News Stories

[bladeofdarkness]

right now, Iran is in a bit of a spot.
its keeps getting more and more sanctions cast against it, Ironically, from the EU more then the US
the sanctions are in relations to their nuclear program, and would only keep progressing more and more with time.
and its already having a terrible effect on Iran's economy. (just this month they had to give up on subsidizing Fuel for their population)

if Iran gives up and just agrees to supervision, great.
if not, and the sanctions keep on coming, they might end up doing something stupid.
REALLY stupid
blocking the straits of hormuz level stupid.
drastically increasing oil prices stupid.

if THAT happens, you're going to discover that NATO is more then willing to step in.
after all, the spice must flow.

[Ithekro]

ICBMs use extreme high arcing flight paths to get to there targets. Firing one that close is not optimal since it going into suborbitital space and then comes back down.

However there are other smaller weapon systems that have less range that would work quite well.

Consider the entire point of the Ballistic Missile Submarines built by the United States and the Soviet Union during the 1960s. They would set up shop off the coast of the opposing country...or anywhere on the planet for that matter, and wait, Okay cat and mouse with enemy Attack Submarines and surface ships...waiting for an order to launch their missiles. The entire concept was that the attack could come from anywhere and would be a first strike weapon idealy, and a certain retaliation weapon since even if the county's missles silos were destroyed, their submarine fleet would be around (assuming the Attack Subs aren't as effective as they could be).

We don't know what that was off California at this time. North Korea, at least the last time I checked, did not have any missile armed submarines (they have several patrol, coastal, and midget subs). China has a few Submarines that carry nuclear missiles. Iran has pretty much jack squat when it comes to a long distance Navy.

Therefore the only countries that have submarines that can launch missiles of the ICBM type are:

United States
Russia
United Kingdom
China
France


There a a few other countries that have Attack Submaines that can fire anti-ship missiles, but very few.

Again..purpose and identification of whatever it was is the issue. Likely identification: Airplane.

[Mentar]

Are you aware that American credibility in making cases for war is at an all-time low, and that Israel is a de-facto international pariah already?

If Israel or America launches an unprovoked attack on Iran, there will be an outcry of epic proportions. I can NOT see any European government that would be able to lend military assistance without huge public backlash. Britain would NOT follow under Cameron. Canada? Australia?

Even I would rather vote to withdraw from NATO than sending even a single German soldier into this crapshoot, and I'm still about as pro-atlantic as Germans get. If Israel or America starts this, count Europe out.

[flying ^]

relax people... it's just aircraft contrails
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/10/cal...ion=cnn_latest


CoD Black Ops gets slammed not not for its lag in the PC or lack of campaign co-op play...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuba-d....html?x=0&.v=4

[bladeofdarkness]

Even I would rather vote to withdraw from NATO than sending even a single German soldier into this crapshoot, and I'm still about as pro-atlantic as Germans get. If Israel or America starts this, count Europe out.

and if Iran closes the straits of hormuz and gas prices skyrocket ?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Mentar

That would be option 2) I listed - they knew about it, but they're lying about it. That's supposed to be good news?

The normal procedure for that would be to first close the airspace and then fire. Why wouldn't they do THAT?

Possible, but not very convincing in my book.

Less convincing than CHina decided to send their only SSBN into US waters to test fire a missile to... get more funding for the US navy?

This site is hilarious and absolutely nonscientific. You might want to read the comments on that, and how they pretty much tear the flight theory to shreds.

Because comments from random people on the internet are so much more scientific than comments from other random people on the internet.

The point is that for nuclear weapons, this is pretty much point-blank range. It means that if it WERE a live attack, there is no pre-warning time, targets would be hit within few minutes. Like, getting important people to bunkers, etc.

Normal ICBMs would usually have to travel a long way over the poles, which would give 20 minutes to react. Firing from 35 miles eliminates this "grace period".

