India First To Build a Supersonic Cruise Missile 319
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "India successfully tested Sunday a 'maneuverable' version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which it has jointly developed with Russia, news reports said. The vertical-launch version of the 290-kilometer range BrahMos was tested from a warship in the Bay of Bengal off India's eastern coast, the PTI news agency reported. 'The vertical-launch version of missile was launched at 11:30 (0600 GMT) hours today from Indian Navy ship INS Ranvir and it manoeuvred successfully hitting the target ship. It was a perfect hit and a perfect mission,' BrahMos aerospace chief A Sivathanu Pillai was quoted as saying. 'After today's test, India has become the first and only country in the world to have a manoeuvrable supersonic cruise missile in its inventory,' Pillai said."
Really? (Score:3, Funny)
The first?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
The summary (and article) are better than the headline. This isn't either: a) the first supersonic cruise missile; or b) the first maneuverable cruise missile. But it is, apparently, the first maneuverable supersonic cruise missile.
It's not the first maneuverable supersonic CM eith (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the first maneuverable supersonic CM either. Russian P-500 Bazalt missile was both supersonic and maneuverable and it entered service in 1973 (!). Brahmos is an adaptation of previous generation Russian missile technology, and not even the most advanced variant of that. Russians don't export their latest stuff, particularly the kind of stuff that if push came to shove could be efficiently used against them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point of a 'Cruise Missile', is that it maneuvers... i.e it is not 'Ballistic'
I believe there were at least 14 models of Cruise Missiles before this that were SuperSonic.
Mod me 'redundant' again, and again...
Tech Support Call (Score:5, Funny)
Missile Owner: Hello. My maneuverable supersonic cruise missile isn't the first.
Tech Support: I do apologize for this inconvenience. Am I correct to understand that your maneuverable supersonic cruise missile is not the first?
Missile Owner: Uh, yeah. I was told it would be the first.
Tech Support: I do apologize. Have you tried flashing the BIOS?
Missile Owner: WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Torpedos hit submarines. When missiles try to hit submarines they explode on the surface. And it is a lot harder to go supersonic underwater (for two reasons).
Someone forgot about the ASROC and the SS-N-16. Both use Missiles to launch either a torpedo or a depth charge at an enemy ship or sub.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Beat me to it. The more interesting question is, whose standard launchers will it fit in? Actually, that isn't that interesting, because I guess we know whose standard launcher it fits in. Meaning, the Russians now have a supersonic cruise missile on all their missile cruisers and submarines. Goodbye, missile defense shield. Modern warfare, thy name is mobility.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
My mom (dead of pancreatic cancer this Christmas) worked at Boeing/SVS in Albuquerque and perhaps spoke too much of what they were doing there before she passed, bless her soul. I know a fair amount, for an amateur, about what our current and future projected capabilities are in regards to directed energy weapons. A supersonic standard cruise missile is a potential game changer, and I'll stand by that.
Supercruise (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you have never heard of the term supercruise [wikipedia.org] then. If it's ok for airplanes to cruise at supersonic speeds, then it's also ok for a cruise missile. And general consensus [google.co.uk] on the net does not agree with you.
Re:Cruise at supersonic speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Surprise! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
[Flash of light and mushroom cloud] ....
Re: (Score:2)
I barely felt mine coming before it was too late. Of course my version of the Indian Supersonic Cruise Missile involved some very spicy beef curry and rice....
Russian P-500_Bazalt was online in 1973 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Russian P-500_Bazalt was online in 1973 (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention the more recent P-700 Granit [wikipedia.org] cruise missile which can go mach 4.5.
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Possibly first to deploy, but not the first to build [astronautix.com], by a good 50 years.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
Not the first to deploy [astronautix.com] either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before you embarrass yourself further, you might want to actually read up on the various definitions of cruise missile.
