Israel Warns Russia: We'll Neutralize S-300 If Sold To Iran

[Purveyor]

Source: Jerusalem Post

If Russia goes through with the sale of its most advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, Israel will use an electronic warfare device now under development to neutralize it and as a result present Russia as vulnerable to air infiltrations, a top defense official has told The Jerusalem Post.

The Russian system, called the S-300, is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.

While Russia has denied that it sold the system to Iran, Teheran claimed last year that Moscow was preparing to equip the Islamic Republic with S-300 systems. Iran already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia.

---
"Russia will have to think real hard before delivering this system to Iran, which is possibly on the brink of conflict with either Israel or the US, since if the system is delivered, an EW system will likely be developed to neutralize it, and if that happens it would be catastrophic not only for Iran but also for Russia," the defense official said.

Neutralization of one of the main components of Russian air defense would be a blow to Russian national security as well as to defense exports. "No country will want to buy the system if it is proven to be ineffective," the official said. "For these reasons, Russia may not deliver it in the end to Iran."

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104239541&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

[mr_hat]

1. Wouldn't the US/Israel already be working

to neutralize this system, whether it's delivered to Iran or not?

[AlphaCentauri]

9. Yep! all those radar antennas deployed on the russian border

[bitchkitty]

117. Yes. n/t

[Parche]

2. Russia

Has every right to sell equipment and arms to other countries....dont we sell F-16's to Israel, and Saudi?

Israel needs to be slapped a little, they are getting too jumpy ........

[Megahurtz]

5. Agreed.

Israel is getting way too uppity lately.

[hack89]

29. But who will buy it when their enemies can buy a counter system

tailored to neutralize it? That's a serious threat to Russia - their equipment has never fared well in combat against Western weapons. The last thing they want is more doubt placed on the effectiveness of their stuff. The Israels are on the cutting edge of electronic warfare - I think the Russian will take this threat seriously.

[The Croquist]

49. their equipment has never fared well in combat against Western weapons

That maybe the understatement of the year.

[The Stranger]

57. What usually happens in arms races, is now the Russians will develop a system to unneutralize it.

Then Israel will develop a system to re-neutralize it.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

[tularetom]

3. Bullshit - if they could do it why haven't they done it already

Why is a pipsqueak country like Isreal dictating policy to the world?

When you get right down to it who gives a fuck what they think.

[Ian David]

22. It's called Casting a Giant Shadow.

The smaller and more vulnerable you are, the louder and more dangerous you have to make yourself appear in order to deter violence against you.

Pipsqueak nation... Tin-can army that fights with seltzer bottles.





Cast a Giant Shadow (1966)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060218/

[Hannah Bell]

23. they have lots of nukes.

and the apparent inclination to use them.

[razors edge]

26. And Russia sucking on the radiation downwind

has nukes too. What about all the Russian scientists and technicians working in the facilities that would be hit, and the fact that they probably haven't been paid in full for the power plant and would never be paid after such an attack?

Israel can't do the job, and survive. Even if Russia didn't confront Israel directly, they would exact a heavy revenge.

edit sp

[Jim Sagle]

39. Then why haven't they?

[14thColony]

44. Their nukes are of marginal value in this scenario

First, the Jericho II missiles can't reach all of Iran - maybe not even half of Iran. Most Israeli nukes would have to be air-dropped, which means you have to get there.

Second, the Israeli nuke force was designed to be counter-value (kill cities) not counter-force (kill other nuclear forces). Counter-value weapons don't have to be very accurate - it's hard to miss a city - but counter-value weapons used against hardened facilities have to be extremely accurate - miss the facility by a hundred yards and you might as well have missed it by a hundred miles, in some cases. Their weapons were not designed for this, and a lot will miss and/or do no harm against hardened point targets. Then they won't have very many left for deterrence. The last thing Israel will do is risk failure with its nuclear force.

So all they could try is pinpoint air-dropped gravity nukes, and even then some of these facilities appear hardened beyond a tactical nuke's ability to affect them.

[sentelle]

65. so, what you are saying

Is that Israeli nukes are designed to kill thousands if not millions of innocents, not actual military combatants. Why do we consider this a good thing?

Oh and one other thing. Israel has never officially stated that it has nukes.

