[marden]

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome
Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
The Weapon That Could
Defeat The US In The Gulf
By Mark Gaffney
11-2-4

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn't want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don't be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions history makes fools of those who claim to know the future but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. --MG

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

This is a shocking realization. This missile might defeat our carrier battle group's defenses. Can you imagine losing a nuclear carrier to Iran?

[Millennium]

If this is true, why hasn't it been made more public? If it could be proven that Iran had nuclear weapons like this, it would likely swing world opinion in favor of invasion almost overnight.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If this is true, why hasn't it been made more public? If it could be proven that Iran had nuclear weapons like this, it would likely swing world opinion in favor of invasion almost overnight.

Nuclear weapons? Or weapons capable of carrying nukes as well as conventional payloads?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If this is true, why hasn't it been made more public? If it could be proven that Iran had nuclear weapons like this, it would likely swing world opinion in favor of invasion almost overnight.

You'd be stupid enough to invade a country that has nukes?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If this is true, why hasn't it been made more public? If it could be proven that Iran had nuclear weapons like this, it would likely swing world opinion in favor of invasion almost overnight.

No, the article wasn't talking about nukes, but about cruise-missiles that can reach twice supersonic speed and have superior accuracy and special technology that enable it to evade the Navy's protection against these missiles, and therefore posing a grave threat to all american warships in the persian gulf, that are basically hostages of Iran by now, that is if they have enough of these missiles.

And again, if enough of these missiles are in iranian hands and hidden well enough, a war between the US and Iran could see the US losing that war big-time, and therefore making US-presence in the middle-east impossible in the future.

And given the dynamics of a historic loss, China might well use its share of those missiles to get rid of the US-presence in Asia.

No empire can sustain its empire without a functioning and indefeatable naval force, and so these new missiles could well change the balance of power...

I think that's the gist of the article, oh, and it ends with a speculation, that should the US lose that war because of these missiles, the US might use nukes on Iran.

The whole article is speculative, but not without merit: Iran already threatened months ago, that should the US attack Iran militarily, that Iran would destroy the US-military-ships in the Gulf, as well as the US-military-bases in Iraq, so it's possible that Iran issued such a warning because of the possessions of enough of these missiles, and it's also possible that the US slowed down its warrhetoric against Iran because of that threat.

But who knows, maybe it's all just smoke.

Taliesin

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by analogika

You'd be stupid enough to invade a country that has nukes?

No, but given the way the world has been clamoring for the US to invade North Korea, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same for Iran.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, but given the way the world has been clamoring for the US to invade North Korea, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same for Iran.

Again, where in that article does it say that Iran has nukes?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, but given the way the world has been clamoring for the US to invade North Korea, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same for Iran.

Are you hearing voices? Nobody is clamoring for an invasion into NK. US led or othewise.

You are mistaking ridicule for suggestion.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Are you hearing voices? Nobody is clamoring for an invasion into NK. US led or othewise.

You are mistaking ridicule for suggestion.

V

Funny, I've heard it.

K

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Funny, I've heard it.

K

And since you converse with a voice you call 'God' it is no wonder you've heard it. You seem to hear many things.

V

[Dakar]

Ouch. I thought of that comment, but I expected it was gonna be one of that atheists to make it if anyone at all.

[RAILhead]

I still can't get over Taliesin typing "indefeatable" -- I don't think I've ever seen that one before.

[Zeeb]

Well, if its true our military is probably working on the problem--but the article is speculative and I refuse to get upset over what might be with no evidence. If not and we lose a carrier or two--not that that wouldn't be significant-its not like we don't have other resources we could immediately use.

I think a greater danger is running roughshod over the world and pissing off our allies. If we don't get better at diplomacy I could more realistically see a scenario in which a vulnerable moment might tempt a country like China to make a military move as Taliesin suggested. The world seems so anti-american right now I can't help believe that even some of our allies wouldn't mind our power reduced through an "unfortunate" military crisis.

[Macrobat]

Having nukes does not equal having delivery systems capable of delivering them over distance. Although, Iranians would probably be willing to become "mass martyrs" and commit suicide with them. Therefore, no invasion, simply wave after wave of Stealth Bombers.

[Macrobat]

Considering all the years it took the US (and all the money) to develop Stealth technology, and the FACT that the Soviet Union was completely unable to develop the same, despite having VASTLY superior knowledge and resources than Iran, I suggest Taliesin is being MORE than a bit "optomistic" about the missle's capablities.

[ThinkInsane]

Do some research on the SS-N-22, and not blogger BS, but real research, and you'll find that the capabilities of this particular gadget are a tad bit over rated. They make for good bedtime stories to keep sailors in line though: "Swab that deck good, or the SS-N-22's will getcha!"

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Considering all the years it took the US (and all the money) to develop Stealth technology, and the FACT that the Soviet Union was completely unable to develop the same, despite having VASTLY superior knowledge and resources than Iran, I suggest Taliesin is being MORE than a bit "optomistic" about the missle's capablities.

It's not my point of view, I was merely summing up what the article very speculatively said, that's all, cause some here actually thought the article talked about nukes. Just a service.

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

It's not my point of view, I was merely summing up what the article very speculatively said, that's all, cause some here actually thought the article talked about nukes. Just a service.

Taliesin

I knew it meant the missile could carry any tips. Nukes or not.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, but given the way the world has been clamoring for the US to invade North Korea, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same for Iran.

The US (and all other countries involved) hasn't played tough with North Korea, because there was evidence they might be a nuclear power already. If the world seriously believed that Iran was very close to going nuclear, they would treat it very differently.

So overall marden's article is just FUD. Of course, any country (Pakistan, India, China) with nuclear capabilities could achieve what he's afraid of. On the other hand, it's not like the US is entirely defenseless …

[marden]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The US (and all other countries involved) hasn't played tough with North Korea, because there was evidence they might be a nuclear power already. If the world seriously believed that Iran was very close to going nuclear, they would treat it very differently.

So overall marden's article is just FUD. Of course, any country (Pakistan, India, China) with nuclear capabilities could achieve what he's afraid of.

Maybe you are right.

[Hawkeye_a]

What happens to Israel ?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

What happens to Israel ?

The missile will be armed with a state of the art eraser and it will be wiped off the map.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

What happens to Israel ?

I think the missile also works on Israeli ships. However, I dont' think Israel will be worried about anti-ship missiles if Iran at one point goes nuclear.

On the other hand: this isn't really news. China has nuclear weapons and anti-ship missiles which are based on the same Russian model (although I'm not sure they have armed them with nuclear war heads).

[Sayf-Allah]

What's all this talk about nuclear weapons and Iran? The article never says (afaik) that Iran has nukes. It just mentions that the Sunburn can also carry nuclear war heads.

Amazing how stuck some people are on Iran and nukes......

[art_director]

First, the source for this is a blog so I take it with a ten-pound salt lick.

Second, I would file this with Iran's Iran's Über Torpedo reported over the summer.

This is all probably the work of the defense industry and their need to fuel fear in the American people. Without fear they can't get the government to buy more of their crack (aka weaponry).

[Macrobat]

Well, Iran's "Sword of Allah" has been attacking the P/W Lounge for months now - with no true ill effects.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If this is true, why hasn't it been made more public? If it could be proven that Iran had nuclear weapons like this, it would likely swing world opinion in favor of invasion almost overnight.

With what troops?

I'm not disagreeing, I thought invading Iran and/or North Korea were more legitimate reasons than Iraq. We're just spread too thin, and it's been made obvious by Republicans that they don't want anything to do with the U.N.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The US (and all other countries involved) hasn't played tough with North Korea, because there was evidence they might be a nuclear power already. If the world seriously believed that Iran was very close to going nuclear, they would treat it very differently.

North Korea could've been dealt with when it mattered near the end of the Clinton Administration and the beginning of the Shrub Administration. I blame both of them. Unfortunately Clinton was on his way out and wanted to make a crap load of money, but Shrub could've really done something about it. Instead, we attacked Iraq.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

If we don't get better at diplomacy I could more realistically see a scenario in which a vulnerable moment might tempt a country like China to make a military move as Taliesin suggested.

