Slashdot Mirror
Iran Tests Naval Cruise Missile During War Games
Hugh Pickens writes "Iran says it has successfully test fired a cruise missile during naval exercises near the Strait of Hormuz, and the surface-to-sea missile, known as the Qader, struck its targets with precision and destroyed them. Iran had previously announced that it intended to test a missile during the exercises, raising fears that it might try to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for tougher international sanctions. The Qader missile is said to be capable of striking warships at a range of about 125 miles, a distance that would include some American forces in the Gulf region as Iran is about 140 miles at its nearest point from Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Analysts say Iran's increasingly strident rhetoric, which has pushed oil prices higher, is aimed at sending a message to the West that it should think twice about the economic cost of putting further pressure on Tehran. 'No order has been given for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,' Iran's state television quoted navy chief Habibollah Sayyari as saying. 'But we are prepared for various scenarios.'"
There was no good naval battle on CNN in a while. If it happens, it will be really exciting 1 hour, because that's how long it will take to destroy all Iran's fleet.
Read about small boats and aircraft did during US war games under Gen. Paul van Ripen.
U Sank My Carrier! By Gary Brecher
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779
"send everything at once"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Ugh, the arrogance.
I think the message is more "Fuck with us and people die" rather than "We will conquer the Earth". Just my 2c.
When there are so many too choose from abroad?
Iran is doing what all failing governments do, redirecting the ire of their people to someone other than itself. Granted they have had their "Great Satan" for many many years the uprisings and home grown terrorism does show the state cannot control all factions present within its borders.
So they need to have their people believe that all fault is outside of the country while at the same time explaining the lack of living standards and such is the great sacrifice needed to uphold Iranian values and freedom in the face of the great enemies abroad. Wow, sounds like North Korea as well.
Iran is the dog on the other side of the fence, barking and slavering to get at you. Yes it has teeth and yes it will hurt, but its going to get such an ass kicking it really enjoys that fence as much as you do.
With all the exaggerated press in the US about war mongering politicians its not exactly reassuring to see that there are still so many crazies abroad to give the locals reason. Iran is threatening more than the US with this boast of closing the straights. Perhaps they are trying to wake their Iman they so desperately need.... most likely a failing leader most likely needs the crisis and possibly the war to stay in power.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I know about the "risk" of nuclear proliferation, but as we did nothing about Kim Il Jong for decades in North Korea, I think the fears of Iran having nukes are over-rated. If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse?
Certainly Iran executes a lot of people for violating a strict interpretation of Islamic law, so anyone who's against religion in government has a fundamental problem with Iran. But invasion is a poor way of protecting the people from a government that places dogma over reason. Surely diplomatic discourse would be more effective than the threat of invasion.
And that's really the problem I see. The US keeps beating the invasion and war drums. Iran refuses to back down, the mouse that roared at the lion. Neither side seems willing to act rationally.
If you're going to constantly go on about invading a nation, yeah, they're gonna get paranoid about BEING invaded. They're going to want to build up their military and their armaments to fight back, including nukes.
And with Israel and it's nukes so close to Iran and clearly a darling of US policy, the threat to Iran is imminent, at least from their perspective. Mind you, the Iranian government doesn't help that situation with their ongoing diatribe against Israel. More bluster that escalates instead of negotiates.
Recent US history is a track record of invasion and attack for reasons that turned out to be unjustified in the end. It doesn't give me a comfortable feeling to see them dictating policy to Iran when the US handling of Cuba has shown that appeasing the US does NOT mean the sanctions will be dropped.
Maybe if someone were to take a serious step like disarming Israel's nuclear arsenal, things could settle down in the middle east.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This thread so far is like watching a special olympics boxing match.
I think the message is more "Fuck with us and people die" rather than "We will conquer the Earth". Just my 2c.
Or worse, "Fuck with us and your voters will be paying ten dollars a gallon for gasoline."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm not sure there are any naval battles to be had anymore, unless we end up living to see WWIII. The sea-faring bits of our Navy really only exists as an aircraft and missile platform, not for serious confrontations with other naval vessels. We certainly have the equipment, but if we ever had to use it we'd already be looking at much more serious trouble. The countries that have real naval combat facility (that we couldn't safely annihilate from a long ways away) also have nukes and delivery technologies.
