Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Erikl

Iran Has 12 Strategic Cruise Missiles

157 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Erikl

Iran Has 12 Strategic Cruise Missiles

DEBKAfile Military Report

March 20, 2005, 9:27 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Ukrainian prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piksun created a major international flap Friday, March 18, when he admitted to the Financial Times that 18 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55, had been “exported” - 12 to Iran and 6 to China in 2001. He could not explain how the “significant leak” of technology from the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal occurred, but said the missiles had been sold without nuclear warheads.

The X-55 has a ranged of 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads. Launched from Su-24 long-range strike aircraft in the Iranian air force, it can put Japan, all of Russia and Israel within range. Piksun’s admission is the first official confirmation of the Ukrainian missile sale that was first made public last month by a Ukrainian parliament member.

Their acquisition heightens concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The US embassy in Kiev is “closely monitoring” the investigation and demands the findings be made public in full. The Japanese embassy echoed the demand.

DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources reveal that the Ukrainian shipment to Iran included radioactive materials for making “dirty bombs.”

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the 12 strategic cruise missiles place the strategic ratio between the Islamic Republic and Israel on a completely new level. Iran shares this asset with only two other world powers, the United States and Russia. This weapon is used for destroying known relatively fixed-position targets, such as Israel’s Dimona nuclear center and population centers. Its guidance system combines inertial-Doppler navigation and position correction based on in-flight comparison of terrain in targeted regions with images stored in the memory of its on-board computer. The propulsion system is a dual-flow engine located underneath the missile’s tail.

Possession of the Kh-55 makes Iran’s Shahab-3 or its projected Shahab-4 missile programs irrelevant. Tehran may have given them exposure as a red herring to distract attention from its high-profile missile asset.

The breakup of the Soviet Union left about 1,000 missiles in Ukraine’s arsenal, half of which were meant to be turned over to Russia in the 1990s and half destroyed under a US-funded disarmament program. The 18 sold under the table slipped through the cracks of this accord.

The previous government in Kiev arrested and charged a local businessman for the illegal exports and his trial is still underway, the Ukrainian prosecutor said, adding that two Russian businessmen were suspected of masterminding the sale, one of whom, Oleg Orlov, was arrested last July in Prague in response to a Ukrainian warrant. Under the new government that took office in January, SBU chief Alexander Turchinov has reopened the investigation.

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjtss

Someone once said that" the best defense is a good offense" Isn't it nice how much those emerging nations learn by listening to the US????

Their missiles don't look so good next to Israel's neutron bombs, or the nuclear warheads on the US 7th Fleet currently sailing toward Kuwait. When it comes to pre-emptive action, the US is out front on the score board. Pot's calling the kettle black again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Someone once said that" the best defense is a good offense"  Isn't it nice how much those emerging nations learn by listening to the US????

Their missiles don't look so good next to Israel's neutron bombs, or the nuclear warheads on the US 7th Fleet currently sailing toward Kuwait. When it comes to pre-emptive action, the US is out front on the score board.  Pot's calling the kettle black again.

542134[/snapback]

I have pointed out to the differences a long time ago.

Israel might have nukes, but if it did, it had those for the last 40 years, through three wars which if it was another country it would have used them. It didn't. For me, that's one of the best tests a nuclear country can go through.

How many total wars have been waged on nuclear Britain?

How many total wars have been waged on nuclear France?

The same question for - nuclear USSR, China, and ofcourse US.

Hell, the Indians and Pakistanians threat to nuke each other almost annualy.

Israel is reported to have nukes since 1965 (one of the first countries to get them).

In 1967, it was attacked by 6 countries, that outnumbered it in population, army size, and geographic size (not to say in terms of resources as well).

It won, even with no nukes, with a great lose of human life.

Another total war has been waged against Israel in 1973, Israel has been almost wiped out, but still won, with no use of nukes.

