Going to war with Iran

[Atlas]

What war with Iran would look like


The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

SoCals Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html

(Time.com) -- The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters.

The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1.

A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/storyvert.timecover.jpg
The Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5 1/2 years in office.

For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition, which includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council, that is trying to force Tehran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway.

So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.

And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.

Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.

Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.

The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power.

Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis.

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

[Spider]

we could defeat Iran , but we couldnt rebuild Iran ....... like I raq , we went through Iraq faster then my wife through a checking account ...... but rebuilding is where we get bogged down ............
But I am not so sure kicking Irans áss is a good idea .....

[ORANGEJARHEAD]

Just as long as we don't commit ground troops, we should be o.k. Spiders right, we cannot rebuild Iran. It would completely drain us, Vietnam again on an even grander scale.

DOD just called up a bunch more Marine reservists, I'm gettin' nervous. I'd better start gettin' back in shape.

[Spider]

Just as long as we don't commit ground troops, we should be o.k. Spiders right, we cannot rebuild Iran. It would completely drain us, Vietnam again on an even grander scale.

DOD just called up a bunch more Marine reservists, I'm gettin' nervous. I'd better start gettin' back in shape.
I sure hope you dont have to go ....... Iraq has me so pissed off , we lost alot of good Americans there ...... For a grudge ........

[SPfloppy]

Iran dosn't have to be our baby. If Israel had kept up with Lebenon minus UN interference, I think Iran and maybe Syria too may have gotten down with them. I am no fan of Israel but they might have taken care of Iran for us. I don't think it's put of the realm of possibility but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

[loborugger]

Defeating Iran would be a fair amount more difficult. The country is larger, the population larger, and the terrian offers the defender an advantage that the sweeping deserts of Iraq failed to provide Saddam's army.

I dont see how we could tackle Iran in our current condition. We would need a lot more troops which would mean a draft. Taxes would go up as we ramp up spending. I think this why Iran is emboldened. We are strapped to the barrel and Europe has no stomach for combat in a battle they dont believe in.

Screw rebuilding countries. Replace the current set of knuckleheads with someone of a standing in the country. Inform them that they can run their country according to their customs, laws, etc, however if there is a problem their head goes on a pike and we will pick their successor. No more of this spending sooo much blood, money and time to try and interject foreign concepts on people.

Nuclear weapons are pandoras box. They have been opened and the club is only going to get larger. I would guess in 20 years that half of the world will have them - and those that dont will be countries like Mali that can barely be called a nation. We would be better off (IMHO) trying to figure out how to deal with a world full of nuclear capable nations instead of trying to whack every nation that gets them.

[ant1999e]

So do we let them have nukes?

[Garcia Bronco]

So do we let them have nukes?

Heck no.

[ant1999e]

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

[alkemical]

interrupting 20% or so of the worlds oil supply will have reprocussions upon us.

[mhgaffney]

Iran dosn't have to be our baby. If Israel had kept up with Lebenon minus UN interference, I think Iran and maybe Syria too may have gotten down with them. I am no fan of Israel but they might have taken care of Iran for us. I don't think it's put of the realm of possibility but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

There is no way the Israeli air force can reach targets in Iran without flying over Iraqi air space -- presently controlled by the US. The Iraqi government has made it known that it does not support such an attack.

If the US attacks anyway, or allows Israel to over fly Iraq en route to Iran, it will be obvious to the whole world that all of Bush's talk about fostering democracy in Iraq was pure bull****. We will be complicit even if Israel does it alone.

To get an idea of the grave consequences that would follow such an attack check out this analysis

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13590.htm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Defeating Iran would be a fair amount more difficult. The country is larger, the population larger, and the terrian offers the defender an advantage that the sweeping deserts of Iraq failed to provide Saddam's army.

I dont see how we could tackle Iran in our current condition. We would need a lot more troops which would mean a draft. Taxes would go up as we ramp up spending. I think this why Iran is emboldened. We are strapped to the barrel and Europe has no stomach for combat in a battle they dont believe in.

Screw rebuilding countries. Replace the current set of knuckleheads with someone of a standing in the country. Inform them that they can run their country according to their customs, laws, etc, however if there is a problem their head goes on a pike and we will pick their successor. No more of this spending sooo much blood, money and time to try and interject foreign concepts on people.

Nuclear weapons are pandoras box. They have been opened and the club is only going to get larger. I would guess in 20 years that half of the world will have them - and those that dont will be countries like Mali that can barely be called a nation. We would be better off (IMHO) trying to figure out how to deal with a world full of nuclear capable nations instead of trying to whack every nation that gets them.
Rep! Common sense and logic should show just about all of what you've written here to be true. Unfortunately for the Neocons and religious right it doesn't enter into their dreamworld thinking.

[mhgaffney]

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

Have you ever heard of the Sunburn missile? I suggest you check it out.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[ant1999e]

That author seems really reliable. You can't tell his political beliefs.

[ant1999e]

Looks like we have some sunburns too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3905551929fb.htm

[SPfloppy]

Israel didn't seem to mind bothering or disregarding the sovereignty of Lebenon when they went after an enemy. Why would they two s#!+$ and a flak about Iraq whom they bombed a while back anyway? They know that unltimately the US will back them which I can't stand by the way. They could force our hands and then finally yes Bush would either have to support Israel's attacks openly and stand beside them or oppose them. At which point I will stop supporting Mr. Bush.

