• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are nuclear weapon so important?????

AmIsraelHai

AmIsraelHai

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
1,224
Reaction score
76
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that USA and Russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at North Korea, or Iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
 
Defensive. Its a deterrent from involvement by other, larger, militarily more powerful countries.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
Why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that USA and Russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at North Korea, or Iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
Click to expand...

It is literally deterrance, no nation will invade a nuclear nation for petty or economical reasons, hence those weaker nations search for nuclear weapons to prevent invasion.

This makes one wonder why normal detterance is not enough, north korea could leave a million up to millions dead with their massive arrtillery, the largest concentration in the world, or iran's over 100k ballistic missiles, which could already wipe out anything on the surface for israel or saudi arabia. both countries have deterred invasion thus far but the seeking of a further deterrant makes one wonder if they feel countries willing to invade them feel millions of lives mean nothing and they need to up the ante to billions.
 
amisraelhai said:
why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that usa and russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at north korea, or iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
Click to expand...


m.a.d
 
beerftw said:
It is literally deterrance, no nation will invade a nuclear nation for petty or economical reasons, hence those weaker nations search for nuclear weapons to prevent invasion.

This makes one wonder why normal detterance is not enough, north korea could leave a million up to millions dead with their massive arrtillery, the largest concentration in the world, or iran's over 100k ballistic missiles, which could already wipe out anything on the surface for israel or saudi arabia. both countries have deterred invasion thus far but the seeking of a further deterrant makes one wonder if they feel countries willing to invade them feel millions of lives mean nothing and they need to up the ante to billions.
Click to expand...

Iran has 100K missiles?

Let's not invade them.

To the OP; not only as a deterrent, but in the aftermath of the recovering planet the ability to produce nuclear weapons can secure the world especially if North Korea could survive with her troops, especially if she didn't start it.

Ruling the world is Un's goal.

Un wants to rule the world to trouble the Godhead for his mistake.

How'd you like to be a causal worm with Un in command and eat through the material coverings to make it back to paradise and tempt eve for material gratification; power etc?
 
It's a force-multiplier for militarily weaker nations. For example, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine if Kyiv still possessed her Cold War nuclear arsenal.
 
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate in political weapons.

They are literally not "weapons" in the traditional sense. They are of little use on the battlefield, and are as dangerous (if not more so) to your own people than they are of the enemy. But what they can do is be used to project power against others as an extension of your own political will.

Look no further than the US putting nukes in Turkey and this is clear. We put nukes in one country, and the Soviets decided "Hey, let's do the same thing!" Then we got the Cuban Missile Crisis, and both sides back off and removed those missiles.

Or even the first use, in Japan in 1945. "Either you end this war, or we will destroy your cities one by one with no risk to ourselves". The ultimate in the use of such weapons to achieve a political goal (this one of ending a war).

The US, Russia, and other major powers use them as a deterrence, "We will not use ours if you do not use yours. But do not push us to far, and we will get along." Call it what you will, MAD, Deterrence, Balance of Power, the result is the same. Both knows what the other can do, so does what they can to keep things stable.

Then you have the only "wildcard" that is believed to posses nuclear weapons, Israel. They do not brag about it, in fact they will deny they have them at all times. But they also do not go around threatening others with their nukes. It is believed that they are literally juts a "weapon of last resort", in the event that they are again invaded and in danger of being overrun. Something that has not happened however in over 40 years.

Pakistan and India also both have nukes. But like the US-USSR, they are stand-off weapons largely pointed at each other. SO long as one does not use them, the other will not either.

The real power of having nukes is in never using them. It is the fear of what you may do with them which is what makes others hesitate in pushing things too far.

The worry is when it comes to more Fundamentalist and unstable countries, like Iran and North Korea. Both are belligerent and believe that whatever they do is the right thing, either because International Socialism as laid down by Saint Marx said so, or because of what the clerics that lead the people say is the message from higher powers and their interpretation of over 1,000 year old writings.

North Korea worries me the most, because they have actively attacked South Korea fairly regularly over the past 50 years. And they have absolutely no problem with making an agreement in exchange for something, then promptly ripping it up and pretending it never existed. The Kim Dynasty is revered as if they were the Shinto Emperor and his ancestors from the reign of Emperor Showa. And if he was to wave his hand and order them to attack, they would do so because that is all they have been taught for over half a century.