Except, we're not talking about SLBMs vs ICBMs, we're talking about SLBMs launched a distance out where there's deep water to hide and you don't have to sail into the heart of the enemy's defense vs sailing up to the enemy coast, dramatically increasing the chance of being detected to operate in shallow waters. What advantage does that have over firing SLBM from another 165 miles out, where it's less likely the target will have anti-submarine assets on patrol? The slightly lower response time isn't worth the vast increase in likelihood that your SSBN doesn't survive to launch at all by trying to sneak that close. Once again, if your operating an SSBN in your enemy's littoral waters, you're doing it wrong.

Presuming for a second that it WAS a nonamerican missile launch: Do you have any idea what message it sends if someone is able to shoot missiles 35 miles away from you?



The point is the message. "We can get there and fire from there and there's nothing you can do about it."

That's the intended message. Unfortunately for the Chinese it's also saying, "we're trying to be a threat, but our doctrine sucks, please tail our SSBNs with an SSN whenever they leave port, put some P-3s on patrol, and keep some SM-3 equipped destroyers near your coast." If you do want to try something like that, you absolutely don't want to advertise it so your enemy can prepare defenses.

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Like Mentar just said, if they could fire from that close, there would be no time for US defenses to act and various targets would be devastated within minutes rather than hours. While you're right in saying that the shot mentioned in the article did come from US waters, if the shot was in fact just shy of the border, there would still be a lot less time for the US to prepare its defense. It was never about more targets, but more about how quickly they could attack.

He's arguing ICBMs vs SLBMs though. In short it's a strawman and missed the entire point. Launching from a bit further out isn't going to increase the fight time much, yet it makes it vastly more likely your sub survives to launch at all.

NOTE: I don't believe the shot came from anyone else but the US and it was indeed either a mistake or a classified project. All I'm saying is that it's not impossible.

It's not impossible, true, just highly unlikely, and doing it wrong at a fundamental level.


There's an easy way to tell if it was China or not though. Does the George Washington battle group sail through the Taiwan straight in the next few weeks? If yes, this could have been a Chinese launch. If not, then the US government does not believe it was a Chinese missile launch.

[Ithekro]

Depends on the situation doesn't it.

The issue seems to be what Iran is doing with their nuclear program verses what the world thinks they are doing with their nuclear program. Iran does not have a pretty track record internationally since 1979. Nor has it show itself to be friendly internationally.

Iran is in a tight spot. I'm sure they have friends and all, but the Western World at least seems against them at all turns since 1979.

Israel, at least until about ten years ago, had my respect for being in the situation they were in and coming out on top. Since then they've gotten a bit weird in internal policies...that or perhaps media coverage of the Palestinians has changed. Honestly it is hard to say anymore..especially since the old ways of "you won the war, the land is yours" mentality is slipping away it seems. If things went they way the wars did around there, all of those Palestinian lands would be Israel...as would Egypt up to the canal. The Palestinians would either have to adapt or leave. that would just be the way of things. The way it is now...is inconvinient, messy, and setting the stage for yet another conflict in the region.

(And the military believes the "missile" was in fact an airplane...nice trick of the sun and angle though....really cool looking)

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Pure speculation, on the basis of the theory that it WAS a missile launch from a nonamerican nation, intended to intimidate. Someone else wrote earlier that there was absolutely no reason for saber rattling, and there, I politely disagree.

American and Israeli politicians openly talk war against Iran. I could absolutely imagine the Chinese sending a warning of this kind to Obama not to allow this.

Again, this is just an example. But I can see multiple scenarios how things can be close to really ugly in the background.

