Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
- Thread starter BobinNC
- Start date
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
</div></div>
Yeah right 50 years ago maybe but not today. Today we'll ship them supplies and even pay them, I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them a few ICBMs while they're parked off our coast.
Doubt that? Who gave them the tech to make nukes in the first place? Ans: We did...
I read this news story this morning and think it's an interesting move on their part. I think they are trying to show the world that they are 'Alpha' and aren't afraid of anyone. Outside of Canada, we are surrounded by enemies and I think, like a pack of dogs, they smell our weakness.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yeah right 50 years ago maybe but not today. Today we'll ship them supplies and even pay them, I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them a few ICBMs while they're parked off our coast.
Doubt that? Who gave them the tech to make nukes in the first place? Ans: We did...
I read this news story this morning and think it's an interesting move on their part. I think they are trying to show the world that they are 'Alpha' and aren't afraid of anyone. Outside of Canada, we are surrounded by enemies and I think, like a pack of dogs, they smell our weakness.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.
This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them. </div></div>
Being that they would be at least 12 miles off the coast, I don't think they have to worry about any stray boolits coming their way. Now if they came in for a closer look I would expect any good American to start shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them. </div></div>
Being that they would be at least 12 miles off the coast, I don't think they have to worry about any stray boolits coming their way. Now if they came in for a closer look I would expect any good American to start shooting.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
I love the "man made reef" program. the fishes need new homes.
I love the "man made reef" program. the fishes need new homes.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.</div></div>
And then..........reality! The left wingers would fry the good ol American that tried to protect his or her property. It would be declared illegal for us to interfere. Only LE and Mil would be able to protect us because ,as you know, it's their job.
Call 911 they are just a few minutes away!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.</div></div>
And then..........reality! The left wingers would fry the good ol American that tried to protect his or her property. It would be declared illegal for us to interfere. Only LE and Mil would be able to protect us because ,as you know, it's their job.
Call 911 they are just a few minutes away!
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
Iranian boats would sink by themselves once they got out of the gulf and into open waters.......
Iranian boats would sink by themselves once they got out of the gulf and into open waters.......
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
Nukem till they glow, then we'll shootem in the dark
Nukem till they glow, then we'll shootem in the dark
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bondoscustomz1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.</div></div>
And then..........reality! The left wingers would fry the good ol American that tried to protect his or her property. It would be declared illegal for us to interfere. Only LE and Mil would be able to protect us because ,as you know, it's their job.
Call 911 they are just a few minutes away! </div></div>
I almost agree, except it may be declared a border patrol problem, if the military were used, they wouldn't be given any ammo, and could only give advise. We all know if you, as an American were to engage those coming into our country you would be looking at a long term in prison, even if they were armed-you should have called for the police, they would have handled it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bondoscustomz1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point.</div></div>
I agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like for them to Patrol off of Alabama an Florida's coast, an see how that works out for them.</div></div>
I agree. Target practice.</div></div>
And then..........reality! The left wingers would fry the good ol American that tried to protect his or her property. It would be declared illegal for us to interfere. Only LE and Mil would be able to protect us because ,as you know, it's their job.
Call 911 they are just a few minutes away! </div></div>
I almost agree, except it may be declared a border patrol problem, if the military were used, they wouldn't be given any ammo, and could only give advise. We all know if you, as an American were to engage those coming into our country you would be looking at a long term in prison, even if they were armed-you should have called for the police, they would have handled it.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
I got back up. A 88mm to the 105mm to the 18" bommers on the Missouri.
I got back up. A 88mm to the 105mm to the 18" bommers on the Missouri.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
After sitting in the dark with no power on the 8th or 9th, I really believe our next attack will be a cyber attack.
After sitting in the dark with no power on the 8th or 9th, I really believe our next attack will be a cyber attack.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After sitting in the dark with no power on the 8th or 9th, I really believe our next attack will be a cyber attack. </div></div>
Look into "Conficker worm".