[loborugger]

Have you ever heard of the Sunburn missile? I suggest you check it out.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm


The Sunburn was around when I was in the Navy - over 15 years ago. I imagine they have figured a counter to it.

[ant1999e]

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.

[loborugger]

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

Then we are going to have to cruise missile India, Pakistan, South Africa, and a host of other countries. Afterall they are additional members of the nuclear weapons club.

Of course, the counter will be, "but those countries arent hostile to us. Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror." I would answer, ya, they are our friends today. Alliances change, and esp in this region loyalties and leaders change overnight.

You have to understand that the technology of splitting the atom is now almost 70 years old. This secret cant be held down forever. People will figure it out. With the modern technology we have, research that has been done, and the peaceful applications of nuclear power out there, its not insanely hard to figure out how to make a nuke weapon.

God help us if someone pops a nuke. They are a fair amount more stout than the ones we dropped in 45.

It seems to me like America was a more liked country before we went around telling everyone how to run their country, what weapons they can/cant have, what gov'ts they should/shouldnt have. Seems to me like if we didnt go around telling folks what they can/cant do, they wouldnt immediately point their brand new weapons at us. But that is just me.

[loborugger]

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.

Ya, that missile is a rip off of our technology. We used to call them "Harpoon-skys" as they were nothing more than 2nd rate, Russian made Harpoons.

Its not the front line technology that Iran has... cuz they dont have a ton of it. Its the simple problem of rolling across a vast and hostile territory for reasons that seem pretty simplistic when it comes down to conquering a nation.

[ant1999e]

Israel didn't seem to mind bothering or disregarding the sovereignty of Lebenon when they went after an enemy. Why would they two s#!+$ and a flak about Iraq whom they bombed a while back anyway? They know that unltimately the US will back them which I can't stand by the way. They could force our hands and then finally yes Bush would either have to support Israel's attacks openly and stand beside them or oppose them. At which point I will stop supporting Mr. Bush.

Do you really think if we turned our backs on Israel and let them be "wiped off the face of the earth" these wackos would leave us alone? They hate us also. We would be nexted. Their goal is an islamic world.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.
"Pure" ignorance! Educate and inform yourself about the SS-N-22s. There is no defense against them, they can be mobile or fixed and Russia sold China and Iran untold hundreds or thousands of them. The U.S. also bought some from Russia they were so impressed by them.

They can be equipped with conventional explosives or tactical nuclear warheads.

[ant1999e]

"Pure" ignorance! Educate and inform yourself about the SS-N-22s. There is no defense against them, they can be mobile or fixed and Russia sold China and Iran untold hundreds or thousands of them. The U.S. also bought some from Russia they were so impressed by them.

They can be equipped with conventional explosives or tactical nuclear warheads.

And if they have an ICBM what defense do we have for that? You are such a narrow minded a$$.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ya, that missile is a rip off of our technology. We used to call them "Harpoon-skys" as they were nothing more than 2nd rate, Russian made Harpoons.

Its not the front line technology that Iran has... cuz they dont have a ton of it. Its the simple problem of rolling across a vast and hostile territory for reasons that seem pretty simplistic when it comes down to conquering a nation.
It's a HUGE worry for our Navy. The SS-N-22s are the fastest (mach 3), most stealthy and overall most dangerous anti-ship missiles in the world. To attack Iran we would have to do it without aircraft carriers in the Gulf or risk losing them.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And if they have an ICBM what defense do we have for that? You are such a narrow minded a$$.
These are not ICBMs genius, that's why I said educate yourself so you wouldn't keep acting the fool.

[W*GS]

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1824121

[ant1999e]

These are not ICBMs genius, that's why I said educate yourself so you wouldn't keep acting the fool.

I know this a$$hole. My point is if we do nothing to stop them from getting nukes, what defense will we have when they get an ICBM. Get your head out of your a$$ before you start running your mouth.

[ant1999e]

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1824121

"It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be."

Education?

[Atlas]

you guys need to relax.. it's only politics

[mhgaffney]

The Sunburn was around when I was in the Navy - over 15 years ago. I imagine they have figured a counter to it.

The 2000 GAO report -- based on the US Navy's own data -- concluded that the US has only limited defenses against cruise anti ship missiles. Nor will there be a silver bullet. We will be vulnerable for years to come.

No doubt, this is why the US is trying to acquire some Sunburns -- so we can study it and figure how to defeat it. But that's a long way off.

[mhgaffney]

It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be.

Education?


We are talking about a weapon that's never been used in combat -- yet has already altered the balance of naval power. When China deployed its Soviet made destroyers (Sunburn launchers) two years ago the US reacted by staging the largest Naval maneuver in history. We rousted 7 carrier battle groups at once, more than has ever been mustered at one time. Even during Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq we only mustered six.

All of which shows that the US Navy takes the Sunburn very very seriously. If the war with Iran occurs we will learn who is right about the Sunburn -- but I strongly suggest we need to avoid this disaster, which will probably escalate to nuclear war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The 2000 GAO report -- based on the US Navy's own data -- concluded that the US has only limited defenses against cruise anti ship missiles. Nor will there be a silver bullet. We will be vulnerable for years to come.

