Iran Says Will Retaliate if Nuclear Plants Hit

[seemslikeadream]

Mon Nov 8, 2004 09:02 AM ET

By Amir Paivar
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Monday to strike back at Israel or any other country that attacked its nuclear facilities.

U.S. and Israeli officials accuse Iran of seeking to develop atomic bombs under cover of a civilian nuclear program. Iran denies the charges saying it only intends to produce electricity from nuclear power plants.

"If Israel or any other country attacks any site in Iran, we know no limits to threaten their interests," Deputy Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said.

"That means anywhere in the world, within their borders or outside it," he told reporters on Monday on the sidelines of an anti-U.S. conference in Tehran.

Israeli warplanes successfully destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. Iran has stationed anti-aircraft batteries around its nuclear plants and built many of its facilities underground.

more
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6745166

[Florida_Geek]

1. IRAN has THREE submarines.....

All it takes is one to destroy an aircraft carrier....

[PBX9501]

5. No Iranian submarine

could get NEAR our aircraft carriers. Please don't bring up the Cole that was tied to the dock as an example or the Iraqi stark incident where the aircraft was assumed friendly. We are equipped to fight a soviet threat, they use old soviet trash. There is an umbrella of ASW ships and helicopters than can detect a quiet nuclear powered sub hundreds of miles out. Old diesel/electrics don't stand a chance.

We probably have LA class boats behind them now if they are at sea.
Their is a hundred mile overlay in the range of their missiles (silkworm/exocet) and our ability to shoot them down. This does not include the role of aircraft interceptors. Aircraft carrier groups contain destroyers, cruisers specifically designed to destroy subs as well as provide a picket of long range surface to air coverage.

Iran has no capability respond with an open war. They would loose. They do have responses but a theater war is not one of them.

[Randi_Listener]

10. You forgot about the Sunburn missiles of Iran.

They can take out frigate class and carriers.

[JohnyCanuck]

15. Article on Sunburn cruise missiles from InformationClearingHouse

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[okieinpain]

60. I'm a old tom clancey nut, I thought it was a well know fact that

aircraft carriers were sitting ducks. expecially in small bodies of water.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

"in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles."

"The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

[lonewolf0507]

61. Iran could beat the U.S. Navy and this is how

The U.S. Navy currently sends it's warships through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a very tight choke hole. If the Iranian could sink a Carrier in the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. Navy would be sitting ducks over time in the Gulf. They would have to resupply in port instead of at sea. This would make them vulnerable to Iranian Aircraft. Now you must keep in mind that as the U.S. Navy transit through the Straits, the Iranian have Silkworm missiles on both side of the Gulf. There would be a short flight time for these missiles should they need to be used. If the carrier is sinked, it will form a bottle neck in the Straits. So if all worked out as planned, the Iranian navy could do significant damage to the U.S. Navy.

[okieinpain]

66. but do they have to win, to get a victory. where will the planes land

and take off from if the carriers are damaged. what happens to the president of pakistan, and the leaders of saudi arabia, if islam is attacked by the christians, and jews. this shit could get very ugly in a hot second.

did I read around here somewhere that osama wants to bankrupt america. we where louisiana a month ago and drove by a paper mill, there was a nice big fat storage tank filled with something. sitting right next to the street.

[PBX9501]

121. Any strip 10000ft long. the plan above ignores any base in reality (nt)

[PBX9501]

120. UAE is on the other side

The first shot would lead to an open war. Not a ground war, not an insurgent war, a we systematically remove soviet era air cover and destroy anything at will war. Like GW1.

The straight is still to big for your plan..
It is over 100 nm wide. Room for more than one carrier I think.


Do you realize the scale of the military aircraft buildup in that area. They fly soviet era trash. Do you really think Iran is a match for US naval and Airforce systems.

Honestly? They fooled around with Iraq for years, we steamrolled Iraq in days.

The rest of the US navy and airforce would pour ordinance into Iran by the kiloton a day. Tomahawk missiles, B52 with 100k lbs of bombs, b2, f117 systems they can't see dropping bombs at will.

Fighters with pilots who are the best trained in the world. Their airforce would die on the ground, like the Egypts in the 7 day war.

The Iranian navy would be on the bottom in a very short period. You forget the massive naval buildup we have in place. We can kill their navy with subs, aircraft, or ship to ship missiles that were not on the one ship they hit. There is no reason to invade, just use air power. Take a defensive position and let them break on it. Hasn't changed much since Longstreet was commanding men.

I'm pretty sure they have no interest in having their pants pulled down.

[TheKingfish]

123. So what?

So you can destroy the Iranian Air force and Navy. Who cares? Then what Tommy Franks?

[PBX9501]

162. Don't get to

excited sparky. Someone posted up thread that Iran had missiles on both sides. Iran is not on both sides of the straight of Hormuz.

I can't do shit, I'm to old. The above was a response to a silly theory.

No one is doing jack shit. This is the 10th time this story had been released.

[PBX9501]

24. Umbrella

The missile would have to be fired from within its range. Either by aircraft or ship. The range of the fleet to detect and kill aircraft and subs is longer than this missile. Ignoring aircraft interceptors all together.

A hit is not a sink, it is not battle ship. The stark was struck by an exocet and remained a float.

[Randi_Listener]

31. What about land based ASMs?

Also this missile has advanced beyond Exocet capability.

[JohnyCanuck]

36. Exactly what the ICH article above was referring to.

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm


Maybe the Sunburns and the newer and longer range Yakhonts (Mach 2.9 range 180 miles as per the article) which the author implies are also deployed by Iran are not really a threat and can be defeated by the USN's countermeasure. However I sure am glad I am not the one that will have to put that theory to the test on behalf of Sharon and the neo-con sock puppet POTUS.

[PBX9501]

40. Same theory

The ship has to be within range. If a cruise type missile is fired it can be intercepted by other missiles. They are subsonic. I'm sure AWACS is looking into Iran for fast moving things. Tomahawk can be shot down by standard air defense systems for example.

If it is rocket based, supersonic, its range is usually less and would have can still be intercepted by phalanx systems. Aircraft Carriers do not travel by themselves.

Iran would probably not do this because it would be the opening shots of an open war. Something it cant win.

[Randi_Listener]

64. The missiles are supersonic.

They also have fucking evasive maneuvers when they get within Phalynx range. They have an effective range of several dozen nautucal miles plus they fly at about mach 2.5 which outruns many of our AA missiles especially when fired from nose on. Also, they are sea skimming and fly under the fucking radar of AWACS and our active radar AEGIS systems.

[PBX9501]

67. AWACS

will pick up a truck on the ground. Below the radar is no longer militarily effective. In the first GW the low flying Tornado jets took higher casualties while flying on the deck. The effective range for the standard missile is over 100 nm. An f-14 can fire at an aircraft 100nm away with phoenix missile.

A supersonic missile that weighs 5 tons can only make so much of an evasive move. The phalanx system is paired on most ships and its ability to intercept this system is probably not public. If a ship, sub, or jet has gotten within a few dozen nautical miles of a carrier there is a much more serious problem.

AEGIS is not a radar system.

Jane's defense is a good source for defense information.

edit correct weight of ss22

[Randi_Listener]

87. AEGIS is radar/weapon system

Plus the Sunburn performs 10g evasive air maneuvers to avoid the fucking countermeasures.

Also, AWACS would be susceptable to SAM and AAM fire from the existing Iranian F-14 + phoenix inventory. The AIM54 has an active radar to take care of any AWACS over Iranian airspace.

[PBX9501]

94. AEGIS

uses radar data from anspy phased array radar and pipes it into a computer. It is a command and control system. A drone aircraft can perform 10g turns and still be killed by a LIGHT missile. A 5 ton missiles' counter measures would be slow. I would need to read it in Jane's or somewhere legit to take it as fact. Not saying you are wrong but usually weapon systems terminal performance is classified. The biggest issue for them would to be getting it within its range.