For the past three years, a highly encrypted computer worm called Conficker has been spreading rapidly around the world. As many as 12 million computers have been infected with the self-updating worm, a type of malware that can get inside computers and operate without their permission.
"What Conficker does is penetrate the core of the [operating system] of the computer and essentially turn over control of your computer to a remote controller," writer Mark Bowden tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "[That person] could then utilize all of these computers, including yours, that are connected. ... And you have effectively the largest, most powerful computer in the world."
The gigantic networked system created by the Conficker worm is what's known as a "botnet." The Conficker botnet is powerful enough to take over computer networks that control banking, telephones, security systems, air traffic control and even the Internet itself, says Bowden. His new book, Worm: The First Digital World War, details how Conficker was discovered, how it works, and the ongoing programming battle to bring down the Conficker worm, which he says could have widespread consequences if used nefariously.
See If You're Infected
Learn more about the symptoms of the Conficker worm and test to see whether your computer is infected at the Conficker Working Group website.
"If you were to launch with a botnet that has 10 million computers in it — launch a denial of service attack — you could launch a large enough attack that it would not just overwhelm the target of the attack, but the root servers of the Internet itself, and could crash the entire Internet," he says. "What frightens security folks, and increasingly government and Pentagon officials, is that a botnet of that size could also be used as a weapon."
When Russia launched its attack on Georgia in 2008, Russian officials also took down communication lines and the Internet within Georgia. Egypt also took down its own country's Internet service during the uprisings last spring.
"It's the equivalent of shutting down the train system during the Civil War, where the Union troops and the Confederate troops used trains to shuttle arms and ammunition and supplies all over their area of control," says Bowden. "And if you could shut their trains down, you cripple their ability to function. Similarly, you could do that today by taking down the Internet."
Worm
The First Digital World War
by Mark Bowden
Hardcover, 245 pages | purchase
close Purchase Featured BooksWormThe First Digital World WarMark BowdenAmazon »Independent Booksellers »Your purchase helps support NPR Programming. How?
Digital CulturePolitics & Public AffairsNonfictionMore on this book:
NPR reviews, interviews and more
Read an excerpt
The Conficker worm can also be used to steal things like your passwords and codes for any accounts you use online. Officials in Ukraine recently arrested a group of people who were leasing a portion of the Conficker worm's computers to drain millions of dollars from bank accounts in the United States.
"It raises the question of whether creating or maintaining a botnet is a criminal activity, because if I break into a safe at the bank using a Black & Decker drill, is Black & Decker culpable for the way I use the tool?" he says. "That's one of the tools you could use the botnet for. With a botnet of 25,000 computers, you could break the security codes for Amazon.com, you could raid people's accounts, you could get Social Security numbers and data — there's almost no commercial security system in place that couldn't be breached by a supercomputer of tens of thousands."
After Conficker was discovered in 2008 at Stanford, it prompted computer security experts from around the world to get together to try to stop the bot. The volunteer group of experts, which called itself the Conficker Working Group, also tried to get the government involved with their efforts. But they soon discovered that the government didn't have a very good understanding of what the worm could do.
"[They] began reaching out to the NSA [National Security Agency] and [the Pentagon] to see if they would be willing to loan their computers [to help them], and what [they] discovered was that no one in the government understood what was happening," says Bowden. "There was a very low level of cyberintelligence, even at agencies that ought to have been very seriously involved, who were responsible for protecting the country, its electrical grid, its telecommunications. These agencies lacked the sophistication not only to deal with Conficker, but even to understand what Conficker was."
At some point in early 2009, the Conficker Working Group learned that the Conficker worm could wreak havoc on April 1, 2009 — a date when the computers infected by Conficker would receive instructions from their remote-controlled operator.
"The assumption was that if Conficker was to do anything, that would be the day that it would be destructive to the Internet," says Bowden. "But on April 1, nothing happened."
Enlarge Courtesy of the author
Mark Bowden is the author of several books, including Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw and Guests of the Ayatollah.
