Iran Warns It Can Fire 11,000 Rockets In One Minute If Attacked

[satcom]

Hi, I found this on spacewar

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Ira...00_Rockets_In_One_Minute_If_Attacked_999.html

by Staff Writers
Tehran (RIA Novosti) Oct 22, 2007
Iran has the capability to fire 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within one minute if the country is attacked, a top commander in the Revolutionary Guards Corps said on Saturday. "Within the first minute of any attack by enemies against our country, the missile and artillery unit of the ground force is capable of firing 11,000 missiles and shells at targets that are known to us," Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, the top missile commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said on national TV.
Iran has precise data on the deployment of potential attackers' military bases in the region, he said.

"A possible war will not last long, because within days we will reduce our enemies to ashes. The enemy must ask himself what losses he is prepared to suffer for his stupidity," the commander said.

The commander's comments come four days after United States President George W. Bush's warning that if Iran's nuclear program is not stopped, World War III could break out. The United States has military bases in several countries near Iran, including thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which share borders with the Islamic Republic.

In response to Bush's comments, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said on Thursday: "Statements of this kind reflect America's expansionist goals, which will surely weaken international security and ignite the U.S. government's militarist policy."

Washington, which along with many other Western nations accuses Iran of pursing a secret nuclear weapons program, despite Iranian denials, has refused to rule out military action against the country in the long-running international dispute.

Bush's comments at a White House news conference came a day after President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran, where the Russian leader said he saw no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

Putin's trip to Iran for a summit of Caspian littoral states, the first visit by a Russian or Soviet leader since Joseph Stalin traveled to Iran in 1943, provoked concerns in the West over increasingly close ties between Moscow and Tehran. The summit resulted in a five-way agreement that no Caspian nations would allow the use of their territories for a military strike against any of them.

earlier related report
Iran to fire '11,000 rockets in minute' if attacked
AFP Report: Iran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.

"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful.

Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.

"If a war breaks out in the future, it will not last long because we will rub their noses in the dirt," said Chaharbaghi.

"Now the enemy should ask themselves how many of their people they are ready to have sacrificed for their stupidity in attacking Iran," he said.

Iranian officials have repeatedly warned the military would target the bases of US forces operating in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan in the event of any attack and already has these sites under close surveillance.

Chaharbaghi said that the Guards would soon receive "rockets with a range of 250 kilometres (155 miles)" whereas the current range of its rockets is 150 kilometres (91 miles).

"We have identified our targets and with a close surveillance of targets, we can respond to the enemy's stupidity immediately," Chaharbaghi added.

He said that the Guards' weapons were spread out throughout the country and so would not be affected by any isolated US strikes against military facilities.

The Guards are Iran's elite ideological army and responsible for its most significant weapons such as the longer range Shahab-3 missile which has Israel and US bases in the Middle East within its range.


Source: RIA Novosti

Source: Agence France-Presse

 

[F-15 Eagle]

11000 rockets?nfloorl:thats a bit of a streach to me, yeh right its more like 1000 rockets in an hour, but 11000 ha thats funny espesaly when they say under 1 minute.nfloorl:

 

[buglerbilly]

What an absolutely useless bunch of tossers! nfloorl:

The bring a whole new meaning to governmental stupidity.

Regards,

BUG

 

[chakos]

I would take the claim with a grain of salt but i guess what they are highlighting is their state of readiness to launch almost their entire arsenal almost immediatelly if strikes are commenced against Iran.

The problem with such an action is that it would almost totally drain their war stocks and allow no effective second or third strike option so apart from the damage they would be able to dish out on the first strike they would have nothing to back it up with. If for example they could launch 11 000 warheads and then say follow it up with 11 000 more or even 5000 more on a regular basis then it could present a problem. If they had a couple of decent armored divisions that they could put into Iraq to take advantage of any confusion caused then it would be a bigger problem.

Launching 11 000 rockets (if at all possible) in one massive strike would not be an altogether bad thing as far as the Americans would be concerned. It basically means the Iranians wear down their war stocks in the opening hours of the war and have no real ability to follow them up or react to any American initiatives.

The number itself isnt that incredible when you consider that a Bm-21 carries 40 tubes, a battery of 6 has 240 tubes. A 155mm artillery peice could easily burst fire 4-8 rounds a minute. The claim was more an assertion that they are ready for war at a moments notice. That is something i do not doubt.

