Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

[Joe Delphi]

Looks like Iran is testing more missiles and torpedos:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/05/iran.missile.ap/index.html


Excerpt: "Iran said the torpedo tests were conducted Sunday and Monday. The
torpedo -- called a "Hoot," or "whale" -- is able to move at 223 mph, too
fast for any enemy ship to elude."


223 mph ?? Does that number sound correct ?


JD

[Dave]

> Excerpt: "Iran said the torpedo tests were conducted Sunday and Monday.
The
> torpedo -- called a "Hoot," or "whale" -- is able to move at 223 mph, too
> fast for any enemy ship to elude."
>
>
> 223 mph ?? Does that number sound correct ?


A tube with a high density (water) projectile cap at one end and a rocket
motor near the other end may go even faster. Care has to be taken that
sufficient velocity is reached before water can enter the tube and
extinguish the motor as well as fins, guidance and other particulars.

[miket6065]

At Strategy page there was an article on this. It seems this underwater
missile is very short range, 5-7 km, and extremely limited steerage. Notice
that no one else has developed such a missile, only the Russians make them.
Per the article the missile is a last ditch defense system.

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>> radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>> Highly unlikely.
>
> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar :-)

Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles. You
did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material they've coated
this thing with, didn't you?

>> They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the
>> U.S. has supercavitating weapons already.
>
> The Iranians weren't saying "We got something you don't have", only
> "Look at what we have".

They can prance all they care to. It makes no difference whatsoever.
Saddam had exocet missiles, and they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn
with them, despite the fact that the Exocet is a good system.

>> They have nothing new here,
>
> No doubt about that. GUIDED supercavitating torpedoes would be
> something new, but I doubt that Iran was able to copy the "Barracuda"
> :-)

We've already got something that will knock a Barracuda right out of the
water. I think I posted a link to it already.

>> nothing that can't be taken out during the first days of any air
>> campaign.
>
> That's a totally different story... Unlike Iraq, Iran still has a
> working air defense system and has had lots of opportunities to learn
> from the demise of its former enemy.

And as we have seen, air defenses are completely vulnerable to aircraft and
missiles they cannot see. Not a problem there either.

George

[Aussie Infidel]

"George" > wrote in message
news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "George" > wrote:
>>
>>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>>> radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>>> Highly unlikely.
>>
>> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar :-)
>
> Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
> technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles. You
> did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material they've coated
> this thing with, didn't you?

I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided "stealth"
look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as claimed, they
would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be effective. There
might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons could get a hit in, before
a ship could get out of the way or deploy countermeasures.

In sh'allah, we will never know.

Aussie Infidel

[Joe Delphi]

"Aussie Infidel" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
> invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
> supercavitating missile.

Agree. I saw the radar evading claim assigned to their surface-to-surface
missile and not to a torpedo.


JD

[George]

"Aussie Infidel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "George" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>>>> radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>>>> Highly unlikely.
>>>
>>> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar
>>> :-)
>>
>> Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
>> technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles.
>> You did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material they've
>> coated this thing with, didn't you?
>
> I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
> invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
> supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided "stealth"
> look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as claimed,
> they would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be effective.
> There might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons could get a hit
> in, before a ship could get out of the way or deploy countermeasures.
>
> In sh'allah, we will never know.
>
> Aussie Infidel

But do you truly believe that our Navy is going to let Iran get close
enough to actually use this weapon? Then there are the porblems with
steering this thing, which I'm sure is a huge issue.

George

[[email protected]]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> "George" > wrote:
>
> > Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
> > technologies, such as sonar)
>
> Can you post any links on that? I'm curious how EM waves should be able
> to penetrate sal****er far enough AND get enough reflection back to the
> aircraft to do that :-)

I wasn't following this thread, but saw an opportunity to use a formula
I know 8^)
The skin depth equation for EM waves in a conductor is:
d = sqrt(2p/wu)
Where
d = skin depth
p = resistivity (normally Greek letter rho)
w = angular frequency (normally Greek letter omega)
u = magnetic permeability (normally Greek letter mu)
Skin depth is the depth of penetration in a semi-infinite body (e.g.,
the ocean) through which the signal current density is reduced by a
factor of 1/e = 0.37. (It generally applies at any frequency when we
can consider the material to be a uniform mass, but breaks down once we
get to freqs so high individual photons can interact with individual
molecules.)
Plugging in typical values for seawater, we get
d = 252 metres x sqrt(freq in Hz)
However most folks aren't used to factors of 1/e so it's nice to
convert to dB; each factor of 1/e is the same as -4.34 dB. Also, most
engineers are used to talking about loss per length rather than length
per loss, so we might like to invert everything. Then we get:
Attenuation = sqrt(freq in Hz) x 0.0172 dB/m
It immediately becomes apparent why systems for signalling to
submarines like to use very low frequencies; if we plug in even, say,
160 kHz, we get attenuation of 6.88 dB/m which will give some pretty
serious path loss after just a few metres depth.

So, this brings us to radar. Typical modern radar frequencies run from
about 0.3 GHz to about 40 GHz, and even 0.3 GHz is far too high. Of
course in the olden days we had some lower freq radars, and still do in
the special case of OTH radar. However we are limited by the fact that
once the wavelength starts to get longer than the longest dimension of
the object being detected, we again lose sensitivity very rapidly. So
our wavelength can't be much more than around 6 m, equivalent to about
50 MHz. At 50 MHz, attenuation is about 120 dB/m. And note that the
beam is being attenuated coming in and going out. A torp running at a
depth of just 3 metres will give the radar beam 6 metres of seawater to
pass through, giving 720 dB attenuation even at 50 MHz. No frickin'
way.

In practice, most ASW radar are X-band or thereabouts (~10 GHz). With a
seawater attenuation of 1000 ~ 2000 dB/m, they are useless for
penetrating seawater, but the 3cm wavelength means they are able to
detect periscopes and snorkels.

[Lord Vain]

"George" > wrote in message
news:T71_f.915202$xm3.227305@attbi_s21...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Joe Delphi" > wrote:
> >
> >> 223 mph ?? Does that number sound correct ?
> >
> > Why not? Shkval allegedly can reach 300 mph...
> >
> > Juergen Nieveler
> > --
> > Open Windows and let the bugs in.
>
> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade radar.
> Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours? Highly
unlikely.
> They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the U.S.
> has supercavitating weapons already. They have nothing new here, nothing
> that can't be taken out during the first days of any air campaign. And
all
> the while we can stand back at a distance and pound the hll of them. Iran
> is blowing smoke.
>

The Iranians are claiming that the underwater rocket has a range of 10km,
but there's not a chance in hell that an Iranian sub or ship will get within
10km's of a U.S. aircraft carrier.

So basically the entire weapon is fundamentally flawed. It's only usefull
against oil tankers and cruise ships but those could just as easily be taken
out with normal torpedoes or even mines.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Lord Vain]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
> > But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
> > radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
> > Highly unlikely.
>
> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar :-)
>
> > They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the
> > U.S. has supercavitating weapons already.
>
> The Iranians weren't saying "We got something you don't have", only
> "Look at what we have".
>
> > They have nothing new here,
>
> No doubt about that. GUIDED supercavitating torpedoes would be
> something new, but I doubt that Iran was able to copy the "Barracuda"
> :-)
>
> > nothing that can't be taken out during the first days of any air
> > campaign.
>
> That's a totally different story... Unlike Iraq, Iran still has a
> working air defense system and has had lots of opportunities to learn
> from the demise of its former enemy.

The Iranians even have the feared Soviet SA-10 Grumble SAM system which is
among the best in the world. I'm pretty curious how the U.S. is going to
take them out. If the Iranians have any sense at all they'll move them on a
daily basis, otherwise they'll be easy bait for the cruise missiles and
F-117's.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Lord Vain]

"George" > wrote in message
news:sj1_f.915211$xm3.493467@attbi_s21...
>
> "miket6065" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > At Strategy page there was an article on this. It seems this underwater
> > missile is very short range, 5-7 km, and extremely limited steerage.
> > Notice that no one else has developed such a missile, only the Russians
> > make them. Per the article the missile is a last ditch defense system.
>
> Think again. We have an underwater supercavitating projectile that breaks
> the sound barrier. We also have supercavitating bullets:
>
> http://www.supercavitation.com/html/projectiles.html

Which was probably copied from the Russians ;) Prior to the announcement of
the Russian underwater rocket (in 1995) no U.S. supercavitation torpedo was
in development AFAIK.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[George]

"Lord Vain" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "George" > wrote:
>>
>> > But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>> > radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>> > Highly unlikely.
>>
>> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar :-)
>>
>> > They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the
>> > U.S. has supercavitating weapons already.
>>
>> The Iranians weren't saying "We got something you don't have", only
>> "Look at what we have".
>>
>> > They have nothing new here,
>>
>> No doubt about that. GUIDED supercavitating torpedoes would be
>> something new, but I doubt that Iran was able to copy the "Barracuda"
>> :-)
>>
>> > nothing that can't be taken out during the first days of any air
>> > campaign.
>>
>> That's a totally different story... Unlike Iraq, Iran still has a
>> working air defense system and has had lots of opportunities to learn
>> from the demise of its former enemy.
>
> The Iranians even have the feared Soviet SA-10 Grumble SAM system which
> is
> among the best in the world. I'm pretty curious how the U.S. is going to
> take them out. If the Iranians have any sense at all they'll move them on
> a
> daily basis, otherwise they'll be easy bait for the cruise missiles and
> F-117's.

