Iran Nuclear Agreement

[Childlike Empress]

Perhaps because nuclear warheads aren't the only non-conventional warheads one could use. Perhaps it's a bluff. Or perhaps Israel isn't the only potential target.

Well, they have bought all the nice missile stuff from Russia and China. The Sunburn seems to be an especially nice weapon if you sit on top of a gulf. Some potential targets could include

• obviously every ship in the persian gulf including oil tankers and aircraft carriers, making the street of hormuz unpassable and cutting a major supply line for the military in Iraq and the oil for the US.
• the harbours and skyskrapers of the arab emirates - imagine what that will do to the financial system
• the Saddam Dam in Mosul, flooding half of northern Iraq and cutting another supply line
• the green zone and new fancy us embassy in Baghdad
• the dozens of US bases around Iran
• the BTC-Pipeline

etc pp

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, they have bought all the nice missile stuff from Russia and China. The Sunburn seems to be an especially nice weapon if you sit on top of a gulf. Some potential targets could include

• obviously every ship in the persian gulf including oil tankers and aircraft carriers, making the street of hormuz unpassable and cutting a major supply line for the military in Iraq and the oil for the US.
• the harbours and skyskrapers of the arab emirates - imagine what that will do to the financial system
• the Saddam Dam in Mosul, flooding half of northern Iraq and cutting another supply line
• the green zone and new fancy us embassy in Baghdad
• the dozens of US bases around Iran
• the BTC-Pipeline

etc pp

You are off-topic. This thread is about fish.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Oh sorry, i'm afraid even the Sunburn isn't precise enough to hit a herring, even a big red one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The only interesting thing about that is that they gave it to Hezbollah. It was a Chinese-built missile, not an Iranian one. We know that Iran has access to such weapons, I doubt they could manufacture it themselves.

Yet.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, they have bought all the nice missile stuff from Russia and China. The Sunburn seems to be an especially nice weapon if you sit on top of a gulf. Some potential targets could include

• obviously every ship in the persian gulf including oil tankers and aircraft carriers, making the street of hormuz unpassable and cutting a major supply line for the military in Iraq and the oil for the US.
• the harbours and skyskrapers of the arab emirates - imagine what that will do to the financial system
• the Saddam Dam in Mosul, flooding half of northern Iraq and cutting another supply line
• the green zone and new fancy us embassy in Baghdad
• the dozens of US bases around Iran
• the BTC-Pipeline

etc pp

Responding to more of the standard CE foolishness here.

A dense minefield would make the Straits of Hormuz close to impassable.

Sunburn makes passage of the straits a higher risk, depending upon what you are sailing in, and who you are. Sunburn is a good missile, but it isn't magic.

Sunburn being used agains the Saddam Dam in Mosul ... fired from Iran? When is the last time you looked at a map? Note for our readers here: Sunburn was designed as an anti ship missile. It has a finite range.

"Attack bases in Iraq." With a Sunburn?

CE, Iranian High Command is grateful that you are not in charge of strike planning, as you have no clue what you are talking about.

You are off-topic. This thread is about fish.

It is not helpful by encourage rubbish dispensers.

DR

 

[Childlike Empress]

Usual pompous jerkery. There's more than the Sunburn if you care to look. Case is, they are able to cause a lot of havoc. And it would all be in defense.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Usual pompous jerkery. There's more than the Sunburn if you care to look. Case is, they are able to cause a lot of havoc. And it would all be in defense.

Then maybe you ought not to make such foolish statements as

The Sunburn seems to be an especially nice weapon if you sit on top of a gulf. Some potential targets could include

And follow it with a target list.


"And it would all be in defense."

Right, attacking the Saddam Dam in Iraq from Iran would all be in defense.

You would be well advised to stay out of this line of work, it's not a suitable vocation for fools.

DR

 

[Childlike Empress]

Then maybe you ought not to make such foolish statements as

And follow it with a target list.

If you were able to understand a paragraph in context and not misunderstand sentence after sentence, maybe you could spare us a lot of your misplaced vitriol.

 

[GreNME]

And you could spare us a thread-jack by stopping the arguing over whether you comprehend or whether he understands an unrelated statement you made.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

[Missile strikes] is a cost Israel has already demonstrated itself willing to pay.

If Israel doesn't consider missile strikes on its population as a cost, then why would it launch incursions into the Gaza strip in response to Hamas bottle rockets? Either that was a trumped up pretext or Israel considers missiles exploding in its civilian centres as a cost. If it's the latter (and I could be convinced of either) then Iran's missiles are a cost Israel and other regional powers will consider when evaluating the costs and benefits of attacking Iran. Whether or not Iran's missiles actually do deter Israel from attacking obviously depends on a number of factors, including Israel's (and others') perception of the threat, and their perception of the benefit of launching an attack (or preemptive strike or what have you) on Iran.

