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

[eaf-f16]

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.

I really don't think that will be the case. It will just make Egypt and Saudi (and whole bunch of other ME nations) go for nuclear weapons. And then one has to worry about the chances of any of these regimes getting overthrown as almost all of them are run by unpopular dictators. IIRC, the US has been having the same worries over Pakistan's nukes. Now imagine a whole BUNCH of unstable nations having these kinds of weapons and the ability to deliver them.


Israel giving up it's nukes and Iran giving up it's ambitions to obtain nukes is still by a large margin the best option.

 

[SABRE]

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.

Any one can defect from an international agreement, including the NPT. In fact the North Koreans just did that - they ractified NPT initially than opted out & earlier this year declared they tested a device.


Iran can also do the same but it are the events/situation that will follow, after opting out of the agreement, which are more dangerous perhaps - especially in case of Iran.

1. It would prove that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons & in such case both Russia & China probably wont be able to do much to save Iran from any possible wester military action.

2. China & Russia might also have to stop military aid/sells to Iran under such conditions.

3. Big package of economic sanctions. Americans would probably make sure that Iran friendly countries cut off all economic ties with Iran (probably an end to IP-I gas pipe-line which seems to be a major economic project in the region at this moment).

4. Other neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia may attempt to proliferate & Israel probably will be inch closer to testing its own devices.


This means complete isolation of Iran. For this reason we see Iran stating its program is for peaceful purpose - something NPT allows & that is how Iran has to keep it. They can & probably are using the "peace full purpose" as an Umbrella to cover their actual intentions but this umbrella can never be removed however there are always risk of it being torned apart.

As oppose to what "Chrom" just said above, I think Nuclear Iran would destablize the "greater region". The Indo-Pak nuclear weapons initially did very little to prevent war - in fact the countries were at the brinks of war in 2001-2002. It was the international pressure on the both countries which averted the war. Both Pakistan & India had to face economic loss (Pakistan's economy had started to improve while India's well established but 2001-2002 standoff vertually reduced both countries economy to nill).

In case of Iran & Israel;

1. Iran is very unpredictable & Israel pursues very aggressive defence policy.

2. Both countries have no diplomatic ties, unlike Pakistan & India, so there is greater chance of misunderstandings.

3. International pressure may apply to Israel but Iran might reject them (including pressure from China & Russia).

4. Iran having very little conventional strength has greater chance of using nuclear weapons as means of war. In this case Israel having no other option might also have to employ nuclear weapons. "MAD" in action.

I do see greater drastic scenario. But till date we have seen credible deterrence coming to exitance than a war - but that has been because of more social-scientific approach than emotional. In case of Iran-Israel there is very little social-scientific approach & more emotional approach.

 

[eaf-f16]

2. Both countries have no diplomatic ties like Pakistan & India so there is greater chance of misunderstandings.

Are you sure about Pakistan and India having no diplomatic ties?

 

[SABRE]

Are you sure about Pakistan and India having no diplomatic ties?

Sorry I meant to say "unlike India & Pakistan (both countries have diplomatic ties)." Correction made.

 

[Chrom]

Any one can defect from an international agreement, including the NPT. In fact the North Koreans just did that - they ractified NPT initially than opted out & earlier this year declared they tested a device.

.............
.............


I do see greater drastic scenario. But till date we have seen credible deterrence coming to exitance than a war - but that has been because of more social-scientific approach than emotional. In case of Iran-Israel there is very little social-scientific approach & more emotional approach.

I more or less agree with all of your points - may be with slightly different accent and tone.
Except for stability part - i'm sure nuclear weapon in Iranian hand will calm down iranian worries about direct foreign aggression. Iran itself dont have serious territorial disputes with adjacment countries, so open conflict is very unlikely in that case.

 

[SABRE]

I more or less agree with all of your points - may be with slightly different accent and tone.
Except for stability part - i'm sure nuclear weapon in Iranian hand will calm down iranian worries about direct foreign aggression.

Well there are always 2 sides of a coin but value is always single. We both may be looking at the same coin but different sides, however the value is same.

Iran's major complex is conventional-inferiority & nuclear weapons may over come it but they "will" (in my opinion) drag them to a greater security-complex.

Iran itself dont have serious territorial disputes with adjacment countries, so open conflict is very unlikely in that case.

On the contrary it does. It claims some land of Azerbaijan, has occupied some small Islands from UAE & after 1971 they claimed some parts of Balochistan province of Pakistan but later backed (in mid 1980s I think).

 

[Chrom]

Well there are always 2 sides of a coin but value is always single. We both may be looking at the same coin but different sides, however the value is same.

