It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran May Build EMP Warhead

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
America has Iran surrounded, Iraq on the west, Afghanistan on the east and the Persian Guld and Gulf of Oman to the south.

Iran are like a wounded animal, they will try to spring a desperate atack, but wont succeed. If they tried anything, America will more than likely nuke them.


that doesnt mean anything. so what if they have them surrounded they also have iraqi insurgents surrounded but thats not getting them anywhere. infact you shouldnt see surrounding them as a strenght but a weakness becuase it means more targets for iranian guerillas if a war breaks out.

also iranian have long range rockets which they can pack into the back of vans and cars with ranges upto 30km they are unguided but great for firing at camps becuase they have cluster(armour piercing shaped charge frag) warheads which are great for firing at american bases located in those surrounding countries.




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
America will turn them into glass!

Simple, Iran use any WMDs and their toast, Iran knows it, America knows, heck, everyone knows it!

Being surrounded isn't good for anyone, true, Iraqi insurgents are surrounded, but the US aren't trying to completely destroy them are they? They wont to keep the citys and areas they are in, intact. If they wanted them gone, they would be gone a long time ago.

If America invaded Iran, they could fight a battle on roughly 5 fronts,

Iraq
Afghanistan
Persian Gulf
Gulf of Oman

And maybe from the Caspiqa sea, but that one is doubtful.

Iran would be screwed.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Well another reason why Iran wont be a pushover. If Iran will get invaded it will be like Iraq times 1000.


Please at the time of the Gulf War Iraq was the forth largest army (larger then Iran) with some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world and still had its butt handed to it.

In a convential war Iran would fall all the same.

The only country that would be 1000 times worst then Iraq would be something like China or Russia.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Please at the time of the Gulf War Iraq was the forth largest army (larger then Iran)


thats propaganda.

iraq on paper had the 4th largest army of which nearly all the tech was old and outdated. eg. there tanks t72 which had no night vision and only a 105mm cannon while the tanks of that time russian version had night/thermal vision and 125mm cannon.

they didnt even have mobile wire-guided anti-tank missiles which allowed american armour to overrun there country.

also we must factor they took on america + france + britian etc.. it was iraq vs the most powerfull countries on earth. it wasnt just america vs iraq it was the west(dozens of countries) vs iraq(1 country) it was an unfair fight.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
with some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world and still had its butt handed to it.


thats propaganda.

iraqs air defense was mostly anti air artilley which is useless above 3.5km altidude and on top of this it was not even radar guided air artillery and was being blind fired by iraqis basically the world most expensive fireworks/light show.

iraq actaully didnt have that many working modern sam systems and the ones they did only made up a small percentage of there air defense the rest of there sam missiles where worthless also there lack of stinger/sa14 type missiles showed becuase they couldnt take out the helicopters and low flying aircraft.

there air defence was a joke and is over hyped for media propaganda value. there air defence on paper was the most heavily guarded but actaul defence in real life was less then average when counting the modern air defence equipment they didnt even have mobile low altidude I.R defence systems like stingers or hell even crappy sa-7b styles SL-sams.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
In a convential war Iran would fall all the same.


no the war will be completly different iran first of all has enough wire-guided anti-tank missiles to destroy or disable every american tank and they have reverse engineered stingers and hn5c(one version above sa7b) which make low level flight very dangerous unlike in iraq.

also you have to ask yourself who will backup america in this war will it be 1 on 1 like US vs IRAN or will it be unfair team gang action like america + allies vs IRAN. conventional war with iran will be completly different becuase you must also rember iraqis quit the army and surrenderd to america becuase of low morale and dislike for saddam but in iran morale and pride are very high amougnst the army so they will fight to the end.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
also we must factor they took on america + france + britian etc.. it was iraq vs the most powerfull countries on earth. it wasnt just america vs iraq it was the west(dozens of countries) vs iraq(1 country) it was an unfair fight.

So?
I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of forces deployed to fight Iraq were US.
Further hate to break it to you, despite those antique weapons that Iraq had, and despite what was claimed on paper, with or without the Coalition, the US would have whipped the living snot out of Iraq, period.

Btw, propaganda is when a leader proclaims that there will be a mother of all battles and the results indicate otherwise.





no the war will be completly different iran first of all has enough wire-guided anti-tank missiles to destroy or disable every american tank and they have reverse engineered stingers and hn5c(one version above sa7b) which make low level flight very dangerous unlike in iraq.