Mentar,

there is a huge difference between rattling the tiger's cage and getting into the cage with the tiger.

baiting the US is favorite pastime with much of the world but that is a huge difference between supplying the Enemies of the US and putting a sub right off of US shore and firing a missile into US space. That is basically a declaration of war. And China despite all its recent advance doesn't have the capability to take the US on in a real war. despite vietnam, somila and it is recent foreign misadventure is more than capable of grinding up any other military into meatloaf and any other country into a wasteland. The problem with the US military hasn't beating another army it is what happens after the war with occupation. China isn't stupid, there is no reason for China to stick is neck out for Iran in provocating the US in such a manner.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Depends on the situation doesn't it.

The issue seems to be what Iran is doing with their nuclear program verses what the world thinks they are doing with their nuclear program. Iran does not have a pretty track record internationally since 1979. Nor has it show itself to be friendly internationally.

Iran is in a tight spot. I'm sure they have friends and all, but the Western World at least seems against them at all turns since 1979.

Israel, at least until about ten years ago, had my respect for being in the situation they were in and coming out on top. Since then they've gotten a bit weird in internal policies...that or perhaps media coverage of the Palestinians has changed. Honestly it is hard to say anymore..especially since the old ways of "you won the war, the land is yours" mentality is slipping away it seems. If things went they way the wars did around there, all of those Palestinian lands would be Israel...as would Egypt up to the canal. The Palestinians would either have to adapt or leave. that would just be the way of things. The way it is now...is inconvinient, messy, and setting the stage for yet another conflict in the region.

(And the military believes the "missile" was in fact an airplane...nice trick of the sun and angle though....really cool looking)

the good old days,

in the past when you beat someone in a war you can keep their land and demand tribue. These days the winner has to pay the loser pathetic

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by flying ^

relax people... it's just aircraft contrails
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/10/cal...ion=cnn_latest

*lol*

Sure. They can't name the flight (what's radar for again?), and what do experts like former Sec of Defense and NATO Ambassador Ellsworth know (who judged the missile as larger than a tomahawk)? Let's ignore the fact that the trajectory angle shown in the video didn't fit one of a flight at all (first, nearly vertical, and then gradually entering a parabel). Let's ignore that there was clearly exhaust fire to be seen, which doesn't happen with jet engines. Let's ignore that beam jets able to create contrails of this size are generally not in private hands, so they don't pop up 35 miles away from LA all of a sudden.

But at the same time, we know that it absolutely never was a threat to America. And that it definitely wasn't anything non-American.

Uh-huh.

Well, whatever ... this is exactly how I predicted this to be played. Tomorrow, nobody will report anything about this anymore. Case closed.

[Ithekro]

It is true. The United States military is perfectly fine fighting a war. Its the non-war parts that its not good at. Vietnam was from all reports from the veterans going well. The US usually won battles...the problem was finding the enemy. keeping supplies out of their hands in the South, and political bullshit. Mostly political bullshit. With both a peace movement/anti-war campaign going on back home, causualties mounting in media presentations (not nearly as high as other wars) and the like, and politics running the war effort...the United States left the war to South Vietnam to finish. They lost the war (it was their war to start with). Politics mostly lost that war. Not being able to use all your weapons effectively, and not being allowed to target now supply bases and lines made for failure policies.

Both Gulf Wars, on the other hands, learned from this and mostly kept politicians out of the militaries work. Each time allied forces completed their objectives effectively. Keeping the peace against insurgents is not what they were trained for specifically...they are their to win battles. They adapted though. Most losses are to traps, and enemy causualties are far higher than American troop losses.

(As for the aircraft, remember that the film source was also in the air. It was filmed from a helicopter. At sunset. I've been in the air at sunset and things do look different than you might expect because of the bending of the light by the atmosphere. I don't recall ever seeing a contrail coming towards me while backlit by the sunset, but the glow from those going parallel to the groud was quite interesting to see from the air.)

[flying ^]

yikes!

(US Schools)
Blacks still doing worse in school than whites, poverty not a cause.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...adly-in-school

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Less convincing than CHina decided to send their only SSBN into US waters to test fire a missile to... get more funding for the US navy?

Which part of "these are no American waters" is difficult for you to comprehend? Those are international waters.

