Next-Gen Coastal Artillery

That was then.

This is now.

Above, an Iranian produced version of the C-802 anti-ship missile, concealed inside a commercial truck, from Iran’s Great Prophet 5 military exercises.

Having puffed its chest mightily during the just concluded Great Prophet 5 exercises, Iran figured it would continue in that vein and issued another one of its periodic threats asserting it holds the keys to the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad-Nabi Habibi, secretary-general of Iran’s conservative Islamic Coalition Party, put it rather artfully: “If America goes lunatic, the children of the nation in the Islamic Republic’s armed forces would choke the West’s throat at the Strait of Hormuz.”

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iran earlier this month, Joint Chiefs vice chair Gen. James Cartwright said if export-import dependant Iran brought Gulf shipping to a halt, they’d be choking themselves. The military leadership believes they could keep the Strait open, he added.

Some aren’t so sure. CSBA’s Andrew Krepinevich, in his report, “Why AirSea Battle?” (.pdf), says U.S. ships transiting the Gulf would face a “hornets nest” of Iranian precision weapons that can easily range the Strait, creating a potential maritime “no-go zone.” Iran is adding missiles to its “anti-access” arsenal and the Gulf’s geography favors the Iranians. For example, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has tunneled into a cluster of islands near the Strait, building underground missile bunkers, what they call “static warships.”

Iran is thought to have several hundred anti-ship cruise missiles, including the very capable Chinese made CSS-N-2 Silkworm, with a range of 60 miles, and the CS-802 Saccade, with a range of 75 miles. Some hundreds of these missiles have been mounted on trucks. Looking at past U.S. truck hunting campaigns, 1991’s Scud missile hunt comes to mind, such weapons pose a potentially game changing challenge.

The Navy and Air Force are jointly working on a new warfighting concept called AirSea Battle intended to beat back Iranian, and of course Chinese, anti-access capabilities. To begin with, I’ll be very curious to hear how the concept defines access. Is it steaming through the Gulf in the face of Iranian anti-ship missiles or is it the ability to influence events on shore by accessing that shore?

Are traditional Marine Corps concepts of amphibious operations even operative in the face of the new generation of coastal artillery? If an enemy can dot a coastline with a few hundred missiles like the one below that can take out a small vessel or amtrac, is it even realistic to think about putting costly platforms within range of those missiles? What are the implications of these weapons on the Navy’s seabasing concept? Lots of questions in need of answers.

— Greg

76 Comments on "Next-Gen Coastal Artillery"

  1. I think we clearly need a carrier launched, heavily armored ground support fighter like the Thunderbolt to deal with these missiles. Small size, camo and mobility means high altitude aircraft will have a touch time mitigating the threat. We need low level aircraft that can hug the ground, take damage, and destroy this missiles lining the coast. Our current aircraft do not fit the bill.

  2. I find it deplorable using civilian transport for cover. This is clearly a violation of the laws of wars to be using unmarked military vehicles disguised as civilian transports to attack your opponents. It leaves your opponent no choice but to attack civilians to defend itself since they can't tell the military from the civilians.

  3. George Gauthier | April 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm | Reply

    The US Marine Corps can forget about amphibious operations. High time it was folded into the Army.

  4. With the constant political rhetoric B.S. spewed out by the illustriuos leader [wack job] of Iran is it actually a surprise that they would disguise military equiptment as civilian equiptment–this is from the same country that says their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.We need to end this s**t now.

  5. If Iran even sinks a couple of oil tankers we will have to take out a second mortgage to fill the car.DRILL BABY DRILL.

  6. 0311 & 11B4- ret | April 27, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Reply

    A little premature to roll up a seasoned offensive fighting force; don't people realize that the rivalry makes both services better?
    Also, if you loose the USMC, there would be no amphib threat, and the Iranians would just be highlighting their abundance of SAMs.
    In football, you run to set up the pass, and/or pass to set up the run; but only works if both run & pass are equally powerful, and therefore worth defending.

