Israel may well attack Iran soon

Red_Ink_inc · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from 377OHMS:

The world seems intent on fucking with the USA and Israel. The world better figure out what a bad idea that is. Better to live in some kind of peace because if you fuck with us it will be a bad day for all.
More...

Just a guess here. Do you by any chance vote republican?

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Not sure âmutual nondenialâ is the same as Taiwan goes back to China.

BTW, the ethanol thing is a thermodynamic canard as it's done in the US.

So, for argument purposes, let's say China is placated. They've got the Olympics anyway. How does that change the overall scenario. There are lots of other moving parts.

Quote from 377OHMS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24taiwan.html

I know, I know, the NYT can't be considered a reliable source, yet this article is well written and spells it out, the new President is a ROC puppet.
More...

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Shhhh. It's really Dick Cheney.

Quote from Red_Ink_inc:

Just a guess here. Do you by any chance vote republican?
More...

Reaver · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from blackchip:

Which variant?
More...

What?

Stop using google to try and sound smart and just accept the fact that the US Navy has numerous countermeasures against attacks.
TRUST ME I KNOW.

Don't be foolish. All the google/wikipedia geniuses are running wild on ET again.

Oh and don't forget about Aegis.

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

You are so off with your 1970's technology. Raytheon? You got to be kidding.

You obviously have no clue.

CONTINUING DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAN (Senate - June 27, 1996)

[Page: S7204] GPO's PDF
[Begin insert]
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wish to warn my colleagues of continuing developments in Iran which I believe to be very dangerous to the national interests of the United States.
As many are aware, I have spoken before to express my concerns about the continuing threat which I believe the leadership of Iran offers to the Middle East. Today, I would like to focus again on Iran's procurement of missiles which threaten the free passage through the Persian Gulf of oil and other goods vital to the United States.

Early this year Pentagon officials acknowledged that Iran had test-fired a Chinese-built C-802 antiship cruise missile. The test firing of this missile occurred near the approaches of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. The C-802 antiship cruise missile can achieve speeds up to mach 0.9 and can be fired from over 50 miles from the target ship. It is powered by a turbojet with a rocket booster and attacks the target vessel at a height of only 15 feet above the ocean. The Pentagon said that five Chinese fast-attack craft are equipped to carry the missiles, with another five of the missile patrol boats expected to be delivered to Iran soon. Additionally, 10 Kaman-class fast attack boats are now being modified by Iran to carry the C-802. In response to this development, Senators Larry Pressler, Arlen Specter, Connie Mack, and I asked President Clinton to verify that China had sold this missile to Iran in violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992. I regret to say that the response of the administration was unsatisfactory.

