Iran tests fastest underwater missile

[JTWill]

Originally posted by: IdioticBuffoon

Originally posted by: MadRat
Iran is a much larger population than Iraq. If anyone here thinks we can utterly waltz into Tehran and win the war is in for a rude awakening. So what if we can pulverize any organized force they deploy? Its the large numbers of irregular forces that will overwhelm our lines of supply and give us the proverbial bloody nose. Its not about winning the war in Iran's case, its about making a stand.

Another fact that the trigger-happy residents of AT ignore is that the Irani people are very nationalistic and fiercely patriotic. They always have been. I don't think they will give up an inch of their land to foreign forces without a fight.

Iraq's nonexistent defences pretty much melted away because well they were ... nonexistent! There was some resistance the U.S. forces encountered in the south but that was about it. The legendary Iraqi Republican Guard just evaporated the night before the fall of Baghdad, nowhere to be seen. All the big generals and commanders were bribed off moments before the attack on Baghdad and Saddam Hussein was left to rot in a hole for obvious reasons. Along with Baghdad, entire regions of the country were just left for the taking. What kind of a war is that? Any resistance forces that were left were a mix of soldiers who decided not to be sellouts and people loyal to Saddam Hussein and the regime.

Suffice to say, I think Iran will to be a different "experience" if the U.S. decides to flap its military wings again.

What weapons does Iran have that are anything superior to what Iraq had? Iraqs Army was larger than Iran and with newer equipment. Here we go again hearing how bad a war will go from the same idiots that told us gulf 1 would be an utter disaster. Who said the exact same thing about going into Iraq.

What is it with you guys that think a proven Army will have a problem with a technology backwards unproven Army. The Irani people have no more control over the people running their government then the Iraqis had over Saddam. Iran would lose its Air Force in one day. Its armor has no chance against M1A2 tanks. Thats a fact already proven yet you spew stupidity. They are outclassed by a massive degree in every catagory.

Our plan is already on the books, we will use naval blockade after sinking their navy in a single day. Thats to start a strangle hold on their economy, then the bombing of military targets begins until they are rendered down to junk.

There is no plan for ground invasion unless as a last resort. We are going to cut them off and let them die.

Thats AFTER Diplomacy fails.

The biggest mistake is ignoring the majority of the young population in Iran that does not want a war. That have a better view of the US than their government. Lets see what the people there do as this government continues to challenge the world.

 

[IdioticBuffoon]

Originally posted by: JTWill
Thats AFTER Diplomacy fails.

Yeah. I like how you incorporate that in your response. :disgust: as if I'm supposed to believe that. I'm surprised you didn't use the "glass" analogy and how the entire middle east is going to turn to glass if they lay a finger on the almighty United States of America.

I stand by my remarks. Iraq never was a difficult country to conquer. Never. I'm not saying that the Iranian technology is comparable to the U.S.'s, far from it.

But what I'm trying to get at is that with an attitude possessed by many here, diplomacy is BOUND to fail. War is the only thing on their minds and the solution to all their imaginary problems.

And no, this government is not challenging anyone. The U.S. and the Europeans are purposely pushing it into a corner and provoking Iran to take radical measures. Who are you do determine the course they want to take? They want to develop nuclear technology, they have the right to do that. For god's sake, which is the ONLY country in the world which has actually USED a nuclear weapon?

The U.S. has no moral superiority in my eyes to dictate anything around the world today. It's a nation that manages to stand tall with the support of its technological crutches. As the Bible says: Physician, heal thyself!

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: IdioticBuffoon

Originally posted by: JTWill
Thats AFTER Diplomacy fails.

Yeah. I like how you incorporate that in your response. :disgust: as if I'm supposed to believe that. I'm surprised you didn't use the "glass" analogy and how the entire middle east is going to turn to glass if they lay a finger on the almighty United States of America.

I stand by my remarks. Iraq never was a difficult country to conquer. Never. I'm not saying that the Iranian technology is comparable to the U.S.'s, far from it.

But what I'm trying to get at is that with an attitude possessed by many here, diplomacy is BOUND to fail. War is the only thing on their minds and the solution to all their imaginary problems.

And no, this government is not challenging anyone. The U.S. and the Europeans are purposely pushing it into a corner and provoking Iran to take radical measures. Who are you do determine the course they want to take? They want to develop nuclear technology, they have the right to do that. For god's sake, which is the ONLY country in the world which has actually USED a nuclear weapon?