[14thColony]

67. I made no judgement as to the morality of counter-force versus counter-value

They are the results of sober reality; the early missile guidance systems were too inaccurate to ensure a direct hit on a hardened missile silo or nuclear command bunker. Therefore they had to be aimed at something they COULD kill. Targeting cities was both technically possible and contirbuted to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. Once US and Soviet guidance systems became accurate enough, most missile on both sides were re-targeted counter-force; to disarm the enemy in a first strike or destroy his second-strike capability. Since Israel has no regional nuclear threat, there is general belief that they would never have bothered with the expense of the ultra-accurate guidance systems that would allow precise targeting - the targets would always be cities, so why bother? Bear in mind missile accuracy of this level took decades of full-on development in the US and USSR.

Yes, Israel has never admitted they have nukes, except for Ehud Olmert's little Freudian slip in December 2006 that is. Oopsie. They have nukes. 100-200, built with French assistance. First one was probably ready around the time of the 1967 War. Of course they don't admit it. It's the stated policy of "nuclear ambiguity." And the ability to claim that no one can PROVE that they've introduced nuclear weapons into the region. What was the name of that Israeli nuclear scientist who went to jail for a long time for revealing the Dimona project? He even smuggled out pictures of some of the gravity bombs he helped build.

[The Croquist]

51. They've never used nukes.

Your statement that they have an "apparent inclination to use them" seems a little far fetched. It is believed that they had them starting in the mid 1970s. Since then no country has attacked them. I wonder why? As a matter of fact I know of no country with known nuclear weapons that has been invaded. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Hannah Bell]

62. the question was why israel is able to dictate to the world.

the answer: they have nukes & an 'apparent' inclination (sabre-rattling) to use them.

same answer i'd give on the us & russia.

only 1 country has used nukes, but there's been quite a bit of sabre-rattling since, & mere possession puts fear into people.

[ckramer]

104. It probably doesn't matter given the smallness of Israel

In the future, as long as one nuke was delivered to Israel successfully, it would be gone.

[hack89]

27. Israel is a world leader in high tech weapons

and they can do what they say they can. Remember how they took down Syria's high tech Russian air defense system last year when they struck that suspected nuclear plant?

[14thColony]

43. Their technology is good

but not invincible by any means, and not as good as what the key NATO countries can do. Otherwise they wouldn't have to buy AIM-120s from us for instance; they would just make their own version. Their Python IV is great, but they've yet to even attempt a radar missile.

Israel loves its reputation, and does much to foster it - something I discovered doing some primary source research on the 1973 war. But their 'dirty little secret' is that their opponents all suck, badly. The Syrian Air Force does well to manage to take off and land again without running into each other or the ground. Their air defense unit crews are no better. So be sure to disassociate the equipment from the crews. Take that same Russian equipment (some of it really is state-of-the-art) and man it with well trained, aggressive, capable crews, and Israel's reputation for invincibility would start to take a beating.

On the subject of the S-300 - there has been live testing against the S-300 for about a decade now and those in the know still can't figure out a consistent way to beat it. It can be overwhelmed, but a good crew will slaughter much of the attacking force. Syrians or Iranians? Who knows. I might have the best sniper rifle in the world, but if I'm a lousy shot, who cares? So if you kill me did you beat me or the rifle?

[hack89]

47. Cost is the primary reason that Israel buys US

they have smartly decided on some niche markets - electronic warfare is one of them. In that field they are as good as anyone.

As to the S-300, remember the initial hype about the Patriot? It has taken 2 wars and a ton of money to make it an effective weapon. Same applies to the S-300 - it is not combat tested and based on past performance there is no reason to believe it will perform as well as advertised.

I am not saying it would be a cake walk - you are absolutely right that tactics, doctrine and training are the key.

[14thColony]

63. You're right on EW; they are quite good at that

Personnally I'd go old school: barrage ballons on steel cables and ballon-suspended steel nets freaking everywhere. Like thousands of them. I'm talking aerial forests over the critical targets. Most on truck platforms to keep things fresh. Bad enough trying to penetrate some of these targets. Even worse if your LGB's front control vane just got sheared off by a 1 inch steel cable on the way in. Or your jet's right wing just got surgically removed by same. Cost compared to even one battalion of S-300: negligible. Yes, they can be shot down but then that jet's not doing its intended job anymore, so I still win. And helium, gas bags, and cable is cheap so I bet I could put them up faster than anyone could shoot them down.

Then you get real nasty with commerically-available blinding lasers, enhanced smoke generators to IR and laser-obscure targets, etc. Grand total cost maybe equal to 3-4 battalions of S-300. But way harder to deal with.

[raebrek]

83. And the weapon or defense is only as good as the.....

The people that use it. Training is good but it only teaches you to over come specific scenario's that someone thought up given the known things about the scenario that can be foreseen.

