• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Israel........ Kicking A$$

Mike

Well-known member
Israel tightens noose around Lebanon
Yahoo News ^ | 15 July, 2006 | By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 07/15/2006 9:07:06 PM PDT by Salem

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Waves of warplanes thundering through the darkness bombed Beirut's southern suburbs for hours early Sunday, a day after Israel stepped up its air strikes and tightened a noose around this reeling nation.

The Israeli air force on Saturday hit strongholds of the Hezbollah Shiite Muslim guerrilla group, bombed central Beirut for the first time, and pounded seaports and a key bridge. Then, after midnight and until 2:30 a.m., about 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut, where Hezbollah is headquartered and much of the air assault has been aimed since cross-border hostilities erupted Wednesday.

Israeli jets could be heard over the city, much of it darkened because airstrikes have knocked out power stations and the fuel depots feeding them.

Hezbollah's TV aired footage showing two long columns of smoke rising from buildings into the night sky. Much of Shiite-populated southern Beirut was deserted, its residents having fled east to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Trying to defuse the violence, which began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others in a cross-border raid, Lebanon's prime minister indicated he might send his army to take control of southern Lebanon from Hezbollah — a move that might risk civil war.

In a more ominous sign that the struggle could spread, Israel accused Iran of helping launch a missile that damaged an Israeli warship, a charge both Hezbollah and Iran denied.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, fired barrages of rockets ever deeper into Israel, and Israeli officials warned that Tel Aviv, 70 miles inside Israel, could be hit.

The death toll in the four-day-old conflict rose above 100 in Lebanon, and stood at 15 in Israel.

Despite worldwide alarm, there was little indication either Western or Arab nations could muster a quick diplomatic solution. In New York, Lebanon accused the United States of blocking a U.N. Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire. Diplomats said Washington for now preferred to see the issue dealt with at this weekend's Group of Eight meeting in Russia and in other ways.

The United States and France, meantime, prepared to evacuate their citizens, and Britain dispatched an aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean in apparent preparation for evacuations.

Choking back tears, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora went on television to plead with the United Nations to broker a cease-fire for his "disaster-stricken nation."

The Western-backed prime minister, criticizing both Israel and Hezbollah, also pledged to reassert government authority over all Lebanese territory, suggesting his government might deploy the Lebanese army in the south, which Hezbollah effectively controls.

That would meet a repeated U.N. and U.S. demand. But any effort by Saniora's Sunni Muslim-led government to use force against the Shiite Muslim Hezbollah guerrillas could trigger another bloody civil war in Lebanon. Many fear the 70,000-strong army itself might break up along sectarian lines, as it did during the 1975-90 civil war.

Reacting to Saniora's statements, Israel's Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Lebanon must prove it was serious by deploying troops on the border.

"We have to see what they do and not what they say," Peres told Israel's Channel 2 TV.

Iran, meanwhile, denied any role in the fighting, disputing Israeli claims that 100 Iranian soldiers had helped Hezbollah attack an Israeli warship late Friday.

There has been no sign in Lebanon of Iranian Revolutionary Guards for 15 years. But Iran is one of Hezbollah's principal backers along with Syria, providing weapons, money and political support. Many believe Iran and Syria are fueling the battle to show their strength in the region.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again condemned Israel's Lebanon offensive Saturday, telling Tehran's state television, "The Zionist regime behaves like Hitler."

In Indonesia, about 5,000 Muslims from a large Islamic political party protested Sunday in Jakarta against Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. Some held up signs saying "Israel is the real terrorist," while others waved Palestinian flags.

Despite global concerns, there were few signs of diplomatic efforts to halt the fighting.

President Bush, on a trip to Russia, said it was up to Hezbollah "to lay down its arms and to stop attacking." But Russian President Vladimir Putin urged a balanced approach by Israel and said it appeared the nation was pursuing wider goals than the return of abducted soldiers.

Arab foreign ministers, meeting in Cairo, adopted a resolution calling for U.N. Security Council intervention. But moderates led by Saudi Arabia, bickering with Syria and other backers of Hezbollah, denounced the Lebanese guerrilla group's actions in provoking the latest conflict.

In one sign the West expects a drawn-out battle, the U.S. Embassy said it was looking into ways to get Americans in Lebanon to Cyprus. France said it had already decided to send a ferry from Cyprus to evacuate thousands of its nationals. The British were sending two warships, including the carrier Illustrious, toward Lebanon, in apparent preparation for evacuations.

In all, 33 people were killed in Lebanon on Saturday, police said. That raised the Lebanese death toll in the four-day Israeli offensive to 106, mostly civilians. On the Israeli side, at least 15 have been killed, four civilians and 11 soldiers.

Israeli warplanes demolished the last bridge on the main Beirut-Damascus highway — over the Litani River, six miles from the Syrian border — trying to complete their seal on Lebanon.

Four days into the Israeli offensive, Lebanese themselves remained divided over Hezbollah's operation: Some angry and terrified, others proud.

"No one has stood up to Israel the way the resistance (Hezbollah) has," said a 33-year-old housewife, Laila Remeiti, one of about 130 people who have taken refuge at a Beirut government school.

But the toll across the country was clear, with bridges, seaports, military coastal radars and Hezbollah offices all attacked in intensive air raids and sea bombardments Saturday:

_Fleeing refugees, including women and children, were cut down on a road adjacent to the Lebanese-Israeli border in an airstrike as they left the village of Marwaheen. The bodies of several children, one headless, were sprawled on the ground. Police said 15 were killed in the afternoon attack and an Associated Press photographer counted 12 bodies in the two cars.

_At least three civilians were killed when another Israeli airstrike hit a bridge near the Syrian border, cutting the last land link on the main road to Syria and its capital, Damascus.

_In the afternoon, Israeli forces hit central Beirut, striking the port and a lighthouse on a posh seafront boulevard, a few hundred yards from the campus of the American University of Beirut. The seaport is adjacent to downtown Beirut, a district rebuilt at a cost of billions of dollars after the 1975-1990 civil war.

_The brunt of the onslaught focused more and more on Hezbollah's top leadership in south Beirut and the eastern city of Baalbek. Ambulances raced to a Baalbek residential neighborhood where black smoke rose from airstrikes. Israel also targeted the headquarters compound of Hezbollah's leadership in a crowded Shiite neighborhood of south Beirut for the second straight day.

Hezbollah in turn struck out repeatedly at Israel. Its rockets hit Tiberias three times on Saturday, the first attack on the city — 22 miles from Lebanon — since the 1973 Mideast war. At least two houses were directly hit, but only a few light injuries were reported, medics said.

Residents were ordered into bomb shelters, and Israeli media reported that hundreds of tourists were fleeing the city. Police used megaphones to urge bathers at the Sea of Galilee to seek shelter.

On Israel's second front, against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, Israeli aircraft on Saturday struck the Economy Ministry of the Hamas-led Palestinian government and three other targets, killing two people, Palestinian and Israeli officials reported.

Early Sunday, Israeli troops, tanks and attack helicopters were back inside the Gaza Strip again firing missiles and exchanging gunfire with armed Palestinians, signaling that the large-scale operation that began after a soldier was captured last month is still in full swing.

Israeli tanks entered the town of Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, across the border from an Israeli town, Sderot, frequently hit by Hamas guerrilla rockets. Despite the incursion, militants fired two missiles that landed in Sderot, an AP Television cameraman reported. There was no immediate word on damage or casualties.

Three Hamas gunmen were killed in the renewed Gaza fighting, Hamas said. At least 11 people were wounded in Israeli airstrikes in Beit Hanoun, including a child, hospital officials said.

Israel attacked Gaza on June 28, three days after Hamas-backed militants killed two soldiers and captured a third at an army post just inside Israel.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Seven Canadians killed in Lebanon today!

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060715%2fmideast_attacks_060716&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
My feeling is that we should give all foreigners that want out 72 hours and assist them in any way in leaving- then we should "lend lease" a fleet of B-52's to the Israelis and carpet bomb until there isn't a Hezbollah camp left or a hole left to build one in...

As far as I see it the Israelis are doing us a big favor...Risking their lives and getting even for the Khobar towers bombing- something Clinton was too wishwashy to do..Bush should give Israel all the help they need, no matter if that takes in Syria and Iran who are funding and guiding Hezbollah...

Its all part of WWIII- the war against radical Islamists....And its again time to take it to them- before they bring it to us again...
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I think the Lebanese government is going to be forced to send their troops to control the Hezbollah. Which will start a civil war. Maybe true Muslims will finally get sick of harboring the "radicals"

Muslims kill more muslims than Israel ever will.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
My feeling is that we should give all foreigners that want out 72 hours and assist them in any way in leaving- then we should "lend lease" a fleet of B-52's to the Israelis and carpet bomb until there isn't a Hezbollah camp left or a hole left to build one in...

As far as I see it the Israelis are doing us a big favor...Risking their lives and getting even for the Khobar towers bombing- something Clinton was too wishwashy to do..Bush should give Israel all the help they need, no matter if that takes in Syria and Iran who are funding and guiding Hezbollah...

