Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[eaf-f16]

First of all, I am comparing effect. If you read my post it is obvious that I am aware of the difference, I said battlefield rockets. And you are mixing Cruise missiles with ballistic missiles.

What do you mean by "effect"? The Shahab-3 is a guided ballistics missile capable of carrying a 1,200 kg war head as far as 1,200 km. There are Middle Eastern nations that don't have this capability so surely Hezbollah doesn't have anything near this. And there is NO WAY you can compare this to a Katusha.

And no I'm not mixing them up. I was trying to point to you that the only missiles Hezbollah has are anti-ship ones and they don't have any guided ground to ground missiles.

I would agree that the Shahab-3's spectacular inaccuracy would render it almost utterly useless against military targets. But the point I'm trying to make here is that even though it might not cause military damage it can still cause damage (mainly civilian) and it can still penetrate the PAC-3's defenses and that I don't think the PAC-3 has faced something like Shahab-3 before (I don't think ANY variant of the Patriot system faced anything like Shahab-3 before). The Shahab-3's relatively long range is going to make ALOT harder to shoot down.

 

[eaf-f16]

Yes, the PAC-3 shot down all Iraqi ....defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043

Sorry, didn't see you other thread before I posted.:

I see now.

What were the Iraqi BM's that were fired? Were they Hussein or some other Scud variant again?

 

[Grand Danois]

What do you mean by "effect"? The Shahab-3 is a guided ballistics missile capable of carrying a 1,200 kg war head as far as 1,200 km. There are Middle Eastern nations that don't have this capability so surely Hezbollah doesn't have anything near this. And there is NO WAY you can compare this to a Katusha.

And no I'm not mixing them up. I was trying to point to you that the only missiles Hezbollah has are anti-ship ones and they don't have any guided ground to ground missiles.

I would agree that the Shahab-3's spectacular inaccuracy would render it almost utterly useless against military targets. But the point I'm trying to make here is that even though it might not cause military damage it can still cause damage (mainly civilian) and it can still penetrate the PAC-3's defenses and that I don't think the PAC-3 has faced something like Shahab-3 before (I don't think ANY variant of the Patriot system faced anything like Shahab-3 before). The Shahab-3's relatively long range is going to make ALOT harder to shoot down.

You will have my apologies on suggesting you mixed the missiles up.

The primary cargo for the Shahab-3 is of course not conventional munitions, that would be utter waste of that missile, as it would have little effect.

Civilian damage and the potential for carrying WMD warheads is why I think they are mostly psychological weapons.

I haven't seen anything concrete, but I deduce that the PAAT target the Patriot (and the GMD) practices against, has properties (throw-distance) similar to the Shahab-3.

 

[Grand Danois]

Sorry, didn't see you other thread before I posted.:

I see now.

What were the Iraqi BM's that were fired? Were they Hussein or some other Scud variant again?

I only edited the link into the post a few minutes ago, so you probably didn't have a chance to see it.

They were short ranged. The cease-fire agreement after '91 didn't allow Iraq to have anything longer ranged than 300km, iirc.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/ops/images/oif-patriot-pic1.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/ops/oif-patriot.htm

Apparently one of the missiles was pretty close to a critical hit.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/ops/oif-patriot.htm

 

[eaf-f16]

You will have my apologies on suggesting you mixed the missiles up.

You got mine about the Katusha's.

The primary cargo for the Shahab-3 is of course not conventional munitions, that would be utter waste of that missile, as it would have little effect.

Agreed.

On http://missilethreat.com it says that Shahab-3 can be fitted with submunitions warhead. Does that by any chance mean MIRV? I thought the Iranians were FAR from anything of that technological advancement.

Civilian damage and the potential for carrying WMD warheads is why I think they are mostly psychological weapons.

More like genocidal. I still don't see the connection made between the Katusha's and the Shahab-3? I thought the rockets Hezbollah fired were mainly doing military damage not civilian. Do you mean that they will scare the population of the targeted country in the same way?

I haven't seen anything concrete, but I deduce that the PAAT target the Patriot (and the GMD) practices against, has properties (throw-distance) similar to the Shahab-3.

What do you mean? Like in intercept tests? Or in training? Or both?

IMO, intercept tests are hardly telling of how an ABM system would perform in a real combat situation. You never really know how an enemy's weapon system is going to perform. I think this is especially true in Iran's case.

 

[Grand Danois]

You got mine about the Katusha's.
On http://missilethreat.com it says that Shahab-3 can be fitted with submunitions warhead. Does that by any chance mean MIRV? I thought the Iranians were FAR from anything of that technological advancement.

No. Conventional bomblets, armour piercing, HE-FRAG, runway cratering. Some Chinese TBM s use 122 mm rocket warheads. Basically achieving the same effect of firing a volley of Katuyshas (hint: the above effect discussion).