:giggle:

I remember the last time you cited this GAO report.

The usual cast of Bush knob slobbers went into "attack the messenger" mode.

That was a hoot. :rofl:

[fido]

What I find interesting in all this is that we continue to muddle in other countries affairs. So what if they have a nuke? Big Deal. If they hit us with a nuke so what. San Fran goes away or NYC. Guess what? That country instantly becomes a sheet of glass. The soviets understood this, and for good reason. MAD does work, even if the philosophy behind it is skewed somewhat. As for war with Iran, 50/50 that it happens IMO. IF it does happen, we most likely will see a return of the draft, and casualties not seen since WWII, land and sea.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush sold America a bill of goods re: Iraq's alleged WMD.

Now he's trying to do the the same thing with Iran, and his brain dead supporters appear to be falling right in line.

[fido]

Bush sold America a bill of goods re: Iraq's alleged WMD.

Now he's trying to do the the same thing with Iran, and his brain dead supporters appear to be falling right in line.

absolutely true

[ClevelandBronco]

Here's the link:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1824121

It contains ant1999e's post word for word:

"It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be."

Ant, it was obvious that you had lifted this from another source, simply because you can't spell all those words correctly without hitting the wrong keys.

Because you lifted someone else's words rather than using your own words, your post makes it unclear whether you're providing an education or getting one.

In any case, if you're going to lift information from an outside source, please have the respect to give attribution to its author.

[mosca]

What I find interesting in all this is that we continue to muddle in other countries affairs. So what if they have a nuke? Big Deal. If they hit us with a nuke so what. San Fran goes away or NYC. Guess what? That country instantly becomes a sheet of glass.
Not if it's a suitcase nuke or some other localized delivery method that we can't trace. If one of those goes off and we don't know what country it came from exactly, what do we do? This isn't necessarily something in the foreseeable future, but what about 10 years from now?
As for war with Iran, 50/50 that it happens IMO. IF it does happen, we most likely will see a return of the draft, and casualties not seen since WWII, land and sea.
The question is - would all this be worth it for what this country stands to gain from attacking Iran? WWII-esque casualties (in your words) and/or a return to the draft? And on that note - if there was a draft - honestly, what percentage of the American populace would willingly embrace it? At most I'd say 65%. There would be so many draft dodgers that simply on a morale level, it would seriously impair the war effort if you asked me.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be.

Education?

LOL

Yeah, education, you know, the little thing that continually demonstrates you are woefully lacking in?

You're quite the piece of work!!! Do you actually think you can plagiarize someone else's (erroneous) words around here and claim them as yours?

What a LOSER!!!!!

[ant1999e]

Here's the link:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1824121

It contains ant1999e's post word for word:

"It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be."

Ant, it was obvious that you had lifted this from another source, simply because you can't spell all those words correctly without hitting the wrong keys.

Because you lifted someone else's words rather than using your own words, your post makes it unclear whether you're providing an education or getting one.

In any case, if you're going to lift information from an outside source, please have the respect to give attribution to its author.

Check my post, I quoted Wigs from the top of the page. . It was his link. Pay attention fool.

[ant1999e]

Here's the link:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1824121

It contains ant1999e's post word for word:

"It was, in fact, designed to counter the USA's AEGIS combat system and other systems like it - but in practice, it's only slightly harder to intercept. First, it flies at a much higher altitude than most other sea-skimming missiles, about 60 meters rather than the 5-10 meters that missiles like Harpoon, Tomahawk, Exocet, Penguin and Kormoran fly at. Second, although it pulls random evasive maneuvers during its final attack stage, it is still a large target with a huge RF and infrared signature. In tests, numerous air defense weapons including the AMRAAM, Standard, Evolved Sea Sparrow, Aster 30, SA-N-6 Grumble, SA-N-9 Gauntlet and Rolling Airframe Missile have intercepted either live SS-N-22 missiles, or drones replicating their performance. Its high speed does make gun-based CIWS like Phalanx and AK-630 decidedly less useful, however. In short, while dangerous, the Sunburn is not quite the AEGIS-killer that popular myth makes it out to be."

Ant, it was obvious that you had lifted this from another source, simply because you can't spell all those words correctly without hitting the wrong keys.

Because you lifted someone else's words rather than using your own words, your post makes it unclear whether you're providing an education or getting one.

In any case, if you're going to lift information from an outside source, please have the respect to give attribution to its author.

Maybe you should start a spelling thread if you have a problem with mine.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I know this a$$hole. My point is if we do nothing to stop them from getting nukes, what defense will we have when they get an ICBM. Get your head out of your a$$ before you start running your mouth.

Guess what pinhead, we CAN'T stop them from getting nukes just like we CAN'T stop NK from continuing their nuclear weapon program. And another little tidbit for you and the rest of the wackjob Neocons of the Bush cartel, we don't have the RIGHT to stop them from continuing their nuclear programs.

But I forgot, God is on your side eh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran tests upgraded surface-to-sea missile
Dated 26/8/2006

Iran is said to have successfully tested an upgraded, indegenious, guided surface-to-sea missile, media reports confirmed on Saturday.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2786/sunburnlaunchinthepacificle1.jpg


The missile was tested at the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman during the 'Blow of Zolfaqar' military exercises which began last Saturday.