That being said; actual use of a weapon or defense system in a live environment will be different. What works in theory may not work in actual practice. So the experience level the people attaching or defending is paramount in a battle. Good thinkers in battle can over come poor training but good training can not over come good thinkers in the live environment in my opinion. Let's hope we never find out if I am right or not.

Raebrek!!!

[The Croquist]

50. Maybe the US already has a counter to it

Since it has never been used in combat why would you want to tip your hat?

[14thColony]

58. The grim joke back in the 1990s

in our squadron was that the only effective counter to the S-300 was "eject prior to impact."

[daleo]

4. So they expect Russia to not sell a system

That Israel claims it can "neutralize"? Isn't this like throwing down a challenge to Russia? If Russia doesn't sell, doesn't that say to the world that it is afraid of Israel's technology, and that it doesn't think its weapons systems can cut it in the real world?

[hack89]

30. It is a valid fear

their weapons have yet to cut it against high tech western weapon systems. There is a reason that countries that can afford it buy US, Israeli or European equipment - it is combat proven.

[dipsydoodle]

6. "electronic warfare device "

are possibly unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the S-300 system which uses good old fashioned valve/tube technology.

[AlphaCentauri]

10. tubes and tesla coils are harder to defeat than transistors

I have a tube marshall power amp still sounds better than many solid state toys

[14thColony]

12. Tubes?

Not that I disparage tube/valve technology, but the S-300 family (S-300, 300P, 300PMU1, 300PMU2) use solid state technology. Besides the S-75 and S-125, which do use tubes, are very susceptible to jamming.

Two things that make a radar hard to jam: its Effective Radiated Power and its anti-jamming features on the receiver end. S-300 gets high marks in both areas.

[daleo]

41. Russian systems worked pretty well for North Viet Nam

Sure, that was a long time ago, but it is best not to assume too much.

[The Croquist]

52. Soviet technology wasn't that effective in Vietnam

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

The U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft, 1,737 because of hostile action and 514 for operational reasons. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.

Most aircraft were also shot down bu anti-aircraft guns rather then missiles. The reason we lost so many airplanes was because we flew so many of them.

[daleo]

78. A current U.S. presidential candidate was shot down with Russian missiles

Prisoner of war
John McCain's capture and imprisonment began in October 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.<32><33>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Naval_training.2C_first_marriage.2C_and_Vietnam_assignment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's four percent hit rate, as far as McCain is concerned.

The way things are going, a lot of countrys' military hardware may get some real world testing (unfortunately). Here's hoping someone will be left after the dust settles to declare a winner.

[The Croquist]

85. Just because McCain was unlucky doesn't change the statistics

One out of every 2,500 sorties was shot down and most due to guns not missiles.

[daleo]

96. The U.S. left Viet Nam in defeat

That's the most important statistic.

Underestimating enemies is a bad idea. Underestimating Russia has been one of history's greatest mistakes. Their weapons and tactics have worked when the chips were down.

[The Croquist]

107. Like in Afghanistan and Chechnya?

Their weapons and tactics have worked when the chips were down.

Like in Afghanistan and Chechnya?

[daleo]

118. No I meant Hitler and Napolean

When the chips were really down, fighting the superpowers of their day in a struggle for survival.

They're not supermen but they're not paper tigers either. You underestimate your (potential) enemy at your peril.

[The Croquist]

125. I agree about underestimating your enemy

Napoleon was too long ago and the Soviet WWII victory was only marginally about technology. The Russians had some impressive equipment most notably the T-34 Tank. Arguably it was the most successful tank of all time and there is no question that it was superior to it's US counterpart the Sherman M-4 but ultimately they won the war by sheer weight of numbers. The Soviets and their allies had an estimated 10,650,000 killed compared to 5,178,000 German and it's allies killed. That doesn't include civilians. It was an unbelievable bloodbath. The US lend-lease program helped but it wasn't as important as most people think.

[Megahurtz]

7. Israel and

the U.S. are behind closed doors conspiring real hard trying to figure out how to get a War On.

Sick evil Warmongering Fucks I hope they fail big time. :grr:

[ckramer]

106. It's easy - figure out a way to kill some sheeples

then they would jump up in anger to support any war.

[Hyuke4]

8. UNBRIDLED ARROGANCE

The arrogance of Israel,is beyond Comprehension.They believe they are so powerful because of our blind support for them,that they can take on the world,anytime,anywhere.

