Skip to main content

View Diary: Industry documents show Keystone XL is being built for overseas export markets (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, I don't know the details. My brother is (0+ / 0-)

    an officer in the U.S. Navy.  I heard it from him.

    God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

    by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:38:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  mmmm (0+ / 0-)

      Navy family, WW2 and Korea, Carriers.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I'm going to guess your brother is talking about the Sunburn a mach 3 cruise missile, dives at mach 4, even though its from China, as the Russian triple5 cruise missile is not for export.

      The Chinese Sunburn is the most serious threat to any carrier.

      The Russians just dont sell front line carrier threatening weapons, they havent for decades.
      AS far as the Russians selling anything to Iran, no deal

      http://www.google.com/...

      SO ask your brother, for me, WTF are you talking about.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:57:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dont need details, a name is more than enough to (0+ / 0-)

      confirm bullshit.

      I got the details on anything. I can confirm anything.

      So you have no name. no details, ... what evah......

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 01:00:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is your answer. A quick internet search was (0+ / 0-)

        all I needed.  It may be a chinese missile that I asked my brother about, but it is clear in this article that the Russians have been selling this technology as well.   You seem angry for some reason.  I don't claim to be perfect but a better tone would be appreciated.  Thanks.

        The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome
        Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
        The Weapon That Could
        Defeat The US In The Gulf
        By Mark Gaffney

        "Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

        The Sunburn Missile

        I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

        Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."
         

        God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

        by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 01:31:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My links, I wrote about this in Jan 2007 (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Iran likely purchased the Sunburn from China in 2004. China bought the Sunburn from Russia in '98 or '99.

          Unfortunately  Mark Gaffney writes for Rense and is, lets be polite, prone to hyperbole.

          By the time Mark Gaffney writes this article in 2011 the Navy had already deployed new close in anti missile defensive systems to augment the Phalanx system specifically to counter the Sunburn. See Aegis system, Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

          In fact when I wrote my article in early 2007, design work had been completed, and a prototype existed. This is the problem with Rense, in this case they ignore whats been in the public domain for 4 years in order to sensationalize.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:36:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So your Navy brother reads Rense? (0+ / 0-)

          LOL. Kidding

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the polite response. (0+ / 0-)

            This discussion of missiles may not have originated from my brother at all.  I may have found this on the internet myself and brought up the subject with him.  It was a while ago.  I bow to your superior knowledge on matters of armaments.

            My original point was that tankers in the Straits of Hormuz (and elsewhere in the world for that matter) are vulnerable.  There is much that confirms that.  This was in support of the argument that Canada's oil sands provide a secure North American supply of oil and that energy security is an issue that many people who posted comments on the original diary seem to want to deny.  

            If you read my other comments you will see that I have many concerns about oilsands production and the harm to the environment that they create.  I am just trying to be realistic about the balance between meeting our future energy needs, energy security in a dangerous world, on what realistic timeline can alternative green sources of energy be expected to replace fossil fuels, and the damage that is currently being done to the environment.  

            I think a made a few points and maybe broadened the discussion in what was otherwise a comment section that was pretty boring with everyone agreeing.  This is all to the good.

            God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

            by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 03:06:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But we can get hi quality oil from Alaska's NPRA (0+ / 0-)

              Why look to Alberta?

              API 40 to 60 in NPRA,  2.7 billion barrels. SO you say you are concerned about harm to the environment, so why do you fail to support oil production from NPRA?

              Heres the choice,
              1) API 35+ oil from the Middle East?
              2) API -10 oil from ALberta
              3) API 40-60 oil from NPRA

              You say your concerned about the environment, but you choose the dirtiest option.

              You say you dont want buy oil from other countries, but you fail to support oil production in the US (NPRA).
              Then you bring Hormuz in...., WTF, a WW2 US Tank the Sherman, can sink tankers, SO FUCKING WHAT.

              Then you site the Sunburn and then refuse to acknowledge that the Navy has deployed a defense specifically designed to thwart the Sunburn.

              But you are right about recycling li poly batteries. 100% correct.

              FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site