Iran mostly worries me, not because of the government itself (I think they have enough survival instinct to not threaten to use a nuke), but because much of the middle and upper level are led by religious fanatics. It would only take one getting a "Revelation" and deciding that turning one over to a small group for smuggling into Tel Aviv for detonation is the "Will of God". It is a country that literally has taught the last 2 generations that being a Martyr is a good thing. The danger is, some could easily then become a martyr in a direction they did not predict.
 
Rogue Valley said:
It's a force-multiplier for militarily weaker nations. For example, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine if Kyiv still possessed her Cold War nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

It is only one possible multiplier.

The other is to ally yourself with a nation or nations that have such weapons, or enough conventional forces to offset the risk.

Kuwait had such an agreement with the UK, which kicked in when Iraq invaded. The US had a lesser agreement, but it still decided to act as well.

The Ukraine could have joined NATO, which would have put it automatically under the umbrella of US held nukes. But they never joined any of the major alliances, and were therefore left by themselves.

Most nations of the world use alliances and not nukes in cases like this. "If you attack me, XXX will get involved". And no, it does not always work (Iraq-Kuwait), but many times it does limit conflicts to essentially little more than border conflicts or low lever insurgencies. Not the large invasions and annexations like the Ukraine suffered.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
Why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that USA and Russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at North Korea, or Iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
Click to expand...

The US and Russia both have a lot of them, North Korea has several, along with more than a few other Nations. Glad to catch you up.
 
Exquisitor said:
Iran has 100K missiles?

Let's not invade them.

To the OP; not only as a deterrent, but in the aftermath of the recovering planet the ability to produce nuclear weapons can secure the world especially if North Korea could survive with her troops, especially if she didn't start it.

Ruling the world is Un's goal.

Un wants to rule the world to trouble the Godhead for his mistake.

How'd you like to be a causal worm with Un in command and eat through the material coverings to make it back to paradise and tempt eve for material gratification; power etc?
Click to expand...

On the bolded I would agree not invading them, they would go down but much like north korea they would not only give us a black eye but also knock our teeth out as well, meaning they will go down doing as much damage as they can before they fall, both iran and north korea have the means through traditional weapons to inflict casualties so high no sane person would consider invading them a good idea unless they viewed millions of lives as disposable.
 
beerftw said:
On the bolded I would agree not invading them, they would go down but much like north korea they would not only give us a black eye but also knock our teeth out as well, meaning they will go down doing as much damage as they can before they fall, both iran and north korea have the means through traditional weapons to inflict casualties so high no sane person would consider invading them a good idea unless they viewed millions of lives as disposable.
Click to expand...

Well described.

We can't under-estimate Un.

If we lift sanctions and they become an economic powerhouse and store food they can supply a campaign to bother Seattle who's guns we take away and Un just has to keep the army at bay to have his way with her.

If Un screws up and something happens, we don't want to have to level her people with nuclear weapons.

This is what they plan with 95% of their energy so we can't say go-on, but besides this the potential is disturbing and what Un needs for popular support at home and around the world.

I think it's wrong to try to make him come to the table, rather you should offer him a more lucrative sacrifice.

The problem is, you're not, you're saying bend over to us and hand over your weapons as we reem you.

And he says, "Watch me make you bend over."


Declare yourself the world's police man and make Un your depute and give his troops some hands on anyone misbehaving according to a delicate contract, because if you give Un a country like Venezuela how is he going to control himself?

Don't like Russia in Ukraine? Un gets it.

Aren't you glad I'm taking my medication and not running for President (maybe it's my Saturn return)?

I am.
 
beerftw said:
On the bolded I would agree not invading them, they would go down but much like north korea they would not only give us a black eye but also knock our teeth out as well, meaning they will go down doing as much damage as they can before they fall, both iran and north korea have the means through traditional weapons to inflict casualties so high no sane person would consider invading them a good idea unless they viewed millions of lives as disposable.
Click to expand...

Remember, they are a nation that really does not care about their own people. Remember, they saw over half a million deaths over a famine of their own creation (and still blame other nations for their own failures).

As far as "giving the US a black eye", they really can not do that. About all that is within reach of there is Guam and our bases on Okinawa and South Korea. And attacks on any of those would be swift and decisive and likely 100% conventional. They simply lack either quantity to do much more than a poke in the eye, nor the delivery systems.

Even their traditional allies like Russia and China would quickly turn on them if they conducted a nuclear attack anywhere.

The same even more so for Iran. They lack any kind of delivery system to reach much farther than Israel. And if that was to happen expect nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan to respond quickly. Not only do that now have close ties with Israel, they are the ones that would suffer from the fallout of such weapons.

