has also done more than the rest of the world combined to work for peace in the Israel/Palestine area. When was the last time the French, for example, hosted a summit or came up with a peace plan for the region? Both Clinton and Bush have had real and viable peace plans and both achieved some progress. Though Clinton's was less successful, he also had no starting point to work from, making his progress more notable. The famous Rabin/Arafat handshake and signing of a declaration of principles may not seem like much in the practical sense, but just getting those two to sit in the same room and talk - much less sign the same document - was a major achievement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/13/newsid_3053000/3053733.stm

Regarding our support for Israel - it is not as unequivocable as people like to believe. Bush in particular has been critical of Israel for actions he considers to be unproductive to the peace process:

Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. As we make progress toward security, and in accordance with the road map, Israeli forces should withdraw to their positions on September the 28th, 2000.

http://www.bnainoach.com/tiki-index.php?page=PRESIDENT BUSH BETRAYS ISRAEL SPEECH

So I think it is unreasonable to say that the US hasn't put a serious effort into a diplomatic solution - in fact, the US is the only 3rd party to have done just that.

 

[Art]

They showed the footage of the test firing of the Iranian underwater missile on Sky TV and it worked just fine. They deployed it from a torpedo launching tube from where it dropped into the water and headed off to it's target. It's key advantage is it is so fast it can be fired unguided as the target doesn't have time to intercept or out manouvre it. This means that forcing evasive action or even destroying the launch vehicle will not prevent the missile hitting it's target.


As with most things, what Bush says and what Bush does have little in common. Israel has continued to build new settlements and the wall is still there despite being declared illegal by the world court.

What sanctions has the US imposed on Israel for flouting it's and the rest of the world's will?
What sanctions has the US imposed for Israel's continuing program of assassination? It's hard to have meaningful negotiations when one side has assassinated all the negotiators on the other side.

Action speaks volumes louder than words!

 

[Cyrus]

It's key advantage is it is so fast it can be fired unguided as the target doesn't have time to intercept or out manouvre it.

You don't use unguided weapons systems that move that fast. That statement makes me think its more of a hoax. A system that revolutionary would certainly have some guidance and control to it. Again, it seems too good to be true Art. You saw *a* torpedo* fired; however, did you clearly see it traveling at high speeds, or did you see something get fired, and a target blow up, with just a pause inbetween? The probably fired a dummy torpedo, and had a secondary real torpedo hit the target, to make it appear to travel that fast. Unless I can actually see it traveling in the water, I ant going to buy it.

As with most things, what Bush says and what Bush does have little in common. Israel has continued to build new settlements and the wall is still there despite being declared illegal by the world court.
What sanctions has the US imposed on Israel for flouting it's and the rest of the world's will?

What sanctions has the US imposed for Israel's continuing program of assassination? It's hard to have meaningful negotiations when one side has assassinated all the negotiators on the other side.

Those are good points, but I think they are off topic w.r.t Iran.

 

[Burnsys]

UNDERWATER MISSLE. The VA-111 Shkval (Squall) supercavitating torpedo, shown here being launched from a Russian Navy Oscar II-class submarine, rockets to a speed over 200 mph, which would give a targeted vessel little chance to evade it.

The new version troubles top U.S. Navy brass, who would like to know as much as possible about the advanced Shkval before it finds its way to places such as China and Iran.

http://diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/storm_over_the_squall.htm

A downgraded Shkval, the Shkval-E went to an international arms fairs in 1995, and both China, Iran and France have been known to have acquired limited numbers of Shkvals. The Russian press has claimed that the technology of the Shkval cannot be reverse-engineered and thus the Russian Navy is marketing the export variant aggressively.

http://worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1173

 

[Cyrus]

Nice links. From reading them, and doing a google search; however, I still don't see a working prototype of the Shkval.

It would not surprise me that the russians are still working on such a weapon. It would not also surprise me that the US is working or has such a weapon. (If they are, they sure as hell ant going to announce it to the world.) I am curious, how do they 'burn' underwater? That thing's got to have an onboard oxgyen tank?

 

[Burnsys]

STATUS
The weapon was deployed in the early 1990s, and had been in service for years when its existence was publicly disclosed. In 1995, it was revealed that development had begun in the 1960s, when the Research Institute NII-24, previously involved in artillery ammunition research, was ordered to help develop an underwater high-speed missile to combat nuclear-powered submarines. On May 14, 1969, a government mandate created the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics (NII PGM), which was the predecessor of today's Region Scientific Production Association.
A modernized "Shkval" was placed on display at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, but it was discarded. Later, an improved model was designed with a conventional warhead and a guided targeting system. The first tests of this "smart" Shkval torpedo were conducted by the Russian Pacific Fleet in early 1998.