The U.S. has no moral superiority in my eyes to dictate anything around the world today. It's a nation that manages to stand tall with the support of its technological crutches. As the Bible says: Physician, heal thyself!

Awesome, maybe we can lift the ban on AQ Khan and ship him to Iran with a first class ticket. After all, what harm can Iran do anyway? They're only run by those peaceful religious men who want equality for all. Does AQ Khan even have a ban?

He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear program. We should probably invite him to the White House, have a special dinner with our top leaders and award him with some type of medal noting his dedication to peace and justice.

Back to Iran - that harmless little country, if you will. What reason do the Europeans have for pushing Iran to that corner? Do they have anything to gain economically or will they lose economically if they do push Iran into that corner? They are Iran's major trading partner. So why does Europe want to harm business? Is it because they're afraid of Iran getting nukes or because they just love to hurt themselves?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The rhetoric that the Iranina government spouts makes many nervous.

Then add to the track record in support of terrorism.

Should we (the world) take their government at their word and actions or just ignore them.

They actively assist in enemies of Israel; Israel should have the right to be worried.

 

[sumyungai]

I don't think any country can stand a chance against the US, let alone Iran. They're simply pounding their chest in hopes it will deter us from attacking, good luck to that. Not that I'm gung ho in attacking Iran, but if they don't stop their nuke program, so be it.

I am simply amazed at the military technology the US possesses and I hope someone in here who has served recently can verify this story. I spoke with a soldier who recently served in the middle east and he says we have this weapon that is placed in a desert plain (like a computer with a camera raised up on a pole), it picks up the location of enemy artillery that shoots up and then fires an artillery round right where the enemy artillery came from. Amazing, simply amazing. This is something I never heard about on the news and would not have known about unless someone who served told me but I'm curious if he's just blowing smoke out of his arse or if this is in fact true.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
I don't think any country can stand a chance against the US, let alone Iran. They're simply pounding their chest in hopes it will deter us from attacking, good luck to that. Not that I'm gung ho in attacking Iran, but if they don't stop their nuke program, so be it.

I am simply amazed at the military technology the US possesses and I hope someone in here who has served recently can verify this story. I spoke with a soldier who recently served in the middle east and he says we have this weapon that is placed in a desert plain (like a computer with a camera raised up on a pole), it picks up the location of enemy artillery that shoots up and then fires an artillery round right where the enemy artillery came from. Amazing, simply amazing. This is something I never heard about on the news and would not have known about unless someone who served told me but I'm curious if he's just blowing smoke out of his arse or if this is in fact true.

we have several counter-battery solutions similar to what you described...ya gotta love it! <grin>

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sumyungai
I don't think any country can stand a chance against the US, let alone Iran. They're simply pounding their chest in hopes it will deter us from attacking, good luck to that. Not that I'm gung ho in attacking Iran, but if they don't stop their nuke program, so be it.

I am simply amazed at the military technology the US possesses and I hope someone in here who has served recently can verify this story. I spoke with a soldier who recently served in the middle east and he says we have this weapon that is placed in a desert plain (like a computer with a camera raised up on a pole), it picks up the location of enemy artillery that shoots up and then fires an artillery round right where the enemy artillery came from. Amazing, simply amazing. This is something I never heard about on the news and would not have known about unless someone who served told me but I'm curious if he's just blowing smoke out of his arse or if this is in fact true.

we have several counter-battery solutions similar to what you described...ya gotta love it! <grin>

Wow, I bet there are a lot of other advanced weaponry that I've never heard of or can even imagine. Is it classified or is it something you can freely talk about?

 

[BrownTown]

lol, locating artillery based on shell might path aint exactly some advanced technology. For all the high tech stuff the UJS has it still doesn't much change hte reality of urban combat, the fact is that all our technology is pretty worthless against the type of threats we face in Iraq. Sure we can dominate the cr@p out of conventional armies, but noboy in their right mind would even attempt to fight the US in that manor. They will just fight a war of attrition. Look at Iraq, at some point the US will pull out and declare victory just like we did in Vietnam, then when the puppet government fails we will turn a blind eye and not do anything to stop it.

