Jump to content

Get ready for more death


Recommended Posts

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector (on of the people that were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD who the US smeared in an attempt to discredit, claims US to bomb Iran in June. With Iran cooperating in European nuclear arms talks, the US has no excuse to take out Iran.

That won't stop the neo-cons. as PNAC said, they need a new Pearl Harour. US warships in the Persian Gulf may just be sacrificed to create one. Iran, a bridge too far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector (on of the people that were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD who the US smeared in an attempt to discredit, claims US to bomb Iran in June. With Iran cooperating in European nuclear arms talks, the US has no excuse to take out Iran.

That won't stop the neo-cons. as PNAC said, they need a new Pearl Harour. US warships in the Persian Gulf may just be sacrificed to create one. Iran, a bridge too far

hersay at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatM:

If it was really this easy to sink an entire American naval battle group...why has it not been done yet....Why did the russians who have thousands of these missles not press the US harder during the cold war....or for that matter today....

These missles have been sold around the globe...Yes they are capable of sinking smaller ships even a aircraft carrier if armed with a nuk....but the defensive wpns available to an entire US Naval battle group...out class most countries...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was really this easy to sink an entire American naval battle group...why has it not been done yet....Why did the russians who have thousands of these missles not press the US harder during the cold war....or for that matter today....

Read the article. The Sunburn wasn't develope duntil after the Cold War.

As for why not yet, why would anyone want to initiate a fight with the Americans?

Iran can't risk be branded an aggressor. They just have to sit back and wait for the U.S. or their proxies to strike first.

These missles have been sold around the globe...Yes they are capable of sinking smaller ships even a aircraft carrier if armed with a nuk....but the defensive wpns available to an entire US Naval battle group...out class most countries...

Again, read the article. the defensive weapons used by the USN are not built to deal with the threat of low-level supersonic cruise missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hersay at best.

Everything Ritter said about Iraq was proved correct. Everything Bush and the mainstream media said was not only proved wrong, but there is much evidence that Bush knowingly lied about it and the press published without comment even though they knew they were lies.

Methinks I trust Ritter more than these corporatist warmongers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Read the article. The Sunburn wasn't develope duntil after the Cold War.

I did read the article, just because it is in written form does not make it true....

below is a few referances...

3M80/Kh-41 MOSKIT [sS-N-22 'Sunburn']

The Moskit is a large supersonic anti-ship missile.[1,2] Designed by the Raduga Design Bureau, development of the Moskit began in the 1970s. The Moskit entered Soviet military service in the 1980s aboard Sovremennyy-class guided missile destroyers and several classes of fast attack boats. An air-launched version of the Moskit was first displayed in 1992, and Raduga also reportedly began designs for a surface-to-air variant. Neither variant had entered production as of April 2002.[3,4] The Moskit's control system is manufactured by NPO Altair.[5] Missile assembly takes place at the Progress plant in Arsenyevo in Primorskiy Kray.[6]

The Moskit is powered by a ramjet engine and has an estimated top speed of Mach 2.5. It has a launch weight of 3,950kg and carries a payload of 300kg. The Moskit has a range of 120km (250km air-launched), but tests of the Moskit using a high trajectory showed the possibility of increasing its range to 300km.[3,7,8,] The air-launched version can be carried by Su-27 and Su-33 fighters. There is no known submarine-launched version of the Moskit.[9]

Russia's export customers so far include only China, which purchased two Project 956E Sovremennyy-class guided missile destroyers armed with Moskit missiles.[6] China has also recently signed a new contract with Rosoboroneksport to purchase two more destroyers by 2005.[10] There are also reports that China is expected to sign contracts for the air-launched version of the missile.[11] There have also been unconfirmed reports that Iran acquired eight Moskit missiles from Ukraine. Iran has also shown interest in purchasing Project 12421 Molniya missile corvettes armed with the Moskit.[12,13]

Moskit Missile Characteristics [7] Length (m) 9.385

Diameter (m) .76

Range (km) 120 (ground-launched), 250 (air-launched)

Speed (Mach) 2.5

Launch Weight (kg) 3,950

Warhead (kg) 300

Sources:

[1] Steven J. Zaloga, "Missile Markets: Uneven Recovery," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 15 January 2001, pp. 181-183; in Proquest, http://proquest.umi.com.

