Iran Building Missle Launch Facilities in Venezuela
 

What to make of this??

http://www.jpost.com/International/A...aspx?id=220879

If true, and when the work is completed, this puts Iranian - made missiles in striking distance of Florida (or, most certainly, the GITMO on Cuba). It should also be noted the there is a treaty between Iran and Venezuela to that one will attack the others enemies if one nation should be attacked.

If these missiles come on line, are they an immediate threat? Do we take them out preemptively?

No confidence is the gazillion dollar Star Wars, Whell?

We have plenty of time to decide how threatening this really is. Neither Venezuela nor Iran have nuclear weapons, and when, and if, Iran gets them they're probably decades from miniaturizing them enough to put on missiles. No biggie (yet).

I bet we already have plans in the works to render this a non-threat, either by a direct attack or through sabotaging their control systems. In any instance, it might be better to let them spend bunches before we take 'em out.

1. I suspect it is not true.
2. If it is true, I expect it to be used as a bargaining chip for some kind of future economic negotiations.
3. The missiles, if they were to exist, would be a psychological threat only and their presence would likely cause hardship to the Venezuelan people. I say this because the first reaction from the US would likely be stiff economic sanctions, perhaps even a Cuban style embargo. Second, the missiles could never actually be used against us. The theory of massive retaliation still works against states (where it does not against loosely based terrorist organizations).

Chavez likes publicity. Iran likes publicity. The Jerusalem post likes to give it to them to fan the flames of hatred and warmongering.

We never built Star Wars.

When the USSR tried this crap we didn't use economic sanctions. I'm not saying bomb them, but something will have to happen.

Pete

Of course, the article states that the information was sourced from a German newspaper. Do Germans like to fan the flames of hatred and war-mongering too?

You mean the GOP spent hundreds of Billions on a Defense project that never materialized (a ground based Star Wars). Say it ain't so.

Actually, we have over 20 ships with Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_B...is_BMD_Vessels

it's ashame Saddam is not around to contain Iran as in the past isn't it?

By firing on US planes daily?

20 ships is Star Wars? :confused:

Pete

answer the question pete
hint:
the answer is yes, Saddam did keep Iran in check.

Absolutely. It makes far more sense than building hugely expensive monuments to immobility. This way we can have Star Wars capability anywhere in the world.

Ground based Star Wars was planned for Alaska (against a Russian threat that no longer exists). Flexibility and mobility easily beat static and incorrectly targeted at non-threats.

Having 20 ships outfitted with anti ballistic capability isn't exactly Star Wars, although they did use technology derived from the program.

Kinetic weapons make a great deal of sense. For a spacefaring nation anyway.

Pete

It most certainly is. These ships are equipped specifically to shoot down ballistic missiles. It's not about protecting themselves from attack, but protecting the intended targets of the missiles.

I'd rather have several dozen flexible platforms that one in Fairbanks waiting for Russian ICBM's to materialize.

If you looked at the link I sent, 21 ships will be upgraded by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; 27 around 2013 and 38 at the end of FY 2015[/I]

That's a lot of proven capability (the Aegis system actually works, unlike the one envisioned by Reagan's Star Wars).

Don't know much about the German source, but I assume they like to sell papers. If the source is credible, why have the US papers not picked it up? Maybe they still will... I don't know, but I'm obviously pretty jaded about what makes the news and why.

So any anti ballistic weapon is Star Wars?

A bipartisan comment about it - it didn't matter if it actually worked. Particularly at the time, we had vast tech superiority. If the russkies didn't know how well it worked, that in itself, the uncertainty, upset their military planning. So just announcing it unbalanced them.

And the raw research certainly contributed to the success of our current programs. Even beam based weapons need to be able to hit a fast moving target.

Jon, I've practically given up on domestic news. In 'The Right Stuff', Kesey calls US news 'the victorian gentleman', that decides what's good for us to know. I agree. With the latter anyway :)

Pete

So Dinnerjacket provides Chavez with some missiles, can you really see him pushing the button? Ten minutes later Venezuela and Iran cease to exist. Those two are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but I doubt they are that stupid. If you think any U.S. president would not retaliate, the miltary would.

Yes. This may be exactly what Iran wants to do.

I don't think we'll need to worry about Ahmadinejad much longer. It appears they're about to exorcise him. :eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s=rss_homepage

You know, the administration and the military was working on the bin-Laden raid for what, two years, unbeknownst to us? What's to say there isn't something in the works for this?

Could this be Obamas "Missle Crisis"?

