The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf

[Indie Media Magazine]

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

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 Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf

[cliss]

1. Good article. Thanks for sharing it, I.

I have no doubt that this is true. If you read even a little Stan Goff, you realize that we are on our way out.

When you look at the clowns that are running the show in Washington, you become even more convinced. They are absolute idiots. The fact that they picked Rumsfailed, the biggest fool of them all, tells you something.

Our military is incompetent. We're not the leader any longer. And the writer is correct in that other countries are not going to sit still and watch us throw our weight around the world like a 500-pound gorilla. They're going to make every effort to balance the scales of power.

The way we are screwing things up in Iraq, it's only a matter of time before we exhaust ourselves militarily and financially. Then the others are going to move in..............

[Vitruvius]

43. Russia has also sold their Shkval torpedo, capable of at least 230mph

underwater and also intended as an aircraft carrier killer. Our carrier groups are high-value targets, and Russia developed both the Shkval ("squall") and the "Sunburn" to take them out; both are too fast to evade, and we do not know how to defend against either, other than by destroying the launch platform. If the launch platform (enemy ship, aircraft or sub) launches first, we're S.O.L.

For more info, you can find a reprint of a Scientific American article at http://www.diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Warpdrive_underwater.htm ; you may also be interested in the article at http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

Incidentally, Russia only sells a weapon abroad after they've developed something better; that the Sunburn and Shkval are on the market means they have something even more fearsome up their sleeves.

In the meantime, the US has nothing like the Shkval, and is at least 15 years behind Russia in this technology.

The Russians never could afford our bloated defense budgets, but they have always been excellent at using imagination and breakthrus instead.

[Vitruvius]

48. And Russia has sold Shkvals to Iran, among others,

as mentioned in the first article and elsewhere.

The bottom line: Iran has wisely gone shopping for ways to take out our aircraft carriers should we attack them...

[mike_c]

2. wow, scary article....

eom

[Timebound]

3. Whoa...

Just...whoa...

Very frightening.

[yurbud]

4. and the Bushies will say "If we had any clue this was going to happen..."

[NEOBuckeye]

5. Not so scary if we stopped trying to be this big superpower badass

That's a BIG source of the United States' problems today. People in America have become blinded by their own pride in the idea that we are somehow unbeatable, and even invincible. Since Bush and his cabal stole our government and our media, we've been stuck in this sort of cowboy/macho man, status quo mode which now reflects in everything from our government right down to the vehicles we drive and our excessive use of finite oil reserves. Americans simply want to flex their muscles and show off for the whole world to see, while letting their minds rot.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been quite literally playing Chess, using their minds to come up with strategies and solutions for the areas where, until recently, we had them beat. I am not shocked that they or anyone would come up with something that could decimate our military and render it obsolete -- only that it didn't happen sooner. But really, all you have to do is look at stubborn dumbasses like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to see how arrogant and foolish our leadership has become.

In the long run, this could actually be more of a good thing than a bad thing, if it brings about an awareness and acknowlegement of our own fundamental flaws.

ON EDIT: Let me just add that I by no means desire to see our soldiers die in a devestating massacre as described, before the American people snap out of their stupor and drive the Bush cabal from power. Unfortunately, I fear that this is exactly what it is going to take.

[primavera]

11. Quite right

I'll wager that Canadians aren't trembling in their boots at the prospect of this sort of weapon, anymore than New Zealand or Denmark or any other peace-loving nation is. And why? How about because nobody wants to shoot at them? How's that for a foolproof defense?

[SweetLeftFoot]

15. The point about

wanting revenge for Afghanistan and the stingers is especially valid.

[Indie Media Magazine]

30. I couldn't agree more

Send the politicians son's and daughter's to fight, that might take away their bloodlust.

Draft Jenna and Barbara!

[theresistance]

6. Some more info if interested...

This site has FOI stuff and an article a couple of years old from NewsMax: http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html

[Indie Media Magazine]

8. I'm looking into buying the CD.....

looks like some great information. I'm looking into purchasing the CD that this website is offering. Thanks!

[Seldona]

7. Clinton said something along the lines of

'We need to use our status as a superpower to prepare for the time when we will NOT be a superpower.'.

I know I mangled it, but the spirit of the ideal is there and it is late and I do not feel like looking it up.

He realized that at some point, we are not going to be on top of the hill any longer.

And had we used our status as the world's sole remaining super power benevolently and truly helped those that are in dire need, then in the end we would truly have risen to the task at hand and been remembered for it.

Who knew * would come along and hasten that decent by decades?

Clinton was alot of things, and not all of them good, but one thing he was was ahead of his time.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Clinton was a master of diplomacy.

He furthered our national interests by keeping our military power in check (for the most part) and using his power of persuation. Dimson and the neocon groupthinkers/war-profiteers have done precisely the opposite. How many thousands of lives and huundreds of billions of dollars has Bush spent to lose our international reputation and wreck our economy?

Someone should read this article to him.....

[Raster]

26. IMHO the worst thing bush* did was the about-face on rule of law and

might does not make right to "fuck you, we're big, bad and tough and we're gonna do what we want." bush* and his cabal just set the standard and it is low and dirty. This will come back to haunt us more than anything else.

[Old and In the Way]

39. Absolutely. Application of power can boomerang bigtime.

Sometimes it's better to leave your enemy wondering rather than apply it and expose your weaknesses. Bush has shown our enemies that our vaunted military machine is capable of being boxed up in guerilla wars. I think he has weakened our military by engaging in this war of occupation for oil. Morale is down, no one wants to join, and he's damaged our international reputation.

And we best be mighty careful about assuming that Iran will be a cakewalk.....they have a mighty fearsome tactical weapon in the Sunburn anti-ship cruise missle. If they start firing those in the Gulf in retaliation against an airstrike, it could be extremely devasting in our ability to project power.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. How far-sighted,

even for a man as brilliant as Clinton. I'd always assumed the Onion satire was just that, surreal hyperbole, rather than understatement.

[dummy-du1]

40. Dean also said

"We won't always have the strongest military," and that the US should plan for this time.

Chris Lehane from the Kerry campaign responded that Dean's statement "raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief. No serious candidate for the Presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy. A President Kerry, who will bring the perspective of having served on the frontlines … will guarantee that America has the strongest, best trained, most well-quipped military in history."

Kerry must be happy now, that Bush is still CIC and not that crazy doctor.

[sarcasmo]

10. Here is a link to another good article on this topic.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm

It appears we are no longer a supper power if this missle is for real.

[pompano dem]

12. This is pretty silly; another chicken little who never heard of MADD

This missile is dangerous but hardly a weapon that invalidates our entire navy. First off, if either China or Russia fires a missile at one of our ships on purpose all our nuclear capability goes to DEFCON 2 at least and if its a Nuke Tipped Head. We go to DEFCON 1 and probably light of a megaton or two. Neither Russia nor China want to risk Nuclear war. This article is ridiculous.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whosinpower]

16. It won't be China or Russia

Firing the missiles....it will be Iran in retaliation for Israel or the US attacking them.

[Burma Jones]

13. This is just one reason why we are militarizing space

Although, our asses should be out of the middle east ASAP.

[Briar]

17. Grass roots resistance is defeating the US in Iraq

I have to say that to me this sounds suspiciously like the sort of story which might be put out to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iran (or yet more billions poured into Son of Star Wars).

[genieroze]

18. Well this is just freaking great, and * is talking about invading Iran?

What a putz * is. I guess Iran does have WMD's BIG ONES!!!

[genieroze]

19. SS-N-22 Sunburn

http://www.google.com/search?q=SS-N-22+Sunburn&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Old and In the Way]

20. Kick.....

Should be required reading for the "USA-USA-USA" crowd. The Project for a New American Century crowd was totally wrong about Iraq. Can we afford anymore of the collective chickenhawks' assumptions on how an invasion or military action against Iran will go?