Blockades are defined by international law as an act of war. The moment you try to enforce this blockade, you'll have effectively declared war on every Persian Gulf state and anyone trading with them.
* Caveat: In the last ten years, I have only spent 2 years in the Persian Gulf, transiting the Hormuz approximately 20 times.*
- The strait is approximately 12 miles wide at the "choke-point".
- A Qader has an maximum range of 125 miles.
- Most of the corporations that run tankers through the straits are extremely risk adverse. All it would take is one missile being "tested" in the vicinity of the shipping lanes to cause the number of tankers to plummet.
- There is a huge number of container ships that go from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and into the Mediterranean via the Suez (and vice versa), and almost the same number of ships that "turn left" instead of "right" there.
- Jet-skis can and do transit the straits. The bigger smugglers use speedboats, but the intelligence agencies use the personal watercraft sized craft and semi-submersible planing hulls to move agents and for surveillance. What airborne surveillance aircraft that Iran does have are slow moving and could probably be best engaged by M-4's and SAWS.
- The US Navy presence in Iraq is rather small compared to the USN presence in Bahrain and the UAE.
- Iran's militarized coast guard regularly harasses ships that transit the strait anyway. Have to love the 'Great Satan Running Dog' rants that comes up on chan 16.
- Iran's air force could be wiped from the skies by a single squadron of F-18F's loaded for dedicated air to air. It is their waterborne forces that are actually a threat.
- Two Global Hawks at high-altitude would be able cover the entire Persian Gulf with real time targeting data.
- Sniper rifles work just as well at sea as they do on land.
This is just more evidence that Iraq was a huge mistake, not like we needed any more but here it is. When Bush outlined his "axis of evil", he decided to go after the least "evil" country on the list, Iraq. Why? Well most people will say oil, or personal vendetta, and while there is some truth to that, the real answer is Iraq was the weakest of the 3. Bush needed a war to boost his poll numbers, so he chose the country that was least able to defend itself.
Had he gone after North Korea, the result would have been an unmitigated humanitarian crisis as North Korea would have unleashed a barrage of missiles and artillery fire(possibly with chemical and/or biological weapons) on Seoul, and the North Koreans are so dug in that there would be no way they could be neutralized without significant damage to Seoul and the surrounding areas. Kind of nice for your enemy to put half their population and probably around 2/3 of their economic output well in range of your artillery isn't it?
Now look at Iran, they have the strongest navy in the middle east(Iraq didn't have anything resembling a functioning navy when the US invaded). They also have decent missiles thanks in no small part to the North Koreans, and a relatively formidable ground force. US casualties in Iran would have been huge, and thats assuming Iran DOESNT have any chemical/biological capabilities....
Now look at Iraq. Saddam eventually disarmed and complied with almost all the UN regulations. His army was incredibly weakened by the embargoes and his air force crippled. And now he is dead. Gadaffi gave up WMD, and now he is dead. What message does this send to dictators? If you disarm, we kill you, if you can cause massive amounts of suffering, we negotiate.
Now look at the Iranian regime, there are only 2 things keeping them even remotely popular, and thus probably in power, in Iran.
1. Defending agains the US(Which thanks to the cowboy president many Iranians legitimately think might invade)
2. Oil revenues(which is why oil continued to plummet after the recession started, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, among others made so many promises to their people assuming oil was going to be over $150/barrel. When the price fell they had no choice but to continue to keep supply high in order to keep the money flowing in)
So now what is happening? The regime knows its running out of time, and has to get nukes fast or else risk being wiped out. Stopping Iranian oil exports would essentially cause chaos at home, so Iran is doing everything in it's power, including going to the brink of war, to keep those oil exports going. It wouldn't be nearly this paranoid about getting nukes if the man-child hadn't decided he wanted to play war hero for daddy and take out a guy that while certainly not, to borrow a phrase from Lewis Black, a snuggy bear, was not any worse than most regimes supported by the US(and the EU before Europeans start getting all self-righteous, France went after Libya and thus has a hand in this too, though not as big as the US's obviously). So instead of his fantasy of making the world safe from tyrants, Bush's actions have basically said, "if you want your regime to stay in power, get WMDs" Good one. The Iraq war will go down as the biggest foreign policy blunder in post-war American history. And while the actual Vietnam and Korean Wars were probably more savage, they were relatively self-contained. The Iraq war(and supporting the Libyan rebels) will have implications that will be felt for decades to come.
Monstar L
And is selling it for Rial and Euros, not dollars. Their oil bourse just last year started trading crude.
That's why they have to be "liberated".
Deleted
Just like Israel took out Hezbollah over night. Brilliant!!!
instead of other people dying for your enjoyment and corporations' profit
That's quite naive, you are more vested in keeping the sea lanes open than you might initially think. When the oil stops then so do the trucks that deliver food to your local grocery store.
Yes it would be great if we got off foreign oil and delivered food using local or renewable energy but that's not what is going to happen in the next two weeks, and IIRC two weeks is about all there is in the local stores and distribution centers on average.
You need to cut down on the revisionist hindsight. Saddam's Iraq was clearly the worst at that time.
Lets see:
Known to be working on nukes: Iraq, Iran & NK.
Pushing Terrorism: Iraq, Iran & NK
Attempted assassination of a former US President: Iraq
Had recently invaded a neighboring country: Iraq.
Had recently invades a second neighboring country: Iraq.
Nukes may indeed be a get out of jail free card for thuggish regimes preserving them from military action but the sanctions, now that just about everyone is agreeing to them and making sure that cheaters are getting punished may yet make the lesson "reneg on your signature of the the Non-proliferation treaty & lose all your international trading partners".
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
The real reason is right there in the summary:
Analysts say Iran's increasingly strident rhetoric, which has pushed oil prices higher, is aimed at sending a message to the West that it
wants more money for its oil...
All other goals are secondary.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
No there are several countries without nukes that the US navy could not annihilate at range with impunity. Take for example the Swedish Gotland-class submarine, it has on multiple occasions(at least 2 occasions) "sunk" US carriers during naval wargames.
I'd imagine that it would be a pretty big embarrassment to the US navy if they lost one or more of their Carriers to a country with an air force only twice the size of what you can fit on one of those carriers.
Presented to U.S. officials by the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based exile group pushing for an American attack on Iraq, the defector says Saddam is close to finishing a long-range ballistic missile that could hit Cairo; Ankara; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Nicosia, Cyprus, or Tehran. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/658542/posts
That was what we were told in 2002. A decade on, we now know that those "intelligence" reports of WMDs from the INC were actually supplied by a double agent working for Iranian intelligence.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10
Oops. And what about those mobile bioweapon labs? It turned out that intelligence came from another unreliable source:
Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[1][4] On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity.[5] Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
The whole story was made up by one guy who wanted his immigration card, and yet - without any verification - it was used by the Bush administration to justify a war.
And since you brought it up, alll of the intelligence that linked Iraq to 911 was lies as well.... There was no Iraq Islamist link (well, at least until the coalition invaded and plunged the country into a bloody sectarian civil war)
Interesting article that seems to be plausible in its main thrust. But Gary Brecher can't resist bloviating about WW2 parallels, and in the process he reveals a pretty impressive degree of ignorance about the naval history of that era.
"The little biplanes buzzed out...and sank every ship. First a destroyer, then the huge German battleship, then all three US battleships. The Navy tried to ignore the results, but with Mitchell yapping at their heels, they finally started moving from battleship-based to aircraft-carrier-based battle groups".
1. Actually, the "little biplanes" that sank the German battleship Ostfriesland dropped 1-ton (2000 lb) bombs. Some of the worst damage was done by bombs that were deliberately dropped as near-misses, using massive water pressure pulses to rupture the vulnerable underwater part of the hull. Of course, Ostfriesland was unmanned and did not defend itself - there were none of the repair parties that would normally fight any breaches in the hull, and the aircraft could come as close as they liked. Amusingly, Mitchell himself told Congress that, "In my opinion, the Navy actually tried to prevent our sinking the Ostfriesland."
2. The British Royal Navy began using ship-launched aircraft in earnest during WW1 (1914-18). The Japanese also began experimenting with aircraft carriers at least as early as the USA. The reason why the USA built so many (and such big) carriers in the1930s and 1940s was mainly that it could - it had the huge wealth necessary to build over 100 carriers during WW2 alone, while other nations like Japan built hardly any. Also, aircraft carriers were very suitable for the Pacific war, with its vast expanses of open ocean and usually good flying weather.
"The British didn't pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration. Their battleships were better made, better armed, and better manned".
This, too, is unfair. The British knew very well that their battleships were no better (to say the least) than those of the USA and Germany. Because Britain ended WW1 almost bankrupt, and owing huge amounts to the USA, its defence budgets were run on a shoestring right up to (and through) WW2. HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson, for example, were smaller and slower than battleships built between the wars by the USA, Germany, Italy, Japan, and France. The British knew very well that aircraft would be very dangerous to warships, but they couldn't stop building battleships because there was still a need for them.
"Why didn't the British think of it in 1940? There was plenty of evidence that battleships were nothing but giant coffins. They just decided not to think about it".
This is where Brecher gets altogether carried away and parts company with reality. Battleships were still necessary, in the Atlantic and Mediterranean theatres if less so in the Pacific. Although the German battleship Bismarck was crippled by a (very lucky) aerial torpedo hit, it took two British battleships to pound her into scrap before she was sent to the bottom by torpedoes. At the battle of Matapan, three British battleships sank three powerful Italian cruisers in a matter of minutes, changing the whole balance of the war in the Mediterranean. And the complex air, sea and land struggle for Guadalcanal was arguably settled when the battleship USS Washington smashed the less powerful Japanese battleship Kirishima, helping to give the USN supremacy in the waters around the strategic island. Certainly battleships were increasingly endangered, but until 1945 they still had important roles to play. The same is true about US carriers today. The fact that they may easily be sunk if they venture into a landlocked body of water like the Persian Gulf does not mean they are not enormously useful.
"In the Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force, which ain't exactly the A Team, managed to shred the British fleet, coming in low and fast to launch the Exocets".
In fact the Argentine Exocets sank exactly one British warship, HMS Sheffield. They also damaged three other ships (and admitte
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
in a serious shooting match between First World (and here we include the Ruskkies and the Chinese) powers the US would have its ass handed to it on a platter.
Seriously? You need to go and review the US naval force relative to China or Russia. It's not even close. In a nonnuclear fight the US loses battles but will inevitably win the war. If it then goes nuclear, well, we can bounce more rubble than anyone.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The carriers are last war's weapons. They are only useful if they can keep out of missile range and launch aircraft. The chinese and iran have medium range surface to surface missiles with longer reach than aircraft. The carrier is an obsolete strategy; the missile is the cannon of the 21st century and carrier groups are the castles.
Ah, if only it were so. However, it's not. A war with Iran would last roughly one month. The progress would be simple -- we would eliminate its air power in detail within roughly one week, standing the navy well off. We would at the same time eliminate most of Iraq's navy from the air. We would at the same time systematically eliminate its visible ground assets (including both air and surface missiles). There would be much sound, much fury, and Iran's political leadership might well be killed in a decapitation strike early on, and of course its nuclear plant would be completely destroyed. By the second week our navy would be moving back in, at some risk but largely protected by on-ship magic against missiles, and how will Iran be able to target those missiles? We'll have complete control of space, complete control of the air, and will be able to see and target any radar emissions almost instantly. Turn an asset on and lose it. Leave it off and lose it anyway as it is picked out by satellites and surveillance air. We will have all of the battlefield intelligence, all of the command and control, huge technological advantages, and overwhelming military force. Week's three and four will be the ground war, which may not conclude by week four but which will have defeated Iran's army in detail by week four. Mopping up may take another two to four weeks. As long as we don't try to occupy a defeated Iran and fight the war into the hills, we could eliminate their military and get out in no time, and leave their internal political structure in shambles if not destroyed.
Iran knows that, which is why they may not knock the block off of our shoulder in Hormuz. On the other hand -- everybody else wants this war. I mean everybody. Count the number of people who gain advantage -- and I mean $100B and up advantage -- from this war. Pretty big list, right? In the NYT today, there it is, congress seeking to cut a half trillion to a trillion from the pentagon budget over ten years. How long would another war stretch that out? Indefinitely? How much money is that a year? Oooo, a lot. Then there is Israel (really wants the war and may use espionage and subterfuge to provoke it). The apocalyptic Christians (no armageddon without rivers of blood, Jesus can't come back until we start up something big involving Israel). Obama (can he really leave Iran and Korea as unfinished business going into this election? And nobody wants to tackle Korea, as they have real missiles and NUKES). Oil companies. Democrats (want to raise taxes). Republicans (want to protect their military-industrial buddies). CNN. The generals (out of Iraq and Afghanistan, about to be made irrelevant again). Our Sunni allies hate and fear the Shia, especially Shia armed with nukes.
I do appreciate the Kabuki reference, but perhaps this is a different kind of theater. The only three countries in Asia that the US couldn't immediately take are India, China and North Korea, and honestly, we could probably kick NK's butt and take names tactically but the strategic war would cost 25 million lives as NK nuked SK, Japan, and as much of the US as they could reach (maybe Alaska, dunno). India I would hate to take on, not least because India is my second country and they are our friends (and they've got a damn tough, nuclear armed military). China is also both our friend, our biggest trading partner, and a nut too tough to ever want to crack. Iran (and Pakistan, at rough equivalence in terms of actual military power but weakly armed with nukes) we could certainly take down, and take down quickly. India could take down Pakistan in a matter of weeks (which
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
I don't think the US wants a direct war with, or an invasion of, Iran. I think that in fact is the last thing desired. Internal, covert disruption of war-making capabilities is likely the US and Israeli goal, and certainly those nations (as well as many others) would like nothing more that to see the current Iranian leadership come to an end.
We've all discussed the "wars for oil," but in this case, the US (at least officially) gets no oil from Iran, even though it is ranked as the world's fourth- or fifth-largest producer. The larger danger is Iran's ability to disrupt oil shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, where approximately 20% of the world's oil passes on its way to market. Disruption of this channel would have a major impact on the price of oil world-wide. Therefore, it is in all oil-consuming nations' economic interests to NOT go to war with Iran. Those nations who do get their oil from Iran would be even more directly affected of course, and would have to turn to other producers. This then means more consumers drawing from a reduced supply pool, even further driving up costs.
Make no mistake, the US most certainly spies on Iran (and upon many other countries), and would love to see the current regime fall. Again, though, a war would have the opposite affect, at least in the short term. The Iranian people themselves are not happy under their current leadership (while a quick web search will not turn up much official information, you will find MANY support groups whose aim is to provide help and support for the Iranian public); a war, especially one started by an invader who supports Israel, would most likely turn the public more towards, rather than against, the current regime.
Finally, you are not wrong that ignorance persists in the United States, but so too does it exist around the world. I assume you are not from America, therefore you are likely making your statement in fact from a position OF ignorance, not allowing that there are many Americans who DO make an attempt to understand the world around them, not only in the countries to their north and south, but also in those across the oceans that insulate their nation. It is also true that there are many people around the world make ignorant suppositions, not just about America, but about their own neighboring nations, and about countries around the world. No one group of people has a stranglehold on ignorance, but it is likely to be equally true that no one group of people is totally marred by it, either.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
If Iran blockades the Strait, political will won't be a problem. No matter what you think of war and peace, globalism and economics, the reality is that a blockade of one of the most important waterways on the planet will most assuredly bring a firestorm to Iran, one that that country could not hope to weather.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Somehow I don't think Iran's intention is to start a shooting war with the US; its real intention is to be a thorn in our side and eventually cripple us economically. Looks like it's working too; they're using the Reagan strategy of bankrupting the enemy by forcing them to build up their arms, except they're doing it asymetrically: they build a fleet of tiny speedboats with missile launchers for peanuts, and we spend billions on super-high-tech countermeasures. All they have to do is keep presenting themselves as a threat that we need to expend tons of money and resources to be vigilant against, and eventually our house of cards will collapse.
Personally, I'm rooting for the Iranians. If we're so stupid that we can't keep our noses out of that part of the world, then we deserve to go bankrupt and have our economy destroyed. Maybe if we'd start electing politicians who actually downsize the bloated military and engage in diplomacy and making our nation energy-independent, we wouldn't have these problems.