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

[norml]

1. That's a very good article.

Our missile technology has lost it's edge, and I saw something about the Navy's new carriers being smaller.

[progressiveright]

3. we still got the edge

GPS navigation and satellite surveilance make all the difference, we know where their main forces and ships are at all times and can hit them, they dont have that ability, thats how we win wars nowadays.

[TrustingDog]

4. iirc, the sunburn can be hauled about on a truckbed.

and I believe there is an upgrade on it called the Opal - faster, longer ranged.

[tkmorris]

5. I don't think you understand

The Sunburn can be launched from a ground based platform, enabling the Iranians to control entry into the Gulf from their own mountainous territory. Hiding platforms in that terrain will be relatively easy to do, especially if they employ decoys which outnumber real launch platforms by say 3 to 1. Also, do not forget the Exocets which Iran has an abundance of. The main difference between these and the Sunburn is that their range is lesser, by about half I believe.

Furthermore please understand that the US has around 150,000 troops tied up in Iraq. We simply do not have the ability to effectively field another force of even that size to deploy in Iran, nor can the forces in Iraq leave anytime soon. Our ability to fight a ground war against Iran is severely limited and our Naval units will be inhibited by the bottleneck entry into the Persian Gulf which will be controlled at near range by Exocets and further by Sunburns. We will maintain air superiority but that is all we will have. It is virtually impossible to completely subdue a determined enemy in their own country via air alone, no matter how smart your missiles are. In the end you must achieve a diplomatic submission or occupy them. We are unlikely to do either.

[Indie Media Magazine]

8. lmao.....

All Iran has to do is start lobbing Sunburn missiles into the Gulf and close off the Strait of Hormuz with Exocets. If you measure the width of the gulf at the widest point it is only about +-125 miles wide. Iranian aircraft can stay over thier coast launching missiles all the while the SA10 Grumble SAM's will shoot our aircraft out of the sky if they try to penetrate the northern coast.

Theoretically, Iran could sink every major warship in the gulf in a day and keep any reinforcements from arriving for months.....all the while sinking oil tankers at will.

Basically, we will all be in a deep pile of poo-poo if we let Israel attack Iran's nuclear reactors.

Do we want to discuss the casualties involved in a major war with Iran?

How about North Korea?

[Old and In the Way]

12. Just wondering......

how well does GPS work on something moving at 2900 MPH?

The whole thrust of the article is that the kill range for these missles makes the entire coast of the Persian Gulf a potential launch platform that could reach our ships within a couple of minutes.


What war are we winning nowadays? Scary thing is, I'll bet George Bush thinks just like you.

[OneBlueSky]

2. I read about this missile some time ago . . .

although I can't recall where . . . sounds like one hell of a system that could indeed wreak havoc on US Naval forces . . . hope it never comes to that, but with Bush you never know . . .

[progressiveright]

7. thats why preemtion doctrine is idiotic

Iran is the number one supported of terrorism in the world, it's developing nuclear weapons, and it has already attacked us once(both Clinton and Clarke say in their books that Iran was behind one of the terrorist acts against our troops overseas, I forget which one. Clinton administration didn't figured that out until almost a year later and after a debate decided that bombing Iran that late would do too much damage to our image and other policies.

Anyway Iran (and South Korea) have always been far bigger threats than Saddam (who was hated by Bin Laden, did funnel some money to Hamas but not anybody else, had no WMDs and decimated army). So why don't we follow bush's preemtions doctrine and attack them? Obviously it would come at too much cost, so we are going to have to try diplomacy for real.

P.S. Our military has been structured so that USA is able to fight two major wars at the same time, which means that we still have ability for another big war, but it would strain our military and economic resources to the limit (meaning US citizens will actually realize that country is in war, as opposed to living their lives without any change and not knowing that we are in a war if not for tv).

We certainly don't have ability for a second peacekeeping/nation building mission. We still do have ability to defeat any other country militarily at this point. But that doesn't mean much since we don't even have any military objectives in Iraq anymore, its a PR war, as in 'will iraqies be convinced to fight us or terrorists'.

Iran can't attack us except for terrorism. It can't attack us any other way. We still have tremendous amounts of bombs and rockets that can wear them out and destroy their portable 'rocket platforms'. Iraq had plenty of SCUD missiles as well, they were used during the war and every single one of them missed. You can't fire at the enemy unless you got a satellite or somebody on the ground with a comlink close to the enemy. Once they fire we can determine where the blast come from and decimate the area, and they will run out of rockets faster than us. Still, it would be 10 times as bloody as Iraq at least, and North Korea would be even worse.

[Indie Media Magazine]

10. We could defeat North Korea or Iran anyday......

at a cost of 100,000 Killed in Action. North Korea would use the small number of nukes they have to strike at Japan, Hawaii or even the west coast. Think of what would happen if North Korea nuked Los Angeles.

Yea, North Korea would be wiped off the face of the earth and be a smoldering nuclear wasteland for a....long, long time. I shudder to think how long.....but if we nuked North Korea, China would play ball and all hell would break loose.

As far as "SCUD Hunting" goes, it didn't work in GW1. It will not work in Iran. How well did the PAC3's do in GW2? Apart from shooting down our own aircraft and allied aircraft, it performed horrendously.

Yes, we have the best military in the world.....our intelligence (no pun intended) leaves much to be desired.

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. This should be no surprise...

nuclear weapons will fuck anyone up. Just ask the Japanese.

Seriously though if we ever got into a real total war with a nuclear capable nation I would have no doubt that they would try to use nuclear weapons against our battlegroups.

China would do it, Iran would do it if they have them, Iraq would have done it but they didnt have them.

[Old and In the Way]

13. A 750lb payload traveling at 2900 miles hour would obliterate

our ship. No need to go nuke. In fact, it really wouldn't make sense since they have to live in the Gulf after the war. But I have no doubts that we'd pull out tactical theater nuclear weapons. IIRC, Bush has already given battlefield commanders the authorization to use at their discretion. This is the Bush MO. And that will be the irony to end all ironies. We invaded Iraq because we were told that they had WMD. They didn't, but we do and Bush will not hestitate to use them if our Naval forces are attacked by Sunburns.

If the American people think the war with Iran will be anything like Iraq, I think they are going to be stunned with how quick and deadly this will turn out to be. I woner how we, as a country, will deal with it internally....

[wuushew]

9. I doubt Iranian ground based radar could reach the carriers

The distance to the horizon from the Iranian coast assuming a 100 meter radar tower and a 60 meter above the waterline height for a carrier mast is about 45 km or 28 miles. You could always build higher radar arrays. The distance being sqrt 2r+h.

If the U.S. had time to plan a naval attack against Iran such radars and ships that mount them could be eliminated by long range cruise missiles or submarines. If American carrier forces remain at the wide end of the Persian gulf naval combat air patrols would prevent airborne delivery of these missiles which supposedly have a range of 155 miles. However if Iran struck first especially in the straight of Hormuz we would be fucked royally.

[Indie Media Magazine]

11. Take a look into Russian (Soviet) Surface to Air Missile Systems

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rasa.htm">Russian Surface to Air Missile Systems

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-300p.html">www.missilethreat.com

Iran started buying the new SA10 "Grumble" SAM, one of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Once the missile is off the rail, the target is hard pressed to escape.

[wuushew]

14. kick

:kick:

[lookinforward]

15. This kept me up last night

This really scares me. The NeoCon belief that the U.S. is unbeatable is so dangerous for many many reason. This is one them.