Except, we're not talking about SLBMs vs ICBMs, we're talking about SLBMs launched a distance out where there's deep water to hide and you don't have to sail into the heart of the enemy's defense vs sailing up to the enemy coast, dramatically increasing the chance of being detected to operate in shallow waters.

We're not in a shooting war here, in case you forgot, so the "hide" aspect is moot. The point is to shoot the missile in a way that it receives attention, and that it did. In plain view of LA, timed perfectly to offer a great spectacular view against the sun.

That's the intended message. Unfortunately for the Chinese it's also saying, "we're trying to be a threat, but our doctrine sucks, please tail our SSBNs with an SSN whenever they leave port, put some P-3s on patrol, and keep some SM-3 equipped destroyers near your coast." If you do want to try something like that, you absolutely don't want to advertise it so your enemy can prepare defenses.

Petty arrogance part 1. More about that below.

There's an easy way to tell if it was China or not though. Does the George Washington battle group sail through the Taiwan straight in the next few weeks? If yes, this could have been a Chinese launch. If not, then the US government does not believe it was a Chinese missile launch.

You totally missed the point.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Mentar,

there is a huge difference between rattling the tiger's cage and getting into the cage with the tiger.

Yea, and so? This was rattling.

baiting the US is favorite pastime with much of the world but that is a huge difference between supplying the Enemies of the US and putting a sub right off of US shore and firing a missile into US space.

Presuming it was a nonamerican missile launch (that's still unclear in my book), it was still technically all fine. It happened in international waters, and the trajectory didn't lead it over American territory. That's also the reason why NORAD could technically say "there never was a danger". It wasn't headed towards America.

That is basically a declaration of war. And China despite all its recent advance doesn't have the capability to take the US on in a real war. despite vietnam, somila and it is recent foreign misadventure is more than capable of grinding up any other military into meatloaf and any other country into a wasteland. The problem with the US military hasn't beating another army it is what happens after the war with occupation. China isn't stupid, there is no reason for China to stick is neck out for Iran in provocating the US in such a manner.

Petty arrogance part 2. If you really think America had the capability to lead a land war in China, I've got a bridge to the north pole to sell you.

Anyway, this is leading to a discussion I don't wanna lead. Please enjoy your patriotic feeling of omnipotence. Don't worry. You have no enemies in the world worth taking seriously. And should a war against Iran really start, let's see what happens.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Anyway, this is leading to a discussion I don't wanna lead. Please enjoy your patriotic feeling of omnipotence. Don't worry. You have no enemies in the world worth taking seriously. And should a war against Iran really start, let's see what happens.

obviously the US would be hurt but as long as the US don't have to worry international perception and can wage war the way war is suppose to be wage. Then Yes, the US can beat China even in a land war. Besides which if i was waging war against I would start with saturated bombing and missile strikes at military and manufacturing targets. only after i turn the country into a smoldering ruin do i sent troops in.

now there is a huge difference between beating the Chinese Army and then occupying China. Trying to occupied China is going to be 100x worst then Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combine.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

obviously the US would be hurt but as long as the US don't have to worry international perception and can wage war the way war is suppose to be wage. Then Yes, the US can beat China even in a land war. Besides which if i was waging war against I would start with saturated bombing and missile strikes at military and manufacturing targets. only after i turn the country into a smoldering ruin do i sent troops in.

Xellos, with all respect, you can't even beat a few-hundred man strong guerilla in a land with an allied government. Yet, you think that you can wage a ground war against a people of 1.7 billion? Who - just to mention it - has nuclear capacity which it can easily use against your fleet, and still have enough to glaze over the American mainland in entirety, with the MAD principle? Now that's gonna be an interesting experiment in logistics.

