Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
.. .
(Al Dykes) wrote:

Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.

Not to mention a general Shiite uprising in Iraq, which would make life
even worse for the US troops there.

The problem with that argument is that Pakistan is primarily Sunni, not
Shiite. They don't like the Shiites any more than the Shiites like them.
There are ongoing conflicts between the two sects in Pakistan. Pakistan
would never rise up in support of Iran.

George

George wrote:
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..

"George" wrote:


The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger
percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the
last 100 years. NEXT.



Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.


Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.


Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.


2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will
change, and heads will roll.


Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was
still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.


Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.


And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell
the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The
cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't
control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years
ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax.
The anthrax came from a british lab.


And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually
sold and had it built it for him.

George


Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article pIT%f.895375$x96.409847@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"George" wrote:

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops
would
be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.

Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
Afghanistan multiplied by 10...


Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.

The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
population turn against it's leaders.

The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
and attack as the Iraq ADF was.

Iraq's auir defense wasn't under embargo until right before the first
Gulf
war. ANd if you will note, only a handful of American planes were shot
down during that war.

Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
bunker busters, as used in Iraq.

The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
war.

But then, the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate us.



They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the Iran-Iraq
war?

Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of
Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia.

That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

George

George wrote:
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
Yes, but that was Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, they used AMX-tanks and

AMX tanks are French, nobody ever said they didn't sell to Iraq.

Hughes-helos against Iran.

A dual use bird sold under a civil use export license. That's not to
say there are not reports that some of them found their way to
military use.

Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was
a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The History channel showed an
exposed on the A-10 just two days ago. The A-10 destroyed over 900 Iraqi
Russian-made tanks, and 1,200 tanks and artillery pieces in total:

Russian design I guess, but perhaps we should say "Warsaw Pack built
tanks". I think the bulk came from other than USSR factories; not to
say they weren't approved for shipment.

Juergen Nieveler wrote in message
.. .

As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was
Russian.

In 1991, during Gulf War II.

And after.....he didn't replace his hardware with Western items.

And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.

You don't need "recipes" for that.

In article DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
....




They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the Iran-Iraq
war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes thinsg worse
and more complicated.


Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

The Grampa Saud cut a deal with an obscure sect, the Wahabi, to create
and control what we now know as Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi#...d_of_Wahhabism


it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of
Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia.

That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

For people with an interest about the (mostly) innocent people of
Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan I highly recommend a recent
book about Mortenson. He's built, as of the writing of the book, more
than 50 village schools, frequently where the construcion material had
to be carried in by porters. He's had two fatwas issued against him
and local Imams refered them to their vatican (Qum, Iran) and in both
cases they were annulled. He writes about the Wahabi Taliban schools
that are being built in competition.

Three Cups of Tea - Mortenson & Relin





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..

"George" wrote:


The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.



Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.


Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.


Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.


2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.


Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.


Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.


And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.


And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George
Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean

Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...




They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
Iran-Iraq
war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes thinsg
worse
and more complicated.

Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in the
last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
could make you so delusional?


Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.

That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was supported
by the Pakistan secret service.

There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
fought against Islamic extremists.

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"James H. Hood" wrote:

And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.

You don't need "recipes" for that.

If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
researching most basic stuff, for example how long you could store a
chemical bomb, which sealants to use to prevent it from leaking, which
type of explosive to use to disperse anthrax spores without killing
them, etc... not to mention advanced technologies like binary weapons.

All of which can be done by technicians in a laboratory. Aand Saddam had
plenty of them. But you know, when one of your conspiray theories is shot
down, you can always move the goal post and make up another.

George

George wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
rg...


"George" wrote:



The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.




Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.



Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.



Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.



2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
will change, and heads will roll.



Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.



Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.



And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.



And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George



True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured
in the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV