Iran says that..sorry, can't hold back the laughter...it will send naval ships to US coast

[Josh]

Gaffney makes particular note of the fact that Iran has test launched a short-range Scud missile off of a ship

 

Now why test that?

 

I've no idea, since presumably the flight characteristics of a sea launched missile are the same as a land launched one.

[ramontxo]

I won't even speak to the idea that Hezbollah could some how mount a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile on a ship and successfully fire it.

 

Not that I'd weight it heavily, but just to be the Devil's Advocate I'll leave these here.

 

Defence experts are warning of a new danger of ballistic weapons proliferation after a Russian company started marketing a cruise missile that can be launched from a shipping container.

 

http://www.telegraph...ue-bidders.html

 

 

 

JERUSALEM—Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged, in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance and sets back a major diplomatic outreach effort to Damascus by the Obama administration.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0135333282.html

 

Cruise missiles cannot reach the altitudes necessary for EMP deployment. Non-starter.

 

Hez has Scuds? First of all, I doubt it, second of all, now they need is a nuke to put on it, assuming they have the technical capability to properly load it and fuse it at altitude. That nuke presumably would come from Iran...in which case, why wouldn't they just use it themselves? The nuke would also have to be relatively small--IIRC Scud has a payload in the neighborhood of 1 ton. Both of the atomic weapons used on Japan were 5 tons. Then they have to some how erect it and fuel it on board a cargo ship in open water not built for such a purpose--Scuds use liquid fuel and one of the components is quite caustic and dangerous. And we're still talking about a very weak and localized effect assuming everything worked perfectly unless we're talking about a two stage fission-fusion weapon as opposed to a first generation gun or implosion design--its not even clear that Israel achieved this level of sophistication with their nuclear program.

 

If Hez got a nuke, I'm thinking they would attempt something less sophisticated like floating it into a port on a ship which takes far less sophistication both in the delivery vehicle and the size and weight of the weapon. I'm also thinking that the first place they would use it on would Israel, not the US.

 

So no, on the list of things to worry about, Iran or Hez employing an EMP attack on the US is down there with asteroids running into the earth. Actually lower than that, because we wouldn't be able to stop an asteroid, where as there's every chance that existing ABM systems could intercept an Iranian nuke were one ever to exist.

 

They dont need a nuke weapon. Just a bunch of fanatics to highjack a liquid gas ship and sail it in a american (or european or wherever...)

Edited August 21, 2012 by ramontxo

[X-Files]

Monday, August 20th, 2012 | Posted by Heritage.org | Print This Article

This Threat Seems Fictional, but It's a Real Danger

 

 

http://www.hawaiirep...real-danger/123

 

 

As Iran miscalculates Israeli resolve, it is clear that the diplomatic dance of deceit and empty bluster for years is over. The die is cast and Israel has crossed the Rubicon, since a significant spectacle of events is set to begin to work against Iran come October.

While the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations, the wild card is in Israel’s hand - with Electrnonic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) inscribed on it. Since diplomacy and sanctions were an abject failure, war has become inevitable and preparations for preventing Iran’s rapid nuclear progress have, thus far, accelerated.

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12017#.UDT7TKOd6So

Edited August 22, 2012 by X-Files

[Josh]

Posted in the other Iran thread about this--Israel could dig the nuclear sites out with nuclear ground bursts, and thats about as likely as an air burst. That article has so many falsehoods I don't have the time to pick them all out.

[X-Files]

That article has so many falsehoods I don't have the time to pick them all out.

 

Your time being more valuable than anyone else here doing a critical analysis?

[Josh]

That article has so many falsehoods I don't have the time to pick them all out.

 

Your time being more valuable than anyone else here doing a critical analysis?

 

I'll let someone else ring in; if no one does maybe tomorrow I'll list what I feel are discrepancies.

[rmgill]

I've no idea, since presumably the flight characteristics of a sea launched missile are the same as a land launched one.

 

Gosh, why the need for Operation Sandy then?

 

 

Note the problems they had. A 45° Tip over and departure plus breaking up at 15,000 feet?

 

Could be something to do with the fact that a land based missile is sitting static when it launches and a sea based missile is rolling, pitching, yawing, rising and moving forwards when it fires it's engines. That might have some effect upon the gyros and the software that interprets the motions and how it responds to those motions.

[Josh]

Specifically I was addressing an article someone posted where the *US* launched a test target that was intercepted by a SM-3. Why the US would launch a test target from a ship eludes me--if it actually successfully launches down the right trajectory, I assume it largely behaves like a land launched missile. It seems to me the challenge would be on Iran or Hezbollah in this hypothetical situation to actually launch the missile successfully, not on the US to shoot it down. But perhaps someone can educate me; maybe the instabilities introduced from launching off a ship actually make it harder to shoot down.

 

The original article concerning the SM-3 test:

 

http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.60/subject_detail.asp

[Josh]

That article has so many falsehoods I don't have the time to pick them all out.

 

Your time being more valuable than anyone else here doing a critical analysis?

 

Apparently. my time is less valuable, since no one else has gone yay or nay on this article. So here's my take:

 

"First, Iran plans to ratchet up enrichment up to 60 per cent uranium which is now on the way to an 80-90 percent weapons grade."

 

First I heard of it; would like a source. Second of all, such a declaration of intent doesn't make them any closer to 60% enrichment, let alone 80-90%. So I fail to see the point. Once you can get to 20%, the rest is basically just 'how patient are you?'.

 

"Second, Iran has accelerated its forced projection and tested ballistic missiles delivery system in an EMP mode with North Korean assistance."

 

Again, source? I like that the link they give is just back to their own hyperbole. What is an 'EMP mode'? Bullshit is what it is. 'EMP mode' is just a fusing issue--making a bomb blow up at 100 (cough, sorry) 30 km altitude versus air bursting at a few thousand feet as is more typical. Unless you know something I don't, there is no change in flight profile, so the idea that they were 'testing in EMP mode' make me think this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Again, if there's some piece of information that I'm missing about an intentional EMP air bursted nuke, let me know, but far I know its a regular nuke fused at high altitude, not a unique weapon with a unique warhead or flight profile.

 

"Third, Iran’s stockpile of low grade enriched uranium can be converted to five nuclear weapons if refined further, according to the Institute for Science and International Security."

 

Well finally a source outside their own website. And on this point I simply say 'duh'...of course they have a large inventory of enriched uranium; what the hell has all this hassel been about if they didn't? but its not currently enriched enough remotely to give them something bomb grade, unless there's intelligence that even this hysterical article isn't claiming...they say above 'plan to enrich to 60'.

 

"Fourth, satellite imagery shows mega-fortification of underground nuclear facilities impervious to U.S. super bunker buster bombs."

 

Because whoever writes this article of course has complete knowledge of what US penetrating weapons can do. I'm not saying that I know either, but the idea that the author has such knowledge is at least as ridiculous. If the US can't crack these facilities, why the hell is anyone even worried about the IDF trying to do so? Because clearly a 30,000lb bomb dropped from an intercontinental bomber is a bit more of a punch to the face than a 5000lb bomb dropped from an F-15, which is, far as I know, the best the IAF can manage, short of a ballistic missile.

 

"Finally, Iran has started the process of loading 163 fuel rods into the core of Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor."

 

Far as I know Bushehr actually is the least significant nuclear site as far as Iran's nuclear program goes...ultimately its spent rods might yield Pu but that would be way after Iran could produce a Uranium based weapon.

 

"In light of the latest developments, there is no question that Iran is now a de facto nuclear state"

 

By this metric, Japan is a nuclear state. I can't wait until we start sanctioning them.

 

"Regardless of the consequences, the U.S. would have no choice but to support Israel."

 

Yes, the US is going to give a blank check to Israel to detonate above ground nuclear explosions, regardless of what altitude they are at...that of course would affect US foreign policy not at all.

 

"In addition, intelligence sources have now indicated Iran is within two years of bringing the Islamic revolution to the U.S. in the form of an EMP attack."

 

So within two years Iran will develop an ICBM, make a nuclear weapon, and miniaturize it enough for employment on said ICBM. As far as I know, NOT EVEN ISRAEL'S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS SAYING THAT. If you have a source to the contrary--please post.

 

"Coupled with cyber-attacks, Iranians would not know it happened..."

 

Yeah, because having a second sun in the sky visible from every point in your country of 60 million people is *subtle*....

 

 

 

I gave up reading this piece of shit after that. I'm sure there's more.

[X-Files]

'EMP mode' is just a fusing issue--making a bomb blow up at 100 (cough, sorry) 30 km altitude

 

Need some Heimlich? Gladly!

 

 

http://ed-thelen.org/EMP-ElectroMagneticPulse.html

 

High Altitude Burst. A high altitude burst is one in which the weapon is exploded at such an altitude (above 30 km) that initial soft x-rays generated by the detonation dissipate energy as heat in a much larger volume of air molecules.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

[Josh]

Skimming those articles, I see nothing to indicate that EMP producing tests involved nuclear weapons with any modifications what so ever, outside of the altitude at which they were fused. IE, any nuclear weapon of sufficient yield placed on a missile with sufficient range could be an EMP weapon--and there would be no testing or modifications to the weapon that would differentiate an intended EMP weapon from a more conventional lower atmosphere air burst, except for actually launching and detonating a weapon at high altitude. There's no evidence that the Iranians are trying to operate a missile in 'an EMP mode'. Indeed, there likely never would be. The author of the article just pulls EMP out of his ass as far as I can tell with out having any actual fact to lean on.

