Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Tests Naval Cruise Missile During War Games

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the 2008-wants-their-diplomatic-tensions-back dept.

The Military 547

Hugh Pickens writes "Iran says it has successfully test fired a cruise missile during naval exercises near the Strait of Hormuz, and the surface-to-sea missile, known as the Qader, struck its targets with precision and destroyed them. Iran had previously announced that it intended to test a missile during the exercises, raising fears that it might try to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for tougher international sanctions. The Qader missile is said to be capable of striking warships at a range of about 125 miles, a distance that would include some American forces in the Gulf region as Iran is about 140 miles at its nearest point from Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Analysts say Iran's increasingly strident rhetoric, which has pushed oil prices higher, is aimed at sending a message to the West that it should think twice about the economic cost of putting further pressure on Tehran. 'No order has been given for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,' Iran's state television quoted navy chief Habibollah Sayyari as saying. 'But we are prepared for various scenarios.'"

cancel ×

547 comments

Would love to see some naval battle (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570446)

There was no good naval battle on CNN in a while. If it happens, it will be really exciting 1 hour, because that's how long it will take to destroy all Iran's fleet.

so (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570456)

then why dont you go fight in that fucking naval battle and die, yourself ? instead of other people dying for your enjoyment and corporations' profit ? you would do all of us a favor and also go out with a bang.

Re:so (2)

jimmetry (1801872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570476)

Do all of us a favour and go out with a bang? He/she should die as some kind of entertainment / service to society? Humans...

Re:so (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570514)

> then why dont you go fight in that fucking naval battle and die, yourself ?

how would i sit on my couch and enjoy watching other people die in a naval-action-battle, when i'd go myself to die there?

lol.. what other stupid questions do you have? :D

Re:so (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570608)

I'm not sure there are any naval battles to be had anymore, unless we end up living to see WWIII. The sea-faring bits of our Navy really only exists as an aircraft and missile platform, not for serious confrontations with other naval vessels. We certainly have the equipment, but if we ever had to use it we'd already be looking at much more serious trouble. The countries that have real naval combat facility (that we couldn't safely annihilate from a long ways away) also have nukes and delivery technologies.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570612)

Are you a moron or do you just play one on /.?

yeah (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570796)

some want people die for others' enjoyment, others play moron for others' enjoyment. one of these are much more noble than the other. guess which.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570744)

Hello, you must represent the "Empathy" party known for its "Love" for people and "Caring" attitude. I am sure a government of people like yourself would be very "Nice".

Re:so (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570776)

then why dont you go fight in that fucking naval battle and die, yourself ? instead of other people dying for your enjoyment and corporations' profit ? you would do all of us a favor and also go out with a bang.

Ironic, considering, Irans posturing and threats drives up the price of oil which it then benefits directly from. Moron.

yeees (0, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570802)

iran is posturing and threatening. its not like in the past 6 months united states of invaderica has not been trying to build up a war with iran, then sent spy drones, agents and whatnot into their country.

i see ignorance is as popular in america as ever.

No oil, no food in the grocery store (4, Interesting)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570882)

instead of other people dying for your enjoyment and corporations' profit

That's quite naive, you are more vested in keeping the sea lanes open than you might initially think. When the oil stops then so do the trucks that deliver food to your local grocery store.

Yes it would be great if we got off foreign oil and delivered food using local or renewable energy but that's not what is going to happen in the next two weeks, and IIRC two weeks is about all there is in the local stores and distribution centers on average.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (1, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570484)

There was no good naval battle on CNN in a while. If it happens, it will be really exciting 1 hour, because that's how long it will take to destroy all Iran's fleet.

You should read about the wargames that someone mentioned in another post.

Supposedly it went so badly for the good guys that the referees stopped the game before it was over.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570658)

Back in 2002.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570772)

it's not the first time I believe it happened at least twice before in wargames simulating a Russian conflict. the tatics used launch all planes at once and nuke the fleet in international waters.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570874)

The same story was making the rounds in 2002 about war games with Iraq as the defender, with a similar outcome - allied forces couldn't even gain a foothold until Iraqi forces were ordered to withdraw by the moderators.

Pretty sure that story wasn't true, and I'm pretty sure the updated version isn't either.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570502)

Iran's naval capability isn't that shabby. Sure, the US Navy could obliterate it but not without suffering a few losses themselves. 100+ missile boats can send out a lot of missiles before they're sunk. They only need a few lucky hits to take out a much bigger boat..

Nor is Iran technologically in the dark ages, having its own robotics industry and technology from China and Russia.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (5, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570648)

100+ missile boats can send out a lot of missiles before they're sunk.