    I suggest some remote control fiberglass EFV's (new AMTRAKs) that are nested like Russian dolls, so you can quickly fill their radar with perfectly obvious threats, they waste missiles, while we jump the Army in looking a lot like Normandy in function and task.

  7. How effective are RAMs and Phalanx systems at defending against these sorts of threats? Also, how effective is their air defence system? I don't have that much familiarity with either. Would an airborne operation preceding an amphibious landing be a viable option (a la Normandy '44)?

  8. Thats just silly. The marine corp have a specialized function that the army just isn't organized to deal with. If anything the Marines should be spun out from the Navy. The Navy made entirely a blue water fleet. Giving the marines direct control of litoral ships and operations, giving them direct and complete organizational control of their battlefield. This would end the Navy's neglect of the Marines mission while solving the Navy's fleet size and mission schizophrenia thats left it trying to do too much.

  9. They can't really afford to. They import nearly everything; any blockade would choke them. They'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face while shooting themselves in the foot. Would it be expensive for companies, yes, but it wouldn't take much to wait them out.

  10. "If Iran even sinks a couple of oil tankers…."

    I really doubt they are that stupid…but who knows. If they start interrupting the flow of oil they'll be sorry they did. Drilling is not going to get us off the Middle East oil tit…..that's like one more hit for a heroin addict. Time to find an alternative period. That way we can finally tell them to all get f"ckd and leave them to killing each other.

  11. Yet another reason to develop our own oil fields in our own backyard. Heck, we can spend a portion of the savings having to protect everyones elses butts in the Gulf on enviromental protections to save the spotted owl and blue whales. Double heck, spend the savings on the next evolution of energy independence.
    Cut this embilical cord for good. Let them drink their oil.

  12. 0311 & 11B4- ret | April 27, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Reply

    A little premature to roll up a seasoned offensive fighting force; don't people realize that the rivalry makes both services better?
    Also, if you loose the USMC, there would be no amphib threat, and the Iranians would just be highlighting their abundance of SAMs.
    In football, you run to set up the pass, and/or pass to set up the run; but only works if both run & pass are equally powerful, and therefore worth defending.

    I suggest some remote control fiberglass EFV's (new AMTRAKs) that are nested like Russian dolls, so you can quickly fill their radar with perfectly obvious threats, they waste missiles, while we jump in the Army, looking a lot like Normandy.
    That is of course we ever are presented with the actual need. I get the feeling they are really trying to appear strong, because they are militarily weak, and know they would see the big white battle flags of the Iraqi Army being used by their own divisions.

  13. This seems to be the consensus. Actually, when one examines a map of Iran and it's neighbors, one will notice that none of Iran's allies are bordering with them; if they are blockaded, they're in big trouble. Thus, I am beginning to agree with this view (unless they increase their presence in the Caspian).

  14. This is a good question, but I do not know the answer. Iran's recent wargames emphasize small craft. Could a Phalanx be modified to wipe these seacraft out?

  15. Nobody could afford to start WWI, either, but that didn't stop them…

  16. we still have a fairly large inventory of B-52's. The mix of these, tactical strike aircraft and smart weapons would sort of accomplish what we did in 1991 in Iraq.

    After the first couple of waves, their defenses would probably be sufficiently degraded to enforce some sort of peace settlement. Maybe we could take out a few large concentrations of Pasdaran; just enough to give the opposition a fighting chance.

  17. They can strangle the straits and traffic through them. There is not much we can do about it. We no longer have a 1000 ship navy like WW2. It would not be worth the casualities. We need to wean ourselves of oil anyway. Solar and wind driven energy are the way to go, and much more earth friendly. Global warming is a bigger threat than Iran.

  18. Good point.

    If conflict existed, these methods would frustrate the people of Iran.