Iran was sold f-14s when the shah was in power. They were not sold the aim 54. The aircraft are disused for lack of parts and we know how to disable our own missiles telemetry and tracking systems.

AWACS does not need to be in a countries airspace to operate. Therefore the point is moot. It can see well beyond 200nm (e-3).

[The Stranger]

83. To launch another war would be criminal, no doubt, but trying to argue

that the U.S. would not utterly wipe out Iran does not seem plausible. If the U.S. Navy would have trouble negotiating some strait somewhere, then they won't do that. They have a myriad of other ways to level Iran. The question is not whether this Administration can, but whether more bloodlust can be prevented.

[Randi_Listener]

85. Pyrrhic Victory

Iran has a proven chemical and biological weapons capability plus the means to delivery them from the Medditeranean to the Himilayas. Many of our forces are within range of their delivery methods. If Tehran was in range of being defeated, our forces would be subjected to an onslaught of various chemical and biological attacks.

[bahrbearian]

112. Remind me who diabled the Stark?

[PBX9501]

127. Our "friends" at the time

the Iraqi jet was allowed to come within range to fire by accident. 80mn within the kill distance of the standard missle. The ships desense system was offline.

[TheKingfish]

129. Believe me

Our defense against a full scale Iranian attack on Iraq is "offline". It doesn't exist - how could it. There isn't even a plan to occupy Iraq intelligently. Isn't this obvious??? Weapon systems with fancy acronyms don't change anything.

[PBX9501]

161. The system

is not designed to mess around in Iraq. It is designed to fight large scale wars with nations like the USSR. I'm sure the Navy is aware of the Iranian threat. I'm sure the stark taught them something. They are operating in a war zone.

The Iraq occupation is a mess.

[bahrbearian]

141. Ya I just researched that ,,,I was thinking of another ship in 1967

that our freinds attacked. What was its name?

[othermeans]

168. Liberty by the Israelis

[Coventina]

12. They don't have to "win".....look at Iraq!

[PBX9501]

26. In theory

any war of this type would not be like Iraq. It would be open. Large scale bombing would follow the systematic destruction of air defense and air force defenses. Why use ground forces anywhere other than on the border of Iraq.

Of course the Iranians are not interested in a theater war. I don't think we are either.

[Kolesar]

16. How would the US intercept Silkworm/Exocet type anti-ship missiles?

Phalanx gun?
this is a sarcasm-free post

[TahitiNut]

37. "They would loose." ???

<sniff> <sniff> :eyes:

"Their is a hundred mile overlay ..."??

It's the dreaded Homonym Virus! :dunce:

[PBX9501]

43. Not complex

Iran has no navy to speak of, a soviet era airforce, etc. They do not want a war any more than we do. This is all saber rattling BS. Now cooperate with the euros or you may have problems..

But if there was one they are not equipped to win an open war. Note OPEN war.

100 mile over lay refers to the range of the excocet and its Chinese knock off vs the air defense systems on destroyers and cruisers. IE an airplane or 20 can be intercepted 100 miles before it is in range to fire its weapon.

This is not a complex issue.

[TahitiNut]

48. It's not 'complex,' huh? Gee, I'm so simple-minded I just don't get it.

I'm really great full that someone wood take the time to give me the benefit of there military in site!

[PBX9501]

50. Not the war the missile overlay

Ranges of weapon systems are overlaid and there is a benefit to the defender.

A war would be very complex. Sorry, should have been more clear.

[TahitiNut]

57. (Whooosh!!) Here ...

:silly:

[PBX9501]

63. Broken Link?(nt)

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. Beg to differ, it's not they who want the war. It's us.

Why did we sell Israel 500 bunker busters? To use in Gaza?

Israel knocks out Iran's nuke facilities. Iran retaliates by nuking Tel Aviv. What? They can't do that? Do you know where all the thousands of soviet battlefield nukes are? Do the Russians even know. Iran has oil money, and could easily have bought dozens, or hundreds of the unguarded Soviet nukes.

They wouldn't start a war? They know we're coming. Nothing is going to stop us, so they may as well hurt us as much as they can before they go down. That's what everyone was saying Saddam would do -- only the difference is, Iran has the capability.

Your overconfidence astounds me.

[livinbella]

104. They certainly have the money and the desire to acquire nukes

You think they would have some by now

[PBX9501]

105. No delivery system to US

no ability to coordinate an attack. We get 30 minutes notice on a launch. And no you can't ship a nuke into the us without someone noticing. The soviets did and Russians does guard their stockpiles. No none would miss hundreds of nuclear weapons?

You think they would go nuclear over a conventional strike?

And our response probably gives them pause. The soviet union had 11,000 nukes and never fired one. It wasn't because they thought we would take it and do nothing.

You forgot, Israel responds by nuking Iran. If they fire a nuke at the consequences will not be survivable by them. They can not kill all of us. We can literally kill all of them.

Will this happen, no.

[donkeyotay]

108. lookie Tahiti, all us grammar-challenged group of folks are OUT

Even the leader of the free world kin homo his phones all he wasnto, and no body even looks askance. Mangel you're sentaxes freely I say. What's even scarier is that sometimes the DU sounds like a seen out of Dr. Strangelove, with peeple's bandying army techno spount around like firehoses on a cat house... feature riding that bomb down.

:) :eyes: :crazy:

[aneerkoinos]

39. subs

Iran has Kilo-class, which is not trash but among the most silent diesel type in the world and which performs well in shallow waters, where it is nearly impossible to find. Biggest threat they can cause is actually not torpedoes but laying mines - of which Iran has plenty of most modern varieties. Biggest question mark is their crews, how well trained they are.

Iran's modern missiles can do plenty damage, no system is fool-proof.

Iran can't take out the US fleet, but they can cause plenty damage and nuisance to US supply lines in the Gulf.

[Florida_Geek]

44. Right and they KNOW the tracks the US Navy takes

[PBX9501]

46. I would bet we know the pos of every

sub and major naval asset they have. Blind mans Bluff is a great book on cold war submarine capability. I doubt the navy has digressed.

We game with countries that run diesel/elec and are quite capable of tracking them. These kill subs very well.

[PBX9501]

45. A sub

in shallow water is easy prey for MAD and other means of detection. the P3 is quite capable of detecting and killing this sub type.

My younger brother was on a destroyer in the late 80's. When they mined the gulf. We blew up hundreds of them. They would cruise out in their gunboats and the Navy would blow them up with radar aimed 5" gunfire. Amazing a computer can track and land fire on a 30' boat moving at 25kts, and land a 5" shell on it.

There was a national geographic article that showed underground tributaries of the Nile. This was done with radar based imagery from space. It showed how layered images can be created and combined to see really neat things. I worked on the project that designed that satellites electrical systems.

Any attack by Iran on the fleet would start a war they can not win. It would leave them in ruins. It would not require an army to invade, only aircraft and missiles to destroy.

I thing neither side wants a war.

[Parche]

65. remember

The USS Stark was hit by 2 Iraqi missiles in the late 80's

[PBX9501]

97. Because it

thought the aircraft was a friend (it was) and its phalanx system was offline.

It didn't sink, it was decommissioned in 1999.

[Democracy Died 2004]

136. Umm

pretty sure that some of those "trash" subs run on battery power underwater and are really quiet. Nukes make noise.

P3 , s-3, and h-3, h-60 experience here so it really doesnt hold water.

[PBX9501]

166. All subs make noise.

I'm sure you tracked a diesel/electric at some point, right? They should all be detectable with active sonar and MAD.

If the diesel electric was the best option no one would use nukes.