Also, IIRC an estimated 900,000 Iranians died resisting Saddam Hussein's grab of a useless strip of land along the border. Anyone who thinks they'll just run away and hide is a fool.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (0)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570786)

The bad thing is that CNN indeed did not have anything to cover for quite some time. Lunatics in Teheran are bound to try their new toys and losses are justified for them (they are not losses anyway as people go to heaven directly of course). They are maybe not silly enough to try yet but there will be time when they think USA is hopelessly stretched and will not answer - Saddam did the same mistake. At some point some of the lunatics will succeed of course but not before some major loss of life on CCN can be observed. OTOH if price of fuel goes up it is good for producers - Iran is a producer of oil so....

OTOH it is us or them. You are not seriously thinking that they spend a thought or two losses that can be incurred if they thought that at the same time this would bring them some major profit in terms of popularity inland or even a great win against infidels??? Argentina did also the same and if you live in the west then yes you are with us (and US) on this one - you are also an infidel. I only wonder when do they try biological weapons - judged on recent developments in flu research you do not need this much money and equipment to produce something nasty. It is not question if but when and how.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570726)

Nor is Iran technologically in the dark ages, having its own robotics industry and technology from China and Russia.

I'm sure China would be delighted to see us throw away a few trillion dollars on another war that won't gain us anything except bad PR. We can sell them some more of our assets to pay for it.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570782)

They are paying for it now as it is.It'd called external debt.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570826)

The backlash of a US attack would be huge. Not only because the Iranians (as every other nation) has the right to defend themselves against foreign attacks, but they'd need also a NATO approval. They do control NATO, but they don't control most of the fuel sources used on NATO interventions. Lybia is still pulling their shit together, so - like it or not - Iran isn't an available target, unless you like world demise. Most politicians don't.
If you worry about Iran, you should worry about the influence of traditional muslim monarchies have in american politics and economy. And how some asian countries (such as China) are actively buying you and your companies.

Re:Would love to see some naval battle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570854)

Why on earth would the US risk a naval battle when they can just obliterate the Iranian navy from the air? The estimate of an hour in the original post seems optimistic (for the Iranians). In reality their navy would last minutes.

Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (5, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570458)

Read about small boats and aircraft did during US war games under Gen. Paul van Ripen.
U Sank My Carrier! By Gary Brecher
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779 [exile.ru]
"send everything at once"

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570494)

Indeed. Also described in Gladwell's Blink. My wife actually worked in that exercise as an aide to Van Ripen and described things similarly then. At least we won the second round of the exercise when we cheated.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570532)

There's a legitimate justification for "cheating". The wargames are used to establish whether the tactics will actually work. Round 1 failed. Fine. Back to the drawing board. There's no contingency plan for them failing though. We still need to see if the round 2 tactics will work. Obviously they won't if there's no fleet, so the refloat it and see if those tactics work.

It's an experiment in tactics rather than a literal "game". It doesn't matter who wins as long as lessons can be learned.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (3, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570670)

The 2'nd half was scripted. IOW, they told the reds what to do. Van Ripen retired rather than be party to such a joke. And when the approach and outcome are scripted, it is no longer a challenge. Then it is just a media ploy.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (3, Interesting)

Dails (1798748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570792)

Clearly you've never played organized sports. It's not like every practice is a scrimmage; there are times when you set up a scenario where the opposing players run a certain play to see if your play works against it. If you didn't do this you couldn't choose what to practice. How much better would a team get if the guy playing the opposing quarterback quit each time this happened? van Ripen wasn't some no-nonsense tell-it-like-it-is leader, he was a whiner and cared more about personal credit than about testing tactics against tactics and improving, which is the whole point of a wargame. And by the way, in what sense is this a media ploy? You get a couple of articles about a given exercise and...that's it. These wargames are quite costly and the lessons we want to learn/theories we want to test are very well defined ahead of time to avoid wasting that money. If this was a media ploy it'd be the equivalent of you buying a giant tv and hiding it in your living room as you step outside and tell people you have a big tv.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570674)

OK. I guess. But then they said they won, with no credit to Van Riper for beating them. They basically just reran the exercise with conditions that let them win, then declared themselves the winner. It's like the kid who makes up the rules as he goes along just so he can win. This wasn't about finding the right tactics that work.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570552)

Read about small boats and aircraft did during US war games under Gen. Paul van Ripen.

Also remember the words that got a general in trouble in Iraq: "This isn't the war we were expecting to fight.", or something to that effect.

Militaries are notoriously bad about preparing to fight the last war again. Or the war before last... The US has spent most of the last 65 years spending petabucks preparing to refight WWII (vs. the Russians) in central Europe and the Japanese navy at sea.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570804)

Well, to be fair, for most of the last 65 years, we did think we were eventually going to have to go head to head with the Russians in Europe.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (2)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570902)

Well, to be fair, for most of the last 65 years, we did think we were eventually going to have to go head to head with the Russians in Europe.