And despite all that you assert, Iran will get the snot kicked out of them in any type conventional land war with the US. Iran knows this, most of the world knows this, but seemingly you and Iran. Iran will simply resort to the same tactics that Iraq eventually did: the military will dissolve into the populance and conventional warfare will be replaced with guerilla warfare.




also you have to ask yourself who will backup america in this war will it be 1 on 1 like US vs IRAN or will it be unfair team gang action like america + allies vs IRAN.

"Unfair"?

Please....
With or without the allies, the US would wipe the floor with Iran, anytime, anyplace, home turf or where ever.




conventional war with iran will be completly different becuase you must also rember iraqis quit the army and surrenderd to america becuase of low morale and dislike for saddam but in iran morale and pride are very high amougnst the army so they will fight to the end.

Iran cannot hope to fight and win in any type conventional warfare against the US, period. I am near sure, after reading a number of your posts concerning Iran and the US, that you were one of those people who probably asserted that Iraq would teach the US a lesson before the showdown called the 1st Gulf War; kind of like what you are seemingly indicating with Iran, huh?






seekerof

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
What everyone should worry about is the response from Israel. If a colalition decides to enter and attempt to remove the nuclear sites with the US's superior airpower (funny those Raptors just entered service...) they would effectivly cripple Iran, however,Iran would counter I believe with releasing anything (medium/long range missles) that are not destroyed at US Iraqi bases and Israel. The response would be incredible and Israel would turn Iran to glass. This is very delicate and millions of lives are in the balance. This would be an intense few days. You would have gaza on fire and with hamas jsut elected cheerig in the streets and creating 50 martyrs a day.

Iran is playing a game where no one is going to win. it will not be about occupation, but destruction. Pure and simple destruction. Shock and Awe will look like a VFW 4th of July party if Iran persists in poking us in the a@# with a stick.

I can only hope a diplomatic resolution can be achieved, but there cannot be a nuclear Iran.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

So?
I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of forces deployed to fight Iraq were US.
Further hate to break it to you, despite those antique weapons that Iraq had, and despite what was claimed on paper, with or without the Coalition, the US would have whipped the living snot out of Iraq, period.

Btw, propaganda is when a leader proclaims that there will be a mother of all battles and the results indicate otherwise.



actaully us forces might have been the majority but other tasks where carried out by non-american forces like SCUD hunting by the SAS etc.. please dont try and take the glory for iraq just like americans claim they single handedly won ww2 by themselves




Originally posted by Seekerof
And despite all that you assert, Iran will get the snot kicked out of them in any type conventional land war with the US. Iran knows this, most of the world knows this, but seemingly you and Iran. Iran will simply resort to the same tactics that Iraq eventually did: the military will dissolve into the populance and conventional warfare will be replaced with guerilla warfare.


iran will not get the snot kicked out of them like you are wishing. people in the west are overestimating there power and underestimating other countries based on iraq. what a joke. iraq and iran are 2 completly different countries.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Iran cannot hope to fight and win in any type conventional warfare against the US, period. I am near sure, after reading a number of your posts concerning Iran and the US, that you were one of those people who probably asserted that Iraq would teach the US a lesson before the showdown called the 1st Gulf War; kind of like what you are seemingly indicating with Iran, huh?


iraq was going to loose i knew this from the start fist of all they where criplled from years of sanctions secondly they didnt have enough modern anti-tank or mobile SAM systems so they couldnt take out tanks and choppers this would mean they would loose its as simple as that.

also you must factor in iraq is just a flat peice of land with sand and thats it you can fire a missile from 10 miles away and hit a target with pinpoint accuracy. its just a flat piece of land and there is nowhere to hide you can see enemy from miles away.

on the other hand iran is not a flat peice of land or desert but is a complex scene of desert,marsh,mountians,forest,jungle,urban which make it very hard to fight in infact in some areas you cant even fire a gun from 20 meters away becuase of the thinkness of the dense forests also some areas can go below freezing point with deep snow and frost.

www.abadan.net...
www.abadan.net...
www.abadan.net...
www.worldisround.com...
forum.bodybuilding.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com... (snow)
www.worldisround.com...


iran is greener(trees,forest and bushes) rather then sand like iraq alot of westerners are confused and assume that iran is just 1 giant sandbox your long range weopons are basically wortless in a was against iran.

america is not even prepared to take on iran most americans dont even know what type of terrain they will face it range from ultra hot desert to ultra cold mountain terrian dont be fooled into thinking you will just walk into iran becuase if you do america will loose.

if american forces come into iran they will get destoryed becuase they will need to fight jungle,mountain,uraban and desert warefare Simultaneously to gain control and you guys are going to get killed.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The concern I have with the "Scud in a bucket" (offshore SRBM fired from ship) combined with an EMP detonation is the fact that it may be initially hard to prove just who did it.