More like genocidal. I still don't see the connection made between the Katusha's and the Shahab-3? I thought the rockets Hezbollah fired were mainly doing military damage not civilian. Do you mean that they will scare the population of the targeted country in the same way?

A weapon that is meant to work psykologically doesn't have to be used... I hope.

What do you mean? Like in intercept tests? Or in training? Or both?

Intercept.

IMO, intercept tests are hardly telling of how an ABM system would perform in a real combat situation. You never really know how an enemy's weapon system is going to perform. I think this is especially true in Iran's case.

The OIF intercepts are telling. They are done against short ranged missiles, stressing response times, proving the battle management system and the concepts work under operational conditions. Intercepting longer ranged missiles in tests supply the other information you need: like, are sensors and mssiles up to the task? It only has to validate the physics (besides the rest).

Put the two together, and you have a tentative conclusion.

The Iranian BM tech is '60-'80s era.

 

[Izzy1]

Resolving the Iranian Nuclear Issue.

GD and EAF - How do we resolve the Iranian nuclear issue?


You both make some excellent points - lets see if we can elaborate.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD and EAF - How do we resolve the Iranian nuclear issue?


You both make some excellent points - lets see if we can elaborate.

The nukes are the biggest obstacle to detente - and you need detente to get rid of the nukes.

The Iranian people is key. If they do not want such toys then the regime would have a bad case seeking confrontation and spending resources. However, the people are positive towards nukes too, as a matter of national prestige, and because they to some extent buy into the deterrent to the US argument.

Making nukes has been made a nat'l cause by the regime...

Bombing Iran may have a tremendous feel good factor, but is short term, and pushes the Iranian people away from any long term solution.

It is like the period leading up to the Entente Cordiale. Germany would have been the best ally the British could have had on continental Europe; Iran would have been the best partner for the West in the Gulf...

Personally I think Iran is much further away from nukes than Ahmedinejhad wants us to believe. It is pretense for the purpose of domestic politics.

So I say wait it out.

Cheers.

 

[Izzy1]

Good start.

Looking forward to a support or counter opinion.

Here's the Forum rules again for all, before we maybe branch this thread seperate.

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

 

[eaf-f16]

The nukes are the biggest obstacle to detente - and you need detente to get rid of the nukes.

The Iranian people is key. If they do not want such toys then the regime would have a bad case seeking confrontation and spending resources. However, the people are positive towards nukes too, as a matter of national prestige, and because they to some extent buy into the deterrent to the US argument.

Making nukes has been made a nat'l cause by the regime...

Bombing Iran may have a tremendous feel good factor, but is short term, and pushes the Iranian people away from any long term solution.

It is like the period leading up to the Entente Cordiale. Germany would have been the best ally the British could have had on continental Europe; Iran would have been the best partner for the West in the Gulf...

Personally I think Iran is much further away from nukes than Ahmedinejhad wants us to believe. It is pretense for the purpose of domestic politics.

So I say wait it out.

Cheers.

I don't think he wants us to believe that at all. If anything Ahmedinjad wants the West to believe that they're program is strictly peaceful not military. I highly doubt he ever said that they were going after nuclear weapons let alone near to getting them. Unless by "nukes" you mean the completion of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The best way to get Iran to co-operate more is through talks and not through sanctions. If the US engaged in talks with Iran from the beginning it would have shown that the US respects Iran instead of trying to bully the Iranians into doing what they want them to do. Just ask yourself, how humiliating would it be for Iran to succumb to US sanctions? Now ask yourself, if the US were to engage in serious talks with Iran from the beginning wouldn't we be much closer to peacefully ending the stand-off than we are now? Wouldn't that have show that the US respects Iran and is willing to negotiate with it? No one wants to be bullied into anything because it's humiliating. Talks on the other hand, would have shown that the US respected Iran and would have made it alot easier for Iran to compromise with the US without giving off the look that they were being bullied into anything.

What I want to know is why the US chose to engage in talks with North Korea, which was clearly going after nuclear weapons and unlike Iran has missile technology actually threatening to the US, but they chose the path of sanctions, war-mongering and a possible military strike for Iran even though there is no proof that Iran is going after nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have missile technology that's actually threating to the US?

 

[merocaine]

What I want to know is why the US chose to engage in talks with North Korea, which was clearly going after nuclear weapons and unlike Iran has missile technology actually threatening to the US, but they chose the path of sanctions, war-mongering and a possible military strike for Iran even though there is no proof that Iran is going after nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have missile technology that's actually threating to the US?

They spend a long time using the stick on the North Koreans, before the South convinced them to begin talks(that took a lot of cocxing). The North Koreans also engaged in much more erratic behavior than the Iranians ever have. The Americans had little leaverage over such a totalitarian state, the North Korean leadership would rather let its people starve than yield to any american demands. Other than the nuke issue there are more differences than similarites between the two issues. Real movement was only achived after the Americans became convinced the North Koreans had the bomb, and just as important a delivery system.