The only interesting thing about that is that they gave it to Hezbollah. It was a Chinese-built missile, not an Iranian one. We know that Iran has access to such weapons, I doubt they could manufacture it themselves.

I've read both that it was Chinese made and domestically produced/upgraded (i.e. Noor). In any case, it seems like it was a relatively effective weapon.

Perhaps because nuclear warheads aren't the only non-conventional warheads one could use. Perhaps it's a bluff. Or perhaps Israel isn't the only potential target.

Sure, check the article below. Potential targets could include Israel, US bases, and oil refineries in the GCC. Also, though not a conventional ballistic missile deterrent, Iran has threatened to shut down the strait of Hormuz, which would likely involve a use of anti-ship cruise missiles.

Anyways...

Here's an interesting article on the history and development of Iran's ballistic missile strategic thinking. It notes that developing a nuclear payload is likely a priority, but also points out that conventional ballistic deterrence is a part of Iran's force posture.

"By taking the war to Iran, Iraq terrorized the civilian population, which began to clamor for shelters and to desert the cities in large numbers. Iraq thus imposed a political cost on Iran’s leadership for continuing the conflict. The Iranian government’s conduct of the war became politically damaging, especially as it was unable to offer the population any defense or to riposte in kind. "


"Aside from the disclosures that the war led to, it stimulated Iran’s interest in ballistic missiles by demonstrating their political and military effectiveness. This effectiveness stemmed from the missiles’ three important attributes: defense penetration, pre-launch survivability and long range. Defense penetration refers to the ineffectiveness of existing air defenses in intercepting missiles once they are launched. For instance, the performance of the version of Patriot missiles used in the Gulf War was described as not being "even partially successful." It arises from the fact that missiles fly at many times the speed of sound which means that there is little warning time of an attack making defense difficult. Consequently, they were the only weapons in Iraqi possession that could penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Pre-launch survivability alludes to the difficulty of destroying ballistic missiles before launch. Ballistic missiles and the transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) that they are placed on and fired from are road mobile and hence difficult to locate and destroy in wartime. General Schwartzkopf, the commander of the Allied forces in the Gulf War, likened the detection of ballistic missile launchers to finding a needle in a haystack. Iraqi attacks on Israel also demonstrated to Iranian leaders the strategic reach that missiles afforded to countries possessing them."

"The first Gulf war reinforced these perceptions. It clearly illustrated the significance of ballistic missiles for AW purposes. They were the sole weapons Iraq possessed that could penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Because they needed little logistical support to launch and were mobile and easy to conceal they proved extremely difficult to destroy before launch and incidentally but equally importantly they managed to divert a good portion of allied aerial bombing which could have caused greater damage to Iraq if not bound up on Scud hunts. In short, ballistic missiles were Iraq’s only winning cards. Iran did not fail to notice that... In the same context, Iran also continued its WMD program with full force, especially efforts to produce a nuclear device. Iranian leaders believed that nuclear weapons were the ultimate instrument of asymmetric warfare. They held that if Iraq had had nuclear weapons, the United States would never have attacked Iraq."

"Although Iranian fears of the US have been the chief driving force behind Iran’s ballistic missile program in the 1990s, secondary threats have also played a part in encouraging Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israeli leaders have on many occasions accused Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons and have threatened to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor under construction in Bushehr. Given Israel’s record of attacking Iraqi nuclear facilities in the 1981, Israeli threats are taken very seriously in Tehran. Consequently, the regime has searched for a means to deter Israel from implementing its threats. The first Gulf War demonstrated how ballistic missiles could perform that role. The relative ease with which they penetrated Israeli defenses, the mass fear they caused and the near economic paralysis that resulted from these attacks convinced the regime in Tehran that they were the best deterrent weapons available. Iranian Shahab-3 missiles can reach all parts of Israel in approximately eight minutes. They are also more difficult to defend against than Iraqi al-Husseins because they descend on their targets at a higher speed. In comparison, Iranian Mig-29s and Sukhoi-24s would need an hour to reach Israel (assuming they flew a direct course) and even then it would be highly unlikely that they would survive Israeli air defenses to reach their targets. Iran’s defense minister has on several occasions hinted that part of the reason for the deployment of ballistic missiles is to deter pre-emptive strikes from Israel against Iranian facilities including the Bushehr nuclear power plant. "

"In contrast with the Shah’s regime which pursued ballistic missiles chiefly as a delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons, the present regime considers conventionally armed ballistic missiles to have an equally important role to play."
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?event_id=37907&fuseaction=events.event_summary

 

[Ziggurat]

If Israel doesn't consider missile strikes on its population as a cost

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I said Israel was willing to pay such costs. Which means, logically speaking, that I must think that they are costs, and that Israel considers them as such.

then why would it launch incursions into the Gaza strip in response to Hamas bottle rockets?