Wargames spokesman Habib Sayari told reporters that the missile accurately hit its pre-determined targets. Sayari said that the missile has a suitable range, high shooting power and precision.

He added that the successful testing of the missile showed the strength, innovativeness, scientific and technical expertise of the country's defense forces and equipment as well as the potential and specialized skill of its experts.

Analysts however suspect this missile is based on the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn missile that Iran is said to have acquired via China in 2004. The Sunburn missile is a Russian missile of the Soviet era and can carry a warhead of upto 300kg and is said to have a range of 100km-120kms.
http://tinyurl.com/kppop

[Bronco_Beerslug]

3M-80E (SS-N-22) SHIP-TO-SHIP MISSILE
The PLA Navy (PLAN) received an unknown number of the Russian Raduga Design Bureau 3M-80E Moskit (NATO codename: SS-N-22 Sunburn) ramjet-powered supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) along with the purchase of two Project 956 (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/sovremenny.asp) (Sovremenny class) destroyers in 2000~2001. The first test fire of the missile by the PLAN took place in 2001. It was reported that a new version developed especially for the PLAN, the 200km-range 3M-80MBE, will equip the next two Project 956E destroyers scheduled to be delivered to the PLAN between 2005 and 2006.


http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m801a.jpg
A 3M-80E Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) anti-ship missile being loaded onto the PLA Navy Sovremenny class destroyer. The missile is regarded as the most capable anti-ship missile in service with the PLAN.


<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-6088315721028977"; google_alternate_ad_url = "http://www.sinodefence.com/includefile/google_adsense_script.html"; google_ad_width = 336; google_ad_height = 280; google_ad_format = "336x280_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel ="2800175883"; google_color_border = "FFFFFF"; google_color_link = "000000"; google_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "000000"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script> PROGRAMME
The 3M-80E Moskit missile was developed for the Soviet Navy during the Cold War-era to defeat the U.S. Navy Aegis air-defence system. Powered by a liquid-fuel ramjet engine and four solid rocket boosters, the missile delivers a 300kg HE warhead or a tactical nuclear warhead to a distance of 90~100km at a speed of Mach 2. The missile is made even more deadly by the capability to perform 15g evasive “S” maneuvers during its terminal stage of flight before target impact in order to evade defensive close-in weapon systems (CIWS).
The 3M-80E is regarded as the most capable anti-ship missile in service with the PLAN. The missile is armed with a conventional 300kg penetrating warhead containing 150kg of high explosive, or (in the Russian Navy) a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. Even with a conventional warhead, the 3M-80E missile is large enough so that one hit from a single missile could seriously damage or possibly even sink a major surface combatant. A nuclear-armed 3M-80E Moskit could easily destroy an aircraft carrier (and any other nearby ships), even if the warhead detonates at some distance from the target.

When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 120~150 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defence tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M-80E missile is extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25~30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery..
The PLAN first tested the missile in 2001. The exact number of missiles delivered from Russia is unknown, but some sources suggest that the first batch may consist of up to 100 missiles. The PLAN is believed to have ordered more missiles from Russia to arm the two improved Project 956EM destroyers which were scheduled to be delivered in 2005~06.

MISSILE
The 3M80 Moskit is a ramjet-powered missile with a slim forward body and sharp nose, and a fatter rear half with four divided air intakes. There are four clipped delta platform wings and four smaller tail surfaces of similar shape organized in cruciform configuration around the fuselage. All the wings and tail surfaces are folded when the missile is in the launcher.

Internally the radar seeker is in the nose with the guidance system, batteries and radio altimeter in the remainder of the front compartment, and the 300kg semi-armour-piercing warhead immediately behind. A fuel tank, presumably with a kerosene-type fuel, occupies the area to the leading edges of the wing and the area almost to the rear edges is occupied by the ramjet. Much of the rear of the missile is occupied by a solid propellant booster through which runs the ramjet nozzle. Actuators are to be found below the tail surfaces.

GUIDANCE
During its initial flight stage, the 3M-80E uses inertia guidance with update input from the targeting radar onboard a shipborne helicopter or a space satellite. When it is reaching the final stage of its flight, the missile’s Altair-designed multi-channel seeker uses active radar, anti-radiation and home-on-jam modes to ensure that the missile hits the target.

PROPELLANT
Powered by a liquid-ramjet engine with four solid rocket boosters, The 3M-80E missile has the fastest flying speed among all anti-ship missiles in today's world. The missile is supersonic (Mach 2.1), low-flying (7~20m above the water surface) and performs a terminal ‘S’ manoeuvre (pulling up to 15G) to evade close-in defence at a distance of 5 to 7km to its target. The 3M-80E missile, which is an improved variant of the basic variant 3M-80, has an operational range of 160km.


SPECIFICATIONS
Length: 9.38m
Diameter: 0.76m
Wingspan: 1.3m
Launch weight: 3,950kg
Warhead: 300kg, containing 150kg of high explosive
Propulsion: Liquid ramjet + solid booster
Max speed: Mach 2.1
Max range: 90km
Flight altitude: 7~20m
Guidance: Inertia with update, final active/pasive radar homing
Single-shot hit probability: 60~80%
This page was last updated 27 April 2006


http://tinyurl.com/h8wak

[ant1999e]

[QUOTE=Bronco_Beerslug;1278885]Guess what pinhead, we CAN'T stop them from getting nukes just like we CAN'T stop NK from continuing their nuclear weapon program. And another little tidbit for you and the rest of the wackjob Neocons of the Bush cartel, we don't have the RIGHT to stop them from continuing their nuclear programs.