  19. solar & wind- you are kidding right? They cost far more than any alternative & cannot power a modern state. Even ignoring cost you can't get more than 20% of your grid from wind (ask the Danes). Better hope a breakthru in extracting shale oil occurs.

  20. pffft…inexpensive little boats with phalanx on and sensors for that stuff.

    send a bunch of them into the straights, let the iranians expend their ammunition – missiles arent cheap or quick to produce and stock.

    i should so totally be in the Pentagon. lol.

    More seriously though; the energy issue discussed by bob and mmacc:

    Wind is mostly useless at this time (example here in the UK barely anyone can have personal ones supplying their homes unless u are in only some coastal areas). Solar is however becoming more and more feasible every year and even with relatively low amounts of sunlight can generate decent amounts of energy for personal consumption.

  21. My guess is that the secondary mission of the Phalanx system is to destroy small vessels. The newest systems have IR tracking so I think that it's easier to track small boats speeding at 60kp/h then small diameter supersonic missiles. For example the patriot system has a homing on jam function on its PAC 2 missiles, IIRC.

  22. Why dont we just go nuclear. Of all energy sources its by far the most practical and economical. And when the fuel is used up, make some bombs and stockpile em. Iran is asking for a whooping. We are the graetest militayr force in the world for a reason. We just need to cut the PC bs and get some leaders with balls and we can wipe Iran out. We could level the entire country if we damn well wanted to

  23. This stuff is silly. Looking at the way the missile leaves the container and how the driver could be toasted makes one wonder if this is just Iranian version of Russian bravado.

  24. I'm pretty sure there's a flip-down blast shield over the front of the truck. Look closely at the photo, there appears to be something there.

  25. Solar energy is:
    a) useless for most purposes (not grid friendly, *far* too low density)
    b) not now used as a crude oil replacement (and when we talk energy and the Straits of Hormuz, we're talking oil).

    Any viable means of replacing Middle Eastern crude oil is decades away. Problems in the region impact oil supplies for the US. Oil supplies are a critical issue for the US.

    Any military threat to oil supplies IMHO constitutes casus belli.

  26. Indeed Rudy. The US is actually one of the nations with the smallest reliance on the ME for its oil. It has traditionally been a market for the europeans.

    However even a small percentage is still large, and even if you are not *that* involved it will still harm you as Iran has the ability to ruin oil prices on an international level.

  27. usmilitaryretired | April 28, 2010 at 9:28 am | Reply

    What defines a "military" truck? Although the cab of the one pictured is white, the rest of the truck appears to be sand colored, just like many of our combat vehicles. The Iranians have merely adapted a commercial truck for military use just like our own military has. Remember the CUCV (commercial utility cargo vehicle) pickups and Chevy Blazers? The vehicle pictured also has a blast shield lowered in front of the windshield, which is normally stored over the cab. Another adaptation for military use as a missile launching platform. What color is a military truck supposed to be? Look at the militaries around the world and you'll find all sorts of colors.

  28. usmilitaryretired | April 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm | Reply

    What defines a "military" truck? Although the cab of the one pictured is white, the rest of the truck appears to be sand colored, just like many of our combat vehicles. The Iranians have merely adapted a commercial truck for military use just like our own military has. Remember the CUCV (commercial utility cargo vehicle) pickups and Chevy Blazers? The vehicle pictured also has a blast shield lowered in front of the windshield, which is normally stored over the cab. Another adaptation for military use as a missile launching platform. What color is a military truck supposed to be? Look at the militaries around the world and you'll find all sorts of colors.

  29. usmilitaryretired | April 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm | Reply

    I'm more in agreement, though, with the General who said Iran would be strangling themselves if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz. And it works both ways. Why wait for the Iranians to shut it down? We could shut it down ourselves and strangle Iran. Sure, oil prices would spike, but the Iranians wouldn't be receiving the money. They also wouldn't be receiving refined gasoline, which would affect them rather quickly. Iran may be flush with oil but they don't have the refining capacity to support their own needs. That has to be re-imported, and guess how? Through the Straits of Hormuz.