We can cut it short. It wouldn't happen. It couldn't happen. But I will keep in mind that you're even thinking of discussing this. Never underestimate American pride.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

obviously the US would be hurt but as long as the US don't have to worry international perception and can wage war the way war is suppose to be wage. Then Yes, the US can beat China even in a land war. Besides which if i was waging war against I would start with saturated bombing and missile strikes at military and manufacturing targets. only after i turn the country into a smoldering ruin do i sent troops in.

now there is a huge difference between beating the Chinese Army and then occupying China. Trying to occupied China is going to be 100x worst then Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combine.

hmm i thought war is won before it even started...

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Which part of "these are no American waters" is difficult for you to comprehend? Those are international waters.

What part of these are American waters, it was just off a US island, distance from LA doesn't matter, as that was not the closest point of land don't you understand?

We're not in a shooting war here, in case you forgot, so the "hide" aspect is moot. The point is to shoot the missile in a way that it receives attention, and that it did. In plain view of LA, timed perfectly to offer a great spectacular view against the sun.

Yet, no one except a news copter that happened to be in the area even noticed it. Funny how this "spectacular" launch didn't attract much attention.

Petty arrogance part 1. More about that below.

"You think the US is going to take measures it did every day for 40 years in the cold war against a much larger Soviet submarine fleet. you're being arrogant."

Nothing I said out there is beyond the USN's ability. It was SOP for decades to follow Soviet SSBNs. The Chinese subs are less capable than a typhoon. What makes you think they'd be any better at evading the USN, when they're louder, and there's less to keep track of?

You totally missed the point.

You're the one who missed the point. If it was A chinese attempt to saber rattle, the US will respond in kind. The favorite form is to transit the Taiwan strait with a CBG.

Presuming it was a nonamerican missile launch (that's still unclear in my book), it was still technically all fine. It happened in international waters, and the trajectory didn't lead it over American territory. That's also the reason why NORAD could technically say "there never was a danger". It wasn't headed towards America.

Once again it was not international waters. Those Islands right there are part of the US. They count for the mile limit.

Petty arrogance part 2. If you really think America had the capability to lead a land war in China, I've got a bridge to the north pole to sell you.

Why would the US need to fight a land war against China? China doesn't have significant power projection beyond their shores. Note that even if this was a Chinese launch, which there is absolutely no evidence for at all, that does not change that, as you really don't want to be using your SSBNS when your enemy has more of them, with more missiles each, with each missile carrying more warheads.

Anyway, this is leading to a discussion I don't wanna lead. Please enjoy your patriotic feeling of omnipotence. Don't worry. You have no enemies in the world worth taking seriously. And should a war against Iran really start, let's see what happens.

This is a complete strawman. Of course you seem to be an expert on them. No one's saying the US is invincible. People are saying the US can rip apart anyone else's standing military conventionally. This really shouldn't be in dispute. The only nation with a larger army is China, which consists of a core of professional soldiers with modern training, equipment, and doctrine, and many units still using cold war era doctrine. China is the the process of modernizing though, so that core will be getting bigger, while the rest get smaller. Even then though, the US has a larger airforce and much larger navy. The US couldn't conquer China do to its size, but if you look at any conceivable conflict between the two, China attempting to take Taiwan, or both the US and China intervening on opposite sides of a renewed Korean war, the US will win. It's only if the US does something like invade china itself that the US really risks losing. No one else even comes close to the US or China conventionally though, not even Russia, which has downsized its military greatly since the cold war.

Originally Posted by Mentar

Xellos, with all respect, you can't even beat a few-hundred man strong guerilla in a land with an allied government. Yet, you think that you can wage a ground war against a people of 1.7 billion? Who - just to mention it - has nuclear capacity which it can easily use against your fleet, and still have enough to glaze over the American mainland in entirety, with the MAD principle? Now that's gonna be an interesting experiment in logistics.

We can cut it short. It wouldn't happen. It couldn't happen. But I will keep in mind that you're even thinking of discussing this. Never underestimate American pride.