But I forgot, God is on your side eh?]

It has nothing to do with "neocons of the bush cartel". I have the right to protect my children from idiots who want to have nukes. What world do you live in that you can't see this. My enemies enemy is not always my friend. Iran is a threat.

[mhgaffney]

Ya, that missile is a rip off of our technology. We used to call them "Harpoon-skys" as they were nothing more than 2nd rate, Russian made Harpoons.


Second rate? Here's a fact: Russia is the acknowlesged leader in cruise missile technology - - and this is true even though their army sucks and their navy rusts in port. Morever, Russian cruise missile technology has now been passed around (a cash cow for Moscow).

Many nations have acquired these lethal weapons. At least a dozen nations are now producing them. You might remember back during the Falklands War, Argentina had only 5 French made Exocets -- yet sunk two Britiish warships. If they'd had enough of them they would have sunk the entire British armada.

The latest Russian anti ship missile is even more advanced than the Sunburn. It's called the Yakhonts and reportedly is optimized to destroy our big carriers. The Yahonts is not a sea skimmer. We will track it on radar but the Russians claim it doesn't even matter -- since there is no way to stop it.

The Indians have taken the Yahonts to another level. They have a model that goes straight up to 50,000 feet -- then comes straight down at a ship -- at what? mach 4 or 5. No ship afloat will survive a single hit.

The days of the carrier battle group are history. The big carriers are now floating death traps.

The best defense against cruise missile attack is early detection. And on the open seas the US AWACs and Aegis defenses work very well. However, they are much less effective in coastal waters, because it is very easy to conceal missile launchers in rugged coastal terrain.

The latest Sunburns reportedly have added range. The Yakhonts range is 185 miles. This means that in the Persian Gulf there is no horizon. In the event of war the US Navy will find no place of safety in the entire Gulf. Iran can a target every ship.

Think back to Desert Storm -- when the US failed to detect Saddam's scud launchers. He actually won the battle of the scuds -- launching scuds right up until the last days of the war. The US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This defeat was an embarrassment - and was hidden in official reports. Luckily for us the scuds were very inaccurate. Which has lulled us into complacency. Make no mistake, the new cruise missiles can hit a squirel in the eye. They are ship killers.

The recent Lebanon war is another case. Israel despite its latest technology and fire power was unable to take out hezbollah rockets.

Face it -- the Persian Gulf is a horrible place to fight a war against cruise anti ship missiles. We will suffer huge losses -- and for this reason will probably quickly escalate to nukes.

Such a war must never be fought.

There is no military solution to the deepening Mideast crisis. The only solution is th press Israel to make peace with its neighbors. Only a political settlement offers hope for the region and world. This will require a drastic political realignmernt in our nation, since Israel now owns our Congress and White House. Such is life. It's up to us -- no one else will save our country if we don't do it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It has nothing to do with "neocons of the bush cartel". I have the right to protect my children from idiots who want to have nukes. What world do you live in that you can't see this. My enemies enemy is not always my friend. Iran is a threat.So is NK, China, Russia, Venezuela and any number of developing third world countries. But beyond diplomacy there is NOTHING this country can do about any of them. What don't you understand about that?
When the big dog on the block pisses on everybody including his neighbors and friends he becomes the lone mongrel with drastically reduced power and influence.

[alkemical]

and eventually - oil will become an option and not a 'primary' economic prop - thus eroding the 'power' even more.

[SteveTensi13]

Sunburn? The only ones getting a sunburn will be the Iranian military after we nuke it!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-laptop-sm.jpg

Sunburn? The only ones getting a sunburn will be the Iranian military after we nuke it!!

Knuckledragger alert! :pity:

[BroncsRule]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-laptop-sm.jpg



Knuckledragger alert! :pity:

Could be a direct quote from one of your posts on the DPO circa 9/12/01. Except sub in "all f***n ragheads" for Iran.

[loborugger]

Second rate? Here's a fact: Russia is the acknowlesged leader in cruise missile technology - - and this is true even though their army sucks and their navy rusts in port. Morever, Russian cruise missile technology has now been passed around (a cash cow for Moscow).

Many nations have acquired these lethal weapons. At least a dozen nations are now producing them. You might remember back during the Falklands War, Argentina had only 5 French made Exocets -- yet sunk two Britiish warships. If they'd had enough of them they would have sunk the entire British armada.

The latest Russian anti ship missile is even more advanced than the Sunburn. It's called the Yakhonts and reportedly is optimized to destroy our big carriers. The Yahonts is not a sea skimmer. We will track it on radar but the Russians claim it doesn't even matter -- since there is no way to stop it.

The Indians have taken the Yahonts to another level. They have a model that goes straight up to 50,000 feet -- then comes straight down at a ship -- at what? mach 4 or 5. No ship afloat will survive a single hit.

The days of the carrier battle group are history. The big carriers are now floating death traps.