I think we need to seriously revise our policies in that area,before as Bush promised,before we will have world war three.:wtf:

[ckramer]

105. oops

[Montypython]

127. Not worried about it

In the long run Israel is doomed. The demographics speak for themselves. The Muslims living inside Israel are far more prolific than the Jews.

[JeanGrey]

11. Sigh. They need to stop screwing with Israel or they

are going get slapped.

[Megahurtz]

13. LOL!!!

:spray:Who's screwing with Israel????

Israel is screwing themselves! :rofl:

[JeanGrey]

15. Yeah, sure. Uh huh.

:crazy:

[The Croquist]

53. Who's screwing with Israel???? / Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Great moments in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's life

"World Without Zionism" speech

Holocaust denial

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

"The Zionist regime is dying,"

"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."

"Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Shatila (Ariel Sharon) has joined his ancestors is final."

This guy makes Bush sound like Adlai Stevenson.

[fascisthunter]

68. so his insulting words equate to military action

my oh my

[The Croquist]

86. No but threats combined with a weapons build up may

Next time you're facing a cop and you're got a gun in your had say "I'm going to shoot you pig" and see what happens. Have someone lets us know.

[fascisthunter]

87. Congratulations... the word is "MAY"

and that is not enough to pre-emptively attack or invade any country.

[The Croquist]

108. Western Europe felt the same way about Germany

How did that work out for them?

[Megahurtz]

122. Here's what I think about

"Holocaust Denial" :nopity:

Who cares?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and words do not kill.

The present regime in Israel is an evil one BTW.

Maybe they should give the Palestinians their land back?

[14thColony]

16. So...

buying a defensive anti-aircraft missile system is a provocation against Israel? By that rationale if I have an alarm system in my house I'm provoking burglars to break in.

[JeanGrey]

17. Yes it would be. Apples and oranges.

If the crooks had a system that would break yours? See?

[14thColony]

18. To quote The Princess Bride

"Truely, your logic is dizzying."

The point I am apparently doing a poor job of making is that air defense systems are inherently defensive in nature. There are few scenarios in which they could possibly have an offensive application, and none of those apply in this situation. To be shot down by an air defense system, you have to be either in or very close to that nation's sovereign airspace, in which case having military aircraft there (in the airspace) without permission is an act of aggression anyway, and the UN Charter fully supports a state's right to self defense.

For this reason no treaty has ever even been considered that would limit proliferation of air defense systems (not to include ABM systems which are another beast altogether). The rationale there is basically that the only logical reason Country X would want to prevent Country Y from having a purely defensive system is if they have designs to attack Country Y and don't want them to be able to defend themselves, in which case Country Y should by all means have access to defensive weaponry.

[JeanGrey]

34. It's just not a good idea to tweek Israel's nose.

[PFunk]

42. That should be it's not a good idea to tweek the russia's nose.

What's to say the russians had alreadly figured this into their plans. They did this once and the russians do learn from their mistakes. Also the last thing the jewish state wants is to have russia as a enemy. Especially the more high tech, and prosperous russia of today.

[snappyturtle]

99. I agree. n/t

[Megahurtz]

19. "If the crooks had a system that would break yours?"

But what if you are the crook? :think:

Don't you think that the others have a right to possess that system?

[JeanGrey]

35. Depends on what the person who has the system is up to,

doesn't it?

[The Stranger]

60. You're trying to justify gratuitous bombings of other nations?

Fuck. I thought I was on Democratic Underground.

[The Stranger]

59. No, it wouldn't be. The crooks shouldn't be attacking people's houses in the first place.

See?

[The Croquist]

54. I've been told that our anti ballistic missile system is offensive

I've also been told that the Strategic Petroleum reserve is offensive. Why isn't this offensive?

[14thColony]

56. ABMs are unique

Because they upset the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is why the ABM Treaty limited them to defense of Moscow and Washington DC, as well as one other location of each country's choice. MAD relies on the certainty that a nuclear first strike will result in the assured destruction of the attacker in response - I know I'm going to be wiped out, but I have time to launch my entire nuclear force and ensure that you go down with me. Due to the obvious insanity of a first strike, it was never considered a serious and viable option by either the US or the USSR.

ABM proliferation upsets this 'Balance of Terror,' and therefore had to be limited if not eliminated. In MAD I am holding a deadman switch connected to a bomb vest that you wear, and you have a switch connected to my vest. If you kill me, in doing so you kill yourself. Parity. But now I learn you've figured out a way to quickly cut the wire to your vest just as you trigger my vest. I die, you live. All things being equal, the best and most coldly logical choice for me is to trigger your vest now, thus killing us both, rather than allow you to just kill me. A country trying to build an effective ABM shield would force the other side down this same decision-making path. That's why ABMs, while not offensive in nature, are still dangerous because they allow for an offensive nuclear strategy.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve...sorry, you got me on that one. Sounds like an economic weapon. Not my area.