The German electric boats are supposed to be very quiet. I would assume an older soviet era boat is not as quite as something 20 years younger.

Not my area of expertise.

[Democracy Died 2004]

169. Yeah all make noise and

90% of sub sightings are visual. Go figure. The active phase is for the equipment.

[Kolesar]

6. Don't worry, the US Navy has anti-submarine submarines to protect them

They will be safe :scared:

[PBX9501]

21. LA class and Seawolf class

LA Class, dozens of them. All with sonar systems that FAR outstrip the best the Soviet union ever made.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm

and seawolf 3 really quiet ships with the best sonar systems in the world.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-21.htm

we trained against this threat for years:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_19/siforex.htm

Air based
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/asw.htm

Got MAD? The us navy has a giant mechanism that employs thousands of people with one purpose, to kill submarines.

The torpedo systems are really interesting. The logic they use to track and home is some of the most advanced "fuzzy logic" in the world. Far more complex than air to air missiles.

[jpak]

34. Iran also has 8 North Korean minisubs

that can carry 2 torpedoes.

[Born Free]

106. bunch of windbags

these foreign leaders are nothing more than windbags, the only way there will be any fight is if a country occupies them and then it will be a grass roots insurgency from the working people not from the governments.

[T Bone]

2. And they are discusing Security Agreements with CHINA

Saw it on the Asia News on Dish Network yesterday. India is discussing security agreements with a number of other Asian countries. Iran and China are discussing Oil purchases denominated in Euros. Thailand and Malaysia are discussing security agreements with each other. All of South Asia seems to be 'discussing security agreements', but you will never hear it on US networks or cable.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Anyone who takes Euros for payment can be considered a terrorist by

this administration. Really. Sounds like these people are getting hip to our real intentions in the M.E. Goody for them.

[mitchtv]

93. Didn't Iran sign a mutual defense with India?

I remember something about a year ago

[Mizmoon]

3. Okay, question here

Why does an oil-rich nation in an oil-rich region need a nuclear power plant?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Why does a nation that has NO EXTERIOR THREATS require a military

large enough to destroy the world several times over?

Answer to your question... only nations that do not have nuclear capabilities are respected by grotesquely large military powers. They don't get invaded as often... and I am sure they consider that a good thing....

[Mizmoon]

8. hey, I'm just saying that their cover story

is a weeeeeee bit thin, dontcha think?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Yes... and ours have been fat and happy?? n/t

[PBX9501]

14. You mean France

who has ballistic missile subs and a significant nuclear arsenal.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. Now that's just crazy talk... shrub could in no way, I mean no way

inflame the rest of the world in his militaristic economic pursuits to get them to consider taking us on. There is just no way a little man from Texas could do such a thing. Aina gonna happen, nope, uhuh... can't. I won't believe it, even if I see it.

[PBX9501]

27. Not likely.

He is a moron but a world war is bad for business..

[HysteryDiagnosis]

41. Small wars all over directed by us = good for business. n/t

[Kolesar]

9. Maybe Iran wants to reduce fossil fuel-caused greenhouse gas emissions

Just being a good international citizen! Yeah, that's it. They are not trying to deter invasion by starting a nuclear arms race.

[NNN0LHI]

29. I think they are more interested in protecting their fossil fuel

They just seen up close what happens to an oil rich country that is unable to defend itself with nuclear weapons. The USA will come and get that oil if they have no nuclear deterrent. Iran knows this. The USA knows this. I know this. I even think perhaps you may know it too?

Don

[Kolesar]

33. You're right

I was joking. If Saddam had had nukes, the US would have not attacked him.

[PBX9501]

13. To separate

U-235 from u-238(the fissile stuff) you really need weapons grade uranium to generate power you know, surround a bowling ball size sphere of it with a 80/20 blend of htx and tnt shaped to focus their energy inward, combined with high speed switching equipment to ensure uniform creation of a compression wave. Thus squashing the mass and causing it to reach critical mass. This mechanism is then coupled with a barometric, impact, and remote firing mechanism to create a single stage fissile weapon with a nominal yield of 50 - 100 kt.

Of course if they want to get fancy they can work on their H designator for not to much more trouble.

But I'm sure they are just spending billions on an alternative energy source because oil fired plants are not as environmentally friendly as nuclear reactors.

Technical info is public knowledge.

[oneighty]

25. Technical info is public knowledge

You might try checking other more accurate sources of information.

180

[PBX9501]

28. I post this for a reason.

I worked for a defense division of a company as an electrical engineer on high speed switches and other electronics, their design and testing. I post this for my benefit, not as an insult to posters.

My knowledge of the b and w systems is hands on.

[oneighty]

32. Yes

And I worked with the weapons.

180

[PBX9501]

35. I retired several years ago.

I worked on design and fabrication of components as well as with different branches on stewardship programs.
But when posting anything having anything to do with them or even very public design stuff I always tag with that statement. I don't do it to be rude.

Discussing information published by Rhodes improperly can (could have)cause(d) attention. I took my last poly 6 years ago and don't want to take another in this lifetime.

Were you military or design and fabrication? You are welcome to PM me.

[oneighty]

38. Yes one must be careful

180

[sweetheart]

55. Some questions then

Your nculear weapons experience...

Is it true that the radioactive decay of the weapon components
wipes out the trigger circuits, as shielding would make the bombs
to heavy to deliver. A mate of mine, said that the trigger circuits
get wasted rather quickly, and that the weapons need to be constantly
reworked or they turn in to un-triggered duds.... it sorta gave me
some peace to think that if the country goes bankrupt, the nuclear
weapons stocks will become duds short on.

I thought the simplest way to make a nuclear bomb, rather than the
fancy implosion simultaneious timing thing, was to simply fire a
plutonium bullet down a gun barrel straight in to the middle of a
big blob of U238/plutonium... as gun barrel technology is simpler
to control and to produce on a smaller scale.

[PBX9501]

59. UGD and stewardship

The simplest device is a UGD. Implosion bombs are more "efficient" and a stepping stone to multistage weapons.

As for upkeep fas has lots of info in the stewardship programs. The weapons like anything else electro mechanical needs upkeep.

From an EE perspective shielding is very common in small robotic machines that handle nuclear material in plants and in fabrication.

This is all public info.(again not to be rude, for my benefit)

[sweetheart]

70. Acronym soup

UGD?
fas?

Stewardship means reworking weapons periodically?

I've no issues with you knowing something... no need to give a
rudness disclaimer.

Welcome to DU. :toast: Good to hear your voice.

[PBX9501]

77. Sorry

UGD is a Uranium Gun Device. A very basic nuclear weapon.

FAS.org is a website that has lots of information about world arsenals.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/

It is a good source for nuclear related documents like our NPR, Nuclear Posture Review.

Stewardship is care taking and reworking where necessary. The military works with companies to test and maintain systems that make weapons work. Some are very old.

I just put the comment there so anyone else reading knows it is public. Only do that with this subject. Probably un necessary but if it saves me a pain in the ass it is worth it.

Thanks for the welcome!

[snippy]

20. They want to make all of their oil a marketable resource.

It is too valuable to burn for electrical power. It is better for them economically to use cheap nuclear power domestically and export their oil and gas. They also may be able to sell electricity. They also almost certainly want nukes, but nuclear power does make long term sense for Iran.

[Mika]

30. Why should they consume the one product they can sell?

Oil is more valuable to sell than consume. Any reduction of their own oil consumption means they have more valuable commodity to sell.

[CottonBear]

78. Because oil is used to make things other than gas.

Oil is used to make plastics and mnay other products. They will have a more diverse economy and thus more wealth/stability.

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. Ever hear of peak oil? This is not a renewable resource.