And as both nations are increasingly learning, their own intransigence is leading to more and more severe repercussions internationally. North Korea is already starting to get to the point where even their allies are starting to try and find a way to separate from them.

For Iran, it is a bit different. Their own particular form of insanity is that their main weapon partner is now the nation they call the "Little Satan".
 
Oozlefinch said:
Remember, they are a nation that really does not care about their own people. Remember, they saw over half a million deaths over a famine of their own creation (and still blame other nations for their own failures).

As far as "giving the US a black eye", they really can not do that. About all that is within reach of there is Guam and our bases on Okinawa and South Korea. And attacks on any of those would be swift and decisive and likely 100% conventional. They simply lack either quantity to do much more than a poke in the eye, nor the delivery systems.

Even their traditional allies like Russia and China would quickly turn on them if they conducted a nuclear attack anywhere.

The same even more so for Iran. They lack any kind of delivery system to reach much farther than Israel. And if that was to happen expect nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan to respond quickly. Not only do that now have close ties with Israel, they are the ones that would suffer from the fallout of such weapons.

And as both nations are increasingly learning, their own intransigence is leading to more and more severe repercussions internationally. North Korea is already starting to get to the point where even their allies are starting to try and find a way to separate from them.

For Iran, it is a bit different. Their own particular form of insanity is that their main weapon partner is now the nation they call the "Little Satan".
Click to expand...

The black eye would be in north koreas case what they could do to seoul or to us military bases, their massive artillery is not enough to destroy south korea but it is enough to make things so painful that invading them becomes too costly.

Irans missiles are mostly reverse engineered and modded scud and other type russian missiles, Israel and saudi arabia are within range and the number of missiles could wipe out everything on the surface of israel(israel actually is prepared for such scenarios hence they keep many bunkers and much of their gear underground) and saudi arabia being a much larger country can still expect massive damage from that number of missiles.


Neither the mass artillery nor the mass of ballistic missiles would win any war, however losing 1 mil plus in people in the direct line of fire in south korea or israel or saudi arabia is often deterrent enough for no one to ever want to test it.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
Why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that USA and Russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at North Korea, or Iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate trump card. They posses unrivaled ability to inflict death and destruction on the world. Other weapons of mass destruction simply don't come close; chemical and biological weapons are dangerous, but chemical weapons can be neutralized by a variety of methods including gas masks and chem suits. As they're dependent on chemical reactions, they're also heavily affected by environmental factors, limiting their use. They are a poor man's WMD. Biological weapons are more threatening but you can also take precautions against them; inoculating your population and practicing basic sanitation methods can invalidate large number of plagues, not to mention you can always just quarantine the affected areas.

Nuclear weapons of course are a lot more dangerous. The blast from detonation is powerful to destroy just about anything, either through the heat or shock wave. While the residual radiation can be limited by protection (troops in mechanized units with armored personnel carriers), and decontamination procedures, there's no defense against the actual blast, save for heavily reinforced bunkers. Posessing nuclear weapons allows you to reverse the result of any battlefield situation instantly (albeit you also carry the serious threat of hurting your own troops), but the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) also allow for strikes against strategic targets, i.e cities, factories, population centers and military production facilities. A few nuclear weapons impacting in say New York City, Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Houston, and Norfolk would not only cause millions of deaths, but also result in billions of damages and throw the nation into chaos.

Nuclear weapons can be used in a variety of ways. During the Cold War the French openly threatened to nuke anyone who invaded their territory, but they would target population centers first and foremost; killing as many people as possible.

Russia today actually sees their nuclear arsenal as a form of "de-escalation", by threatening nuclear retaliation against conventional threats they believe they can force their adversaries to back down. A perfect example is Ukraine in 2014, when NATO floated the idea of intervention to support the Ukrainian government Russia openly threatened to use nuclear weapons to anyone who attempted to do so. Not surprisingly, NATO decided that Ukraine was not worth the possibility of a nuclear exchange and any thoughts of supporting the Ukrainians directly was abandoned.
 
beerftw said:
Irans missiles are mostly reverse engineered and modded scud and other type russian missiles, Israel and saudi arabia are within range and the number of missiles could wipe out everything on the surface of israel(israel actually is prepared for such scenarios hence they keep many bunkers and much of their gear underground) and saudi arabia being a much larger country can still expect massive damage from that number of missiles.
Click to expand...

Actually, Iran has a great many of a large selection of missiles.

Mostly what they are known for are ones like the Qiam 1, a domestic variation of the SCUD-C, with a range of around 750 km. Or the Shahab 3, with a range of around 2,000 km.