That was an extremely good contigency plan, prepare to fight where the last big fight took place... right up to the point where a bunch of missiles turned up in Cuba.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570808)

well if they did not maybe we would have a chance to see soviet tanks in action in western EU then? It is indeed interesting line of though: there is a problem, somebody actively i.e. with some expense seeks to avoid it and it succeeds and then they come and say it all was not necessary because we the problem was not one in the first place. That sounds like a fallacy to me. The rest of course is true - military prepares to last war. Only the last war for US was never longer than 10 years earlier over the course of last 60 years or? You can reuse big parts of these preparations at least you have some basis on which you can do your changes instead of waiting to see what the evil side has in store.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570864)

The problem with american warfare is guerrila warfare.The infantry can't/won't act without air support. They have the "one man one screw" mentality, so it is acceptable to have some screws lost in a battle if it will win resources.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570592)

Should carriers even get that close to the battlefield? Those planes have a huge range, couldn't you just park the carrier pretty far away until you've turned everything in the water into debris and flotsam with planes and subs?

And hell, if the Hormuz situation goes beyond saber rattling and the US suffers heavy losses then how likely is it that the US will unwrap the ICBMs?

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570614)

It's very unlikely the US will unwrap ICBMs (I suspect you meant nuclear tipped ones, I doubt there are conventional bombs on an ICBM). The political fall-out would not be tolerable, even if no one retaliated for having the cloud of radioactive fallout blow over their country.

We can look to the past: the US didn't unwrap any nukes despite their ass being handed to them in Vietnam.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570672)

Yeah but on the other hand Vietnam was pretty much a vanity project with little at stake. This is a highly valuable shipping route for oil. Also Vietnam didn't result in major losses for the navy, just some dead grunts. Losing a bunch of carriers would be way, WAY worse.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570832)

Oh the retcon is strong in you KDR_11k.
The Vietnam war was everything EXCEPT being a vanity project. Unless you think that a 20 year war (counting French and US intervention) with almost 3 milion troops on the ground serving in all capacities and countless casualties amounts to a picnic in the garden.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570878)

Iraq was a high valuable ally for decades, that kept Iran in check. That is gone now, not because an Irqui has struck american interests, but because a saudi has. Yes it makes no sense, an will seem sillly why will keep on going the same route until they determine their own interference has caused the problem, And that will never happend.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (5, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570830)

Hanging off of your post a little bit, there's been some rumblings in the news about the Chinese DF-21 [wikipedia.org] , which is basically a straight up, straight down mortar shell designed to sink aircraft carriers (and other local battleships) within an 1100 mile radius (that includes singapore, japan, and both koreas). Sort of the same functionality as an ICBM, but with more conventional explosives attached. The big problem is that they come down at mach 2 or faster, making them difficult to detect, let alone intercept.
 
Forbes alluded to this saying "its surface vessels are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese attack [forbes.com] "
 
While I doubt we'd unwrap the ICBMs, there's no reason to think this non-nuclear-ized technology exists. We've already retired battleships from the navy, it's not too far-fetched to imagine that Carriers are on their way out too.
 
More reading:
  http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-china-joins-the-yacht-club/ [exiledonline.com]
  http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ [exiledonline.com]

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570686)

IFF Iran uses a nuke, will we. However, if Iran should blow one, I would hate to be anywhere in Iran.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (5, Interesting)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570716)

You forget that part of the reason why war games are interesting is that many cheat as best as they can without being demoted for it, often they'll find holes in the general plan that might not exist in real life. Small boats are clever, but I'm sure that they never launched a weapon (American or cobbled together) during the entire game. I don't think that I would have needed to be in combat to understand how different it would be from having some guy in a pontoon boat pretend that he has a mounted weapon on it.

UAV suppression of the Iran coast line is a given under a combat order and likely active just off the coast now, so how many missile boats would we let collect in the gulf? More importantly, how long would it take for them to collectively start to fire? I'd bet that we're better at fire control. How many boats would be lost by Iran before they could fire? If they all start to drill at the same time, does Obama rain Hell Fire down on them preemptively? A few boats might take damage or even be sunk, but I'd hardly think that the whole fleet would be in collectively in jeopardy. It's just another sad example that suicide missions force a cost of lives.

Re:Thinking back to Millenium Challenge '02 (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570840)

Actually, it is Paul Van Riper [wikipedia.org] .

He did manage to rip the US Navy apart with his clever tactics, proving that wars are almost never won by brute force.