 

Its probably best if we agree to disagree on this issue; I doubt either of us will be convinced.

[X-Files]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's navy says the country aims to put its warships in international waters off the U.S. coast "in the next few years." The comments Tuesday from Admiral Habibollah Sayyari on state TV are part of Iran's response to Washington's beefed up naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-08-16-47

[IronsightSniper]

What would constitute a warship in Iran's eyes?

[X-Files]

 

[Kentucky-roughrider]

That would seem like a war ship to me and would most likley be counted as such by almost any navy in the world, sort of a Q ship designed to attack the enemy's shore instead of submarines.

[X-Files]

Ryan Mauro: How far away is Iran and other enemies of the U.S. from having the capability to carry out this kind of attack? Some experts say that Iran would still need a year to construct an actual nuclear bomb after acquiring the necessary highly enriched uranium and would need years after that to develop a nuclear warhead that can fit onto a ballistic missile.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry: Any state or group possessing any nuclear weapon and any missile capable of reaching an altitude over 30-40 kilometers can make an EMP attack. An ICBM is not necessary. An EMP attack can be delivered by a short-range missile launched from a ship, such as a commercial freighter, operating near U.S. shores. Iran has practiced such a delivery mode. Iran already has missiles, such as Scuds and its Shahab-III, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

Officially, the Obama Administration claims that Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Personally, I have written several articles warning that Iran might already have the bomb. Our intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program is not good. Historically, our intelligence community has a bad record on predicting the advent of new nuclear weapon states and was taken by surprise by the development of nuclear weapons by Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Supposedly, Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for 20 years, yet during World War II, the U.S. Manhattan Project developed the world's first nuclear weapons using 1940’s era technology in just three years. Why should Iran, with access to the now declassified Manhattan Project papers and copious other U.S. documents on nuclear weapons design and helped by North Korea and others and equipped with modern technology, not be able to accomplish in 20 years what the U.S. accomplished during the 1940’s in just three?

The difficulty of miniaturizing a nuclear warhead for missile delivery is often exaggerated. Pakistan deployed nuclear warheads on its Ghauri missile just one year after its first nuclear test. Israel, according to the respected Wisconsin Project, has developed a sophisticated array of nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear warheads and weapons miniaturized for delivery by missiles and artillery--all without nuclear testing.

 

http://cdn.radicalislam.org/analysis/dr-peter-vincent-pry-america-may-never-recover-emp-attack

 

 

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security for the Congressional Caucus on EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) that endeavors to carry on the work of the EMP Commission. He is also the Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. Pry has served on the staffs of the EMP Commission, the Strategic Posture Commission, the Commission on the New Strategic Posture of the U.S., the House Armed Services Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency.

[X-Files]

Obviously related

 

"Sources confirmed to us that Hurricane Sandy that is slamming the U.S. was set off by highly advanced technologies developed by the heroic Iranian regime that supports the resistance, with coordination of our resistive Syrian regime," pro-government group News Network of the Syrian Armed Forces said in a Facebook posting.

"This is the punishment for whoever dares to attack Syria's (Bashar) al-Assad and threaten peace and stability."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/world/meast/syria-sandy-facebook-claim/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Doug Kibbey]

Obviously related

 

"Sources confirmed to us that Hurricane Sandy that is slamming the U.S. was set off by highly advanced technologies developed by the heroic Iranian regime that supports the resistance, with coordination of our resistive Syrian regime," pro-government group News Network of the Syrian Armed Forces said in a Facebook posting.

"This is the punishment for whoever dares to attack Syria's (Bashar) al-Assad and threaten peace and stability."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

 

Dang! Another golden opportunity for a "proportional response" squandered.

[X-Files]

I'll just leave this here -

 

While OAK recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes. NOAA, and its predecessor agency, once supported and conducted research into hurricane modification through Project STORMFURY from 1962 to 1983. Project STORMFURY was discontinued as the result of: I) inconclusive scientific results, and 2) the inability to separate the difference between what happens when a hurricane is modified by human intervention versus a hurricane's natural behavior.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=92e_1351632149

[Colin]

That would seem like a war ship to me and would most likley be counted as such by almost any navy in the world, sort of a Q ship designed to attack the enemy's shore instead of submarines.

 

There was concern in WWI of German merchant raiders bombarding Vancouver, leading to our first coastal defenses for the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_raider

[X-Files]

Ghadir sub

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240160/Irans-navy-showcases-bright-new-warship---damage-wont-coming.html

[rmgill]

The size of a Frigate?

 

Looks like a largish minisub.

[rmgill]

[Archie Pellagio]

The size of a Frigate?

 

Looks like a largish minisub.

 

Media morons.

The editor probably changed it from battleship to frigate...

[BansheeOne]

Well, since they Iranians call a light frigate a destroyer, it's probably the size of an Iranian frigate.