Pre-emptive strike on American ships imminent?

#1
A few cheery facts for everyone:
a) Iran HAS the terrifying 'Sunburn (Moskit)' anti-ship missile.
b) Iranian leaders are not stupid and know that if they wait for America to bomb them they will lose the upper-hand before hostilities start.
c) They could destroy a good chunk of American military power in a series of surprise attacks, using the land based version of the Sunburn missile, against the American fleet in the Persian Gulf.
d) Russia and China are desperate to know if the missiles are actually as effective as they think.
e) The loss of a handful of destroyers and maybe a carrier may (May) see off the Americans due to lack of stomach for a fight.
f) The Americans and British are very afraid of the Sunburn missile.

Think Japs at Pearl Harbour, a pre-emptive strike was their only option.

Chaps, this scenario worries me greatly even if e) isn't really a fact.
 
#2
Are we and the yanks very afraid of sunburn? Gosh, what is it and what does it do? Do the Navy know about it? Is it one of those thingies that the only defence is to reflag ie to some non 'Crusader Alliance' place?
 
#3
Howler said:
A few cheery facts for everyone:
a) Iran HAS the terrifying 'Sunburn (Moskit)' anti-ship missile.
b) Iranian leaders are not stupid and know that if they wait for America to bomb them they will lose the upper-hand before hostilities start.
c) They could destroy a good chunk of American military power in a series of surprise attacks, using the land based version of the Sunburn missile, against the American fleet in the Persian Gulf.
d) Russia and China are desperate to know if the missiles are actually as effective as they think.
e) The loss of a handful of destroyers and maybe a carrier may (May) see off the Americans due to lack of stomach for a fight.
f) The Americans and British are very afraid of the Sunburn missile.

Think Japs at Pearl Harbour, a pre-emptive strike was their only option.

Chaps, this scenario worries me greatly even if e) isn't really a fact.
Methinks the Neocons would get shoot their load if that happened and up the ante somewhat by striking a killer blow to the Iranian Government/Military (well at least that's how it goes inside the neocon thinktank, the realworld being a whole other ballgame)
 
#4
And while Jonny Iranie is having fun making the squids and tars zig zag (or whatever they do these days) what is the USAF going to be doing?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#5
That would be a smart move, let's think what would happen:

NATO invokes article whatever it is.

The US bombs the living sh1te out of Iran, including all the nuke facilities and oil export facilities.

Iran is completely fcuked.
 
#6
Armchair_jihad,
I'm not a munitions expert, but as far as I know it weaves violently and randomly for the last 2 or 3 miles at Mach 3, far more difficult to hit than any other anti-ship missile.
Then shoots up vertically for about half a mile and comes down, again vertically, into the central mass of the ship. It is pre-determined to go for the carriers, but can attack vulnerable ships on the periphery of the fleet.

I have been following the development of the Sunburn missile in relation to the China/Taiwan stand off
I would like to hear why this frightening scenario is not possible, because I think they are going to hit us and soon.

Then again it's a hot, boring Friday in Central Europe and I might just be spouting pish.
By the way, can I make a donation to this site in foreign currency by bank transfer?
 
#7
Tehran knows only too well that that is the only excuse needed to redraw the World map in Shia blood, gloves off, not caring what the liberals say (as they would be interned as 5th columists).
 
#9
NATO article 5:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Would the Persian Gulf count as Europe?

EDIT:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
It would seem not...
 
#11
oh feck...£4.00 a litre for Unleaded.... :(
 
#13
Since the missile flies at mach 2.2 at sea level and covers its range in 2 minutes - I don't think that it will be able to jink worth a damn since it would be flying too fast
 
#14
stoatman said:
NATO article 5:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Would the Persian Gulf count as Europe?

EDIT:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
It would seem not...
Which is why NATO didn't lift a finger in support of the UK in 1982, and the americans initially started to bat for the other side!
 
#16
sprjim said:
armchair_jihad said:
Are we and the yanks very afraid of sunburn? Gosh, what is it and what does it do?
I'm scared of it! I heard on ITN it can give you skin cancer.
Now sprjim stay in the shade, drink lots of water, if you do not have any suncream, Heinz or Cross and Blackwell Salad cream is a tested subsitute
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#17
cpunk said:
That would be a smart move, let's think what would happen:

NATO invokes article whatever it is.

The US bombs the living sh1te out of Iran, including all the nuke facilities and oil export facilities.

Iran is completely fcuked.

I must admit to liking this option very much.
 
#18
Did you cite the Japanese at pearl harbour as a precedent for this action?

Did America join the war "after" Pearl harbour?

Is Japan maintaing its empire across the pacific rim at the moment OR watering a memorial garden?
 
#19
What about sunscreen? Seems like it offers good protection against sunburn....... I recommend SPF 40 at least (that is ship protection factor)
 

Similar threads

Top