News Stories

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

From a purely military standpoint, what is the fastest way of stopping a nuclear silo from launching its stuff?

again, what does that have to do with the S-300 system ?
its not a nuclear capable missile.
its meant to shoot down aircraft.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The problem there is SLBM have ranges in the thousands of miles. If you get within 35 miles of shore to launch one, you're doing it wrong. The absolute last place you want your ballistic missile subs to operate is in your enemy's littoral waters. Also if it were someone else, what's the point if they don't take responsibility?

They want to launch it further inland? Or a feint attack to hit the other side of the island and cause a breakdown in command?

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

again, what does that have to do with the S-300 system ?
its not a nuclear capable missile.
its meant to shoot down aircraft.

It does. So what do you think is the answer?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It does. It is easy to deny an argument, but it isn't easy to avoid thinking laterally and critically at the same time.

you're thinking that the presence of such a missile or the potential of its deployment would hasten a potential strike against Iran (to attack before its deployed) ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

you're thinking that the presence of such a missile or the potential of its deployment would hasten a potential strike against Iran (to attack before its deployed) ?

You are only partially right. There is still a "if-that-missile-does-work" part.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You are only partially right. There is still a "if-that-missile-does-work" part.

help me out here.
you're thinking Iran might attack if it believes itself protected ?

[Azumanga Davo]

I recall when I went to Western Sydney earlier in the year and was just finishing up a race meeting there. Was just having a casual drink with some folks when I took note of something in the sky. People experienced in such things said it was just a plane from the nearby RAAF base, but the amazing thing was it had the longest lasting and rather obvious contrail I had ever seen (and I have lived in an RAF town in the UK for 6 years with regular jet passings and with nothing similar seen before).

Here's a pic I took at the time. Made all the more amazing by the sunset light conditions. I can see why some confusion can be caused, as I most certainly had no idea what was going on when I was confronted with the situation.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The problem there is SLBM have ranges in the thousands of miles. If you get within 35 miles of shore to launch one, you're doing it wrong. The absolute last place you want your ballistic missile subs to operate is in your enemy's littoral waters. Also if it were someone else, what's the point if they don't take responsibility?

Like I said, they're techincally outside US territorial waters (30 miles off the coast), so it's not within the US in the first place. Also, if you want to hit the mainland, it's actually a good place to do it. That's what I was referring to. Firing it from up close to hit coastal defenses is indeed a wrong move because that would implcate the sub firing the missiles as well. But if you hit the mainland, it would cause the kind of devastation the US never suffered from before, and could likely cripple food supplies for the military and kill other potential soldiers.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

They want to launch it further inland? Or a feint attack to hit the other side of the island and cause a breakdown in command?

Once again, SLBM have thousands of miles of range. A Chinese JL-2 has a range of 7000km+. This is enough to hit anywhere in the continental US without coming within 200 miles of shore. A JL-1 is shorter ranged, but they should be in the process of being phased out in favor of the JL-2s if they haven't been already. If you come in 35 miles to launch a missile, you're doing it wrong. You're not demonstrating any more of a threat than the same test would be 250 miles out, yet you're vastly more vulnerable in doing so.

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Like I said, they're techincally outside US territorial waters (30 miles off the coast), so it's not within the US in the first place. Also, if you want to hit the mainland, it's actually a good place to do it. That's what I was referring to. Firing it from up close to hit coastal defenses is indeed a wrong move because that would implcate the sub firing the missiles as well. But if you hit the mainland, it would cause the kind of devastation the US never suffered from before, and could likely cripple food supplies for the military and kill other potential soldiers.

It is US territorial waters. Those nearby islands? Guess who they belong to. Also once again. If you're in the enemy's littorial waters, you're doing it wrong. A submarine's main defense is to stay as deep as possible to avoid detection, and if you're going to launch, do it as far away as possible to stay out of the enemy's defensive perimeter as much as possible. Coming into shallow waters that close to shore is taking away the main defense of the sub, and risking it getting killed before it's in position. Further, there is literally nothing in the continental US that would require you to get that close to hit when you have a missile that has a range of 7000+km.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Once again, SLBM have thousands of miles of range. A Chinese JL-2 has a range of 7000km+. This is enough to hit anywhere in the continental US without coming within 200 miles of shore. A JL-1 is shorter ranged, but they should be in the process of being phased out in favor of the JL-2s if they haven't been already. If you come in 35 miles to launch a missile, you're doing it wrong. You're not demonstrating any more of a threat than the same test would be 250 miles out, yet you're vastly more vulnerable in doing so.

That is why I said it could be a feint. It isn't just a conventional operation, but rather a psychological one.

Also, it forces the enemy to make a choice between tracking the missile and intercepting it, or tracking the sub and intercepting the other. It divides the defence force up and messes up the chain-of-command.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is why I said it could be a feint. It isn't just a conventional operation, but rather a psychological one.

Also, it forces the enemy to make a choice between tracking the missile and intercepting it, or tracking the sub and intercepting the other. It divides the defence force up and messes up the chain-of-command.

Or, they can do both, because you're in their waters, and they likely have more assets there than you do. Also, that's several hundred extra miles you traveled, risking detection the entire time.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Or, they can do both, because you're in their waters, and they likely have more assets there than you do. Also, that's several hundred extra miles you traveled, risking detection the entire time.