Iran's major complex is conventional-inferiority & nuclear weapons may over come it but they "will" (in my opinion) drag them to a greater security-complex.



On the contrary it does. It claims some land of Azerbaijan, has occupied some small Islands from UAE & after 1971 they claimed some parts of Balochistan province of Pakistan but later backed (in mid 1980s I think).

All these are not major disputes, something similar have most countries in the world including nuclear ones.

 

[SABRE]

All these are not major disputes, something similar have most countries in the world including nuclear ones.

That is true but there is a risk of it becoming a major dispute with nuclear Iran. I may be wrog though but the way Iran deals diplomatically with its neighbours & other countries nuclear Iran seems to be more of a nuclear threat than a deterrent.

 

[SaudiArabian]

if this is true , it means that the Iranian military leadership gives no care for the element of surprise. information like this shouldn't be announced if its true. its pointless to expose it.

however , if it is as Izzy1 said that they are

trying to instill confidence in the Iranians themselves rather than threatening anyone else.

then the Iranians confidence in their military will collapse when we reach the moment of truth in the battlefield , whenever this severe level is reached , and it became proven and clear that Iran's military was unable to fire these 11,000 rockets

 

[Chrom]

That is true but there is a risk of it becoming a major dispute with nuclear Iran. I may be wrog though but the way Iran deals diplomatically with its neighbours & other countries nuclear Iran seems to be more of a nuclear threat than a deterrent.

Specialities of they "way" is greatly exxagerated by western medias. Imagine how we can twist Bush words about WW3, nuclear bombing against Iran/Iraq/Afganistan/whoever, constant threating of bombing crap of any terrorists in any country, etc. Same with Israel...

I advice to read full speechies in context. In essence, iranian leaders speak amazingly similar rithoric to some western hawks.

 

[Chrom]

if this is true , it means that the Iranian military leadership gives no care for the element of surprise. information like this shouldn't be announced if its true. its pointless to expose it.

however , if it is as Izzy1 said that they are


then the Iranians confidence in their military will collapse when we reach the moment of truth in the battlefield , whenever this severe level is reached , and it became proven and clear that Iran's military was unable to fire these 11,000 rockets

Nope, information like this , in absence of nuclear weapon, is credible deterrent against foreign invasion. The situation is like nuclear deterrent - there is little point to hide the possession of nuclear weapon. EXACT numbers and locations might be classiffied - but then again we dont know if Iranian words about 11000 are true or false For all i know that could be a big exxageration or big underestimation!

 

[Izzy1]

Nope, information like this , in absence of nuclear weapon, is credible deterrent against foreign invasion. The situation is like nuclear deterrent - there is little point to hide the possession of nuclear weapon. EXACT numbers and locations might be classiffied - but then again we dont know if Iranian words about 11000 are true or false For all i know that could be a big exxageration or big underestimation!

Chrom, seriously, do you believe they have nuclear weapons capability?

 

[eaf-f16]

Chrom, seriously, do you believe they have nuclear weapons capability?

Where did he say he believes that they have nuclear weapons capability? He was saying that the Iranian announcement of their supposed "ability" to fire 11,000 artillery shells and rockets might act as deterrent against invasion.

 

[Izzy1]

Where did he say he believes that they have nuclear weapons capability? He was saying that the Iranian announcement of their supposed "ability" to fire 11,000 artillery shells and rockets might act as deterrent against invasion.

Chrom can give his own answer thank you.

Once again eaf-f16, we are watching.

 

[Chrom]

Chrom, seriously, do you believe they have nuclear weapons capability?

Who "they"? If Iran - of course not yet. If Israel - then i dont know.

 

[nevidimka]

I think the US foreign policy is increasingly being influenced by the secret codes in the bible. Its one documentary which i saw, that said the coming of the WW3 will being from a country down south in the middle east. It also said about MABUS starting the war, which still does not make sense in the present day.

When bush said to avoid WW3, thats when i thought of the documentary.

 

[Awang se]

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.

i doubt they'll launch 11 000 scuds. it probably mostly grads or a large calibre battlefield rocket, use to pound US forward staging area, and it will be launch from a broad front, not from a concentrated locations. they don't really need a launcher vehicle though. in a case of grad, a simple tube launcher carried by a small jeep is all they need. i believe they already set a predetermined method of launching the rocket simultaneously on a moment notice, they may also have a predetermined launch location. as far as air power capability to neutralize such a system, take Israel-Hezbollah war for example, IDF have little success in stopping Hezbollah rocket from pounding northern israel cities. in gulf war 1, USAF faced great difficulties in locating Iraqi mobile scud launcher.