They will likely be easy beait anyway, since they rely on an outdated radar
system that broadcasts its presence like a searchlight.

George

[George]

"Lord Vain" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> news:T71_f.915202$xm3.227305@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > "Joe Delphi" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 223 mph ?? Does that number sound correct ?
>> >
>> > Why not? Shkval allegedly can reach 300 mph...
>> >
>> > Juergen Nieveler
>> > --
>> > Open Windows and let the bugs in.
>>
>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>> radar.
>> Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours? Highly
> unlikely.
>> They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the U.S.
>> has supercavitating weapons already. They have nothing new here,
>> nothing
>> that can't be taken out during the first days of any air campaign. And
> all
>> the while we can stand back at a distance and pound the hll of them.
>> Iran
>> is blowing smoke.
>>
>
> The Iranians are claiming that the underwater rocket has a range of 10km,
> but there's not a chance in hell that an Iranian sub or ship will get
> within
> 10km's of a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Exactly.

> So basically the entire weapon is fundamentally flawed. It's only usefull
> against oil tankers and cruise ships but those could just as easily be
> taken
> out with normal torpedoes or even mines.

Which they no doubt would try to go after, much to the dismay of the rest
of the world. Not a good way to win over the hearts and minds of people if
they want the world on their side. But then, whoever said the Ayatollahs
gave a damn what anyone else thinks about them?

George

[George]

"Lord Vain" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> news:sj1_f.915211$xm3.493467@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "miket6065" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>> > At Strategy page there was an article on this. It seems this
>> > underwater
>> > missile is very short range, 5-7 km, and extremely limited steerage.
>> > Notice that no one else has developed such a missile, only the
>> > Russians
>> > make them. Per the article the missile is a last ditch defense system.
>>
>> Think again. We have an underwater supercavitating projectile that
>> breaks
>> the sound barrier. We also have supercavitating bullets:
>>
>> http://www.supercavitation.com/html/projectiles.html
>
> Which was probably copied from the Russians ;) Prior to the announcement
> of
> the Russian underwater rocket (in 1995) no U.S. supercavitation torpedo
> was
> in development AFAIK.

The U.S. played around with supercavitation back in the 1960s and found the
same limitations with it that the Russians and Iranians are currently
discovering. Our supercavitating projectile is a last ditch weapon to kill
a torpedo or other target at very close range. That's about all they are
currently good for.

george

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article >,
Juergen Nieveler > wrote:

....
>
> X-Post to SMN for the naval topics - people there will be thrilled to
> hear of the torpedo-detecting radar :-)
>
No kidding, wait until I tell the guys at work that we can track
torpedos with radar now... should save us BIG bucks on tracking costs
<big evil grin>

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Aussie Infidel]

"George" > wrote in message
news:fhI_f.92418$oL.49269@attbi_s71...
>
> "Aussie Infidel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George" > wrote in message
>> news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...
>>>
>>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "George" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>>>>> radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>>>>> Highly unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
>>> technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles.
>>> You did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material they've
>>> coated this thing with, didn't you?
>>
>> I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
>> invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
>> supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided "stealth"
>> look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as claimed,
>> they would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be effective.
>> There might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons could get a hit
>> in, before a ship could get out of the way or deploy countermeasures.
>>
>> In sh'allah, we will never know.
>>
>> Aussie Infidel
>
> But do you truly believe that our Navy is going to let Iran get close
> enough to actually use this weapon? Then there are the porblems with
> steering this thing, which I'm sure is a huge issue.
>
> George
>

I'm sure the navy would do their best to ensure they didn't, but it only
takes one and we know from bitter experience that even a rubber boat can do
that in the right circumstances. Conventional torpedos have managed to sink
a lot of shipping....without steering, by measuring speed and direction and
plotting an intercept course ..... and with a longer time period between
launch and the target. It is difficult to turn a navy ship quickly, but
what if the target were a nice fat oil tanker? They don't have to take out
a navy ship to cause harm to a western country. Just hit one tanker and
watch the world oil price spike? That would cause more harm than sinking
any navy ship.

A.I.

[George]

"Aussie Infidel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> news:fhI_f.92418$oL.49269@attbi_s71...
>>
>> "Aussie Infidel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "George" > wrote in message
>>> news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...
>>>>
>>>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "George" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
>>>>>> radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
>>>>>> Highly unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
>>>> technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles.
>>>> You did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material
>>>> they've coated this thing with, didn't you?
>>>
>>> I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
>>> invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
>>> supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided
>>> "stealth" look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as
>>> claimed, they would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be
>>> effective. There might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons
>>> could get a hit in, before a ship could get out of the way or deploy
>>> countermeasures.
>>>
>>> In sh'allah, we will never know.
>>>
>>> Aussie Infidel
>>
>> But do you truly believe that our Navy is going to let Iran get close
>> enough to actually use this weapon? Then there are the porblems with
>> steering this thing, which I'm sure is a huge issue.
>>
>> George
>>
>
> I'm sure the navy would do their best to ensure they didn't, but it only
> takes one and we know from bitter experience that even a rubber boat can
> do that in the right circumstances.

Clue: This weapon has a range of 10 km. There is no way that the Navy,
during full operations, would allow anything not pre-authorized to get that
close.

> Conventional torpedos have managed to sink a lot of shipping....without
> steering, by measuring speed and direction and plotting an intercept
> course ..... and with a longer time period between launch and the target.
> It is difficult to turn a navy ship quickly, but what if the target were
> a nice fat oil tanker? They don't have to take out a navy ship to cause
> harm to a western country. Just hit one tanker and watch the world oil
> price spike? That would cause more harm than sinking any navy ship.

If the target was a nice fat oil tanker, even just one, Iran would find
itself completely alone and isolated. I'd lay money that even China and
Russia would drop any support for them like the proverbial brick. It would
be the best thing they could do for our side, and possibly the worst thing
they could do for themselves. They've stated in the world press that they
would not use oil as a weapon in any exchange. I for one intend that they
keep their word. Otherwise, they are screwed.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Lord Vain" > wrote:
>
>> The Iranians are claiming that the underwater rocket has a range of
>> 10km, but there's not a chance in hell that an Iranian sub or ship
>> will get within 10km's of a U.S. aircraft carrier.
>
> Look at a map of the Straits - there are parts where it's quite narrow,
> about 30km if you don't count the narrow parts where a carrier can't go.
>
> Add to that the territorial waters of Iran, and the straits become very
> narrow indeed...

I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a fine
tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything considered
remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances would be a dead
duck in the water before it knew what hit it.

>> So basically the entire weapon is fundamentally flawed.
>
> Unless the Iranians can read charts and know what a chokepoint is...

Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under combat
operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful military forces
on ther planet.

>> It's only usefull against oil tankers and cruise ships but those could
>> just as easily be taken out with normal torpedoes or even mines.
>
> Maybe they put the torpedo into a mine similar to CAPTOR (but command
> activated from the beach - no need fussing around with acoustical
> sensors)... the technology isn't that complicated when you thing about
> it.

If the Strait of Hormuz, even at it's narrowest, is only 30 km wide, as you
say, then our ships would have to be within 10 km of Iran's coast in order
for the weapon to have any chance at all. and our Navy simply doesn't have
to get that close. In fact, they don't even have to enter to Gulf at all
to carry out their mission.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> Clue: This weapon has a range of 10 km. There is no way that the
>> Navy, during full operations, would allow anything not pre-authorized
>> to get that close.
>
> Clue: unless the whole battlegroup goes into line formation, at least
> some of the escorts will have to get at least that close to the Iranian
> coast when going through the Straits.

Clue: They don't have to be in the Gulf to get the job done, should it
come to that.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a
>> fine tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything
>> considered remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances
>> would be a dead duck in the water before it knew what hit it.
>
> The Germans thought the same when the Scharnhorst entered the Oslo
> Fjord...

We aren't the Germans, even though people like you tend to equate us with
them. And we don't have to enter the Gulf to get the job done. There are
maps on Google of the Arabian sea in relation to Iran, if you are
interested.

>> Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
>> themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under
>> combat operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful
>> military forces on ther planet.
>
> Still they can't check every single fishing vessel (most of which will
> belong to neutral countries), every little bush on the shore (which
> might or might not hide a missile launcher), every little creek or bay,
> and every single suspicious sonar echo (which might be a submerged sub
> hiding on the bottom). Repeat after me: If the US attack Iran, there
> WILL be US losses.

They won't have to. Any vessel coming within a designated distance of any
of our war ships when we are in operational manuvuers will be forewarned to
stay clear. Any that don't will be subject to extreme prejudice. Yes
there will be U.S. losses. Where did I say that there wouldn't be? That's
not the issue here. The issue is whether or not this cavitation weapon of
Iran's has a chance in hell of being successful. The chances are very low.

>> If the Strait of Hormuz, even at it's narrowest, is only 30 km wide,
>> as you say, then our ships would have to be within 10 km of Iran's
>> coast in order for the weapon to have any chance at all.
>
> Torpedoes don't NEED to be fired from the beach, you know? They could
> be hidden below a fishing boat for all you know... look at how the
> first generation of torpedo boats looked, they lowered the torpedos
> into the water with winches...

Torpedos are not a problem. We have plenty of countermeasures for those.
And any vessel that launches one against us will not launch a second. See
above for countermeasures for your fishing boats.

>> and our Navy simply doesn't have to get that close. In fact, they don't
>> even have to enter to Gulf at all to carry out their mission.
>
> Depends on what the mission is. Remember, there's still troops in Iraq
> who need support, too - if the Straits are closed, they're stuck on the
> far end of a very dangerous supply line through possible enemy
> territory all around.

If the straits are closed, they won't stay closed. Yes, troops are in
Iraq, and we have the forces there to protect them, and more that can
arrive there on a moment's notice. You must know that our forces are very
flexible. The most flexible, in fact, anywhere, particularly our Naval
forces and Naval air forces. Do you know of another nation that could
round up the forces necessary to take Baghdad in a mere few weeks? Iran
couldn't do it after ten years of trying and a million dead. How many did
we lose by comparison?

George

[FRED WELLMAN]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a
>> fine tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything
>> considered remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances
>> would be a dead duck in the water before it knew what hit it.
>
> The Germans thought the same when the Scharnhorst entered the Oslo
> Fjord...
>
>> Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
>> themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under
>> combat operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful
>> military forces on ther planet.
>
> Still they can't check every single fishing vessel (most of which will
> belong to neutral countries), every little bush on the shore (which
> might or might not hide a missile launcher), every little creek or bay,
> and every single suspicious sonar echo (which might be a submerged sub
> hiding on the bottom). Repeat after me: If the US attack Iran, there
> WILL be US losses.

If and when Iran will cease to exist If GWB is President. After they took
hostage our diplomats most American's could care less about bombing them.
Fred

SNIPPED . .

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> There are maps on Google of the Arabian sea in relation to Iran, if
>> you are interested.
>
> Care to check them and chart a course for tankers to leave the gulf
> without going through the straits? Keeping the sea lanes open IS the job
> of the USN.

Says who? I find it very interesting the certain people demand that we do
such a thing and then tell us to "go home YANKIE". Yeah, we might do that,
if we are in the mood. Perhaps we should charge for the service, eh? Say,
a couple of billion per day ought to cover it. What do yu thnk?

>> The issue is whether or not this cavitation weapon of Iran's has a
>> chance in hell of being successful. The chances are very low.
>
> So we actually agree - you'd have to be a lunatic to try and use that
> torpedo against US warships, but it might actually work... and lunatics
> aren't a rare commodity in that region.

It isn't a matter of someonebeing crazy enough to use it. I thik Iran is
crazy enough to try. It's a matter of whether it would even work.

>> Torpedos are not a problem. We have plenty of countermeasures for
>> those.
>
> Care to name a single countermeasure currently in service that will work
> against an unguided supercavitating torpedo with a time-fused nuclear
> warhead?

Care to name the middle eastern country that has one of those? But yes,
there is a countermeasure. I'd telll you, but then, I'd have to kill you.

>> And any vessel that launches one against us will not launch a
>> second. See above for countermeasures for your fishing boats.
>
> Launching seconds probably isn't intended... even survival of the crew
> might be optional.

If we get into a war with Iran, I suspect that they would use everything
they have to defeat us. I see no reason why they would stop unless we
destroyed their capability, which we are sure to do.

>> If the straits are closed, they won't stay closed. Yes, troops are in
>> Iraq, and we have the forces there to protect them, and more that can
>> arrive there on a moment's notice.
>
> The problem isn't the troops - it's the supplies. You can fly in people,
> and some of the lighter gear, but naval transport is the only realistic
> option if you want to transport a few dozen new tanks.

How long do you think Iran would be able to disrupt our supply lines, if at
all?

>> You must know that our forces are very flexible. The most flexible,
>> in fact, anywhere,
>
> Not really... Sweden for example has very flexible forces and defense
> plans

Great. We'll send them in first.

>> particularly our Naval forces and Naval air forces.
>
> No doubt about it.
>
>> Do you know of another nation that could round up the forces necessary
>> to take Baghdad in a mere few weeks?
>
> After destroying every defense system for ten years from a safe
> distance and crying for the Security Council every time Iraq dared to
> even ATTEMPT to shoot back? The Belgian Army wouldn't have had any
> problems winning that war...

Right. That's why they sent so many Belgians into combat during OIF,
right?

>> Iran couldn't do it after ten years of trying and a million
>> dead.
>
> Thanks also to US weapons being sold to Iraq...

Right. As opposed to the 640,000 tons of Russian weapons that were sold to
Iraq, right?

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> Clue: They don't have to be in the Gulf to get the job done, should it
>> come to that.
>
> Depends on what the job IS, don't you agree? In case of a conflict, the
> USN would have to send ships into the straits to keep the sea lanes
> open - not necessarily carriers, of course, but frigates, destroyers
> and cruisers.
>
> Juergen Nieveler

Why?

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>>> Depends on what the job IS, don't you agree? In case of a conflict, the
>>> USN would have to send ships into the straits to keep the sea lanes
>>> open - not necessarily carriers, of course, but frigates, destroyers
>>> and cruisers.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because your good friends the Kuwaitis wouldn't be able to sell oil if
> the Straits are closed?

Like I said before, even if the Iranians succeeded in closing the straits,
they wouldn't be close for long. They tried it before and were
unsuccessful, if you recall.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>>> Care to check them and chart a course for tankers to leave the gulf
>>> without going through the straits? Keeping the sea lanes open IS the
>>> job of the USN.
>>
>> Says who?
>
> The CinC? Remember, the USN escorted tankers through the straits on the
> first gulf war, and even re-flagged tankers to US flag so that any
> attack against a Panamaian tanker would be an act of war against the
> USA.

Remember when the Iranians tried to close the straits during the Iran-Iraq
war? Weren't too successful, were they?

>> I find it very interesting the certain people demand that
>> we do such a thing and then tell us to "go home YANKIE". Yeah, we
>> might do that, if we are in the mood. Perhaps we should charge for
>> the service, eh? Say, a couple of billion per day ought to cover it.
>> What do yu thnk?
>
> I'd think that certain people in the oil industry would send lobbyists
> over to the Congress very fast... sad, but all too realistic.

They can send all the lobbysts they want, but I doubt we'd comply with
their wishes unless we could be certain of the safety of our fleet. And
that takes more than just boats in the water. It will take a hell of a lot
of air power, of which we are in abundant supply.

>> It isn't a matter of someonebeing crazy enough to use it. I think Iran
>> is crazy enough to try. It's a matter of whether it would even work.
>
> Quite probably, actually, at least the first time. Get a boat and
> slowly drive towards the US fleet until in range of the torpedo (and
> 10km ISN'T that close...) - at first the USN ship will warn you.

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat operations,
the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got anywhere near close
enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range. And just because the weapon
has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it can hit the broad side of a barn.
And even if Iran was successful in gettin through our defenses and striking
one of our ships, it wouold be the worst mistake they could ever make,
because all the stops would be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from
one end to the other.

> Then they'll send a helo to check you out. When the helo reaches you,
> fire
> the torpedo - and a supercavitating torpedo is fast enough to cover
> 10km before the target has the opportunity to turn away and get the
> Nixie between itself and the inbound fish.

You don't know much about Naval tactics, do you?

>>> Care to name a single countermeasure currently in service that will
>>> work against an unguided supercavitating torpedo with a time-fused
>>> nuclear warhead?
>>
>> Care to name the middle eastern country that has one of those? But
>> yes, there is a countermeasure. I'd telll you, but then, I'd have to
>> kill you.
>
> Iran has supercavitating torpedoes. As for the warheads, maybe they
> bought some from Russia, maybe not - care to bet your life on that?

Yes, actually, I would. For Russia to have sold nuclear warheads that fit
on the end of one of these torpedos would be about the dumbest thing they
could possiibly do, and would be the worst violation of the NNPT
imaginable. Russia is not going to risk WWIII on account of the Iranians.
They just aren't that in love with them.

> And no, the USN does NOT have any torpedo countermeasures besides
> Nixie. The anti-mine-system and its LIDAR targeting system are still
> under development, and would be hard-pressed to destroy a normal
> torpedo, let alone a supercavitating one.

You're missing the point. In order to hit one of our ships or subs with a
torpedo, Iran has to find them first, and they will never get close enough
to one to find them, much less target them.

>> If we get into a war with Iran, I suspect that they would use
>> everything they have to defeat us. I see no reason why they would
>> stop unless we destroyed their capability, which we are sure to do.
>
> As long as you understand that that war will only be over when you've
> killed the last citizen of Iran... look at how the wars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan aren't over yet.

Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

>> How long do you think Iran would be able to disrupt our supply lines,
>> if at all?
>
> Weeks? Months? All it takes is a couple of big minefields, and sinking
> a few ULCCs at choke points to block the channels.

Been there, done that. Recall the Iran-Iraq war, for examples. And what
makes you so sure that Iran has the capability to put together an effective
minefield?

>> Right. That's why they sent so many Belgians into combat during OIF,
>> right?
>
> They were sane enough not to do it. Iraq was better off under Saddam
> than it is now...

That's like saying that Germany would have been better off with Hitler.

>>> Thanks also to US weapons being sold to Iraq...
>>
>> Right. As opposed to the 640,000 tons of Russian weapons that were
>> sold to Iraq, right?
>
> Russia mainly sold to Iran, as a matter of fact - Iraq shopped in the
> West during the first Gulf War, they started buying Russian after the
> war with Iran was over.

As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was Russian.
During Gulf war I, our A-10s killed over 900 Iraqi tanks, all Russian-made.
And those were only a part of Iraq's tank forces. All told, the warthogs
destroyed over 1,200 Russian tanks and artillery pieces. Their airforce
was composed primarily of Russian MIGS and French Mirage. Their surface to
air defenses were composed primarily of Russian SAMs and anti-aircraft
artillery from both Russia and China. The standard issue rifles and
machine guns were all Russian-made, and still are. Iraq had scud missiles,
certainly NOT an American weapon. But don't take my word for it. Take a
close look at this graph:

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Russia, China, and France, were by far the largest weapons supplier to
Iraq. And don't forget, Chirac sold Saddam Hussein a ****ing Nuclear
reactor!

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> Like I said before, even if the Iranians succeeded in closing the
>> straits, they wouldn't be close for long. They tried it before and
>> were unsuccessful, if you recall.
>
> Even two to three weeks would be a major problem for world economy,
> though.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Shin: device for finding furniture in the dark.

They'll never be able to do it.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
.. .
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
>> operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
>> anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
>> And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
>> can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
>> gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
>> be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
>> be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.
>
> Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
> take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
> Afghanistan multiplied by 10...

You don't have to turn Iran into a rubble field to get them to cease and
desist. I think you overestimate the problem here. The problem is not
conquering Iran. Who said that was a goal? The problem is getting Iran to
stop their nazi tendencies and move back into the world community. Once
they have no economy left because their infrastructure is no more, they
will have no incentive to follow the Ayatollahs who got them in that
position in ther first place. When money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

>>> Then they'll send a helo to check you out. When the helo reaches you,
>>> fire
>>> the torpedo - and a supercavitating torpedo is fast enough to cover
>>> 10km before the target has the opportunity to turn away and get the
>>> Nixie between itself and the inbound fish.
>>
>> You don't know much about Naval tactics, do you?
>
> Actually I do - look at a map of the straits, and consider that there
> are lots of civilian boats out there, too. If you simply threaten to
> kill anybody on the water, you'll loose support of your allies on the
> sout bank of the straits very fast.

Have you ever considered the impact on Iran of closing the straits? If
Iran tried to close the straits, their own revenue would dry up literally
overnight. And far from losing allies, if Iran closed the straits, the
entire world would demand action against Iran.

>> You're missing the point. In order to hit one of our ships or subs
>> with a torpedo, Iran has to find them first, and they will never get
>> close enough to one to find them, much less target them.
>
> In the Straits, a couple of people with binoculars standing on the
> beach would be enough to find targets - ESPECIALLY if no civilian
> traffic would be allowed.

Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars that
can peer over the horizon, let us all know.


>> Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>
> You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

> Mahan, the greatest naval theoritician, said "the seat of purpose is on
> land" and that still holds true for the Navy and the air force today.
>
>> Been there, done that. Recall the Iran-Iraq war, for examples. And
>> what makes you so sure that Iran has the capability to put together an
>> effective minefield?
>
> What makes you so sure that they can't do that? Never fight the last
> war...

Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to comply
with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which they are a
signatory.

2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would have an
immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S. economy. The
world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

>> As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was
>> Russian.
>
> In 1991, during Gulf War II.

Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq up to
the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment, equipment
which is only five years old.

>> During Gulf war I, our A-10s killed over 900 Iraqi tanks, all
>> Russian-made. And those were only a part of Iraq's tank forces.
>
> Yes, but that was Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, they used AMX-tanks and
> Hughes-helos against Iran.

Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was
a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The History channel showed an
exposed on the A-10 just two days ago. The A-10 destroyed over 900 Iraqi
Russian-made tanks, and 1,200 tanks and artillery pieces in total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55#Iraq
a.. T-55 Enigma - T-55, Type-59, and Type-69 tanks used by Iraqi Brigade
commanders had appliqué armour on turrets and hulls composed of several
layers of spaced armour plates enclosed in steel boxes. Intended to, and in
many cases successful at defeating shaped charge warheads (one example is
reported to have survived several hits from Milan missiles before being
dispatched by a helicopter).
b.. T-55QM - had NATO-standard 105 mm L7 or M68 gun installed replacing
the old 100 mm gun, along with a French laser range-finder, upgrades done
in mid to late 1980s.
c.. T-55QM2 - T-55 upgraded by Soviet technicians with a Soviet 125
mm/L80 smoothbore gun and French laser range-finder, 1986-1991.
d.. Type 69-QM - Type 69 upgraded with NATO standard 105 mm gun and laser
range-finder, 1984-1988.
e.. Type 69-QM2 - Type 69 upgraded with Warsaw Pact standard 125 mm/L80
smoothbore gun and laser rangefinder, 1986-1991.
The helicopters the U.S. sold to Iraq were for civilian purposes. Whether
or not they converted them for military use is irrelevant. They were not
sold to them with weapons packages.

>> Russia, China, and France, were by far the largest weapons supplier to
>> Iraq. And don't forget, Chirac sold Saddam Hussein a ****ing Nuclear
>> reactor!
>
> And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. Your
> point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all other
petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what Saddam
Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can control what I
would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to think that Iraq's
chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or nerve gas? Any college
chemistry student could make this stuff.

George

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
Juergen Nieveler > wrote:
>"George" > wrote:
>
>> This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
>> operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
>> anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
>> And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
>> can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
>> gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
>> be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
>> be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.
>
>Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
>take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
>Afghanistan multiplied by 10...


Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.

The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
population turn against it's leaders.

The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
and attack as the Iraq ADF was.

Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
bunker busters, as used in Iraq.

The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
war.

Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>> back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>> because their
>> infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>> Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>> money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>
> Explain Afghanistan, then...

Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger
percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the
last 100 years. NEXT.


>> Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
>> that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>
> Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
> map THIS TIME, will you?
>

Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.

>>>> Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>
>>> You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>
>> Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>
> You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
> at Iraq or Afghanistan...

Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.

>> Because,
>> 1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>> comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>> they are a signatory.
>
> Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
> against nations having nuclear weapons.

I suggest you read the NNPT.

>> 2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>> have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>> economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>
> But they wouldn't agree with a war either.

If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will
change, and heads will roll.

>> Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>> up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>> equipment which is only five years old.
>
> No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
> 80s.

I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was
still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.

>> Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>> I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>
> That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
> Gulf War I.

Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.

>>> And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>> Your point being?
>>
>> Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
>> other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>> petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>> other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>> Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>> control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>> think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>> nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>
> I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
> weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
> could order said cultures).

Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell
the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The
cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't
control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years
ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax.
The anthrax came from a british lab.

> And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
> Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
> the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.

You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually
sold and had it built it for him.

George

[George]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Juergen Nieveler > wrote:
>>"George" > wrote:
>>
>>> This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
>>> operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
>>> anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
>>> And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
>>> can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
>>> gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
>>> be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
>>> be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.
>>
>>Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
>>take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
>>Afghanistan multiplied by 10...
>
>
> Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.
>
> The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
> Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
> population turn against it's leaders.
>
> The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
> and attack as the Iraq ADF was.

Iraq's auir defense wasn't under embargo until right before the first Gulf
war. ANd if you will note, only a handful of American planes were shot
down during that war.

> Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
> attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
> bunker busters, as used in Iraq.
>
> The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
> war.

But then, the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate us.

> Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
> That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.

Iran is already making a lot of trouble for us - in Iraq.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
.. .
> (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>> Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
>> That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.
>
> Not to mention a general Shiite uprising in Iraq, which would make life
> even worse for the US troops there.

The problem with that argument is that Pakistan is primarily Sunni, not
Shiite. They don't like the Shiites any more than the Shiites like them.
There are ongoing conflicts between the two sects in Pakistan. Pakistan
would never rise up in support of Iran.

George

[Dean A. Markley]

George wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>"George" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>> back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>> because their
>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>
>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>
>
> Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger
> percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the
> last 100 years. NEXT.
>
>
>
>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>
>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>
>
>
> Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>
>
>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>
>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>
>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>
>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>
>
> Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
> useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
> nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>
>
>>>Because,
>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>they are a signatory.
>>
>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>
>
> I suggest you read the NNPT.
>
>
>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>
>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>
>
> If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will
> change, and heads will roll.
>
>
>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>
>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>80s.
>
>
> I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
> composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was
> still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>
>
>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>
>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>Gulf War I.
>
>
> Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>
>
>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>Your point being?
>>>
>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>
>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>could order said cultures).
>
>
> Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
> biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
> British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell
> the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The
> cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't
> control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years
> ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax.
> The anthrax came from a british lab.
>
>
>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>
>
> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
> Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually
> sold and had it built it for him.
>
> George
>
>
Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean

[George]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article <pIT%f.895375$x96.409847@attbi_s72>,
> George > wrote:
>>
>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> Juergen Nieveler > wrote:
>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
>>>>> operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
>>>>> anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
>>>>> And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
>>>>> can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
>>>>> gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
>>>>> be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops
>>>>> would
>>>>> be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.
>>>>
>>>>Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
>>>>take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
>>>>Afghanistan multiplied by 10...
>>>
>>>
>>> Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.
>>>
>>> The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
>>> Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
>>> population turn against it's leaders.
>>>
>>> The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
>>> and attack as the Iraq ADF was.
>>
>>Iraq's auir defense wasn't under embargo until right before the first
>>Gulf
>>war. ANd if you will note, only a handful of American planes were shot
>>down during that war.
>>
>>> Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
>>> attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
>>> bunker busters, as used in Iraq.
>>>
>>> The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
>>> war.
>>
>>But then, the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate us.
>
>
>
> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the Iran-Iraq
war?

> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
> and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

> it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of
> Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia.

That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

George

[John Keeney]

George wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
> > Yes, but that was Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, they used AMX-tanks and

AMX tanks are French, nobody ever said they didn't sell to Iraq.

> > Hughes-helos against Iran.

A dual use bird sold under a civil use export license. That's not to
say there are not reports that some of them found their way to
military use.

> Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was
> a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The History channel showed an
> exposed on the A-10 just two days ago. The A-10 destroyed over 900 Iraqi
> Russian-made tanks, and 1,200 tanks and artillery pieces in total:

Russian design I guess, but perhaps we should say "Warsaw Pack built
tanks". I think the bulk came from other than USSR factories; not to
say they weren't approved for shipment.

[James H. Hood]

Juergen Nieveler > wrote in message
.. .

> > As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was
> > Russian.
>
> In 1991, during Gulf War II.

And after.....he didn't replace his hardware with Western items.

> And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.

You don't need "recipes" for that.

[Al Dykes]

In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
George > wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
....

>>
>>
>>
>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.
>
>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been for
>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the Iran-Iraq
>war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes thinsg worse
and more complicated.

>
>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
>> and not appreciated.
>
>Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
>originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

The Grampa Saud cut a deal with an obscure sect, the Wahabi, to create
and control what we now know as Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi#Modern_spread_of_Wahhabism

>
>> it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of
>> Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia.
>
>That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many of
>the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

For people with an interest about the (mostly) innocent people of
Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan I highly recommend a recent
book about Mortenson. He's built, as of the writing of the book, more
than 50 village schools, frequently where the construcion material had
to be carried in by porters. He's had two fatwas issued against him
and local Imams refered them to their vatican (Qum, Iran) and in both
cases they were annulled. He writes about the Wahabi Taliban schools
that are being built in competition.

Three Cups of Tea - Mortenson & Relin





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[George]

"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
...
> George wrote:
>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>> back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>> because their
>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>
>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>
>>
>> Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>> larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>> election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>
>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>
>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>
>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>
>>
>> Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
>> useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
>> nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>
>>
>>>>Because,
>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>
>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>
>>
>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>
>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>
>>
>> If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>> will change, and heads will roll.
>>
>>
>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>
>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>80s.
>>
>>
>> I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>> composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>> was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>
>>
>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>
>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>Gulf War I.
>>
>>
>> Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>
>>
>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>
>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>
>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>could order said cultures).
>>
>>
>> Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>> biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
>> British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
>> sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
>> The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
>> don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
>> few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>> culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>
>>
>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>
>>
>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>> Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>> actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>
>> George
> Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
> things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
> materials with any efficiency.
>
> Dean

Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

[George]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
> George > wrote:
>>
>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.
>>
>>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
>>for
>>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
>>Iran-Iraq
>>war?
>
> yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
> US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
> to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes thinsg
> worse
> and more complicated.

Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in the
last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
could make you so delusional?

>>
>>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
>>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
>>> and not appreciated.
>>
>>Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
>>originated in Pakistan.
>
> No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
> Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
> with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
> mine.

Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.

>>That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
>>of
>>the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.
>
> NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
> The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
> Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was supported
by the Pakistan secret service.

> There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
> planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
fought against Islamic extremists.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "James H. Hood" > wrote:
>
>>> And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>
>> You don't need "recipes" for that.
>
> If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
> people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
> researching most basic stuff, for example how long you could store a
> chemical bomb, which sealants to use to prevent it from leaking, which
> type of explosive to use to disperse anthrax spores without killing
> them, etc... not to mention advanced technologies like binary weapons.

All of which can be done by technicians in a laboratory. Aand Saddam had
plenty of them. But you know, when one of your conspiray theories is shot
down, you can always move the goal post and make up another.

George

[Andrew Venor]

George wrote:
> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>>"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>>back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>>because their
>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>>larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>>election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>
>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>
>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>
>>>
>>>Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
>>>useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
>>>nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Because,
>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>
>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>
>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>
>>>
>>>If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>>>will change, and heads will roll.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>
>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>>80s.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>>>composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>>>was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>
>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>
>>>
>>>Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>>>biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
>>>British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
>>>sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
>>>The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
>>>don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
>>>few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>>>culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>>>Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>>>actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>
>>>George
>>
>>Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>>things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>>materials with any efficiency.
>>
>>Dean
>
>
> Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
> religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>
> George
>
>

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured
in the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

[George]

"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
...
> George wrote:
>> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>>>back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>>>because their
>>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>>>larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>>>election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
>>>>>>binoculars
>>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
>>>>>Look
>>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
>>>>and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
>>>>there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Because,
>>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
>>>>>law
>>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>>
>>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>>>>will change, and heads will roll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>>
>>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>>>80s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>>>>composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>>>>was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
>>>>>>many
>>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>>>>biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
>>>>as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
>>>>labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
>>>>France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
>>>>acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
>>>>a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>>>>culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>>>> Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>>>> actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>
>>>Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>>>things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>>>materials with any efficiency.
>>>
>>>Dean
>>
>>
>> Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
>> religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>>
>> George
>
> True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
> lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
> enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
> twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
> the attack as well.
>
> That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
> delivering chemical weapons.
>
> ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
their disposal?

George

[Al Dykes]

In article <1R70g.926826$xm3.896576@attbi_s21>,
George > wrote:
>
>"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
...
>> George wrote:
>>> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>> back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>> because their
>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>> larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>> election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>
>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>
>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
>>> useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
>>> nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Because,
>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>
>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>
>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>
>>>
>>> If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>>> will change, and heads will roll.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>
>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>>80s.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>>> composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>>> was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>
>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>>> biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
>>> British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs
>>> sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France.
>>> The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we
>>> don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a
>>> few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>>> culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>>> Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>>> actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>
>>> George
>> Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>> things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>> materials with any efficiency.
>>
>> Dean
>
>Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
>religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>
>George
>

Yup

http://www.japan-101.com/culture/sarin_gas_attack_on_the_tokyo_su.htm

In 1984, hundreds of people in The Dalles, Oregon became ill with
food poisoning. Local, state and federal disease detectives slowly
unraveled the medical mystery. Along with a unique strain of
bacteria, they discovered a religious cult's bizarre plot to
overthrow the government
http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/forensicfiles/episodes/109.html

We also had an anthrax attack that killed a couple people (?) and
made a few more sick.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[Al Dykes]

In article <Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21>,
George > wrote:
>
>"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
...
>> George wrote:
>>> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>>>>back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>>>>because their
>>>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>>>>larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>>>>election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
>>>>>>>binoculars
>>>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
>>>>>>Look
>>>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
>>>>>and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
>>>>>there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because,
>>>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
>>>>>>law
>>>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>>>>>will change, and heads will roll.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>>>>80s.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>>>>>composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>>>>>was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>>>>>biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
>>>>>as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
>>>>>labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
>>>>>France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
>>>>>acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
>>>>>a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>>>>>culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>>>>> Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>>>>> actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>
>>>>Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>>>>things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>>>>materials with any efficiency.
>>>>
>>>>Dean
>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
>>> religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
>> lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
>> enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
>> twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
>> the attack as well.
>>
>> That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
>> delivering chemical weapons.
>>
>> ALV
>
>The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
>effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
>their disposal?