The idea of psychological warfare is long term disabling effects to the opposing government. If the sub can get in so close without being detected by the long range sonar, it can be a publicity damage to the USN.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It is US territorial waters. Those nearby islands? Guess who they belong to. Also once again. If you're in the enemy's littorial waters, you're doing it wrong. A submarine's main defense is to stay as deep as possible to avoid detection, and if you're going to launch, do it as far away as possible to stay out of the enemy's defensive perimeter as much as possible. Coming into shallow waters that close to shore is taking away the main defense of the sub, and risking it getting killed before it's in position. Further, there is literally nothing in the continental US that would require you to get that close to hit when you have a missile that has a range of 7000+km.

I suppose you're right about the vicinity of the sub, but I don't know about the mainland. You might be thinking about military defenses, but I'm talking about food suppliers and manufacturers (long term effects on morale if there's less food to go around), weapons manufacturers, transport providers, training facilities and various other things civilians can provide to the coastal difenses in terms of other utilities. There's numerous targets within the mainland that enemies could be interested in. And even if there was nothing there, hitting mainland civilian targets would have an effect on the military's morale.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The idea of psychological warfare is long term disabling effects to the opposing government. If the sub can get in so close without being detected by the long range sonar, it can be a publicity damage to the USN.

Except it does nothing. The USN is just going to turn around and say "Look! We need more funding to protect the country!"

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

I suppose you're right about the vicinity of the sub, but I don't know about the mainland. You might be thinking about military defenses, but I'm talking about food suppliers and manufacturers (long term effects on morale if there's less food to go around), weapons manufacturers, transport providers, training facilities and various other things civilians can provide to the coastal difenses in terms of other utilities. There's numerous targets within the mainland that enemies could be interested in. And even if there was nothing there, hitting mainland civilian targets would have an effect on the military's morale.

That's not the point. With over 7,000km range, they could hit the US Atlantic coast from 200 miles off the US Pacific coast. Coming closer doesn't allow them to hit more targets, they could already hit everything from further out.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Cool conspiracy theory bro. The problem with it is, if it were an unexpected foreign missile, US forces should have been put on alert afterwards. As this didn't happen, the US military almost certainly knew in advance that the missile was being launched, if it was a missile. Denying things is how militaries work. It doesn't mean there's anything more sinister than normal, at least normal for an organization tasked with killing people in the most efficient manor possible, going on. It's entirely possible it was a planned test, then when it went off someone realized that this was probably a bad time to do something like that with the G-20 summit coming up, and they decided to deny it.

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.

Also, the explanation that it's actually a plane is plausible, even if you heard about it on fox news. Remember, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Well analog clocks anyway, if it were digital it obviously wouldn't be.

http://contrailscience.com/

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.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

are you suggesting that a someone (Russia, China, etc) had their submarine approach within 30 miles off of U.S coastline and fire an ICBM in the opposite direction, to send a message that they can reach that close to shore ?
why on earth would anyone bother getting THAT close to the shoreline to fire a missile that can travel cross continents ?

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".

wouldn't exposing the fact that you can approach that close to shore without getting anything out of it kinda wasteful ?

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?

it just seems incredibly expensive and risky for something that serves literally no purpose whatsoever.

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

Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless, of course, there's a surprise attack from Israel on Iran. Then, who knows what diplomatic hell is gonna break loose.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's not the point. With over 7,000km range, they could hit the US Atlantic coast from 200 miles off the US Pacific coast. Coming closer doesn't allow them to hit more targets, they could already hit everything from further out.

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.

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.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Mentar

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

And maybe also "We've got big brass ones". It's not enough to have the means. You've got to have the willingness to use them.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless, of course, there's a surprise attack from Israel on Iran. Then, who knows what diplomatic hell is gonna break loose.

what does that have to do with anything ?
what on earth makes you think that this is about Iran ?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

what does that have to do with anything ?
what on earth makes you think that this is about Iran ?

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.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Mentar

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.

an full scale attack on Iran would be NATO related thing, and not limited to the U.S forces alone (and i doubt China would willingly threaten going to war with NATO)
a small scale attack at Iran's nuclear facilities would be limited to Israel decision makers, and not likely to involved the U.S.
neither case requires sending Obama a private "Warning".
it either happens, or it wont.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

an full scale attack on Iran would be NATO related thing, and not limited to the U.S forces alone (and i doubt China would willingly threaten going to war with NATO)

There won't be a "full scale attack on Iran" in NATO context. No way. It would be another blatant war of aggression and noone would stand for it. Not even Britain.

The most likely scenario is an Israeli solo attack on Iran, tacitly tolerated by the Americans. The next most likely scenario (which I have difficulties envisioning under Obama) would be a joint attack. But if you honestly think that other NATO partners would actually participate, I think you're in for a rude awakening. It's more likely that NATO would split over this. An attack on Iran would isolate America and Israel more than a bush in the desert.

a small scale attack at Iran's nuclear facilities would be limited to Israel decision makers, and not likely to involved the U.S.

They still couldn't dare to do this at least without tacit American approval. If they do it in open defiance of America, they risk catastrophic diplomatic shifts.

neither case requires sending Obama a private "Warning". it either happens, or it wont.

I doubt that Israel would go this far. They can't afford to lose their last ally. On the other hand, Israel's recent political decisions have been completely crazy, and Lieberman is a certified lunatic. So who knows...