(Hint: Launching platform and intended target are irrelevant.)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/index.html [fas.org]
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Glossary/Glossary2.shtml [atomicarchive.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile [wikipedia.org]
They're not the first... (Score:4, Informative)
...Soviets had supersonic air to surface cruise missiles and surface to surface missiles. It's where the Indian tech comes from. Kitchen and Sunburn were the ones that spring to mind immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline wrong, as is the article (Score:5, Informative)
from wikipedia, P-500 Bazalt
The P-500 Bazalt (Russian: -500 ; English: basalt) is a liquid-fueled, rocket powered, supersonic cruise missile used by the Soviet and Russian navies. Developed by OKB-52 MAP (later NPO Mashinostroyeniye), its GRAU designation is 4K80[1]. Its NATO reporting name is SS-N-12 Sandbox. It entered service in 1973 to replace the SS-N-3 Shaddock. The P-500 Bazalt had a 550 km range and a payload of 1,000 kg, which allows it to carry a 350 kT nuclear or a 950 kg semi-armor-piercing high explosive warhead (currently only the conventional version remains in service). The P-500 Bazalt uses active radar homing for terminal guidance, and can receive mid-course corrections by the Tupolev Tu-95D, the Kamov Ka-25B and the Kamov Ka-27B.
So many levels of fail in this submission
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The ones used by the Germans in WWII weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A mass produced 350 KT V-1 from the mid 1940s would have been a quite effective strategic weapon. A modern version would probably work pretty well too.
The definition game is probably best played by flight profile as opposed to navigation systems, in which case an ancient german V-1 would qualify.
Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an aerospace engineer...in our jargon, a course correction compensates for drift, so we are talking about correcting for very low angular rates that come about because of gyro drift, winds aloft, etc. The engineers who designed the P-500 for course correction likely used small angle approximations (cos(theta) = 1, sin(theta)=theta -- first term from a Taylor series expension) because the correction values for theta were very small.
A maneuver is a large deviation from the initial flight path, where theta (flight path angle deviation) is large enough that the first order Taylor series approximation does not work. What this means is that your controller becomes highly nonlinear, and requires significantly greater amounts of computing power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A maneuver is a large deviation from the initial flight path
Ok, does the P-700 [wikipedia.org] qualify then?
The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen an article fail so bad, and it makes India look like a joke in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
"India successfully tested Sunday a "maneuverable" version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which it has jointly developed with Russia."
So Russia found a 40 yr old Bazalt in their basement and "developed" it with India? India didn't even get the good version, they got the crappy one that only holds 200kg with a 290km range. FAIL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
India didn't even get the good version, they got the crappy one that only holds 200kg with a 290km range. FAIL
The Russians have stricter export controls on anything with greater than 300km range. The Indian missile is intentionally limited to under that range to allow for continued technical support from Russia.
Re:Headline wrong, as is the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, AFAIK the Bazalt is maneuverable only during its cruise phase, once it reaches the terminal guidance track and goes supersonic, it isn't really more than marginally guideable.
I'd guess that the Indian one is supersonic most of its range (thus the puny 300km) and will accept course guidance during supersonic flight.
So no, I'd guess that the title is only misleading, not grossly wrong as you imply.
As we say in warcraft... (Score:2)
screenshot or it didn't happen
Bad for Pakistan (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But subsonics are cheaper, smaller, more reliable, better in every way except they are slower.
The speed is of no account for surprise attacks because you just do ToT Time on Target calculations to stagger the launches. Besides alternate delivery is much cheaper (UPS, fedex, the local trucking company)
So, a SS CM is only useful for very fast delivery, very low latency missions... more the response to the surprise attack than the surprise attack itself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not about Pakistan (Score:5, Informative)
Weapons like the BrahMos are primarily aimed at ships. Yes, you could also use it as a precision-guided land attack cruise missile, but Pakistan's navy is small and almost irrelevant for conflict with India.
This weapon - and, indeed, much of India's military development - is about maintaining military competitiveness with China, and to some extent the ability to discourage the US from interfering if India conducts military operations in areas it regards as its sphere of influence.
The US Navy is apparently upgrading its cruise missile defences on its ships, replacing the Phalanx gun-based system with a missile-based version, because of missiles like the BrahMos.