LOLOLOLOL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570462)

Yes so damn cool Iran. Too bad the US could most likely shoot those down miles away from target. So sorry Iran, we are only many, many more years technologically more advanced. Yeah, don't think the US thinks Iran is that scary.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570488)

Ugh, the arrogance.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570504)

Why? Iran has a few cruise missiles and no way to strike at the US home base. The US has several complete navies and a home base in Iraq, right next door. They also have hundreds of cruise missiles available. I real military terms nobody can take on the US directly.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570554)

This thread so far is like watching a special olympics boxing match.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570758)

I must rephrase. In real military terms nobody can take on the US without resorting to attrition.

you can grind down the US but every opening move the US will wipe out all your supposed defenses of pretty much every country except Russia and China. Now can the USA stay and finish the job is another story.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (2)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570906)

The US has several complete navies and a home base in Iraq, right next door.

You'll note that Iran waited until the US pulled every last infantryman out of Iraq on Dec 31st before making this proclomation (the next day), and the US turned around and agreed to sell Saudi Arabia essentially a $30 Billion Iranian Air Defense Kit the day after. We don't have a major base in the region that I'm aware of anymore. Turkey kicked us out in ~2006 or 2007, making Germany our closest base (besides the Carrier group)

Re:LOLOLOLOL (1)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570512)

Ugh, the arrogance.

Yah, also the ignorance

Re:LOLOLOLOL (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570500)

i know! why target the US fleet.

Just sink a couple of Oil Tankers or other commercial ships as they pass through the straits.
That would have a bigger impact on the US than trying to attack the fleet...

Re:LOLOLOLOL (2)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570842)

it would also have quite an impact on Iran itself. The fact is that paradoxically the lunatics on persian side are dependent on fuel imports as they spent so much time building nukes that they did not manage to build enough refineries. So they would have a fuel problem themselves and this on top of the bombs that US and few their neighbours would drop on them.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570506)

Yes so damn cool Iran. Too bad the US could most likely shoot those down miles away from target. So sorry Iran, we are only many, many more years technologically more advanced. Yeah, don't think the US thinks Iran is that scary.

s/Iran/Vietnam/
Oh, wait...

Re:LOLOLOLOL (4, Insightful)

jimmetry (1801872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570508)

I think the message is more "Fuck with us and people die" rather than "We will conquer the Earth". Just my 2c.

Re:LOLOLOLOL (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570568)

I think the message is more "Fuck with us and people die" rather than "We will conquer the Earth". Just my 2c.

Or worse, "Fuck with us and your voters will be paying ten dollars a gallon for gasoline."

Re:LOLOLOLOL (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570718)

Not really. If Iran oil is pulled from the market, the rest of opec can make it up. Our problem would be Venezuela. They might decide to leave the market in support (though not sure how long). THAT would hurt.

The one nice thing is that such a war would get us off of imported oil PDQ. Basically, we would push electric and natural gas vehicles very quickly. Likewise, Canada's pipeline would be sped up.

Iran isn't terribly scary, but $150 oil is. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570694)

And... it's on it's way up towards 110 now (the world pays brent, not wti).

Iran do have a multi stage ballistic missile which could probably hit southern Europe, though they claim it has a range of only 2000km. Pack that with yellowcake conventional warheads and even if not nuclear in the conventional sense, it's a problem for the recipient.

And they also have several thousand mines they could use to close the straits. Y'know, cheap explosives vs expensive "technologically advanced" floating castles.

Re:Iran isn't terribly scary, but $150 oil is. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570712)

If they launch missiles with that much range it probably doesn't matter what kind of warhead is on there, it'll look like a nuclear first strike to radars. Which could lead to the NATO countering with an MAD attempt even if the first strike turns out to be fairly harmless.

Re:Iran isn't terribly scary, but $150 oil is. (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570756)

They don't need to hit Europe!

A few "YellowCake" warheads aimed at Oil tankers in the Bahrain region (popular Western Tourist resort!) or in a couple of the Saudi Oil fields would do it.
Trying to clean up Oil spills is a pain at the best of times! Imagine trying to clean up a Radioactive Oil spill. OPEC would then reduce Oil exports so price per barrel hits $150-$200 over night. Saudi also losses out on the "Western Tourists" who now either can't afford to travel or are scared about the Radioactive Oil covered beaches to go any where near the region.

well the tl;dr version "the World economy could possibly grind to a halt."

Re:LOLOLOLOL (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570702)

We were also technologically advanced over nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. America would suffer a bloody nose with a war on Iran. HOWEVER, if it is prolonged, it will become a draw quickly. The reason is that China will support them the same way that they did North Korea.

Who needs crazies at home (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570520)

When there are so many too choose from abroad?

Iran is doing what all failing governments do, redirecting the ire of their people to someone other than itself. Granted they have had their "Great Satan" for many many years the uprisings and home grown terrorism does show the state cannot control all factions present within its borders.

So they need to have their people believe that all fault is outside of the country while at the same time explaining the lack of living standards and such is the great sacrifice needed to uphold Iranian values and freedom in the face of the great enemies abroad. Wow, sounds like North Korea as well.

