Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[-]
Welcome To Rant Central
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username:
  

Password:
  




A question about surface to surface missles
#1
The front page of most national newspapers today carried the story that a bunch of Iranian Surface to Surface missles (STS?) were destroyed - presumably by an Israeli air strike into Syria. It was said that those missiles were acquired by Syria from Iran.

My question is as follows: It's been around 70 years since nations first started using these kinds of missles to wage war on other nations (Germany's V2 rockets). Why would it take that long for a nation like Iran that is super rich with oil money to develop these rockets?

It seems to me the plans for these rockets are kind of common knowledge or can be easily found over the Internet.

So, what is wrong with Syria and Iran? Why would it take them so very long to develop these kinds of weapons that have a range of only a few hundred miles? It seems to me that Germany's rockets had to travel a longer distance 70 years ago than these rockets have to travel today. Or am I mistaken about that?

Seems to me, they should have been able to develop them many years ago. But I may well be missing something. Can anyone tell me what that is? Or, more generally, what is wrong with these guys? Nations like North Korea have been able to develop these weapons and even made them handle nuclear warheads? And North Korkea, it seems to me, is not nearly as wealthy or as educated as Iran.

Can you tell me your opinions as to what has gone wrong with Iran and Syria?

I'm genuinely curious and I'm not screwing around. I would really like to hear what you think. I have no idea what is going on with these nations. But it sure does scare me.
Reply
#2
the issue is not a matter of money, it's technology.

you gotta remember, these countries are about 50 years behind the united states in terms of technology, chip manufacturing and design... as for north korea, they are in the same boat. even if they do manage to produce any technology, it will still be unreliable and inefficient.

back during the cold war, the ussr had weapons nuclear weapons and delivery systems such as icbms... they weren't worth the shit paid to produce them since at the end of the day, they were mediocre designs developed for mediocre minds.

the only reason the missile destruction in syria is a big deal is because those rockets were probably going to be launched at isreal from gaza at some point. it's a major break through for terrorist operations since a missile can be guided externally or internally while a rocket cannot.
"Yeah. I understand the mechanics of it, shithead. I just don't understand how this is any less retarded than what I'm suggesting." - Kiley; Housebound.
Reply
#3
It is not the rockets/missiles themselves that are difficult to build it is the guidance systems as Sporkium suggested. Anyone can build a rocket, but getting it to go where you want it to is not quite so easy. That takes some advanced technology that many countries don't have.

During WWII the Germans essentially pointed the V2s in the direction of the target, set them off and prayed that they would hit something. It was more of a terrorist tactic than any sort of real military action.
that those with no rights,
display the right to have no life, to have respect they must accept
a world commiting suicide
Reply
#4
I see. Thanks guys. That makes sense to me. I never figured it was the guidance systems that was the sticking point.
Reply
#5
remains the fact that israel just committed an act of war against a "sovereign "country

that the missiles would have ended up in Gaza is also pretty far fetched
consistency is the hobdob
of small minds[
Reply
#6
who cares...

Ny Times Wrote:The airstrike that Israeli warplanes carried out in Syria overnight on Thursday was directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for Hezbollah, American officials said Saturday. That strike was aimed at disrupting the arms pipeline that runs from Syria to Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese organization, and it highlighted the mounting stakes for Hezbollah and Israel as Syria becomes more chaotic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/....html?_r=0

...op wants to know about technological limitations... not isreal's policy towards terrorism.
"Yeah. I understand the mechanics of it, shithead. I just don't understand how this is any less retarded than what I'm suggesting." - Kiley; Housebound.
Reply
#7
Back 20 years ago, the SCUD missiles in the region was of great concern, since they could be used as terror weapons by aiming them at cities.
The guidance systems in them were quite poor, but that mattered little if they were aimed at a large urban target.
The technology to create accurate guided missiles has improved dramatically since then.
These days, even ostracized nations, such as Iran and North Korea, can purchase microprocessors and peripheral electronics such as analog-to-digital converters, digital-to-analog converters and GPS receivers on the open market.
It is therefore not nearly as difficult today for a third world country to develop missiles with precision guidance systems as it used to be.
With missiles like that in the wrong hands, that could result in large numbers of civilian deaths.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
- Robert A. Heinlein
Reply
#8
(05-05-2013, 06:12 PM)velvetfog Wrote: ......

These days, even ostracized nations, such as Iran and North Korea, can purchase microprocessors and peripheral electronics such as analog-to-digital converters, digital-to-analog converters and GPS receivers on the open market.
It is therefore not nearly as difficult today for a third world country to develop missiles with precision guidance systems as it used to be.
With missiles like that in the wrong hands, that could result in large numbers of civilian deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following post, I am not certain that the effects of a "dirty bomb" that I will describe are correct and I would invite any of you who know better than I do to please correct me if I am mistaken and post a more accurate description if you would.

My goal in this post is to try and give a more accurate description of the consequences of using some of these missiles and targeting large cities such as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

The population of Tel Aviv is 400,000 and the population of Jerusalem is 800,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Sheeite!

I would take it a little further. Instead of saying "large numbers of civilian deaths", I think that I would make it clear that one of these insane states could do a lot worse than that.

I would guess that the worst they could do would be to attach a "dirty bomb" to one of those missiles and target the center of a large city. There are three factors involved:

1) It is relatively easy to construct such a thing (meaning the warhead of a missle containing a "dirty bomb")

2) It is highly probably that they would be able to successfully accomplish their goal. (meaning exploding a "dirty bomb" in the center of a large city)

3) The odds of suffering any retribution would be quite low.

By "dirty bomb", I mean taking a bunch of commonly available radioactive material and exploding it with an old-fashioned type of explosive (such as TNT). This would be rather easy to accomplish. The level of technology required is much, much lower than any kind of thermonuclear device.

This kind of device may not kill or injure very many people when it explodes. But, it is the long-term effects that will cause great damage to the civilians in that city.

The people would be exposed to radioactive materials that could easily cause many deadly cancers and other medical problems that would reduce their life-spans and cause them to suffer many kinds of deadly diseases in their later years.

But the biggest danger and problems associated with "dirty bombs" is that the city buildings and infrastructures will remain radioactive for many, many years to come.

The only way to prevent these kinds of diseases would be to level the city and evacuate all the people for a very long time. Perhaps 100 years or so.

What do you think the consequences would be of evacuating the human population from a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv for 100 years?

Forget about those cities in Israel. Instead, consider some of the most populous North American cities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uni...population

1) New York - 8,250,000
2) Los Angeles - 3,800,000
3) Chicago - 2,700,000
4) Houston - 2,145,000
5) Philadelphia - 1,536,000
Reply
#9
a dirty bomb isn't as effective as one would think... but it depends on what you pack it with. since iran has nuclear material... they could use more exotic particulates... and as far as spreading it with tnt, it depends on if they want an aerial dispersal or a ground dispersal. the former has a larger contamination range as where the later has a limited range.

the real damage would come from freaked out civilians.

once again, depending on what is used, the initial casualties would be quite low while the future casualties in terms of cancer and birth defects, etc could be quite high.

the retribution would be disturbingly high.
"Yeah. I understand the mechanics of it, shithead. I just don't understand how this is any less retarded than what I'm suggesting." - Kiley; Housebound.
Reply
#10
(05-05-2013, 07:19 PM)sporkium Wrote: the retribution would be disturbingly high.

A most excellent point, Sporkium.

Can you imagine what the US government would do in terms of retaliation if some country exploded a dirty bomb in a major US city? (even if it did virtually no damage)?

First of all, after the end of WWII, the US military asked the Japanese why on earth they ever attacked the US at Pearl Harbor in the first place? Japan knew they couldn't win that war. Japan told the US that they knew the best Japan could do was to raise Hell for about six months and they hoped the US would then agree to a negotiated armistice.

Well, when the US military heard that, they freaked out and they decided that never again would they allow any nation to attack them without retaliating to a degree at least as costly as the initial attack and probably even more so. It is for that reason I figure that if anyone ever exploded any kind of nuclear device in a US city, the US military has plans in place to retaliate as strongly as they can. The only problem is being certain they can identify the attacker. Remember what happened on 911? The US admin got it wrong but didn't even seem to t care. They retaliated against Iraq even though Iraq had nothing to do with the original attack. My conclusion is that it was more important to them to retaliate swiftly than it was to get the right country. In that way no country would ever get the idea they could take a "free shot" at the US and get away with it.

Anyway, the US has never made its plans for retaliation public. But, I'm guessing they would not hesitate to launch a full scale nuclear response. I mean several big, big nukes (like 20 to 30 megatons) on that nation's major cities. No matter what you have heard about the difference between the Hiroshima bomb (13 Kilotons) and a modern era Hydrogen bomb (20 Megatons)(In other words - 2,000 times more powerful and many more times even that in terms of the effects of the radiation). The results of exploding even a single 20 Megaton bomb would be a catastrophe for the attacking nation and for the entire planet. I would also guess that some enemies of the US would likewise launch a serious retaliation against the US that could very well be far more serious than either the initial attack or the retaliation to that attack.

I'd really like to know what you think about that. Do you think that is correct? If so, it could spell a disaster for this planet, the likes of which we have never seen and probably never even imagined.

But if you would be interested in taking a look, the most frightful film I have ever seen that comes anywhere close to describing the aftermath of a nuclear attack using modern era weapons is a movie called "The Day After 1983".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404

This is the most terrifying film I have ever seen. The producers are careful to admit they have deliberately shown the effects of weapons that are even less destructive than the actual modern day weapons.

This film scared the living daylights out of me. The bottom line is that if any nation ever exploded some modern nukes (talking 20 to 30 megatons), it could very well mark the end of civilization as we know it.

In other words, the next World War will most certainly be the last World War. We will not be getting any more second chances after that. If you haven't seen this film and you have the nerve, take a look at it and see what you think?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)