Satellite Controlled Nuclear-Tipped Drones may be used on IRAN

The headline for this post is based on my interpretation of the info contained in the following video:




Key Excerpts:

According to the Investigative Journalist being interviewed in the above youtube video:

(at 3:18 ) “The predator... is being re-engineered to carry up to four hell fire missiles.”

(at 3:36) “The Reaper which is a much larger remotely operated vehicle, can carry right now as many weapons as an U.S. Air force F-16, and there’s plans obviously to get BUNKER BUSTERS... on board these aircraft as well”

(at 3:54 ) “There’s a lot of work going on with these remotely piloted vehicles, and they may be very key in any US military attack on IRAN.”

(at 4:19) “One thing about these remotely piloted vehicles, they can’t be flown by satellite if there is cloud cover.”




OMG - Does this mean what I think it means?

Is the U.S. Government really considering putting nuclear weapons on satellite controlled drones? If so, what happens if the operator loses control during a nuclear flight? Solar flares, orbital space debris could knock out the sat-link while one of these nuclear bombs is flying over enemy space. If they lose control, they could end up either nuking the wrong area or losing a nuclear weapon to real enemies. I hope that I'm wrong about my assumption that they would be so careless with nuclear weapons.

To the skeptics who think that such bunker busters would be using conventional explosives, please watch this video titled, “Nuclear Bunker Buster for War in Iran and Fallout”

Well,I was just wondering one thing.

Why did you not just call them cruise missiles?

That is what they are called and they are not some super secret advanced technology.

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Well,I was just wondering one thing.

Why did you not just call them cruise missiles?

That is what they are called and they are not some super secret advanced technology.

I'm not a weapons expert by any measure. With that said, I believe that there is a major difference between a "cruise missile" and a "remotely piloted vehcile".

That difference being that the "cruise missile" has "on board" intel that pilots the missile to a pre-programmed destination, then explodes.

If you launch a nuclear-tipped cruise missile at a target, it is very unlikely that either the wrong target will get hit or that the nuke will fall unexploded into enemy hands.

Everyone, feel free to post any new info on this subject as my "understanding" is both novice and dated.

Originally posted by Gold_Bug(at 3:18 ) “The predator... is being re-engineered to carry up to four hell fire missiles.”

this isn't a stretch, another 216 lbs on a predator is not a big thing. re-engineering just means another 2 rails for the missiles.

Originally posted by Gold_Bug(at 3:36) “The Reaper which is a much larger remotely operated vehicle, can carry right now as many weapons as an U.S. Air force F-16, and there’s plans obviously to get BUNKER BUSTERS... on board these aircraft as well”

This statement is disingenuous at best, (in other words BS). The Reaper can carry 14 hellfire missiles at 108 lbs per unit, that comes to 1,500 lbs. The F-16 carries a weapons payload of well over 15,000 lbs. Thats over ten times the payload of a Reaper.
The F-16 may carry just as many in numbers but thepayload is much higher.
As for Bunkerbusters, if you think a 1,500 lb bunker buster will do the job on an Iranian nuke site built under reinforced concrete and under 100 feet of earth then go for it.
This is beyond fantasy.

Originally posted by Gold_Bug(at 3:54 ) “There’s a lot of work going on with these remotely piloted vehicles, and they may be very key in any US military attack on IRAN.”

Duh! of course UAV's would play a major role in an attack on ANYONE. This guy is full of amazing relevations.

Originally posted by Gold_Bug(at 4:19) “One thing about these remotely piloted vehicles, they can’t be flown by satellite if there is cloud cover.”

...and that's total horse crap. Really, who the hell has he been talking to? You either fly under the clouds or rely on an SAR visual.

Who is this Wayne Madsen guy anyway? He believes Obama is Kenyan born, that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Mossad runs CNN. Why does RT (Russia Today) get such freaks for their talking heads?

If a plane or otherwise carrying nuclear bombs crashes, the nukes do not detonate, so they could not accidentally nuke the wrong spot. If there was a solar event big enough to take down all the satellites, there would be bigger problems, as without GPS and communications, heh I don't even want to think about it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ha...I knew they were doing something in Nevada. See the above thread on earthquake activity at the Nevada test range.

reply to post by Gold_Bug


That's really not good. Other nuclear powers were worried about putting nukes on cruise missiles. But drones??

I can't see anything in that video suggesting that the USAF is putting nuclear weapons on its reapers, or other UAVs. Even if his infomation is correct, they are most likely arming them with SDBs, which can penetrate more than 2.4m thick reinforced concrete.

I didn't see anything in the video about putting nuclear weapons on drones.

Couldn't be that you're just scaremongering up some interest here could it?

Originally posted by Gold_Bug
Is the U.S. Government really considering putting nuclear weapons on satellite controlled drones?

How did you come to that conclusion from that source? Did I miss something.

Nukes on satellites? Hmmm....sorta comes under the, "Nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure" tactic.