Re:Not about Pakistan (Score:4, Interesting)
The phalanx has been going away for decades. In fact, it was conceived as a stop-gap system that was only supposed to be around a few years because the Rolling Airframe Missile was (badly) late.
Personally, I don't see why something like Phalanx wouldn't be the right system to use against really fast missiles. The energy released when a DU bullet hits a missile coming in at mach 2.8 (or mach 5.2 for Brahmos II) must be absolutely enormous. Sure, you'll get crap all over the deck, but that's not the end of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because supersonic missiles travel so fast and phalanx-type systems have such a short range that in the time it takes the phalanx to reacgt and engage the missile, it'll be so close that it'll blow right next to the defender.
It might not sink the target ship, but all that 'crap on deck' (more like shrapnel) could easily disable most sensors and cripple the ship, leaving it out of combat anyway
Re:Not about Pakistan (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I don't see why something like Phalanx wouldn't be the right system to use against really fast missiles. The energy released when a DU bullet hits a missile coming in at mach 2.8 (or mach 5.2 for Brahmos II) must be absolutely enormous. Sure, you'll get crap all over the deck, but that's not the end of the world.
Because of the engagement envelope. It's very, very tiny. Against a supersonic target it would be a second or two at most. Scoring a critical hit against a cruise missile doesn't do much good if you do so only a hundred feet out. In the Falklands War, the Brits almost lost a ship to a dud Exocet. The warhead didn't go off but just the impact and burning fuel was almost enough to sink the ship. Just how bad could this be? I don't think we've ever conducted live fire tests. We really should.
Your primary defense against incoming cruise missiles is blowing them up before they're launched, be it ground or air-based. Failing that, your next best bet is knocking them down at range with your SAMs. A CWIS system is only meant to be the last line of defense.
Re:Not about Pakistan (Score:4, Informative)
The US Navy is apparently upgrading its cruise missile defences on its ships, replacing the Phalanx gun-based system with a missile-based version, because of missiles like the BrahMos.
1. The Phalanx is a secondary line of defense against [everything]. The primary defense for cruise missiles is missile based.
2. There is a missile system being tested to run alongside the Phalanx system (SeaRAM), but not to supplant it.
Maybe you could give us a bit more information to explain what you're talking about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find the US still leads by a clear margin [wikipedia.org], both in absolute terms and in percentage of GDP terms.
Though that might just be because all the other nations have the unfair advantage of not having a messed up lobbying system that results in pork-barrel inflated contracts for projects delivered years late. Just maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Nawww, the real "first strike weapon from Hell." is a 20 foot standard shipping container, either in the harbor or hauled around the country on a flatbed semi trailer. Heck, a really big RV, or a cargo jet, would work too. The fact that no one has done this to the USA yet, is basically proof that at least either the motive or the capability doesn't exist.
Now a SS cruise missile, that would be an interesting tactical weapon if you're losing a hot conventional war aka surprise invasion, or a great "return f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt Pakistan can be happy at all about this development. It's one thing to have a nuke, another to be able to deliver it. This makes a first strike weapon from Hell. About the time you figure out the war is on....it's over.
What keeps them to shoot each other then? IMHO is the effect that a first strike would cause on the striker itself, for example, if India strikes first, all the islamic world will come down on India, and if Pakistan launches it first, all the rest of the world will come down on them. As it alway has been, Nukes are more like a strategy weapon than a tactical one. You only have it to be able to threat your enemy not to kill him.
Cruise Missile? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is this any different from a short range ballistics missile, other than the trajectory?
That's one big difference right here. The path of the ballistic missile, once the engine stops, is predetermined (some newest warheads excepted.) The fixed path makes it easier to shoot it down. Another fact is that the ballistic missile is high in the sky, where your radar can see it clearly. The cruise missile does opposite to all of that: it is always powered, it can change course at any time, and it hugs the gr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most cruise missiles are designed to be really hard to detect once they've been launched (the Stark, for example, saw incoming Iraqi aircraft but didn't pick up the Exocet missiles they launched). The Brahmos (and earlier versions like the Russian P-800 Onyx) have a different strategy - it's a lot easier to pick up on radar and IR, but you don't have a lot of time to knock it down.