[The Croquist]

72. Upsetting the strategy of MAD is a good thing.

I don't like the idea of anyone holding a dead man switch on me. I liken it to a bullet proof vest a cop wears. Hopefully they will never need it but it's nice to have one.

I still don't see the significant difference here.

1. Iran has threatened Israel with destruction and are probably trying to build weapons capable of doing exactly that.
2. Iran claims that they are installing a defensive system that may be (not likely) capable of protecting the manufacturing facilities from attack.

It sounds to me that the only difference is that Israel is trying to prevent a MAD scenario instead of minimizing one. I don't see that as bad. In the long run most people agree that they were right in blowing up Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

By the way, I would be surprised to see Israel launch an attack. I've looked at the logistics and it's a tough nut for them to crack. The range is problematic to say the least, the targets are numerous and spread out and the return trip hazardous in the extreme. The only way they can make it is with either covert or overt US help. The Israeli air force has limited refueling capability and it will have to be done over foreign territory. Iraq is the obvious answer but to do that the US will need to turn a blind eye. I would suspect that if they do launch an attack the US air force will refuel them (covertly) and protect their return by stationing fighters along the Iraq / Iranian border. I don't see other arab countries interfering.

On top of this I suspect that accurate intelligence is spotty at best. Many of the potential sites are probably dummy targets. If they do attack, look for it after the November 4th election.

[14thColony]

14. Kinda irrelevant anyway

unless the Iranian crews are extremely well trained. S-300 is a very dangerous and capable system, but only manned by a well-trained crew, becuase it's also very complicated to operate. The Russian Air Force has struggled for years to get 2-yr conscripts up to even a marginal level on the system before their enlistments are up. But in the hands of a top-notch crew one launch battalion could take out dozens of attacking aircraft from further out than the aircraft could use their own weapons. The missile it shoots is the size of a telephone pole. Even a proximity detonation would vaporize most aircraft.

[lovuian]

20. They really can't handle Russia right now

and its driving them nuts

[The Croquist]

109. Israel has never been able to handle Russia

I don't think they really want to be able to. All they want to be able to do is handle the countries that are dangerous for them.

[still_one]

21. most of the posts on this thread are quite pathetic

instead of wishing that both parties try to blow each other up, wouldn't it be better if ALL parties start to talk to each other instead of saber rattling?

[spag68]

24. I have to tag on to your post

Since when has this become an anti-semite screed blog? I have some differences with Israeli policy, however the language used here is too close to the stuff we would normally rail against. True progressives would try civil tone, discussion of issues, at least some support of a real democracy.

[tkmorris]

28. I don't know about anti-semitic

But Israel is just plain WRONG here. They have no right to attack, or threaten to attack, another nation for the "crime" of deploying a strictly defensive weapon system. There is no justification whatsoever for them to have made that statement.

[rockymountaindem]

84. Israel is *not* threatening to attack over this issue

They are threatening to utilize an ECM against the missiles which, if it works, will make it appear to be a bad investment to any other potential customers. They're basically saying "don't sell it to Iran or we'll prove that it's not ready for prime time".

The only people talking about anything like a bombing raid on this thread are those who want to visualize Israel as the instigator of WWIII.

[Trajan]

40. Well said ....

Liberals used to be antiwar ..... We should advise ALL sides to cool their rhetoric and think resolution instead of instigation ....

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Most liberals are anti-war...it is the fringe that are only anti-war unless Israel is the target.

Though the language in this thread doesn't stomp into anti-Semitism, like so many other ones do, it is still laden with lies, propaganda, and anti-Israeli bigotry. My concern is that liberals used to be against bigotry. Of course, that doesn't seem to be the case with Israel, not only is it allowed, it even seems to be acceptable.

[Popol Vuh]

126. Bigotry? Where? Lies and Propaganda? Where?

:shrug:

n/t

[Fumesucker]

48. What "real democracy"?

Israel and Iran are both about as democratic as the US..

Which means not all that much.

In all three countries the right wing is in actual charge, no matter what the voters might think.

[fascisthunter]

69. that's pure unadulterated BS.... DU is not an Anti-Semite Blog

and calling it so will not inoculate the Israeli government one iota. If you can't handle criticism of a particular government and then feel the impulse to falsely accuse Duers of being anti-semitic, I recommend you place folks on ignore or get out more often. You water down the meaning of anti-semite for purely political reasons and I think it's disgusting.