Maybe they're a little smarter about it than we are. They use nuclear power so they can sell more of their oil. When their oil runs out, they're set with their nuclear plants and we are shit out of luck.

[Just Me]

17. Will the PNACers create the conditions for the next world war? n/t

[snippy]

22. They certainly hope so. n/t

[arwalden]

18. FYI: Bush Wants Another War. Bush Wants Armegeddon.

Bush wants to provoke Iran into attacking Israel. Bush is about to cream in his pants over all this.

[oblivious]

23. The sunburn, yakhonts and onyx missiles -- are they for real?

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes ?violent end maneuvers? to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution ?? not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder ?just in time.?

The Sunburn?s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf?s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

Though Sunburn can fly 150 kilometers at Mach 2.1 <1,520 mph> at an average altitude of 60 feet, Onyx leaves this performance for dead. Using the same launch tubes as Sunburn, Onyx streaks along its extended 200+ kilometer flight path at a blistering Mach 2.9 <2,100 mph>, while hugging the ground even closer at an average altitude of only 45 feet. Onyx is 100% ?Fire and Forget?, meaning that once out of the launch tube, flight management is entirely automatic, and you can forget the doomed 93,000-ton aircraft carrier sitting meekly down range, only minutes away from being converted into environmentally-friendly heat and light.
Though SS-N-25 deployment might seem like giant overkill, this is far from being the case, because Onyx differs from Sunburn in one utterly crucial way. So great is the kinetic energy at the point of impact on the target, that Onyx can sink an American aircraft carrier using only a conventional penetrating warhead. Those boffins who might doubt this should calculate the impact energy of 5,500 pounds of missile striking a carrier at a terminal velocity of 2,460 feet per second. Onyx means that Russia or China can sink American aircraft carriers at will without ever having to escalate to nuclear warfare, which gives both countries a massive strategic advantage.

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn2.html

[bemildred]

42. Vialls makes shit up. nt

[PBX9501]

47. Janes' is THE source for accurate information.(nt)

[qazplm]

49. I'm not an expert...

but seems to me we are likely to take out these threats before one surface naval vessel even hits the gulf.

Between our Sats, AWACS, and anti-sub subs, I would be surprised if any of these missiles are left to fire at us.

[PBX9501]

51. in an offensive role that would work

If there was a sneak attack by Iran the systems would be there. They would be detected by the systems you listed.

Iran is not a naval threat. Their missile systems are primarily exocet based.

I'm pretty certain neither side wants a full open war.

[oc2002]

52. Your all overlooking the bigest factor here .....CHINA

If they US did go into Iraq, at first just to take out the nuclear facility, Iran may already have plans to strike at Isreal and US forces in the region.

China would probably back the Iranians if the US did in fact invade, not sure how, but I am certain they would cause us more trouble.

China has very good relations with Iran, and would see it as a regional security issue.

Iran is no Iraq who was isolated by very bad desicions by Sadam.

[PBX9501]

54. Russia

is also a major backer of Iran. Any move would by us or Israel would be aimed at reactor facilities. Like the raid on Iraq in the late 80's.

Their response would determine the scale of any conflict.

[hunter]

53. What a delightful thread...

I think we are already in a MADD situation with Iran, whether or not they have actual nuclear weapons.

The United States economy is no longer self contained. If the outside world cuts us off, we starve, and supporting our vast, very expensive military becomes a tremendous economic liability.

It is my hope that the United States doesn't go out with a bang like Imperial Japan did in the Second World War. I don't think our population is homogeneous enough to follow such a path, our society would break down internally if placed under such stress.

Instead the military empire we have built will collapse with a whimper. I fully expect to see mighty aircraft carriers like the Ronald Reagan, and the fleets supporting them, mothballed or scrapped within a decade, maybe fifteen years at most.

Our failure to respond appropriately to the end of the petroleum age has pretty much sealed our fate.

Oh yeah, have a nice day... ;)

[PBX9501]

56. Nice theory

You forgot to mention that the economies of Europe and Asia rely on our consumption of goods. If we collapse they go too. We are primary petroleum consumers,primary consumers of Asian labor, and a HUGE exporter of grain and food stuff. A weak dollar makes US goods cheaper. It encourages foreign investment. A weak euro would reduce the cost of European goods.

Who is responding differently? Europe, last time I was there they ran cars and trucks. More nuclear power though.

Last time I was in china they seemed to be going the same thing, more or less.

Our empire consisting of Iraq and Guam?

I'd say back to the drawing board with this one.

[sweetheart]

58. It presumes a bit much economically

Your presume the world's economy is centered around the US by what
you said, and this is a common propaganda fallacy sold by the
imperialists. The world is already heavily multipolar, and when
the US bankruptcy brings humility, the military empire will become
unsustainable, and be challenged on the fringes in little ways.
The US consumption of goods is no longer the world's economic motor,
but rather a nice additive for the far east exporting economies.
US drops in consumption would simply curtail these unnatural
exploititative relationships set up in the post WW2 consensus.

A cool/war with iran could see no petroleum leave the persian gulf
for a decade, as no tanker could get through the straights of hormuz
without having an accident.

The empire consists of 750 permanent military bases spread around
the planet... i'm suprised you don't know this... guam, okinawa,
diego garcia, quatar, bahrain, etc..etc... etc..

[PBX9501]

62. A base does not an empire make..

We do not have any part of the political systems in Japan, Qatar, or Diego Garcia. Have you been there? I have, the British would disagree with you. It is a island in the middle of no where.

The "world economy" has no center, capital goes where it is treated well. Like current follows the path of least resistance. There is no way isolating America would be good for the world economy.

Did yo know most of of our petroleum comes from Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico? SA has no means of economic support other than dino juice. Their entire economy is oil based. You think our dropping off would have no effect on the world, are you serious?

And this sounds like the soviet propaganda I grew up with. Any attack by Iran on shipping would not be a cool war.

[hunter]

68. The Soviet Union collapsed. It was corrupt.

The Bush economy is an Enron economy, it is corrupt. If we don't fix our economy, the "capital" currents you speak of will find more reliable circuits, and our economy will collapse. Perhaps our economy is collapsing as I write this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CAD&amt=1&t=3m

It's fun to talk about military capabilities and all -- the United States truly builds some impressive military systems -- but as a nation the United States tends to be ignorant of the deeper strategies; we are cowboy poker players at an unfamiliar chess table, thinking we will shoot our way out of any trouble.

I believe the other players at the chess table have accounted for that possibility. The United States, perhaps for the first time in modern history, is in a very uncomfortable position. We should be prepared to eat some humble pie.

[PBX9501]

69. I agree

We do tend to be less analytical than we should be.

However I do not think we are suffering an economic collapse.

[Algomas]

71. Rather than accept defeat...

this administration may go down swinging. We have lots of nukes to fire. If Bu$hco can't win the chess game they just might kick the table over and call it a day.

[PBX9501]

74. NCA

My understanding of the administrative side of this is limited but there are mechanisms to prevent unreasonable use of nuclear weapons.

[pat1962]

72. War with Iran

One of the things that fails to get mentioned is that Iran is an East Asian Country and not part of the Middle East. Thier ties to the middle east are strictly based on religion and a hatred of Israel. They do have a good relationship with China and although I do not think China would get directly involved in any military action between the US and Iran I do believe that they would support the Iranians with as much hardware a possible. Nothing tests technology better then an actual war. As for the Sunbeem Missles it would take more than one to sink a carrier. Torpedos would do a better job. Diesel subs are a real threat because they are as silent as the LA class. The problem is once they fire then we have them and it would only be a matter of time. As for the Iranians seeking to build nuclear weapons you merely have to look at thier neighbors. India, Pakistan, Russia, and China all of them are nuclear powers in the region. My guess is that the Iranians would hit Israel before they hit us simply because it is widely known that the Israeli's have nuclear weapons themselves. This is a MAD situation except that instead of 2 nations you have 5 or 6.