The advantage of a flat trajectory over ballistic is two-fold: 1) cruise missiles are easier to make than ballistic missiles.
Bah (Score:5, Funny)
Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.
Do 100MW shipborne lasers count?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4321422.html?nav=RSS20 [popularmechanics.com]
Only if they can shoot around corners.
It's the unrecognized irony that kills you... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is ironic that the technology that goes into such a missile, from the computers and materials to the social networks that plan and test such things could instead bring abundance to everyone in the world. Yet people still build such things from a scarcity-based mindset, not recognizing the total irony. The tools of abundance all around us now (robotics, computers, networks, biotech, chemistry, nanontech, nuclear technology, and so on) are so powerful -- we will destroy ourselves if we use them from a scarcity mindset. If used from an abundance mindset, we could instead make the world into a much happier place.
As Albert Einstein said, "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind."
We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all, before we all die of the unrecognized irony.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to change our hearts towards providing abundance for all
People fight each other because there is natural scarcity of materials. Oil is one, most popular example, and wars are being fought right now over that. Another popular, highly desirable and scarce object is power over other people.
It is possible to leave those mental rudiments behind and live peacefully; but to get there you will need a mind reprogramming technology, because humans come into this world hardwired for violence, competition
Re:It's the unrecognized irony that kills you... (Score:4, Interesting)
The difficult situation humans face, IMHO, is that we have risen above "lesser" animals, and therefore our survival strategies, in that we have achieved self referencing consciousness and the ability to act based on abstract and irrational values rather than only survival strategies, but still have knee-jerk habitual patterns of fear of other and hyper self preservation. Oh and the newfangled ability to construct WMD. Exactly as Einstein said, we've left the cave in terms of ability to manipulate the outer environment, but haven't caught up in our value systems nor our maturity. Whether we just cannot see the forest for the trees and therefore even our modern abstractions of values and worldviews are extensions of the original survival of the fittest trait generation is to be seen but is perhaps irrelevant in that we now are capable of a conscious choice, irrational or not.
To choose to act toward the benefit of all mankind or even all sentient life may not seem rational in a closed system.
Like the prisoners dilemma, the issue is that the power to destroy is within reach of those who still have the fight and horde reaction of our ancestry.
There are reprogramming techniques that you mention: it's called Religion, Spiritualism and Philosophy; or perhaps just a damn EDUCATION as to the suffrage of our past - things not so heavily respected in consumer culture, and unfortunately when mentioned, the majority of these seem to have been created with and populated by people driven with the same motivations that lead to short term gains at the cost of long term evolution. Just my 2 cents. I'll go back to doing whatever stereotypical behavior that will marginalize my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a First - Re-Emerging Trend (Score:3, Interesting)
Using modern technology (higher temperature alloys, ceramic composites, and CFD optimization) it would be easily possible to build a cruise missile in the 1000nm range. In fact, because subsonic cruisers have to combat with launcher dimensions, their form factors are ill-suited for subsonic drag reduction and supersonic missiles might have an aerodynamic advantage.
ATK is currently developing a hypersonic cruise missile for the 800km range, which is an important gap filler between what artillery, short-range missiles, and ballistic missiles can hit quickly. This range is currently filled by subsonic cruise-missiles which can take over an hour to reach the target. Time-critical-strike it's called.
The issue with a supersonic cruise missile is that it needs even more than a subsonic cruiser to fly at high altitude in order to achieve satisfactory range. Aerodynamic heating is difficult, perhaps limiting at low altitudes for more than a short terminal phase. Flying at high altitude means they are easier to detect (not that look-down-shoot-down isn't standard, but ship-based phased-array radars won't be looking down) albeit harder to intercept due to their higher velocity.
What's really scary are the Chinese developed anti-ship ballistic missiles [wikipedia.org]. Stealthy re-entry vehicles that can perform course changes. This is an interception nightmare and likely driving the US Navy ballistic.