[JeanGrey]

36. Yes I could wish that until the cows come home but it isn't

going to happen.

[LeftishBrit]

46. Agreed!

There is too much sabre-rattling by governments on both sides; and if war breaks out - that's lots of human beings who will get killed.

[unkachuck]

25. we're (via Israel) bluffing....

....and if we're not bluffing, Russia might want to know how vulnerable their S-300 system actually is....maybe it's time for a test....

....ah, surrogates are a wonderful thing to have....

[bow-tie]

31. Israel is getting

just a "tad" arrogant wouldn't you think?

[hack89]

33. No - they are playing on Iranian fears

reminding them what they did to Syria last year

Fear and Loathing in Iran

September 28, 2007:

Information coming out of Iran indicates that the military there is very dismayed at how ineffective new Russian anti-aircraft systems were during the Israeli September 6th air strike on a Syrian weapons development facility near the Iraqi border. Syria and Iran have both bought billions of dollars worth of the latest Russian anti-aircraft missile systems. Apparently the Israelis were able to blind these systems electronically. Syria isn't saying anything, nor are the Israelis, but Iranian officers are complaining openly that they have been had by the Russians. The Iranians bought Russian equipment based on assurances that the gear would detect and shoot down Israeli warplanes.

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20070928.aspx

This should also concern the Russians - the Israel have shown they can counter high tech Russian systems. The Russian will not be able to sell these systems if the Israeli or US air force blow right past them. Remember - Russian hardware has a bad rep already.

[The Stranger]

61. What I see is 5-6 posts you have made claiming Russian weapons "have a bad rep."

You seem to be at least some part of the reason for this "bad rep."

I think that this bullshit little game of "whose dick is bigger" is inane and vacuous. This isn't a little playground. There are innocent people's lives at risk here, perhaps millions of them.

[The Croquist]

76. You are less then knowledgeable when it comes to military weapon systems

The reason that Russian military systems have a "bad rep" is because time after time they have come off second best in battle:

A few examples:

Six Day War 1967; 451 enemy aircraft destroyed versus 19 Israeli

War of Attrition 1969; 111 enemy aircraft destroyed versus 4 Israeli

Yom Kippur War 1973; 277 enemy aircraft destroyed versus 50+ Israeli

Lebanon War 1982; 80 enemy aircraft destroyed versus 0 Israeli (a shutout)

The US wars are a little skewed because since the Korean war, the enemy has rarely chosen to contest the sky's. That leaves the attack planes free to fly low and attack enemy ground troops or bomb enemy installations but also results in lost planes due to anti aircraft fire.

This has nothing to do with dicks but everything to do with Russian military equipment. I suggest you put your hand back on the keyboard and learn about the subject you are discussing.

[The Stranger]

77. Oh god. Are you being serious?

Put my hand back on the keyboard and learn about war toys and war porn? I don't have the fucking time to waste. But maybe you can be helpful with this:

Everything you cite is at least pre-1982. That was over a quarter-century ago. Anything more recent and actually documented?

[hack89]

82. First and second Gulf Wars nt

[The Croquist]

98. There has been very little west versus east since 1982

In the 1st Gulf war the Iraqi air force largely refused to fight. The score was USAF 39 - Iraq 0. A few other countries got into the act as well. I remember a Saudi Pilot shooting down 2 Iraqi fighters on one sortie.

About the most impressive thing the Iraqi air force did in that war was to flee to Iran.

The Iraqis did launch a few dozen Soviet designed Scud missiles but the Scud is largely a copy of the WWII German V-2 weapon. It proved almost useless as a tactical weapon and barely more so as a terror weapon.

[bemildred]

100. Well, that is true.

But on the other hand, we got all the best stuff in Iraq, and what was it that it bought us? And we had all the best stuff in Vietnam, and what did it get us? Technology is great, but it is not a substitute for people that give a shit.

But it is true that it would be interesting to see all this expensive high-tech military crap duke it out. Expensive, genocidal, politically unhappy, etc., but interesting. It's not like genocide is new. However I think one reason we don't see that is because there is a real fear that it might not measure up.

[The Croquist]

103. This argument is about Russian versus Western Technology.

I agree that the IEDs have been effective but It's got nothing to do with S-300 missiles

[hack89]

102. Iraq had one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world

orders of magnitude better than North Vietnam. The US took it down in a matter of hours. The lessons from first Gulf war are very applicable to any discussion about S-300s

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[JeanGrey]

37. Arrogant? LOL How about "protective".

[fascisthunter]

70. Protective, my ass.... the Israeli Neo-cons keep threatening to Preemptively Strike Iran

the only provocation Israel had was the idea of there being a potential that Iran may one day have the ability to create a nuke, that MIGHT be used to offset Israeli nukes.

Iran is within their RIGHTS to have a nuclear program for energy. All else is BS speculation and not enough reason to threaten an attack. In my view, the Israeli neo-nuts are hypocrites begging for a confrontation.

[hack89]

32. Some background on Israel and Russian SAMS

Iranian Missiles Decoded

July 16, 2008: Iran now has something else to worry about. Recent Israeli Air Force exercises near Greece, using over a hundred aircraft, apparently also involved Greek S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.

... the Greek systems provided the Israelis with practical experience in dealing with the S-300. Combine that with what Israeli espionage may already know about Iranian air defenses, and the Iranians have to consider the possibility that the Israelis now have the ability to blow right past the S-300 defenses.

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20080716.aspx

Fear and Loathing in Iran
September 28, 2007:
Information coming out of Iran indicates that the military there is very dismayed at how ineffective new Russian anti-aircraft systems were during the Israeli September 6th air strike on a Syrian weapons development facility near the Iraqi border. Syria and Iran have both bought billions of dollars worth of the latest Russian anti-aircraft missile systems. Apparently the Israelis were able to blind these systems electronically. Syria isn't saying anything, nor are the Israelis, but Iranian officers are complaining openly that they have been had by the Russians. The Iranians bought Russian equipment based on assurances that the gear would detect and shoot down Israeli warplanes.

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20070928.aspx

[FarCenter]

38. The Iranian's should insist on getting the S-400 instead

The S-300 is the old model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_Triumf

[14thColony]

45. Mmmmmm....S-400.....

The Triumf is like techno-porn for me...that is one serious bad-ass system.

[Azathoth]

111. The Russians are way ahead of you

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=21983§ionid=351020602">Iran's army to be equipped with S-400

[Dead_Parrot]

55. If the news from Ossetia is anything to go by...

...now may not be the best time to be beating chests at Russia. People getting their war on tend to less than receptive.

[Doctor_J]

64. If Bill Clinton or a real leader were president of the US, we'd step in and

put and end to all of this sabre-rattling. Unfortunately we have a stupid, drunken illiterate and his bloodthirsty "vice president" spending their time trying to paint Obama as Al Qaeda

[plasticsundance]

66. Israel is a joke ... yeah ... I'm sure Russia is really scared.

Russia is already talking tough with the US over the US/Czech missile defense system, and Russia is doing this with full regard of US military might.

Israel ended up withdrawing from little ole Lebanon in the 80's, and their last showing against Hezbollah was piss poor. Plu-eeze. Israel, get over yourself. You rely on the US for your goods and currently the US is like the days of ancient Rome with an overstretched military.

Israel, just stick to what you do best, and that is gunning down innocent Palestinian women and children.

[Pavulon]

74. I wonder how that reactor in syria

got blown up. I would bet that syria may have had some type of air defense.

They are not threatening russia, only threatening to release or publish counter measures. Making the system worthless.

[wuushew]

91. There is very little evidence of that Syrian site actually being a reactor

A careful reading of Hersch's article on the subject points to the whole operation being a confluence of bad intelligence and bravado, with additional goals of political intimidation or as a training dry run for an Iranian operation.

[Pavulon]

93. Please read Janes

hersh is a tool. Even if it was a day care and retirement home israel managed to fly in and out with no loss.

Syria owns that weapon system. Hmm.

[Megahurtz]

123. Well said. n/t

[fascisthunter]

71. Boy it will be nice to see more Moderates Running the Israeli Government

their government is now being run by extremist nut cases....

[LeftishBrit]

75. Agree! It would also be nice to have moderates running the American and Russian and Georgian

governments.

I don't think Israel and its remarks are the biggest problem around Russia just today.

(But yes, I hope Israel gets Livni - the most moderate of the likely possibilities - and not Mofaz or Netanyahu.

[YankmeCrankme]

79. I really don't know what to make of most of the posts here, but nobody seems...

to acknowledge why Israel would be demanding Russia not sell Iran the proposed anti-aircraft system by proclaiming they have neutralized Russian SAM equipment. You would think they'd want Iran to waste billions of dollars on equipment that wouldn't work if they decide to launch an airstrike against Iran. If what they say is true, not only would they have an advantage when it came time to fly into Iran, but Iran would be blowing tons of money on useless equipment.