[PBX9501]

75. I agree

Israel is the target. A cold war between Israel and Iran/Pakistan is a more likely scenario. But chanting death to America while passing the bill refusing cooperation with EU and UN initiatives doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

Diesel subs are only as quiet as they are designed. A modern German built diesel sub would be more quiet than a 20year old kilo.

The navy does use active methods to detect subs.

[sweetheart]

76. But 750 bases makes a global military grab

I suggested that the world will correct for the decline of the
american empire, just as it survived quite fine, before the american
empire. It will be a painful transition, that is indisputable.
Just i detected a slight bit of "the irreplaceable nation" propaganda
and was addressing that. Rather we're very close to being the
single-party state the evil soviet union was purported to be the
whole cold war i grew up with as well.

If we can shoot down iranian civilian airliners by mistake, then
surely they can sink some oil tankers by mistake as well. Reciprocity.

Space and flotilla based military weapons platforms have indeed
enabled a global empire from those 750 bases, as well, the "state
of forces aggreements" that enable the bases to start with violate
and override civil democracy in blatant imperial style. The military elite
has become its own government, and is no longer answerable to anyone
but themselves and the candidate they choose.

What i just said is backed up by a mountain of evidence in the book
"sorrows of empire" by chalmers johnson. The military global empire
is very real, and we rule through proxy states and overthow any
government that dissents, or target them for regime change.

I think the other poker players at the table realize something, that
the trick with the USA is that it has no power unless it can use
war and military means, and deploying those resources is bankrupting
the nation as osama so simply pointed out, in his analogy to
bankrupting the USSR with the actions in afganistan. The trick is
to get the empire to bankrupt itself defending hubris, and then to
buy what it can no longer afford having wasted its resources on
weapons it can't use without going aggressive to steal.

A gun is a waste of money if you are not under threat. A military
is similarly a huge waste if there is no threat, and it seems that
all the people who realize this are the ones under threat these
days... sadly.

[PBX9501]

80. I respect your opinion

but disagree. I do not think the US or any of the G7 are willing to make any big moves against each other.

China is a growing power and while not a direct threat it is not to be ignored. The economic collapse of any major western nation would gravely impact the others.

Maintaining a military is not unreasonable. Osama did not bankrupt the USSR, we did. Osama is a pissant and is not a threat to global security.

[aneerkoinos]

82. responding

"You forgot to mention that the economies of Europe and Asia rely on our consumption of goods. If we collapse they go too."

That is a neoliberal fantasy, faith-based economy. No healthy economy relies on exporting good stuff against worthless paper, and there will be a correction of the structural impalances and adjustment. Trade will not stop, there is plenty of supply and demand outside US. For debt driven US this adjustment means huge drop in consumption and standard of life, which US can't afford anymore, and for consumer based service economy this means huge unemployment and numerous other ills. Adjustment will be painfull everywhere, it allways is, but nowhere as severe as in US.

"We are primary petroleum consumers,primary consumers of Asian labor, and a HUGE exporter of grain and food stuff."

There was today article showing that US is now importing as much food stuff as it's exporting, big change in last four years.

"A weak dollar makes US goods cheaper. It encourages foreign investment."

Wrong. Look at stats. Dollar has dropped huge amount against euro in four years, yet the negative trade imbalance between for US has not changed, if anything, it has grown. Foreign investment, especially direct investment to US have been dropping significantly. Last year China and France sucked up each more direct investments than US, even though their economies are (still) much smaller. Same for private capital flows into US financial assets, lately turned negative to US. Only thing keeping US afloat is capital flows from Japanese and Chinese central banks, when they stop supporting dollar, it's over the cliff. Weakening dollar and low interest rates does NOT encourage foreign investment, it's the opposite, it scares investments away. US will be forced to raise interest rates to avoid bankrupty, bursting the housing bubble - or let the Fed buy US debt directly, which will scare everybody shittless with unimaginable and very bad consequenses.

"Who is responding differently? Europe, last time I was there they ran cars and trucks. More nuclear power though."

Gas prices taxed so heavily that they are double triple to US has meant responding very differently. I don't have a car or even license, I travel by metro, tram and inter-city trains, moved by electricity, not gasoline. Sometimes but not often by bus. And bicycle, of course.

[bemildred]

84. Oh, let him enjoy the fantasy a bit longer.

What are we without our dreams but soft, empty shells?
Sigh.

The fact is we are badly misgoverned by an ignorant and self-centered
ruling class, and we have been paying the price for that for a long
time. It is no accident that such a once rich nation as we are has
such poor demographics, and it's about to get much worse.

[PBX9501]

89. On a European scale

Our Democratic party is center right. Their ruling class has been around since the middle ages and there are dirt poor people in Europe too.

Our parties are much closer together in principle than European parties.

[bemildred]

90. And the Europeans are much better governed, on the whole.

As their economic performance and demographic statistics show.
The issue is not the political dog-and-pony show that is trotted
out for the citizens, the issue is the intelligence, competence,
integrity, and knowledge brought to bear on governance. The US
governing class is narrow, decadent, corrupt, and foolish. It's
easy enough to see, if you care to look. I don't mean to imply
that the European ruling elites are saintly, far from it, but they
are better educated and the political systems that they work within
still function with some integrity. Thus stupid policies are
avoided, and when that fails, corrected with reasonable timeliness.
You will not find them blathering about abortion and gay unions
while their schools and infrastructure collapse, or going deep into
debt to pay for a vast military force that has no suitable enemy
to fight.

[PBX9501]

91. The European system is very sensible.

I do believe they will increase their defense spending if we reduce forces in western Europe. NATO has been their crutch.

This is not bad but will influence spending there.

Our system could use an overhaul. IMHO all people who have anything to do with voting should be non affiliated government employees.

[bemildred]

92. I think there is an overhaul coming.

Hopefully a peaceful one, but time will tell.

I think conventional war is mostly dead, as in not a useful
instrument of policy, except for defense of course, and a
credible deterrent of one sort or another is not expensive.
Witness our little boondoggle in Iraq. Vast sums expended and
no good to come of it. VietNam was much the same story. Maybe
we spooked the subject nations into obedience a while longer then,
thats hard to say, but this time nobody is impressed.

A pleasure to talk with you, Sir.

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. Agree on voting.

The elections bureaucracy should be no more political than the DMV.

[PBX9501]

111. Really is a stupid setup we have, time for it to change(NT)

[bemildred]

113. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that it's the way it is?

If you were a politician in a nominally democratic country,
would you leave the voting system to chance? Especially if it
was a mess like ours is?

[PBX9501]

128. Ours in NC is Democratic Party controlled.

It made attempts to stop outside advertising by Repubs and not Dems. Distasteful. The entire system of election control should be de politicized. IMHO

[bemildred]

134. My point exactly.

But I think the two parties collude against fixing it.
They are both rotten at the core.
Nice we agree on something.

[aneerkoinos]

137. No, again

"I do believe they will increase their defense spending if we reduce forces in western Europe. NATO has been their crutch."

The way democracy functions here, increasing military spending is extremely unlikely. Your problem seems to be that you can't imagine others behaving differently from your own country. Plus too much exposure to US patriotic, militaristic propaganda that EU would not have more than enough defensive capability against any conceivable enemy. We have enough, check your Jane's.

We simply don't need nor wan't similar ability to project power as US believes it does. We had our days of ruling the Earth, it didn't turn out well, don't wanna do it again.

[PBX9501]

144. Shared resources

Will have to be filled. The EU is a producer of fine weapon system as well as a purchaser of US systems. Some NATO resources like AWACS and Anti sub capability would have to be purchased if US resources were removed. To maintain basic military functionality. Our systems were designed to integrate. I do not see a reason for a massive split between EU and US on the long term.

