Those Wacky Revolutionary Guards
I figure it's gotta be a translation error, but check out this article on a statement by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards "commander":
"We have built birds without passengers [drones] that can carry out suicide operations on the US Navy, at any depth if necessary, to make them leave the region in disgrace," said Ali Shoushtari, deputy commander of the Guards' land forces.So the drones don't have passengers, but they're conducting suicide operations? How do they do that? Does the remote drone operator have to kill himself in his command center after the drone hits? Do they think the drones themselves are alive? Or do the Iranians just realize that if they use radio waves to control a drone we'll be able to take out the source of the transmissions fairly rapidly?
posted by Bubblehead at 11:28 PM
23 Comments:
Maybe they're talking about tv guided weapons, though I have to say your explanation is far more entertaining.
2/12/2007 12:12 PM
And it'll be fun getting those things down to whatever "depth" is necessary.
Lex
2/12/2007 12:46 PM
ATTN: BubbleHead and lawhawk
today it seems like you two guys went outta your way to find some cheap entertainment
but, i must give you a recent and very relevant history lesson
on June 14, 2006, Hezbollah used a drone that hit an Israeli Saar-5-class missile corvette
BTW - doesn't Hezbollah get this kinda stuff from Iran !!!
i don't think you should be making a comedic grammer lesson but a serious analysis of 1) military capability and 2) politial intent of a potential enemy
~ the Ddouble Sstandard
2/12/2007 1:57 PM
Dbl Std,
Again you seem to take great delight in criticizing others, but apparently make no effort at your own blog. When is it going to happen? We all want to read it.
2/12/2007 2:35 PM
ATTN: Chief Torpedoman @ 2:35
answer - i am saving you the time and effort of surfing the net
why bother reading an additional blog when you can read both of us, BubbleHead and theDdoubleSstandard, right here?
isn't one stop shoping better?
BTW - do you too wanna make fun of the Iranian commander or address the issue of Iranian drones?
~ theDdSs
2/12/2007 2:42 PM
I want to address the issue of you being on a crusade as the self appointed decider of what is right and wrong on this blog. You can do constructive criticizm without being judgemental; or didn't your mama tell you that?
BTW, Iranian drones can be very dangerous. The Israelis learned that. Hopefully we can learn from their mistake.
2/12/2007 2:59 PM
(hands in pocket, just looking around, whistling...)
Never mind, just passing through
2/12/2007 3:15 PM
ATTN: chief torp...
"I want to address the issue of you being on a crusade as the self appointed decider of what is right and wrong on this blog."
i have never made the claim (review any of my prior post) that i was "the Decider" [aka - GWB] of right and wrong
but, i did admit that i did voice a dissenting and contrary opinion
i think you are mentally over-reaching
~ the Double Standard
2/12/2007 3:35 PM
ATTN: BubbleHead et al
it ain't just me who ain't laughing
even JINSA takes the threat seriously
from the JINSA web site - "While it appears that Tehran’s UAV surveillance claims may be a crude attempt to send a message to the U.S. government that the ships keeping the Straits of Hormuz open and the oil flowing are being watched by the Iranian military, UAVs remains a novel asymmetric threat for carrier defenses, especially when operating in the confines of the Persian Gulf where most ships may be on alert for fast moving aircraft and anti-ship missiles"
hmmm - a novel asymmetric threat
seems like a sober assessment of 1) intent and 2) capability
~ theDdoubleSstandard
2/12/2007 3:42 PM
Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
The Hanit was hit not by a drone, but rather by a C-802//Noor anti-ship missile.
And how did Hezbollah get it (or them, as it appears that 2 or 3 were fired)?
Iran via China.
And when did this happen?
In the 1990's.
And what did the watchstanders at the time (aka the Cliton-Gore administration) do about it?
About the same as they did with everything else, ignore it, in the hopes that the problem just would go away.
Ya' know sumthing DS? I get the impression that you think most that read this blog are drooling idiots and that you are just doing the Lord's work here in trying to help raise our IQ's.
I can live with that.
I'm always open to new ideas.
But ifin you're gonna give this ol' mental feeb a history lesson (or as you put it "one stop shopping"), make sure your lesson plan is up to date and you give me factual information.
That is all.
Robbie
2/12/2007 4:30 PM
Gosh, dunno why, but I'm still...."itching". Maybe it will go away.
2/12/2007 4:52 PM
ATTN: Robbie
sorry for the technical error
you were correct - it was a missle and not a drone
but, that wasn't the central issue
read through the earlier comments and you'll see that i was trying to point out that we can waste our time laughing at an Iranian commander or take a serious look at the missle, drone, UAV threat by Iranian
also, i don't think you bolster your arguement by playing the blame Clinton game. you can make this arguement with nearly all administrations.
sidenote proof - Clinton "allowed" North Korea to sell missle tech and Bush "allowed" North Korea to get a nuclear bomb
the dd ss
2/12/2007 5:09 PM
Someone spelled "grammar" wrong...
