Iran tests missiles!!

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test fired dozens of missiles including the longrange Shahab-3 during the first hours of military manoeuvres yesterday.

Iranian state run television showed footage of dozen types of missiles being fired from mobile launching pads says AP.

The array of missiles tested include:-
The Shahab-3 long range missile(can equip a nuke warhead) , Shahab-2 (having a warhead of a 1,400 cluster bomb but can also hold a nuclear warhead) , the solid-fuel ZalZal missile and guided missiles such as the Scud-B , Zolfaghar-73 , and Z-3.

Akshay
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test fired dozens of missiles including the longrange Shahab-3 during the first hours of military manoeuvres yesterday.

Iranian state run television showed footage of dozen types of missiles being fired from mobile launching pads says AP.

The array of missiles tested include:-
The Shahab-3 long range missile(can equip a nuke warhead) , Shahab-2 (having a warhead of a 1,400 cluster bomb but can also hold a nuclear warhead) , the solid-fuel ZalZal missile and guided missiles such as the Scud-B , Zolfaghar-73 , and Z-3.

Akshay
That was all over the news yesterday, countries do conduct manoeuvers you know. Actually US was leading 6 countries in the Gulf, also:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ers&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test fired dozens of missiles including the longrange Shahab-3 during the first hours of military manoeuvres yesterday.

Iranian state run television showed footage of dozen types of missiles being fired from mobile launching pads says AP.

The array of missiles tested include:-
The Shahab-3 long range missile(can equip a nuke warhead) , Shahab-2 (having a warhead of a 1,400 cluster bomb but can also hold a nuclear warhead) , the solid-fuel ZalZal missile and guided missiles such as the Scud-B , Zolfaghar-73 , and Z-3.

Akshay
Missiles are not impressive when they are equipped conventionally.
When you equip missiles with nuclear, biological or chemical materials THEN they will make big damage in human life.
But such a move will result in Iran either being nuked or chemically attacked.

Iranians have about 800 missiles of Shahab class missiles, which have an average capacity to transport 1 tonnes of explosives.
That makes around 800 tonnes of explosives.

When you remember that the Brits only dropped in Dresden in 2 big attacks about 2400 tonnes of explosives, then these Shahab missiles will only destroy a mid-size city.
So in military meaning these missiles have no meaning untill Iran has no nuclear material enriched. Iran's airforce is not up-to date and under embargo, so they fully go the way of missiles.

Of course these Shahab missiles can and if all 800 Shahabs will be fired at Israelian reactor in Dimona, will hit that reactor. But such move will force Israel to nuke Iran.
This is not likely. It is just a big propaganda show for Iranian public unless these missiles are equipped conventionally with explosives.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Missiles are not impressive when they are equipped conventionally.
When you equip missiles with nuclear, biological or chemical materials THEN they will make big damage in human life.
But such a move will result in Iran either being nuked or chemically attacked.

Iranians have about 800 missiles of Shahab class missiles, which have an average capacity to transport 1 tonnes of explosives.
That makes around 800 tonnes of explosives.

When you remember that the Brits only dropped in Dresden in 2 big attacks about 2400 tonnes of explosives, then these Shahab missiles will only destroy a mid-size city.
So in military meaning these missiles have no meaning untill Iran has no nuclear material enriched. Iran's airforce is not up-to date and under embargo, so they fully go the way of missiles.

Of course these Shahab missiles can and if all 800 Shahabs will be fired at Israelian reactor in Dimona, will hit that reactor. But such move will force Israel to nuke Iran.
This is not likely. It is just a big propaganda show for Iranian public unless these missiles are equipped conventionally with explosives.
That is until they are finished with their nuclear enrichment program.

And it's nice to know you consider a "mid-size city" a minor loss. A railroad crossing with a post office doesn't deserve to be fired upon, much less a "mid-size city."
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
That is until they are finished with their nuclear enrichment program.

And it's nice to know you consider a "mid-size city" a minor loss. A railroad crossing with a post office doesn't deserve to be fired upon, much less a "mid-size city."
Who says, that Iran will fire all these missiles.
They will only make use of missiles, when there will be an Iran-war. Not before.
 
OP
akiboy

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Missiles are not impressive when they are equipped conventionally.
When you equip missiles with nuclear, biological or chemical materials THEN they will make big damage in human life.
But such a move will result in Iran either being nuked or chemically attacked.

Iranians have about 800 missiles of Shahab class missiles, which have an average capacity to transport 1 tonnes of explosives.
That makes around 800 tonnes of explosives.