And in 1991, Saddam Hussein fired SCUD missiles on Israeli cities, only 3 years after he gassed thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. Israel didn't arm it's alleged nuclear missiles, even though each of the 40 missiles fired at it could have had a chemical warhead on it.

I wonder how many of the nuclear powers of the world have been tested like that.

Ofcourse I do not wish to any of them to go through such tests, but I see it as a kind of insurrance that my country had many chances to use nukes, yet it didn't.

Another point I always emphesize is that Iran is huge - both in population (70 million) and territory (the second largest country in the middle east).

Israel might have more than one nuke, but it's small size and small population makes any nuclear attack on it a fatal one.

The US, Russia, China, France, UK, India and Pakistan are all huge in terms of population and territory.

One nuke, or even ten nukes, will not wipe out any of these countries. And their patience has never been tested (luckily).

So I'm sorry, but even if Israel does have nukes, even as sophisticated as neutron bombs and H-bombs, one Iranian nuke with those crazy Ayatolas in charge is something to be much more worried about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

Not from where I'm sitting, Erik! The size of a country, its political system, its history etc... do not constitute valid arguments for or against having nukes. In essence, you're saying that because Iran is a big country and has 70 million people living in it and is ruled by mullahs, therefore it's not so fatal to nuke it!! To put it very mildly; this is a nonsense of the purest type if I ever heard one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Not from where I'm sitting, Erik! The size of a country, its political system, its history etc... do not constitute valid arguments for or against having nukes. In essence, you're saying that because Iran is a big country and has 70 million people living in it and is ruled by mullahs, therefore it's not so fatal to nuke it!! To put it very mildly; this is a nonsense of the purest type if I ever heard one!

542554[/snapback]

That's not what I was saying at all.

I merely stood up against the failed comprasion done here by jjtss.

He claimed that "Their missiles don't look so good next to Israel's neutron bombs", and I merely tried to explain why from where Israel is standing, even one single nuke is totaly catastrophic, regardless of what retaliation means we have.

Iran will survive one, two and even ten nukes thrown at it (not that I suggest they should be thrown at any country to begin with), while Israel will be utterly destroyed by even the simpliest most primitive nuclear bomb, because of it's small size.

What follows next is irrelavent, as it will only be an act of revange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

Okay Erik; I must have understood wrong! A nuke dropped on a big country will kill a lot of people and most likely the death and destruction will not be limited to that country or the region it is in. So I'm all for a nuclear weapons free world, and find that we should worry more about those who already have them instead of putting all the effort in propaganda and slogans against those who don't have them; therby turning such a vital issue into a tool for suspicious short-term political gains. hmm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

Just one more reason on the list to wage war against Iran. wink2.gif That whole area over there is really unstable. I have 20 bucks on that area being the spot for WW3. Any takers? tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

Yep; but not before we're ready with our toy tanks! cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
and find that we should worry more about those who already have them instead of putting all the effort in propaganda and slogans against those who don't have them;

That's not completely accurate....

It's not that propaganda and slogans are being used against an innocent country who don't have nukes - it is an attempt to prevent more countries from going nuclear!.

If you are against nukes, you must also be against your country's attempt to gain such ability.

The world is pretty unstable with the current nuclear powers, so I don't know how would it be able to cope with another.

One day we will run out of luck, and a crazy, insance regime will use it's newly required nuclear abilities against others.

That's what is feared from an Islamic Iran going nuclear.

It's not that people have basic problem with the Iranians getting such weapons - as a matter of fact, one can claim that because they have been attacked so many times by the Arabs, and have been bombed with WMD themselves, they might be one of those countries who could be trusted with nukes (although I hate to use such term.... IMO, humans can't be trusted with nukes whatsoever). But the truth is that together with those facts, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics, who call for a daily destruction of another country, and heavily arm and train terrorists to do so. The truth is also that Iran won't be able to destroy Israel in a conventional battle, without risking the possibility of losing, but one crude nuclear device is enough to utterly delete Israel off the charts, without the need to mobilize huge army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

I'm against all countries having nukes, and that includes Iran as well. As for your other arguments, I'm not sure I could agree. As mentioned before, system of government, history, etc do not constitute valid arguments for or against countries having nukes.