If Israel launches an airstrike against Iran, I think the chaos theory is turned on and no one will have a clue as to how it will play out.

[Larkspur]

21. The real weapon is nonviolent resistance by the native populations

against US and US supporters, just like Ghandi did in India.

22. I saw this great T-shirt

It had a picture of the guy standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square and it said "Non-violence works". I laughed because if there was ever an image that did not communicate the words very well it was this one. That person was killed and the entire protest movement was squashed. Non-violence doesn't work. Look at what India has been since Independence for the vast majority of people, it has been a continuation and deepening of the kind of oppression experienced under British rule. The difference being it has been engineered by Brahmins who were always complicit in colonialism anyway.

Or look at our own country, more black people in poverty, more black people in prison. Way to go MLK.

My point is not that MLK and Ghandi weren't good people and didn't make some good changes, my point is that they didn't go nearly far enough and now there words are used to stop change.

[Selatius]

24. The meat of the article:

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.

Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?

[nickshepDEM]

25. I believe the Suburns the Iranians have do not have a nuclear tip.

But if they do and they are used against our ships in the Persian Gulf they can count on a nuclear tipped ICBM landing in someones front yard in Tehran. Anyway you look at it they lose.

[Selatius]

27. True, the Iranians don't have them nuclear tipped

That's the crux of the situation. As a result, they have the ability to maul us in the Gulf through conventional means, but if we responded with ICBMs, an insanely disproportionate response to the first attack, we'd not only be condemned by the world, we'd probably face nations leveling economic embargoes against the US. They wouldn't do it through the Security Council; they'd know the US would veto one sanctioned by the SC. They'd do it themselves outside SC authority. They'd cut us off like the world cut off the USSR.

[nickshepDEM]

29. I was being a little sarcastic when I responded with the ICBM...

But if they did get their hands on some of the nuclear tipped Sunburns from Russia or China and used them against US ships in the Persian gulf. I think Bush and company would authorize the use of tactical nukes against Iran at the very least. Use of a nuclear weapon against the United States gives the US a good reason to respond with nuclear weapons.

[pompano dem]

33. State Sanctioned Attack like 911-Response should be Nuclear

I have always thought our stated policy should be that any attack on the U.S. by a legitimate government should be a nuclear response. For every 1 American we take out 1000 of yours. Works great as a deterrent.

Our current policy does require a Nuclear response for any use of a WMD and is publicly stated. Israel has the same policy.

The only fanatics we have ever had success with; is the Japanese. The threat of total annihilation has a way of calming a societies fanaticism.

[Selatius]

35. Using that logic, the North Koreans can nuke us if we bomb them

If 1,000 North Korean nuclear plant workers die in a pre-emptive attack on their nuclear power stations and processing centers, then by your logic they are justified in deciding to try to kill, for example, 1,000,000 Los Angeles residents in retaliation by planting their warheads on their ballistic missiles and lobbing them across the Pacific at us. For every one we killed, they take 1,000 of ours.

[pompano dem]

36. You're right but they better have alot more than 6 bombs

I don't know what your point is but if they want to commit suicide then I guess your right. When it comes to America's security I am pretty much a hawk. If wiping out an entire country saves American lives then wipe out an entire country. I think you missed my point. There is no country more important than America so I would make it very costly to attack us as a policy. That is the good part about having the biggest stick. Make our policy 1 million to one; that is fine with me.

[Selatius]

37. Well, now we're getting down to it

Personally, I pledge allegiance to my principles before I pledge allegiance to the flag or to the federal government or any artificial construct that divides us instead of unites us. I don't view the US as more important than any other nation. I believe everyone is created equal. Therefore, I don't believe anyone has the authority to claim whose people or whose nation is "more important" than any other group of people or nations. I'm not interested in this "my country right or wrong" bullshit. I'll leave that to the religious nutjobs and the Republicans who love to play the dumb divide the world into an us versus them game. It's more like those who hunger for more power and control manipulating and lying to everyone else, not about the differences people have but the greed a small number of individuals suffer from.

People don't randomly wake up and hate others to such a degree as to drive planes into office towers or become suicide bombers. They do it usually as a result of past incidents that led up to present situations. Usually, that kind of hatred wells up from the fact that the US or its allies have supported brutal, autocratic regimes over the heads of these people to manipulate and subjugate these people to rob them. Oh, let's be clear here. The US isn't the only nation that's done historical wrong here. All the great powers of the world have at some other time or another beaten down on other peoples for the sake of power, but given present circumstances, the US is pretty fucking high on the list of nations inflicting misery at present.

Standing back, both the US federal government as well as all those who support incredibly inhumane policies with said government and these thug terrorists who have no qualms about killing innocent civilians if it meant accomplishing their goals are both blood-stained, hypocritical, degenerate, psychopathic sacks of shit who have no claim to any moral high ground. Given such a choice, I would be incredibly reluctant to support any side, much less lay my life down for one. If I had to die in the trenches, I'd die not for my country but for my fellow man. A man who knows little of how the world works yet tries to do his best is far more worthy of my attention than a man who knows everything yet uses that knowledge to gain at the expense of others.

[Indie Media Magazine]

47. They might not nuke the Mainland USA but.....

they can certainly nuke Honolulu.....Seoul......and Tokyo.

Seoul doesn't have to get nuked, they are within range of thousands of heavy artillery batteries, hidden deep in the mountains near the DMZ. Seoul will get a pounding, unfortunately.

[Indie Media Magazine]

28. They don't have nuclear SS-22's but you don't need nukes with this weapon.

It has the kinetic energy and payload to break a carrier in half.

2250 feet per second......think of it this way, a rifle bullet travels at 1900 feet per second on average.

[slor]

31. The scariest part of the article to me was...

this: "The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute". Now we can avoid the Sunburn, simply by refraining from attacking Iran. But are we really so comfortable shooting depleted uranium into the water?

[teryang]

32. This missile is capable but over rated

I've written on this before and don't have time to go into detail now.

The missile has range limitations. Its stated low altitude speeds are implausible. It has serious target acquisition problems at longer ranges.

This isn't to say that such a missile doesn't present a significant tactical threat but there are countermeasures and countertactics. Confronting such a threat requires good advance planning and timely effective responses.

The vulnerability of the British navy in the Falklands has more to do with poor damage control designs of their ships and ineffective fleet air defense. There is no comparison with the US Navy.

[The Magistrate]

34. Indeed, Sir

Similar puff-pieces can be easily found on a variety of weapons systems.

Nothing works as advertised, particularly not the first time it is used in combat.

[CoffeeCat]

38. Is anyone else having trouble with the article link???

I read the article, from the link provided in the original post.

I can't get to the article now. The link doesn't work here, and I bookmarked the site and I can't get to it that way either.

Is anyone else experiencing the same problem?

I wanted my husband to read it too--so I won't be the only one wandering the house in a state of terror.

[Indie Media Magazine]

44. Hope you can get through now.

Here's a bump for your hubby.

[eridani]

41. The primary strategic reality of the 21st century--

--is that domination is extremely expensive, and FSU (Fucking Shit Up) is comparatively cheap.

[eridani]

42. Military strength = disastrous social weakness

Our military strength defends us like a hunk of sail weight canvas sewn onto the heel of your sock with heavy gauge twine protects this prone to wear and tear area. Namely, it doesn't--it just insures that in normal use the adjoining areas of the sock will be ripped to shreds.

[Zynx]

45. Sunburn is nasty as hell, but the nukes are BS.

If the Iranians have Sunburns, we'll lose ships, but they aren't going to have advanced nuclear warheads. :eyes:

[Tempest]

46. The article says nothing about Iran having nukes

Only that the Sunburn can accommodate a nuclear warhead.