The Region Scientific Production Association has developed an export modification of the missile, the Shkval-E. Russia first marketed this conventionally armed version at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999.

Russia reportedly sold China 40 conventionally armed Shkval-Es in the mid-1990s

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

. Bauman is part of Moscow State Technical University, the oldest institute in Russia. Primarily an educational organization, the Institute of Underwater Devices and Robotics has developed a solid propellant that uses water as an oxidizer.

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/subsea/c3_s2.htm

I really don't know if this is the kind of solid fuel this torpedo use..

 

[russ_watters]

They showed the footage of the test firing of the Iranian underwater missile on Sky TV and it worked just fine.

I'm sure it did.

It's key advantage is it is so fast it can be fired unguided as the target doesn't have time to intercept or out manouvre it. This means that forcing evasive action or even destroying the launch vehicle will not prevent the missile hitting it's target.

Ehh, not necessarily. Even not considering turning, the frigate I was on can go from full ahead to a dead stop in under 30 seconds or slightly longer than its 475ft length (it is quite impressive to experience). That means that if this torpedo is fired from a little less than about two miles (as far as it can travel in 30 seconds), a frigate could evade it simply by stopping.

Fired from astern or ahead, it would be a simple matter to turn out of the way.

As with most things, what Bush says and what Bush does have little in common. Israel has continued to build new settlements and the wall is still there despite being declared illegal by the world court.

Huh? Are you claiming Bush built the settlements?

What sanctions has the US imposed on Israel for flouting it's and the rest of the world's will? What sanctions has the US imposed for Israel's continuing program of assassination?

None that I know of - when did I say that we did?

 

[russ_watters]

You don't use unguided weapons systems that move that fast.

And that is one of the key problems with this type of weapon - traveling that fast, it can't use its own sonar because it would simplly drown it out.

I am curious, how do they 'burn' underwater? That thing's got to have an onboard oxgyen tank?

Like any other solid-fuel rocket, the propellant and oxidizer are premixed into one plastic-like substance. Rockets don't breathe air.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, your right. I am too used to being around Tomahawk people, I've become Jaded.

 

[Vincent Vega]

You know that torpedo test is great and all, but we probably already have submarines under them right now... sounds like they're rallying their people with that show. They're scared because they're on the Persian Gulf.

So many of their sites are underground, I can't help but wonder if we developed new munitions for Iran? Like bunker-buster, low-yield warheads that are meant for underground sites.

 

[Bystander]

200 mph torpedo? Ohmigod! Range of 1/2 mile to mebbe a mile (fat chance)? Talk about white elephants. The Soviets were playing with the idea for arming hunter-killer subs for dogfighting and surviving --- beats shooting and listening to the opposition shoot when they hear your launch transient --- it's fast enough to kill an opponent before they can get a shot off. Persian Gulf? Iran? Joke --- USN doctrine doesn't allow "threats" within 200 miles of carrier groups in wartime --- lots of luck to the revolutionary guard captain of the launch platform over the 7-10 hours it'll take to approach to shooting distance.

 

[BobG]

I think there's lots of exaggeration by Iran about their capabilities. The problem with that is that the Bush administration also has a record of exaggerating the threat posed by enemy states. That's a situation with a very good chance of spiraling out of control.

In any event, Iran is a potential threat even without any exaggeration. They can launch a missile as far as Israel even if they can't hit a target. If they could attach a nuclear or chemical warhead to the missile, the reaction would be nearly the same for a missile that lands in an occupied part of Israel as for one that lands in an Israeli city - nobody would be waiting for a second attempt. While I doubt Iran is any threat to the US Navy, they are a threat to shipping. It doesn't take much to close down the Strait of Hormuz.

If the US were to decide Iran was too close to developing a nuclear capability, there would be an excellent chance that the US would launch an airstrike against Iranian targets. If Iran responded by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, then Iranian territory along the Persian Gulf would have to be taken and defended. That would be an interesting endeavor given the military's requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran's posturing suggests they don't believe Bush would open a third front and that they'll have free rein to work on their nuclear program for awhile. That practically means that Iran doesn't see anything irrational about the US invading Iraq. I'm not sure I have as much respect for Bush as Iran does.