The best defense against cruise missile attack is early detection. And on the open seas the US AWACs and Aegis defenses work very well. However, they are much less effective in coastal waters, because it is very easy to conceal missile launchers in rugged coastal terrain.

The latest Sunburns reportedly have added range. The Yakhonts range is 185 miles. This means that in the Persian Gulf there is no horizon. In the event of war the US Navy will find no place of safety in the entire Gulf. Iran can a target every ship.

Think back to Desert Storm -- when the US failed to detect Saddam's scud launchers. He actually won the battle of the scuds -- launching scuds right up until the last days of the war. The US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This defeat was an embarrassment - and was hidden in official reports. Luckily for us the scuds were very inaccurate. Which has lulled us into complacency. Make no mistake, the new cruise missiles can hit a squirel in the eye. They are ship killers.

The recent Lebanon war is another case. Israel despite its latest technology and fire power was unable to take out hezbollah rockets.

Face it -- the Persian Gulf is a horrible place to fight a war against cruise anti ship missiles. We will suffer huge losses -- and for this reason will probably quickly escalate to nukes.

Such a war must never be fought.

There is no military solution to the deepening Mideast crisis. The only solution is th press Israel to make peace with its neighbors. Only a political settlement offers hope for the region and world. This will require a drastic political realignmernt in our nation, since Israel now owns our Congress and White House. Such is life. It's up to us -- no one else will save our country if we don't do it.

You are correct about one thing. Putting a carrier in the Persian Gulf during a live fire war would be risky. Its like trying to hide big Bertha in a bathtub. The Carrier succeeds by stretching out and getting its enemies long before the get within range.

Otherwise, lets face it, its war. The other guys get payed to make kills, too. Your post is like saying our troops are suspectible to enemy rifles, our tanks suspectible to mines, and our fighters are susceptible to AA fire.

If the fur flies in the Gulf, look for it to become a no man's land, until we have taken out anything that threatens our fleet.

During the Cold War, the Soviets made AS4 and AS6 missiles. They were basically locomotive sized missiles packed with a ton of high explosives packed by fleets of Backfire bombers. They went to 60 to 80,000 feet before diving. If that didnt deter the US Carrier fleets, dont look for the Iranians to scare us too much.

If you want a weapon that scares me, its the Chinese Sub fleet. Lets face it... a Chinese Sov class DD is gonna get smoked before it gets within 500 miles of a carrier. Its the sub that pops up in a battle fleet that will kill a carrier.

As for the Brits - they lost their ships for 3 reasons. First, because they couldnt control the air (no carriers - well they had those jump jet POSs but they cant exercise sea control). Secondly, the have lousy Damage Control practices. The USS Stark was hit 2 Exocets, and it was a frigate. It was saved because US crews can save their ships, while the Brits went for the lifeboats. Finally, Argentina got lucky in finding them. The Argentinians didnt have great targeting platforms.

One final point... I see that they are extending the range of their missiles. That dont you much good if you cant target the ship. If you dont have an eye in the sky, it doesnt matter whether you have a 45 mile range missile, or a 200 mile range missile, you cant shot at what you cant see. The ocean is big place... The Iranians have their missile, but they lack a lot of other things.

[Atlas]

What I find interesting in all this is that we continue to muddle in other countries affairs. So what if they have a nuke? Big Deal. If they hit us with a nuke so what. San Fran goes away or NYC. Guess what? That country instantly becomes a sheet of glass. The soviets understood this, and for good reason. MAD does work, even if the philosophy behind it is skewed somewhat. As for war with Iran, 50/50 that it happens IMO. IF it does happen, we most likely will see a return of the draft, and casualties not seen since WWII, land and sea.

that is so ignorant it's beyond comprehension.

What if one of these countries get nikes then smuggle it into the U.S.?

Quite a different story there isn't it?

[ClevelandBronco]

that is so ignorant it's beyond comprehension.

What if one of these countries get nikes then smuggle it into the U.S.?

Quite a different story there isn't it?

Sir, we have an unconfirmed report that they're smuggling in Nikes. Is it profiling if we round up everyone wearing tennis shoes?

[SteveTensi13]

Sir, we have an unconfirmed report that they're smuggling in Nikes. Is it profiling if we round up everyone wearing tennis shoes?

LOL ROFL! Hilarious!

[Traveler]

Having gone through the diplomatic motions with Iran, George W. Bush is shifting toward a military option that carries severe risks for American soldiers in Iraq as well as for long-term U.S. interests around the world. Yet, despite this looming crisis, the Bush Family continues to withhold key historical facts about U.S.-Iranian relations.

Cont...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092006.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Having gone through the diplomatic motions with Iran, George W. Bush is shifting toward a military option that carries severe risks for American soldiers in Iraq as well as for long-term U.S. interests around the world. Yet, despite this looming crisis, the Bush Family continues to withhold key historical facts about U.S.-Iranian relations.

Cont...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092006.html

From your link...

The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations with Iran’s radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, with the goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.

In exchange, the Republicans agreed to let Iran obtain U.S.-manufactured military supplies through Israel. The Iranians kept their word, releasing the hostages immediately upon Reagan’s swearing-in on Jan. 20, 1981.