Re:Really!? (Score:5, Interesting)
This one is supersonic. Most others aren't, because it is not obvious what advantage supersonic cruise missiles have over ballistic ones.
BTW in the sixties the USA developed but never tested or deployed a nuclear powered supersonic cruise missile.
Re: (Score:2)
this one goes to Eleven!
but couldn't we just make "10" faster?
yes, but this one goes to Eleven.
Re: Nuclear powered, or nuclear armed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The nuclear powered airplane would have sprayed so much radioactive fallout
> during operation, that it didn't need to be armed with anything. Just flying > around over a populated area would kill most of the residents within a
> couple days if they didn't GTH out.
A gross exaggeration, but the thing would have been leaky. However, as it was intended to fly over the Soviet Union dropping H-bombs, that hardly matters.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, don't give him a hard time.
Personally, as a guy from a military background, and enjoying military strategy games, etc, I agree with him completely, I don't see much advantage of SS cruise missiles over a ballistic missile, at least for most countries and most situations.
The advantage a subsonic cruise missile has over a ballistic, is primarily payload fraction. Consider a tomahawk that weighs 3000 pounds of which 1000 pounds is warhead. Put another way, if you want 1000 pounds of boom on target, and want to use a subsonic cruise missile, you get to haul an additional 2000 extra pounds of missile around, instead of an additional 2000 pounds of aircraft fuel or food on a submarine or whatever.
In comparison, lets consider an ancient ballistic missile, a Polaris carrying a W47. A W47 only weighs 700 pounds or so, in comparison to 1000 pounds of "boom" on a tomahawk. Yet, a Polaris weighed freaking 28000 pounds. So, you can VERY QUICKLY deliver a mere 700 pounds of boom on target, if you're willing to haul around an extra 27300 pounds of missile.
Supersonic missiles combine the fuel efficiency of a ballistic missile, with the simplicity, reliability, and low cost of a cruise missile. Note the slight sarcasm. Pretty much a total failure EXCEPT that they can deliver extremely quickly.
If you dominate the air land and sea, you get quick delivery by stationing a boring old fashioned B-52 directly over the target and dropping a simple iron bomb straight down. Or, if you're not planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike, you simply don't need that capability to reach your goals. India, on the other hand....
Next step? Stealth. (Score:2)
A ballistic missile is pretty obvious. A cruise missile isn't quite so.
Huge market for such a device. Particularly if it was nuclear capable. Boom. There goes Washington DC. No clue who hit it. It takes the Mutual out of MAD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. Did you take stupid pills or something?
1. We can look at he fallout and see where the original material came from that made the bomb.
2. We have this thing called "Radar", it lets us track things that come toward us in the air. We've only had it for 60+ years, so you might have missed it.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
In comparison, lets consider an ancient ballistic missile...
Reading that gave me a vision of the ancient Greeks launching a Polaris missile at one another. Spar-taaaans! You will set 1-MQ to missile firing! Designate target package Athens! Spin up missiles I-VI and VII-XII! Commence hover maneuver and stand by to rain fire on our enemies! HA-OU! HA-OU! HA-OU!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
In comparison, lets consider an ancient ballistic missile...
Reading that gave me a vision of the ancient Greeks launching a Polaris missile at one another. Spar-taaaans! You will set 1-MQ to missile firing! Designate target package Athens! Spin up missiles I-VI and VII-XII! Commence hover maneuver and stand by to rain fire on our enemies! HA-OU! HA-OU! HA-OU!
