Defending against Missiles
James T. Hackett | 14.11.2006 13:45 | Anti-militarism | Anti-racism | World
Tehran continues its in-your-face policy as its leaders show the world that its capable of eradicating a specified country and killing its citizens.
The government of Iran is continuing its in-your-face policy. Going beyond North Korea's launch of seven ballistic missiles on the Fourth of July, Iran in early November began a war game by launching at least 15 ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the area. No matter who chairs the defense committees in Congress, this threat must be faced.
Iran displayed its capability by simultaneously launching six missiles of various types and ranges, and then firing "tens of missiles" more. They included the 300-mile range Shahab-2, based on North Korea's Scud C, and the 800-mile range Shahab-3, a version of North Korea's Nodong. Iranian generals said these were followed by the launch of hundreds of shorter-range rockets and missiles with ranges of 100 miles and up.
An Iranian commander said on Tehran television that some carried cluster warheads, which spread "hundreds of small bombs over the target at different ranges." Cluster bombs, he said, are effective for attacking large deployments, air bases and even ships at sea. Rockets were launched in the Persian Gulf as a challenge to the allied naval force there that had just completed an exercise of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards praised the successful launch of the Shahab-3, which he said has just undergone a series of improvements. Known as the Shahab-3ER, the improved model is said to go 1,240 miles, which holds at risk most U.S. bases and allies in the Middle East. And Iran is developing a solid-fuel multistage missile it calls a satellite launch vehicle, probably derived from North Korea's Taepodong. It is expected to reach well into Europe and with booster rockets could cross the Atlantic.
As Iran continues doggedly developing nuclear weapons while extending the range of missiles to deliver them, the apocalyptic regime appears increasingly dangerous to Israel, U.S. bases in Iraq, and our allies in Europe and around the Persian Gulf. The Europeans have been patiently but unsuccessfully negotiating with Iran for years, trying to constrain its covert program to develop an atomic bomb. It is reminiscent of the decade of fruitless talks with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
To be sure, diplomatic efforts to isolate and sanction Iran should continue, but opposition by Russia and China, both eager to trade with Iran, and Tehran's lack of cooperation, suggest they will be fruitless unless there is a change of regime. Meanwhile, defenses are needed against the growing threat.
Just as the missile launches from North Korea showed the importance of the defenses in Alaska and California, the multiple missile launches by Iran show the need for defenses against such weapons in the Middle East. Eastern Europe is the best location for a missile defense site to protect the Eastern United States and our allies and bases in Europe. Negotiations are under way with the Polish and Czech governments. The plan is to build an early warning radar and missile defense site like the one in Alaska, but with 10 interceptors instead of 40.
Many congressional Democrats joined Republicans this year in approving $9.4 billion for missile defense in 2007, fully funding the administration's request. At the same time, Congress emphasized the importance of fielding currently available technology while deferring spending on futuristic research and development. This bipartisan congressional consensus recognizes the need shown by the North Korean and Iranian missile tests to have defenses in the field.
With unpredictable adversaries in Northeast Asia and the Middle East, and the risk a pro-Taliban government could take power in Pakistan and gain control of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, this year's consensus in Congress on missile defense is welcome. If any issue should be above partisan politics it is defending the country against a possible nuclear attack.
The new Democratic leadership should be wary of the calls for unlimited testing before deploying defenses. That is a risky formula for delay. The safety of Americans requires early expansion and improvement of the missile defenses in Alaska and creation of a base in Europe to defend against the missile threat emerging in the Middle East.
Iran displayed its capability by simultaneously launching six missiles of various types and ranges, and then firing "tens of missiles" more. They included the 300-mile range Shahab-2, based on North Korea's Scud C, and the 800-mile range Shahab-3, a version of North Korea's Nodong. Iranian generals said these were followed by the launch of hundreds of shorter-range rockets and missiles with ranges of 100 miles and up.
An Iranian commander said on Tehran television that some carried cluster warheads, which spread "hundreds of small bombs over the target at different ranges." Cluster bombs, he said, are effective for attacking large deployments, air bases and even ships at sea. Rockets were launched in the Persian Gulf as a challenge to the allied naval force there that had just completed an exercise of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards praised the successful launch of the Shahab-3, which he said has just undergone a series of improvements. Known as the Shahab-3ER, the improved model is said to go 1,240 miles, which holds at risk most U.S. bases and allies in the Middle East. And Iran is developing a solid-fuel multistage missile it calls a satellite launch vehicle, probably derived from North Korea's Taepodong. It is expected to reach well into Europe and with booster rockets could cross the Atlantic.
