What, you fucking ragheads think you're allowed to shoot back or something?
We're not even allowed to load our weapons.
The only halal response is to put flowers in your rifles.
Next thing you know those crazy Muslims will want evil nuclear weapons to deter our own good nuclear weapons. Madness!
Hmm, SAMs on armoured vehicles to go with your tanks are what you'd need if you wanted to march a lot of tanks somewhere under air attack.
Anything short of outright capitulation, followed by large-scale fellatio of American troops, is an act of aggression.
Has any great power ever been as whiny and oversensitive as the US?
I'm one of those folks who works to ensure the USA's military aircraft can go anywhere, and do anything they might ever be asked to do. I mean, no kidding, that is what I do at work.
Britannia ruled the seas. Or rather they said they did. They took their might as in itself justification, providence if you will, that they could/should/would go anywhere on the seas and, well, rule. This pervaded the culture not just of the British Navy, but of Britain.
Similarly US airpower asserts the we-could/should/would. How dare anyone say otherwise (with air defenses). In more than one sense of the word it is a challenge.
When the status quo is shifted, the rules get changed a little. And if you've played by the same rules for years, well, a rule change not-in-your-favor seems unfair, no matter how far ahead you are in the game. In chess, you can't block a knight, as that piece is the only one the flies, if you will. So suppose you check your opponent, as you do every move of every game. Yet today, somehow, your opponent is using a new Russian pawn he just added to his pieces. And damnit, somehow this blocks the knight's check. Offensive isn't it.
re 8: only one the flies s/b only one that flies
Could the hardware be moved into Iran, to protect Sunni insurgents? No idea if Iran would be playing this way, but if US ppls were worried about such a possibility, then I could conceive how such an upgrade to Iranian weapons would appear as "provacative".
And, crap, sunni should be shiia, and suddenly what little sense my comment might have made is now vanishingly small.
So,
Could the hardware be moved into Iran, to protect Sunni insurgents?
s/b
Could the hardware be moved into Iraq, to protect Shia insurgents?
The day after the night before, eh?
Michael, you mean can the missles in question be moved into Iraq "to challenge the air supremacy of US forces" in Iraq, yes?
NO.
Not without moving the tanks in, since they're attached to Iranian armor units. From the description (I don't know which (Soviet/Russian) missle they're talking about, but I would like to), these are the sort of missles used as the missle equivalent of anti-aircraft guns. Another words, they can only hit aircraft operating near the ground units they're defending.
The guy might as well have said:
This is a very provocative move. Iran is hoping that this hardware will allow their ground units to challenge the air supremacy of US forces when we attack Iran.
m, marx brothers
13. insurgents s/b militia
I have coffee, now.
Could the hardware be moved into Tasmania, to provoke lutrawitan separatists?
Yuck! (and here) ... and this is just the beginning of the "Manchurian candidate" sh*t.
It is "offensive" (as you should know) because brave American men and women get killed in wartime otherwise.
"When we attack Iran" with the 15 divisions we don't have, Iranian armour would be dispersed in cities and under bridges, not cruising over the countryside in the best NATO AGNORTH vs Soviet 3rd Shock Army style. I don't think assuming them to be stupid is a sensible analytical framework.
William Lind thinks they might one day decide to drive over to Kerbala, and I'm not sure what's to stop them except that they are probably more patient than that.
re 10 and 14
If the missile systemis a ManPADS, Man Portable Air Defense System, then they can pretty easily be smuggled anywhere, and they are. US support of Afghan rebels during Soviet occupation often involved supplying these rebels with Stinger missile systems, which are a US made ManPADS. ManPADSes are like a bazooka, a tube, usually as long as a broom and as big around as a coffee mug. The tube is has a rocket powered missile in it that usually uses infrared or other optical guidance to guide on its target during flight. Generally these are shoulder launched, more rarely from a tripod.
However, the missile sale most recently in the news is for something bigger, the Tor-M1 missile system. This is the next step up on size, range, effectiveness etc. It is basically a big army truck thingy with a bunch of missiles in internal vertical launched tubes and a sophisticated set of radars and computers used to control the whole thing. Kinda like a bunch of baby Patriot missiles but all on one vehicle and considerably more mobile.
While the Tor-M1 was indeed designed to go with the tanks and troops across the previously potential battlefields of Europe and Asia, as the latest and by some measures best air defense assets in Iran, it seems most likely they will be used for whatever the Iranian government and military most wants to keep safe from aerial assault. This seems unlikely to be tanks, troops, or anything especially mobile.
Otherwise there seems only one other use, air defense over the Strait of Hormuz. Such air defense could be termed offensive it it was used to impose or help impose Iranian control over the Strait.
However, and I know it's really really not this simple, but the narrowest point of the Strait is over 38 kilometers wide and the Tor-M1 has a 12 kilometer range. So, while the the Tor-M1 might be used to protect anti-ship missile launch points on the Iranian coast, they cannot be effectively employed to create an air defense bubble across the Strait.
Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background
Hillary just lost my vote.
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT.
Her team is behind the 'Obama went to a madrassah' smear?
I'm not saying it's untrue, but I don't know the World Tribune, and it'd be a perfect way to smear both of them simultaneously. I'm not going to blame it on Clinton until I see it sourced to someone I recognize.