That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.






--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[Andrew Venor]

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21>,
> George > wrote:
>
>>"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>>>>>back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>>>>>because their
>>>>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
>>>>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
>>>>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>>>>>larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>>>>>election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
>>>>>>>>binoculars
>>>>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
>>>>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
>>>>>>>Look
>>>>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
>>>>>>and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
>>>>>>there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because,
>>>>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
>>>>>>>law
>>>>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads
>>>>>>will change, and heads will roll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
>>>>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
>>>>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
>>>>>>>80s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
>>>>>>composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and
>>>>>>was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
>>>>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
>>>>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
>>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
>>>>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
>>>>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
>>>>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
>>>>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
>>>>>>biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well
>>>>>>as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S.
>>>>>>labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and
>>>>>>France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric
>>>>>>acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was
>>>>>>a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally
>>>>>>culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
>>>>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
>>>>>>Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and
>>>>>>actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>George
>>>>>
>>>>>Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>>>>>things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>>>>>materials with any efficiency.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
>>>>religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>
>>>True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
>>>lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded
>>>enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill
>>>twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in
>>>the attack as well.
>>>
>>>That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
>>>delivering chemical weapons.
>>>
>>>ALV
>>
>>The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
>>effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
>>their disposal?
>
>
>
> That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
> some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.

They put much thought into producing the sarin. Fortunately they
didn't put too much thought into the delivery system. The Aum Shinrikyo
could have caused many more fatalities if they had released the weapon
using aerosol cans.

ALV

[James H. Hood]

Juergen Nieveler > wrote in message
. ..
> "James H. Hood" > wrote:
>
> >> And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
> >
> > You don't need "recipes" for that.
>
> If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
> people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
> researching most basic stuff

No, you obtain the documentation and hire some expertise.

[George]

"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
...
> Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> In article <Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21>,
>> George > wrote:
>>
>>>"Andrew Venor" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in
>>>>>>>message . ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"George" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
>>>>>>>>>back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
>>>>>>>>>because their
>>>>>>>>>infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place.
>>>>>>>>>When
>>>>>>>>>money talks, people walk. It's a fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Explain Afghanistan, then...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
>>>>>>>larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
>>>>>>>election in the last 100 years. NEXT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
>>>>>>>>>binoculars
>>>>>>>>>that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>map THIS TIME, will you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who said anything about conquering Iran?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
>>>>>>>>Look
>>>>>>>>at Iraq or Afghanistan...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
>>>>>>>and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
>>>>>>>there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because,
>>>>>>>>>1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
>>>>>>>>>comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
>>>>>>>>>they are a signatory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
>>>>>>>>law
>>>>>>>>against nations having nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suggest you read the NNPT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
>>>>>>>>>have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But they wouldn't agree with a war either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that
>>>>>>>heads will change, and heads will roll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to
>>>>>>>>>Iraq
>>>>>>>>>up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming
>>>>>>>>>equipment,
>>>>>>>>>equipment which is only five years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>80s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which
>>>>>>>was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the
>>>>>>>1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to
>>>>>>>the present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf
>>>>>>>>>War
>>>>>>>>>I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is
>>>>>>>>called
>>>>>>>>Gulf War I.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
>>>>>>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
>>>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>>>other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all,
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like
>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control
>>>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
>>>>>>>>>control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
>>>>>>>>>nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
>>>>>>>>weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and
>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>could order said cultures).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq
>>>>>>>received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate
>>>>>>>laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories.
>>>>>>>Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many
>>>>>>>countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for
>>>>>>>medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end
>>>>>>>product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here
>>>>>>>in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The
>>>>>>>anthrax came from a british lab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
>>>>>>>>Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to
>>>>>>>>make
>>>>>>>>the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But
>>>>>>> then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear
>>>>>>> reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>George
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
>>>>>>things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
>>>>>>materials with any efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dean
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
>>>>>religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>
>>>>True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
>>>>lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the
>>>>crowded enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to
>>>>kill twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were
>>>>injured in the attack as well.
>>>>
>>>>That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
>>>>delivering chemical weapons.
>>>>
>>>>ALV
>>>
>>>The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
>>>effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money
>>>at their disposal?
>>
>>
>>
>> That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
>> some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.
>
> They put much thought into producing the sarin. Fortunately they didn't
> put too much thought into the delivery system. The Aum Shinrikyo could
> have caused many more fatalities if they had released the weapon using
> aerosol cans.
>
> ALV

They also puit a lot of thought into producing mustard gas, a fact with
which the Kurds and Iranians are all too familiar.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>> We also had an anthrax attack that killed a couple people (?) and
>> made a few more sick.
>
> IIRC the Anthrax spores used in that attack were ground so finely that
> experts suggested they might have been produced for military tests,
> correct?
>
> Juergen Nieveler

The fact is that noone knows who conducted those attacks, nor exactly where
the anthrax came from.

George

[George]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article <3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22>,
> George > wrote:
>>
>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
>>> George > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
>>>>> mostly.
>>>>
>>>>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
>>>>for
>>>>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
>>>>Iran-Iraq
>>>>war?
>>>
>>> yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
>>> US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
>>> to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
>>> thinsg
>>> worse
>>> and more complicated.
>>
>>Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
>>the
>>last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
>>could make you so delusional?
>>
>
> Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
> The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
> don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
> to share.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
>>>>> and
>>>>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
>>>>> and not appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
>>>>originated in Pakistan.
>>>
>>> No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
>>> Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
>>> with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
>>> mine.
>>
>>Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.
>
> But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.
>
>
>>
>>>>That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
>>>>of
>>>>the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.
>>>
>>> NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
>>> The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
>>> Pakistani kids to hate Americans.
>>
>>Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
>>supported
>>by the Pakistan secret service.
>
> True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
> have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
> bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
> route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
> very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
> and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
> their own tribe on their own turf, etc.
>
>>
>>> There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
>>> planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.
>>
>>Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
>>fought against Islamic extremists.
>>
>
>
> Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
> wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.
>
> For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
> non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.
>

Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."

Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today, the
vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In
other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
peace", eh?

George

[James H. Hood]

Juergen Nieveler > wrote in message
. ..
> "James H. Hood" > wrote:
>
> >> If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills
> >> people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time
> >> researching most basic stuff
> >
> > No, you obtain the documentation and hire some expertise.
>
> IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
> Union

Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George" > wrote:
>
>> The fact is that noone knows who conducted those attacks, nor exactly
>> where the anthrax came from.
>
> I know - however, there were some reports that the Anthrax in those
> cases was extremely finely ground, and treated in a way to prevent it
> from clotting up. With military Anthrax this was done to prevent it
> from clogging up the dispensers on aircraft doing a laydown of agent,
> and to make sure the spores stay airborne and get far enough into the
> lungs. Anthrax used for medical research apparently would have looked
> different - hence the (conspiracy) theory that the stuff was stolen in
> a military lab like Fort Detrick.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Flirtation - attention without intention.

Well, everyone has a conspiracy theory these days, right? Rumours don't
equal reality.

George

[George]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "James H. Hood" > wrote:
>
>>> IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
>>> Union
>>
>> Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.
>
> Yep. If you have to decide between starvation and working for dubious
> (at best) governments, what would you choose? ;-)
>
> I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
> to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
> somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws

Instead of wondering, why don't you ask them?

George

[James H. Hood]

Juergen Nieveler > wrote in message
. ..

> I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
> to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
> somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...

Yes, indeed.....there is a program funded specifically for the purpose of
keeping these people gainfully employed in research and applied medicine,
and out of the clutches of those who are looking for weapons.