When you remember that the Brits only dropped in Dresden in 2 big attacks about 2400 tonnes of explosives, then these Shahab missiles will only destroy a mid-size city.
So in military meaning these missiles have no meaning untill Iran has no nuclear material enriched. Iran's airforce is not up-to date and under embargo, so they fully go the way of missiles.

Of course these Shahab missiles can and if all 800 Shahabs will be fired at Israelian reactor in Dimona, will hit that reactor. But such move will force Israel to nuke Iran.
This is not likely. It is just a big propaganda show for Iranian public unless these missiles are equipped conventionally with explosives.

Excuse me mate.. Iran is enriching Uranium. The buggers could have the required 30-35% enriched Uranium to equip small warheads into their Shahab Missiles. And since the Shahabs have a max range of 2000 km this puts Isarel and U.S bases in the Gulf in deep trouble. Iran can get the required enriched bomb grade uranium in the next 2 -3 years.

Akshay
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93



Excuse me mate.. Iran is enriching Uranium. The buggers could have the required 30-35% enriched Uranium to equip small warheads into their Shahab Missiles. And since the Shahabs have a max range of 2000 km this puts Isarel and U.S bases in the Gulf in deep trouble. Iran can get the required enriched bomb grade uranium in the next 2 -3 years.

Akshay
There is much propaganda in this world.
Why should Iran attack US Bases with missiles? What lies behind this logic and what gains and what loses Iran by such a step?

You have to think logically:
The only reason Iran wants to advance to a nuclear armed state is, that it will become untouchable, and therefore can adopt a more aggressive stance in forming the region like it wants.
That Iran gets nuclear and then attacks in Kamikaze-way Israel or US-bases is not that likely.
This is a irrational step, where Iran itself will get nuked.
Israel has some nuclear-capable submarines bought from Germany. Even when Israel if if if gets nuked by Iran, Israel will make Iran to a non-liveable zone.

In current situation Iran can not make everything it wants, because it can be accountable.
When Iran gets nuclear, it can try (i am not saying it has the capabilities) to destabilize Jordan, Saudi-Arabia even Afghanistan. And nobody can do anything against it, as Iran will be militarily untouchable.

Being in nuclear armed status means, that you are the player in the region and you have the upper hand against other states and you can, even if you don't success, try to export your regime or your "modelling of the region" in to the neighbour area.
It is all about interest. Iran is currently in no position to advance to a leader state in the region, as there are more powerfull states.

All the Anti-American polemic by Iran is off course of economic reasons, too.
Iranians have no quality products for export. Their products are not competitive on world market. Besides, they mostly expport reccources.
By adopting Anti-American policies Iran establishes economic agreements with states which like the USA also not.

For example Iran produces a car called Samand. This car is real bullshit and is mostly only for Iranian market.
To international customers it is bullshit.
The few countries Iran exports this car is Venezuela and Belarus.
All states the USA has no good relations to, Iran intensifies cooperation on multiple areas. And economy is one of them where Iran gets chance to export its goods while to other states can't, as industrialized countries mostly only import pistachios and oil and natural gas from Iran.

So you can still believe Iran wants to get nuclear to erase Israel or attack US-bases. It is your view.
I view it, that Iran plans for future and eraseing Israel or US-bases will be a step where Iranian future will be erased.
So Iran makes nuclear plans for strengthening its role in the region and become a unique country to opress other countries, simply by being a nuclear power, and others are not.
And such a status will make Iranian future more attractive in handleing the region as it wants.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
Wanna bet?
Why would i want to bet?
You have your views and i have mine.

Iranian airforce is crap. Iran has no air-superiority in the region.
For example, if Iran wanted to drop explosives in the U. A. Emirates, the airforce from UAE would shoot down all Iranian warplanes. Without exception.

So if you do not want to abandon airwarfare, bringing explosives from point A to point B, you have to go they way by missiles.
Iranian air fighters can not drop explosives in airplanes in a foreign country. But Iranian missiles can.

Versus technologically advanced states Iranian missiles are more logical than oldtimer Iranian warplanes.
Iranian howitzers can not reach foreign states and Iranian airforce can not also.

The biggest income is reccources, and fueling "conflict-debate" in the world makes reccource prices rise, Iran getting more Dollar from reccources. So Iran has interest in keeping reccource prices high. The easiest way doing this is fueling "conflict-debate" and agressive polemic.
Iran is no world-bank and has limited finance cash.
So Iran has to make a choice investing in Russian warplanes, which in a conflict will be shot down by Israelian and American airforce or use the money better in investing in missiles.