 

[rossfrb_1]

bellicose rhetoric

more of same then if that report is true.
this is the country that developed a manpad (Mithaq-2) that was going to shoot down any attacker, a hypervelocity torpedo with a range of about 3km, stealth hovercraft, modified F5s with F-18 like performance... blah blah blah blah blah.
As useful as tits on a bull.


rb

 

[octopus7]

The 11,000 rockets sounds like bull but remember Iran does possess the Sunburn missile. Which can be deployed against shipping such as aircraft carriers, Don't know too much about these missiles but I remember reading that they are supersonic, can avoid radar by flying close to the terrain and that systems such as the Phalanx CIWS are virtually useless against them. Correct me if I am wrong, but we should be more concerned about their capacity to destroy large naval vessels in the area.

 

[Chrom]

The 11,000 rockets sounds like bull but remember Iran does possess the Sunburn missile. Which can be deployed against shipping such as aircraft carriers, Don't know too much about these missiles but I remember reading that they are supersonic, can avoid radar by flying close to the terrain and that systems such as the Phalanx CIWS are virtually useless against them. Correct me if I am wrong, but we should be more concerned about their capacity to destroy large naval vessels in the area.

Dont think so. Unless USA get its carriers closer than 300km to Iran borders, carriers are pretty much safe. Of course, Iran can disrupt all transport throu Gulf channel, but only for short time until USA defeats Iranian regular army.

Sunburn is NOT the weapon what can be operated by partizans. So once iranian army is defeated, Sunburn will become useless.

 

[Izzy1]

Iran has the capability to fire 11,000 rockets...

More IRGC propoganda which in my opinion has more to do with trying to instill confidence in the Iranians themselves rather than threatening anyone else.

 

[riksavage]

The Iranians are sounding more and more like old Saddam. Don't lets forget how long his ‘indestructible military machine’ lasted once committed to combat!

I’m waiting with baited breath for the ‘mother of all battles’ and ‘gods on our side’ statements, which no doubt will starting flooding the airways as tension increases with the West.

 

[funtz]

Within the first minute of any attack by enemies against our country, the missile and artillery unit of the ground force is capable of firing 11,000
missiles and shells
at targets that are known to us,"

What is the known status of their missiles and artillery guns (i.e) numbers?

How many US targets (base, outpost etc.) fall with in the range of different systems?

What is the process required to fire a rocket/missile? or ordering an artillery strike(shells)?

Is it impossible to order simultaneous strikes if 11,000 Missiles + artillery guns exist?

Who will care about a bunch of evolved scuds, most certainly not the USA. Especially when the first things to be attacked would be the missiles and artillery guns.

 

[merocaine]

Wow, howls of outrage ensue.....

The president of the greatest power on earth threatens nuclear war AKA WWIII, so why not try to reasure your people by talking up your deterent.

11000 rockets and shells does not sound too out landish, how accurrate they would be is another story.

 

[paskal]

So what if you have 11,000 rockets but once the US air force comes in i can bet the number will reduce badly.
An invasion of IRAN is unlikely to happen.Iran is around 3 times bigger than iraq and has better equipment than the iraqis.The iranians has full back up from the russian goverment.
But can you just imagine if IRan was strike and they quickly counter the attack by launching their missles at israel and US bases there what will happen.ISrael will be wiped out of the map and US will suffer a great blow there.
Imagine if NUCLEARS was in their possession:nutkick

 

[KiwiRob]

I realise that what I'm about to say probably sounds a bit simplistic but if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons then why can't Iran have them. It's a similar situation to Russia and the US, India and Pakistan. Now I could understand Iran stopping it's nuclear program if the US forced Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons, personally I think if any country is stupid enough to go nuke on anyone it's probably going to be Israel.

 

[Chrom]

I realise that what I'm about to say probably sounds a bit simplistic but if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons then why can't Iran have them. It's a similar situation to Russia and the US, India and Pakistan. Now I could understand Iran stopping it's nuclear program if the US forced Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons, personally I think if any country is stupid enough to go nuke on anyone it's probably going to be Israel.

Always said so.

As for Iranian military - Iran is too far from Israel to do much damage unless true WMD is used. Some USA bases are in danger but it is nothing unusual.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I realise that what I'm about to say probably sounds a bit simplistic but if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons then why can't Iran have them. It's a similar situation to Russia and the US, India and Pakistan. Now I could understand Iran stopping it's nuclear program if the US forced Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons, personally I think if any country is stupid enough to go nuke on anyone it's probably going to be Israel.

A little bit simplistic in my opinion, yes. Afterall Israel is the only Country in the world to have had nuclear weapons and actually been faced with wars of national survival and has used them how many times?

Israel is also a solid democracy, with checks and balances in place. How many checks and balances exist in the Iranian Government?

Israel may in fact use nuclear weapons someday and of the Countries that possess them, possibly only Pakistan or India are MORE likely to use them IMHO, however I would bet my last dollar that if they DO, it won't be for a "stupid" reason, but rather because WMD's have been employed against them first or Israel is facing imminent destruction as an entity...

