How dangerous are Iran’s missiles?

[FriendOfPakistan]

You are overestimating the cost of cheap mass produced missiles made locally with local labor cost. I bet you a Shahab 3 does not cost more than $100K to make in Iran. And the shorter range missiles (300-400 km), that it is those not aimed at Israel, would be even cheaper.

An F-22 raptor costs $361 million. That is not cheap. Equivalent to 3610 missiles costing $100K each (that is made in Iran). An F15 must be at least $30 million, if not more, so that is equivalent to 300 Shahab3.

In the case of Iran, any fighter jet Iran has would be shot down before it dropped its bombs if faced with US air force. The reason US invests in planes is that they are far superior to any that the developing countries under sanctions and military attack can muster.

Y
In the mean time, an F-15E can drop the equivalent of TEN medium range ballistic missiles in a single sortie.

It's a bomb. It's not magic. And extremely expensive to boot. There is no possible way Iran has anywhere close to the numbers mentioned. At the height of the cold war, the USSR and the USA never pointed even 1/3 that many (10,000?) at each other.

Let me pose this question - if MRBM's, conventionally equipped, are such awesome, war-winning weapons, why has every other country on earth emphasized fighter-bomber aircraft as the primary conventional weapon vs. expensive missiles? Why does America have thousands of fighters rather than thousands of missiles?

 

[Awesome]

USA not only has a missile defense system but a system that will detect the missile, hack the **** out of it and change it's course in mid air back to Iran lol

... And Obama will consume the Iranians with "with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/quotes

 

[longbrained]

Ballistic missiles are an extremely cost effective alternative to an airforce specially for defensive purposes. A solid fueled missile costing less than a million dollar can sit around for two decades not requiring much maintenance and fired with minimum risk and human resources when required, besides there is not much effective way to intercept it as all interception technologies are unproven and very unreliable. On the other hand an air force needs lots of money buying ultra-expensive planes, spend huge amount of money maintaining them, and paying for a large human resources required. Ballistic missiles coupled with SAM's is very lethal and effective.

Furthermore, this notion that Iran is buying technology from North Korea is laughable. Iran is a space launch capable country something North Korea is not and even South Korea has failed in it. Iran is ahead of North and South Korea in missile technology as per Israeli missile program chief:

 

[longbrained]

Yea... but Super Man (Christopher reeves died) so no way to change incoming ICBM
Only other air defense is , hot air and news spins lol


A good ole slap works only in movies

The best post ever. I salute you!

 

[Awesome]

I think of Iran as more responsible nation than 90% of other US allies of dubious nature and more dangerous than at least 50% of her allies if it wanted to be. But since its responsible I think it won't shed first blood and if the fight ensues, Pakistan should be on Iran's side not even adopt neutrality and especially not oppose Iran.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You are possibly overthinking the destructive power of a conventional ballistic missile. Again, it's a nose cone with some amatol or TNT equivalent on it. Like an iron bomb. Do you think ONE iron bomb dropped on a U.S. military installation is going to cause them to simply fold and stop fighting? "Oh no! A bomb exploded! We are defeated!"

In the mean time, an F-15E can drop the equivalent of TEN medium range ballistic missiles in a single sortie.

It's a bomb. It's not magic. And extremely expensive to boot. There is no possible way Iran has anywhere close to the numbers mentioned. At the height of the cold war, the USSR and the USA never pointed even 1/3 that many (10,000?) at each other.

Let me pose this question - if MRBM's, conventionally equipped, are such awesome, war-winning weapons, why has every other country on earth emphasized fighter-bomber aircraft as the primary conventional weapon vs. expensive missiles? Why does America have thousands of fighters rather than thousands of missiles?

Simple answer - aircraft can execute multiple sorties, are more accurate, carry a heavier payload, and do it at 1,500th the cost per ton delivered, at the expense of speed and vulnerability.

Missiles are much less risky than aircraft, and modern combat is dictated by accuracy, not brute force bomb tonnage, which missiles can provide.

While aircraft bombing is suitable for long wars, ballistic and cruise missiles would be useful for a blitz type war where the objective was either a first strike to cripple enemy ability to even begin resistance, or a deterrent.

 

[FriendOfPakistan]

In Lebanon, a single truck bomb killed 241 hundred marines, and as a result US military forces packed and left.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think ONE iron bomb dropped on a U.S. military installation is going to cause them to simply fold and stop fighting? "Oh no! A bomb exploded! We are defeated!"

 

[longbrained]

Watch this is what a decorated CIA spy thinks about Iran's power:

 

[500]

It's much cheaper to build missiles than aircrafts.

Facepalm. Chogy explained so well and clear, that everyone with IQ over 50 would understand. But you still dont understand.

You mean, Holocaust?

I mean Hitler shootng himself and his dog.

 

[longbrained]

Facepalm. Chogy explained so well and clear, that everyone with IQ over 50 would understand. But you still dont understand.


I mean Hitler shootng himself and his dog.

Chogy did not explain anything. Missiles are accepted as cheap and effective and that is why Hizbullah has opted to use them on you instead of building up an air force. The missiles of Hizbullah were more effective than your airforce since they killed more soldiers and fewer civilians, while your air force performed the opposite, killing civilians and no soldiers.

You mean after he burned 5,999,999 Zionists in ZyklonB ovens, or before it?

Edit: " You mean after he burned 5,999,999 Zionists (allegedly as per Ahmadinejad) in ZyklonB ovens, or before it?"