But some of their most numerous missiles are actually not ballistic missiles at all (other than their artillery missiles like their Katyusha clones), but cruise missiles. Like their Soumar, a domestically made clone of the Soviet Kh-55. That has a range of around 2,500 km, with a 400 kg warhead.

And since the straight line distances are around 1,500 km, any missiles fired at Israel are going to be detected and responded to as if they were fired at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and every other nation between Iran and Israel. In the modern era, one does not simply lob missiles against one country over another without repercussions.

And the quantity of these missiles is actually remarkably low. They are believed to have only around 25 of the Qiam missile. And at most only around 100 Shahab 3 missiles (and 50 launchers). And less than 200 (most likely around 100) of the Soumar cruise missile.

Actually, very few Iranian missiles can reach Israel, the vast majority are only capable of reaching 750 km or less (most only have a range of around 500 km). This is why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait have spent the last 20 years improving their own air defense capability.

And most of the warheads of those missiles are in the range of 400kg or less. Not even close to "wiping out everything on the surface of Israel", even by Spanish Civil War standards, let alone late WWII or modern standards. Odds are at worst it would only piss them off, not unlike when Saddam was launching SCUDs at them in 1990-1991.

Oh, and they also will take missile designs from anybody and make their own version. Their choice for ground attack missiles have been Soviet designs simply because that was what they got their hands on, and the Soviets still make and sell them. If they could have gotten ahold of plans and launchers for the old US PERSHING system, they likely would have made those also.

The Shahab line started because during the Iran-Iraq War they bought SCUD copies from Libya, Syria, and North Korea. The Misagh is a copy of the Chinese QW-1. The Sayyad 2 is based on the US RIM-66 SM1. The Mersad is actually a copy of the US HAWK missile. The Toophan is a US TOW copy, the Noor is a Chinese Silkworm copy, and they also have a range of missiles copied from France, Germany, and the UK.

But in most of these cases, it is not the missile that was the hardest thing to get or copy, it was the launcher. Most of their missiles are based on old Soviet designs, simply because they were able to purchase complete systems including launcher, RADAR, and command and control vehicles. They still use and make modern updates of the HAWK system, because that is the system they had when the Revolution happened.

One rumor I saw a few years ago involved Iran offering a bounty for any US equipment captured from Iran during the insurgency. Specifically the PATRIOT system, or at other equipment ranging from M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys, to any other missiles but specifically launching systems.

That seems to be their biggest problem, is in acquiring such equipment that is newer than the late Cold War era. Since they can no longer freely trade with North Korea, their missiles are being updated, but their launching systems are becoming increasingly antiquated.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, Iran has a great many of a large selection of missiles.

Mostly what they are known for are ones like the Qiam 1, a domestic variation of the SCUD-C, with a range of around 750 km. Or the Shahab 3, with a range of around 2,000 km.

But some of their most numerous missiles are actually not ballistic missiles at all (other than their artillery missiles like their Katyusha clones), but cruise missiles. Like their Soumar, a domestically made clone of the Soviet Kh-55. That has a range of around 2,500 km, with a 400 kg warhead.

And since the straight line distances are around 1,500 km, any missiles fired at Israel are going to be detected and responded to as if they were fired at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and every other nation between Iran and Israel. In the modern era, one does not simply lob missiles against one country over another without repercussions.

And the quantity of these missiles is actually remarkably low. They are believed to have only around 25 of the Qiam missile. And at most only around 100 Shahab 3 missiles (and 50 launchers). And less than 200 (most likely around 100) of the Soumar cruise missile.

Actually, very few Iranian missiles can reach Israel, the vast majority are only capable of reaching 750 km or less (most only have a range of around 500 km). This is why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait have spent the last 20 years improving their own air defense capability.

And most of the warheads of those missiles are in the range of 400kg or less. Not even close to "wiping out everything on the surface of Israel", even by Spanish Civil War standards, let alone late WWII or modern standards. Odds are at worst it would only piss them off, not unlike when Saddam was launching SCUDs at them in 1990-1991.

Oh, and they also will take missile designs from anybody and make their own version. Their choice for ground attack missiles have been Soviet designs simply because that was what they got their hands on, and the Soviets still make and sell them. If they could have gotten ahold of plans and launchers for the old US PERSHING system, they likely would have made those also.