Dave

Oh, man. The GOP wouldn't know whether to shit or go blind if Obie pulled off another foreign policy coup like Bin Laden. They'd have to put Limbaugh and Hannity on for 6 hours a day each to concoct countervailing nonsense.

I saw that. I don't know what weirds me out more: Having Ahmadinejad as Prez of Iran, or the theocrats re-asserting themselves.

Heck the Pres of Iran is just a theocrats tool anyway. I enjoy internal discord there.

Getting Osama yo Momma was a great thing, Obama deserves the credit, but it's hardly a foriegn policy coup! Now getting Assad to step down peacefully, or a Palestinian solution...

Pete

If anyone thinks that those 2 kooks will do the "mutual assured destruction" math correctly, and be deterred by our retaliation.. Forgitaboutit. Amadinajob, doesn't even care about Jordan and Syria being "collateral damage" from a strike on Israel..

The ground-based system concept for BMD was much better in handling the threat of "multiple warhead" vehicles and decoys. The Navy Aegis stuff is good in tactical theatre against simple single warheads on Intermed. and Short Range missiles. That's where it's been really tested. Any real shield for ICBMs needs multiple radars and a lot more resources than those cruisers probably have.

For ICBMs in a real nuclear conflict -- The US still has close to zero defense capability -even with Aegis - even with warning. Lefties should keep that in mind when they're putting their kids to sleep. It's DEFENSE that we SHOULD spend our money on. Not Offense. Any true Liberal would tell you that.. ;)
{I worked on stuff related to this for about 5 years in my "spookier days"}

BTW: FinnBow -- The Reagan Star Wars concept called for laser and even nuclear weapons as intercept vehicles, but the wieny winers only let us throw rocks at the incoming NUCLEAR weapons.. You pack a WARHEAD on those kinetic kill vehicles and see what the intercept scores would be.... Whiners like that remind of the British tut-tutting about us shooting at them from the trees..:mad:

Heck of a task, trying to determine who is the lesser evil there aint it?

Dave

And therein lies the problem. Star Wars has had very limited success in testing against known, predictable launches of single dummy warheads. It has no demonstrated capacity against MIRV's. It has alway been (and will remain) easier to trick or overwhelm Star Wars than it will be to develop and field a fool-proof system.

As for the Aegis, while it is indeed designed to defend against short and intermediate range missiles, it has been (relatively) successful by virtue of honing in on said missiles in the launch phase, not while they're in space traveling at several thousand MPH.

Hitting an ICBM in space has been likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet. Perhaps possible, on occasion if you're talking about hitting one incoming bullet with many bullets heading the other direction. It's pretty much impossible to hit every bullet spewed out from a machine gun (i.e., multiple MIRV's).

Keep in mind, this thread applies to Venezuela's potential missile threat. The article says that these are short/intermediate range missiles in a country with a coastline on the Carribean. It seems to me to be exactly what Aegis is designed to counter.

Regarding testing, if it was say a cell phone it would've been tested a million times before release. A couple intercept failures and it's impossible :rolleyes:

If you can hit a RPG with a bullet you can hit an ICBM with a rock. Haven't you guys seen RED? :D

Pete

I suppose, in a nutshell, is Star Wars worth its expense (hundreds of billions) and its destabilizing effects when it can never be relied upon to shoot down multiple inbound MIRV's with 100% efficiency?

100% efficiency is the baseline??

Pete

When dealing with incoming nukes, yes. A 10 megaton warhead can ruin your day.

Worse yet, ten MIRV's with 5 warheads apiece. I doubt seriously if our success ratio would even be 20%, particularly if numerous dummy warheads were deployed. 40 warheads could ruin lots of peoples' days.

So, if we can't get 100%, 0% works just fine :confused:

Pete

Fixed it for you! :D

Looks like an attempt at a cost/benefit analysis to me! :p

Yep, and Star Wars fails miserably.

Thanks! :p

We don't know what we've got out of Star Wars and may never unless there's another real war.

The argument that 'we can't do it' kills me.

Pete

We may have gotten something out of Star Wars, before any of it really existed.

Dave

You have a point, after all, it was 'a long, long, time ago, in a land far far away' lol.

Goodness we're arguing over something in the 80s :D The original B2 had less computing power than a modern car!

Pete

... other than a lot of debt and a false sense of security?

I think there are a few iPhone users who would have hoped that it was tested even 100 times.

I hate cellphones. I want people to reach out and touch someone - else.

Pete

they are a necessity that have eroded the quality of life IMHO

I truly dislike those little rudeness machines. And I don't like being available 24/7.

I'm putting Mike Roykos' message on my answering machine - 'If I wanted to talk to you I would've called.' :D

Pete