 

[longbrained]

Developero,

Americans are completely ok with Saudi Arabia. Even 9/11 did not change that. The Zionists are completely in control of that nation and US will probably protect Saudis more vigorously than Israel, since it is so important for them. When 4 Arab nations with Soviet backing attacked Israel, US never went in to help Israel. But as soon as Saddam was standing on the border of that country, they rolled in. It is where the heart of dollar beats. Without it dollar will fail.

 

[500]

Chogy did not explain anything.

He explained perfectly: Ballistic missile like Shahab is superexpensive and not accurate way to deliever 500 kg warhead.

Missiles are accepted as cheap and effective and that is why Hizbullah has opted to use them on you instead of building up an air force. The missiles of Hizbullah were more effective than your airforce since they killed more soldiers and fewer civilians, while your air force performed the opposite, killing civilians and no soldiers.

Hezbollah did not use ballistic missiles. They used short range rockets to fire at civilians. Hezbollah fired 4000 rockets and did not manage to destroy a single israeli infrastructure or military object.

Israeli air force destroyed all Hezbollahs objects, which they built with Iranian money for 10 years. If we used WW2 methods of allies, Israeli air force could easily wipe out entire Lebanon out of existance.

You mean after he burned 5,999,999 Zionists in ZyklonB ovens, or before it?

Hitler killed Jews, not Zionists. If he was not spending enermous resources on useless ballistic missiles he would last longer and kill more innocent people.

 

[Developereo]

Developero,

Americans are completely ok with Saudi Arabia. Even 9/11 did not change that. The Zionists are completely in control of that nation and US will probably protect Saudis more vigorously than Israel, since it is so important for them. When 4 Arab nations with Soviet backing attacked Israel, US never went in to help Israel. But as soon as Saddam was standing on the border of that country, they rolled in. It is where the heart of dollar beats. Without it dollar will fail.

I am talking about the American public. The Zionist media has demonized Arabs and Saudis worse than Iranians. No American president will be able to sustain a war taking American casualties to save Saudi Arabia. Israel, yes. Saudi Arabia, no way!

 

[longbrained]

He explained perfectly: Ballistic missile like Shahab is superexpensive and not accurate way to deliever 500 kg warhead.


Hezbollah did not use ballistic missiles. They used short range rockets to fire at civilians. Hezbollah fired 4000 rockets and did not manage to destroy a single israeli infrastructure or military object.

Israeli air force destroyed all Hezbollahs objects, which they built with Iranian money for 10 years. If we used WW2 methods of allies, Israeli air force could easily wipe out entire Lebanon out of existance.


Hitler killed Jews, not Zionists. If he was not spending enermous resources on useless ballistic missiles he would last longer and kill more innocent people.

Hahahaha,

Shahab-3 is super expensive? How much does it cost? I remember reading on Zionist media that it is no more than a tin cylinder with low technology and now it is super expensive. I am sure F-22 and F-35 are much cheaper and surely B-2 is very much cheaper than a Shahab-3, after all, this missile is made in Iran where they have to pay multi-million dollar salaries to company executives manufacturing its screws.

Hizbullah used ballistic missiles of short range. Go and read some physics to know what ballistic means. And Hizbullah killed more soldiers than civilians as per United Nations report, while Israel only killed civilians. That means Hizbullah missiles were more smart and effective. And you should be ashamed of comparing yourself to a group of guerrilla fighters and not even a regular army. They beat like hell and you could not take it anymore and accepted an EU brokered truce. As for you being able to wipe out the entire Lebanon out of existence, I must say, didn't Ahmadinejad also threatened you not to do it since then your existence would be wiped out too? Funny. You have got more than your match in Iran. I am just sorry for Americans who have to bankroll you. Iranians spend less than 0.1% of what Americans are spending on you and still they won. It is so sad to see that in this proxy war between US and Iran which is going on, Israel is performing poorly.

Jews, Zionists, Psychos, Communists, Japanese, ..., allegedly. That is what Ahmadinejad told us. And if those ballistic missiles were so useless, United States would not have taken the super fascists Mr. Braun to US and make him a hero in order to learn about the same technology. He, himself had overseen concentration camp activities during the war. So you can imagine how much he had loved Jews in those camps. Imagine what he used to do in his spare time when he was not playing with his V-2's. By the way, Hitler was kind. His regime had discovered nerve gas back then and had manufactured large quantities of it and if he had used that nerve gas on those V-2's, and had spent little more money on nuclear research then with those V-2's, he could have gone much further than he did. But anyways, he had already gone much further than anyone else too, except perhaps the Church during its rule over Europe. Dont you agree?

 

[longbrained]

I am talking about the American public. The Zionist media has demonized Arabs and Saudis worse than Iranians. No American president will be able to sustain a war taking American casualties to save Saudi Arabia. Israel, yes. Saudi Arabia, no way!

No that is not completely true. Everyday, US gov comes out stating that America will stand by its allies in the Gulf and protect them and there is not even a peep from the public and media. US actually has taken lots of causalities fighting for Saudi Arabia. Iraq war 1990 and then 2003 and even in a sense 9/11 and Afghanistan. No peep from the public and media. Arabs are not demonized the same as Iranians. Arabs are portrayed as raghead, stupid people who can not do anything right and should be watched and make them submitted. Thus western public is only cautious about individual arabs who might become brave occasionally and out of their stupidity attack a building or two in west. But generally they are already submitted and their governments run by Zionists. But Iran is put forward as a direct threat of nuclear nature. War with Iran is very easy to sell to American public. And every American loves his car and relatively cheap fuel and more importantly their dollar. So it is natural they are also in love with Saudi Arabia too. There are more American military advisors in Saudi Arabia than anywhere else. You think the military industrial complex is going to just care about an occasional American feeling bad about Saudi Arabia. Not at all. Saudi Arabia is always portrayed as an ally on US media.