    Read more: Next-Gen Coastal Artillery | Defense Tech

  30. usmilitaryretired | April 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm | Reply

    In order for an anti-ship missile to lock on to a target over the horizon, it has to receive targeting coordinates from another source. If it is fired "in-the-blind," then it will lock onto the first target of opportunity that comes into its view (which may be one fo their own ships), meaning it will be emitting a radar signal that can be detected, alerting the US ship to the threat, and then countermeasures can be deployed. Orbiting Predators and other eyes-in-the-sky may detect the launch, further alerting ships in the gulf. Once detected, the launcher can be targeted and destroyed, preventing a reload and further use.

  31. We do have the A-10 Thunderbolt II, great at taking out tanks, camel jockeys and other scum.

  32. Had a coworker who'd served in the USN. They had an anti-ship missile up on the launch rail doing a PM. The guy doing the tech got on the wrong pins of the circular connector and managed to launch the missile. No one got hurt, but the ship went out looking for debris. The pulled into several ports and making discreet inquires into any recently gone missing fishing boats.

  33. SkysoldierRecon | April 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm | Reply

    airpower will destroy these trucks, and any other SAM threat. We can kill the Iranian "navy" b 4 it leaves harbor. No doubt there will be Spec. Ops teams on the ground also. Bomb thier 1 gas refinery, and they are DONE. Hope 4 the best, prepare 4 the worst.

  34. I think Iran might be crazy enough to try it (any follower of the 12 Iman isn't necessarily logical) but the US would only need ~ week to destroy most of their Navy, Airforce, and coastal defenses with precision weapons. Bunker busters should be used on all High Command (military and civilian). Plus an airborne assault would probably be necessary to permanently shut down their island forts.
    As for energy we should convert 100% of coal, oil, and gas generated electricity to nuclear power (Recycling the waste eliminates ~98% of it the rest decays away in ~200 years) . Use the saved coal to make synthetic diesel via the Fischer–Tropsch process (cost ~$0.80 a gallon) for vehicles. The synthetic fuel is ultraclean emmision. Only allow diesel cars to be made after 2015. Heck with this plan it would lower total US carbon emission ~50% but the environmentalist nuts hate nuclear and coal so it will never happen.

  35. In other news today Iranian authorities threatened to start arresting tanned women. Possibly to avert some kind of a natural disaster.

  36. Actually, a visual bearing in reasonable visibilty will do fine if no radar is available. If it is against a VLCC 10 miles offshore, very easy. Against a warship, much more difficult given the decoys, jamming and CIWS systems available today – however the danger of a missile 'fly through' when the warship seduces the missile away from itself but into the path of a commercial target is ever present.

  37. I can only thing of one acronym. HARM.

    Updated to respond to any acquisition by the fire control of the missile/rocket's launch site, and take it out. It worked for anti aircraft, it should work for ground based guided missiles.

    The Scuds in Iraq I is used as the example. It is not analogous. The SCUDs were unguided, hence no capability to counter on that capability.

    Iran and North Korea, both led by Despots with serious personal psychiatric problems. That is exactly why they are so dangerous.

    Go figure.

  38. Here we go again with a bunch of filthy rich, uneducated, camel turd chasing idiots acting like children with a loaded gun. These clowns have no idea what we and some of our allies are really capable of and if they are then I say give them what they want and send them all to Alla's house. They are still thinking in the WWII-Cold War era. We are a couple of levels ahead of them in that game. Trust me, if these guys were to try to cut off the EU's oil then EVERYONE over there and here too would be pointing everything at them and pulling the trigger.