Its all part of WWIII- the war against radical Islamists....And its again time to take it to them- before they bring it to us again...

I agree
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I think the Lebanese government is going to be forced to send their troops to control the Hezbollah. Which will start a civil war. Maybe true Muslims will finally get sick of harboring the "radicals"
.

Lebanon isnt strong enough to do it. Hezbolla amounts to an Iranian army within Lebanon that only got stronger since the last "peace" or cease fire.
Just goes to show that peace at any price doesnt work. Just putting off and making what has to be done even more of a problem.
Hey if Missle defence works then why not test it in Israel right now?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:56 p.m. EDT


Gingrich Says World War III Has Begun






World War III has begun, and the nation’s leadership is failing to deal with this reality, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich concludes.


Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert Sunday, Gingrich explained that "today is not the fifth day of the war, it’s the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an ... Iran/Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.”


". . . the Israelis withdrew from Gaza to create the circumstance of peace. The Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon to create the circumstance of peace,” Gingrich continued. "They now have a thousand missiles fired from Gaza, they’ve had hundreds of missiles fired from south Lebanon. You clearly have Iranian involvement. There are at least 400 Iranian guards in south Lebanon. Apparently it was an Iranian missile fired by Iranians which hit an Israeli warship yesterday. The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, 'South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hezbollah, getting rid of all 10,000 to 13,000 missiles, and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.'”


Gingrich says the current crisis facing Israel is part of a larger world war that involved the U.S.



"I mean, this is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it’s also a question of what is really a world war,” Gingrich said.


He then cited a litany of events that confirm this conclusion.


"North Korea firing missiles. We say there’ll be consequences, there are none. North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan … the Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah alliance.”


In addition, he said "there is the war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran.”


Other evidence of the war, Gingrich argues, includes:


The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1200 terrorists in Britain.

Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda

Eighteen people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian parliament, and saying they’d like to behead the Canadian prime minister.

In New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York.

Gingrich explained: "We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough. We don’t have the right attitude about this . . . And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.”


Asked host Tim Russert "This is World War III?”


"I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III,” Gingrich said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I heard Condoleeza on the TV today- she agrees with promoting a cease fire but not until "conditions are condusive to do so"....I hope that is political talk for "when we've killed or ran all the Hezbollah, Syrians, and Iranians out of Lebanon"....
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I heard Condoleeza on the TV today- she agrees with promoting a cease fire but not until "conditions are condusive to do so"....I hope that is political talk for "when we've killed or ran all the Hezbollah, Syrians, and Iranians out of Lebanon"....

Im thinking it does.
The bigger picture is Iran. I still think this is manipulation of oil prices.
Here is a question. Can Israel take care of itself? Is the Unted States in any position to bomb Iran off the face of the earth?
If things really light up over there and we get on with this WW#3 are we spread to thin?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Oldtimer said:
I heard Condoleeza on the TV today- she agrees with promoting a cease fire but not until "conditions are condusive to do so"....I hope that is political talk for "when we've killed or ran all the Hezbollah, Syrians, and Iranians out of Lebanon"....

Im thinking it does.
The bigger picture is Iran. I still think this is manipulation of oil prices.
Here is a question. Can Israel take care of itself? Is the Unted States in any position to bomb Iran off the face of the earth?
If things really light up over there and we get on with this WW#3 are we spread to thin?

Go read your Bible.

We are in the middle east with most of our army.

What do you think happens next?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
RoperAB said:
Oldtimer said:
I heard Condoleeza on the TV today- she agrees with promoting a cease fire but not until "conditions are condusive to do so"....I hope that is political talk for "when we've killed or ran all the Hezbollah, Syrians, and Iranians out of Lebanon"....

Im thinking it does.
The bigger picture is Iran. I still think this is manipulation of oil prices.
Here is a question. Can Israel take care of itself? Is the Unted States in any position to bomb Iran off the face of the earth?
If things really light up over there and we get on with this WW#3 are we spread to thin?

Go read your Bible.

We are in the middle east with most of our army.

What do you think happens next?

Are you talking about John <Revelations>?
 

Tumbleweed

Well-known member
I came across this article on another forum about Irans preparations for war and what that could mean for the US. It's kind of a long read but is something we should be aware of and think about. The fellow who wrote this is appears to be anti war. It seems to me at the moment we need the oil there and I don't think we dare let China get control of it. Puts us between a rock and a hard place.





The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile:
The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf
By Mark Gaffney, 11-2-4
A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn't want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don't be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions history makes fools of those who claim to know the future but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. --MG

Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to "show the flag" or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power? The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: "Saber Rattling Unnerves China", and: "Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese." But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat in the particular case of China, because of Peking's newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

"Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War termed "the great Scud hunt" and for similar reasons.