I think Europe's greatest threat is from within. I am no scholar though. Hopefully things remain stable.

The US has no ambitions there, you don't have oil(kidding).

[TheKingfish]

146. Europe's greatest threat is from within ?

Care to elaborate?

[PBX9501]

156. European countries have long histories

of conflicts. They have much longer histories than we do of course. Hopefully this is in the past.

[PBX9501]

88. Have you ever driven through Kansas?

We arent going to starve. We aren't Zimbabwe. The multi billion dollar contracts my former company had in China, Germany, all over kind of speak for themselves. One company, Billions of dollars flowing in.

Secondly there is not a major exporter or manufacturer of durable goods in Europe that does not do business with the US. Your major manufacturers export to sub Saharan Africa right?
Try the data
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usftu/current.pdf

Notice the fairly flat export line since 97 and the import spike. Do you think that flat line means we rely on europe or anyone else to feed and manufacture our goods. Looks like a sick economy? 15% increase in a year, were going right to the shitter. If all those imports stop who is going to suffer?

When I visited Germany, France, and england during the 90's I saw plenty of cars and trucks. Plenty of people drove them to work. Diesel is used by 50% of the vehicles in Europe, more efficient, but still dead dinos.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/ximpim.eecman.txt

Dont start throwing "neoliberal/conservative" around when you have no concept of basic market forces.

Rates are artificially low and will correct. Markets are cyclical. They have been for ages. My mortgage rate is 4.5, when I bought my first house it was 9%.

I've got a theory for you. What will be the effect of the withdrawal of US forces from western Europe. Do you think they will feel the need to increase defense spending?

Could Airbus survive with out subsidy?

How come farmers always riot when their subsidies are threatned or cheap commodies threaten their goverment protected market.

You think Japan will stop supporting the dollar?

How long has the Euro been around how long has the dollar been around, how many World Wars has europe sucked us into in that time span?

[mitchtv]

95. we will not starve, Kansas

Many Argentinians will not starve, however many do. I fear there is very little to protect us from the Argentine model we sometimes. appear to mimic.

[PBX9501]

126. Didn't they choose to

peg their currency on a one to one basis with the dollar. Bad idea. Was any outside speculation at work. Soros like folks have played havoc with currency of third world countries before.

I'll worry more when we start pegging our currency to another nations standard and don't keep up.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1093/is_6_44/ai_80747789

[aneerkoinos]

96. No car, not even driving licence

Obviously you didn't read my post carefully. And no, never been in Kansas.

"We arent going to starve. We aren't Zimbabwe. The multi billion dollar contracts my former company had in China, Germany, all over kind of speak for themselves. One company, Billions of dollars flowing in."

US agribusiness is very energy intensive, alas. Peak Oil & NG is bad news for that, so the possibility of starvation is actually a real one, if the economic inequality keeps growing and social cohesion breaks up fatally.


"Secondly there is not a major exporter or manufacturer of durable goods in Europe that does not do business with the US. Your major manufacturers export to sub Saharan Africa right?"

There too, they export everywhere, not only US, which was the point. For example, EU trades more with South America than US.

And like I said:

"European Union: Year to date, exports totaled
$110.3 billion, up 11.5 percent from a year ago,
while imports were $178.7 billion, up 12.5 percent.
The trade deficit was $102.7 billion (annual rate),
compared with $89.8 billion this time last year."

US trade deficit with EU has been growing despite weakening dollar.

"Notice the fairly flat export line since 97 and the import spike. Do you think that flat line means we rely on europe or anyone else to feed and manufacture our goods. Looks like a sick economy? 15% increase in a year, were going right to the shitter. If all those imports stop who is going to suffer?"

The real problem, which you fail to recognize, is that US is consuming more than it can afford, and US export industry is still less competitive than EU, China, Japan etc, despite weakening dollar. Thus constantly growing deficits and ballooning debt problem. Federal debt is not even the most alarming, ballooning private debt including consumer debt is even worse problem. All these fundamentals spell severe, abrupt, correction in the near future, most likely correction that will be named Depression with big d. Of course that affects the whole global economy, but having positive balance books to begin with helps to alleviate the situation.

"I've got a theory for you. What will be the effect of the withdrawal of US forces from western Europe. Do you think they will feel the need to increase defense spending?"

Not significantly at least. EU is not militarily threatened by anybody and fully capable of defending itself without US. The effect will be increasing mental and political independence from US and hopefully disbandment of NATO, departing as friends but not allies any more.

"Could Airbus survive with out subsidy?"

Don't know. Boeing certainly could not without subsidies from the defence budget. With Peak Oil perhaps nobody in the aviation business can't survive.

"How come farmers always riot when their subsidies are threatned or cheap commodies threaten their goverment protected market."

Because they are farmers, doh. Why do you ask?

"You think Japan will stop supporting the dollar?"

Eventually, yes, but when? Could be happening now, could happen after later. Much depends on how and when China floats. Something seems to be happening with China quite soon...


"How long has the Euro been around how long has the dollar been around, how many World Wars has europe sucked us into in that time span?"

And the long waited rhetorical question bringing up the usual rah-rah patriotic talking points. And you were doing so well, so far... ;)

[PBX9501]

99. Just saying

The European war my father fought in killed 20 million. So I usually take the evil empire building American spiel with a grain of salt. Projection of past follies. It is not a patriotic thing but a reality. Europe was the purveyor of megadeath in the last century.

The EU will have to increase its defense budget without NATO. Especially if the Franco notion of competing with the US as a superpower is realistic. Paying for superpower stuff and big social programs will have an effect. Your friends but not allies lends credence to this theory.

Deficits are not a bad thing. My point is the line is flat.
Debt is normal. Since we don't have a socialist system. If you go to college and your parents aren't rich and you don't have a scholarship you get debt, 20 -50 k worth. Mortgages, car loan, etc. Short term debt is bad. Credit card debt is the stupidest kind to hold. Debt to go to college so you can be paid more is good. Mortgages on a house that will increase in value is good. My 4.5% fixed loan is going no where no matter what the feds do.

Like I said earlier there are massive oil exporters near by. If you look at the oil trends you will see a relatively increasing supply curve and a flat demand curve. Short oil, it is falling now and will continue to do so. It is artificially high. Down at the pumps here. Increased cost does not equal collapse anyway.

Economic speculation is fun but it is just that, we can just as easily discuss the spread on your favorite football team.

[aneerkoinos]

131. back at you

"Europe was the purveyor of megadeath in the last century."

Of which we are fully aware and trying to learn something about our history, therefore attempting something new with project EU.

What we see here is that Bush's US has now gone back to the ways of last century in a bad way and is trying to do what European powers were in habit of doing, having learned nothing from our mistakes.

"The EU will have to increase its defense budget without NATO. Especially if the Franco notion of competing with the US as a superpower is realistic. Paying for superpower stuff and big social programs will have an effect. Your friends but not allies lends credence to this theory."

Generalissimus Franco was the late dictator of Spain. Not to be mixed with certain country :). And no, EU does not have any inherent need to become military superpower, why should it? Arms races are beyond stupid. I don't think even the French have such plans, and even if they had, no chance of getting enough support from other members. EU is building the kind of military capability that it needs for it's security strategy, which is based on conflict prevention and containment, not invading other countries with lot's of oil.

[PBX9501]

139. Agree

Our foreign policy is quite stupid at times.

Franco is an expression used commonly to refer to the French. Not a slur here. Franco Germanic, etc

I do believe we will leave Iraq rather than colonize. Even the right leaning people here I have met do not want a permanent outpost there.

I do not like our war and hope we leave as soon as possible.