This technology is only so much dick measuring by Iran, it would not detur the US at all. Although lets be honest, the US has nothing that can stop thic technology. Defenses are worthless in modern warfare, offensive capabilities are too powerfull. The wayt we would stop it would be to simply destroy every military base in Iran, but once its launched it is not stopable wth current tech. However, all this just sidesteps the point that in truely modern warfare things like tanks and planes are of little importance, nuclear weapons are all that matters if both countries possess them. All it takes is a ship or submarine from Iran sneaking into New York harbor with a nuke too outdo all the offensive firepower of the entire rest of their arsenal. And they knwo this, thats exactly why they want nukes. People hawking advances in conventional technology now are no differnet then the fools who went into WWI on horseback, or though charging machine guns would work just casue it worked 100 years ago. Warfare has forever changed since the development of the atomic bomb, and far too few people seem to understand this fact.

 

[canadageek]

Firstly. The Shkval, or "underwater missile" is what it implies. a missile that can fly UNDER water. it ejects gas fro the nose cone, which envelopes the torpedo in a cavity of gas. the torpedo is powered by a solid-fuel rocket engine.

it CANNOT turn, because even if you managed to add rudders that didn't destabilize the entire thing and add massive amounts of drag, you'd have to make the bubble compensate for turning as well. the Americans have attempted to build a homing version, with little success so far. thus, the Shkval relies on it's speed rather than complicated steering gear.


personally, i give big kudos to the russians on this one, its an incredible brilliant plan. if this thing is ever mass-produced, they'll be laughing, because while the torpedoes will cost them a fraction of what current torpedoes cost.

Secondly, in any invasion, it doesn't matter from how far away you can vape the enemy, you'll still eventually have to put troops on the ground and take it. at that point, you can have all the hi-tech sh!t you want, you're still gonna wind up getting shot at. just lookin Iraq. Your ground pounders are armed to the teeth, carrying all kinds of neat stuff, and they're still being killed. why? because the enemy knows they can't match the tech, so they go super low tech. roadside bombs. mortar attacks. suicide attacks.

Third, and last, you can talk all you want about nukes, but the truth is, they'll probably never be used. Why? Because there'll be a huge outcry, even if Iran attacks first. there'll always be those who can't grasp the implications of a nuke attack and say "nuke the rag-headed turds" well, lets hope that cooler heads prevail.

personally, i think Iran has every right to produce nuclear weapons, but its their responsibilty to make sure they stay in good hands. rememebr innocent until proven guilty"? well, that applies to iran too.

 

[BrownTown]

innocent until proven guilty? since when has that applied to international conflicts? Both countires are doing what they think they need to do in order to protect their intrests. Both countires see the other as a radical and unstable force of evil in the world. The US doesn't think Iran should have nuclear weapons because they are scared that they might use them. Iran wants nuclear weapons because they are scared they might be invaded without them. The problem is simply that the two countires have such different philosophies that they are bound to distrust each other. Iran sees the US as a heretical pleasure seeking land where money is all that matter, and they certianly don't have too look far to see places the US has started wars in the area (Iraq, Afghanistan...). Surely they have the right to be scared because the US leaders have said that they want to see Irans governemnt overthrown, and spend millions each year supporting groups trying to overthrow the governenment. On the other hand, the US sees Iran as a backwards place where human rights are not enforced and religion dominates life. Certainly the US also does not have to look far to see when radical Muslims like those in Iran have harmed the US (Sept 11, along with 100 other terrorist attacks). So it makes perfect sense for them to not trust Iran and to not want them to have nukes.

Not that all this matters though, nothing is likely to come of it anythime soon. Bush already got the war he wanted, he choose Iraq, and he can't change that now. I'm sure hed like to see Iran go too, but he has already spend his political capital in Iraq. The current saber rattling between Irand and the US is nothing but talk. Bush and many others may hate Iran, but it doesn't serve their intrests to actually do anything mroe then profess their hatred. Personally I don't want Iran to get anywhere near nuclear weapons because I am an American and I know that many there hate me simply for that. But on the flip side, I would sure as heck want my country to have nukes if I were an Iranian because I know that the best way to keep the US out of your affairs.

Also, when I talked of the use of nuclear weapons in warfare I was not refering to this specific incident, mainly to the fact that all of the US technology in terms of tanks and planes and ships is worthless against a nuclear strike. The point isthat if we were to become involved with a country like China or Russia these assets would be destroyed before the people manning them even knew the war had started. It is only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again in war. Every new weapon is used, nukes are no differnet. The were used within weeks of development in WWII, and the only reason they haven't been used since is because no nuclear armed countires have been engaged in open war. If it happens that two nuclear power come to war then it is almost assured to go nuclear if either side tries to press an advantage. However, all countries that currently posses nukes are at least somewhat stable and the leaders ahve vested intrests in not using nukes. However, terrorists groups have no such intrests, and if they get their hands on nuclear weapons they will use them. Unfortunately as nuclear technology spreads it becomes available to less stable governments, and eventually one of these will topple and the nukes will get out. MY bet would by North Korea at this point, but who know.