So a missile arsenal suits Iran better then warplanes. No Iranian warlane make its way to Israel or US-BAses. But Missiles will.
Also Iran can bunker its missile launch platforms and launch missiles from under the earth.
Air fleets will get first bombed from opponents of Iran.

Iran has a doctrine suited to its opponents and it chose the way of missiles.
Only a F-16 can carry a explosive load of 7 tonnes. Now imagine USA eliminateing Iranian airfleets and 1000 US F-16 dropping bombs over Iran non-stop 24 hours.

How bombs Iran US Airbases. By missiles.
But these missiles are not convinceing as Iran has 800 Shahab missiles with an average payload of 1 Tonnes explosives.
Only when 1000 US F-16 dromp bombs simultaneous over Iran it makes 7.000 tonnes of explosives.

This example should give you an answer, too, why Iran will not attack US first.
But when Iran gets attacked, it will use everything it has. Missiles, too, even if missiles will have no eminent effect.
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
Why would i want to bet?....
So a missile arsenal suits Iran better then warplanes. No Iranian warlane make its way to Israel or US-BAses. But Missiles will.
....
Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a box of rocks. That was my point, do you happen to remember the President of Iran stating Israel will be wiped off the map, or something to that effect?

So that brings us back to what you said “they won’t” launch missiles unless in a war. Are ya catching on yet? I said ‘wanna bet’.

Yer up box.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
There are different views on this subject:

Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html

Would be nice to see which impact this had on oil oprices.
Such easy to make oil prices rise.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
No? Then why would he want nuclear weapons and thumb his nose at the world?
Explain that.

Go fer it box.
I tried to explained it in Post Nr. 8.
Reading you must yourself.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas



Excuse me mate.. Iran is enriching Uranium. The buggers could have the required 30-35% enriched Uranium to equip small warheads into their Shahab Missiles. And since the Shahabs have a max range of 2000 km this puts Isarel and U.S bases in the Gulf in deep trouble. Iran can get the required enriched bomb grade uranium in the next 2 -3 years.

Akshay
And you don't think there are more than a few nukes aimed at Tehran as we sit here? Don't be so naive. Aside from surface ships, we have more than a couple submarines equppied with nuclear weapons.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
And you don't think there are more than a few nukes aimed at Tehran as we sit here? Don't be so naive. Aside from surface ships, we have more than a couple submarines equppied with nuclear weapons.
What? Are you insinuating that the US or Western Power might be able to react? OMG!
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
What? Are you insinuating that the US or Western Power might be able to react? OMG!
I'm saying I've been deployed to the ME enough to know that Iran is not going unnoticed, and probably has more weapons to include nukes locked on targets than even North Korea does.
 
OP
akiboy

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
And you don't think there are more than a few nukes aimed at Tehran as we sit here? Don't be so naive. Aside from surface ships, we have more than a couple submarines equppied with nuclear weapons.
You still dont get it do ya? Iran CAN accept casualties UNLIKE America. America can obliterate Iran with a single missile ...I agree. But do you think Iran won't throw some of their missiles at Israel and US Bases in the Gulf? Iran has the might to control the vital Straits of Hormuz which is economically important to America. Agreed Iran dosen't have a capable air force. But Iran has enough missiles to take down Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , Bahrain , U.A.E and Qatar (economically).This countries dont have a capable missile defence systems. Iran can perform a naval blockade of the Straits with their subs and ships. I have no doubt that America can defeat Iran with a single strike..But Iran can also destroy US interests in the Gulf. If Iran can give a nose bleed to America in the Gulf then the Iranian regime has completed its objective.

The main agenda here is oil. Iran certainly has the might to land a heavy economic blow to the States in the Gulf. And the Iranian economy is just enough to keep the people satisfied due to their natural gas and oil exports.
Iran spends more on military these days. And once their nuke reactor is completed by the Russians there is no stopping the. Plus there is always the danger of an radical Islamist like Khomeini taking over Iran again. Who knows what he might do with Iran's small but sufficient missile arsenal?:dunno:

Akshay
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas


You still dont get it do ya? Iran CAN accept casualties UNLIKE America. America can obliterate Iran with a single missile ...I agree. But do you think Iran won't throw some of their missiles at Israel and US Bases in the Gulf? Iran has the might to control the vital Straits of Hormuz which is economically important to America. Agreed Iran dosen't have a capable air force. But Iran has enough missiles to take down Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , Bahrain , U.A.E and Qatar (economically).This countries dont have a capable missile defence systems. Iran can perform a naval blockade of the Straits with their subs and ships. I have no doubt that America can defeat Iran with a single strike..But Iran can also destroy US interests in the Gulf. If Iran can give a nose bleed to America in the Gulf then the Iranian regime has completed its objective.