 

[Gokul43201]

While I doubt Iran is any threat to the US Navy, they are a threat to shipping. It doesn't take much to close down the Strait of Hormuz.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to take a carrier group past the ... umm SoHo, without significant losses. Last I checked, Iran was believed to have over a 100 Silkworms - all positioned just by SoHo. But then, perhaps there would be no need to take a task force through Hormuz...seeing as how the Ronald Reagan is already operating out of Bahrain or Qatar.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Slikworms should be shredded by the almighty Phalanx's, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_15_Phalanx

 

[russ_watters]

Silkworms are large and mediocre cruise missiles and would be unlikely to get through the picket-ship screen. They'd be shot down by Standard SAMs before anyone's Mk15 even saw them.

 

[Art]

Silkworms are large and mediocre cruise missiles and would be unlikely to get through the picket-ship screen. They'd be shot down by Standard SAMs before anyone's Mk15 even saw them.

Yes but you can't always depend on the brits being around to save your butts.

The Phalanx system has not been credited with shooting down any enemy missiles or aircraft.

In February 1991, during the first Gulf War, the USS Missouri and the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett were in the vicinity of an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker') that had been fired, either at Missouri or at the nearby HMS Gloucester. After Missouri fired a bundle of chaff, the Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff and fired a burst of rounds (not destroying the incoming missile). From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri, her being two to three miles from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries.[1] The Seersucker missile was then intercepted by a Sea Dart missile launched from HMS Gloucester. This is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_15_Phalanx

 

[Astronuc]

Iran is ratcheting it up again! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Wednesday it has successfully test-fired a "top secret" missile, the third in a week, state-run television reported. The report called the missile an "ultra-horizon" weapon and said it could be fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters.

. . . .

On Tuesday, Safavi called for foreign forces to leave the region. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain.

That same day, Iran tested a new surface-to-sea radar-avoiding missile equipped with remote-control and searching systems, state TV reported. It said the new missile, called Kowsar, was a medium-range weapon that Iran could mass-produce.

It also said the Kowsar's guidance system could not be scrambled, and it had been designed to sink ships.

On Friday (last week), Iran tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

One of the torpedoes, unveiled Monday, was tested in the Straits of Hormuz. That seemed to be a clear warning to the United States that Iran believes it has the capability to disable oil tankers moving through the Gulf.

Some military analysts in Moscow said it appears the high-speed torpedoes likely were Russian-built weapons that may have been acquired from China or Kyrgyzstan.

Others have questioned their capabilities of evading advanced radar systems such as those in Israel.

The United States said Monday that while Iran may have made "some strides" in its military, it likely is exaggerating its capabilities.

"We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons system by both foreign and indigenous measures," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "It's possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar-absorbing materials and technology."

Both sides seem to be blustering.

It would seem that such provocation is inching the participants to a showdown. I hope not.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes but you can't always depend on the brits being around to save your butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_15_Phalanx

The Missouri was not armed with Standard SAMs, and a Frigate like the Jarrett cannot be relied upon to detect an incoming missile (see: USS Stark), so the situation you have there is identical to the one I described: A gudied-missile destroyer did its job by intercepting a missile that may have been targeted at the high-value target it was tasked to protect. It doesn't matter what flag it was carrying - an American destoryer would have been able to do the same thing. Apparently, the missile didn't get close enough for the Missouri to engage with her own CIWS.

You'll use any excuse to take a pot shot at the US, but there really isn't anything wrong with that scenario. You're firing an empty gun.

 

[Art]

The Missouri was not armed with Standard SAMs, and a Frigate like the Jarrett cannot be relied upon to detect an incoming missile (see: USS Stark), so the situation you have there is identical to the one I described: A gudied-missile destroyer did its job by intercepting a missile that may have been targeted at the high-value target it was tasked to protect. It doesn't matter what flag it was carrying - an American destoryer would have been able to do the same thing. Apparently, the missile didn't get close enough for the Missouri to engage with her own CIWS.

An earlier post referred to the strength of the phalanx sysyem. The piece I quoted showed this particular CIWS was less than effective in what appears to be the only time it was used in anger. Another notable failure of the system was when a japanese phalanx shot down a US A6 aircraft instead of the drone target it was towing.
Anti-missile missiles still seem to have the edge. I don't know what the US has in this line but the new european PAAMS missiles are said to be a vast improvement on the very effective sea dart.