Over the next few years, the Republican-Israel-Iran weapons pipeline operated mostly in secret, only exploding into public view with the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986. Even then, the Reagan-Bush team was able to limit congressional and other investigations, keeping the full history – and the 1980 chapter – hidden from the American people.

Upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2001, George W. Bush walled up the history even more by issuing an executive order blocking the scheduled declassification of records from the Reagan-Bush years. After 9/11, the younger George Bush added more bricks to the wall by giving Presidents, Vice Presidents and their heirs power over releasing documents.

[Hotrod]

If you want a weapon that scares me, its the Chinese Sub fleet. Lets face it... a Chinese Sov class DD is gonna get smoked before it gets within 500 miles of a carrier. Its the sub that pops up in a battle fleet that will kill a carrier.

.

Thats a straight up fact jack ^5

[Hotrod]

Just my 2 cents on war with Iran.

While I certainly think an air war may very well be the only option at the end of the day I dont see it happening anytime soon. With troops in Iraq were in much the same boat we were in NK/SK. Any form of ground invasion at this time would be flat out insane.

As far as sucess rates of flat out air wars its not really that great. The key would be to be a strike fast/hard and set the program back a few years. Yet none of this is an option IMO until we have left Iraq. Iraq is currently a thorn in our side for more reasons then we can count.

[Hotrod]

The Sunburn missle is a threat only if not detected in a sufficent amount of time. The key is early detection/identification then its like shooting fish in a barrell.

[bendog]

that is so ignorant it's beyond comprehension.

What if one of these countries get nikes then smuggle it into the U.S.?

Quite a different story there isn't it?

I don't think that's correct, but someone like D-man would know better, perhaps. My understanding is that we track all nuclear tests, and each weapon, or class of weapons, has a distinct measurement, so unless one builds a one time use bomb that's never tested, we'd know the source country... though with NK the problem would be we'd never know if they detonated or sold it to someone else.

It'd obviously be best if Iran didn't get nukes, but it should be obvious to every living being on this planet who is not mentally incompetent that Bushii's bullying and threatening is not only embarassing to the nation but also counterproductive in getting ANYTHING accomplished.

[mhgaffney]

The Sunburn missle is a threat only if not detected in a sufficent amount of time. The key is early detection/identification then its like shooting fish in a barrell.

Yes, this is correct -- and like I noted in my other post the US Navy's AWACS and Aegis radar work well on the open sea --

The US Navy likes to lay over the horizon and out of range of the enemy.

This is not possible in the Gulf, however. The Persian Gulf is no more than a pond -- given the range of the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The US radar and satellites will not detect the missile launchers carefully hidden along the shore and possibly in the coastal mountains. Tha Yakhonts especially is a versatile weapon -- it can be deployed from jets, flatbed trucks, P-T boats, whatever.

A look at the map should suffice to show why Iran has a powerful tactical advantage over our fleet sitting like ducks in the Gulf.

Iran can detect every ship using radar -- they do not need satellites to target our ships. The latest Russian cruise anti ship missiles have advanced guidance systems -- launch and forget. Be assured, these are not scuds -- the missiles will hit the targets.

There will be no early detection.

In the Gulf the enemy is right on top of our fleet -- eyeball to eyeball.

Like I said, this battle must never be fought.

[Hotrod]

I don't think that's correct, but someone like D-man would know better, perhaps. My understanding is that we track all nuclear tests, and each weapon, or class of weapons, has a distinct measurement, so unless one builds a one time use bomb that's never tested, we'd know the source country... though with NK the problem would be we'd never know if they detonated or sold it to someone else.

It'd obviously be best if Iran didn't get nukes, but it should be obvious to every living being on this planet who is not mentally incompetent that Bushii's bullying and threatening is not only embarassing to the nation but also counterproductive in getting ANYTHING accomplished.

Close ;D

Each warhead does not have a signiture but every single batch of platonium does give off a very identifiable reading. Its like a fingerprint if you will. Some will use this fact to argue that Iran would be fingerprinted if it ever did us a "suitcase" nuke or supply a terrorist with material. Yet its not an exact science.

[Hotrod]

Yes, this is correct -- and like I noted in my other post the US Navy's AWACS and Aegis radar work well on the open sea --

The US Navy likes to lay over the horizon and out of range of the enemy.

This is not possible in the Gulf, however. The Persian Gulf is no more than a pond -- given the range of the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The US radar and satellites will not detect the missile launchers carefully hidden along the shore and possibly in the coastal mountains. Tha Yakhonts especially is a versatile weapon -- it can be deployed from jets, flatbed trucks, P-T boats, whatever.

A look at the map should suffice to show why Iran has a powerful tactical advantage over our fleet sitting like ducks in the Gulf.

Iran can detect every ship using radar -- they do not need satellites to target our ships. The latest Russian cruise anti ship missiles have advanced guidance systems -- launch and forget. Be assured, these are not scuds -- the missiles will hit the targets.

There will be no early detection.

In the Gulf the enemy is right on top of our fleet -- eyeball to eyeball.

Like I said, this battle must never be fought.

Trust me when I tell you the US Navy is more then able to reach out and touch Iran without putting its ships within the striking distance you refer to.

Yes if we were to try a landing and get up and personal with the shore of Iran we would be taking a chance. If Iran had the capability and smarts the key would be to fire multi types of missles from multi locations/distances. The chances of a hit increase 10 fold.

[bendog]

Close ;D

Each warhead does not have a signiture but every single batch of platonium does give off a very identifiable reading. Its like a fingerprint if you will. Some will use this fact to argue that Iran would be fingerprinted if it ever did us a "suitcase" nuke or supply a terrorist with material. Yet its not an exact science.

hmmm, I thought in measuring "the bang" the issue was not just the plutonium but the detonating, which is why I said class of weapon. I recalled that basically the various warheads the russians had/have showed similar measurement ... some warheads are bigger, some smaller. But you know more than I.

And I did wonder if a "suitcase" bomb could be tied to a country. Interesting info.

But what seems logical to me is that if a country like Iran is making plutonium, I'd think its ties to the french and ruskies would make keeping it a secret really impossible. Our CIA is demoralized, but that can be fixed.

But if I'm osama, I'd go for a dirty nuke. Easier to get, and perhaps even more terror with radiation.

IMO, Iran wants a nuke to say it's as bad as Israel. The saudis, egyptians, et al don't want it to happen. Iran could be isolated, but only by a potus with more skills than a Yale bully.

[Hotrod]

Bendog,

I dont know more just what I've read/heard. Im sure the explosion size is a factor in "known" cases ie Russian known types etc... The question I now have is how do they get a reading from a explosion scene??? Makes me question what I just posted. I'll have to ask/do some research. Im thinking amount of radiation??? heck Im not sure.

[Hotrod]

Yale bully Ha! I like that one.

I have no answers my only point here is Mhgaffney is spinning the facts on "known" weapon systems and their actual threat to the US Navy. In ways hes correct if we suddenly get stupid we would get smacked pretty good but I dont see it happening.

[bendog]

Bendog,

I dont know more just what I've read/heard. Im sure the explosion size is a factor in "known" cases ie Russian known types etc... The question I now have is how do they get a reading from a explosion scene??? Makes me question what I just posted. I'll have to ask/do some research. Im thinking amount of radiation??? heck Im not sure.
I'm too lazy to google. Actually, I'm finishing a run of some data that I have to mail. But my recollection is that we have all these seismograph like listening places all over the world, and we listen to just not chinese and soviet tests, but also french and even brits. I thought we had some in Turkey, which was one of the old ruskies piss off pts. In the cuban missle crisis, what people didn't note was that WE took our missles out of Turkey in nominal exchanbe for the ruskies in cuba, so Kruschev could have some face saving issue. But they were pissed we kept our listening stations.

Prolly nowdays we do it with subs or something. I'm not sure how we'd be able to test someone else's plutonium. Wouldn't we need a sample?

[Hotrod]

I'm too lazy to google. Actually, I'm finishing a run of some data that I have to mail. But my recollection is that we have all these seismograph like listening places all over the world, and we listen to just not chinese and soviet tests, but also french and even brits. I thought we had some in Turkey, which was one of the old ruskies piss off pts. In the cuban missle crisis, what people didn't note was that WE took our missles out of Turkey in nominal exchanbe for the ruskies in cuba, so Kruschev could have some face saving issue. But they were pissed we kept our listening stations.

Prolly nowdays we do it with subs or something. I'm not sure how we'd be able to test someone else's plutonium. Wouldn't we need a sample?

Im not sure what info I have is mostly from a friend who I would think knows but I'm gonna have to talk to him to get better details (I hate when posters say that ;D but it is what it is sometimes). Im really curious right now I see potential flaws in both ideas.

The size of an explosion "test" would not mean much if the war head was not the same as the test subject. Yet the radiation test Im not sure how that works as far as getting the info before hand then testing on site of explosion. Either way Im fairly confident with the info I've heard that people in the government are fairly sure of their ability to track who/where etc.

[bendog]

I thought it over, and you gotta be right. We, and I guess "they," don't just test actual warheads. We test plutonium. I'm confused because I read that at some pt, we'll actually have to take one of our old warheads, and see if it goes bang, cause apparantly they have limited shelf life.

I vaguely recall that we have no actual proof that some of our warheads would ever go off, but the bomb guys and physicists say it was proven on the basis of testing the components and laws of physics.

But, imo, the whole Little Hitler wants the bomb thing is another case of bushii scaring the ****e outta people. Dangerous sure, but not the biggest problem we have.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From your link...


The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations with Iran’s radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, with the goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.

In exchange, the Republicans agreed to let Iran obtain U.S.-manufactured military supplies through Israel. The Iranians kept their word, releasing the hostages immediately upon Reagan’s swearing-in on Jan. 20, 1981.

Over the next few years, the Republican-Israel-Iran weapons pipeline operated mostly in secret, only exploding into public view with the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986. Even then, the Reagan-Bush team was able to limit congressional and other investigations, keeping the full history – and the 1980 chapter – hidden from the American people.

Upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2001, George W. Bush walled up the history even more by issuing an executive order blocking the scheduled declassification of records from the Reagan-Bush years. After 9/11, the younger George Bush added more bricks to the wall by giving Presidents, Vice Presidents and their heirs power over releasing documents.


And to think that they named an airport (and God knows how many other landmarks) after that traitor! :oyvey: