Iran starts making torpedoes as atomic threats fly

[True_Blue]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday started churning out a production line of torpedoes as pressure mounts against the Islamic Republic, which Washington accuses of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, state media reported.

Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani, in naval uniform, was shown on state television inspecting some 20 torpedoes, mainly painted red with black tips.

"Even if a radar spots it, there is no escape from the inevitable fate," he said, watching the propeller of one of the weapons being tested in a water tank.

Defence officials told the official IRNA new agency the weapons could be installed on helicopters, submarines and surface ships.

more....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7609858&type=worldNews

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. Ah shit, here we go!

Condi and Rumsfled will be on TV tomrrow, talking about how evil Iran is.

[Something of Reason]

2. Not a wise move by Iran

I'm just a dumb grunt in the grand scheme of things, but rattling the saber with the current administration in office is a little like teasing an alligator with raw meat without a solid object between you and the alligator. Not smart.

[Occulus]

3. The problem is

torpedoes are convention weapons. It's hard to decide which plant is producing those unless you go in and bomb their infrast.... oh, wait. :think:

[Maple]

4. 'Come into my parlour

said the spider to the fly.'

[Old and In the Way]

6. I'd be more concerned with those Sunburn cruise missles......

those are ship killers.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Gotta have a platform....

to shoot those off of. It's not like "Joe Iranian" has one of them under his coat like an AK-74...

[amandabeech]

20. No, but they may have them on the shores of the Straits of Hormuz

where they can shoot at anything that attempts to leave or enter the Persian Gulf.

[alfredo]

39. Cut off the Straits and our ground troops in Iraq

Will have lost their main supply line. Iran could then sweep across the Shia area, then chew their way north.

[Igel]

51. And you can bet they wouldn't coddle the Sunni Arabs.

The "uprising" would be over within a week or two.

And the Iranians would have no use whatsoever for Kurdish autonomy.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what Sa'udi Arabia would do with it's Shi'a population near Iraq and Bahrain.

[alfredo]

59. Poppy bush understood the importance of a stable Iraq

to act as a buffer between Iran and Israel. Sistani is now the most powerful person in Iraq, but not many know that he is not Iraqi. He is Iranian.

[tedzbear]

73. You got it.

Half a million Iranian soldiers and a closed off Gulf of Oman is no laughing matter.

[alfredo]

76. with news of the torpedos, there's no doubt that they

want to make some new artificial reefs in the gulf.

[billbuckhead]

44. A platform like a one ton truck such's a F350 can launch a Sunburn missile

You can't destroy an aircraft carrier with an AK-47, but you can terrorize your neighbors.

[depakid]

24. This is the baby that the USN needs to really worry about:

The SS-NX-26 Yahont

Apparently, Iran has a few of these, too.

[yinkaafrica]

36. Those awed the crowds at the last arms show: will they work in combat?

[Sandpiper]

48. All of its specs are superior to the Exocet

Which has proven deadly effective in combat as an anti-ship weapon.

[Stella_Artois]

32. Do not underestimate torpedoes

Thats a 2,700 ton frigate there, cut in half. The standard US destroyer is larger, in the 8,000 ton range. It would be very lucky indeed to survive a torpedo .

[UL_Approved]

9. A little Steve Erwin magic from the UN, perhaps?

Will the U.S. get told to stop the aggression from the U.N.? Will China and Russia step in to stop our ambitions? Iran is trying to keep control over its own populace, who ARE in discontent right now. They have as much bullshit to defend as us, but they will be victims if we go to war.

[Strelnikov_]

12. "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy . .

. . or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

- Sir Winston Churchill

Iraq was also going to be a cakewalk. Just something to think about, before we put this one in the 'win' column also.

[dbt]

25. Hmmm. Since bu$h is the Very Reincarnation Of Churchill,

you'd think he would've remembered this from a previous life. Curiouser and curiouser.

:evilgrin:
dbt

[PsychoDad]

21. As a sovereign nation

Iran has a right and obligation to it's people to protect itself from beligerant agressor nations. Deterance by a showing of arms has always been a good way of protecting oneself.

As for anything Iran says or does, It won't matter if thay are already in the Bush junta's crosshairs.

[Delphinus]

33. Amen, PsychoDad

There's absolutely no reason Iran shouldn't be able to defend itself.

And you're right about the crosshairs ... remember how many time shrub drew the line in the sand and Saddam met it?

[Just Me]

38. I would expect no other reaction from a nation being threatened.

Iran knows its on the neoCONspirator hit list and its being openly threatened and having its airspace violated.

Why wouldn't Iran solicit its willingness to fight back if forced to do so?

