Iran buys SSN6 missiles

[Abraham]

According to a statement of the Chief of the Israeli Military Intelligence on April 27, Iran has bought a number of BM-25 (SSN6) missiles from North Korea. The range of these missiles - formerly used by the russian submarine force - is 2.500 km, thus covering part of Europe. Iran has already its own Shihab-4 missiles with a supposed maximum range of 2.000 km.

Since these missiles have a nuclear capacity, but Iran reiterates that its nuclear program is purely for peacefull means it might well be that Iran is looking for a way to export nuclear energy by missile...

[jumpy]

Iram? what is this 'Iram' ..some new middleastern rogue state to be worried about? :-j

[scandium]

According to a statement of the Chief of the Israeli Military Intelligence on April 27, Iran has bought a number of BM-25 (SSN6) missiles from North Korea. The range of these missiles - formerly used by the russian submarine force - is 2.500 km, thus covering part of Europe. Iran has already its own Shihab-4 missiles with a supposed maximum range of 2.000 km.

Since these missiles have a nuclear capacity, but Iran reiterates that its nuclear program is purely for peacefull means it might well be that Iran is looking for a way to export nuclear energy by missile...

What a house of cards. Beginning with a statement from an Israeli intelligence chief (as though Israel's motives in this are unquestionable) that cites no proof whatsoever. No documents, no sources, no witnesses, nothing. And moving from that extremely shaky foundation into the world of fantasy and make believe since these "nuclear capable" missiles, with their whopping 2.5 km range, would (to constitute a nuclear threat to Europe) need a platform they could be delivered from at such short range not to mention the all important nuclear warhead itself.

Does Iran possess such a delivery platform that is even remotely capable, in light of US/European naval strength, of hitting Europe with this 2.5 km ranged weapon? More importantly, how are they to equip this missles with nuclear warheads when Iran has no nuclear capability? Next up: Iran can hit the UK with nukes within 45 minutes. :roll:

[aaken]

The stated range in 2500 km, that's 1300 nautical miles, not 2.5 km. It seems to me that, if the info is correct, the range is not so short.
The original SS-N-6 (serb) was used in Yankee class boats.

[scandium]

The stated range in 2500 km, that's 1300 nautical miles, not 2.5 km. It seems to me that, if the info is correct, the range is not so short.
The original SS-N-6 (serb) was used in Yankee class boats.

That's a little different then. Though the points regarding the reliability of the source and Iran's lack of nuclear weapons capability remain.

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe Europe needs to get hit so that they finially come out of their hole and do something on the world stage. All I see lately is appeasement to anyone who burns a flag.

-S

[Kapitan]

The serb missile is long obsolete and where did north korea get an exact missile like that from?

Did they lift it from a boat them selves?

[TLAM Strike]

The serb missile is long obsolete and where did north korea get an exact missile like that from?

Did they lift it from a boat them selves?Didn’t the Koreans get a Golf boat to disassemble? The Golf IVs carried the SS-N-6.

[aaken]

The Korean BM-25 is based on the soviet R-27, also known as SS-N-6.
Anyhow, if I'm not mistaken, the german newspaper Bild published already in december last year a report (supposedly coming from the german secret service) regarding the iranian acquisition of 18 disassembled BM-25 from North Korea.

[Deathblow]

Here's my 2cent about Iran and their nuclear intentions...

Whenever we talk about Iran and the development of its nuclear arsenal, I don't think the threat imposed is of the nature that many claim... I seriously doubt that Iran will actually ever initiate official and openly offensive action against any other Non-Islamic country... here's why...

...think about it....Their religous fanaticism isn't new, its been going strong for years, yet their tally of openly warlike actions against their "enemies" has thus far been limited. They've wanted to attack Israel, but they don't; they've wanted to attack other nonIslamic countries, but they don't. They don't because they are fully aware of the the united and concerted effort against them that would swell and obliterate their countries to rubble and wilderness (something no leader would want since it would mean that they would loose their society as they know it, as well as the power/control they weld). They know this, they understand it, and their fantasticism has not reached the point that they are willing to seal the destruction of their nation and government...yet...

... what they *have* done is sanctioned, supported, and promoted the most underhanded, dirty, and insideous acts of violence on a continual "under the table" basis, as to carry out their agenda with as little risk to the sovereignty of their own government as possible. The development of Irans nuclear arsenal will probably follow the same lines... They know what would happen if they launched an openly obvious nuclear strike against any NonIslamic country... an even more fierce nuclear arsenal would be unleased upon them to the effect of the destruction of their land and cities... and IMHO is unlikely that they're leaders will ever feel stupid enough to do so. Despite their acquisition of a launching vehicle IMHO its still doubtful an open attack will ever come.