Courtesy of the author Mark Bowden is the author of several books, including Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw and Guests of the Ayatollah.
The Conficker Working Group realized that the creator of Conficker had little interest in taking down the Internet or using its bot to create mass destruction.
"The people behind it apparently want to use it for criminal reasons — to make money," says Bowden.
But that doesn't mean that Conficker is controlled, says Bowden. No one knows yet who controls the worm or what its intentions might be.
"At any moment, Conficker could do something really threatening," he says. "[People fighting the bot] are trying to figure it out still. And every new day, as the worm makes its contacts, they generate long lists of computers that are infected — which still include big networks within the FBI, within the Pentagon, within large corporations. So they monitor it and keep track of where it's spread, and they're still working with the government to secure vital computer networks from botnets like Conficker."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After sitting in the dark with no power on the 8th or 9th, I really believe our next attack will be a cyber attack. </div></div>
Look into "Conficker worm".
For the past three years, a highly encrypted computer worm called Conficker has been spreading rapidly around the world. As many as 12 million computers have been infected with the self-updating worm, a type of malware that can get inside computers and operate without their permission.
"What Conficker does is penetrate the core of the [operating system] of the computer and essentially turn over control of your computer to a remote controller," writer Mark Bowden tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "[That person] could then utilize all of these computers, including yours, that are connected. ... And you have effectively the largest, most powerful computer in the world."
The gigantic networked system created by the Conficker worm is what's known as a "botnet." The Conficker botnet is powerful enough to take over computer networks that control banking, telephones, security systems, air traffic control and even the Internet itself, says Bowden. His new book, Worm: The First Digital World War, details how Conficker was discovered, how it works, and the ongoing programming battle to bring down the Conficker worm, which he says could have widespread consequences if used nefariously.
See If You're Infected
Learn more about the symptoms of the Conficker worm and test to see whether your computer is infected at the Conficker Working Group website.
"If you were to launch with a botnet that has 10 million computers in it — launch a denial of service attack — you could launch a large enough attack that it would not just overwhelm the target of the attack, but the root servers of the Internet itself, and could crash the entire Internet," he says. "What frightens security folks, and increasingly government and Pentagon officials, is that a botnet of that size could also be used as a weapon."
When Russia launched its attack on Georgia in 2008, Russian officials also took down communication lines and the Internet within Georgia. Egypt also took down its own country's Internet service during the uprisings last spring.
"It's the equivalent of shutting down the train system during the Civil War, where the Union troops and the Confederate troops used trains to shuttle arms and ammunition and supplies all over their area of control," says Bowden. "And if you could shut their trains down, you cripple their ability to function. Similarly, you could do that today by taking down the Internet."
Worm
The First Digital World War
by Mark Bowden
Hardcover, 245 pages | purchase
close Purchase Featured BooksWormThe First Digital World WarMark BowdenAmazon »Independent Booksellers »Your purchase helps support NPR Programming. How?
Digital CulturePolitics & Public AffairsNonfictionMore on this book:
NPR reviews, interviews and more
Read an excerpt
The Conficker worm can also be used to steal things like your passwords and codes for any accounts you use online. Officials in Ukraine recently arrested a group of people who were leasing a portion of the Conficker worm's computers to drain millions of dollars from bank accounts in the United States.
"It raises the question of whether creating or maintaining a botnet is a criminal activity, because if I break into a safe at the bank using a Black & Decker drill, is Black & Decker culpable for the way I use the tool?" he says. "That's one of the tools you could use the botnet for. With a botnet of 25,000 computers, you could break the security codes for Amazon.com, you could raid people's accounts, you could get Social Security numbers and data — there's almost no commercial security system in place that couldn't be breached by a supercomputer of tens of thousands."
After Conficker was discovered in 2008 at Stanford, it prompted computer security experts from around the world to get together to try to stop the bot. The volunteer group of experts, which called itself the Conficker Working Group, also tried to get the government involved with their efforts. But they soon discovered that the government didn't have a very good understanding of what the worm could do.