The Shahab line started because during the Iran-Iraq War they bought SCUD copies from Libya, Syria, and North Korea. The Misagh is a copy of the Chinese QW-1. The Sayyad 2 is based on the US RIM-66 SM1. The Mersad is actually a copy of the US HAWK missile. The Toophan is a US TOW copy, the Noor is a Chinese Silkworm copy, and they also have a range of missiles copied from France, Germany, and the UK.

But in most of these cases, it is not the missile that was the hardest thing to get or copy, it was the launcher. Most of their missiles are based on old Soviet designs, simply because they were able to purchase complete systems including launcher, RADAR, and command and control vehicles. They still use and make modern updates of the HAWK system, because that is the system they had when the Revolution happened.

One rumor I saw a few years ago involved Iran offering a bounty for any US equipment captured from Iran during the insurgency. Specifically the PATRIOT system, or at other equipment ranging from M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys, to any other missiles but specifically launching systems.

That seems to be their biggest problem, is in acquiring such equipment that is newer than the late Cold War era. Since they can no longer freely trade with North Korea, their missiles are being updated, but their launching systems are becoming increasingly antiquated.
Click to expand...

Israel would actually be very easily wiped out on the surface, it is a tiny nation, and even a barrage of low yield missiles would do massive damage, saudi arabia on the other hand is a very large country so a missile barrage could be devastating but would not be enough to destroy the surface.

I also know they copy whatever they can get their hands on, they copied the russian s-300 system in unknown but likely very small numbers, but also copied the hawk missile, and their current home built jet was mostly copied from the f-5 with modifications, but still showing it has the f-5 as a base for it's design.

On aquiring gear you are correct they have a hard time, even russia is reluctant to sell to them due to pressure from israel, iran got the s-300 system but beyond the initial contract they were denied any new contracts, they have also been denied many russian aircraft and armor, america will not sell them anything and even france will not sell them any weapons. They have been relying on taking whatever they had pre revolution or whatever they can capture and reverse engineering it and domestically producing it. I also know iran reverse engineered the kornet anti tank missile and it is widely believed to be those reverse engineered models ended up with houthi's in yemen.
 
beerftw said:
On aquiring gear you are correct they have a hard time, even russia is reluctant to sell to them due to pressure from israel, iran got the s-300 system but beyond the initial contract they were denied any new contracts, they have also been denied many russian aircraft and armor, america will not sell them anything and even france will not sell them any weapons. They have been relying on taking whatever they had pre revolution or whatever they can capture and reverse engineering it and domestically producing it. I also know iran reverse engineered the kornet anti tank missile and it is widely believed to be those reverse engineered models ended up with houthi's in yemen.
Click to expand...

The hardest part in any modern missile system is not the missile itself, but the rest of the system needed.

When looking at most of the systems used in that area of the world, the majority are SCUD systems. And those both in missiles and launchers are little changed from the original V1 they were based on. The missile has been upgraded over the years, but they still use the same launchers and other support equipment that the Soviets designed and built in the 1950's.

The same with the Mersad. The launcher, RADAR, and C&C equipment is the same that the US built and sold them in the 1960's. All they have been doing is the kind of Life Service upgrades the US would have done if we had not killed it entirely in the 1990's.

And while Iran has a decent amount of missiles in inventory, their biggest problem in all systems is launchers. They lack the number of launchers to make much of a barrage if they decide to go offensive.

And not counting nukes, they can not do much against Israel. A barrage of even 50 400 kg warheads would do little damage. And those missiles would have to go through several lines of defenses before they even make it that far. US Navy ships with SM2 missiles, as well as systems from Saudi Arabia would take a fair number of them out before they even get to the range of their own systems like IRON DOME.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The hardest part in any modern missile system is not the missile itself, but the rest of the system needed.

When looking at most of the systems used in that area of the world, the majority are SCUD systems. And those both in missiles and launchers are little changed from the original V1 they were based on. The missile has been upgraded over the years, but they still use the same launchers and other support equipment that the Soviets designed and built in the 1950's.

The same with the Mersad. The launcher, RADAR, and C&C equipment is the same that the US built and sold them in the 1960's. All they have been doing is the kind of Life Service upgrades the US would have done if we had not killed it entirely in the 1990's.

And while Iran has a decent amount of missiles in inventory, their biggest problem in all systems is launchers. They lack the number of launchers to make much of a barrage if they decide to go offensive.

And not counting nukes, they can not do much against Israel. A barrage of even 50 400 kg warheads would do little damage. And those missiles would have to go through several lines of defenses before they even make it that far. US Navy ships with SM2 missiles, as well as systems from Saudi Arabia would take a fair number of them out before they even get to the range of their own systems like IRON DOME.
Click to expand...