Well, you do remember King Leonidas kicking the Persian emissary into the missile silo in "300", don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about those nifty anti-missile gatling guns on American ships? Can they or any other tech reliably intercept these things? I've seen the sentiment that America spending billions to build carriers may be foolish if a few $200,000 "Sizzler" missiles can take one out. I don't how severe that threat actually is but it is an argument I've seen either as the merits of a supersonic cruise missile or questionable investment in expensive capital ships vulnerable to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Wikipedia entry for the BrahMos [wikipedia.org], its payload capacity is 300kg, 1/10 the missile's mass, giving it about 3/5 of the Tomahawk's payload capacity while weighing twice as much. Its range is also only 290km, while the Tomahawk has a range of 2,500km. So not only do you have to carry around twice as much missile, but you have to get eight times as close to use it. I expect that the primary purpose of the BrahMos is similar to that of the P-270 Moskit (NATO SS-N-22 Sunburn), which is to have an e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe what the GP meant (and how I interpreted what he wrote) is that there's no apparent benefit of a supersonic cruise missile over a supersonic ballistic missile. If you are going for speed, it can be detected, so you might as well make the missile ballistic and go for maximum speed. If you are trying to be stealthy, you make a low-flying cruise missing without much of a signature so it is hard to detect. A low flying supersonic object will not be stealthy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
They used an unshielded reactor as the heat source for a ramjet engine. The thing launched off a rail track using booster rockets to get it up to speed so that the ramjet could take over.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power comes in one form: heat. Heat is what jet engines and rockets run on.
You need to read up on nuclear rockets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Project Pluto got pretty far - they tested the nuclear ramjet engines for example, and the TERCOM guidance system invented for Pluto was later used by the Tomahawk cruise missile.
http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html [merkle.com]
Pluto's namesake was Roman mythology's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)
There's an excellent documentary with video of test firing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e88WtJvSt7E [youtube.com]
Re:Thanks, India (Score:5, Interesting)
Riiight, because until today, they really weren't interested
Re:Thanks, India (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard-liners in the middle east don't give half a shit about what India does. The Pakistanis do sure, but they already are nuclear. The hard-lines in the middle east want to go nuclear because of Israel.
Re:Thanks, India (Score:5, Insightful)
The hard-lines in the middle east want to go nuclear because of Israel.
I'm guessing by 'hard-liners' you mean Iran and Syria, since no one else really seems interested in acquiring nuclear weapons in the middle east, and I'm further going to suggest that they aren't so afraid of Israel (who doesn't really have a history of aggression) as they are of the United States (who definitely has a history of aggression, in particular against Iran).
I don't even particularly blame them, either. If I were Iran, I would be working very hard to build nuclear weapons as a defense, it's only logical. On the other hand, I am not Iranian, I am American, and I don't particularly favor a country who has an official chant "Death to America" getting nuclear weapons. I am aware that it is not entirely 'fair' for America to have nuclear weapons and Iran not, but in this case my self-preservation instinct over-rules any desire for fairness.
If I were Iran (Score:3, Insightful)
> If I were Iran, I would be working very hard to build nuclear weapons as a defense, it's only logical.
A lot of the Arab world looks up to Iran as a country willing to defy the US. As for nukes, they sometimes make sense as a deterrent, but almost never as a defense. Setting them off in almost any circumstance is also a violation of international law.
Biggest problem in Iran isn't so much the Iranians as it is the government, AFAICT. (As far as I can tell.) If they could get a government in power whi
Re:If I were Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Biggest problem in Iran isn't so much the Iranians as it is the government, AFAICT.
Biggest problem in {Iran, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Russia, China, The UK, America, etc.} isn't so much the {Iranians, Egyptans, Syrians, Israelis, Turks, Russians, Chinese, Americans, etc.} as it is the government, AFAICT
Re: (Score:2)
As for nukes, they sometimes make sense as a deterrent, but almost never as a defense.
Quite so. Was talking to someone about Switzerland's policy of (heavily) armed neutrality the other day, they asked why Switzerland didn't have the bomb. After all, they have the wealth and the know-how. But what would they do with it? The only possible use for it wpuld hurt the Swiss as much as anyone else.
Re: Death to... (Score:5, Informative)
During a fundraising break, he mentioned he was sitting in a cab in horrible traffic and the cab driver said "death to traffic." He asked the cab driver what he said, and the driver said they say "death to..." when they are irritated by something. It was at this point, Rick realized when they say "Death to America," what they mean is "Damn America!" And given what we have done to the political situation in the middle east, especially by deposing their democratically elected government in 1953 to keep the oil tap open, it is hard to argue with them.