... but what *will* happen whenever nukes come to Iran is that the uranium will be handed down to insideous terrorist organizations with glandness and haste and a terrorist bomb will be detonated by an supposedly "seperate terrorist group" who just happened to "find" a nuke bomb. This is the most likely and dangerous case.

All that being said...

... IMHO the greatest deterent to try to prevent such a inevitable scenario from happening are the exact policies we are seeing right now in the form of US/British/other action against Afghanistan and Iraq. (Yes I said it, to the balking, grimacing, and scolding of many). The US/British have made a clear precedent that a backlash *will* (not if... will) come fiercely against governments that are traced to be connected to with any attack... to the extreme point that they have been willing to attack countries that they even think *might* be connected (i.e. Iraq) and have been shown willing to swipe an entire government hierachy off the map... This example being made, a precedent is being formed to inform the suppliers of such a weapon that they any involvement *will* be tracked down and the offending governments obliterated... with most likely not with the goal as the awkward and benign "peacekeeping" or "democracy bringing" that is shown now, but the goal of complete and utter *obliteration* of any signs of the former government/leaders/ industry or infrastructure...

... that being said the current Iraqi and Afghanistan policies being seen may be exactly the right choice to prevent such a nuclear travesty from happening.... hindsight is 20/20 and only time will tell.

[Skybird]

Maybe Europe needs to get hit so that they finially come out of their hole and do something on the world stage. All I see lately is appeasement to anyone who burns a flag.

-S

While burning or trampled-on flags leave me completely unimpressed, I fear you could be right with the appeasing attitude (towards Muslim nations), and that it will not be reconsidered as long as europe does not receive a wakeup-call that is far more painful than London, Madrid - and m,aybe even New York?

Anyway, I also see no reason to dramatize the nuke thing with Iran now. We all know they want those nuke-toys. And our experts still say that they are years away from having them. Getting rough with them in time is early enough. much things could happen during time periods, fro m antural desasters to assassinations, from political changes to events in other countries that somehow produce a drastic political fallout on Iran. So why cutting these time periods as short as possible without need? If we prepare to be ready to hit them once that time is running out, then it is early enough.

[Abraham]

@ jumpy:
"Iram" was a mistake (like there are many on this forum) because the "n" and the "m" keys are next to eachother.

@ scandium:
The mere fact that the Israeli military intelligence states something without naming sources can hardly considered an "extremely shaky foundation". It is a statement, not a foundation at all and whether it is shaky remains to be seen.
The SS-N-6 has a range of 2.500 km, not 2.5 km and is nuclear capable.
Your question More importantly, how are they to equip this missles with nuclear warheads when Iran has no nuclear capability?is very valid and to the point. If been thinking a lot about that inconsistency lately. One answer I came up with is this: Perhaps Iran wants to get nuclear warheads as well but doesn't tell us...? Could be, couldn't it?

@ Kapitan:
This is the relevant link I plucked from Global Security.com (for what it is worth): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2004/08/dprk-040804-29f11bfb.htm

@ aaken:
The German secret service report about the acquisition of 18 disassembled BM-25's would be a second source for this information then?

@ everybody who takes a relaxed view at the complete political picture of Iran's current policy:
Think about Nazi Germany in the early thirties.
Who cares that the Nazi's start building a few coastal U-boats and a pocket battleship; they'll never be able to threaten the most powerfull fleet that ever sailed the globe, the Royal Navy...
And those little PzKw I's and II's with their machine guns are oh so inferior to Mathildes and Valentine tanks.
No need to worry at all...

[aaken]

@Abraham:

In my little post I just pointed out that the Iran acquisition of ballistic missiles from North Korea was an "old" story, since it surfaced already in december 2005 on a german newspaper. Frankly I don't remember if the german secret service ever admitted that the report published by Bild came from them.

@Skybird
While burning or trampled-on flags leave me completely unimpressed, I fear you could be right with the appeasing attitude (towards Muslim nations), and that it will not be reconsidered as long as europe does not receive a wakeup-call that is far more painful than London, Madrid - and m,aybe even New York?
As for the (european) appeasing attitude towards muslim nations in general, what would be a suitable course of action? Bomb them all? Take Algeria, for instance. It's a muslim nation. It doesn't seem to me that the Algerian government showed any desire of wiping out or conquering other countries lately. Algerians form a vast minority in France, a minority that maybe won't be such in 50 or 100 years. Does it equates to Algeria invading France? And even if a number of algerians are criminals and try to blow up a metro station in Paris (which, if I'm not mistaken, they did already once in the past), would it equate to all Algerians being terrorists? What to do with them or, for all it matters, with all the people living in Europe that came from muslim countries to work in Germany, or in France, or in England or wherever in the 50s, 60s, 70s and so on? Throw them out if they don't convert?

[jumpy]

@ jumpy:
"Iram" was a mistake (like there are many on this forum) because the "n" and the "m" keys are next to eachother.


Yer I know, I know. I was just poking a little fun and irony ie. what ? another crazy ME state who want's nukes?! ;)

[Konovalov]

And even if a number of algerians are criminals and try to blow up a metro station in Paris (which, if I'm not mistaken, they did already once in the past),

Yeah, it was the GIA responsible for that crime and others in Paris.

[scandium]

@ everybody who takes a relaxed view at the complete political picture of Iran's current policy:
Think about Nazi Germany in the early thirties.
Who cares that the Nazi's start building a few coastal U-boats and a pocket battleship; they'll never be able to threaten the most powerfull fleet that ever sailed the globe, the Royal Navy...
And those little PzKw I's and II's with their machine guns are oh so inferior to Mathildes and Valentine tanks.
No need to worry at all...

Thought about it and I don't see any basis for comparison at all. Let's look at it from another angle: did Iran enter the spotlight before or after the US launched the war of rhetoric on Iran by including them, in 2002, as part of the "Axis of Evil" that also included North Korea and Iraq? Did the US subsequently, for the supposed purpose of disarmament, invade and occupy an already disarmed Iraq which was part of this "Axis of Evil"? At the time the Axis of Evil speech was given, what countries had Iran invaded and occupied? In light of the US's actions toward another Axis of 3 nation that you were a part of, would it make more sense for them to follow the same path Iraq had, one that led ultimately to its invasion and occupation, or would it make more sense to do everything within your means to protect yourself from sharing the same fate? Perhaps it might even make sense to follow the example of the other country in this Axis, you know, the one that wasn't attacked and invaded? Which of the following has Iran done that the US has not already itself done:

a: come to power through a disputed election that was followed up shortly thereafter by a Reichstag Fire/911, an enabling/PATRIOT Act, and a "crusade" against your enemies for which the blueprint for your 3rd reich had already been published before hand in Mein Kampf/Project for a New American Century;

b: enriched uranium;

c: roused the masses by stirring up nationalistic sentiment and proclaiming that anyone who is not with you is against you;

d: outspending any other country in the world in weapons;

e: caught torturing POWs in your most infamous prison while at the same time continuing a practice of holding those you deem to be an enemy in an offshore prison with no charge, with no trial, and for an indefinite period while having others rendered to friendly dictatorships where they can be tortured on your behalf;

f: attacked and invaded two countries, one of which had not attacked you, had no capability to attack you, and was in fact a 3rd world state with 1/10th your population, 50% of which were children, and which had already been defanged through over a decade of midieval style sanctions combined with periodic bombing but which you insisted was in fact enough of a threat to be invaded, pre-emptively, even while international weapons inspectors were searching the place for this supposed threat. The threat that, years later, has still never been found;

g: repudiating the non-proliferation treaty for the purposes of augmenting the world's largest arsenal of WMD with tactical nukes to be pre-emptively used on your declared Nazi like enemy who is currently at war with nobody and who has no nuclear capability of their own. Weapons that are regarded so heinous that in the 60 years since you invented and used them on cities no country, including your own, has ever used again.

You're right Abraham. Until now I'd never before noticed the similarity between Iran and Nazi Germany.

[Konovalov]

What I am actually interested in here with the Nazi Germany v Iran comparisons is a comparison of the powers held by the Iranian President v those held by Hitler who after mid 1933 was dictator of the then Nazi Germany? Has anyone bothered to do an analysis of this? :hmm:

[Iceman]

All your defsesive points about Iran are Mute....A World leader lays down the guantlet and says it will wipe a country off the map....can you black black take that back?...what to do? ...the choice is obvious to the trained eye yet it will faulter until destruction comes again like a whirlwind....unless someone like Israel will not take the gamble, same as the US did....My only hope is we, "America", stand with Israel and not against.

Even more so is the truth of Matthew... except the days be shortned no flesh should be saved.

Vanity of vanity ALL is vanity.