  39. The Olddog | May 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm | Reply

    I'd call this thing a single shot MLRS, because the launcher could be pulled and replaced in 10 minutes (even if the connections and hard-points are a half-aXX design.)
    It was very nice of their media to provide such a good photo. It shouldn't be too hard ID from a Predator. The blast sheld rigid pivot arms are mounted on the front of the roof and will be easy to see. The container top appears to be accordioned to the rear (it may be fabric). The sides are folded to the rear. (All these joints should be easy to see in IR an hour after sundown).
    And the hydraulic leveling jacks are mounted below the cargo bed. Once you ID the vehicle it will be fairly easy to track it's location.
    The satelite up link suggests that the missle would get it's launch targeting info from a remote radar, which has to be line-of-sight and thus easy to find.

  40. It is past time to develop a retaliatory weapon to artillery, be it old style or missile. Well over 50 years ago, before my nine years service, high school physics class taught projectile motion. With all the improvements in infra-red, radar and computers since that time, there still not a proper return fire weapon in use. During the battle of Kosovo we could have placed a radar and computer that would have tracked an incoming round, targeted the coordinates and had a return round on the way before it hit.
    It is in the realm reality that it can be designed and built in months. With this new threat from Iran. It should be done and put on every warship. It would simply be a you launch one and you receive one before you move type of thing.
    There is no great mystery to this, MIT or GA Techs Physics department can give the need info to the Engineering Dept the week after given the problem and it could be built from things now in inventory. All we need is some one in charge that knows that there are enemies and don't mind offending them to the point of death.

  41. If they start anyting, their ability to traget & coordinate attacks will be the first to go. Once they are reduced to "fire & forget" mode, they just become a nuisance.

    Hopefully it will never come to that, but dumber things have been done before.

  42. Compare the anti-ship Iranian capability to the anti-tank Hamaz capability. A small, decentralized force wit hhigh tech weaponary fighting against a conventional-war organized national military. Just as the Israeli Merkava suffered a non sustainable attrition rate, so would ANY Navy sailing into such a small, non manuaverable AO suffer a similiar fate. Dug in, 2-3 person anti-ship missile sites would be impossible to detect.. Landing ground forces to dig out these positions would result in bayonet vs. bayonet, resulting in a high casuality rate, with little to nothing to show for it.
    Stop Iran NOW, before it is too late
    Unfortunately, the ONLY winnable scenario is to resort to bypassing the "front" of these decentralized forces, and to strike mightt, you have no might. When a country goes as far as Iran, it is time to use that might in the interests of the greater good.
    What is the difference of the U.S. nuclear umbrella holding the Soviet Union at bay for 50 years, and preventing Iran from achieving a threat level to the U.S. and the world? None.
    In this case, there is no "mutually assured destruction". It is just IRANIAN assured destruction.
    .

  43. TargetWeary | May 4, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Reply

    Before we call their bluff, let's make sure we have some unmanned amall surface vessels that display like tankers on the Iranian radar screens. They would be a bargain if they only diverted a single missle from a high value target.

  44. Not only is tracking radar available and in use, but, we have the capability to counter enemy tracking by lobbing, for lack of a better term, curveballs of rocket artillery to throw them off. They counterfire that and they're off target by at least a kilometer or two.

  45. Iranian's please note…. It ain't like we didn't have some real tough threats when we decided to destroy the Iraqi army. Obviously, we're well aware of this little "speed bump". I'm quite certain that you'll be thoroughly surprised when the Marines get to Iran and have the cold steel of their gun barrels in contact with any/every Iranian head that cannot or will not understand this EXCELLENT advice, "Do NOT fuck with the United States Marines. You WILL die poor and tired"