As Iran continues doggedly developing nuclear weapons while extending the range of missiles to deliver them, the apocalyptic regime appears increasingly dangerous to Israel, U.S. bases in Iraq, and our allies in Europe and around the Persian Gulf. The Europeans have been patiently but unsuccessfully negotiating with Iran for years, trying to constrain its covert program to develop an atomic bomb. It is reminiscent of the decade of fruitless talks with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
To be sure, diplomatic efforts to isolate and sanction Iran should continue, but opposition by Russia and China, both eager to trade with Iran, and Tehran's lack of cooperation, suggest they will be fruitless unless there is a change of regime. Meanwhile, defenses are needed against the growing threat.
Just as the missile launches from North Korea showed the importance of the defenses in Alaska and California, the multiple missile launches by Iran show the need for defenses against such weapons in the Middle East. Eastern Europe is the best location for a missile defense site to protect the Eastern United States and our allies and bases in Europe. Negotiations are under way with the Polish and Czech governments. The plan is to build an early warning radar and missile defense site like the one in Alaska, but with 10 interceptors instead of 40.
Many congressional Democrats joined Republicans this year in approving $9.4 billion for missile defense in 2007, fully funding the administration's request. At the same time, Congress emphasized the importance of fielding currently available technology while deferring spending on futuristic research and development. This bipartisan congressional consensus recognizes the need shown by the North Korean and Iranian missile tests to have defenses in the field.
With unpredictable adversaries in Northeast Asia and the Middle East, and the risk a pro-Taliban government could take power in Pakistan and gain control of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, this year's consensus in Congress on missile defense is welcome. If any issue should be above partisan politics it is defending the country against a possible nuclear attack.
The new Democratic leadership should be wary of the calls for unlimited testing before deploying defenses. That is a risky formula for delay. The safety of Americans requires early expansion and improvement of the missile defenses in Alaska and creation of a base in Europe to defend against the missile threat emerging in the Middle East.
James T. Hackett
Comments
Hide the following comment
Iran regime is not completely mad - i hope
14.11.2006 15:02
Lets think about missiles. IF (and its a big IF) Iran does indeed want to make a nuclear weapon, what use would it be? To liberate Palestine from the illegal Israeli occupation? I think not.
1. Even the smallest modern nuclear device exploding anywhere over Israel would a) kill a lot of Israelis, b) kill a fuck load of palestinians and c) make Israsel/Palestine uninhabitable for basically forever. It would be a rather crap liberation from the palestinian's point of view.
A missile strike in Jerusalem? Not likely, with its (diminishing) arab population, its historical and religious significance to Islam.
On Tel Aviv? again, a large arab population. Israel is a tiny tiny place, so any nuke would fuck basically the whole place up, permanent. Palestinians, already denied the most basic health care and social infrastructure, would become an ex-people.
2. Any missile heading towards Israel would 100% certainly provoke an Israeli counter-strike, which would certainly make Iran - and the Iranians - history. Kaput. Not one Iranian would be left.
3. Ditto a nuclear attack on Europe or anywhere else. The UK/French/US counterstrike would be total suicide for the Iranian regime and population.
4. Iran - even if it had the best technology, scientists, resources and cash, would be hard-pressed to make a significant 'first strike' capability, ie, enough missiles to totally overwhelm your opponent. It could fire a dozen missiles but would get 120 back by return of post, and would then have nothing else to launch. Or anyone else left alive to do the launching.
So any Iranian nuclear capability would be insufficient to 'win' a nuclear exchange. That said, a nuclear-armed Iran would be less likely to be bombed and invaded by the west. Nuclear weapons allows you entry to the 'Do not fuck with me' club. Iraq was attacked and occupied precisely because Saddam Hussein's regime DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction. If he had them, the US wouldn't have invaded.
Similar scenario with North Korea - its obvious that having nuke capability makes even the thickest people think twice before starting a fight.
So if Iran really does pursue nuclear weapons, the likelihood of their use would be almost 0. OK, not great if I'm wrong, but we could always go in live in Greenland or something.
wronger