Highly unlikely. China holds a lot of American debt and has been actively providing support for the dollar. China also has refused calls to increase the value of the Yuan - it wants a strong dollar. Anything that rises to a genuine military crisis for the United States would cause a second Great Depression, and no one wants to see that. Except for the radical Islamists, perhaps.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

This is a shocking realization. This missile might defeat our carrier battle group's defenses. Can you imagine losing a nuclear carrier to Iran?

Um. This isn't very upsetting. A sovereign country has a right to defend itself. I would ask what a nuclear carrier is doing near Iran.

Now, ignoring that this is all FUD, if it were a long range offensive nuclear missile, that would be cause for alarm.

[Macrobat]

With what troops?

I'm not disagreeing, I thought invading Iran and/or North Korea were more legitimate reasons than Iraq. We're just spread too thin, and it's been made obvious by Republicans that they don't want anything to do with the U.N.

LMFAO!

Keep on spreading that BS meme. The correct Liberal argument is that the US is spread too thin IN IRAQ.

A small fraction of our total troop strength is committed there.

Thanks for the amusing FUD, though.

According to Jane's:

Total armed forces 1,421,950 including Reserves and National Guard (Ranked 3rd)
Active troops 1,421,950 (Ranked 2nd)
Total troops 2,361,289 (Ranked 8th)

Total deployed worldwide in support of the WoT: 156,765


Oh yeah, we're running out of troops there, Chicken Little.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

LMFAO!

Keep on spreading that BS meme. The correct Liberal argument is that the US is spread too thin IN IRAQ.

A small fraction of our total troop strength is committed there.

Thanks for the amusing FUD, though.

According to Jane's:

Total armed forces 1,421,950 including Reserves and National Guard (Ranked 3rd)
Active troops 1,421,950 (Ranked 2nd)
Total troops 2,361,289 (Ranked 8th)

Total deployed worldwide in support of the WoT: 156,765


Oh yeah, we're running out of troops there, Chicken Little.

If we don't have enough armored equipment for our troops in Iraq, then where would the armored equipment come from for another confrontation?

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Um. This isn't very upsetting. A sovereign country has a right to defend itself. I would ask what a nuclear carrier is doing near Iran.

Now, ignoring that this is all FUD, if it were a long range offensive nuclear missile, that would be cause for alarm.

If Iran gets close to creating a nuclear device they will have to be stopped because the alternative would be the same as the one we faced in 2003 with Saddam.

We can not and will not allow a nuclear sword of damocles to hang over Israel.

Period.

So it is prudent to have a potent strike force nearby in case Iran continues their insane push toward nuclear annihilation of Israel; making good on the vow to wipe Israel off the map.

As long as the US Navy is in international waters there is nothing Iran can say.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

If we don't have enough armored equipment for our troops in Iraq, then where would the armored equipment come from for another confrontation?

You might have to put off buying your next Mercedes or BMW or Honda because the plant may have to convert to war production.

Foreign cars versus American cars

In 2005 there were 63 million cars and light trucks produced worldwide. The USA produced 11,524,000, Japan produced 10,064,000, Germany produced 5,543,000, followed by China. Would you be surprised to know that many of the vehicles manufactured in the USA are designated as “foreign” while many vehicles manufactured in Mexico or Canada are designated as “domestic” (American)? That’s due to federal regulations that require a “domestic” vehicle to be made of at least 75% domestic parts (content). So, US manufacturers send parts to Mexico or Canada where the cars are built, but are legally sold as “domestic”. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Hyundai manufacture cars in the USA, with American workers, in American plants, with American research facilities, that are “foreign” because they contain less than 75% domestic parts (content). The picture gets even murkier if we take a closer look at the major manufacturers. They are multi-national corporations with operations and manufacturing arms and partners world-wide. General Motors owns or has a percentage stake in Saab, Opel, Holden, Fuji Heavy Industries (Daewoo), Suzuki Motors, and Isuzu Motors. In 1998 Daimler-Benz A.G. of Germany, took control of Chrysler to become DaimlerChrysler A.G. Ford owns Volvo, Land Rover, Aston Martin and Jaguar, and has a significant stake in Mazda. Let’s see, BMW owns the Mini and Rolls Royce; Volkswagen owns Bentley… Ok, not withstanding ‘automotive nepotism’, for the purpose of this article, foreign means the vehicle has a foreign name-plate and American means the vehicle has an American name-plate!

http://www.moneyallocator.com/articl...reign_cars.asp

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by marden

We can not and will not allow a nuclear sword of damocles to hang over Israel.