:shrug:

[Igel]

52. Iran's felt threatened since the Islamic Revolution.

Like N. Korea, it's always been subject to hostile acts and imminent invasion.

It comes with the ruling flavor of theology.

[Tinoire]

78. Bingo. US Manufacturing WMDs, lethal gases and not one word

Israel armed to the death churning out weapons that boggle the mind just as well

and not a word.

Iran, not being part of the Anglo pact is just suppose to run over & let itself be dispensed with as they see fit I suppose :shrug:

[LinuxInsurgent]

29. so what...

I wouldn't want to see a war breakout between Iran and the United STates...and Iran WOULD suffer a lot...but so would the United States. They are no push overs. And the sabber-rattling started over here...not over there.

I can't condemn a victim nation for standing up and saying "that's it...you want me, come and get me", after we've been threatening to go over there and invade them. It's actually quite refreshing to see a nation stand up to the United States' bullying.

[NNN0LHI]

34. "Not a wise move by Iran" Lets consider the validity of that statement

Iraq disarmed, they didn't retaliate while we bombed them regularly, permitted weapons inspectors to scour the country, and what did they get?

Invaded and occupied. Thats what they got.

Iran and North Korea both have admitted to active nuclear and missile programs and what do they get?

Harsh words aplenty, but little action.

I think the schoolyard bully's bluff is being called here. Sure we can attack Iran or North Korea no problem. But at what cost? That is the real question here. Have you considered the cost?

Don

[ixion]

72. yep, I agree

If the history of the Bushistas is any kind of guideline, they'll only attack countries that can't really defend themselves.

But because they're delusional zealots, you just never know what they'll do.

[kiraboo]

37. Interesting. "Not smart"? What would you do?

Iran is being put in an untenable position. Damned if they do and damned if they don't, as Saddam discovered. I am only a puny individual, yet if I had the likes of * and his cohorts threatening me and invading my personal space, I'd do whatever I could to appear strong and independent. The Bush administration has put the world on notice. And in case you haven't noticed, the world is beginning to fight back. Preemptively. LOL.

[DrWeird]

62. Eh, if they can smuggle a few...

into various harbors where some carriers are stationed...

[daleo]

5. You wonder just how vulnerable a capital ship would be.

Not too many ships have been torpedoed in the last 50 years, I think. The General Belgrano comes to mind, in the Malvinas/Falklands War of 1980 or so. I presume the Royal Navy had state of the art torpedoes and the G.B. was a fairly old battleship, so the example may not be very relevant.

[Kagemusha]

8. The sub chose deliberately to use WWII torpedoes that time.

They train in using the old stuff too. The reason for doing it is, they had advanced anti-sub torpedoes but with much smaller warheads. The old stuff had much larger warheads and were proven to work. So, they used the older stuff, completely unguided after the course was plotted with mathematics. They fired a spread, reloaded with the more modern stuff but, it wasn't needed. Boom. Game over.

The trick with torpedoes is getting close enough. That's all there is to it.

[daleo]

14. Interesting information. n/t

[Strelnikov_]

10. Maybe Because There Have Not Been Any Major Naval Engagements

to the degree we will see in the Persian Gulf in the last 50 years.

[daleo]

15. It's true, the Persian Gulf scenario here is different.

It is basically a big lake, and the Iranians might well get some high tech weaponry from other powers, who want to put a brake on Bush's expansionist plans.

[keopeli]

7. This is just Iran propoganda, used in response to the US MSM

Yes, I said MSM. They simply announce the Press Releases of the US government.

IMHO

Keo

[DS1]

11. YES!

BRING IT ON!!

DRAFT EVERYONE! INCLUDING ALL YOU OLD FUCKERS ON SOCSERITY!!!

[NNN0LHI]

54. I say start with us old fuckers and move downward if they begin drafting

Yep. Try sending some of older us guys who know better off to that shooting gallery known as Iraq and see what happens. It won't be pretty.

Don

[vpigrad]

13. Has this story been confirmed...

or is it another lie by the Bushie thugs?

[merwin]

16. Uh, don't they mean SONAR, not RADAR?

[DoNotRefill]

17. Man, I hope they ain't that delusional...

Wait, I better point out the "they" I'm referring to is Iran. If things ever get to the point that they're using torpedos, they're fucked.

People keep preparing to fight the last war...Iran's preparing to fight 4-5 wars ago. Remember, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was the HIGH-tech side, and Iran resorted to massed human wave attacks.

[Sandpiper]

19. Iran also possesses state of the art Sunburn anti-ship missiles

Designed by Russia, with the U.S. Navy specifically in mind.

[DoNotRefill]

41. It's a very limited range missile... (80Km)

and Saddam had Mig-29s, which were also designed by Russia and made to specifically deal with US air power. That didn't mean that Saddam kicked the US's ass in Gulf war I or II.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who has seriously studied both the Iranian military and the US military (and who is remotely competent to evaluate things...by this, I mean that they don't appear on Rense.com) thinks that the Iranians will kick the US's ass militarily in a "real fight". A guerrilla war is different, provided they don't mind losing a large segment of their population (which they don't).

[Sandpiper]

47. The Sunburn has twice the range and speed of the Exocet

The Exocet is a subsonic missile with an operating range of about 50 miles. During the Falklands conflict, Argentina had only 5 Exocets in their entire arsenal and managed to sink two British ships with them.

The Sunburn in comparison has an operating range of about 100 miles ground launched, 150 miles air launched, a maximum speed of Mach 2.3, and was designed specifically to defeat the Aegis Radar System employed by the U.S. Navy.

While it's doubtful that Iran has an unlimited supply of Sunburns, the fact that they possess them would make any ships we sent to the Persian Gulf sitting ducks.

[billbuckhead]

49. Whenever one sees erroneous info on the INTERNET, one wonders why?

One wonders who is spreading it.

Here's the real range of a Sunburn missile.

The turbine-propelled Sunburn missile, with its 300-kg. war head, has a maximum speed of Mach 2.34 and a range of up to 150 kms. With its high accuracy and speed, only 1.2 Sunburn missiles are capable of sinking a destroyer, while five missiles could totally destroy a 20,000-ton supply ship. The high-tech weapons pose a serious threat to Western nations' anti-missile defense.
<http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/CNA-120300.htm>

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.

Moskit Missile Characteristics
Length (m) 9.385
Diameter (m) .76
Range (km) 120 ground-launched
Speed (Mach) 2.5
Launch Weight (kg) 3,950
Warhead (kg) 300
<http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2439>

[Sandpiper]

50. U.S. "anti-missile" technology had trouble intercepting subsonic Scuds

I don't even want to think about how it would fare against a supersonic Sunburn.

[DoNotRefill]

64. Did you look at the rest of those sites?

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2775

From "Conspiracynewsnet"....

Tinfoil hat all the way!!!!

[Walt Starr]

65. Um, for the most part, the Iraqi Air Force was grounded during GWI

and there was no Air Force in operation during the GWII. It was gone.

[TankLV]

58. And I read somewhere that Putin told bunkerboy an attack on Iran will be

viewed by Russia as an attack on Russia.

Something to think about.

Don't forget about China.

[davhill]

22. In Other Words

The US or Israel bombs Iran and super tankers start sinking. The price of oil goes to $10 a gallon. The only question now is: Do the neo-cons feel its worth it.

[tedzbear]

74. ExxonMobil and Chevron Texaco would love $10 a gal. gas.

Not to mention BP and Royal Dutch Shell. China might be pissed off though, unless Venezuela (Chavez) comes to its rescue with a new oil contract, and bumps the USA from the head of the line.

[radfringe]

23. I watched a movie yesterday

Luther:This epic movie follows the life of Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes), author of the then-controversial 95 Theses and founding father of the Protestant church who, with the courage of his convictions, faced the wrath of the church in the 16th century, all in the name of religious freedom. Co-stars Alfred Molina as John Tetzel, Jonathan Firth as Girolamo Aleander, Claire Cox as Katharina von Bora and Sir Peter Ustinov as Fredrick the Wise.

There was a part in the movie where Alfred Molina as John Tetzel was assigned to gather money for the building of St. Peter's Basillica through the selling of indulgences. Tetzel shows up in one scene threatening hell, damnation and eternal fire for all who fail to buy an indulgence.

I was struck with the "boogie-man" fear mongering tactics to frighten people and how if you took his speech and substituted "WMD" or "NUKE" for eternal damnation -- it sounds alot like the message we've been getting since September 11 to keep us in line with the bushies

People bought indulgences -- not to support the construction of St. Peters, but rather out of fear -- much like alot of Americans supported invading Iraq - not because it was the right thing to do, but supported it out of fear.

The other thing that struck me -- Luther translated the Bible into German -- so all his people could read it and understand it in their own language. The Catholic Church was upset -- because it would give access to the common man and that would lead to questions of interpretations -- a challenge to the authority of the Catholic Church. It's easier to manipulate and lead an ignorant population than one that can think.

bush* has painted himself as the "education pResident" -- yet No-Child-Left-Behind is underfunded, and his new budget severly cuts, or reduces funding to programs which enhance education. Meanwhile, bush* and GOPers slam some critics as being "intellectual elites". They say they support education and education is important -- but in actions they cut programs which support education. Seems to me - bush* and GOPers subscribe to the practice "dumbing down" of America

[dbt]

26. An ancient principle of War: The High Ground

The way I understand it, Iran owns the high ground over the Persian Gulf. Moreover, there are hills and mountains behind which cruise missile batteries may be concealed.

To further complicate matters, there is (are??) the Straits of Hormuz, a bottleneck into which it would appear deadly foolish to place aircraft carriers.

Given the war expertise of the bu$h regime so far, we can safely assume that US forces will be rushed into the most dangerous positions without proper defenses, no?

:freak:
dbt

[teryang]

28. The high ground is aerospace

The US Navy and the Air Force will dominate the "high ground." However this is from a defensive perspective. The notion that the high ground may be used to bomb the Iranians into submission is flawed in several aspects.

Bombing has proven ineffective in several war situations in the past. Digging in and hardening targets is always effective in reducing bombing effectiveness. Camouflage and mobility reduce bombing effectiveness as well. Bombing strengthens an opponent governments political position. Surviving Iranian threats may harm soft targets and possibly get a lucky hit here or there. Also the US forces are leveraged negatively at the end of extremely long lines of logistics support, a disadvantage in long term conflict. US ground forces are in vulnerable forward positions and vulnerable to unconventional attacks. The Iranians have superior human intelligence on the ground.

I expect that the Iranian forces will come off the worse in any engagement as a general rule in the land sea battle because of US technology advantages and Irans limited military tradition. US military manpower resources are not currently available for a ground conflict.

[LinuxInsurgent]

30. that was a pretty unbiased review...thanks

this is the type of non-nationalist thinking we should be doing...finding out what we do have and what we don't have...for a particular conflict.

The Iranians could stir up trouble in Iraq, where 130,000 of our troops are stationed...we could lose not only the ability to invade Iran, but our hold on Iraq as well.

[Old and In the Way]

40. No doubt Iran could be beaten by our tachnology advantage.

But no one should delude themselves that this would be a replay of DS1 and DS2.

Iraq was a shell of it's former self when we invaded 2 years ago. Our AF pretty well had all the air defense locations mapped out and nuetralized when the war started. We are going to have to fight another air campaign almost exclusively, and I suspect that's why we are building these bases in Iraq now.

But this war will be waged on other fronts as well. Every Muslim nation will understand clearly that this is, in fact, a new Western crusade and our interests will be attacked all over the world. I don't expect to see anywhere near the level of coalition support for move US adventures in the ME. It's not in their interests to see the US, under this administration, controlling the ME oil.

And let's not forget the financial war that could erupt. Certainly, the oil pipeline, land and sea, will be attacked....driving the price on the market through the roof. And I fully expect that dollars would be dumped in a big way....which will have a shocking effect on our economy at home.

We've payed relatively no price for Bush's transgressions, so far. I think that will change in a big way if and when we decide to move on Iran.

Make no mistake, this will also be a war on us (people here who are against this administration's criminal actions)....I'd say they we'll in the end game of democracy here, if they decide to deliver on their deluded 'Pax Americana'.

[tedzbear]

75. You are giving US air supremacy too much credit.

Have you ever heard of Hubris??? It is the Achilles Heel in battle. That's what your beloved Pentagon suffers from right now (even in light of its failed Viet-nam/Iraq campaigns).

I'll wager that Iran's missiles, torpedos, and half a million man army could do the USA a lot more damage than the Pentagon is willing to admit.

At the end of the day, Iran OWNS the Persian Gulf.

:nuke:

[Toots]

35. They own the moral high ground as well

They have no intentions of attacking any other country and are not belligerent to wards any country. They don't have soldiers placed in eighty other countries. They are a very simple religious country just trying to get by in the world and the US is asking them for their lunch money. They are just saying if you want it you have to take it. They are not making threats. The US is the one making threats.

[Igel]

53. Consider the Hizbullah/Iran links. n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. I don't think the US would dare use nukes on Iran

.
.
.

and I think Iran can probably fend for itself conventionally

Why no nukes?

IF nukes are used, and the inevitable airborne contamination should drift into Russia or China . . .

You can bet that Russia's and China's crosshairs are increasingly being targetted on the US positions in and around the Gulf . .

'nuff said

[LinuxInsurgent]

31. shoot...

they got their crosshairs on our cities...

Bush better thread carefully.

[Rex]

42. The Axis of Evil has never been more powerful.

Stupid assholes never learn from history.

[VegasWolf]

43. Tyhe US cannot and willnot attack Iran! What army? What financing?

What support? Two words, BULL SHIT.

[90-percent]

45. iran war

The PNAC'ers desperatly want to try out their theory of tactical nuclear war. Little bitty nuke's used on the battlefield. This will spare the lives of US ground troops and will be yet another USA cakewalk.

I think we'll also be greeted as liberators.

-85%

[VegasWolf]

46. My guess is zero percent! They might want to but they can't. The

entire world would be repulsed against the US and unite against
us if we used nukes on Iran. Wouldn't be prudent!

[Minstrel Boy]

56. The world would be repulsed? Hey, that's a focus group.

Have they given the slightest concession to world opinion?

Wish it wasn't, but this is happening.

[VegasWolf]

60. Focus groups? You mean like building alliances the exclude

the US. The US unable to convince the EU of Iran? The US
trying to convince Australia to muzzle China. If you
think this country can operate in an economical vacuum
then okay.

[natrat]

57. so? like *ush cares

in fact i think it's like a wet dream to these freaks. They scan the horizon for a fight wether it's domestic politics or international. It's as though they have no respect for anyone unless they are texas oil sleaze. Eventually they will get there fight and of course someone else will die.

[VegasWolf]

61. bush doesn't care, but bush can't do it alone. ZERO probability! n/t

[NNN0LHI]

55. The Iran invasion will finance itself. We will be greeted as liberators

The only American casualties will be some mashed toes from all of the spontaneous dancing in the streets breaking out all over Iran. That dancing in the streets can be some dangerous shit. You should know that.

Don

[VegasWolf]

63. Yes Don, you are right! How absent minded of me! n/t

[DoNotRefill]

66. It's foolish to bet....

upon the "incompetence" of the US military. Our military is EXCELLENT when it comes to open battle. It only gets into trouble when it's expected to do things that it's not designed to do. What it IS designed to do is to kill people and break things, and it is entirely in a class of it's own when it comes to this. Now "peacekeeping", occupation, et cetera, pose a problem for the US military, but as far as an actual shooting war, one military against another? Would you be willing to actually bet your life that the US military isn't able to completely demolish any other conventional military force out there? I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't know any SANE person who would be willing to do that, either.

I've heard over and over again how "The Russians are turning out such great stuff now". On paper, it may look great. But when was the last time a US Carrier battle group got trounced? Some here bring up the Straight of Hormuz....I'd remind you all of what happened there on April 18, 1988 and the outcome of the battle.

[Renew Deal]

67. Here is a good article on April 18

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/sep_03_45.php

[Sandpiper]

68. Remember what a pair of Exocets did to the USS Stark?

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

69. Uh huh...

and I also remember the results of the investigation afterwards.

[tedzbear]

77. I'll bet you the USA will lose.

Hubris, darling. Hubris.

[kitty1]

70. coincidence: Iran to open new oil stock exchange in March

This stock exchange would be launched in March 2005 for market trading primarily in the Middle East Asia. The currency used would be the Euro, and would provide direct competition for London and New York Petroleum exchanges. Interesting that shortly after the fall of Saddam, Iraq's currency for oil also changed back to USD from the Euro, which had been the method of exchange up to that point. Nukes, like WMD, are nothing but a smokescreen. The following excerpt from Globalresearch.ca gives you an idea of what is going on with the stock exchange.
.
"Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.

He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." <7>

[genieroze]

71. Here comes the pissing contest. eom

[Tinoire]

79. Lovely thread title to go to bed with

Iran starts making torpedoes as atomic threats fly

Great. Just what we effing needed. We can't stop this madness soon enough- if we can stop it at all.

[Oversea Visitor]

80. Haha

Big loser monkey cant do his job right. Iraq and Afgan is still a mess. Wont be long before US get booted out of there. Taking on Iran, gee monkey brain really small. Where is monkey going to get 800,000 troops to hold this countries. All hell will break lose, no supply line, all hostile territory.

Just like the Roman Empire the defence cost will kill the US. Seriously is just a matter of when that the US need to get out of Afgan and Iraq. So what the hell was all the money spend and lives wasted for. Really for what?

bush win?? Really he didnt, he created a big big pile of shit. He is too much of a loser to understand winning. Finally US is paying too high a price for bush moment of glory. That is all a loser care about. A flash in the pants moment of glory. Longterm, well well you got lots of anti US countries now. US totally wipe out all its goodwill under bush. Spend all of it for his moment of glory. US is now a pariah among the world communities, and all monkey say for this is its hardwork spending all the goodwill.