A less publicized acquisition of Iran has been the procurement of the SS-N-22 (SUNBURN) anti-ship cruise missile from a Former Soviet Union State. This missile is much more capable and dangerous than the Chinese C-802. The SUNBURN missile can travel at speeds up to mach 2.5, almost 3 times as fast as the Chinese C-802 missile. It can perform `S' turns during flight and carries sophisticated electronic sensors. This missile, as I will discuss in more detail, poses a significant threat to our naval vessels and the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. President, let me talk briefly and in very general terms about the systems which our naval vessels use to defend themselves. At the outset, I should say that the Navy has begun to improve its ship self-defense systems, as they are called, following the tragic incident in which the U.S.S. Stark was hit and badly damaged by an Iraqi-launched Exocet missile. The ship self-defense systems fall into two general categories. The first are sensors, missiles and guns which are designed to locate and shoot down the attacking missile. The idea is to hit a bullet with a bullet. I believe that there can be no disagreement that this is a difficult task. Because of the size of the Persian Gulf, ships are always relatively close to shore. When an antiship missile is fired from a land-based site as it could be in Iran, ground clutter can conceal the missile from ship or aircraft radar until it reaches open water, which reduces the reaction time of our ships and makes the interception much more difficult. With an anti-ship missile like the SUNBURN, traveling at mach 2.5, the time from its appearance over the horizon until it impacts on its target is only approximately 30 seconds. Further, sophisticated missiles which engage in corkscrew and serpentine maneuvers as they enter their final phase make them very difficult to engage.
The second general category of ship self-defense systems are decoys. Navy vessels are equipped to fire chaff into the air when their sensors detect an incoming anti-ship missile. The chaff can confuse the sensors carried by the less sophisticated anti-ship missiles. This is simply an improvement of the technology used by aircraft early in World War II. A much more promising technology is the NULKA Decoy System. It is an all-weather self-protection missile that is especially designed to protect combatant amphibious ships operating in littoral waters against anti-ship missiles. This decoy draws the anti-ship missile away from its target and shows great promise against the most sophisticated threats when integrated with the ship's sensors and weapons systems. I urge the Pentagon and my colleagues on the Defense committees to take the necessary measures to expedite fielding of this system as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I now ask what purpose the Government of Iran has for its actions? Its recent procurement of nuclear technology can be explained away, however lamely, with claims of non-military applications. An apologist could argue that Iran's procurement of submarines is defensive in its nature. However, there is no argument which can explain the procurement of anti-ship missiles of the type I have described. They are clearly for offensive purposes. They can only be used to attack ships in the Persian Gulf or threaten to do so. Imagine yourself as a sailor on one of our ships that has just detected the approach of such a missile. Thirty seconds is very little time to react in a meaningful way. I need not remind my colleagues that we fought in Iraq, in large part, to continue to guarantee free passage of oil from the Persian Gulf. If Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its current course, I am afraid we may be forced to do so again.[/quote}

Quote from Reaver:

What?

Stop using google to try and sound smart and just accept the fact that the US Navy has numerous countermeasures against attacks.
TRUST ME I KNOW.

Don't be foolish. All the google/wikipedia geniuses are running wild on ET again.

Oh and don't forget about Aegis.
More...

More...

Reaver · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from blackchip:

You are so off with your 1970's technology. Raytheon? You got to be kidding.

You obviously have no clue.
More...

Ever seen a CIWS in action?

Apparently not.

Google/Wikpeida Genius Blackchip's Gone Wild!

I won't argue this anymore, but I will go ahead and LOL at you. Please post evidence to the contrary of what I said about RAM/CIWS and other countermeasures and we'll talk.

Syprik · Jun 7, 2008

This thread is really starting to exude intelligence.

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Have you seen it shoot down a Sunburn?

They were specifically designed to defeat the Aegis by the Russky's.

No? Thank you for your service.

Low level officer or enlisted?

Oh, I almost forgot to LOL at you. Did you even read what I posted? Maybe you did then changed your story to counter measures. LOL.

Quote from Reaver:

Ever seen a CIWS in action?

Apparently not.

Google/Wikpeida Genius Blackchip's Gone Wild!
More...

jficquette · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from abducens:

Everyone thought we would attack Iran. Why should we when Israel can do it for us. Iran will welcome democracy.
More...

Iran is the most pro western middle east country. It just he leadership that is nuts.

Iran's transition to Democracy will be much easier then in Iraq primarily because its the Iranians stirring up the resistance and causing the problems in Iraq. If Iran were to disappear today there would be instant peace in Iraq.

After Iran is gone there will be no one left to stir things up in the middle east and things will begin to get much better.

Reaver · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from blackchip:

Have you seen it shoot down a Sunburn?

They were specifically designed to defeat the Aegis by the Russky's.

No? Thank you for your service.

Low level officer or enlisted?

Oh, I almost forgot to LOL at you. Did you even read what I posted? Maybe you did then changed your story to counter measures. LOL.
More...

You didn't read my very first post on the thread apparently. Youi decided to go way OT and focus specifically on Aegis. I simply gave RAM and CIWS as examples. My blanket statement was that we *DO* have viable defense (also known as countermeasures) against little punkass Iranian rockets.

So LOL at you.

Try this:

Start at the beginning and read again slowly this time. You are the one that went off on the Aegis tangent. I just mentioned it along with a few other examples.