[Al Dykes]

In article <V%v0g.686871$084.317070@attbi_s22>,
George > wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22>,
>> George > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
>>>> George > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
>>>>>> mostly.
>>>>>
>>>>>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
>>>>>for
>>>>>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
>>>>>Iran-Iraq
>>>>>war?
>>>>
>>>> yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
>>>> US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
>>>> to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
>>>> thinsg
>>>> worse
>>>> and more complicated.
>>>
>>>Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
>>>the
>>>last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
>>>could make you so delusional?
>>>
>>
>> Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
>> The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
>> don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
>> to share.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
>>>>>> and not appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
>>>>>originated in Pakistan.
>>>>
>>>> No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
>>>> Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
>>>> with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
>>>> mine.
>>>
>>>Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.
>>
>> But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
>>>>>of
>>>>>the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.
>>>>
>>>> NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
>>>> The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
>>>> Pakistani kids to hate Americans.
>>>
>>>Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
>>>supported
>>>by the Pakistan secret service.
>>
>> True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
>> have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
>> bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
>> route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
>> very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
>> and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
>> their own tribe on their own turf, etc.
>>
>>>
>>>> There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
>>>> planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.
>>>
>>>Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
>>>fought against Islamic extremists.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
>> wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.
>>
>> For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
>> non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.
>>
>
>Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
>wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."
>
>Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today, the
>vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In

You're right. I typed too fast.

>other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
>intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
>peace", eh?
>

Sorry, but I disagree, more or less. When you come up with the list I
think we'll see thay can almost all be described as local
nationalistic revolts bu Muslim minorities.

Got a list of the 20? I'm not arguing but I like to see these things.

Almost all of the movements stay close to home. AQ and it's close
relatives are the exception. these local revolts can give cover and
aid to AQ, but an ignorant Maylasian villager isn't going to pass the
giggle test if he tries live in the US as an undercover terrorist.

All but a couple of the people that did the bombing in the US, England
and Spain were westernized educated middle class muslims. OBL is
western-educated, as is his mentor, teh Egyptian whatsisname.







--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
Juergen Nieveler > wrote:
>"James H. Hood" > wrote:
>
>>> IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
>>> Union
>>
>> Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.
>
>Yep. If you have to decide between starvation and working for dubious
>(at best) governments, what would you choose? ;-)
>
>I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
>to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
>somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...
>


yes, until Bush was elected. Nunn Lugar legislation was enacted in
1991 and was well funded for 10 years to buy Russian Bad **** to take
it off the market and to pay the saleries of Russian scientists to to
Good Stuff and not turn to the dark side. Bush ahsbeen cutting back
the funding.

http://nunn-lugar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn-Lugar

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/cnwm_home.asp

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[George]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article <V%v0g.686871$084.317070@attbi_s22>,
> George > wrote:
>>
>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article <3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22>,
>>> George > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
>>>>> George > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
>>>>>>> mostly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
>>>>>>Iran-Iraq
>>>>>>war?
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that
>>>>> the
>>>>> US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
>>>>> to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
>>>>> thinsg
>>>>> worse
>>>>> and more complicated.
>>>>
>>>>Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
>>>>the
>>>>last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
>>>>could make you so delusional?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
>>> The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
>>> don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
>>> to share.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to
>>>>>>> Pakistan
>>>>>>> and not appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
>>>>>>originated in Pakistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
>>>>> Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
>>>>> with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
>>>>> mine.
>>>>
>>>>Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.
>>>
>>> But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and
>>>>>>many
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.
>>>>>
>>>>> NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
>>>>> The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
>>>>> Pakistani kids to hate Americans.
>>>>
>>>>Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
>>>>supported
>>>>by the Pakistan secret service.
>>>
>>> True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
>>> have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
>>> bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
>>> route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
>>> very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
>>> and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
>>> their own tribe on their own turf, etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
>>>>> planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.
>>>>
>>>>Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are
>>>>bing
>>>>fought against Islamic extremists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
>>> wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.
>>>
>>> For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
>>> non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.
>>>
>>
>>Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
>>wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."
>>
>>Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today,
>>the
>>vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In
>
> You're right. I typed too fast.
>
>>other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
>>intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
>>peace", eh?
>>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree, more or less. When you come up with the list I
> think we'll see thay can almost all be described as local
> nationalistic revolts bu Muslim minorities.
> Got a list of the 20? I'm not arguing but I like to see these things.

That list has been posted all over usenet, put there by myself and others.
I suggest you do a search. Having said that, it is quite easy to come up
with it own your own. Try it.

> Almost all of the movements stay close to home. AQ and it's close
> relatives are the exception. these local revolts can give cover and
> aid to AQ, but an ignorant Maylasian villager isn't going to pass the
> giggle test if he tries live in the US as an undercover terrorist.

Umm, non-sequitur, since I've suggested nothing even remotely similar to
this.

> All but a couple of the people that did the bombing in the US, England
> and Spain were westernized educated middle class muslims. OBL is
> western-educated, as is his mentor, teh Egyptian whatsisname.

Muslims, nonetheless. "In other words, these wars are being fought against
Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions".

[Froggy]

Juergen Nieveler a écrit :

> All in all, an attack against Iran wouldn't achieve anything but a
> large escalation in the conflict between Western countries and Islam,
> since the US lack the forces necessary to successfully invade and
> control Iran.

Unfortunately, the alternative (sitting still and watch Iran develop a
nuclear arsenal) is not too exciting either.

I believe that one of the many negative consequences of the invasion of
Iraq is that it made military intervention against Iran highly
implausible. Not that I would be looking forward to it, but a credible
military threat might have helped achieving a peaceful diplomatic
solution.

Now there is not much that one can do to stop Iran, they know it, and
act accordingly.

Cheers,

Froggy

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:

>But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
>while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?
>
>Juergen Nieveler

The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
the horizon can be thwarted.

Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
governments and arguably rationale leadership.

Then, examine Iran. Democracy? No. Rationality? No. Realistically
threatened? No. Requiring nukes for defense? No. Confrontational? Yes.
Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
corked is immeasurably easier.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Froggy]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> "Froggy" > wrote:
>
> >> All in all, an attack against Iran wouldn't achieve anything but a
> >> large escalation in the conflict between Western countries and Islam,
> >> since the US lack the forces necessary to successfully invade and
> >> control Iran.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the alternative (sitting still and watch Iran develop a
> > nuclear arsenal) is not too exciting either.
>
> But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
> while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Ideally one woud like to see a world free of nuclear weapons, something
even famous peacenicks such as Robert McNamara agree to. Having more
countries building nuclear arsenals does not strike me as a way to
achieve this.

Now I would agree with you that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a very
significant risk, especially when one considers the tension with India,
and the weight of islamists in Pakistan.

Cheers,

Froggy

[Froggy]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> > wrote:
>
> >But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
> >while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?
> >
> >Juergen Nieveler
>
> The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
> and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
> the horizon can be thwarted.
>
> Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
> world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
> India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
> Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
> deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
> governments and arguably rationale leadership.

You seriously believe that Pakistan is a proper democracy?

> Then, examine Iran.

> Democracy? No.
Well, more than in Saudi Arabia for instance.

>Rationality? No.
So far they behave in a rational manner.They saw an opportunity and
seized it.

> Realistically threatened? No.
Not even by the US?

> Requiring nukes for defense? No.
See above.

> Confrontational? Yes.
> Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

> Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
> corked is immeasurably easier.

Agreed.

Now the problem is how to achieve this.

Cheers,

Froggy

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> > wrote:
>
> >But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
> >while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?
> >
> >Juergen Nieveler
>
> The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
> and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
> the horizon can be thwarted.
>
> Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
> world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
> India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
> Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
> deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
> governments and arguably rationale leadership.

Musharraf was democratically elected??!!

> Then, examine Iran. Democracy? No.

Pakistan ditto, currently and throughout most of its history.

> Rationality? No.

Ed, it's possible (I don't say likely, but possible) that Pakistan is one
assassination away from becoming a fundamentalist Islamic state. And even
if they don't, let's remember which country proliferated nuclear weapons
design and components around the muslim world. Oh, but that was done by a
renegade, and the government had absolutely no knowledge of his activities
despite his numerous trips to other countries on PAF a/c, which also
transported much of the material he was selling. But let's get back to
the great deal I can offer you on that bridge in Brooklyn.

> Realistically
> threatened? No.

Iran certainly consider themselves threatened by us which is all that
matters (and they've got evidence right next door of our turning words
into action against one of the states along the Axis of Evil). Just as we
felt threatened by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and consequently
built up a huge nuclear arsenal, far larger than one needed to deter an
attack. And the FSU did the same, despite both countries being run by
'rational' leaders who knew full well that nuclear war meant mutual
suicide.

> Requiring nukes for defense? No.

That's rather a matter of opinion The fact remains that the US hasn't and
isn't about to attack any nuclear-capable state, especially one with any
chance of hitting the US, for any reason short of national survival (or
at least the perception of it). OTOH, we've demonstrated repeatedly that
we will attack non-nuclear states for much less compelling reasons. Let's
face it, having nukes makes everyone treat you with more respect. After
all, the Soviet Union was fairly accurately described as Upper Volta with
missiles, and our attititude towards both China and Russia would be a hell
of a lot different if they didn't have the bomb, now wouldn't it? And I
haven't seen us take out North Korea, either, the third leg of the Axis of
Evil, despite far more provocation than Iran has given us. Could it be
that their nukes (or the threat of them) has affected ourwillingness to
take decisive action?