I see no reason the EU and US should take a position against each other. Markets can coexist and trade in a way everyone can profit.

[aneerkoinos]

147. Friends

"I see no reason the EU and US should take a position against each other. Markets can coexist and trade in a way everyone can profit."

Neither do I, the US dominated "alliance" will have go, and that means that some feelings will get hurt, but we can depart as friends and co-operate in ways that are mutually beneficial.

Biggest worry is the enviroment, and sadly it seems that US will not take responsible attitude in that respect unless something teaches it more humility and caution. My hope is that the economic crisis I predict will take care of that and thins will not have gone too bad in the mean time.

[PBX9501]

154. Agree on all points.

Environmental issues are important here and to me. I drive a jetta diesel most of the time and run B20 (a bio fuel). Gets the same mileage as a hybrid. Hopefully this and other better systems will move us all away from petro energy.

[TankLV]

73. Everyone here is talking about traditional attack and responce.

What no one has addressed is the hornet's nest theory.

Iran will lash out at ANYBODY that it can, however remotely connected to an attack on its soil.

Hello - have we all forgot about the "terrorists"?

Doesn't have to be a "formal response".

Just unleash and scatter their operatives the whole world over with the elements of dirty bombs, parts of nuclear elements - like plutonium in drinking supplies, etc.

Suicide bombs in a few wallymarts.

Who thinks they will even respond the way WE think they would?

I'm sure it will be more of what they know and do "best".

That is what I fear.

[sweetheart]

86. Add to that the totally obvious

As america has threatened regime change and military action, iran
has every interest in supporting an iraqi civil war to bankrupt
its aggressor by proxy. Any military advisor worth his salt would
suggest a constant flow of weapons and guerrilla warfare expertise
to make sure that the bush-iraq quagmire outlasts bush's next 1400
days.

Every dead american is one that won't be invading iran. They know
it, everyone knows it, and of course nobody knows it.

[livinbella]

98. Is the border between Iraq and Iran a porous border?

I would think we are watching that real estate like a hawk.

[bemildred]

100. Flat in the south, then increasingly mountainous, and long. nt

[livinbella]

101. Can you cross undetected?

If so, that sounds like a mess.

[bemildred]

103. I think you have the idea. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Watching it with what? We don't have the manpower there to

watch ammo dumps. You think we will spare any to watch a border where nothing is happening? Other than the "foreign fighters" sneaking in?

[PBX9501]

109. The eye in the sky

I think they would notice an armored division. I'd bet a pinky there is a battle plan developed in case Iran jumps in. I bet it was developed before we invaded.

Remember the highway of death in GW1. Moving troops into Iraq would be a bad idea for them.

[bemildred]

115. Some of us feel that 300,000 well armed, dispersed light infantry

is more the idea. Something like Korea, maybe.

[TheKingfish]

117. why not 3 million? n/t

[bemildred]

118. We don't want anybodies head to explode.

Small steps to begin with, see?

[TheKingfish]

119. hehe true.

I swear alot of the posts here read like pre-iraq neo-con shit.

Attack Iran and you get:
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 12,434,810 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 912,569 (2004 est.)

Korea is a good model. Macarthur never thought the chinese would really come across the Yalu.

[PBX9501]

122. Except we have total air superiority.

We didn't in Korea and killed a million Chinese. Moving people and supplies on the ground with no air cover is the same as their commanders shooting them outright.

[TheKingfish]

124. where have you been?

You still can't territory with air power. lol.

[PBX9501]

130. That is the idea

it worked for the Vietcong. You only need to be able to kill people. Aircraft do that, well.

No ground troops would be necessary to kill invaders and attack their source nation. Just cripple it and leave it to smolder.

In theory of course. I think this is all saber rattling by both sides. IMHO.

[TheKingfish]

132. Air power is still severly over-rated

Look back at the numbers of Tanks and AFV's actually knocked out in Yugo-Kosovo conflict. Like 10-20% i think.

[PBX9501]

135. Airpower and Artillery

Kill troops and equipment. They killed the majority in GW1. I believe the A-10 can do the job as well as any f jet with a guided bomb. In a free for all Iranian invasion scenario they would be used liberally. Heavy saturation bombing, not blowing stuff for the cameras on CNN.

Since their aren't many tanks in Iraq I would say the main battle tanks there are under used. Any way you cook it an Invasion would fail. I think it would really piss off the Iraqi population who are nationalist.

I don't think either side is interested In a large scale conflict.

[TheKingfish]

143. I disagree it wouldn't be easy to stop

Would require substantial ground reinforcements, which we don't have. Imagine if Syria hit from the West at the same time. This is how stuff spins out of control - i noticed you talking about WWI earlier...

Your military arguments have a dangerously arrogant flavor to them. Kind of like the Germans thought when going into the USSR in WW2.

[PBX9501]

149. No

I am suggesting none of this will ever happen. There are significant numbers of troops sitting in Japan and Western Europe, undeployed.

Iran has no interest in a war and neither do we.

Mass movements like that would lead to open war. That is our strong point. Iran or Syria would be playing into our hands. They know this. Mass bombings and huge casualties from systems designed to kill soviets in mass would result. The military is not to fiddle fuck around in Iraq. Any invasion by Iran would shift political thought on the war.

The Germans were fighting a different war in a different era For different reasons. Please be careful with your reference to my ideas and ww2 German thinking.

[TheKingfish]

151. The title of the thread is

"Iran Says Will Retaliate if Nuclear Plants Hit"

You think if the US or Israel attacked their Nuclear plants they would have no interest in war??

[PBX9501]

158. I'm sure they would.

What did Iraq when Israel knocked out their nuke factory, err, I mean peaceful power station.

[TheKingfish]

152. Hmm ok

How about Israeli thinking before going into Lebanon. Total Air Superiority. Better troops. Better weapons. Totally 'open' warfare and civilian massacres to boot. More proxies than you can shake a stick at.

[PBX9501]

157. Held it until they choose to leave.(NT)

[bemildred]

140. I don't doubt there would be some attrition.

On the other hand, we have "total air superiority" in Iraq,
and they are chewing us up, bit by bit. However effective an
F-16 might be against infantry, it will also be most inefficient
unless they are in the open, which they will not be. The whole
point is the mis-match. I am not suggesting any sort of mass
wave approach, that would be stupid, and it was stupid when the
Chinese did it. They just didn't care. I'm suggesting 330,000
guerilla fighters instead of 30,000, and more as needed.

There are other issues, like targeting, do you expect them to be
in bright blue uniforms?

We lost VietNam. One should not confuse tactical superiority and
tactical success with achieving one's strategic goals.

[PBX9501]

148. In the context

of an mass movement on the border anything that moved would be targeted. A very bad scenario for anyone on the ground there not involved.

There is quite a difference between an open war and a guerrilla war. In Vietnam we were unwilling to kill the proxy. I don't think the current administration would, given the slightest reason, hesitate to destroy Iran from the air.

[TheKingfish]

150. You lost me

Are you saying we didn't bomb North Vietnam??????

[PBX9501]

160. Of course not.

I'm saying Vietnam and the soviet war in Afghanistan were proxy wars. The USSR never bombed us for supplying the Afghans means to destroy helicopters. We never attacked the proxy in Vietnam. We never destroyed Hanoi and did not sink all inbound shipping. Thankfully.

I do not think the current administration would have a problem attacking a proxy (Iran) if the situation was "right".

[bemildred]

153. We bombed the shit out of N. VietNam.

And S. VietNam. And Cambodia. And Laos.

Why did that not work? It's never worked. It didn't work at
Guernica, it didn't work in Germany or Japan or anywhere. Air
support is an excellent tactical tool in conventional war where
you mass forces and concentrate fire and all that. It has always
failed when used strategically in an attempt to force surrender.
This doesn't mean you can't blow lots of shit up, it's just that
you can't blow enough up, or all the right stuff up, just with
aircraft and missiles.