 

[SABRE]

I realise that what I'm about to say probably sounds a bit simplistic but if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons then why can't Iran have them. It's a similar situation to Russia and the US, India and Pakistan. Now I could understand Iran stopping it's nuclear program if the US forced Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons, personally I think if any country is stupid enough to go nuke on anyone it's probably going to be Israel.

No one allows you to have nuclear weapons. Ever herd of something called NPT. Every country ractified it, including Iran. According to NPT only those countries are nuclear states which had tested the devices before 1968 (the year NPT was enforced) - this frees US, USSR/Russia, UK, China & France to retain the nuclear weapons.

The reason nothing much could be done against Pakistan & India, other than implementing sanctions on them, is that they are the 2 countries out of 4 which did not become of NPT members in 1968 & still remain out of it. Other 2 countries which did not sign NPT were/are North Korea & Israel.

Since Israel is not a member of NPT it can probably take a risk of sanctions & test the devices. On the other hand Iran remains obliged to the NPT.

 

[KiwiRob]

Back to me being simple again I still don't see the problem with Iran having nukes, it all comes back to Israel having them which justifies anyone else in the neighbourhood having them. If Israel didn't have them then I wouldn't see any reason for Iran, Iraq, Syria or anyone else around that part of the world getting them, so back to me being simple isn't Israel having them the reason for this problem and the imbalance of power that them having nukes creates.

Besides if things ever became too hairy for Israel I'm would bet the farm on it the good ole uncle sam would march in and help out. I know they haven't in the past with men on the ground but things are different today especially with the folks who are in charge of the US at the moment.

Didn't Israel and or South Africa conduct a secret nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979?

 

[Izzy1]

Back to me being simple again I still don't see the problem with Iran having nukes, it all comes back to Israel having them which justifies anyone else in the neighbourhood having them.

A nuclear-free Middle East would be perfect, however that is not the case, yet as Aussie Digger explains, dare I say the second-best option now exists. No matter the counter-arguments, Israel does have unique circumstances and a stability that few in the region can match.

For example, Saudi and Egypt never actively began a nuclear weapons programme in response to Israel developing their deterrent.

But this will happen if Iran develops. Saudi and Egypt will begin development, Israel will feel obliged to build more and proxy battlefields like Palestine and Lebanon will intensify. Iranian nuclear capability will only lead to further regional instability, proliferation and a new arms race that the region nor the world needs.

 

[eaf-f16]

No one allows you to have nuclear weapons. Ever herd of something called NPT. Every country ractified it, including Iran. According to NPT only those countries are nuclear states which had tested the devices before 1968 (the year NPT was enforced) - this frees US, USSR/Russia, UK, China & France to retain the nuclear weapons.

The reason nothing much could be done against Pakistan & India, other than implementing sanctions on them, is that they are the 2 countries out of 4 which did not become of NPT members in 1968 & still remain out of it. Other 2 countries which did not sign NPT were/are North Korea & Israel.

Since Israel is not a member of NPT it can probably take a risk of sanctions & test the devices. On the other hand Iran remains obliged to the NPT.

Can't Iran exit the NPT if it provides enough evidence that it needs them becuase there is a possible nuclear threat to it from another nation (namely Israel)? Everyone has to realize is that there is no definitive proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. We also have to ask ourselves whether the US's excessive use of force in the region (and world-wide) drove Iran to think that it needs these weapons for its survival (sort of how Israel thinks it needs such weapons for it's survival).


Honestly, IMO, the quickest way to nuke-free Middle East is if Israel gives up it's own nuclear weapons.

 

[Chrom]

Can't Iran exit the NPT if it provides enough evidence that it needs them becuase there is a possible nuclear threat to it from another nation (namely Israel)? Everyone has to realize is that there is no definitive proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. We also have to ask ourselves whether the US's excessive use of force in the region (and world-wide) drove Iran to think that it needs these weapons for its survival (sort of how Israel thinks it needs such weapons for it's survival).


Honestly, IMO, the quickest way to nuke-free Middle East is if Israel gives up it's own nuclear weapons.

Nothing in internatinal laws prevent to quit ANY agreement. This includes NPT.
Moreover, the whole idea behind NPT (formally) is to allow member states to develop civilian nuclear energy without developing nuclear weapon. In that regard Iran is of course have right to feel itself as victim of "double standards" - at least formally.

While i dont believe what Iran seeks access to nuclear energy for peacefull purposes, i still think what nuclear weapon in iranian hand will stabilize Middle East much the same a-bomb stabilized India - Pakistan and India - China relations.