Iran test launches Shahab 3 missiles in 2009

The German newspaper Die Welt reports that Iran is building intermediate- range missile launch pads in Venezuela.  The Iranian Revolutionary Guards firm, Amir al-Hadschisadeh, is building the launch complex, including missile silos and bunkers on the Paraguaná Peninsula, on the north coast of Venezuela facing America.  Miami is about two thousand miles north from the launch site.  Iran's Shahab 3 IRBM has a range of a thousand miles, the Shahab 4 1200 miles, and the Shahab 5, under development, more than 4000 miles.  Washington, DC and New York City are about 3000 miles from the launch site.

The Shahab missiles were based on North Korean missile designs which were, in turn, based on Soviet designs.

Cash-poor Iran is paying for initial construction costs itself, running into tens of millions of dollars.  Die Welt claims there is a secret agreement between Iran and Venezuela in which Venezuela would launch its missiles should Iran come under attack.  In other words, if America and its allies attack Iran's nuclear bomb facilities it wants Venezuela to attack America and its allies in the Western hemisphere.

I suspect much of this is posturing for domestic constituencies of the mad mullahs and Hugo Chavez. The threat is more scarecrow than real.  The Iranians are not a particularly competent culture.  It seems unlikely that their missiles will be reliable, particularly when they have not been tested at their extreme range.

Likewise, Hugo Chavez has not established a competent regime.  The only competent professionals in Venezuela run the oil business there.  The government is composed of corrupt cronies of Chavez who have made it their business to plunder their local oil units, bankrupting them and chasing their staff out of the country.  It seems unlikely that Venezuela retains the technical and professional expertise to staff a missile complex.

One is amused by the recklessness of Iran and Venezuela who would threaten the American mainland with missiles of dubious capability.  It's hard to believe they think they would win a missile exchange with the US.  And really, missile silos in ill-defended undeveloped countries are perfect targets for B-2 bombers.  Our pilots could take these missile sites out and still be home in time to pick up the kids from school.

 Hat tip to Hot Air

View the full article

It seems unlikely that their missiles will be reliable, particularly when they have not been tested at their extreme range ... One is amused by the recklessness of Iran and Venezuela who would threaten the American mainland with missiles of dubious capability.

 

While one can probably rest assured that the USA would 'win' any military confrontation with either Venezuela, Iran or both, I think maybe he's missing a bit of the point when it comes to ballistic missiles.

 

Iranian missiles in Venezuela would not have to be reliable, accurate, or carry WMD in order to be threatening or even dangerous.

 

Any breaking news that ballistic missiles have been launched against the United States carries with it a threshold of damage all its own.

Iranian missiles in Venezuela would not have to be reliable, accurate, or carry WMD in order to be threatening or even dangerous.

 

Of course, my country actually has been attacked by ballistic missiles, so it might be worth recalling our experience back in 1944-5. The V-2s weren't all that successful, particularly due to British deception efforts that caused the Germans to walk their aim back until the mean point of impact was outside London. They certainly didn't cause any major disruption to the war effort, even if they did cause a relatively large number of deaths. It's also very unlikely Iran would be able to launch anywhere near the number of missiles that Germany did.

Of course, my country actually has been attacked by ballistic missiles, so it might be worth recalling our experience back in 1944-5. The V-2s weren't all that successful, particularly due to British deception efforts that caused the Germans to walk their aim back until the mean point of impact was outside London. They certainly didn't cause any major disruption to the war effort, even if they did cause a relatively large number of deaths. It's also very unlikely Iran would be able to launch anywhere near the number of missiles that Germany did.

 

The British experience with the V-1 and V-2 has useful lessons, though I think the sheer scale and the context of their use makes for a difficult comparison, imho.

I think it's important to put things in context here....

 

1. Iranian missiles cannot reach CONUS at this time.

2. Iranian missiles CAN reach other nations in South and Central America....some of them are American allies.

3. I don't have Google Earth installed on this computer [yet...stupid gov't permissions...] but IIRC the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay are well within range of the current inventory of Iranian missiles.

4. Missile technology isn't all that hard to improve upon....so it's only a matter of time before Iranian missiles have the capability to reach the US.

 

The natural assumption here is to compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Geopolitcally, the response was way out of proportion to the situation at the time [from the Russians stand point, it would be perfectly natural to put missiles in Cuba, there were US missiles in Turkey]. In this case there is no threat [yet]. That being said, why would the Iranian's put a missile site there? The answer is that, to them, there is something to threaten. Since Iran can't realistically threaten the US in a military way then it must be economic. That leaves the Panama Canal. Dropping IRBMs on the Canal would close it very quickly and it may cause the economies of several nations to tip back into recession.

 

The good news is that ATBM systems can be transported fairly quickly to defend these areas.

 

Later

D

Since Iran can't realistically threaten the US in a military way then it must be economic.

 

That's what I am driving at. Economic damage, a la oil prices, chaos on the floor of the NYSE, "panic among the sheeple", etc, etc.

I think it's important to put things in context here....

 

1. Iranian missiles cannot reach CONUS at this time.

2. Iranian missiles CAN reach other nations in South and Central America....some of them are American allies.

3. I don't have Google Earth installed on this computer [yet...stupid gov't permissions...] but IIRC the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay are well within range of the current inventory of Iranian missiles.

4. Missile technology isn't all that hard to improve upon....so it's only a matter of time before Iranian missiles have the capability to reach the US.

 

There's another thing - conventionally-armed ballistic missiles have been, on the whole, useless for hitting anything that's not a large city and so far have not been a war-winning weapon. When Gaddafi launched "Scuds" at Lampedusa back in 1986, he managed to miss the entirety of a 6 by 1.9 mile island...

There's another thing - conventionally-armed ballistic missiles have been, on the whole, useless for hitting anything that's not a large city and so far have not been a war-winning weapon. When Gaddafi launched "Scuds" at Lampedusa back in 1986, he managed to miss the entirety of a 6 by 1.9 mile island...

 

I think few aggressors will seek to use the ballistic missile as a precision weapon, at least not the folks seen as most likely to use them as a 'terror' weapon (e.g. Iran, DPRK, Libya, etc).

 

Others may do exactly that, because they have the capability, the numbers (massed firepower), and the intent to hit a particular target (e.g. Chinese hitting Taiwan or Guam; the Russians hitting the Chechens, etc).

 

Some may be inclined to do both (e.g. the DPRK in any new war on the Korean Peninsula).

 

Where not intended as a precision weapon, the ballistic missile does not have to be terribly accurate to have negative effect. Both Florida and Texas, for example, are pretty densely populated in many areas.

 

That the effect is grossly out of proportion to the likely response (especially if non-conventional warheads are used) is probably a foregone conclusion.

That the effect is grossly out of proportion to the likely response (especially if non-conventional warheads are used) is probably a foregone conclusion.

 

I agree. My point was that those who have used ballistic missiles as "terror" weapons have failed to incur any decisive advantage by them. Iraq and Iran could only draw; the Russians won in 2008 by other means and Speer stated outright that Hitler's V-1 and V-2 project sucked up valuable resources that could have gone elsewhere.

I agree. My point was that those who have used ballistic missiles as "terror" weapons have failed to incur any decisive advantage by them. Iraq and Iran could only draw; the Russians won in 2008 by other means and Speer stated outright that Hitler's V-1 and V-2 project sucked up valuable resources that could have gone elsewhere.

 

I don't disagree with either of those statements, but that said, I am not sure we can compare the resilience of 1940s Londoners (or their support structures) to the citizenry of modern day Miami. Nor did the Allies entirely ignore Peenemunde and its ilk.