The main agenda here is oil. Iran certainly has the might to land a heavy economic blow to the States in the Gulf. And the Iranian economy is just enough to keep the people satisfied due to their natural gas and oil exports.
Iran spends more on military these days. And once their nuke reactor is completed by the Russians there is no stopping the. Plus there is always the danger of an radical Islamist like Khomeini taking over Iran again. Who knows what he might do with Iran's small but sufficient missile arsenal?:dunno:

Akshay
I think I "get it" a lot better than you. Iran does not possess the capability to cripple the US, nor take out the entire Gulf. Let's give a lesson in US history as it pertains to "bloodying our noses:"

9/11 ... the retaliation sent those fo the Taliban not killed scurrying like rats into the hills.

Peral Harbor: End result: Japs got nuked AFTER we destroyed their military in a conventional manner.

Shall I go on? Or perhaps you can see where this is going? Iran may very well get in a first strike against us. Seems to be that's what it takes to wake some people up around here. But Iran succeeds at nothing by "bloodying our noses" if it ceases to exist in current form.

But your agenda keeps becoming more clear. Iran can wipe out the Gulf States. You live in a Gulf state. You want the US to carry out a preemptive strike. Can't imagine why.;)
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
I think I "get it" a lot better than you. Iran does not possess the capability to cripple the US, nor take out the entire Gulf. Let's give a lesson in US history as it pertains to "bloodying our noses:"

9/11 ... the retaliation sent those fo the Taliban not killed scurrying like rats into the hills.

Peral Harbor: End result: Japs got nuked AFTER we destroyed their military in a conventional manner.

Shall I go on? Or perhaps you can see where this is going? Iran may very well get in a first strike against us. Seems to be that's what it takes to wake some people up around here. But Iran succeeds at nothing by "bloodying our noses" if it ceases to exist in current form.

But your agenda keeps becoming more clear. Iran can wipe out the Gulf States. You live in a Gulf state. You want the US to carry out a preemptive strike. Can't imagine why.;)
I see it in a similar way. I would bet my money on the USA rather than in Iran.
To missiles i have said enough.
In an attack, the USA have to secure the boarders, so that No one gets into Iran, and the most important noone gets out of Iran.
The USA has not done this in case of Iraq with its 150.000 soldiers.

Iran will make guerilla war and will send Soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is no war, where you have not your own casualties. And if the USA decides to attack Iran by airforce the USA has calculated these casualities before.
So i think the USA could bomb Iran, off-course conventionally, without the region exploding.
But entering Iran and overthrow government USA has to pay much blood for it and it will went more wrong then in Iraq.
Iraq is desert and plain-land, except the north.

Iran's topography is wholly different then in Iraq.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Iran_topo.jpg
And we can assume that Iran is militarizing these mountain ranges.
So for the USA, it would be to secure one mountain after another. Then the other mountain.
In mountain regions, the defender has always the defence bonus.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
I see it in a similar way. I would bet my money on the USA rather than in Iran.
To missiles i have said enough.
In an attack, the USA have to secure the boarders, so that No one gets into Iran, and the most important noone gets out of Iran.
The USA has not done this in case of Iraq with its 150.000 soldiers.

Iran will make guerilla war and will send Soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is no war, where you have not your own casualties. And if the USA decides to attack Iran by airforce the USA has calculated these casualities before.
So i think the USA could bomb Iran, off-course conventionally, without the region exploding.
But entering Iran and overthrow government USA has to pay much blood for it and it will went more wrong then in Iraq.
Iraq is desert and plain-land, except the north.

Iran's topography is wholly different then in Iraq.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Iran_topo.jpg
And we can assume that Iran is militarizing these mountain ranges.
So for the USA, it would be to secure one mountain after another. Then the other mountain.
In mountain regions, the defender has always the defence bonus.
Canavar, I see your up to your old ways, your one slippery SOB.

There may well come a time, when the good old US of A tires of all this BS, and just starts kicking ass, and taking names.

I'm sure we WILL remember who are friends are, and I believe Turkey is one of them.

I don't know where your alliance lies, and really, couldn't give a shit.

I just hope you have your medical insurance paid up when it happens.

Clear enough?:crutch:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top