Is your argument that we lost because we were too moral to nuke NVN?
I don't think it was morality, it was the well-founded understanding
that the favor would be returned. Loons with nukes will be dealt
with, and it has been a long time since we had a monopoly there.
Nuking Japan only forced surrender because they knew we were coming
anyway, at the end of a long, lost war.

You seen to think that the only way to deliver a weapon is a
conventional platform. By that way of thinking, the two towers
in NYC should still be there. If somebody decides to nuke
Washington, nobody will ever know where it came from. I would
make damn sure they could not trace it to me, if you see?

I am not talking mass movement. What part of "dispersed" don't you
get? We bombed the shit out of the Ho Chi Minh trail too, and it
killed a few, but stopped nothing. We are talking about hunting
well-armed, dispersed dismounts here, with F-16s and the like. It
doesn't work, and it never will, it's a bonehead stupid idea. It
will burn huge amounts of fuel and use up lots of CLASS V and stop
nothing.

But I repeat myself. Let's just agree to disagree.

[PBX9501]

155. We never bombed Hanoi harbor

and we never bombed the source for the funding and material for the war the USSR. Thankfully. My point is that if given the opportunity the administration will take out Iran if it funding insurgency.

A nuke leaves fingerprints. Big easy to identify ones.

If you are talking about dispersed dismount infantry not air power is not the way to go, that is an infantry role. Helicopters could do some of that work. FLIR makes hitting people with cannon fire from the air possible. Air power broke Germany. If breaking its offensive capability was the goal it could have been done from the air.

The wars are not the same. I will agree to disagree.

[bemildred]

163. Hmmmm.

Take out Iran with nukes? Like green glass all over? The cities?
You think Bush is that stupid? You think they would let him be that
stupid? McArthur got fired for thinking like that. Or is it that
rubbleizing Tehran will make the troops come back home and save our
guys in Iraq? Or are you planning to make every hectare in Iran
uninhabitable with conventional munitions?

Can you elaborate on the "fingerprints"? Do the makers make sure
you can tell where they came from, even after the fireball?

Third paragraph: Exactly, you gotta put troops in. FLIR is nice, but
I'm not saying you can't shoot people on the ground, I will stipulate
that F-16s can shoot people on the ground. Air power did not break
Germany, it helped, but they would still be there if we had not
invaded their ass. Our industrial capacity broke Germany, and the
ground invasion. The factories were still churning shit out when we
captured them. It's a matter of attrition over years to bomb a
modern society into submission.

Helicopters are vulnerable to properly equipped dismounts. Ask
the Russians, and the number is limited, and they are a very high
maintenance item, unlike dismounts.

Breaking their "offensive capacity" is not at issue. This is
guerilla war against an occupying power. We are the aggressor.

You can have the last shot. I would appreciate an explanation of
the "fingerprints". Guessing you mean spectral analysis or some
such thing, that would not seem, in general, enough to decide who
to start WWIII with.

[PBX9501]

167. No nukes..

I am talking about a theoretical attack BY Iran into Iraq. There are already infantry there trying to kill us. More people just makes the war last longer. A few people is a nuisance and that is what they are doing now, IMHO. hundreds of thousands is an invasion. If they start sending people I'm sure we would take a defensive action. I don't know much about middle east politics but don't think Iraqi's would welcome an Iranian invasion.

Helicopters and infantry are effective at killing infantry. Especially at night. So are tanks and apcs. Which we have. Not many tank battles going on in Iraq now, lots of tanks hanging around. Aircraft are good at killing massed infantry or mining huge areas with aerial mines. Slowing troops and massing them for bombardment.

Why would we go nuclear unless attacked first with nukes?
Air power is not going to secure a country but it can destabilize it and stop it from taking offensive action by destroying its assets. My point was that in a theoretical conflict invading iran would not be necessary to cripple it.

Nuclear weapons burn fuel. The ashes are all different. Mass spec is one method of determining the source of material if you have a point of comparison. (public info available from doe and nest)I was a glorified electrician in my work with them so I have understanding of their function but not the entire structure that they exist in and their protocols for use.

Our stockpile is strictly controlled, as is the Russians, so they say. It is in the best interest for nuclear powers to control their stockpiles of weapons and fissile material. A missile launch would be very easy to pinpoint.

Just to be clear I think any move into Iran would be very stupid. I also think an unprovoked attack by Iran would be very stupid. I agree we have no business starting a war with Iran.

[livinbella]

116. how about sneaking in SAMS and the like, a few at a time

a thousand SAMS would go a long long way

[sweetheart]

125. Ha! They are not stupid

Picture the same scenario, where a foreign power has invaded mexico
and is bogged down in a quagmire. Were we in the iranian's position,
we would merely train our special ops people to pass for mexicans
and pass them over the border at various points in small groups,
at night, on rainy days, in sandstorms and in the fog, when the
eye in the sky is blind as a bat.

Kosovo, proved the failure of relying on eye-in-the-sky technical
intelligence. Could YOU tell an iranian person from an iraqi? Do
you not think the iranian special forces know how to forment
as much trouble as our own special forces do? Surely you must be
seriously underestimating the opponent to think not.

Bring in soviet-era gear that cannot be traced to iran, even better
american gear like stinger missiles left over from afganistan... and
old RPG's... sorta like uncle Ho's bicycle trail of arms supplies
that ultimately threw the US out of south vietnam.

The border is huge, and nowhere near as well policed as the US/mexico
one is... plus, this is serious stuff for iran... not some wishful
thinking. It is do or die. Kill the american devils in iraq or
have them kill 10's of thousands of iranian civilians in an arial
demonstration of mass murder.

I wonder what school of thought american people attend that gives
us the idea that our opponents are not as smart if not smarter about
fighting guerilla wars in their own back yards. Iran's job is to
formally play nice nice, and to support total clandstine resistance
from supporting western regional autonomy in afganistan to shifting
small arms to insurgencies in iraq.

[PBX9501]

133. Never said they were..

And I think that is exactly what they are doing. They have tried and succeeded in supplying ordinance on the Israeli conflict.

Why escalate when they can play proxy now?

[sweetheart]

138. jeeps?

I'm actually responding to this whole zone of the thread that
blossomed hereabouts.... and your comment reminding me of the
death highway massacre of gulf war 1.... is simply not relevant for the sort of
proxy conflict iran is engaged in...

The appearance of being at war will be avoided at all costs for the
"appearance" of being entirely neutral... but as the US is hostile,
there is little point in pretending appearances are at all relevant.

We agree... sometimes on DU, posters like me will chime up with
responses that are not particularly targeted at one post... like
that one... it belongs in this region of the thread... and you are
my victem.. ;-)

peace,
-s

[PBX9501]

145. only relevant

to moving things around a battlefield with no air cover. I'm new so I may not have lined up the post correctly...

[bemildred]

142. Props.

:thumbsup:

[livinbella]

114. good point. still, with bush looking for a cassis belli

it wouldn't surprise me if we spent an inordinate
amount of resources documenting that border

[realcountrymusic]

110. Bring it on

It's a terrible thing to say, but I find myself rooting for the Axis of Evil.

RCM

[Tight_rope]

165. You are not alone!

[maddezmom]

159. this is no surprise. wouldn't the US or any other country do the same???

[Tight_rope]

164. Handle your business Iran. Do what you gotta do!

[Zerex71]

170. I hope they nuke US forces.

Maybe that'll teach us. They have a right to defend themselves from our imperialist advances, and we have a right to a non-Holocaust mindset in our government.

[PatriotGames]

171. Bushco WANTS them to retaliate. It gives them an excuse!