Their current common missile something something islamic 3 has around a 1200 kg warhead not a 400kg warhead. Their actual missile numbers are completely unknown, what is known is that they possessed the capability to produce 70 a year when they were first introduced, and no one knows how much their production has increased. For iran missile systems are the perfect deterrent because they are very cheap to make and very effective, and require much less recources to modify old cheap designs like scud c missiles than to engineer anything from the ground up.

I doubt they have a shortage of launchers either, and even their ballistic missile estimates only cover ballistic missiles, and does not include cruise missiles sam's and anti shipping missiles or anti tank missiles.



Either way iran is not going to use any barrage of missiles unless they were cornered, as lets say they could pull off atleast 20k shabab 3 missiles against israel and overwhelm their defenses and do mass damage, israel would just respond with nuclear weapons. Their missiles are a detterent and a detterent only as long as it has not been used, much like with mad where one country using nukes leads to others, mass destruction through even conventional means will lead to either nuclear or non nuclear destruction back at them.
 
beerftw said:
Their current common missile something something islamic 3 has around a 1200 kg warhead not a 400kg warhead.
Click to expand...

Shahab 3. 1,200kg warhead, range of around 2,000 km. Which shares the same launcher as previous Shahab missiles. And they have a total of 50 launchers at most, with a roughly 2-3 hour reload time.

By far their most "common missile" are the many domestic variants of the Katyusha rockets. They have tens of thousands of those, and at least 600 launchers.

What you are listing as their "common missile" is not that common at all. And they are mostly concentrated towards the center of the country, so they can be used in case their border is crossed by an invader. Only a couple are actually at BMOA locations near the border.

beerftw said:
Their actual missile numbers are completely unknown, what is known is that they possessed the capability to produce 70 a year when they were first introduced, and no one knows how much their production has increased.
Click to expand...

Number of missiles does not matter, if they have a limited number of launchers.

And we do have a good idea of the number of launchers they have, by watching them. For most tests shown to the public they use the same launchers over and over again. This is why all the "fun" a few years ago when they photoshopped a launch to look like a barrage, when analysts looked closer they saw it was many launches from the same launcher.

We track these very carefully through various ways. And the number they had at one time (top number after Iran-Iraq war was around 70). A complete SCUD launching system is not exactly something you can run out at buy at K-Mart. Launchers is what they are mostly lacking in, which is why they keep them all close to the center of the country, to make them harder to destroy.

beerftw said:
I doubt they have a shortage of launchers either, and even their ballistic missile estimates only cover ballistic missiles, and does not include cruise missiles sam's and anti shipping missiles or anti tank missiles.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you notice I listed quite a few missiles of various types. Both Air Defense and Cruise missiles were included in those I listed. Like the Soumar, a Kh-55 clone. Those are all air launched. They are working on a land launched variant called the Ya-Ali, but it is still under development. It is suspected these will use a modified Silkworm launching platform.
 
beerftw said:
Either way iran is not going to use any barrage of missiles unless they were cornered, as lets say they could pull off atleast 20k shabab 3 missiles against israel
Click to expand...

But they can not launch 20k Shahab missiles at Israel. Even if they massed all of their launchers, you are only talking around 59 missiles, then a 3 hour reload time. By which every other nation in the region is going to be screaming in with their own missiles and aircraft to take them out before they can do so.

Why do you think Saddam changed to a shoot and scoot" tactic? His attempts in 1990 to fire volleys of SCUD missiles at US and Israel targets quickly stopped, when he realized that before they could get off a second one his launchers were coming under attack. Fire once, then run like hell for a prepared hiding place. Do not attempt coordinated strikes, because that gave the other side a greater chance to discover and destroy the launchers before they could launch them.

You have to understand, this is Iran we are talking about. Not the Soviet Union, which had hardened permanent locations. Like most nations they rely almost entirely upon mobile launchers. And they are constantly moving these launchers from location to location.

But yes, we have a good feel for how many there are. Like children to their parent, there are things that make each of them distinct to an expert, even if to most others they all seem the same.

Put me in a motor pool with 18 other launchers, and I could pick mine out of them in seconds. There are little things that make each of them unique, and identified if you work on it often enough. In fact, in seconds I can even tell you if a PATRIOT launcher is PAC-2 or PAC-3, or even one of the original versions.

And no, Iran is not going to launch a barrage of missiles at Israel, it simply makes no sense. They literally would be pulling out their claws and teeth, as a slew of other countries that would respond would then be untouched. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia would more likely be their target. With Jordan right behind.