Because they aren't willing to pay those costs for nothing, which is a claim I never made.

I've read both that it was Chinese made and domestically produced/upgraded (i.e. Noor). In any case, it seems like it was a relatively effective weapon.

In either version, its effectiveness stems largely from its accuracy, which is because it's radar-guided. That doesn't really work for ballistic missiles, for rather obvious reasons.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And you could spare us a thread-jack by stopping the arguing over whether you comprehend or whether he understands an unrelated statement you made.

I as much at fault for kicking at the usual foolishness, so I'll stop in this thread.

DR

 

[Captain.Sassy]

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I said Israel was willing to pay such costs. Which means, logically speaking, that I must think that they are costs, and that Israel considers them as such.

Great, so in other words Israel will weigh the possibility of a conventional missile barrage as a potential cost in evaluating whether or not to attack Iran. In other words, Iran's conventional missile capabilities are a deterrent. So Iran has a 'legitimate' strategic reason to develop its ballistic missile capabilities above their potential use as nuclear weapons delivery systems. So we agree.

In either version, its effectiveness stems largely from its accuracy, which is because it's radar-guided. That doesn't really work for ballistic missiles, for rather obvious reasons.

Fine, I was pointing out its effectiveness to counter the arguments that Iran's conventional missiles were unsophisticated. Perhaps by US standards, but they seem to do the job fairly well. If they could hit an Israeli destroyer, it's a cinch they could hit oil tankers sailing along through the Hormuz strait.

Secondly, I don't think Iran's stated and implied strategy of 'deterrence by punishment' is overly reliant on the pinpoint precision of its ballistic missiles.
And in any case, estimates suggest that the accuracy of Iranian ballistic missiles has been improving.

 

[Ziggurat]

Great, so in other words Israel will weigh the possibility of a conventional missile barrage as a potential cost in evaluating whether or not to attack Iran. In other words, Iran's conventional missile capabilities are a deterrent.

No more of one than it already has via Hezbollah. But which costs quite a bit and cannot be used as easily.

So Iran has a 'legitimate' strategic reason to develop its ballistic missile capabilities above their potential use as nuclear weapons delivery systems.

This isn't an issue of legitimacy. It's an issue of effective allocation of resources. Ballistic missiles with only conventional warheads are not an efficient allocation of resources for Iran. And you have studiously ignored my point about non-conventional non-nuclear warheads. Why?

Fine, I was pointing out its effectiveness to counter the arguments that Iran's conventional missiles were unsophisticated. Perhaps by US standards, but they seem to do the job fairly well. If they could hit an Israeli destroyer, it's a cinch they could hit oil tankers sailing along through the Hormuz strait.

I'm sure their cruise missiles could. That says nothing about the accuracy of their ballistic missiles, which are very different creatures.

Secondly, I don't think Iran's stated and implied strategy of 'deterrence by punishment' is overly reliant on the pinpoint precision of its ballistic missiles.

Indeed, it is not, because the implicit threat is that they will be armed with warheads that will not require pinpoint accuracy for effectiveness. Perhaps Iran is simply bluffing, but without at least the possibility, the deterrent effect is quite weak indeed.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

No more of one than it already has via Hezbollah. But which costs quite a bit and cannot be used as easily.

This isn't an issue of legitimacy. It's an issue of effective allocation of resources. Ballistic missiles with only conventional warheads are not an efficient allocation of resources for Iran.

Read the article I cited. You'll like it.


Iran shares missiles with Hezbollah, but Iran's own missile arsenal is superior. Not only that, but for launches from within Iran a much wider variety of targets is available. Conventional missiles could be used on population targets, but I've seen other targets suggested; i.e. US bases in the region and oil refineries in the GCC.

Also, missile use for conventional deterrence is a cornerstone of China's Taiwan strategy. So even if the mUlLAHs arE CrAzY, rational states have built up conventional ballistic missiles as a strategic deterrent.

And you have studiously ignored my point about non-conventional non-nuclear warheads. Why?