A war between Iran and Israel is much closer to myth than reality and is mainly advertised to justify huge military expenditures. In fact Iran is being used as a convinient scapegoat. If slogans against a country could lead to its destruction, Iran for one would have had to be destroyed ten times over by now (in Iran's case this went even beyond slogans when some Western countries along with some of their backwards regional allies helped and armed a lunatic by the name of Saddam to his teeth with everything he hadn't already acquired from the Soviets including chemical weapons, and cheered him on to invade Iran, an adventure that failed badly and backfired in their faces. The same was true concerning the fabrication and installation of Taliban in Afghanistan with great help from nuclear armed fanatics in the Pakistani army). So, the authenticity of the campaign against Iran would not have been put into question if only a small portion of the effort which is directed against Iran's nukes had been at the same time directed against some of these other countries including Israel (presently ruled by someone with more than a suspicious background and a country that has completely ignored all the international treaties concerning nukes), to get rid of the nukes they already have. However as things are now, I can't help thinking that all the slogans and propaganda against a country that doesn't even have nukes serve only a short-term political purpose of the campaigners rather than their genuine concern about fanatics having nukes as you're led to believe; a policy that could backfire again, only this time it could be a fire with a strange glow coming from someone that the present campaigners have chosen to ignore, or even consider as a 'friend', just like what they used to consider saddam as!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

I know I would feel a lot safer sleeping at night knowing there isn't enough nukes to blow up the world a couple times... The face of war has changed so much in the last 100 years its just overwelming. So much more technology and computers are being added into a soldiers everyday life. Look back hundreds of years and all those guys worried about was how good their direct combat skills were with a shield and a sword. Heck, today you can just fire a rocket and blow a country up that you have never even step foot in. With all this technology there has to be a price, only question is when do we pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Just heard on Fox News that we want the Iranian people to get out from under their oppressors and everything, but we just can't get used to Iran having nukes ohmy.gif..... and their leaders threatening us with nuclear war.

An anchor on Fox said, "when Iran says get used to Nuclear Iran", we should say to Iran,

"get used to glowing in the dark." thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

Health hazard warning:

'Watching those dangerous extremist lunatics on Fox all day can be hazardous to your health'! grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me
Just one more reason on the list to wage war against Iran. wink2.gif That whole area over there is really unstable. I have 20 bucks on that area being the spot for WW3. Any takers? tongue.gif

543343[/snapback]

So blow up a nation that may have nukes and make the area even more unstable because you think it is unstable now? Good reasoning...

Iran is not a threat to us now, and has not been in the past. The same with Iraq and all of the middle eastern nations. Let them fight each other if they want, that is their own business, they have their own problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me
Health hazard warning:

'Watching those dangerous extremist lunatics on Fox all day can be hazardous to your health'! grin2.gif

573160[/snapback]

hahaha you said it before i had the chance

most people here don't understand or know any of the history in the middle east. our media leads us all to believe that all the middle eastern countries are ruled by evil dictators and that all of the people there are either oppressed or terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Manfred

Oh sheesh, leave Iran alone ffs rolleyes.gif

So what if they have defensive missles? So what if they have nukes? If they were the maniacs the US is making them out to be then why haven't they attacked yet? Why haven't they launched a nuclear strike against Israel? Why didn't they declare war when the US launched their spy satellites over their airspace? Why didn't they declare war when the US sent SEALS into their territory? Why didn't they declare war the first fifteen times Bush labelled them (among others) as being part of the "Axis of Evil"?

If you ask me they're being infinitly patient considering the circumstances and criticisms the US is spewing at them.

They're a scapegoat the US is using to take the focus off their own atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I couldn't care less if Iran has missiles...If I were located in the middle east you would bet I would have as many missiles as my lunch money would allow me to buy. It is a bit of a touchy neighborhood at times...