"[They] began reaching out to the NSA [National Security Agency] and [the Pentagon] to see if they would be willing to loan their computers [to help them], and what [they] discovered was that no one in the government understood what was happening," says Bowden. "There was a very low level of cyberintelligence, even at agencies that ought to have been very seriously involved, who were responsible for protecting the country, its electrical grid, its telecommunications. These agencies lacked the sophistication not only to deal with Conficker, but even to understand what Conficker was."
At some point in early 2009, the Conficker Working Group learned that the Conficker worm could wreak havoc on April 1, 2009 — a date when the computers infected by Conficker would receive instructions from their remote-controlled operator.
"The assumption was that if Conficker was to do anything, that would be the day that it would be destructive to the Internet," says Bowden. "But on April 1, nothing happened."
Enlarge Courtesy of the author
Mark Bowden is the author of several books, including Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw and Guests of the Ayatollah.
Courtesy of the author Mark Bowden is the author of several books, including Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw and Guests of the Ayatollah.
The Conficker Working Group realized that the creator of Conficker had little interest in taking down the Internet or using its bot to create mass destruction.
"The people behind it apparently want to use it for criminal reasons — to make money," says Bowden.
But that doesn't mean that Conficker is controlled, says Bowden. No one knows yet who controls the worm or what its intentions might be.
"At any moment, Conficker could do something really threatening," he says. "[People fighting the bot] are trying to figure it out still. And every new day, as the worm makes its contacts, they generate long lists of computers that are infected — which still include big networks within the FBI, within the Pentagon, within large corporations. So they monitor it and keep track of where it's spread, and they're still working with the government to secure vital computer networks from botnets like Conficker."
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
The only problem the US is going to have are the Admirals fighting over which Carrier Battle Group gets to be the first to fuck some shit up. Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy.
The only problem the US is going to have are the Admirals fighting over which Carrier Battle Group gets to be the first to fuck some shit up. Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy. </div></div>
It isn't the strength of the Navy that worries me, its the bureaucrats that run it...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy. </div></div>
It isn't the strength of the Navy that worries me, its the bureaucrats that run it...
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BFMF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy. </div></div>
It isn't the strength of the Navy that worries me, its the bureaucrats that run it... </div></div>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are all willing and able to defend what is ours and will probably die trying(most of us). The bad part of this is that not only do we have to defend ourselves from foreign attack we will also have to defend ourselves from a domestic attack. If that isn't the worst part, we will most likely have to try and defend ourselves in court for taking action. It is a hard fight when you know that you are being attacked from all sides or you have to fight without help from your liberal neighbor. This will be the neighbor that thinks you are a criminal because you own guns and will use them but yet he will be the first to run to your door begging for you to protect him and his family when the SHTF.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BFMF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never doubt the strength of the worlds most powerful nuclear Navy. </div></div>
It isn't the strength of the Navy that worries me, its the bureaucrats that run it... </div></div>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are all willing and able to defend what is ours and will probably die trying(most of us). The bad part of this is that not only do we have to defend ourselves from foreign attack we will also have to defend ourselves from a domestic attack. If that isn't the worst part, we will most likely have to try and defend ourselves in court for taking action. It is a hard fight when you know that you are being attacked from all sides or you have to fight without help from your liberal neighbor. This will be the neighbor that thinks you are a criminal because you own guns and will use them but yet he will be the first to run to your door begging for you to protect him and his family when the SHTF.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
An Iranian destroyer hit by a Mk-48 torpedo would look something like this....(and I can guarantee you they'll have a Virginia or Seawolf following them into the gulf....we are doing shallow water stuff now with the new subs and torpedos...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBSixrh4G_4"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBSixrh4G_4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
An Iranian destroyer hit by a Mk-48 torpedo would look something like this....(and I can guarantee you they'll have a Virginia or Seawolf following them into the gulf....we are doing shallow water stuff now with the new subs and torpedos...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBSixrh4G_4"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pBSixrh4G_4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point. </div></div>
Amen to that. And when those that do speak the truth about this comes out, they get called unpatriotic. This shit goes both ways but some just don't want to face it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: error4o4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will piss most ppl off, and it probably should. However, why do we (as a nation) expect other people to respond to our interventionist foreign policy any differently? We park our forces on the front step of many nations around the world and expect them to welcome us. Iran isn't going to send their Navy, they're making a point. </div></div>
Amen to that. And when those that do speak the truth about this comes out, they get called unpatriotic. This shit goes both ways but some just don't want to face it.