18, 22, 23: I suggest looking over here before you take this at face value.
Mr. B:
If the missile systemis a ManPADS, Man Portable Air Defense System, then they can pretty easily be smuggled anywhere, and they are. US support of Afghan rebels during Soviet occupation often involved supplying these rebels with Stinger missile systems, which are a US made ManPADS. ManPADSes are like a bazooka, a tube, usually as long as a broom and as big around as a coffee mug. The tube is has a rocket powered missile in it that usually uses infrared or other optical guidance to guide on its target during flight. Generally these are shoulder launched, more rarely from a tripod.
I figured the ManPADS are gimme; the Iranians will probably have a lot of them, probably not terribly effective, except against helos & maybe tac bombers.
However, the missile sale most recently in the news is for something bigger, the Tor-M1 missile system. This is the next step up on size, range, effectiveness etc. It is basically a big army truck thingy with a bunch of missiles in internal vertical launched tubes and a sophisticated set of radars and computers used to control the whole thing. Kinda like a bunch of baby Patriot missiles but all on one vehicle and considerably more mobile.
Da. Some reading over at the Claremont Institute For the Criminally Bladder-Control Challenged indicated that that was what they're freaking about currently. Al-Jazeera says they're intended for point defense of the nuclear-research sites, which strikes me as a good choice for the Iranians. The Tor isn't so hot against fighters, but it should be good at defending against incoming missles, which, given that most US aircraft are going to be operating at long range, gives the defenders the maximum utility. Especially since they only bought 29 of them.
While the Tor-M1 was indeed designed to go with the tanks and troops across the previously potential battlefields of Europe and Asia, as the latest and by some measures best air defense assets in Iran, it seems most likely they will be used for whatever the Iranian government and military most wants to keep safe from aerial assault. This seems unlikely to be tanks, troops, or anything especially mobile.
Whoops, you already said that.
Otherwise there seems only one other use, air defense over the Strait of Hormuz. Such air defense could be termed offensive it it was used to impose or help impose Iranian control over the Strait. However, and I know it's really really not this simple, but the narrowest point of the Strait is over 38 kilometers wide and the Tor-M1 has a 12 kilometer range. So, while the the Tor-M1 might be used to protect anti-ship missile launch points on the Iranian coast, they cannot be effectively employed to create an air defense bubble across the Strait.
Ah, but the Iranians also, apparently got some S-300PMU-1/2 launchers (NATO: SA-20 Gargoyle) and have missles to go with it. Myabe they got them in 1993 or more recently from Belarus. I would think those would be better to position with tank divisions (or along the coast, etc.) since they have better range. (Particularly since it seems to me the SA-20 would be best against aircraft, whereas the Tor would be best against incoming missles.)
Taken together, neither one is going to 'sweep the skies' of attacking American aircraft, particularly fighters, and they're certainly little use against American aircraft operating in Iraq. They might hit something due to pure luck, but it would be a waste of missles. It all seems like pretty standard administration hyperventilating.
m, ATTN pundits! Reach for your inhalers!
On with the battle of the factoids:
Max, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm sez
There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia [but as of early 2006 no deliveries had taken place]. In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system. In March 2001 there were reports that the Russians are close to cutting a deal with Iran on advanced missiles. Itar-Tass reported that Iran would soon close the deal on the Russian Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and the S-300 surface-to-air missiles. After this report, there were no subsequent reports of Iranian interest in the SA-10.
If they had the more capable 10s or 20s you speak of, the Tor-M1s wouldn't be such a big deal.
Also, all the systems you discussed are highly respected by even fighter pilots. These are not your father's Oldsmobile SAMs. These are very capable systems and Washington and Pentagon concern about them is hardly hyperventilation.
However, to get back to what Ogged posted on, all these systems are essentially purely defensive. Calling them offensive is, I think, the result of ignorance (on the part of the NPR corespondent coupled with the inability to own up to the simple fact that any increased military capability, offensive or defensive, newly in the hands of our potential enemies is something that our military and civilian leaders abhor. Sure it's a double standard. But all's fair in love and war, right?
Sure it's a double standard. But all's fair in love and war, right?
Now we're getting somewhere in the analysis. Re the use of the words "fair", "provocative", "offensive", amd "defensive", etc., we see that words are war by other means.
In the 1920s there was an effort to bring about international disarmament of "offensive" weapons. It failed primarily because nobody could define "offensive". One party said heavy artillery was "offensive" because an aggressor would want it to smash through the other side's trenches. Another said it was a defensive weapon for them to keep aggressors at arm's length.
Someone else pointed out that lighter field pieces were more aggressive because you could manoeuvre with them, and so on, and so on. I don't think "offensive" and "defensive" are useful categories for weapons - after all, when the Royal Navy escorted a convoy of merchant ships from Canada to the UK in 1942, they were grand-strategically on the defensive (trying to reverse the Nazi conquest of Europe), strategically on the offensive (bringing troops and stores over to Europe), operationally on the defensive (keeping the U-boats away from the ships), and tactically on the offensive, by going out from the convoy on submarine hunts to sink the subs that were drawn to the convoy as a target.