Iran tests missiles

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Do not rule it out palehorse, but remember that it would only follow what amounts a totally illegitimate and initial Israeli strike.

I didn't say anything about ruling it out. I was merely pointing out that, short of a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel, there is NOTHING that would justify Iran's use of chemical weapons against civilian population centers in Israel... nothing.

Your original word choice was very telling...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: toonces

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers.

That's funny... I didn't know that there was anything that would "justify" the use of chemical weapons... silly me. 😕

wow...

Like invading the Japanese Home Islands justified the use of nuclear weapons in WW2?

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Using nuclear weapons on civilian targets is a little more than "somewhat" illegal.

2. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, sicko.

Of course, except against Japan, right?

I was talking about chemical weapons, not nuclear weapons, thanks for playing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Do not rule it out palehorse, but remember that it would only follow what amounts a totally illegitimate and initial Israeli strike.

I didn't say anything about ruling it out. I was merely pointing out that, short of a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel, there is NOTHING that would justify Iran's use of chemical weapons against civilian population centers in Israel... nothing.

Your original word choice was very telling...

Good point, I'll agree with that one exception.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Socio's linked article is so loaded with distortions and misinformation that it's hard to figure out where to begin.

First off, Baradei's remarks are horribly distorted. what he said was that the Iranians could process enough weapons grade U235 for a single weapon in 6 months to a year, if they reconfigured and dedicated their centifuges to the task. The scenario assumes no inspections whatsoever. An actual weapon would take considerably longer, and would require knowledge, means, and materials that the Iranians may or may not actually possess...

WRT the IAEA and the supposedly redesigned shahab-3, that's an allegation of the US based on the so-called "laptop dossier" furnished to the IAEA by the US govt. The IAEA didn't make the claims, but is rather investigating them- big difference.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.c...p-of-mass-destruction/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11...oref=slogin&oref=login

As for the whole bit about EMP, the article exaggerates the capabilities of the Shahab-3 missile most egregiously in claiming that one could be used as described- it doesn't have the range to put a device high enough over the continental US to achieve the desired results- with even the effectiveness of such an attack being exaggerated in the extreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

The article is intended to inflame rather than to inform, and lacks the most basic efforts at fact checking... it's crap.

Scientist to Congress: U.S. risks 'catastrophe' in nuke EMP attack

The scariest and most threatening kind of EMP attack is initiated by the detonation of a nuclear weapon at high altitude in the range of 25 to 250 miles above the Earth's surface. The immediate effects of EMP are disruption of, and damage to, electronic systems and electrical infrastructure. Such a detonation over the middle of the continental U.S. "has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures that support the fabric of U.S. society and the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power," said Graham.

If this is correct then with a rage if 1250 miles one could be easily shot from 50 miles off coast and get 1000 miles inland and more that high enough to do significant damage.

They would just need two of them one to hit us and one to hit Israel, sending the US in to chaos and leaving Israel sitting ducks for a massacre by a coalition of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian and Iranian forces and no US to help them.

Here is more;

U.S. Lawmakers Warn Of Wider EMP Threat

The U.S. military discovered the power of EMP quite by chance in 1962. During a high-altitude test of a nuclear weapon, the U.S. detonated a 1.4-megaton nuclear bomb 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. The electromagnetic pulse from the explosion triggered widespread electric system failures in Hawaii 800 miles away. Street lights went out, telephone service was disrupted, fuses blew, radio broadcasts ceased and communications systems failed.

Now imagine what a 15 megaton nuclear bomb could do let alone a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.

 

[Jhhnn]

Go stroke your plastic sheeting and duct tape, Socio. Modern military equipment is shielded against EMP, and a ballistic missile reaches apogee at half its maximum range, coasting downward the rest of the way...

You obviously don't even read any links provided... apparently fearful that they'd destroy the purity of your faith...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Go stroke your plastic sheeting and duct tape, Socio. Modern military equipment is shielded against EMP, and a ballistic missile reaches apogee at half its maximum range, coasting downward the rest of the way...

You obviously don't even read any links provided... apparently fearful that they'd destroy the purity of your faith...

Most military hardware nowdays is not hardened against EMP.

The cost and weight factor has an impact, along with the let down of the Soviets.

One of the plannings is that military equipment that was damage due to EMP would have replacements expedited from hardened logistics shelters. The doctrine is accepted that not all equipment can be protected

Only critical communication links are protected.

The potential to the civilian sector is much worse. Depending on the closeness of the blast and if the equipment is active, will determine the damage.

The links provided by Socio detail what damage EMP can do and why.
Are there other links that you are refering to?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Socio

If this is correct then with a rage if 1250 miles one could be easily shot from 50 miles off coast and get 1000 miles inland and more that high enough to do significant damage.

They would just need two of them one to hit us and one to hit Israel, sending the US in to chaos and leaving Israel sitting ducks for a massacre by a coalition of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian and Iranian forces and no US to help them.

Such an attack would seriously damage US technology but enough command and control would is shielded or able to be restored in short order to mount a counterstrike under the SIOP.

Failing that NATO Article 5 would certainly be invoked. I'm sure the UK wouldn't mind expending some SLBMs on our behalf.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Wiki article I linked, above, goes into much greater detail, CC, explaining why certain types of weapons would work better and just how they'd need to be placed to achieve the widespread effect alleged by Socio's source. A shahab-3 won't cut it, and there's no proof whatsoever that the Iranians have or will have any such weapons any time RSN, despite the ravings form the AIPAC/ Neocon/ Likud/ axis...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The Wiki article I linked, above, goes into much greater detail, CC, explaining why certain types of weapons would work better and just how they'd need to be placed to achieve the widespread effect alleged by Socio's source. A shahab-3 won't cut it, and there's no proof whatsoever that the Iranians have or will have any such weapons any time RSN, despite the ravings form the AIPAC/ Neocon/ Likud/ axis...

link

IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO
Fri Jul 11 2008 15:18:02 ET

Many of Iran's claims related to missile tests during "Great Prophet III" war games -- appear to be smoke and mirrors!

The missiles tested DID NOT not have 2,000-kilometer range, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

Iran DID NOT launch a Shahab-3 missile, able to reach Israel.

It was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

And a video showing what appeared to be many missiles being fired -- is actually one missile, filmed from different angles!

NYT's Bill Broad is planning to quote military insiders.

Developing...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JD50
I was talking about chemical weapons, not nuclear weapons, thanks for playing.

All of the Iranian warheads are equipped with chemical weapons.

My friend just spent all of May and June in England training for chemical warfare with Iran.

He lost 30 lbs he was wearing that suit so much.

 

[Aimster]

Iran is not going to use chemical weapons on anyone unless their nation is being invaded.