2/12/2007 5:18 PM
Dbl Std:
i have never made the claim (review any of my prior post) that i was "the Decider…
Let’s see, what is the purpose of this Blog? Let’s look at the top banner:
Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found.
If we believe Joel, then he posts about subs and does some belittling of what he sees as stupid and foolish.
About the post entitled “Those Wacky Revolutionary Guards”, you wrote:
today it seems like you two guys went outta your way to find some cheap entertainment…
but, i must give you a recent and very relevant history lesson…
In this post Joel is mocking and belittling (reference the top banner) and you seem to decide that the post should be about giving a history lesson and telling everyone that Joel doesn’t know the Iranians can be dangerous.
In the post entitled: “What is it with the Russians having subs under tow sink on them?” Joel found this to be pathetic. Sounds like he was writing about sub and belittling again (top banner). You wrote: whadda mean by saying "... this is just pathetic"? is it some surprise to you that the Russian sub fleet is decrepit? is it some surprise to you that a poorly maintained 40 year old submarine sunk during towing? i guess i missed the purpose of this post – sorry
Sounds like you are deciding what the post should be about or what Joel should say. Yeah, I think you did miss the purpose, here. (top banner, please)
In the post entitled “Joe Buff speaks the truth”, Joel posts about sub stuff. He puts a link in and asks his reader to read the story. You wrote: "..FYI - there are cheaper and less risky methods of getting ELINT and inserting Spec Ops.."
Joel didn’t post about this being the best or worst way to insert Spec Ops. He just posted a link to a story he found interesting (top banner again), but you appear to have to decide what is right. Did you send Joe Buff an email criticizing his story?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. No out of respect for Joel’s fine Blog, I will cease fire and try to just enjoy what Joel posts here.
2/12/2007 5:26 PM
Thanks, Chief TM -- I appreciate the backup.
2/12/2007 5:33 PM
All trim partys have to end sometime.
2/12/2007 5:48 PM
Did you ever have a guy on the boat who everyone disliked?
- He was the guy who come up to control and start talking to the COW, Dive or OOD about anything that happened to be on his mind at the time. if you acknowledged his presence, there was no way to shake him loose.
- When the CO was in deep thought on the Conn, he was the guy who would start talking to him about something totally useless. The CO would look around at the control room party and the look in his eyes would say "shoot him in the back of the head...please!".
- Even though you may agree with 5% of what he said, listening to the other 95% made you wish you were somewhere else. You may have even felt sorry for him when other people told him to **** off. But then he would speak again.
- No one on the ship really knew what this guy did or who he worked for. No one would claim him. He was the first person that got "volunteered" to the COB and the last guy the COB wanted to see.
- He was on the ship before you got there and was still there when you transferred. His PRD? Unknown!
I knew a guy like this on every boat. In fact he is still there, I am sure of that. There is no way to get rid of him. He will show up again when you least expect it.
And just remember...there is a village out there that is missing someone!
Jim
P.S. Nothing personal DdSs!
2/12/2007 9:32 PM
ATTN: Jim
Argumentum ad hominem - the fallacy of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
like you said - "nothing personal"
~ the Dd Ss
2/13/2007 5:25 AM
Jim,
You're right; eventually everyone just starts ignoring the guy, and soon even the most thick-headed of them realize that no one likes them, so they just sort of drift away, and no one misses them.
Or, if they're too thick-headed, eventually their posts just end up getting deleted.
2/13/2007 6:07 AM
Hey -- where'd that post go? (I think you just got your answer, tdDsS.)
2/13/2007 7:45 AM
What was this post about again?
Now I remember why I love reading comments.
2/13/2007 9:34 AM
Midwatchcowboy: The post was orignally about how Bubblehead was going to buy Subbaskets LOTS of Longaberger Baskets:-0 Can not wait to see what he buys me next.
2/13/2007 10:36 AM
Let's see, what did I write about the Hanit incident? Oh yes (in reverse chronological order) - this (noting that it was an Iranian missile not a UAV responsible for the attack), this, and this (where I note that the initial reports claimed a UAV was responsible and caution that Hizbullah might have other tricks up their sleeves).
I've also noted the lengths to which the Iranians will go to recycle footage to show that they've developed or fired off new weapons or claimed success in various weapons, from the shkval firings to cruise missiles, to ground in wing effect prop planes.
Some of this stuff could pose dangers, but some of the stuff borders on the realm of the truly delusional.
2/13/2007 11:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home