Iran is the dog on the other side of the fence, barking and slavering to get at you. Yes it has teeth and yes it will hurt, but its going to get such an ass kicking it really enjoys that fence as much as you do.

With all the exaggerated press in the US about war mongering politicians its not exactly reassuring to see that there are still so many crazies abroad to give the locals reason. Iran is threatening more than the US with this boast of closing the straights. Perhaps they are trying to wake their Iman they so desperately need.... most likely a failing leader most likely needs the crisis and possibly the war to stay in power.

Re:Who needs crazies at home (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570578)

Iran is doing what all failing governments do, redirecting the ire of their people to someone other than itself.

Kind of like the USA's warmongering politicians are doing with Iran?

U.S. government interferes with Iranian politics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570706)

Those who control U.S. government, often in secret, want to build an oil pipeline through Iran to bring oil from the interior to an ocean. The U.S. has been threatening war with Iran, or interfering with Iranian politics for more than 60 years, mostly in secret. That's one of the underlying reasons for the problems now.

The U.S. government is, in many ways, VERY corrupt.

Funny that you say that (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570722)

I keep thinking of USSR in its last days. They invaded Afghanistan, and everybody claimed that it was all about the oil. Sound familiar?

Just to scare you (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570636)

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/iran-to-take-action-if-us-carrier-return-idINDEE80205820120103 [reuters.com]
"Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday."

and the US is known for backing down and allowing Iran to dictate where and when it can the "high seas" even though it won't sign the the Law Of The Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who needs crazies at home (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570684)

It always surprises me that Americans who seem knowledgeable about politics can so easily ignore what American involvement in the region has done, and continue to back their corrupt government in as much military action as it takes to keep their addiction to cheap oil going.

When the American empire dies, perhaps finally we can document this on the Wikipedia page for perceptual biases?

Re:Who needs crazies at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570734)

What he said: Americans ... continue to back their corrupt government ...

But, war is supported by bankers and others who profit. The average citizen is not allowed to understand the facts.

Re:Who needs crazies at home (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570868)

well all empires die eventually (and some come back from ashes) and I am not so sure you will be so happy minding your business when US were actually to collapse (in whatever sense and however unlikely that is actually) - I actually prefer their corrupt governments so far than what else is there in store - not because they are so good but because they corrupt ways are less painful for other peoples than what the alternatives are out there.

Re:Who needs crazies at home - answer ... (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570828)

When there are so many too choose from abroad?

Funnily enough, a lot of countries, for whom the USA is one of the "abroad" find themselves asking that very same question.

Iran is running its mouth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570538)

Iran is running its mouth like it wants to get popped. They're going to look awfully impotent when that carrier steams right back into the Persian Gulf. It'll probably bring some buddies with it too.

Iran warns US carrier to stay out of Persian Gulf [msn.com]
Iran warns U.S. to keep ship out of Gulf [cbsnews.com]
At end of drill, Iran army chief warns US aircraft carrier not to return to Persian Gulf [washingtonpost.com]

I do not think so (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570738)

I think that they are trying to buy time. Basically, they do not want us to blockade them. So, they do these threats, we do some back, and we do a meeting. Sad actually.

When Iran BSed that way, we should not have said a thing, simply moved in another carrrier group and kept very quiet.

Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570542)

I know about the "risk" of nuclear proliferation, but as we did nothing about Kim Il Jong for decades in North Korea, I think the fears of Iran having nukes are over-rated. If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse?

Certainly Iran executes a lot of people for violating a strict interpretation of Islamic law, so anyone who's against religion in government has a fundamental problem with Iran. But invasion is a poor way of protecting the people from a government that places dogma over reason. Surely diplomatic discourse would be more effective than the threat of invasion.

And that's really the problem I see. The US keeps beating the invasion and war drums. Iran refuses to back down, the mouse that roared at the lion. Neither side seems willing to act rationally.

If you're going to constantly go on about invading a nation, yeah, they're gonna get paranoid about BEING invaded. They're going to want to build up their military and their armaments to fight back, including nukes.

And with Israel and it's nukes so close to Iran and clearly a darling of US policy, the threat to Iran is imminent, at least from their perspective. Mind you, the Iranian government doesn't help that situation with their ongoing diatribe against Israel. More bluster that escalates instead of negotiates.

Recent US history is a track record of invasion and attack for reasons that turned out to be unjustified in the end. It doesn't give me a comfortable feeling to see them dictating policy to Iran when the US handling of Cuba has shown that appeasing the US does NOT mean the sanctions will be dropped.