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
The Iranians are not going to send surface ships to the shores of the U.S.. They will send subs, they have one or two don't cha know. When they get nuclear or the stated mass that they need to make enough bombs they will put them into their version of a cruse missile. They are just putting folks in the know in the know...
The Iranians are not going to send surface ships to the shores of the U.S.. They will send subs, they have one or two don't cha know. When they get nuclear or the stated mass that they need to make enough bombs they will put them into their version of a cruse missile. They are just putting folks in the know in the know...
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
Iran to mass-produce cruise missile
Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:32AM GM
Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi
Iran has launched a mass-production line of the domestically-built Qader marine cruise missile to supply the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) naval forces and the country's Navy.
The Qader (Able) marine cruise missile, which was unveiled by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on August 23 on the occasion of the national Defense Industries Day, has been mass-produced “as quickly as possible time,” Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi told reporters on Wednesday.
He dismissed 'the false and malicious claims' by certain Western media purporting that Qader is not a domestically-manufactured missile and said such allegations are aimed at downplaying the country's 'great achievements.'
General Vahidi added that the mass-production of the missile bears witness to the high capabilities of Iranian experts who endeavor to meet the defense needs of the country's armed forces.
With its range of 200 kilometers, the Qader missile has been produced in light of Iran's self-sufficiency, deterrence and military prowess.
The sea-launched cruise missile has high destructive power and can destroy targets including frigates, warships as well as enemy's coastal targets.
Cruising at a low height with high precision in target acquisition are two other features of the relatively lightweight missile.
In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.
Iran has repeatedly assured that its military might poses no threat to other countries, saying its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.
http://presstv.com/detail/201617.html
Iran to mass-produce cruise missile
Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:32AM GM
Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi
Iran has launched a mass-production line of the domestically-built Qader marine cruise missile to supply the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) naval forces and the country's Navy.
The Qader (Able) marine cruise missile, which was unveiled by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on August 23 on the occasion of the national Defense Industries Day, has been mass-produced “as quickly as possible time,” Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi told reporters on Wednesday.
He dismissed 'the false and malicious claims' by certain Western media purporting that Qader is not a domestically-manufactured missile and said such allegations are aimed at downplaying the country's 'great achievements.'
General Vahidi added that the mass-production of the missile bears witness to the high capabilities of Iranian experts who endeavor to meet the defense needs of the country's armed forces.
With its range of 200 kilometers, the Qader missile has been produced in light of Iran's self-sufficiency, deterrence and military prowess.
The sea-launched cruise missile has high destructive power and can destroy targets including frigates, warships as well as enemy's coastal targets.
Cruising at a low height with high precision in target acquisition are two other features of the relatively lightweight missile.
In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.
Iran has repeatedly assured that its military might poses no threat to other countries, saying its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.
http://presstv.com/detail/201617.html
Re: Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast:
Iran reminds me of that Chimp with the AK. Someday, somebody's gonna have to actually drop that dime.
The real wisdom would be to have our diplomats pursuade someone else to do it...
...But with Hillary...?
Naaah...
Iran reminds me of that Chimp with the AK. Someday, somebody's gonna have to actually drop that dime.
The real wisdom would be to have our diplomats pursuade someone else to do it...
...But with Hillary...?
Naaah...
Similar threads