 

[Mardeth]

Iranian Military Strength:

Navy:
3,000 marines
6 submarines
3 frigates
Plus 25 missile craft

Airforce:
Over 200 vintage 60's aircraft, including:
F14 Tomcat
MiG-29 Fulcrum
F-4 Phantom II

Army:
350,000 regular
250,000 conscripts
S-300 air defense missile system: Most potent threat against US aircraft and missiles.

Ballistic missile capability:
X-55 cruise missile: range 1,533 miles
Shahab 3: range 900 miles
Shahab 4 (under develpment): range 18,000 miles

Source: Telegraph UK

 

[Colonel C]

Iran is a threat to the entire middle east and to a lesser extent Europe. In fact, Islam is a threat to the entire world. I'm constantly reading negative news stories about Islam over at jihadwatch. The guy who runs JihadWatch (Robert Spencer) isn't a nazi or anything, he just takes a realistic perspective on Islam. However, you don't even have to read jihadwatch to see how much of a threat Islam is and how much trouble it causes in today's world. BBC news, CNN, Sky news etc... They're all reporting the same stuff.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: JTWill
What weapons does Iran have that are anything superior to what Iraq had? Iraqs Army was larger than Iran and with newer equipment. Here we go again hearing how bad a war will go from the same idiots that told us gulf 1 would be an utter disaster. Who said the exact same thing about going into Iraq.

What is it with you guys that think a proven Army will have a problem with a technology backwards unproven Army. The Irani people have no more control over the people running their government then the Iraqis had over Saddam. Iran would lose its Air Force in one day. Its armor has no chance against M1A2 tanks. Thats a fact already proven yet you spew stupidity. They are outclassed by a massive degree in every catagory.

Our plan is already on the books, we will use naval blockade after sinking their navy in a single day. Thats to start a strangle hold on their economy, then the bombing of military targets begins until they are rendered down to junk.

There is no plan for ground invasion unless as a last resort. We are going to cut them off and let them die.

Thats AFTER Diplomacy fails.

The biggest mistake is ignoring the majority of the young population in Iran that does not want a war. That have a better view of the US than their government. Lets see what the people there do as this government continues to challenge the world.

I had no clue *obviously* we weren't even planning on a ground force going in if it could be helped, thank you for the info. I just don't understand why people still doubt our military capabilities?

While I am not for war, unless unavoidable, and I do not agree with how and why we ended up in Iraq, the military has my full respect and support, regardless.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

It sure worked against our enemies in WW2! It will work against Iran, Iraq, and Mexico!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

It sure worked against our enemies in WW2! It will work against Iran, Iraq, and Mexico!

Hmm... we can't attack Iran because the right-wing has f'd up so badly in Iraq.

And now you're wanting to invade Mexico? Thanks for proving my point.

And your WW2 reference is retarded. Democrats were in office in those days. :roll:

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

It sure worked against our enemies in WW2! It will work against Iran, Iraq, and Mexico!

Hmm... we can't attack Iran because the right-wing has f'd up so badly in Iraq.

And now you're wanting to invade Mexico? Thanks for proving my point.

And your WW2 reference is retarded. Democrats were in office in those days. :roll:

So you think:

Republicans - right wing
Democrats - left wing

So what would explain the high spending of the Bush administration? Maybe because they're actually Democrats hiding in Republican clothes?

Clinton was more of a right winger than Bush.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

It sure worked against our enemies in WW2! It will work against Iran, Iraq, and Mexico!

Hmm... we can't attack Iran because the right-wing has f'd up so badly in Iraq.

And now you're wanting to invade Mexico? Thanks for proving my point.

And your WW2 reference is retarded. Democrats were in office in those days. :roll:

So you think:

Republicans - right wing
Democrats - left wing

So what would explain the high spending of the Bush administration? Maybe because they're actually Democrats hiding in Republican clothes?

Clinton was more of a right winger than Bush.

OMG, that's classic. Now you're dumping Bush to the curb and disavowing him. Simply pathetic.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

It sure worked against our enemies in WW2! It will work against Iran, Iraq, and Mexico!

Hmm... we can't attack Iran because the right-wing has f'd up so badly in Iraq.

And now you're wanting to invade Mexico? Thanks for proving my point.