Maybe if someone were to take a serious step like disarming Israel's nuclear arsenal, things could settle down in the middle east.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570620)

Taking away Israel's nukes would make things settle down?
Has anyone told you that you're an utter retard today?
Just in case they haven't, msobkow you're a utter retard.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570626)

The thing with nukes is that the advanced ones have a range that covers the entire planet. It doesn't matter if nukes are close to you or on the opposite side of Earth. The only difference it makes that Israel has nukes is that pretty much the entire region would love to piss Israel off and hope that the US is too wary of nukes to launch a counterattack.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570644)

As much as my comment history doesn't show much sympathy for the USA per se, We are not really persecuting Iran, We are provoking them and they are provoking us. Even if iran had nukes, it would be a long way before they can challenge the west with them and not be obliterated. And if they managed to become so powerful to start being a real problem they would become a problem for russia and china too, nobody likes one more big player at the table, so ultimately they should become more powerful than anybody to start making demands. Isn't it faster to revert to conventional arms, even develop new tech, and put the usa in the position of the aggressor?

The problem is that ahmadinejad went to power with the help of pro-west forces which apparently protested that way the moderates (a nice fairy tale), and leaders of both sides can be seen on youtube videos performing the same signs (the horns, for example). Does it mean anything? maybe not, but just in case, we should take anybody that decides or profit directly or indirectly from this crisis and put him in the first line of combat and say, well, sort it out yourselves, just in case you planned this war for your personal profits. Well make it so for every conflict. Nobody should gain any personal or political profit from war or terrorism, then war and terrorism become a hindrance nobody wants. Till then, an enemy will always be available.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (2)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570652)

The reason is because North Korea is not particularly strategic, it has no oil and can't exert control over routes trading oil. Iran has oil and can exert control over important routes where oil is moved.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570660)

Israel isn't near North Korea.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570680)

Let's see

Iran - potential nukes, holds europe and the arab world hostage
Best Korea - nukes, holds South Korea, Japan and anyone else they can point their nukes at hostage.

I hope North Korea settles down and or, their people have enough of it and throw out the ruling party. North Korea wasn't too bad until the cold war ended, Kim Jung Il took over, and millions starved. If Kim Jung Un decides to reunify Korea by force, to repeat what his grandfather failed at, it will fail again. There's no current pretext for war with North Korea with Kim Jung Il gone, for now. Even though they have shot at Korea first. We'll have to wait for the next South Korean election to see what happens long term.

With Iran, mr. dinnerjacket can threaten the gulf all he wants, but he won't shoot first. He's looking for a pretext for war, and the US isn't going to give it to him. Israel might though. It would be very bad for them to do so. For now we know that several Arab regime changes have happened, and we also don't know if they're going to turn into nuthouses yet. The arab world is rather unpredictable right now. If the US shoots first, that will turn all these regime changes against the US in a heartbeat.

My betting money is on Iran never gets a pretext for war and their people throw mr.dinnerjacket out and everyone will back away from the nuclear option.

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570692)

"The arab world is rather unpredictable right now. If the US shoots first, that will turn all these regime changes against the US in a heartbeat."

Not necessarily. The iranians are persian, not arab, and the arab world has about as much love for them as it does for the US.

Iran has oil (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570732)

And is selling it for Rial and Euros, not dollars. Their oil bourse just last year started trading crude.

That's why they have to be "liberated".

Re:Why ARE we persecuting Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570886)

You only have to be wrong once. According to officials of the former Soviet Union, they were only moments away from a surprise strike on the US at one point.

um... math fail? 125 < 140 (2)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570584)

The Qader missile is said to be capable of striking warships at a range of about 125 miles, a distance that would include some American forces in the Gulf region as Iran is about 140 miles at its nearest point from Bahrain.

So the missiles have a range of 125 miles and the closest part of the target is 140 miles... I don't want to downplay the significance of the situation, but from 15 miles outside the missile's effective range, you wouldn't even be able to see it when it splashes harmlessly into the water. The article was even claiming they could hit isreal at 625 miles away. What am i missing?

Re:um... math fail? 125 140 (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570596)

US naval ships won't have to be at their base in Bahrain. They might be patrolling the gulf, half way to Iran. So about 70 miles. Possibly a lot less if they are close to Iranian territorial waters.

Re:um... math fail? 125 140 (2)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570618)

If you read the linked articles then they the Missiles hit the targets 125 miles away and they was thought to be the effective range, but no exact details are known. It's possible it could reach 140+ Miles putting the US 5th fleet within range.

They are claiming it as a "Long Range" weapon, though 125 Miles seems a bit short to be considered "Long Range" so the thinking is that the range might be longer or they are bluffing.

If I had a missile, I would lie about it's range (2)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570820)

No? Or isn't that a blindingly obvious thing to do?

The quoted specs are speculative, so till they are used in anger fully fueled we won't necessarily know their capabilities.

Iran manufacture several classes of missile from cruise to multi stage ballistic. They even make them themselves which is better than most European countries are capable of.

HTH.

One ship less? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570594)

Do I get it right, that Iran just destroyed one of their ships with own rocket? How many ships they have left? And do they plan surface-to-air rocket launches?