[2] Michael Waller, "Will Gore's slips sink U.S. ships?" Insight on the News, Vol. 16, No. 18, 15 May 2000, pp. 22-24; in Proquest, http://proquest.umi.com.

[3] V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolskiy, Voyenno-morskoy flot SSSR 1945-1991 (St. Petersburg: Istoricheskoye morskoye obshchestvo, 1996), p. 332.

[4] Eric H. Biass and Roy Braybrook, "Missiles on a cruise," Armada International, June/July 2001; in Proquest, http://proquest.umi.com.

[5] Dmitriy Safronov, "'Moskit' stal sovershenno nesekretnym," Kommersant-Daily, 14 April 1998; in East View Russian/NIS Central Newspapers Databases, http://online.eastview.com.

[6] Nikolay Novichkov, ITAR-TASS, 16 May 2000; in "First Lot of Russian Moskit Missiles Shipped to China," FBIS Document CEP20000516000142.

[7] A.V. Karpenko and S.M.Ganin, "Otechestvennye aviatsionnye takticheskiye rakety," Bastion, 1/2000, pp. 57-58.

[8] "SS-N-22 Sunburn," Missile.index Web Site, http://www.index.ne.jp, 1997.

[9] Norman Friedman, "India tests new antiship missile," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, August 2001.

[10] Vladimir Urban, "Destroyers of Discord," Novyye izvestiya, 9 January 2002; in "Shipbuilders Squabble Over New Chinese Destroyer Contract," FBIS Document CEP20020109000348.

[11] "Russia Plans To Increase Export Of Moskit Missiles To China," Segodnya, 26 September 1998, p. 2; in Defence & Security, No. 116, 30 September 1998; in East View Military and Security Periodicals Database, http://online.eastview.com.

[12] Anatoliy Dokuchayev, "Russia Does Its Own Production," Krasnaya zvezda, 30 October 1999; in "Dokuchayev reviews developments in naval armaments in last 2-3 months," FBIS Document CEP19991102000037.

[13] Igor Korotchenko, "Vopreki davleniyu SShA," Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye online edition, http://nvo.ng.ru, No. 3, 1 February 2002.

[14] Duncan Lennox, "SS-N-22 'Sunburn' (P-80/3M-80 Zubr)," Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems 36, Jane's Information Group Web Site, http://www.janes.com/, 12 November 2001. {Entered 4/19/02 RG}

Again, read the article. the defensive weapons used by the USN are not built to deal with the threat of low-level supersonic cruise missiles.

Again i did read the article, but it is out of date most of NATO have been working on this problem for years....the US Navy have developed a counter to this missle.

See below reference ...I can provide you with more if you like...

Iran can't risk be branded an aggressor. They just have to sit back and wait for the U.S. or their proxies to strike first.

Iran can not hope to pin it's defense of it's entire country on one wpn system, even if it is highly capable...

My Webpage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read the article, just because it is in written form does not make it true....

below is a few referances...

I stand corrected.

Again i did read the article, but it is out of date most of NATO have been working on this problem for years....the US Navy have developed a counter to this missle.

See below reference ...I can provide you with more if you like...

Wel I guess the only way we can test the competing claims is a combat situation, which would be unplesant to say the least.

Iran can not hope to pin it's defense of it's entire country on one wpn system, even if it is highly capable...

I doubt they are. I think the point is to highlight the threats facing a U.S. "intervention" against Iran. For example, I've no doubt they Iranians are training troops for an Iraq-style insurgency, should teh U.S. atempt an invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Wel I guess the only way we can test the competing claims is a combat situation, which would be unplesant to say the least.

Yes, it would...I pray that it does not as i believe the US has enough on thier plate with Iraq.

I doubt they are. I think the point is to highlight the threats facing a U.S. "intervention" against Iran. For example, I've no doubt they Iranians are training troops for an Iraq-style insurgency, should teh U.S. atempt an invasion.

The Iraqis were actually better armed during the first Gulf war...but theythe (Iranians) firmly believe that there's will be different and they can beat the US.......they will not stand up to a conventional attack if that is the route the US takes a big IF as i don't see it happening at all....

And i agree with you that thier only hope is a long drawn out Iraqi style fight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iraqis were actually better armed during the first Gulf war...but theythe (Iranians)  firmly believe that there's will be different and they can beat the US.......they will not stand up to a conventional attack if that is the route the US takes a big IF as i don't see it happening at all....