You'll use any excuse to take a pot shot at the US, but there really isn't anything wrong with that scenario. You're firing an empty gun.

Russ my comment was meant tongue in cheek. I hardly thought the british missile frigate was there by pure luck

As for your accusation I'd like to point out that what you say is insulting and unadulterated nonsense. Once again you're confusing Bush with the USA. Being anti-chimp does not make one anti-american as I'm sure many of your fellow citizens have pointed out to you.

Criticism is healthy. In fact for a democracy to thrive it is essential. In industry it's called continuous improvement. As soon as a project is finished you critique it, both the end product and the way it was arrived at, to see what could be done better next time. If blind loyalty prevents people from criticising the results or decisions taken along the way then lessons are never learned and old mistakes get repeated ad infinitum.

Perhaps if you read comments from international posters and indeed many of the american posters on this forum from a slightly less paranoid viewpoint you might find the criticisms are valid and valuable.

In keeping with this forum's guidelines try to limit your arguements to attacking ideas you disagree with rather than attacking the people who promote them.

 

[Cyrus]

Criticism is healthy.

Provided that it is constructive.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that all this fancy and expensive missile prevention technology is not fool proof. That's not to say that they would not get through, they would, but at the same time there is a good chance of taking some hits along the way.

There was one show on (discovery channel?) a while back where they did a simulation to check for preventive measures. During the tests some things managed avoidance far too long than was acceptable. (How this got on Tv was quite amazing, I don't see how they would have disclosed that, it look's bad for the Navy's image.)

 

[SOS2008]

"Iran is not Iraq" - Condoleezza Rice

Really!? Smartest thing I've heard in awhile from anyone in Bush's administration.

In the meantime, you geeks sure love to debate the nuts and bolts of military strategy. Christ!

 

[Art]

Provided that it is constructive.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that all this fancy and expensive missile prevention technology is not fool proof. That's not to say that they would not get through, they would, but at the same time there is a good chance of taking some hits along the way.

There was one show on (discovery channel?) a while back where they did a simulation to check for preventive measures. During the tests some things managed avoidance far too long than was acceptable. (How this got on Tv was quite amazing, I don't see how they would have disclosed that, it look's bad for the Navy's image.)

Although anti-missile missiles have evolved since Gulf War 1 the lack of success of the patriot missile system during that period must be alarming to the Israelis in particular.

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

 

[SOS2008]

Read my lips -- oh wait, that was Bush Sr.

Don't f**k with Iran. Make friends...yes, we need friends...especially in the Middle East (isn't that why we were going to sell out our ports to DP World?)..yes, we need friends, we need friends in the world for that matter...

 

[Astronuc]

Making friends in the world will be hard with Bush at the helm. Except for a few friendly dictators, and Blair and Howard, he seems to have alienated most world leaders.

 

[Art]

In the meantime, you geeks sure love to debate the nuts and bolts of military strategy. Christ!

I suppose the point is Iran is trying to convince the west that it has an effective deterrance in an effort to persuade the west an attack on Iran would result in painful losses for the attackers. Whereas the US are showing off their hardware to show the Iranians 'resistance is futile'
It is a high risk strategy by Iran as if they succeed in their efforts to portray themselves as a credible force this in itself may well be the primary driver for an attack as the opposing forces will be determined to halt their military technological advances.

 

[Art]

Perhaps the idea the US will use nuclear bombs in a strike against Iran is not as farfetched as some thought.

Iran accuses US of "psychological war"
Sun Apr 9, 2006 11:14 AM BST
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday brushed aside what it called a U.S. "psychological war" against its nuclear programme after a published report described Pentagon planning for possible military strikes against Iranian atomic facilities.

A report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, citing unnamed current and former officials, said Washington has stepped up plans for possible attacks on Iranian facilities to curb its atomic work.

The article said the United States was considering using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, south of Tehran.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...UKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml&archived=False

So if this article is correct the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, led by Bush will use nuclear weapons to stop Iran from possibly aquiring nuclear weapons because Bush says Iran is a 'Rogue State' who might use nuclear weapons and using nuclear weapons is a no-no in our modern, western, civilised world.

Bush also quotes the need to avoid nuclear poliferation as a justification for stopping Iran whilst simultaneously supplying nuclear fuel and knowhow to India and whilst acting as the intermediary in the sale of uranium to Taiwan by Australia, actions which apart from being in direct contradiction to what he says are also in direct contravention of the NPT.

Now what was that he was saying about Rogue States led by mad mullahs??