Saddam Hussein's mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud's inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud's ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn's amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull's eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large "X" mounted on the ship's bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at http://www.InformationClearingHouse....rticle3288.htm )

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians' insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East.

One can almost hear the Russians' animated conversation:

"The Americans! What is the matter with them?" "They simply cannot help themselves."

"What idiots!"

"A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson"

"Yes! For their own good."

"It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget. "Are we agreed, then, comrades?"

"Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power..."

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is "one bridge too far"?

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed.

Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans, Hannibal's soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives.

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.

Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?

In 2001, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is "able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers were not disclosed.

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran's nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel's brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm's way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf's shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood.

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake's only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged.

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act... America will stand alone, completely isolated.

Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel's defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
War 101

He who controls the sky, controls the battlefield on the sea and land.

The modern Navy is really just a logistics platform to get our stuff over there.

No destroyer is going to get close enough to a carrier group to launch the missle.

If this new missle is really this effective then all it means is that battle zones will have to be expanded regardless of borders to take out the threat.

Its not the Sunburn missle that really bothers me so much as the new stealth corvette class of war boats that are undetectable. Right now Norway is way ahead of everybody else in this field. These wont change the balance of power but they could prove to be a pain in the ass for the US Carrier fleets.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Look at a map of the region, Roper, those missiles could be fired from land---and a region that would be very hard to detect the launch sites given the terrain.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Look at a map of the region, Roper, those missiles could be fired from land---and a region that would be very hard to detect the launch sites given the terrain.

Is it necessary to take the carriers up into the persian gulf? Why not keep them in the Persian sea?
 

Tumbleweed

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Econ101 said:
Look at a map of the region, Roper, those missiles could be fired from land---and a region that would be very hard to detect the launch sites given the terrain.

Is it necessary to take the carriers up into the persian gulf? Why not keep them in the Persian sea?


Quote from the article I posted

"From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake's only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged".

I believe what he is saying is that the ships in the Gulf have to be there to supply the troops on the ground in Iraq. If the missles mentioned are effective the troops on the ground and the ships in the Gulf will all be in serious trouble.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
I dont have a globe in front of me and I dont know where this strategic Strait of Hormuz is but why cant they send in B-52s and blow all hell out of it a few hours before the carriers have to pass through? Thats what I meant about expanding the war and not worrying so much about borders.
 

Tumbleweed

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
I dont have a globe in front of me and I dont know where this strategic Strait of Hormuz is but why cant they send in B-52s and blow all hell out of it a few hours before the carriers have to pass through? Thats what I meant about expanding the war and not worrying so much about borders.

Try this link for a map. If it's to small there's a little box in the lower right hand corner you can click to see it better


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Tumbleweed said:
RoperAB said:
I dont have a globe in front of me and I dont know where this strategic Strait of Hormuz is but why cant they send in B-52s and blow all hell out of it a few hours before the carriers have to pass through? Thats what I meant about expanding the war and not worrying so much about borders.

Try this link for a map. If it's to small there's a little box in the lower right hand corner you can click to see it better


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg

Thats a great map! Thanks.
I wouldnt worry about the carrier fleets that are in the Persian Gulf. If things light up with Iran im sure they will figgure a way to keep them supplied. I guess they are friendly on the west side<UAE, Saudi and Oman> of the gulf? Surely they can be supplied by sea and air if required until Iran is no longer a threat?
Guess now I understand why they wanted to have the fleet in the Mediteranium and fly across Turkey air space at the start. F--k Turkey :evil:
Guess if they stayed in the Persian sea they would have been out of range so they had to go in the gulf?
You know when I first read your article I just thought it was more liberal crap about doom and gloom for us but it does kind of throw a wrench into things :mad: My money is still on the US carrier fleets. They must know what they are doing and I have all my faith with them.
Well how does Israel affect this? Is Saudi Arabia and them other countries going to join the Jihad if this turns into WW#3?
You know that whole part of the world <syria, Iraq and Iran>has been nothing but trouble for thousands of years :mad:
Just wondering about the new Regan class Carrier. Maybe this larger platform will be able to handle bigger bombers that have more range?
Unrelated to this thread I guess but guess where the TAliban /AlQaeda in Afghanistan are getting there rockets from. Our friends the Chinesse and the Russians! F them to :mad:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Wonder how much it would cost to send Israel's army to Iraq and get this OVER with???? They seem to be the guys with the plans lately and gt right to the point!!
 
Top