I'd rather see Israel take care of herself, ala Osiraq. Sure, there'd be fresh condemnation of Israel all over the world, but at least no one would be able to accuse America of acting primarly on behalf of the Jewish state.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'd rather see Israel take care of herself, ala Osiraq. Sure, there'd be fresh condemnation of Israel all over the world, but at least no one would be able to accuse America of acting primarly on behalf of the Jewish state.

That might be too dangerous an option in this climate of unrest.

[Macrobat]

More FUD. Here's a newsflash for you. It was UPDATED personal BODY armor there was a shortage of, not vehicles. There was PLENTY of body armor, just not the latest iteration.

Yet you feel qualified to criticize. Even though you're quite obviously clueless.

United States Army: Information From Answers.com

There is more armor HERE in the USA than deployed EVERYWHERE in the world. There is more armor at FORT HOOD, TEXAS than there is in Iraq!

AGAIN. The complaint is about numbers IN THEATER.

Can you Leftie morons get ANYTHING right?

Hell, the Norfolk Southern marshalling yards are 200 yards from where I am sitting and there is a train FULL of M-1s sitting on the siding.


Stick to "directing art." just MAYBE you're actually GOOD at that. lol
Got anything RESEMBLING a clue?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Funny, I've heard it.

K

Me too, voodoo. Where you been?

[Mark Larr]

Don't think for one second that their supposedly super ship killer isn't constantly monitored for a submarine attack at a second's notice.

Iran's "awsome" nukeboat is irrelevant and is on it's way to visit Davey Jones' Locker™ at the first sign of any monkey business.

[davesimondotcom]

I find it a bit amusing that it is usually the same people who claim the US action in Iraq is "illegal" and basically want to upgrade the UN to a world governing body who use the "Iran is a sovereign nation and all sovereign nations should be able to develop weapons to defend themselves" argument.

Let's not overlook the fact that the sovereign government of Iran has not hinted, but come right out and said, that they want to blow Israel (another sovereign nation) off the face of the earth.

That should carry SOME weight, shouldn't it?

[marden]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I find it a bit amusing that it is usually the same people who claim the US action in Iraq is "illegal" and basically want to upgrade the UN to a world governing body who use the "Iran is a sovereign nation and all sovereign nations should be able to develop weapons to defend themselves" argument.

Let's not overlook the fact that the sovereign government of Iran has not hinted, but come right out and said, that they want to blow Israel (another sovereign nation) off the face of the earth.

That should carry SOME weight, shouldn't it?

Not to these folks.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24801

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I find it a bit amusing that it is usually the same people who claim the US action in Iraq is "illegal" and basically want to upgrade the UN to a world governing body who use the "Iran is a sovereign nation and all sovereign nations should be able to develop weapons to defend themselves" argument.

Let's not overlook the fact that the sovereign government of Iran has not hinted, but come right out and said, that they want to blow Israel (another sovereign nation) off the face of the earth.

That should carry SOME weight, shouldn't it?

Similar to the threats both Israel and the US has made towards Iran then?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Similar to the threats both Israel and the US has made towards Iran then?

Like what ? when did the US or Israel say they want to wipe Saudi or all muslim nations or Iran off the face of the earth ?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo

And since you converse with a voice you call 'God' it is no wonder you've heard it. You seem to hear many things.

For someone who claims to be a "true christian" amongst us that you claim are "heretics", you sure do "bend the truth" a lot

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...eds-command/8/

Nice ad-hominem BTW.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Like what ? when did the US or Israel say they want to wipe Saudi or all muslim nations or Iran off the face of the earth ?

It's a game he plays to try to make both look as if they are on equal moral terms in order to justify the wrong actions of those he supports.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's a game he plays to try to make both look as if they are on equal moral terms in order to justify the wrong actions of those he supports.

Yes.

[tie]

I heard that Iran has a ship floating out in the gulf filled with chemicals. If we attack Iran, they sink the ship, poisoning all the world's oceans and causing untold billions of dollars of damage within a week (just like the movie Sahara, basically). I'll try to dig up the link for you guys.