Re: Death to... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/
Re:Thanks, India (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the hardliners in the mid-east will consider nuclear because of Iran. Iran is not in the mid-east. Syria has an identity crisis coming. They are run by the Alawites (sp?) which are considered a branch of Shi'ism. However, the pop. is about 80% Sunni. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni gang, managed to get a foothold in Syria and Papa Assad leveled the city Hama, which the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over, in 1982. Then he invited the press in to get his point well made. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are mainly worried about Iran, Israel doesn't directly threaten them unless it is to get the rank and file Muslins upset and when they get upset, those governments get nervous. Jordan is caught between the Palestinians living within the country and the rest (more or less evenly divided or a 60-40 split but I cannot recall which has the edge). In any case, they aren't Shi'ite.
The main threat the Sunnis see is the Shi'ites. The U.S. fucked the Sunnis over royally by giving them the Shi'ites their first Arab country, Iraq, which could make a difference. Syria doesn't count because they will be hamstrung by their Sunni majority. And the Shi'ite in Iraq are one pissed off bunch. They've been screwed by the Sunnis under Saddam for 30 years. Then they got double crossed by the U.S. after the first Gulf War and Papa Bush encouraged them to rebell. They did, the U.S. didn't help. They got fucked.
The Iraqi religious (not the political) Shi'ite leadership, which al Sadr is not a member of (some wag called him the Al Sharpton of the Shi'ites), is not sympathetic to Iranian influence since they are mainly Arab and consider themselves THE Shi'ite authority. They are working behind the scenes to corral Iranian influence in Iraq. No one knows if the Iraqi Shi'ite religious leadership will prevail.
So right now, the Persian regime is promoting themselves as the Jew-Killers, the successor of the Nazies in an effort gain an edge over Sunni Islam. This is anathema to the Sunni who like dead Jews just as well as the next Muslim but would rather die than have Shi'ism become the dominant face of Islam. And Iran is in the ascendancy. It scares the heebie-jeebies out of the Sunnis and if Iran gets nukes, they will find a way to get them too.
Re:Thanks, India (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, most of Irans ruling council is not actually Persian, they are Arabs mostly originating from southern Iraq (hence the large Shia influence in Iran). The Persians and Arabs don't exactly get along, this is why the Islamic Republic maintains a large well equipped private military, the Basij (religious police and republican guards fall under the Basij) which is almost exclusively comprised of Lebanese (Hezbolla) and Palestinian (Hamas) Arabs.
Also there have been a lot of protests against the Iranian government recently and things have not gotten better. Huge racial issues are cropping up in Iran fanning the flames of old Persian/Arab hate. The acts of the Iranian government are not representative of the desires of the Persian people.
The biggest reason the Iran will never invade (or try to kill) Israel is because the Persians and Jews get on like a house on fire. There are several Persian members of the Knesset as well as the headquarters of the Baha'i religion being located in Israel (Baha'iism originated in Persia (Iran) in the early part of the 20th century). A lot of the Persians that fled Iran in the 80's did so through Israel. Any invasion would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iranian government as Persians simply refuse to fight or worse yet, get reunited with old friends from before the Islamic revolution. Even today most Iranians who travel east (to Asia) do so through Israel's Ben Gurion airport due to few nations allowing Iranian airliners to land and even fewer international airlines willing to land in Iran.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Most Iranians, at this point, are conflicted by their government. They want freedom of speech and expression. They want to be able to discuss issues openly, without having to worry about disappearing one day.