"You can't beat an insurgency. This means you can't win a conventional war."

Now you're just trolling. either that or you think COIN is in anyway related to the ability to defeat a standing army in the field.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

you can't even beat a few-hundred man strong guerilla in a land with an allied government. Yet, you think that you can wage a ground war against a people of 1.7 billion?

lulz

you call that a war???

That "war" is more like our cops policing gang infested (assuming there's large scale beef and turf wars going on in the) streets of los angeles, chicago, DC, dallas, oakland etc combined. Heck let's even add mexican drug wars... and i'm sure some of our cops are helping the Federales.

The military that spectacularly won the Gulf War 1 in a few days is not suited for that type of police work.

[Ithekro]

There is a old rule...never get involved in a land war in Asia. The basic problem is one of numbers. 1 billionish people verses an Army with a long supply line....it doesn't work unless you just bomb the hell out of those billionish number of people first...to even the numbers.

Also the United States Territoial Waters are 12 nautical miles (with a exclusive economic zone that goes out to 200 nautical mile as per International Law). Though even that doesn't put it in international waters because 35 miles out from Los Angeles is within range of the Channel Islands, which are within US Territorial Waters. If that was a missile (and it probably wasn't) it was fired within US Territory unless someone can provide a more detailed map of US Territorial Waters around California.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

What part of these are American waters, it was just off a US island, distance from LA doesn't matter, as that was not the closest point of land don't you understand?

Oh, I didn't know you could pinpoint it so well. The last map with the estimated position I saw was 35 miles west of LA, 10 miles northwest of Catalina Island. But since you know better, I defer to your superior judgment.

Yet, no one except a news copter that happened to be in the area even noticed it. Funny how this "spectacular" launch didn't attract much attention.

If you had really watched the video footage, you would have seen that it was easily seen with the naked eye from LA harbor.

"You think the US is going to take measures it did every day for 40 years in the cold war against a much larger Soviet submarine fleet. you're being arrogant."

That's not my quote, be so polite and don't do that. So your logic is that no submarine could have ever shot missiles at America from comparable proximity, because it never happened? Of course the reason for that might be that this would have triggered a war... but that's okay, please believe that your fleet is so superior that it couldn't happen.

You're the one who missed the point. If it was A chinese attempt to saber rattle, the US will respond in kind. The favorite form is to transit the Taiwan strait with a CBG.

You had this strange argument going "raah, a missile sub platform would fire from water with more depth", while I pointed out that this wasn't a shooting war, but rather (if it indeed was a nonamerican launch) a publicity stunt, for which these kind of tactical considerations wouldn't apply. But I'm thoroughly impressed that you know what the American reaction would be.

Once again it was not international waters. Those Islands right there are part of the US. They count for the mile limit.

If you mean the rocks to the west of the presumed launch site, they were ALSO more than 3 miles away from there. Anyway, w/e. It's all yours.

Why would the US need to fight a land war against China? China doesn't have significant power projection beyond their shores. Note that even if this was a Chinese launch, which there is absolutely no evidence for at all, that does not change that, as you really don't want to be using your SSBNS when your enemy has more of them, with more missiles each, with each missile carrying more warheads.

He still doesn't get it.

This is a complete strawman. Of course you seem to be an expert on them. No one's saying the US is invincible. People are saying the US can rip apart anyone else's standing military conventionally. This really shouldn't be in dispute.

Oh really. That's what I meant with arrogant hybris. But okay, you win. You're absolutely going to show everybody in the world who's boss, nuclear power or not, away match or not. Screw logistics. Screw numbers. Oooookay.

"You can't beat an insurgency. This means you can't win a conventional war."

Have you ever wondered why there was never a shooting war between nuclear powers yet?

Enough of this silliness. I'm off to bed.

[Ithekro]

Territorial Waters are out to 12 nautical miles now. They haven't been 3 miles in a long time. Since 1982 in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Law_of_the_Sea
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)