Re:One ship less? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570634)

They probably shot a dummy or some rusty barge that was going to hit the scrapyard anyway. I doubt they have a shortage of those.

LET ISRAEL DEAL WTIH THEM (WITHI US FUNDING) !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570602)

This way, the US (good guys) can take out Tehran (bad guys) and stay out of it. True, the market for some types of rugs will collapse, but thta's the price we pay for Peace on Earth !! So, let's get this show on the road - no need for a 10- years' combat war like Iraq/Iran when Israel can take them out overNIGHT !!

Shove that up your iatola-assahola and rotate !!

Re:LET ISRAEL DEAL WTIH THEM (WITHI US FUNDING) !! (3, Insightful)

pjabardo (977600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570834)

Just like Israel took out Hezbollah over night. Brilliant!!!

That's why (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570616)

Ships have goalkeepers. Or whatever the American equivalent is called.

Re:That's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570668)

If they were 100% effective, then no one would worry. Sadly, they are not, so it is a problem.

Go ahead and blockade the region, Iran (4, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570628)

Blockades are defined by international law as an act of war. The moment you try to enforce this blockade, you'll have effectively declared war on every Persian Gulf state and anyone trading with them.

Transiting the Hormuz.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38570664)

* Caveat: In the last ten years, I have only spent 2 years in the Persian Gulf, transiting the Hormuz approximately 20 times.*

- The strait is approximately 12 miles wide at the "choke-point".
- A Qader has an maximum range of 125 miles.
- Most of the corporations that run tankers through the straits are extremely risk adverse. All it would take is one missile being "tested" in the vicinity of the shipping lanes to cause the number of tankers to plummet.
- There is a huge number of container ships that go from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and into the Mediterranean via the Suez (and vice versa), and almost the same number of ships that "turn left" instead of "right" there.
- Jet-skis can and do transit the straits. The bigger smugglers use speedboats, but the intelligence agencies use the personal watercraft sized craft and semi-submersible planing hulls to move agents and for surveillance. What airborne surveillance aircraft that Iran does have are slow moving and could probably be best engaged by M-4's and SAWS.
- The US Navy presence in Iraq is rather small compared to the USN presence in Bahrain and the UAE.
- Iran's militarized coast guard regularly harasses ships that transit the strait anyway. Have to love the 'Great Satan Running Dog' rants that comes up on chan 16.
- Iran's air force could be wiped from the skies by a single squadron of F-18F's loaded for dedicated air to air. It is their waterborne forces that are actually a threat.
- Two Global Hawks at high-altitude would be able cover the entire Persian Gulf with real time targeting data.
- Sniper rifles work just as well at sea as they do on land.

Re:Transiting the Hormuz.. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570710)

How is this for a scenario: Missiles fly into the Hormuz in the wake of commercial airliners. Once overhead their target (and in the cone of silence of surveillance radars) they hit the target from above?

Blowing smoke out their asses. (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570666)

They won't close the strait, they need the oil money, and couldn't stand doing a favor for their middle-eastern rivals by raising oil prices and driving western oil business to rival OPEC nations.

They won't get far showing off more powerful weapons, the Saudi's and the Pakistani's won't like it, and the Iranian's risk provoking military action from them, more than from the US.

The US media are a bunch of drama-thirsty morons who are looking to make a big deal out of this issue. Just ignore Iran, nothing will come of this. The Iranian government has nothing to gain from this, except the PR battle, saying "HA! we were strong enough to drive off the US!" even though we already know this is a total bluff.

If anything, they will start a conflict with neighboring nations, which in the most extreem of worst-case scenarios, could lead to a middle-eastern version of the Great War, and then the US can come in and support are already battle-fatigued allies against the Iranian aggressors with considerably less effort than what it took in Iraq these past 8 years.

Re:Blowing smoke out their asses. (2)

gadget junkie (618542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570790)

They won't close the strait, they need the oil money, and couldn't stand doing a favor for their middle-eastern rivals by raising oil prices and driving western oil business to rival OPEC nations.

They won't get far showing off more powerful weapons, the Saudi's and the Pakistani's won't like it, and the Iranian's risk provoking military action from them, more than from the US.

The US media are a bunch of drama-thirsty morons who are looking to make a big deal out of this issue. Just ignore Iran, nothing will come of this. The Iranian government has nothing to gain from this, except the PR battle, saying "HA! we were strong enough to drive off the US!" even though we already know this is a total bluff.

If anything, they will start a conflict with neighboring nations, which in the most extreem of worst-case scenarios, could lead to a middle-eastern version of the Great War, and then the US can come in and support are already battle-fatigued allies against the Iranian aggressors with considerably less effort than what it took in Iraq these past 8 years.

