Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

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

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
Adventu 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

"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

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.

"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.

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

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.