Their best option would have been to keep quiet, not demand Russian not sell to Iran. So, why would they do that?

[bemildred]

80. Well duh!

I consider it all desperate babble myself. There is a lot of that going around these days.

[Dead_Parrot]

81. Good question.

The only two reasons I can come up with are:

-They are worried by the system, can't defeat it, so they are hoping to bullshit their way out, or
-It's a pre-war propaganda piece to settle the population and get some nationalism going.

The second option is the worrying one.

[fascisthunter]

88. more sabre rattling..? But "Why" is a good question...

whatever the reason, it's ludicrous to demand another country not buy the means to defend itself, especially if the country making the demands is openly threatening to attack that country.

[hack89]

89. The threat is aimed at Russia not Iran

and the Russians should be concerned. Military exports are key to funding the modernization of their military. After Israel neutralized a modern Russian air defense system to attack Syria last year, the Russians literally cannot afford to have doubts cast on the S-300.

I am not saying the Israelis can neutralize the S-300 but based on their past history against ME enemies using Russian equipment it is not a threat to be idly dismissed.

[dysfunctional press]

90. yeah...right.

they're bluffing russia to get them to back down. so that their air strikes aren't failures.

you don't "threaten" to neutralize a defensive system- you just do it (or you don't).

israel is ALL talk on this one.

[hack89]

92. I disagree

I think they are trying to convince Russia that there are good reasons not sell S-300s to Iran. Military exports are key to funding the modernization of their military. After Israel neutralized a modern Russian air defense system to attack Syria last year, the Russians literally cannot afford to have doubts cast on the S-300. The fact that Israel has been practicing against Greek S-300s should also have Russia concerned.

I am not saying the Israelis can neutralize the S-300 but based on their past history against ME enemies using Russian equipment it is not a threat to be idly dismissed.

[dysfunctional press]

97. did israel threaten to neutralize syria's system before doing so...?

:shrug:

i'm not familiar enough to know one way or the other- but i'm going to guess that they didn't- which would give me even MORE reason to doubt that they actually could do it this time around.

and if the russians back down from the sale in the face of the israeli threats- wouldn't that in itself cast doubts on the s-300 system...? if they don't follow through on the sale to iran, they may not be able to sell anymore anyway.

[hack89]

101. The difference is that Iran's system is not in place

I see it as brilliant marketing - if the Russians back down the Israelis win. If they don't and the S-300 don't work then they also win. This is a reasonable bet on the part of the Israelis - the S-300 is an older system that they have had plenty of opportunities to investigate. Don't forget that only last month they were practicing against Greek S-300 systems. And there is one other issue that always gets overlooked and that is how long it will take for the Iranians to become proficient in using the system. When the US Army introduces a new system it takes almost two years before the first units are considered combat ready. The idea that Iran will instantaneously gain a credible air defense capability the second the S-300 are in place is ridiculous.

I think the Israelis are very confident in their ability to counter Iranian S-300s - it would be a very different situation if highly trained Russians were operating them but that will not the case.

[Tektonik]

94. Maybe we will attack Iran before the end of Bush's presidency after all

:eyes:

[ckramer]

110. Israel is like a rotten molar in the mouth of Middle East

It's such an instability factor in world peace.

[hack89]

112. You are right - the ME would be a shining beacon of enlightenment

if not for Israel. Once Israel is gone I can see Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc leading the region into a golden age of freedom, emancipation, tolerance and freedom.

[ckramer]

113. You'd never know what's gonna happen without Israel in that region

if there were no more wars...anything is possible...

[hack89]

114. You are right - there were never wars and slaughter in the ME before 1948. nt

[ckramer]

119. But Arabs killing Arabs is okay

[hack89]

120. Why - are they held to a lower standard? nt

[LeftishBrit]

121. Are you serious???

Since when has anyone killing anyone been okay?

[hack89]

115. So Saudi Arabia oppresses women and Iran kills gays because of Israel? nt

[LeftishBrit]

116. And you think all wars in the ME are about Israel?

What about all those years of war between Iraq and Iran? Or the current civil war in Iraq? What about what WE'RE (America and Britain) doing and have done there in our quest for oil and power?

And in any case, it's 60 years too late to NOT have Israel in the region, unless you are proposing its defeat and destruction in, oh yes, something known as a *war*. Not a very progressive idea, whether applied to Israel, Iran or any other country.

[Megahurtz]

124. No kidding. n/t