Oh! i doubt Iran have just 11 000 rockets. they probably have more. 11 000 is for opening, follow by lower intensity sustained pounding. and please remember Iran backed Shiite militia in Iraq. the rockets may come from them either. furthermore, Muqtada Al-Sadr sit on top of a main US supply line from Kuwait and Gulbudin Hekmatyar are position west of Afghanistan and were known to received aid from Iran. they both may threaten the US logistic tail.

 

[AussiePatriot]

i doubt they'll launch 11 000 scuds. it probably mostly grads or a large calibre battlefield rocket, use to pound US forward staging area, and it will be launch from a broad front, not from a concentrated locations. they don't really need a launcher vehicle though. in a case of grad, a simple tube launcher carried by a small jeep is all they need. i believe they already set a predetermined method of launching the rocket simultaneously on a moment notice, they may also have a predetermined launch location. as far as air power capability to neutralize such a system, take Israel-Hezbollah war for example, IDF have little success in stopping Hezbollah rocket from pounding northern israel cities. in gulf war 1, USAF faced great difficulties in locating Iraqi mobile scud launcher.

Oh! i doubt Iran have just 11 000 rockets. they probably have more. 11 000 is for opening, follow by lower intensity sustained pounding. and please remember Iran backed Shiite militia in Iraq. the rockets may come from them either. furthermore, Muqtada Al-Sadr sit on top of a main US supply line from Kuwait and Gulbudin Hekmatyar are position west of Afghanistan and were known to received aid from Iran. they both may threaten the US logistic tail.

Awang se, maybe you like the Iranians cant remember exactly what took place in 1991. Many leaders throughout the world were simply astonished about how quickly and easily the Americans kicked Iraq from Kuwait (after they got into position that is) and the vastly superior weapons (to soviet arms) used.

The Americans certainly have not stood still with arms development and spending on such goodies and would surely wreak havoc on Iran when the time comes and coming it is!

I know plenty of people like you would point to the fact that America has overstretched its ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq but the 3rd most populated nation on earth could and I believe will sometime in the not too distant future begin compulsory conscription on a limited scale.

The 11,000 rockets in a minute threat is just that, a threat.
Iran might put up a better fight than Iraq but all that means in the end is a much higher Iranian death toll.

In my opinion Iran is behaving much like Germany before WW2 but without the military might.

 

[merocaine]

In my opinion Iran is behaving much like Germany before WW2 but without the military might.

What invading the Sudetenland?

 

[Awang se]

Awang se, maybe you like the Iranians cant remember exactly what took place in 1991. Many leaders throughout the world were simply astonished about how quickly and easily the Americans kicked Iraq from Kuwait (after they got into position that is) and the vastly superior weapons (to soviet arms) used.

The Americans certainly have not stood still with arms development and spending on such goodies and would surely wreak havoc on Iran when the time comes and coming it is!

I know plenty of people like you would point to the fact that America has overstretched its ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq but the 3rd most populated nation on earth could and I believe will sometime in the not too distant future begin compulsory conscription on a limited scale.

The 11,000 rockets in a minute threat is just that, a threat.
Iran might put up a better fight than Iraq but all that means in the end is a much higher Iranian death toll.

In my opinion Iran is behaving much like Germany before WW2 but without the military might.

I see your point. but the situation is very much different now from then. the only thing that i think can go right for the American is an Air campaign. the ground campaign, i doubt it will go smoothly. unlike gulf war 1, why?

first, US will not have a secure rear area like it did in GW1 (Saudi Arabia) and GW2 (Kuwait). Iraq is still in turmoil and in case of US attack on Iran, the Insurgents and Anti-US Militias may seize this opportunity to threaten the long and vulnerable US supply route. second, in GW1, US fought against an invading Iraqi army and have a huge international support, in GW2 US fought against an Iraqi army weakened after 10 years of sanction. even then, it's not a walk in a park. the conventional fight last only a few weeks, but a sustained insurgency cost US a lot financially and shake the very core of it's internal politics. Unlike Iraqi army, Iranian Revolutionary Guard are ideologically driven, well train, well equipped fighters. the same breed can be seen in Hezbollah. The iraqi army on the other hand are like the puppet, they were train mostly to obey a central command with little incentives for their own initiative. once you kill the master, they lost their will to fight. IRGC, like Hezbollah fighters, have a very high capacity to think on their own feet. trageting the central command may cause them to loose coordination, but i doubt it will cause them to loose morale.

i have no doubt that America can raise a manpower needed for it's army, but in the democratic country where public opinian matters, how long can America sustained such a policy, even in a country where public opinion where suppressed and manpower is not an issue, like Soviet Union, even they have to relent in the end. beside, forcing someone to fight and die thousands of miles from home and for something that seem to have nothing to do with their lives is a bit too much.