And your WW2 reference is retarded. Democrats were in office in those days. :roll:

So you think:

Republicans - right wing
Democrats - left wing

So what would explain the high spending of the Bush administration? Maybe because they're actually Democrats hiding in Republican clothes?

Clinton was more of a right winger than Bush.

OMG, that's classic. Now you're dumping Bush to the curb and disavowing him. Simply pathetic.

LMAO, thats like saying I ever liked Bush. Who was saying here a few months ago that Gore won the election? Yup.

Yet another poster assuming imaginary things. Time to head out for the day.

 

[Colonel C]

I don't see why the US (and possibly some European countries) can't attack Iran. If all diplomatic efforts at resolving the current crisis fail, you could simply just bomb the nuclear sites and research facilities with cruise missiles and B2s. There wouldn't be a need for any ground force, except for possibly special forces to paint targets or destroy places that are out of reach.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Colonel C
I don't see why the US (and possibly some European countries) can't attack Iran. If all diplomatic efforts at resolving the current crisis fail, you could simply just bomb the nuclear sites and research facilities with cruise missiles and B2s. There wouldn't be a need for any ground force, except for possibly special forces to paint targets or destroy places that are out of reach.

Of course it *could* be done. The problem is, what happens when it's done? Iran has promised a backlash worse than we've seen in Iraq. Is that yet another Pandora's Box we really want to open?

 

[GoPackGo]

I say we let Iran attack first this time....

...I really don't think they will, unless their leader guy thinks he is destined for some sort of greatness...

...then we can bomb the S*** out of them.

 

[Colonel C]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I say we let Iran attack first this time....

...I really don't think they will, unless their leader guy thinks he is destined for some sort of greatness...

...then we can bomb the S*** out of them.

Please tell me that you're being sarcastic? The Iranians couldn't possibly hit the US with any 'first strike', they just don't have the capability. The only thing that they could actually do is hit US targets in Iraq, which they're already doing in a way. It's rumoured that the Iranian military are selling Iraqi insurgents bombs and weapons. Which is very believable.

Of course it *could* be done. The problem is, what happens when it's done? Iran has promised a backlash worse than we've seen in Iraq. Is that yet another Pandora's Box we really want to open?

I myself would like to see this resolved diplomatically. But how are you supposed to negotiate with a brickwall? That's basically what the UN are doing now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Colonel C

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I say we let Iran attack first this time....

...I really don't think they will, unless their leader guy thinks he is destined for some sort of greatness...

...then we can bomb the S*** out of them.

Please tell me that you're being sarcastic? The Iranians couldn't possibly hit the US with any 'first strike', they just don't have the capability. The only thing that they could actually do is hit US targets in Iraq, which they're already doing in a way. It's rumoured that the Iranian military are selling Iraqi insurgents bombs and weapons. Which is very believable.

Of course it *could* be done. The problem is, what happens when it's done? Iran has promised a backlash worse than we've seen in Iraq. Is that yet another Pandora's Box we really want to open?

I myself would like to see this resolved diplomatically. But how are you supposed to negotiate with a brickwall? That's basically what the UN are doing now.

So what is Bush waiting for???

Iran is begging to be invaded.

They are openly flaunting their WMD.

4-5-2006 Iran Test-Fires 'Top Secret' 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.

Iranian television called it a "turning point" in its missile tests but gave no other details.

At the same time, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, said the United States must recognize Iran as a "big, regional power."

Speaking on state television, Safavi said Iran could use the Straits of Hormuz to apply pressure on foreign powers. About two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass through the 34-mile-wide entrance to the Gulf.

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

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: MadRat
They were withdrawan by the Russians because they sunk the Kursk. Why would it benefit Iran to have an unstable weapon like it?

I think you're confusing it with something else. The Russian "Shkval" torpedoes are designed for and equipped with tactical nuclear charges to make sure their intended targets (large aircraft carriers and submarines) are completely destroyed. They've never been intended for use with other explosives (except for training and tests, of course). Or are you claiming that the Kurks was sunk by a nuclear warhead?

Shkval used corrosive peroxide-based fuels which leaked flammable gases into the submarine. The missile-torpedo is a disaster waiting to happen for any submariner unfortunate to have to live with it.

The Russians modified the Shkval to accept a conventional warhead so they could export it. IIRC, the Kursk was sunk while preforming tests with the modified torpedo.

They (Russia) also have moved on to a newer version that uses solid propellant (tested at least, maybe not in production) which avoids the instability of the liquid fueled version.