Skip to comments.Can Iran strike the U.S. with a (nuclear) missile?
Posted on 02/03/2012 1:33:29 AM PST by forty_years
Reports emerged yesterday warning that, "Iran had been working on developing a missile capable of striking the United States." In addition, one source claims that, "Iran's nuclear arms program is complete, its missiles can reach US." The general consensus already assumes that the Islamist regime has missiles, "capable of reaching Israel and Europe." This obvious existential threat to Israel and the West has been confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s, "growing concerns of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," bolstered by the fact that the the European Union (EU), U.S., and to some part Japan and South Korea, have imposed an oil embargo on Iran. It must be emphasized that the EU, South Korea, and Japan all depend at least partially on Iranian oil, meaning the Western bloc takes Iran's nuclear program seriously. All the above evidence is even more worrisome considering the fanaticism of the Islamist regime:
[Iranian President] Mr. Ahmadinejad writes letters to the Twelfth Imam, who is said to have inhabited a well for the past few centuries. The president believes he can bring back the long-lost imam -- the Mahdi -- by precipitating the apocalypse, something his doctrine tells him will trigger a Second Coming, and paradise. Mojtaba Samare Hashemi, Mr. Ahmadinejad's eminence grise and suitably fanatic former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps intelligence agent, helps his boss place fellow Mahdi-cultists in security, defence and other powerful positions.
All of this means that an Iranian bomb would be under control of nuclear triggermen who regards atomic annihilation as an incentive, rather than a deterrent. In short order, Canada and the rest of the world would face the mullahs' diktat. ...
Keep in mind that there are IAEA -- not U.S. or Israeli -- "intelligence reports indicating that Iran has covertly researched ways to design a nuclear weapon..."
Not a chance.
You can design something on paper and it looks all great and wonderful but I can pretty much guarantee that the first time you go to test it, it will fail miserable, and possibly even spectacularly.
It takes hundreds of tests of things like ballistic missiles to even start to get something effective that you can then tweak to aim to where you want it.
This isn’t just like lobbing a few mortars, this is an entirely new arena and scale.
There was a large article in SciAm years ago about the technology that went into a Tomahawk cruise missile, and even then, it was mind-boggling. And it was all tested during R&D, hundreds, maybe even thousands of launches.
Who says they are using their technology? Is there a country that relies on Iranian oil with the technology? Here is a quote from the article about Iran’s third microsattelite.. “Iran’s space program has raised concerns because the same technology that allows missiles to launch satellites can be used to fire warheads.”
Is it better to simply dismiss a threat based on an article we read? Especially considering how unreliable scientific papers have become. Or is it good strategy to prepare for the worst and hope for the best? I hope they are simply saber rattling again.
They wouldnt need a long range ICBM. What they have could do the job if launched from a ship. A nuke could be transported in an airliner, the ultimate suicide bomber.
We may soon be finding out
Here is the Glen Beck piece from earlier in case you missed it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2841628/posts
Frankly , I believe in their assessments and think Iran needs to be alleviated of the technologies, deterred forever, by a few simple glazings. And its not just Iran. Any islamic player state should receive the same remedy.
Barbarians should not be allowed the technologies just because they have our oil money to buy the technologies.
Its just like children should not have matches not sharp objects to play with.
What would/should we do if Iran lobbed a nuke-armed missile at the US that failed and was recovered by us? A stiff diplomatic note delivered by the Swiss?
“Short answer: Not a chance.”
Well launching an ICBM from Iran, yes, I would say the odds
are between slim and none.
Striking the US with a WMD, however, is not out of the question.
There are a multitude of options.
1. smuggled in from a nearby country
2. manufactured in the USA
3. delivered by air from a nearby country
A WMD does not have to be even a nuclear bomb.
It could be biological or chemical.
I failed to mention:
911 was an example of multiple WMDs, so they have already
done it in the past.
If this CIC was still in power at the time perhaps he would send them a model of it instead....
The basic idea was 2 nukes, put on a cargo ships...One headed for the east coast, the other headed to the Gulf of Mexico. Set them off, one above the east coast, one above central USA...at the same time.
Your airliner idea is even easier. I wonder how hard it would be to load a nuke onto a “friendly” airplane that regularly flies from the middle east? I think their “cargo ship” idea was because there are SO many and they are not under much if any control.
The idea of course that the emp from the nukes—set off quite far above ground—will fry all the electronics in the entire country—other than HI and Alaska. I think they made the point that radiation, etc. would be of little consequence and since they are blown so far above land there would be no Hiroshima-like occurrence. Pretty much just a bit of a glow in the sky for a few moments—but the entire country will be disabled.
No more food, no water...no interwebs. No nothing. It was a very scary scenario, one I've heard mentioned before. I certainly see this as something Iran would LOVE to do. It makes a great deal of sense, from their POV.
Uh, they have a satellite up. If you can orbit, you can hit pretty much any part of the globe.
Now they work on payload and accuracy.
Iran has just put it 3rd satellite into orbit. I think they can reach us....
To get EMP effects on that scale, you need a high-yield device (1 megaton or better) and it needs to be set off in space, preferably about 200 miles up. You can’t do that with a ship or an airliner. The mullahs would need (a) a hydrogen bomb; and (b) the ability to put it at orbital altitudes (not necessarily orbital speed) over the US.
I don't really know much about missiles, but I've heard that Scud’s ARE in the hands of Iran/Korea. Couldn't one be loaded on a container ship?
I'm fascinated and horrified by this. Was Kyl’s assessment a bit hysterical?
Not now, but there can be no doubt that that’s the goal for them and for N. Korea. Iran persistent threat to civilized life as we know it is an example of what happens when we let someone like Jimmy Carter be in charge. Iran’s nuclear weapons progress is nearing completion because that’s what happens when we let someone like Barak Obama be in charge.
All they have to do is pop a nuke or three about 250 - 350 miles above the earth over the US. No precision targeting is required.
The resulting EMP will destroy the US energy infrastructure, leading to the probably death of up to 50% of the population, and up to 90% in the large cities.
On a bang-per-buck basis, EMP is MUCH more effective than targeting cities.
And Iran knows it.
Airliner nuke only provides a localized EMP. You have to be above the bulk of the atmosphere to get the large-scale effect.
From what I've read in the National EMP Assessment and other docs, a uranium bomb would work, as well. The gamma output needs to be optimized by carefully selecting the casing, but that technology is not even classified anymore; it's on the Internet for all to see.
Unless of course you have a friend like Russia who will sell you a complete working system.