    Please refer to Iraq & Afghanistan for further information…

  46. Compare the anti-ship Iranian capability to the anti-tank Hamaz capability. A small, decentralized force wit hhigh tech weaponary fighting against a conventional-war organized national military. Just as the Israeli Merkava suffered a non sustainable attrition rate, so would ANY Navy sailing into such a small, non manuaverable AO suffer a similiar fate. Dug in, 2-3 person anti-ship missile sites would be impossible to detect.. Landing ground forces to dig out these positions would result in bayonet vs. bayonet, resulting in a high casuality rate, with little to nothing to show for it.
    Unfortunately, the ONLY winnable scenario is to resort to bypassing the "front" of these decentralized forces. When a country goes as far as Iran, it is time to use might in the interests of the greater good.
    What is the difference of the U.S. nuclear umbrella holding the Soviet Union at bay for 50 years, and preventing Iran from achieving a threat level to the U.S. and the world? None.
    In this case, there is no "mutually assured destruction". It is just IRANIAN assured destruction.
    .

  47. US forces in Viet Nam had counter battery fire artillery radar in country in 1967-68. Use to hear it go off all the time "back in the day." The 155s would open up and blast 'em.

  48. Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

  49. Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

  50. Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

  51. Terry L. Burgess | May 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Reply

    Sorry Guys! Won't happen with this President. [IF] it does he will apologize to the World for it, blame it on George W. and then tell our enemies where they are and how to destroy them.

    Good luck with all thoughs dreams till 2012! Maybe even 2016?

  52. It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

    I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

  53. It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

    I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

  54. To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

    Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

    I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

    I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

  55. To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

    Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

    I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

    I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

  56. To Ranger 12. Are you stupid? You don't nuke an oil field. That oil would be radioactive for centuries.

  57. It looks like the rear doors when opened cover the tarp enclosure. Thea's enclosures are quite common. the shield that covers the windshield will be the dead giveaway from aerial reconnaissance, and second will be the hydro-lick rams that are mounted to the frame. But do not think for one minute that they will not have other variations that are not known. It is always good not to under estimate ones adversary.

  58. Here we go again–hiding military armament in civilian disguise! How to ensure we must totally annihilate their country and people, rather than just the military, when/if we must take action! They keep making veiled threats against us and less veiled so against Israel, as if we are the cause of all the world's ills.

    As far as the nuclear materials they desire, I think we should give them all they want, USAF special-delivery style! A bunker-buster to proceed and ensure on-the-spot accurate delivery down to the level most practical! Then, see if they wanna rattle them sabers any more!

  59. Here we go again–hiding military armament in civilian disguise! How to ensure we must totally annihilate their country and people, rather than just the military, when/if we must take action! They keep making veiled threats against us and less veiled so against Israel, as if we are the cause of all the world's ills.

    As far as the nuclear materials they desire, I think we should give them all they want, USAF special-delivery style! A bunker-buster to proceed and ensure on-the-spot accurate delivery down to the level most practical! Then, see if they wanna rattle them sabers any more!

  60. Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

  61. Secondly, after the evidence of Viet Nam, all of the middle east conflicts, and all of the insurgencies ever documented, we can be assured of never knowing what the results or developments of human conflict will be. This is because we are a clever species with a strong will to survive and prevail, and usually have to be killed to be stopped with certainty. Plus, the contagious nature of human emotional response to the ecstasy and horror of conflict ensures that we will never run out of enemies and champions. Therefore, we will find that unless we kill all of our enemies (a social calculus suggests that only one human would thus remain alive) we cannot assume a secure situation in any scenario.

  62. Finally, we have certainly strayed too far into the habit of BOOB (believing our own bullshit). Our warriors (God bless them, I am a 23-year vet) are not always the best, smartest, bravest, most honorable, or most heroic. Therefore, much of the battle with Iran would be assessing and mitigating our own shortcomings. A famous soldier stated 2000 years ago that he "… feared more our own mistakes, than any plans of the enemy…" In summary, we cannot claim victory on any level (tactical, or strategic) if we simply continue to shuffle the deck of problems. For instance, reducing the threat of Iranian missles, but increasing the threat of Iranian unconventional power, occupation as invaders who commit mistakes and atrocities and alienate the indigenous populations, or declaring limited military goals and allowing the survivors to regroup and respawn stronger and smarter.
    When we decide as a nation it is time to eliminate problems, then we will have a lasting peace–we certainly will never see it if we wait our enemies to just give us victory.

  63. Build up the inventory of cruise and other long range missiles that can be programmed launched and sent to the target; we could use a few warheads that will make them glow in the dark. Clean out the shore installations. When this is done use some of five thousand plus nuke war heads on their land base and naval port. Them send them a message and ask them if they want to talk peace if not continue working on their country until it looks like it did about 5000 BC.
    This is how I would solve the problem once and for all

  64. We have been at war with Iran since 1979 when these Dumbasses attacked our EMBASSY an Act of war for any country but MR Peanut says i am so sorry.
    Well now we have to pay the piper for being cowards at that time. Iran is twice as dangerous as any other 3rd world country in the world. only 2 ways to deal with these idiots Nuc em till they glow and turn them over and use the for run way lights. 2. just bomb the shit out of them until all they have left is sticks and stones. LEVEL THEM

  65. It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

    I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

  66. To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

    Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

    I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

    I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

  67. A few nukes in the right places will get their Hearts and Minds on the right path.

  68. the importance of a well prepared costal defence air sea detwction first responce conter,
    against all tipes of treats.
    is the well prepared.

  69. Yah sure, 'Merucans. Go USA!! You clowns still don't get it. Israel is pushing you into another war and you go for it every time. SUCKERS!!!!!

    Remember Iraq and WMD. No, 'cause you memory is as thin as your wallets.
    How's that job going for yah!!!! What no job. Keep watching the Tele Vitz!!

  70. all this from a country whose president swears the holocaust didnt happen and that breasts cause earthquakes

  71. Seems like money spent on about 40 more B-2s and another 120 F-22s would have been well spent. Probably less than $60 billion all told. Spread over 10 years, we wouldn't have to worry about Iran then. And to think we wasted $875 billion on the stimulus package. I also think that aptly named "Slender Fungus" probably isn't thankful that not one of our diplomats protected by then-Black Water were killed in Iraq. He probably is not familiar with the SECRET SERVICE which typically deos not wear uniforms as with much of Diplomatic Security. Which begs the question, what does he know?

  72. Bill Edwards | May 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm | Reply

    Predator drones? done & over.

  73. IRAN is a threat and will continue on their road to nuclear weapons. Their massive under ground tunnels and military power are growing. They do have chinese and russian missles and are spending the money on improving their weapon systems and technology at a rapid pace. To diss Iran would be foolish, as would be to diss China. To just stat that the US can thrawt anything is unrealistic. We are a great power, but nothing is absolute.

  74. I can't believe almost everyone here is worried about Iran's new anti-ship missile defense. When the bigger picture here is North Korea. Where still technically at war with them! They sunk 1 of S.K's frigates in March killing 44sailors. N.K. has a stockpile of thousands of missiles of different types & kill radius. They test fired a nuclear warhead underground a few months ago. To show the world there act of defiance against the West (meaning us in America). Plus, there scientists are building several more. I say Iran can wait, lets start a blitzkrieg type tactic on N.K. (how Germany did in ww2 on France).

    Use a combination of special forces, 82nd airborne & the marines. Supported by naval fire & 24/7 aerial bombing by the USAF. Eventually Kim Jong-il will surrender to us.

  75. "How effective are RAMs and Phalanx systems at defending against these sorts of threats? "

    As a former Navy sailor stationed on an aircraft carrier armed with Phalanx systems, I can tell you they are VERY effective. 20mm shells aren't exactly what one might call puny. And when they are being fired at a target at a rate of 6000 rounds per minute, whatever the radar locks onto is, in layman's terms, screwed. I am now currently serving in the Army and we have the same system for missle defense at our bases in the Middle East. Very effective there, too. Similar role.

  76. I got this website from my pal who informed me
    regarding this web site and now this time I am visiting this website and reading very informative posts at this place.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*