I didn't studiously ignore your point about CBW warheads, but I didn't answer it as I figured it was just fun speculation as opposed to a cornerstone of your position. If you have some analyses or assessments that suggest that a key component of Iran's missile program is the ability to deliver CBW (in the way that I've provided a number of assessments outlining Iran's strategy of conventional missile deterrence) then I'd be interested in reading it. However, I imagine that using CBW missiles would be counter productive, as it would likely incite a very rapid escalation which would not be in Iran's favour.

Indeed, it is not, because the implicit threat is that they will be armed with warheads that will not require pinpoint accuracy for effectiveness. Perhaps Iran is simply bluffing, but without at least the possibility, the deterrent effect is quite weak indeed.

The strength of the deterrent effect is debatable. Nonetheless, this doesn't negate the fact that conventional deterrence could be (and from what I've read since starting in this thread, likely is) a part of Iran's missile strategy.

Look at Iran's anti-aircraft capabilities. Their 'deterrence through denial' capabilities are very weak in this area, yet they nonetheless have some anti-aircraft systems. Does the fact that their denial capabilities wouldn't be sufficient to dissuade a US airstrike (except marginally) negate the fact that these capabilities were acquired with an air denial rationale?

 

[WildCat]

Iran shares missiles with Hezbollah, but Iran's own missile arsenal is superior. Not only that, but for launches from within Iran a much wider variety of targets is available. Conventional missiles could be used on population targets, but I've seen other targets suggested; i.e. US bases in the region and oil refineries in the GCC.

Any evidence that Iran's missiles are accurate enough to hit a base or a refinery?

Also, missile use for conventional deterrence is a cornerstone of China's Taiwan strategy.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Any evidence that Iran's missiles are accurate enough to hit a base or a refinery?

Following Iran's announcement that it test-fired nine long-range and medium-range missiles, RFE/RL correspondent Jeremy Bransten spoke to Doug Richardson, editor of "Jane's Missiles and Rockets" magazine, about Iran's arsenal and its capabilities.

"Richardson: A missile like that, you're not going to use it against a moving target like a fleet. If the fleet had a base, a dockyard within missile range, you could certainly fire at that. But in terms of Tel Aviv, I think you best you could say is that you might hope to hit central Tel Aviv. It would not be practical to say: 'We're going to hit the Israeli Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv.' They don't have that kind of accuracy."

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15704

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DCi...age&q=china taiwan missile deterrence&f=false

Check p. 21 re. China's missiles to deter Taiwan declaring independence.

 

[WildCat]

Any evidence that Iran's missiles are accurate enough to hit a base or a refinery?

Following Iran's announcement that it test-fired nine long-range and medium-range missiles, RFE/RL correspondent Jeremy Bransten spoke to Doug Richardson, editor of "Jane's Missiles and Rockets" magazine, about Iran's arsenal and its capabilities.

"Richardson: A missile like that, you're not going to use it against a moving target like a fleet. If the fleet had a base, a dockyard within missile range, you could certainly fire at that. But in terms of Tel Aviv, I think you best you could say is that you might hope to hit central Tel Aviv. It would not be practical to say: 'We're going to hit the Israeli Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv.' They don't have that kind of accuracy."

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15704

So in other words, no, they don't have the accuracy to hit a base or a refinery.

Check p. 21 re. China's missiles to deter Taiwan declaring independence.

Missiles were only part of it, airplane and naval bombardment would also be used. And the targets would be almost entirely civilian because Chinese missiles also lack accuracy. And this has little to no relevance to the Iran situation.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

So in other words, no, they don't have the accuracy to hit a base or a refinery.

-targetting US bases and refineries was suggested by the article I cited. I'm assuming they did the back of the envelope calculations re. land area of a refinery or base and accuracy of the missiles.
-the guy from Jane's actually said "the fleet had a base, a dockyard within missile range, you could certainly fire at that", seeming to imply that a stationary target of that size might be something Iran could hit
-targetting bases or refineries is a possible way of deterring aggression, but so is targetting civilian populations in retaliation to an attack

Missiles were only part of it, airplane and naval bombardment would also be used. And the targets would be almost entirely civilian because Chinese missiles also lack accuracy. And this has little to no relevance to the Iran situation.

The relevance to the Iran situation is that the conventional ballistic missiles are a strategic deterrent.

 

[FireGarden]

The question "would Iran's response to an attack be expensive?" has (very likely) already been discussed in the Bush whitehouse. Bush didn't attack. I assume that is because of the cost/benefit analysis.

One thing to consider is: once attacked, Iran may well abandon the NPT. And US intel is convinced that Iran is capable of making nukes -- which would be a good deal easier without inspectors watching.

So, unless the attack is on the scale of regime change, then it is counterproductive.

Even Bush got some things right.