Hypothetically...............if the Iranians did obtain warheads from the southern areas of the Soviet Union after its break-up, used a missile sharing a common fuel type used by many countries and had sufficient cut-outs in the manning, logistics and funding of such an operation then it is possible to pull-off the operation with-out suffering immediate retaliation.

1. Radiological samples would match Russian manufacture.
2. Space observation of rocket plume spectrum would include to many sources to pin down any one county of origin.
3. Logistics, financing and manpower could be made to appear to have come from any number of organizations or countries including the US itself (conspiracists would have a field day with that last one)

This possibilty worries me because in its own way it is with-in technical reach and is practical as a way to keep the US very occupied for a period of time.

Launch while the ship is over deep water, kill the crew and scuttle buys much time to obfuscate the issue as the international community grapples with the issue.

Meanwhile....................................................

Iran may end up with a free hand to accomplish any regional goals it might have in mind.

Sans any mistakes in planning this seems a plausible way to short circuit US attention from the middle east due to extreme disruption domestically for a time long enough to....................

Complete a war with Israel if another bordering nation such as Syria was along for the ride.

Just conjecture on my part, like to think through the endgame on these types of issues.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I knew a guy who had served in the Iranian navy. They used conventional diesel/electric subs, but he said their payload was MASSIVE missles. He was pretty sure it was for launching on Israel from the Persian Gulf.

Maybe they are thinking of sub attacks on the Eastern US??? Surely they know that american tech can dectect a submarine moving through seawater if it goes more than about 15 degrees lat or lon without being degaussed. They'd never get within even medium range.

So I bet they are thinking of Israel, and/or Sa'ud. An attack on Israel would facilitate an invasion by neighbors.

Sa'ud would be an especially ripe target. I'm betting oil-wells are not hardened vs. EMP. That would leave them the leading producer of Oil. I wonder if Chavez's Venezuela would be up for wildcat oil embargoes? And all the oil tankers in the gulf would be disabled, so there'd be no production ability OR delivery method . . .

For Iran to do well, they'd need to think outside the box; either an alliance that America didn' expect, (China, NK, Venezuela, Russia), and/or a technology that US didn't expect. EMP might fit the bill.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Iran would be turned to glass.


Originally posted by Zanzibar
America will more than likely nuke them.


Give it up already.


The U.S. will NOT nuke Iran.

We don't need to, and the consequences (from worldwide standpoint) would be far to great.

A sustained airstrike with missiles and jets/bombs, similar to skippytjc's suggestion, is all that would be needed to cripple any assumed "threat".


Originally posted by esdad71
What everyone should worry about is the response from Israel. If a colalition decides to enter and attempt to remove the nuclear sites with the US's superior airpower (funny those Raptors just entered service...) they would effectivly cripple Iran, however,Iran would counter I believe with releasing anything (medium/long range missles) that are not destroyed at US Iraqi bases and Israel.


Exactly, on all counts.

[edit on 2/3/06 by redmage]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
A sustained airstrike with missiles and jets/bombs, similar to skippytjc's suggestion, is all that would be needed to cripple any assumed "threat".

But the main question is this : "Will it produce a big enough explosion so every service man and women in iraq gets a free fire works show?"



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Well another reason why Iran wont be a pushover. If Iran will get invaded it will be like Iraq times 1000.


Please at the time of the Gulf War Iraq was the forth largest army (larger then Iran) with some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world and still had its butt handed to it.

In a convential war Iran would fall all the same.

The only country that would be 1000 times worst then Iraq would be something like China or Russia.


lool oh please be quiet! Iraq had no army left after the war we had with them and they were poor and desperatley need for more military equipment, why do you think they decided to invade kuwait?. 8 years of war crippled Iraq's economy and military so don't even start with that talk again
.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Bozorgh]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Get this, America isn't the whole world!

If Iran use an EMP weapon on America, the world will not stop, sure some things will go wrong, but the world will go on.

It will seem that the world has stopped of course and that's because alot of the population of America are so big-headed and think that their country is the hub of civilization or the plug of the world.

It seriously gets annoying at times.