If they decide to use the missles where it is uncalled for, then that is a problem, but otherwise I would rather my government be concerned about things like unemployment or wasted tax money...200 billion in wasted tax money in Iraq for starters rolleyes.gif

I would be willing to bet that bushy-boy makes up enough reason to invade Iran before his term is up, lord knows he doesn't actually need a reason to do so anyway...

Did I mention that our country is out of control? blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Manfred
Did I mention that our country is out of control?

I think the fact that the President of the United States has Secret Service agents guarding a duck proves it fluff tongue.gif

Next thing he's gonna make his dog a senator grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Did I mention that our country is out of control?

I think the fact that the President of the United States has Secret Service agents guarding a duck proves it fluff tongue.gif

Next thing he's gonna make his dog a senator grin2.gif

573531[/snapback]

In some cases. it would be a step up. At least dogs are faithful and best friends to man...

I doubt Rover would take kickbacks from the tobacco company to pass legislation that otherwise would not pass...

12 missiles? who cares? What about the trillions of dollars in debt we are in now? What about the fact that my Grandmothers medication costs more than my mortgage each month? What about the cost of living? Unemployment?

It drives me crazy that our government works so hard to misdirect the attention of the public in an attempt to cover up their own ineptitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Caspian Hare
12 missiles? who cares?

Yeah, who gives a damn about the military capabilities of our potential adversaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
12 missiles? who cares?

Yeah, who gives a damn about the military capabilities of our potential adversaries.

573553[/snapback]

There is one little sub floating in the Mediterranean ocean right now that can take care of those 12 missiles without even surfacing...or having to skip lunch to do so...

It is hardly a concern in the grand scope of things, although after reading 1984, I can see what bush is doing...

We are not situated in the middle east(aside from the troops we have sent there under dubios reasoning), and 12 missiles is not a drop in the bucket. If they were stupid enough to use them against us we could bring them to their knees without even having to break a sweat. They have not, and will not(until bush decides to invade for even more dubious reasoning), because they are not stupid.

Israel has plenty of firepower to deal with Iran if they need to; they have one of the best trained militaries in the world.

It is not the job of the US to stick our nose in everyone elses business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Caspian Hare
We are not situated in the middle east(aside from the troops we have sent there under dubios reasoning), and 12 missiles is not a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, you're right. Other than a hundred thousand troops and one quarter of the world's oil supply in Saudi, there is nothing in the Gulf region of value to us that Iran can threaten with a 3,000 kilometer-range nuclear-capable missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ForRizzle

Although its scarey as hell to know Iran is persuing or already has aquired nukes from either Pakistan, N Korea, or Former Soviet programs. And they have the long range missiles to target. I cant see it being our right to police that. After all its ok for us to have them (and all our allies). If Iran were to use one it would virtually be state suicide as Tehran was turned into a steaming pile of glass. More scarey is thier will to supply Al Qi'ada or other terrorist organizations with a warhead to walk accross the Mexican border with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Why is everyone always so focused on the oil in the Middle East? Canada has the second largest oil reserve in the world behind Saudi Arabia and it's a heck of a lot closer. It seems as though we could easily make a deal with Canada since we are on relatively good terms with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
We are not situated in the middle east(aside from the troops we have sent there under dubios reasoning), and 12 missiles is not a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, you're right. Other than a hundred thousand troops and one quarter of the world's oil supply in Saudi, there is nothing in the Gulf region of value to us that Iran can threaten with a 3,000 kilometer-range nuclear-capable missile.

573583[/snapback]

Troops that should not be there to begin with, but anyway...

Perhaps we should just invade every country so that we can control all of the oil? I guess the sovereignty of any of the nations means nothing, nor their own ability to take care of themselves?

The middle east has been in a constant flux for two millennia, why is it our job to fix it? It isn't.

We have better things to do than worry about 12 measly missles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.