Reuters: Iran vows missile retaliation to any attack

[MsKandice01]

TEHRAN - Iran said on Saturday it would launch medium-range missiles if attacked and accused Britain and the United States of arming rebels in its south, as international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear plans grew.

“If we come under a military attack, we will respond with our very effective missile defense,” Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard, told state television.

Western states suspect Iran of secretly aiming to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear facilities are intended to produce only electricity.

(snip)

Military experts reckon the Revolutionary Guard’s Shahab-3 missiles have a range of some 1,200 miles, meaning Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf and foreign troops in Iraq lie within their range.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11071782

[SpiralHawk]

1. Ollie North gave Iran our US Hawk missiles (and a Bible)

I hope and pray that Iran will not use our own weapons against the men and women of our armed services. Ollie North should hang his head in shame for this -- and other -- traitorous acts against the men and women of our armed services, and against the people of the United States of America.

[rooboy]

3. That's right...

someone should arrest North and stick a baseball bat up his butt until he confesses to what weaponry he shipped the Ayatollahs...

[Vidar]

10. More simply, North should hang.

[htuttle]

24. ...and a cake! Don't forget the cake.

I never understood the cake.

:shrug:

[sarcasmo]

26. I Do Not Recall.

The famous Ollie quote from his trial.

[Maggie_May]

2. I don't underestimate Iran

Whats sad is our guys in Iraq are sitting ducks.

[CountAllVotes]

5. I agree

not a good plan to underestimate the Persian people.

:kick:

[OneBlueSky]

4. I read somewhere that Iran has some super-sophisticated . . .

missile -- of Russian origin, I believe -- that can take out a US aircraft carrier . . . anyone recall this story, or have a link? . . .

[midnight armadillo]

7. That's the sunburn missile

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

[Kagemusha]

9. Sunburns have limited range and carriers don't enter that range.

The US has the big advantage in striking power, make no mistake. ...And the US must know a lot about jamming Hawk missiles. They might've caused Saddam's air force problems, but...

[Strelnikov_]

16. So Do They Airlift The Carriers Over The Strait Of Hormuz? n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

21. We helped design it

The kh-31 missile was used by the US as a drone. Joint development project with US defense.

Pretty sure we have a countermeasure considering we used it to test our weapon systems.

[Flanker]

22. That is incorrect

The Kh-31 was an internal Soviet project, however that is not the Moskit, it is an inferior version of the latter.

[Pavulon]

23. Nope

Jane's defense sourced. US worked on the "sunburn" platform as a joint project. The MA-31 was the same propulsion system. I believe the Russians modified the guidance. We had access to the weapon system.

Point being the MA-31 was a joint project that was the precursor to the "sunburn" missile.

I can not link Jane's.

Here is a link to someone breaking the copyright rules by posting the article.

http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3056

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) export control commission permitted Zvezda-Strela to participate in the US Navy competition, and in 1997 the Kh-31 variant MA-31 was declared the winner of the competition, in which four Kh-31 missiles were test-fired at the Point Mugu Naval Air Station in California.

People have said we helped arm china, etc, by doing joint work with russia. However we had access to the weapon and I would assume used that to build countermeasures..

[NickB79]

25. Wasn't the Sunburn introduced in the 1980's?

According to Wikipedia, the SS-N-22 was in service with the Soviet Navy before the fall of the USSR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22.

According to Global Security, it is classified as the KH-41, not the KH-31: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm

[Pavulon]

27. Jane's

Notes the kh-31 as the platform sold to china. The kh has variants. Just like all weapon systems.

Your GS article backs me up. States the missile is developed on the kh-31 propulsion.

There was confusion as to the weapon type during the soviet era. However the Jane's article is correct. We had access to the weapon in the design stage as a high speed drone.

Not saying Iran is not a threat or that we should start any action with them.

Just get tired of people touting the rense version of this missile.

[0007]

6. 0h shit, now a condi rice counter.

[saigon68]

13. You need a mirror to protect from her smile

[Gregorian]

8. I'm guessing that we'd do the same.

And I feel very badly for my friends in Iran. I met them at Stanford university in 1976. And now he and his wife must be in their 80's, and very very disturbed. They deserve better.

Just remember, it's never the people who want this shit. (Well, except for American republicans. But they're a special case.) It's always the governments who drop the bombs.

[kineneb]

15. I am afraid for my relatives in Iran

Part of my family is Persian, and I don't want to see another war started in Iran.
And, no, the US gov. should not underestimate the will of the Persian people. They are an ancient country, and are very nationalistic, even though the Persian empire has long since faded (think Britain).

[Gregorian]

31. Let's keep our thoughts with them.

Our posts just show that this world is not divided by boundaries.

[Poll_Blind]

12. And they will shut the Straight of Hormuz down! n/t

PB

[DELUSIONAL]

14. They are taking a page out of the North Korea play book

-- talk tough and promise to do something really awful if attacked.

Iraq complied -- allowed the weapons inspectors in -- gave a list of weapons etc to the UN (the list was immediately censored by the US) etc etc and Iraq was attacked anyway.

When idiots like bushie tries to "deal" with idiots in Iran and North Korea -- the whole world is in trouble.

[Strelnikov_]

17. The Strait Of Hormuz Is To Iran What Seoul Is To North Korea

There is little dispute that North Korea could kill 100's of thousands in Seoul, with conventional artillery, and short of avoiding conflict there is nothing to be done.

There is much dispute whether Iran can close the Strait for any length of time. Relatively low tech mines and ASM's used by a determined 'enemy', against relatively high tech detection and countermeasure systems. My opinion is that, like nearly all wars, both sides will lose.

[gizmo1979]

18. The guy on the daily news

said Iran was 10 years away from a bomb.so why rattle sabers while you can still be annihilated with one bomb?

[reprobate]

19. If I were the Bushies, I'd be more worried about cross border attacks.

Not to mention the fact that the Shia majority and al Sadr's army have vowed to fight on the side of Iran. I'm very much afraid that an attack on Iran, no matter by who, will set off a firestorm and our poor pawns fighting to survive over there will be the target of everyone.

My problem is I can't figure out whether the just thing would be to impeach bush, try him for treason and then apply the legal punishment for that crime, or just ship him to the Hague. Since I oppose capital punishment I'm leaning towards the Hague. It would be satisfying to have a web camera mounted in his cell and be able to watch him suffer 24/7/365.

[jpak]

20. Iran has been developing a doctrine of asymmetric warfare

for several decades.

I don't believe they can prevail against the US, Israel or the UK, but they can wreck a whole bunch of shit if they chose to...

(mining the Straits, mini-sub attacks against tankers, cross border raids into Iraq, missile attacks against Saudi/Kuwaiti oil facilities etc.).

ChimpCo better have a long stick when they whack this hornet's nest....

[HuffleClaw]

28. damn straight they should retaliate

if bush continues on his march to war.

[lovuian]

29. You can't blame a country trying to protect itself

and yet this country is dangerous.......

[Rex]

30. Oh a lot more lies within 1,200 miles than just US.

Thanks for playing. Insanity for war? Join the Republican Party, it's to die for.

[Strelnikov_]

32. “Home Before The Leaves Fall”

Is ‘our’ Schlieffen plan superior to ‘their’ Grandmaison plan?

What happens if we find that our highly touted anti-ASM systems, that have never been tested in combat, are less than effective? What happen is the Strait of Hormuz is closed, along with 1/4 +/- of the worlds daily petroleum supply.

I am afraid that with the advances in modern missiles, surface ships are going to prove even greater deathtraps than they were in WW II when the ascendance of the airplane dealt mortal blows to ships previously thought unassailable. My concern with the modern missile is that they are relatively simple compared to the countermeasure systems needed to protect against them. And our Navy, as evidenced in the Stark, Cole, and a recent incident where one of our carriers ran over an Iranian dhouh (small boat) in the gulf, has a track record of letting security slip.

And this is just one scenario how things can become a 'catastrophic success'. Let’s forget even ASM’s. What happens with plain old mines, in the hands of a determined ‘adversary’, one with ‘elan vitale’, one with ‘Victoire c’est la volonte’?

What happens if Iran already has a nuke in the bullpen, either bought outright or constructed from bomb-grade uranium purchased on the ‘black market'?

History is riddled with weapons systems that looked good until the bullets fly, then the limitations become apparent. Some militaries adjust, as we did in WW II. Others are destroyed when the system they relied on is so massively flawed, such as the French in 1940.

History is riddled with ‘leaders’ that assume the ‘enemy’ are just monkeys who can be beaten due to their supposed ‘superiority’.

I am sure the French thought their Franco-Prussian war style maneuver would overcome entrenched German machine gun positions during the great center thrust (August 1914).

Equally, the German’s thought having “The Last Man On The Right Brush The Channel” was bound to succeed. They thought the ‘superior’ Prussian military leadership in August of 1914 would overcome the obviously inferior opponents. And it almost did. . . . Look where ‘almost’ took them.

The French thought the Maginot line would keep out the Germans in the Spring of 40.

What about battleship development prior to W.W. I. The battle cruiser was thought to be a great development, until shells pierced their lightly armored decks at Jutland.

What about the unarmored decks of our aircraft carriers during W.W. II. We got lucky on that one (in that the Japanese carriers were also unarmored).

The Sherman tank. Our troops were told it was the best in the world, until it ran up against the German equipment.

And what about the Patriot missile, the ‘Scud Buster’.

I shake my head at those who continually take view that actual armed conflict is like a strategy game where the one with the stronger ‘strength rating’ on their token wins (the ‘Janes Defense’ crowd).

If history has taught us anything it is that there are many paths to losing a war, and the ultimate ’winner’ is not immediately apparent.


Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill


The German Emperor is ageing me; he is like a battleship with steam up and screws going, but with no rudder, and he will run into something some day and cause a catastrophe. He has the strongest army in the world and the Germans don't like being laughed at and are looking for somebody on whom to vent their temper and use their strength. After a big war a nation doesn't want another for a generation or more. Now it is 38 years since Germany had her last war, and she is very strong and very restless, like a person whose boots are too small for him. I don't think there will be war at present, but it will be difficult to keep the peace of Europe for another five years.

Sir Edward Grey, Britain's foreign secretary, from an article in response to the comments made by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the Daily Telegraph (November, 1908)

[stop the bleeding]

33. this should be interesting n/t

[Clarkie1]

34. So they are willing to be wiped of the face of the Earth? eom

[SOS]

37. They could take their oil with them

If they are like the Saudis, they might blow their oil fields:

"Saudi Arabia, bracing for the possibility of an attack either by an outside power or restive Shiite residents, implemented an intricate doomsday plan in the 1980s giving officials the power to blow up their own oil wells, according to a new book by journalist Gerald Posner. In the event of an attack, says Posner, the Saudis would trigger a series of "dirty bomb" explosions designed to destroy use of the kingdom's oil supplies for decades. Posner's account, related in his new book, Secrets of the Kingdom, is based on both Israeli and American intelligence."

The US and Israel might want to research this possibility before they start bombing Iran. Does Iran have this use in mind for their nuclear material?

[Clarkie1]

39. Then they must be insane.

Destroying their own oil fields would essentially destroy their entire economy for generations.

[shadowknows69]

35. and that is exactly what the neo cons want

we'll force Iran into retaliating just like any nation who was attacked would. they'll missle our troops and bush will have carte blanche to start turning Iran into a glass covered parking lot. Global nuclear war and hilarity ensues soon after. game over. How about a game of tic tac toe?

[Toots]

36. I think this is very misleading

They said they would respond with their missile defense. They did not say they would launch missiles. At least that is the way I read what he said. They will defend themselves from our missiles...So far every single threat has been to defend themselves...Who would not?

[EuroObserver]

38. Well observed there, Toots! This is true.

I believe we are observing the machination of much embedded USDoD PSYOPS here.

[Trajan]

40. You know ? ....

Perhaps the bellicose policy instituted by the current madmen who rule the WH is going to lead to a untenable position for the US: .... ALL this crazy war talk, which can be seen as a possible influence in internal Iranian electoral results that favored 'conservatives' there, can be shown to have placed into power those very 'extremists' that would NOT agree to restrict it's own nuclear ambitions.

And now ? ... Those very Iranian forces, who continue to demand their own rights to develop nuclear power, could now react 'forcefully', with conventional weaponry, that could deeply impact an already stretched US Military presense in Iraq, placing their bases into direct threat, at a time when they can ill afford, no matter HOW bellicose the policy pronouncements from the idiot-in-chief, to begin full military operations against a formidable Iranian military force that is SIGNIFICANTLY larger and stronger than that which was faced in Iraq ....

The military realists had been seething long ago by political missteps ; they must be on fire by now .... It will take a great effort to stop an Iranian military juggernaut immediately, and any reaction by US forces against Iran will detract from the effort in Iraq, and place even greater strain on the US military entrenched there .... The 'air attack' strategy works only so well against medium range missile attacks, depending on the numbers launched and the size of the area that must be managed. There are processing restraints on Patriot systems, just like there are processing restraints on any computerized system.

The US policy makers have taken a 'full speed ahead - DAMN the torpedoes' approach to foreign policy when it comes to rattling sabres and puffing their chests, but without the numbers of forces necessary to carry out 'massively parallel' operations, our forces stand a chance of being hit hard, and degrading rapidly ....

They may even be forced into retreat ..... SO much for Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap' approach ....

This could be a horrible blunder by a US administration so hell bent on looking tough, but without the careful planning required to deal with powerful contingiencies that may upend its own policy goals, and give the US military a serious black eye and a loss of international prestige .....

But this is one damned US administration that is too fucking STUPID to see through its own bluster and misconceptions .... Lets hope 'our boys' dont again suffer the brunt of the collective stupidity and idealistic hubris of the Neo Con war hawks at the Pentagon ....

Iran could be a serious monkey wrench in the works; one that the US is not actually prepared to deal with ....