Bottom line is, don't blame a whole country because a misinformed
Re:Indian jokes (Score:5, Informative)
Hitler's German was prohibited from making weapons prior to WWII (part of the WW1 peace treaty), so he outsourced the industry to Russia
Of course - Schmeisser, Krupp, Junkers, and Messerschmitt are all Russian names :-)
With regard to Treaty of Versailles [wikipedia.org], it was officially broken in 1932, with implicit approval of many important countries. Development of arms also was done under "dual use" cover [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is something to start if you want to educate yourself on the topic: http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.html [feldgrau.com]
Your link says:
"By 1932, and certainly by 1933, the end of German-Soviet military co-operation efforts were in clear sight. Hitler and his Nationalist Socialists were not in a mood to co-operate with the Soviets in secret on military matters. Communism was after all seen as one of the main enemy's of the German people. In the end, it was the Soviet Union, which officially asked the Reichswehr t
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're targeting ships, especially carriers, over water there isn't a lot of terrain to get in the way, and not too many people to hear the sonic boom. Carriers on the other hand, are generally the best protected ships in a fleet, with things like anti missile missiles and metalstorm batteries, not to mention other ships, to protect them.
If you're coming in towards a carrier, the faster you're going, the harder you are going to be to acquire as a target and then hit with defences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using tactical nuclear warheads like you really need to against a modern carrier, then I'd say probably yes.
Of course, if you only send one or two super-sonic nukes AND saturate with sub-sonic conventional warheads, you'll probably get the most reliable results.
Re: (Score:2)
India, the Barney Fife of nations.
You probably don't want to hear how the world things of the US. Okay, here's my current favorite, from the fantastic In the Loop: "You know they're all kids in Washington? It's like Bugsy Malone, but with real guns."
Later...
Malcolm Tucker: Linton! Linton! ...between breast feeds and playing with their Power Rangers. So, an actual grown-up has been asked to fucking bail you out.
Linton Barwick: Mr Tucker, isn't it? Nice to see you again.
Malcolm Tucker: Are you fucking me about?
Linton Barwick: Is there a problem, Mr Tucker?
Malcolm Tucker: I've just come from a briefing with a nine-year-old child.
Linton Barwick: You're talking about AJ. AJ is one of our top guys. He's a Stanton College Prep, Harvard. One of the brightest and best.
Malcolm Tucker: Well, his briefing notes were written in alphabetti spaghetti. When I left, I nearly tripped up over his fucking umbilical cord.
Linton Barwick: I'm sorry it troubles you that our people achieve excellence at such an early age. But could we just move on to what's important here? Now, I understand that your Prime Minister has asked you to supply us with some, say, fresh British intelligence, is that true?
Malcolm Tucker: Yeah, apparently, your fucking master race of highly-gifted toddlers can't quite get the job done...
Linton Barwick: All right.
Malcolm Tucker:
Oh, I know the US has a lot of shortcomings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That plus a nuke warhead sounds great for killing big carriers. If push really comes to shove kiss power projection in the Indian Ocean goodbye. I wonder how long it will take China to buy one.
I think China is really the one that should be worrying about the Indian military.
amen! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think India has ever faced any credible direct security threat from the U.S., well aside from aid to Pakistan, and the threat of war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. India has very strong ties with Britain, vibrant trade with the U.S., developed nuclear weapons early, plays amongst the big boys economically, we idealize Gandhi, etc.
India projecting sea power more effectively definitely impacts China's trade routes however, especially with the middle east. India causing an increase in China's manufacturing costs would benefit industry in India, the U.S., and Europe.. and generally be cheered by all non-tools.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I dunno, just about anything can blow up if you treat it right.
Q. What's the difference between electrical engineers and civil engineers?
A. Electrical engineers build weapons systems; civil engineers build targets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can we PLEASE start spending all this cash on things that don't blow up?
Seems awfully inefficient to me. After all, it's a lot easier to kill people with stuff that does blow up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that they were firmly Sub-sonic.
I don't know how fast a commercial jet can fly but they were going slow when they hit the towers.
WTC airplane speed at time of strike (Score:2)
Actually, they were going damn fast. The terrorists felt free to break all FAA air traffic rules. They were going hell bent for leather at very low altitude; something commercial planes never do. The speed at the time of striking the buildings has been variously estimated (by examining frames of video) from 503 to 590 mph at approximately 1000 feet altitude. It was possible to reach this speed at such a low altitude, in dense air, because they were in a shallow dive. Yes, this is subsonic, but I would