Irans political leadership is much more responsive to its people, hence the Americans feel they can bring pressure to bear on the goverments stance by increasing economic pressure. Wheather this will work is another matter.
Under the present US leadership there is too much baggage, ideolgical and otherwise for them to be able to talk to the Iranians, for them it is still 1979, they will be strong where Carter was weak...
For all the Iranian bluster you get the impression they would leap at the chance to speak as equals to the Americans, if only lay out there historical grevences against the US!

 

[Grand Danois]

I focused the hypothesis, that if you conduct a similar survey in a years time, with all else being equal including (2.), but independent from the 2006 survey, then one might end up with a number inconsistent with the 2006 survey. I wouldn't want to end up in a discussion on the minutae of possible bias in the sampling, so let it be.

New study estimates 151 000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003 invasion

9 JANUARY 2008 | GENEVA/BAGHDAD -- A large national household survey conducted by the Iraqi government and WHO estimates that 151 000 Iraqis died from violence between March 2003 and June 2006.

...

The estimate is based on interviews conducted in 9345 households in nearly 1000 neighbourhoods and villages across Iraq. The researchers emphasize that despite the large size of the study, the uncertainty inherent in calculating such estimates led them to conclude that the number of Iraqis who died from violence during that period lies between 104 000 and 223 000.

...

"Our survey estimate is three times higher than the death toll detected through careful screening of media reports by the Iraq Body Count project and about four times lower than a smaller-scale household survey conducted earlier in 2006," added Naeema Al Gasseer, the WHO Representative to Iraq.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006

 

[swerve]

Iraq Body Count is very scrupulous about only counting confirmed deaths, & can therefore be considered a lower bound for estimates.

The basic concept behind the study reported in The Lancet is valid, but reports suggest the methodology in that particular study was flawed, & likely to exaggerate deaths. This new study sounds more credible.

 

[Grand Danois]

Iraq Body Count is very scrupulous about only counting confirmed deaths, & can therefore be considered a lower bound for estimates.

The basic concept behind the study reported in The Lancet is valid, but reports suggest the methodology in that particular study was flawed, & likely to exaggerate deaths. This new study sounds more credible.

As I said... do it once more (and more robustly) and you are likely to get a result in conflict with the Lancet study.

 

[DefConGuru]

I believe its the U.S. that's on the defensive and not Iran, and it's the U.S. who should look at switching strategy and tactics against the combination of entrenched and mobile forces, in given scenarios manpower and quality of arms are not as influencing of an outcome as you all might expect and are wrongfully concluding. With regards to air superiority which no doubt will be established rather quickly by the U.S. if it did invade Iran, owning the air is 1/3 of the battle and in no way does that itself constitute victory especially in a present day, multi pronged unconventional war. The real battle will be on the sea and near certain facilities, as going after targets in highly populated areas would result in high casualties on both sides. Currently Iran has capabilities to defend its waters and key facilities for a sustained amount of time.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I believe its the U.S. that's on the defensive and not Iran, and it's the U.S. who should look at switching strategy and tactics against the combination of entrenched and mobile forces, in given scenarios manpower and quality of arms are not as influencing of an outcome as you all might expect and are wrongfully concluding. With regards to air superiority which no doubt will be established rather quickly by the U.S. if it did invade Iran, owning the air is 1/3 of the battle and in no way does that itself constitute victory especially in a present day, multi pronged unconventional war. The real battle will be on the sea and near certain facilities, as going after targets in highly populated areas would result in high casualties on both sides. Currently Iran has capabilities to defend its waters and key facilities for a sustained amount of time.

The US is on the defenceive in which scenario? Full scale invasion and occupation GW2 style? I dont think thats the objectieve or if it is even if its achievable considering the US's current deployments in Iraq and the 'ghan. A more reasonable objecteive would be destruction of the IRG's C3 capability, its nuclear programme and the airforce as an organization, then a policy of containment ala sadam in the 90's. If there was an attack at all.

Such an action would be counter productive in the GWOT to an extent, allthough it would curtail iranian backed actions in Iraq and lebanon.

Anyway you cant define victory unless you define the objecteive.

 

[Firehorse]

Monday, March 24, 2008
TEHRAN: An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say.
Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier on Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea. The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran.

This looks revealing to me. Normally, SSNs accompany CSGs. I bet it's one of those SSGNs with her 154 SLCMs and SEALs, not an SSN. And why rescue ship now, unless for possible wrecks?

 

[X6958]

The CIA said the Iranians abandoned the nuke program in 2004, Honestly what would the Iranians done with a couple 20kt nukes, NK has that kind of nuke and do they actually threaten the US, not really...