You have to love the Iranians....what they are actually exposing is not a material change in the balance of power, only a change in the willingness to use it. If the US could make a credible threat to Iranian oil terminals, (communicated via back channel to the Chinese customers, maybe? with a Saudi rep by your side with a megabillion dollar oil contract?) all this fracas would taper off.

Eventually, a fading US would simply switch from a "sea control" strategy to a "sea denial" one...the persian gulf would essentially become an isolated lake, after a pipeline building binge. Iran would be stuck with a couple oil exporting terminals facing the indian ocean in the gulf of Oman , exposed to the whims of any and all navies bent on laying a mine or two, or selling out to somebody else, which barring Turkey taking a decidedly turn for the worse, can only be Russia. How about "Putin for prez" when Ahmadinejad stands down?
Do not mistake me, I think the Iranians are well and truly mad....the more they bluster, the more controlling the pipeline passing through Syria into the med seems palatable to the Saudis, who do not and cannot love them, and do not share the us foibles about using whatever means available to save themselves.

And yet more evidence that Iraq was a huge mistake (5, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570700)

This is just more evidence that Iraq was a huge mistake, not like we needed any more but here it is. When Bush outlined his "axis of evil", he decided to go after the least "evil" country on the list, Iraq. Why? Well most people will say oil, or personal vendetta, and while there is some truth to that, the real answer is Iraq was the weakest of the 3. Bush needed a war to boost his poll numbers, so he chose the country that was least able to defend itself.

Had he gone after North Korea, the result would have been an unmitigated humanitarian crisis as North Korea would have unleashed a barrage of missiles and artillery fire(possibly with chemical and/or biological weapons) on Seoul, and the North Koreans are so dug in that there would be no way they could be neutralized without significant damage to Seoul and the surrounding areas. Kind of nice for your enemy to put half their population and probably around 2/3 of their economic output well in range of your artillery isn't it?

Now look at Iran, they have the strongest navy in the middle east(Iraq didn't have anything resembling a functioning navy when the US invaded). They also have decent missiles thanks in no small part to the North Koreans, and a relatively formidable ground force. US casualties in Iran would have been huge, and thats assuming Iran DOESNT have any chemical/biological capabilities....

Now look at Iraq. Saddam eventually disarmed and complied with almost all the UN regulations. His army was incredibly weakened by the embargoes and his air force crippled. And now he is dead. Gadaffi gave up WMD, and now he is dead. What message does this send to dictators? If you disarm, we kill you, if you can cause massive amounts of suffering, we negotiate.

Now look at the Iranian regime, there are only 2 things keeping them even remotely popular, and thus probably in power, in Iran.

1. Defending agains the US(Which thanks to the cowboy president many Iranians legitimately think might invade)

2. Oil revenues(which is why oil continued to plummet after the recession started, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, among others made so many promises to their people assuming oil was going to be over $150/barrel. When the price fell they had no choice but to continue to keep supply high in order to keep the money flowing in)

So now what is happening? The regime knows its running out of time, and has to get nukes fast or else risk being wiped out. Stopping Iranian oil exports would essentially cause chaos at home, so Iran is doing everything in it's power, including going to the brink of war, to keep those oil exports going. It wouldn't be nearly this paranoid about getting nukes if the man-child hadn't decided he wanted to play war hero for daddy and take out a guy that while certainly not, to borrow a phrase from Lewis Black, a snuggy bear, was not any worse than most regimes supported by the US(and the EU before Europeans start getting all self-righteous, France went after Libya and thus has a hand in this too, though not as big as the US's obviously). So instead of his fantasy of making the world safe from tyrants, Bush's actions have basically said, "if you want your regime to stay in power, get WMDs" Good one. The Iraq war will go down as the biggest foreign policy blunder in post-war American history. And while the actual Vietnam and Korean Wars were probably more savage, they were relatively self-contained. The Iraq war(and supporting the Libyan rebels) will have implications that will be felt for decades to come.

Analysts say Iran's increasingly strident rhetoric (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570708)

Would said analysts perhaps be of US origin?
Just asking.
Remind me -- who was threatening who with war lately?

bjd

Re:Analysts say Iran's increasingly strident rheto (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570880)

I haven't heard any threats lately...though, to me it looks like Iran is recently painting a big bullseye into their backyard.

How do you know when an Iranian is lying... (-1, Flamebait)

gavron (1300111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38570814)

Iran is like that third-world pimply kid next door who thinks he can date the head cheerleader.

They don't have ICBMs. They fake missile launches. They can't refine nuclear weapons. They can't even get a monkey into space. Their suckage is legendary.

Really they're a dirty third-world country that want to pretend to be "the great Persian Empire" except they forgot that Iran was NOT the heart or the meat of said empire.

Welcome to third-world ass pimplehood, Iran. Your supreme Ayatola is the head pimple.
E

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...