I would not even be surprised if a furious consultation was made between those nations (and NATO), and like in 1990-1991 Israel decided to once again sit back and do nothing in response as those nations instead punished Iran if that was to happen.

But I am not worried anywhere near as much as any kind of "massive volley", as I am a slow increase in use once they were used. 1 or 2 missiles, then stop. The other side responds with the same, but a few more, etc etc etc. Not even the Taker War started with large engagements. Take out one tanker, the other nation takes out another, then you take out 2 tankers. Until after a month or so the entire region gradually almost becomes a free-fire zone. Until in that case largely it was the US and USSR deciding "enough is enough and going after both sides.
 
Oozlefinch said:
But they can not launch 20k Shahab missiles at Israel. Even if they massed all of their launchers, you are only talking around 59 missiles, then a 3 hour reload time. By which every other nation in the region is going to be screaming in with their own missiles and aircraft to take them out before they can do so.

Why do you think Saddam changed to a shoot and scoot" tactic? His attempts in 1990 to fire volleys of SCUD missiles at US and Israel targets quickly stopped, when he realized that before they could get off a second one his launchers were coming under attack. Fire once, then run like hell for a prepared hiding place. Do not attempt coordinated strikes, because that gave the other side a greater chance to discover and destroy the launchers before they could launch them.

You have to understand, this is Iran we are talking about. Not the Soviet Union, which had hardened permanent locations. Like most nations they rely almost entirely upon mobile launchers. And they are constantly moving these launchers from location to location.

But yes, we have a good feel for how many there are. Like children to their parent, there are things that make each of them distinct to an expert, even if to most others they all seem the same.

Put me in a motor pool with 18 other launchers, and I could pick mine out of them in seconds. There are little things that make each of them unique, and identified if you work on it often enough. In fact, in seconds I can even tell you if a PATRIOT launcher is PAC-2 or PAC-3, or even one of the original versions.

And no, Iran is not going to launch a barrage of missiles at Israel, it simply makes no sense. They literally would be pulling out their claws and teeth, as a slew of other countries that would respond would then be untouched. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia would more likely be their target. With Jordan right behind.

I would not even be surprised if a furious consultation was made between those nations (and NATO), and like in 1990-1991 Israel decided to once again sit back and do nothing in response as those nations instead punished Iran if that was to happen.

But I am not worried anywhere near as much as any kind of "massive volley", as I am a slow increase in use once they were used. 1 or 2 missiles, then stop. The other side responds with the same, but a few more, etc etc etc. Not even the Taker War started with large engagements. Take out one tanker, the other nation takes out another, then you take out 2 tankers. Until after a month or so the entire region gradually almost becomes a free-fire zone. Until in that case largely it was the US and USSR deciding "enough is enough and going after both sides.
Click to expand...

To be precise I can find zero information on how many launchers they actually possess, but 59 seems extremely weak, even a country as piss poor as haiti could scrape together the money to build more gear than that, which leads me to believe that 40 or the 59 you mentioned is an extreme gross understatement of the number they hold.


Iraq's scoot and shoot was not just from the number of launchers, it was also just basic military logic, that anything from a missile to larger artillery is tracked after fired, and staying stationary is a sure fire way to have the launchers/artillery cannons destroyed.


The scud style launchers are easily manufactured and widely available for next to nothing, I find it impossible that they could spend countless billions on missiles but spare a dime for launchers.
 
beerftw said:
To be precise I can find zero information on how many launchers they actually possess, but 59 seems extremely weak, even a country as piss poor as haiti could scrape together the money to build more gear than that, which leads me to believe that 40 or the 59 you mentioned is an extreme gross understatement of the number they hold.
Click to expand...

You see, here is the thing.

Wen I post on things like this, I can not use numbers that I know about. I have to be very careful to pull numbers and estimates from other public information sources. Here is a good one I use for many of the systems I discuss.

https://www.nasic.af.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=F2VLcKSmCTE=&portalid=19

And they dedicate several pages to information like number of launchers each country has.

This is not hard to deduce, because like the US the USSR/Russia tried to keep close tabs on who had what launchers, and how many. Just as we know how many HARK launchers Iran has (we made and sold them to Iran), Russia has a good idea how many Iran has. Based on how many launchers were made and exported, and what countries have them. These are rather sophisticated systems composed of many parts. And Iran can not easily just replicate them. Many of the components have not been made in decades, and were specially built only for these systems.

And by looking at overheads of their boneyards we know how many have been cannibalized to the point they are no longer functional.