The U.S is the dominant economic power in the world #1 to be precise. If our economy fails because of lets say an EMP attack, the world economy is screwed too. So yes we are the center of civilization, thats why every foreign media talks about us like they live here.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh

lool oh please be quiet! Iraq had no army left after the war we had with them and they were poor and desperatley need for more military equipment, why do you think they decided to invade kuwait?. 8 years of war crippled Iraq's economy and military so don't even start with that talk again
.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Bozorgh]


NR....oh, im sorry, i meant bozorgh


read a history book or two. the war did two things for iraq

1. the military build up from the war left them with a huge surplus of equipment.

2. it gave them a huge supply of battle-hardened veterans....and in an even war, that makes all the difference. problem is, it wasnt even.....because as the world found out, nato technology was far far superior to warsaw technology.


Originally posted by Zanzibar
I sincerely doubt that any troops would have to be pulled out of the Middle East to protect the US. Iran wouldn't be able to get a force to America.


try actually reading my posts instead of just skimming over them. i know its hard, but if you do that, you'll find that i did not say a single word about iranian troops attacking the US.

SEEKEROF

good to see you back in action, bud! see? a little ATS every now and then is good to unclog that old writers block!



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
But you did say that troops would have to come out of Iraq, which they wouldn't.

Last thing-

Iran maybe have 1 nuke, America has about 40,000. Do the math.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
It would be nice if people could calm down a little and engage in some civilized discussion.

The question here is about tactical, non-nuclear EMP weapons. This has long been an issue: because the US is more reliant on electronic hi-tech kit than other nations, the use of such weapons is an obvious approach for anyone wishing to fight an asymmetric war against superior US forces.

However, the article does not give any direct evidence that Iran is actually developing such devices.

Equally, for about 20 years people have been pointing out how anyone can build an EMP weapon with kit from Radio Shack, and the devastating effect this would have. Or the story about Russian EMP weapons appearing on the black market and being used to blackmail banks etc.

But it still hasn't happened and that's why we keep it filed under 'scaremongering'.

Next...



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
It will seem that the world has stopped of course and that's because alot of the population of America are so big-headed and think that their country is the hub of civilization or the plug of the world.

It seriously gets annoying at times.


Well I've got some seriously bad news for you. America is the hub of civilization. American leads the world in virtually every important technology and it is the center of popular culture. Not even Rome, at her hight, enjoyed such unrivaled military / economic / cultural dominance.

Speaking just of popular culture, American has given the world movies, television, the Internet, blues, jazz, rock, rap, countless great writers and artist. Every fad / popular culture movement begins in American (California really).

Europe won't have much of a culture soon, when it becomes part of the caliphate. Sorry, but Europe's time has past and it's not coming back anytime soon.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
That's what I mean when I say big-headed. Television? No, you didn't! In fact, I'm not going to argue, I'll just be happy when someone makes America realise that they aren't the best.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Televsion? Read on MacDuff...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
But you did say that troops would have to come out of Iraq, which they wouldn't.


not only are you not reading what i say, but after i call you on it and you go back and actually read it, you try to spin the conversation so that you dont look so ignorant. here is what i said:


Originally posted by snafu7700
we're talking about massive damage....the kind that would make katrina and 9/11 look trivial.

and guess what? we have absolutely no technology in place to detect and stop an attack of this kind that close in to our shores. in the aftermath, we would have to bring all our troops home to help control the effected areas and rebuild.


and your response was quite rational and pertinent to the conversation:


Originally posted by Zanzibar
Get this, America isn't the whole world!


so, realizing that you didnt read the whole post, i tried to clarify:


Originally posted by snafu7700
i guess you didnt really get the point. america is the main armed force in both iraq and afganistan. if we have to bring troops home to deal with a catastrophe here, i sincerely doubt the remaining coalition forces in either country would be able to stop the onslaught, and would most likely pull out as well.


and then you again dont read the whole post and infer this:


Originally posted by Zanzibar
I sincerely doubt that any troops would have to be pulled out of the Middle East to protect the US. Iran wouldn't be able to get a force to America.


which, as i pointed out, i never said:


Originally posted by snafu7700
try actually reading my posts instead of just skimming over them. i know its hard, but if you do that, you'll find that i did not say a single word about iranian troops attacking the US.


so when we consider all of the above, i have to come to the conclusion that either you dont have the courtesy to actually read the posts of others before you comment on them, or you're just plain ignorant. so which is it?



Iran maybe have 1 nuke, America has about 40,000. Do the math.


as pheonix pointed out, it would be quite simple for an attack of this sort to be perpetrated in such a manner as to leave no real clues as to who actually made it happen.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join