> Confrontational? Yes.

Sure, with us and Israel. It's not as if they have any reason to like us.

> Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

Kind of like the US with the PIRA in the '70s and '80s. Oh, but the
government didn't officially sponsor them, so as long as it wasn't public
money that made it okay. Sort of like the Saudis with Al Qaeda; that
doesn't bother us at all. And our support of the mujahideen in
Afghanistan wasn't supporting terrorism, because as long as they're on our
side they're "freedom fighters"?

> Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
> corked is immeasurably easier.

Likely a bit late for that, I think, short of an all-out attack. And our
credibility as a champion of non-proliferation (translation: those of us
what's already got it want to keep it to ourselves) is rather ragged, and
has been ever since Israel got the bomb. The deal with India just makes
our pushing non-proliferation on anyone else even more hypocritical. Iran
has every right to develop nuclear power, and the bomb, if they wish. Do
I want to see head cases like their current president with it? Hell, no.
But then he doesn't control the military, the mullahs do, and it doesn't
appear to me that too many of them are in a hurry to collect their virgins
if it means the destruction of Iran. Of course, it may only take a few in
the right (or wrong) positions.

Guy

[Froggy]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip excellent overview of the situation>

> > Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
> > corked is immeasurably easier.
>
> Likely a bit late for that, I think, short of an all-out attack. And our
> credibility as a champion of non-proliferation (translation: those of us
> what's already got it want to keep it to ourselves) is rather ragged, and
> has been ever since Israel got the bomb. The deal with India just makes
> our pushing non-proliferation on anyone else even more hypocritical. Iran
> has every right to develop nuclear power, and the bomb, if they wish. Do
> I want to see head cases like their current president with it? Hell, no.
> But then he doesn't control the military, the mullahs do, and it doesn't
> appear to me that too many of them are in a hurry to collect their virgins
> if it means the destruction of Iran. Of course, it may only take a few in
> the right (or wrong) positions.

I just hope you are correct in your assessment and that the mullahs are
as rational as you describe, since apparently some form of MAD all that
is left to keep Iran in check. It worked during the cold war, but there
were some scary moments. And the higher the number of people playing
the game, the higher the chances of an accident happening...

Cheers (?)

Froggy

Of course the fact that it will no longer be possible to threaten then
with military intervention will also give them a much frer re

[Guy Alcala]

Froggy wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> <snip excellent overview of the situation>
>
> > > Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
> > > corked is immeasurably easier.
> >
> > Likely a bit late for that, I think, short of an all-out attack. And our
> > credibility as a champion of non-proliferation (translation: those of us
> > what's already got it want to keep it to ourselves) is rather ragged, and
> > has been ever since Israel got the bomb. The deal with India just makes
> > our pushing non-proliferation on anyone else even more hypocritical. Iran
> > has every right to develop nuclear power, and the bomb, if they wish. Do
> > I want to see head cases like their current president with it? Hell, no.
> > But then he doesn't control the military, the mullahs do, and it doesn't
> > appear to me that too many of them are in a hurry to collect their virgins
> > if it means the destruction of Iran. Of course, it may only take a few in
> > the right (or wrong) positions.
>
> I just hope you are correct in your assessment and that the mullahs are
> as rational as you describe, since apparently some form of MAD all that
> is left to keep Iran in check. It worked during the cold war, but there
> were some scary moments. And the higher the number of people playing
> the game, the higher the chances of an accident happening...
>
> Cheers (?)

I hope I'm right too, because I really don't see many other options. ISTM that
as long as we've got the military tied down in Iraq, "George and Don's Excellent
Adventure: The Sequel" will have to remain on hold, and quite frankly, even
assuming that Republicans remain in control of Congress, any attempt to provide
evidence for and justification of such a conflict would face a massive wall of
legislative skepticism, no matter how damning the evidence. And this time I
expect we could forget about there even being a Coalition of the Bought to help
us.

Our intell was hopelessly off about Iraq's WMD program, and you just don't
instantly conjure up the massive level of Humint we'd need to have a reasonable
shot at identifying and then knocking out a wide-spread, clandestine nuclear
program like Iran might have.

Of course, some other country(s) in the region (cough) with more robust Humint
capabilities may be willing to help us in that line, as taking out an Iranian
program would suit their interest. But we can't expect perfect intell
regardless.

When it comes right down to it, maybe our best hope is that the mullahs really
mean it when they say that nuclear weapons are totally against Islam.
Personally, I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny quite a few years
ago, but people do have a tendency to mirror image and assume the other side's
thought processes are identical to their own, as a history of US/Soviet
relations during the Cold War will demonstrate. So, how much risk of being wrong
are we willing to accept?

Guy

[Joe Delphi]

"Froggy" > wrote in message
ups.com...


>I believe that one of the many negative consequences of the invasion of
>Iraq is that it made military intervention against Iran highly
>implausible.

I doubt the Iranians see it that way. The occupation of Afghanistan and
Iran means that Iran is now surrounded on the East and West by United States
military forces. Now would not be the proper time for Iran to start acting
belligerently towards other countries. I wonder how Iran would be behaving
if the US was not surrounding them on the East and the West?


JD

[Ian Stirling]

In rec.aviation.military.naval wrote:
> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> "George" > wrote:
>>
>> > Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
>> > technologies, such as sonar)
> So, this brings us to radar. Typical modern radar frequencies run from
<snip>

> In practice, most ASW radar are X-band or thereabouts (~10 GHz). With a
> seawater attenuation of 1000 ~ 2000 dB/m, they are useless for
> penetrating seawater, but the 3cm wavelength means they are able to
> detect periscopes and snorkels.

However.
Absolutely nothing moves that fast in nature.
I would not be astounded if fancy post-processing of the sea-surface
reflection could pick out the wake.
At least in some conditions.

[zax.victen.com]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article <DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72>,
> George > wrote:
>>
>>"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting, mostly.
>>
>>They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
>>for
>>quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
>>Iran-Iraq
>>war?
>
> yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
> US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
> to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes thinsg
> worse
> and more complicated.
>
>>
>>> Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes and
>>> they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
>>> and not appreciated.
>>
You fuc...in lying muslim.....pakistannies slaughtered begladeshies in the
100 thousands.
And the west had to feed them.You lying ******* muslim.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article >,
Ian Stirling > wrote:

> In rec.aviation.military.naval wrote:
> > Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> >> "George" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
> >> > technologies, such as sonar)
> > So, this brings us to radar. Typical modern radar frequencies run from
> <snip>
>
> > In practice, most ASW radar are X-band or thereabouts (~10 GHz). With a
> > seawater attenuation of 1000 ~ 2000 dB/m, they are useless for
> > penetrating seawater, but the 3cm wavelength means they are able to
> > detect periscopes and snorkels.
>
> However.
> Absolutely nothing moves that fast in nature.
> I would not be astounded if fancy post-processing of the sea-surface
> reflection could pick out the wake.
> At least in some conditions.

It would take sea-state 0, do you know what that means?

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Ian Stirling]

In sci.military.naval Ralph E Lindberg > wrote:
> In article >,
> Ian Stirling > wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.military.naval wrote:
>> > Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> >> "George" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
>> >> > technologies, such as sonar)
>> > So, this brings us to radar. Typical modern radar frequencies run from
>> <snip>
>>
>> > In practice, most ASW radar are X-band or thereabouts (~10 GHz). With a
>> > seawater attenuation of 1000 ~ 2000 dB/m, they are useless for
>> > penetrating seawater, but the 3cm wavelength means they are able to
>> > detect periscopes and snorkels.
>>
>> However.
>> Absolutely nothing moves that fast in nature.
>> I would not be astounded if fancy post-processing of the sea-surface
>> reflection could pick out the wake.
>> At least in some conditions.
>
> It would take sea-state 0, do you know what that means?

Millpond-like I'd assume.

Given that subs have been picked up this way, it seems to be
fundamentally possible.
I suspect that in many sea conditions, the frequencies of interest are going
to be quite similar to the peaks frequencies generated by waves is going to
make the processing rather horrible.
And of course, for torpedos under a certain depth/speed/volume/...
ceiling, they are going to be increasingly hard to pick up.


Not to mention the whole fact that it'd be really best to use radar from
overhead, for best vertical resolution.

It's gonna be trivial to find a supercavitating torpedo a diameter below
the surface.
(not to mention the porpoising).
I suppose down to maybe 8 diameters, you'll see massive surface effects,
not to mention the bubble trail.
Somewhere beyond that it'll be tricky.

Is there a limit to the size of supercavitating projectiles?
Supercavitating subs would be just cool, though of course with very
limited endurance.
Hmm. Supercavitating nuclear powered subs.