As the saying goes, "it is not rocket science" how many launchers they have.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
Why do a country care about or need a nuclear weapon??
Lets say that USA and Russia already have one, if the start a nuclear war, its the end of the world!!
Look at North Korea, or Iran, why are they striving to get a nuclear weapon, to harass? If they will get one, there is already other countries that has.
I mean what is the story behind the idea beside having the power?​
Click to expand...

Deterrence.
 
Oozlefinch said:
You see, here is the thing.

Wen I post on things like this, I can not use numbers that I know about. I have to be very careful to pull numbers and estimates from other public information sources. Here is a good one I use for many of the systems I discuss.

https://www.nasic.af.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=F2VLcKSmCTE=&portalid=19

And they dedicate several pages to information like number of launchers each country has.

This is not hard to deduce, because like the US the USSR/Russia tried to keep close tabs on who had what launchers, and how many. Just as we know how many HARK launchers Iran has (we made and sold them to Iran), Russia has a good idea how many Iran has. Based on how many launchers were made and exported, and what countries have them. These are rather sophisticated systems composed of many parts. And Iran can not easily just replicate them. Many of the components have not been made in decades, and were specially built only for these systems.

And by looking at overheads of their boneyards we know how many have been cannibalized to the point they are no longer functional.

As the saying goes, "it is not rocket science" how many launchers they have.
Click to expand...

I would disagree based off the fact many of their missiles are similar to scuds and can be fired from the same launchers, and scud missile launchers are 1950's tech, so I highly doubt they are too difficult to replicate. Now if you were talking about modern missiles and launchers that would be a vastly different story, as the launcher itself is not the hard part but rather the sensors radar fusion etc that is hard to replicate. They could quite simply replicate launchers and use seperate vehicles for towing, the soviets did that in the 1950's with trailer mounted launchers rather than their later ones built on to trucks themselves.


But as far as sophisticated, many scud types use mechanical guidance or very basic electronic guidance, depending on the model or the country replicating them's changes to original soviet models.
 
beerftw said:
I would disagree based off the fact many of their missiles are similar to scuds and can be fired from the same launchers, and scud missile launchers are 1950's tech, so I highly doubt they are too difficult to replicate. Now if you were talking about modern missiles and launchers that would be a vastly different story, as the launcher itself is not the hard part but rather the sensors radar fusion etc that is hard to replicate. They could quite simply replicate launchers and use seperate vehicles for towing, the soviets did that in the 1950's with trailer mounted launchers rather than their later ones built on to trucks themselves.


But as far as sophisticated, many scud types use mechanical guidance or very basic electronic guidance, depending on the model or the country replicating them's changes to original soviet models.
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of this tech is rather difficult to replicate.

Remember, if the US wanted to make a Saturn V rocket today, we could not do it. A lot of the techniques used in their construction was designed and built only for this project, by individuals now that are long retired or have died. Sure we could do it, but it would be by having to replicate everything that was done in their first construction. Not just cranking them out on an assembly line again.

And yes, they are that difficult. That is why when you look at SCUD launchers around the world, they are essentially the exact same ones that the Soviets made half a century ago. Look at them from any country. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, they are all the same. Now if one was to make a new one, why on earth would they make them to look exactly like the first generation ones? All the way down to the MAZ-543 truck used to propel the TEL?

I might accept that, if we were seeing some modern trucks used. Say a HEMMTT, or a Mercedes Benz, or any other truck used as the propulsion for the mobile TEL. But we are not seeing that. We are seeing the exact same MAZ-543 that was used to show off the SCUD-B for the first time in Red Square in 1964.

Now if these used say the Chinese copy the WS2400, that might be the case. I did mention before that some missile systems came from China via Pakistan. Those are mounted on the WS2400. It looks very similar to the MAZ_543, but it is clearly not the same if you look at them side by side. They could also build them on a more modern MAZ_7912, an upgraded and improved version of the MAZ-543 that is used with the S-300. Or even one of the many ZiL model trucks that were exported around the world. But making an entirely new launcher and putting it on a 50 year old truck, that makes absolutely no sense.

And yea, trailer mounted compared to vehicle mounted missile systems is something that has been going back and forth for decades. Trailers have an advantage, in that you can drop them off and leave them and use the truck for other things. But the down side is it takes longer to set them up, longer to move them, and the trailers have this tendency to get stuck. Something the US learned with the PATRIOT system. This is why all replacements designed or fielded (THAAD, MEADS) have the launchers built into the truck itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom