General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIran's Arsenal Of Sunburn Missiles Is More Than Enough To Close The Strait
Any good armchair general with a good search engine and time on their hands can figure out in a hurry that the song and dance about Iran being unable to close the Strait if Hormuz for long is just a plain crock. Worse than a crock. Yet, this big Orwellian lie persists, so once again I have to set the record straight. Iran has the capability of not only closing the Strait for some time, but creating a world of hurt for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.
Iran possesses a build up of anti-ship weapons called Sunburn missiles, which it has procured from Russia and China over the last decade. These are top-notch weapons developed by the Russians as a low-cost challenge to the expensive, tech-heavy weaponry of the U.S., and specifically the aircraft carrier task force. A conflict, which I now assign a high probability to [see Scenario for an Israel Attack on Iran], is going to be a huge test of a global-naval doctrine that Russia and China will watch with tremendous interest. That’s why I think they have armed Iran to the teeth. The big question: How many of these weapons does Iran have? I would suggest thousands, and that this is the real show.
Given that U.S. crony logic seems to be about squandering money on weapons in the military-industrial complex, I fear for young sailors and marines on the 5th Fleet. Don’t get me wrong, the US Navy is professional, but the Strait doesn’t allow for the normal defense in depth available in open seas, in fact it offers the Iranians a cross fire setup or triangulation (see map of Strait below) . If you read discussions on various military sites, there is a lively debate on American ship defense system like the Aegis. However, almost nobody claims this to be fully protective against ship strikes. And an oil tanker, no way. It is important that the US is working on new generation lasar defense to counter these missiles, however they are still in development. This puts added pressure for Iran to have this fight now, not later. The following is from ”Russian Military Equality Network. (I have cleaned up the English a bit]
U.S. Navy Pacific Commander Admiral Timothy Keating said that due to lack of sufficient funds for the procurement of simulated target missile defense system, the U.S. Navy can not now afford to fight “the club” category of supersonic anti-ship missiles. It is reported that the U.S. military that is used to simulate the “club” missile target missile is still being developed, and is expected to be put into use in 2014.
MORE...
http://www.businessinsider.com/irans-arsenal-of-sunburn-missiles-are-more-than-enough-to-close-the-strait-2012-2
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Closing the Straits would, besides being an overt act of war against several of their neighboring countries, be guaranteed to place the Chinese on the other side of any conflict. While 20% of the world's oil comes through the Straits, roughly 50% of China's oil does so. China would have little option except to move in order to end any such closure.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)You know, just in case. And it won't be an act of aggression, so stop saying that. Those crafty Iranians are sitting on and near a bunch of our oil, so we would just be protecting our strategic interests.
Also, we'll need bigger defense appropriations so that we can procure a simulated target missile defense system, whatever that is (if it even exists). So, no cuts to the defense budget.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)If one happens to hit an American ship, the consequences for Iran would be unfathomable.
America has not engaged in total-war for 70 years. If Iran sinks an Aircraft Carrier in the US naval fleet, no president (regardless of party) will hesitate to use every weapon at their disposal to eliminate the ability or Iran to make war.
Cruise missiles can be safely fired from the gulf to eliminate any of Iran's facilities, and then carriers and other equipment can move in.
Constant fear mongering over these missiles (developed in 1970) is some kind of provocation for the US to attack Iran.
I do not like it.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)see them possibly cracking open a supertanker or two.
It would take a lot of time to clear out that mess, indeed.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)a Sunburn can cover that distance in about 15 seconds. Perhaps we could target, lock, and kill a few...but hundreds would certainly spell catastrophe for the USN fleet. Our Navy is built on deep water and large area domination. Fighting in a puddle against these types of weapons is not what the planners were gaming out over the past 50 years. That said, it would invariably be a classic "win the battle, lose the war" strategy for Iran. After the initial blow from a surprise attack....the blowback would be swift and beyond devastating for Iran. Think of Pearl Harbor with the surrender playing out in less than a week. That's why I doubt Iran will purposely initiate any attack, no matter the chances of immediate success. There's no chance that it can expect any possible longterm "win" in undertaking such a strike.
But what does scare the shit out of me is the crazy individual down the command chain, on either side, who could initiate a 1st strike. The reaction times become non-existent to sort things out on a diplomatic basis. I'm afraid if one goes...they all go before anyone has a chance to say, "hey wait, lets think things through here."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Honest question. I'm the last person to pretend military expertise but looking at a map of the Straits seems to say if you put the missiles in that area that area gets a giant bullseye painted on it and 3 sides of it are water so there's no room to "shoot and scoot" as I've heard the expression put. Seems kind of limited.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Trying to prefix the location of these missiles are problematic, particularly if the Iranians are constantly moving their locations.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The missiles are surprisingly ineffective when their launchers are converted into smoking craters.
So basically, Iran could pull off firing once. After they did so, the Navy and Air Force would take care of the missile stockpile.
No no, they can't close the Strait. They may be able to sink one or two ships, but that's not a blockade.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)We're really, really good at bombing. Our track record with invasions is mixed.
frylock
(34,825 posts)both highly successfull strategies that facilitated the immediate end of both wars.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)just dropped bombs and we're done? tia.
Libya ( granted there were opposition forces on the ground there to do the grunt work)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Though the latter Libya had rebel ground forces, we officially only dropped some bombs and did some refueling.
Laos in and of itself was successful bombing - it did greatly reduce supplies to the Vietcong. And we technically didn't invade. However reduced supplies wasn't sufficient to win the war.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)An invasion is a short term event. An occupation generally a longer term one. Our invasions are usually pretty effective from a military standpoint. One can argue about the occupations.
If you were a senior Iraqi baathist or vehemently opposed to them, I think you would think the occupation of Iraq was effective. If your criteria is a quick stabilization of the country and minimal bloodshed, obviously, not so much.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #30)
stevenleser This message was self-deleted by its author.
Muskypundit
(717 posts)We can win any conventional war in the world in quick time. It's insurgencys that no military in the world can win against. Occupation we are not good at. I doubt we would try to occupy Iran, its much larger in size and population than Iraq. But we sure as hell could topple the government and walk out fairly quickly.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Kornet E or equivalent copies with tandem warheads to defeat active armor up to 1200 mm.
So far, I don't believe that US tanks have the active countermeasure for it.
Fighting more than a couple hundred miles from the coast is not in the cards for the US military.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)As the poster above me pointed out, Iraq was supposed to be an easy cakewalk as well - how did that work out for us?
Besides, there's more to closing the Straits than just shooting off a bunch of missiles. They could also deploy mines. Yes, we could potentially find and neutralize them, but even that would be very time consuming - and would effectively close off the Straits until we could be sure the mines were all cleared. All it would take is for ONE oil tanker to hit a mine to bring traffic to a halt.
And don't forget about the missiles that can be fired from small and highly maneuverable boats.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Perhaps they have to be placed by some sort of ship....which could be sunk....
Hrm......
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)It's not as if the Iranian Navy would send out a press release announcing when and where they would be placing mines.
You don't think it would be possible to deploy mines without being observed?
I mean, it's not like mines have ever been introduced into the Persian Gulf before... 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)in the strait, lowering something into the water, anchoring it, and then moving on to the next location? Over and over and over again. Thousands and thousands of mines.
You know, I've got this rock that can keep tigers away. Would you like to buy one? Don't you want to protect your family from the danger of tiger attack?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm not saying you are incorrect. Those who counsel war often (always?) underestimate the determination and capability of their would-be belligerent and those in the US who are puffing-up their chests undoubtedly fall prey to this now but at the same time if Iran thinks it will be "just that easy" lay mines, threaten missiles or otherwise blockade the Straits against not only the US but several EU powers and the Arab Gulf States.
Surely, shutting-down the Straits and/or antagonizing a dozen state-of-the-art military, always-planning war machines can't be "just that easy."
surfdog
(624 posts)The missile sites would be hidded in the mountain ranges around the straits , we wouldnt know where they were till they fired
And I'm pretty sure once those missiles are fired they can't be stopped we don't have anything to shoot down a missile that's traveling that fast in fact we don't even have any missiles that travel that fast sunburn missiles travel so fast it doesn't really need to detonate when it hits the ship ,the momentum would take care of it
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)We know that is simply not true
SS-N-22s were designed by the Russians for their destroyers and for their carrier-based aircraft. The destroyer launcher would be fixed. The Iranians don't have Russian carrier-based aircraft...'cause the Russians aborted their carrier. And no reputable link I can find lists mobile launchers.
So, how exactly do we know the missiles are mobile?
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Maybe not the SS-N-22's referenced by the OP - but pretty sure that Iran does have mobile anti-ship missiles.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/02/09/Iran-tests-anti-ship-missiles/UPI-50131297274889/
"Iran is mass-producing a smart ballistic missile for sea targets with a speed three times more than the speed of sound," state news agency IRNA quoted Jafari as saying about the new missile.
He didn't elaborate but footage of the test-launch on state television showed a missile being fired from a mobile launcher from a desert terrain.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers
http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=136390793
The Revolutionary Guard has also deployed a heavy array of anti-ship Seersucker missiles with a range of up to 60 miles (100 kilometers) along its coast overlooking the strait, on mobile platforms that make them harder to hit.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So we need to fear Sunburn missiles on mobile launchers because other missiles have mobile launchers?
Um....No. If you switch to a slower missile, you don't get to keep using the "they're too fast!!1!!!1!!eleven" argument. That footage you highlight wasn't an SS-N-22 launch. And Iranian media isn't exactly a credible source.
And I'm not arguing that mobile launchers in general are as easy to hit as fixed. I'm arguing you can't just duct-tape a SS-N-22 onto a vehicle and call it a weapons system. It takes a non-trivial amount of R&D and I haven't found anyone credible showing the Iranians actually did so with an SS-N-22.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Especially after we drop a bunch of bombs on Tehran and tell them "Bad country, no treat".
How long do you think it will take us to whip them? A couple days? Surely less than a month, right?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The big danger of why we need to attack Iran cited in this article is they might close the Strait of Hormuz.
I'm saying they can't do that.
Now....takes a little thinking here....but perhaps I'm saying we shouldn't go to war with Iran, because the latest reason for war is utter and complete bullshit.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Not to pick a fight with your interlocutor but you raise a very good point that for all of Iran's bloviating the actual NEED for anythign resembling a prolonged war is obviated. Even in a worse case scenario, the worst case makes full-scale war a matter of overkill.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which takes away the "there's no time to shoot it down" argument.
Also assumes missiles can be moved without managing to be seen by our surveillance satellites. Considering the Russians couldn't hide their mobile ICBMs from us, I don't think the Iranians can pull it off.
And you're also assuming mobile launchers. We're talking about a missile that was designed to be fired from ships and Russian carrier-based aircraft. You can put the ship launcher on land pretty easily, but it won't be a mobile launcher.
/facepalm
We have missiles that travel that fast right as they leave the launch tube. They continue to accelerate.
Physics! What is it good for! Oh, for realizing this statement is utterly wrong.
Yes, you can punch a missile-sized hole in the ship. If it was a civilian vessel, this might be a problem. Naval vessels are built with the expectation that someone may try to punch a hole in it. So no, an SS-N-22 sized hole isn't going to doom a Navy ship.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)FEAR!
SCARY IRANIANS!
MISSILES!!
surfdog
(624 posts)First off you were comparing the intercontinental ballistic missile that travels into space and carries nuclear warheads with the tiny sunburn missile that travels just above the ocean water
comparing the two is completely absurd
Second you're implying that since the sunburn would be hidden in the mountain ranges around the straits that it would be easy to shoot down once it's launched , that is simply not accurate we cannot shoot down that missile without a whole Lotta luck
And you cannot tell me that we have missiles that travel that fast as they're leaving the launch tube, that statement is completely not accurate , go ahead and show me the missile we have that's traveling twice the speed of sound as it leaves the launch tube
And as for the missile taking out a ship without even detonating it could totally happen look at the shape charges that were going off in Iraq , didn't put a tiny little hole in the side of the transport the size of the charge or did it destroy the entire transport knocking it over on its roof ?
Yes you're right it's called physics and you don't have a grasp of it , the shaped charges did not put a tiny hole in the sides of our transports it completely demolished him through pure momentum , same thing would happened to the side of the ship just on a much larger scale
Energy equals mass , Einstein taught us this , perhaps you need to go back to school
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No, I'm mentioning that during the cold war, the Russians spent a lot of money and effort on making mobile launchers to hide from the US. And since the cold war ended, it has been reveled we knew exactly where every single one of them was. Using far older satellite technology.
The Iranians don't have anywhere near the Soviet Union's military budget, and the Soviets failed. And in the subsequent 2 decades, I assume our surveillance technology has gotten much better.
No. Try reading again.
When you move the missile further away to hide it in the mountains, you extend reaction time because the missile is traveling much farther.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
Edited to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
So your argument is that explosives demonstrate how non-explosives work. Did you take a moment to think about how dumb this example is? How a pressure wave from explosives is nothing like a strike from a bullet?
Only in nuclear explosions where mass is actually converted into energy. In conventional explosions, the energy is entirely dependent on chemistry, and no mass is actually lost. High-energy compounds rapidly oxidize into low-energy compounds.
And then we get down to the case where an SS-N-22 runs into a ship and doesn't explode. Again, no mass will be converted into energy. Instead, the missile will try to punch a hole through the ship's armor. It will likely succeed, but at best we're talking about a relatively small hole compared to the size of a warship. They might have to turn on a bilge pump, if the swells are pretty high that day. Sure, the ship will need repair, and people will die. But the ship will still be floating.
surfdog
(624 posts)You are still comparing nuclear missiles to the sunburn , of course spotting a massive nuclear missile on a mobile launcher is easier to see than a hidden sunburn
Your links that you think shows we have missiles that travel at twice the speed of sound as they leave the silo actually show no such thing ...
And again , when a shaped charge sends a piece of metal into a military transport does it just leave a small hole ? ... Of course not , implying a missile would leave a missile sized hole is absurd , have you ever heard of a exit wound ? ... Why is it much much larger than the bullet ?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your first paragraph talks about just how small the missiles are. They're tiny. Despite 30 years of technology, we couldn't possibly spot them!
Your last paragraph talks about just how huge they are. They'd leave a gigantic exit wound!!!
Pick one. The missile is either small or large.
My links were out of convenience to a popular site that isn't going to be blocked at most people's work. The fact that you don't know how fast Patriot and SM3 missiles fly doesn't bolster your position.
Pressure waves from explosives that happen to be carrying shrapnel aren't the same as a dud missile.
I said roughly missile sized. It's not going to be an exact silhouette of the missile.
We're not talking about tiny fishing boats here. The smallest ships likely to be involved are destroyers, and they're 500 feet long. Carriers are 1000 feet long. The SS-N-22 is about 6 feet wide including the wings. Those wings aren't going to penetrate a damn thing, so now we're talking about something about 3 feet in diameter. Let's pretend that it magically creates a hole three times it's diameter. That's a whopping 9 foot hole. That's not going to sink any naval vessel. Especially because that hole is going to be well above the waterline.
Take a moment to think about this: If the missile's speed alone was enough to sink navy ships, why would the Russians bother to put a warhead on it at all? Warheads are expensive and heavy. If you don't need it, you don't put one on so your missile is cheaper, lighter and better-performing.
You do realize ships aren't full of non-compressible liquid, right? Exit wounds happen in people because water doesn't compress, and we're mostly water. So the energy blows out into other areas. Ships are full of highly compressible air.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Do you really know what a shaped charge is? That it has to detonate for it to work? Methinks you are confusing this with a KE (kinetic energy) round, like the tungsten steel dart penetrators. You are not making yourself look too good.
BTW, in conventional physics, energy does not equal mass. Try E=mc^2. See if you can work out the units.
You finally admit that kinetic energy of an object would create a larger hole than the object itself
Just like a exit wound of a bullet
Of course a shaped charge needs to detonate in order to send the missile to its target , just like a missile needs to fire in order to reach its target
The fact that you think a exit wound in the back of your head from a bullet would be bullet sized shows just how confused you are
Does a shaped charge leave a hole the size of the projectile ? ... Of course not , to claim it does is absurd
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And
Shaped charges don't have projectiles. A shaped charge is an arrangement of explosives.
In anti-tank weapons, you only have a shaped charge. No projectile.
Shaped charges can be used to propel shrapnel, but that's because any explosive can propel shrapnel.
The fact that you don't know the difference between shooting something filled with water and something filled with air demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about.
surfdog
(624 posts)"In anti-tank weapons, you only have a shaped charge. No projectile."
You couldn't be more wrong
The charge sends the projectile to the target , the projectile then leaves a hole far far larger than itself , this is a fact
Go ahead and tell me our military transports are filled with water like a human head
The projectile does not detonate when it reaches the target, yet it destroys the transport.
You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No. Assuming we're talking about anti-tank weapons, a rocket motor sends the projectile to the target.
The warhead on the front of the antitank weapon is a shaped charge. The charge is shaped to concentrate the explosive energy so that it melts a hole through the armor, and then sprays molten armor around the inside of the tank.
No, that's your claim. At least, your claim that it would be a large hole based on exit wounds ignores the fact that the ships are full of air not water.
Well, now you've moved onto another kind of anti-tank weapon, a kinetic anti-tank weapon. Also known as a sabot round. Those are only fired by tanks at other tanks, because they're the only thing that can carry the enormous cannon required to direct-fire such a weapon. The only explosives in a sabot round is the gunpowder that fires off the gigantic bullet. There is no shaped charge involved.
Shaped charges were developed so that anti-tank weapons could be carried by people and aircraft. So RPGs, TOWs, Hellfires, LAWs and so on use shaped charges. There is no projectile launched by the shaped charge.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... to anyone paying attention, that you don't know jack about weapons. You have no idea as to what a shaped charge is. You might try googling "shaped charge" and get a clue.
Never mind, don't bother.
(From a guy that spent the last 30 years in the weapons testing business.)
surfdog
(624 posts)Please explain to me now what a shaped charge is
I am waiting
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)A shaped charge is a warhead, not the charge that propels the missile as you stated earlier. It uses the DETONATION of an explosive charge shaped in such a way as to concentrate it's force. Typically to penetrate armor. (The force penetrates the armor, not a projectile.) You have been mixing up properties of kinetic energy and other types of projectile warheads. I'd advise you just leave this subject before you make yourself look even worse. I am done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator
surfdog
(624 posts)Does the projectile detonate when it hits its target ?
surfdog
(624 posts)That the links you posted contradict what you've been telling me
The links you posted describe the shaped charge
it sends a projectile out to the target that does not detonate when it hits it
get it yet ?
The links back up my claim not yours why would you even post that
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The fact that you think those are two links to the same weapon demonstrate you don't understand what's going on.
surfdog
(624 posts)When a shaped charge used against a military transport does the projectile detonate when it hits the transport ?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)surfdog
(624 posts)"Contrary to a widespread misconception, the shaped charge does not depend in any way on heating or melting for its effectiveness, that is, the jet from a shaped charge does not melt its way through armor, as its effect is purely kinetic in nature."
His link proved that I am right
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)located in these hardened mountain locations including locations on the tiny islands they control around the Straits.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We've got enough bombs to level everything near the strait, and still have leftovers to drop on Tehran to say "Bad country! No treat!!"
The Iranians can't close the Strait. They can make a mess, and they can freak out civilian shippers enough to make them not travel through it. But they can't close it.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It depends on how they have them deployed.
If they launch a wave of missiles, we'll strike back at all the cruise-missile emplacements and launchers we can find. Will that be all of them? Probably not. Some are doubtless dummies, some are doubtless unknown to us. Others will be brought in from secure areas of Iran to replace expended missiles.
They can't close the straight to military ships. They can make it closed to commercial shipping, as their owners will not permit their ships to be in the danger zone.
This isn't like the Battle of the North Atlantic, with full-blown war necessitating cargo ships moving regardless of risk through submarine-infested waters.
spanone
(135,830 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, worse! Drive up gas prices!!!
msongs
(67,403 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Iran and Missiles.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=allintitle%3Airan+missiles&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
Enjoy. There are only about 900+ threads to review...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and they are being monitored at least several different ways (satellite, radar, infrared etc). If they start prepping missiles to be launched, putting jet fuel into significant numbers of their planes, or sortie-ing unusual numbers of their navy ships or subs, we are going to know about it with at least 30 minutes notice before any of those platforms can be launched against us.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)They can close is, for a day. Not much longer than that.
Brother Buzz
(36,422 posts)They can be here, they can be there. Locating them is going to be a job for the remote sensing and photo interpreting boys, if they actually have them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is an internet myth that won't die - pull the string and there are plenty of conspiracy sites peddling the notion but no hard facts.
Iran, for one, has never claimed to have them. The Russians have never claimed to have sold them. And the Iranians have never test fired one.
surfdog
(624 posts)To have no nuclear weapons
Using your logic, Israel has no nuclear weapons
hack89
(39,171 posts)there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has Sunburns. Pull the string - it goes back to unsubstantiated claims on conspiracy web sites.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)And if the Iranians have Sunburns, they may well be the Chinese versions. Somewhat improved by the PLA.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why would China give Iran the capability to close the straits? Their economy depends that oil.
And, once again, there is no evidence that China has provided advance ASCMs to Iran.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Maybe Chinese political leaders don't suffer from irrational paranoia.
I don't mean to imply that Iran has these missiles. I don't know, because as you say, there is no evidence. But your unspoken premise, is that Iran is an aggressor who will close the strait just because they can, yet there is no evidence to support that claim.
The scurrying, aggressive behavior of U.S. policy makers with their "war on terror", is all about securing control of valuable energy reserves in the Middle East and keeping China out to begin with, so if Iran can pay for Chinese missiles, I can't think of any reason for why China would not sell them.
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)They would be committing economic suicide on themselves...
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)not its missiles, that pose the real threat to shipping.
Missiles would be used to hinder mine-clearing operations by targeting Navy ships from other countries.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287447 for a link to and snippets from a much better article on Iran's potential to close the Strait of Hormuz.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Iranians want normalized diplomatic relations with the global community.
The Iranian system is a repulsive theocratic dictatorship, but the desired changes to it will have to come from within. It wouldn't even be a current issue if it hadn't been for U.S. meddling in the first place.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And Tehran being a repulsive theocratic dictatorship is part of the reason why. Change cannot come from within the government; last chance for that was in 1979. Now, the people of Iran must rise up and say no.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)and that says they are not aggressive.
The U.S. system is not a theocratic dictatorship, yet it will attack others at the drop of a hat, and has brought death and misery to millions, so clearly, theocracy is not a prerequisite to aggression.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Iran is a very aggressive country today. It's just that 99% of their aggression is done thru proxies.......most of the people running the place may be evil but they're not quite idiots. If they had tried more than one land war it's almost certain that things probably would've ended pretty badly for them(and the minute they even thought about touching Soviet Turkestan? Ka-Boom. That's all I gotta say on that).
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Iran have about a hundred of these:
The range is enough to cover the straight, and I'm pretty sure that's more incoming per second than Aegis/phalanx can handle.
And I would not want to be near a tanker at the wrong end of that lot.
Hawkowl
(5,213 posts)The project cost $250 million and was called Millennium Challenge 2002. It is a fascinating story. (Red is Iran, Blue the USA).
"Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detectthem as well as expected.[1]
At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action. After the wargame was restarted, the war game was forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among the rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and Red Force was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered that the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]. This lead to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming American victory.[3], which meant that "$250 million was wasted".[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