And i agree with you that thier only hope is a long drawn out Iraqi style fight...

Except for the "if", I totally agree. Iran isn't stupid, it knows guerilla warfare is its only hope against a technically superior invader. They will disperse and wait for all the support to roll in from the muslim world. Saddam was a sadistic bastard and the muslim world saw him as a sadistic bastard. The out-of-country support for the Iraqi resistance isn't all that large really - it consists of those that thought Saddam was good and those that thought he was a saddistic bastard but see a chance to fight the US directly.

Iran is quite different, they enjoy a much better reputation in the muslim world. Attacking them will rile up a lot more people. Even those that wouldn't take action if it were just Iran may rise up against what is seen as the US design to rule the entire middle east - either directly through military occupation or by proxy such as in Saudi Arabia.

Common sense says Bush cannot be stupid enough to start war in a third country, but bush has defied common sense many times already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article in the originating post:

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.
The source is elliptic, doubtful and prone to exaggeration. But taking it at face value, it makes no mention of an American invasion of Iran. It refers specifically to an aerial attack of Iran's nuclear programme.

At present, the EU and Iran are in talks to provide safeguards for that programme. I suspect the US is playing the bad cop to the EU's good cop. This is a threat, but a credible one. There is a precedent. In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear power station that was purported to be part of a nuclear weapons programme.

The US will not invade Iran. Iranians will organize their own regime change. A remarkable feature of middle eastern politics is that Iraq is emerging as a Shia country - somewhat like Ireland emerged as a Catholic country.

Any invasion of Iran would be the prelude to Armageddon.
You put too much faith in one book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
PatM:

If it was really this easy to sink an entire American naval battle group...why has it not been done yet....Why did the russians who have thousands of these missles not press the US harder during the cold war....or for that matter today....

These missles have been sold around the globe...Yes they are capable of sinking smaller ships even a aircraft carrier if armed with a nuk....but the defensive wpns available to an entire US Naval battle group...out class most countries...

That is true. But just like Pearl Harbour, the ships in the Persian Gulf could easily get hit.

Here are my theories on Pearl Harbour:

1. It was staged by the Americans in order to enter WW2

2. It was the Americans who forced the Japanese to lift the pressure on their oil supplies (what's better than hitting 7th fleet?)

3. The Americans forced the Japanese to do it (with the above method) so that they can enter the war.

Why do I think this? The Americans had a great depression just like every other country (caused by the U.S. too), what's a better way to jump-start your economy than re-opening factories for operation and virtually ending unemployement?

If the Administration wishes to sacrifice a few ships to further its agenda (and it knows that it can effectively cover it up or blame someone else for a few decades), then I don't think Bush will think twice about doing so. Roosevelt certainly never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector (on of the people that were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD who the US smeared in an attempt to discredit, claims US to bomb Iran in June. With Iran cooperating in European nuclear arms talks, the US has no excuse to take out Iran.

That won't stop the neo-cons. as PNAC said, they need a new Pearl Harour. US warships in the Persian Gulf may just be sacrificed to create one. Iran, a bridge too far

Paranoid lunacy from people barely holding onto scraps of sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

Iranians will organize their own regime change.
It seems that the Iranians are choosing between bad and worse, as far as US-relations go. From the BBC...
The second round pits conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against pragmatic cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who led Iran for eight years until 1997.

Mr Rafsanjani had been expected to do well, but few predicted Mr Ahmadinejad would be his rival, correspondents say.

Rafsanjani is a sabre-rattler, for sure, but if the Iranians are looking for someone more radical than him, there could be trouble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything Ritter said about Iraq was proved correct.

Actually, one of the reasons Ritter’s pre-war claims were treated with skepticism was due to the abrupt about-face he made prior to the invasion. Upon his resignation from UNSCOM in 1998, he was America’s most vocal and fervent advocate of war with Iraq, and there was no apparent reason for his eventual transformation into a leading anti-war voice. These are a few examples of the things he was saying in 1998:

“Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“Iraq is not disarming. This means that Iraq will, in effect, win the Gulf War.”

“Iraq is in violation of the laws. The Security Council, including the United States, must be willing to enforce its laws.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/27/iraq.ritter.01/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...