Skip to main content

View Diary: Cheney to Generals: Prepare to Attack Iran (398 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am well aware of the Sunburn (none)
    I know it is an anti-ship missile.

    And Raytheon claims to have developed a 95% effective defence against it. It's called SeaRAM and is a drop-in replacement for the current Phalanx anti-missile systems, which have been judged almost wholly ineffective against Sunburn missiles.

    Not much information is available to the public on the SeaRAM system, of course--its precise capabilities are secret, but this much is known:  The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles.

    The effective range of the RAM missile is 17.5 kilometres (11 miles). The CIWS part of the SeaRAM can track multiple targets and fire multiple missles at a single target. Each SeaRAM platform holds 11 RAM missiles.

    That's IF the Iranians choose to use their Sunburns and launch them against American ships--and I'm betting they won't, because the Iranians would bring down the full wrath of the American Air Force and Navy if they did that.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 05:08:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  not happening. (none)

      straight of hormuz is shallower than that. And each ship has to pass that choke point twice. The Iranian  can burn their low budget solid propellant anti ship and mix it with sunburn.

      It'll be the most expensive naval battle we ever do. Their ship is an island! It's unsinkable.

      •  So we'd drop paratroops on it and take it. (none)
        Then it still won't sink, but it'd be OUR unsinkable.

        Where there's a will, there's a way.  Iran doesn't have a chance against us, one way or the other.

        •  where is the troop (none)
          You seems to be under the impression we have unlimited number of troop.

          are we going to drop those new recruits who can't shoot straight? or are we pulling marines out of Iraq and afghanistan?

          Then what will happen to Iraq and afghanistan?

    •'s the old they're too afraid argument (none)
      Come on...  This line of reasoning should be consigned to the junk bin of history by now.  Contrary to popular belief, our enemies aren't soooooooo afraid of us that they won't fight back.  That's just ridiculous.  Iran would launch everything they had at us.  Maybe it would fail, but they would still do it.  

      Why would they hold back?  Because they're "afraid of bringing the full wrath of the US navy down on them"?  What a load of shit.  They're already being attacked, why would they be concerned about being attacked.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 06:18:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The strikes would be against certain targets (none)
        Military in nature.  Painful to the Iranians, and cause for them to fight back, but there are limits to their retaliation.

        The Iranians know full well that if they sink or badly damage a US naval vessel, President Cheney will stick his hand up George Bush's arse and have him ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran.

        A formal declaration of war against Iran!  Cheney's wet dream!  The public and the Congress would gladly conscript all the troops Cheney needs to fulfill his dreams of empire-building.

        The American air force and navy are capable of raining terrible destruction upon Iran. The Iranians might feel some satisfaction in sinking a ship of the navy of the Great Satan, but it would be a pyhrric victory--you must understand that in the final analysis, the Iranians are virtually defenceless against American naval and aerial assaults.  Hurling a Sunburn missile at a US warship and damaging or sinking it is like hitting a grizzly bear between the eyes with a large rock and then daring him to come get you.  You'll feel good for a moment that you beaned the bear, but he's going to use you for a chew toy.

        It all comes down to whether or not you believe the Iranian mullahs--not the new president, who hasn't any real power, but the mullahs who have been running the country since the 1979 Revolution--are fools.

        I say they are not fools.  You think they are.  

        We will have to await events and see which of us is right.

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 08:36:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Formal declaration of war... (none)
          You know what? There was actually a time, if you can believe this, when a declaration of war was required before one launched a war. Even an unprovoked aggressive war-crime war, which this attack on Iran we're discussing would definitely be.

          You seem to be arguing, "We could hit them first, and they wouldn't dare to fight back or anything, because then we'd get really mad." Oh yeah, you've just unloaded a bunch of tacnukes on a country, killed tens of millions of people in a particularly horrible way because you felt like it, and you think nobody's going to fight you over it?

          Let me tell you, if Cheney does this, Canada would seriously consider whether it should declare war on the US. Sure, it would be a very dumb move and we eventually wouldn't do it, but we'd definitely be thinking hard if there wasn't some way we could do it. And we'd be looking for other ways to cause you grief. Bet Mexico would be going through the same thought processes.

          You'll have to apply the death penalty to Cheney eventually, you know, if his heart hasn't given out. A pity you couldn't just do it beforehand, so to speak, and save all those lives.

          But I suppose the sequence does have to be, crime first, then penalty... Isn't there some provision, though, for action in advance to forestall great harm? I'm groping here for the word... what is it... ah, I have it! Preemptive action. Hmmm. Seems to me I've heard that word before somewhere.

          The mullahs, by the way, have out-thought the Cheney administration from day one. Chalabi was their tool. There's never been a better example in the history of warfare of, "Let's you and him fight." Maybe that's why Cheney is so set on war with Iran now; he has finally realized how he was suckered.

          Can't you just remind the Army they aren't supposed to go to war on the orders of the vice-president?

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 02:44:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Declaration of war? (none)
          We wouldn't bother.  (We never do any more.)  Shadowthief, you've been batting 1.000 up to this point--now you're just .999.  Still a Hall-of-Famer, though!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site