Iran; Should the West be worried?

Glaucus · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:14

The telegraph today says there not really designed for use on warships. But are better for taking out oil pipes and other oil related infastructure. sounds a bit weired though, why would you need a fast topedo to hit a stationary pipe. :confused:

Nix · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:21

AcidHell2 said:
The telegraph today says there not really designed for use on warships. But are better for taking out oil pipes and other oil related infastructure. sounds a bit weired though, why would you need a fast topedo to hit a stationary pipe.

They're just sabre rattling because the UN are flexing muscles now. It's a last ditch attempt to keep the west at bay I think.

Glaucus · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:23

Nix said:
They're just sabre rattling because the UN are flexing muscles now. It's a last ditch attempt to keep the west at bay I think.

yep, thats what I think..

Still confused about why you would need fast torpedos top hit an oil pipe LOL

ElRazur · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:24

AcidHell2 said:
The telegraph today says there not really designed for use on warships. But are better for taking out oil pipes and other oil related infastructure. sounds a bit weired though, why would you need a fast topedo to hit a stationary pipe.

Torpedo = Under water missile isnt?

Like Nix said, maybe it is just all a hype to keep the west at bay, but this begs the question - what have they got to hide?. :confused:

Nix · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:25

AcidHell2 said:
yep, thats what I think..

Still confused about why you would need fast torpedos top hit an oil pipe LOL

It's just Irans attempt at making the west think they have a big penis.

"Look how fast we can make this go. It's faster than yours!"

Zefan · 3 Apr 2006 at 15:28

iCraig said:
No.

brakeinup · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:00

AcidHell2 said:
The telegraph today says there not really designed for use on warships. But are better for taking out oil pipes and other oil related infastructure. sounds a bit weired though, why would you need a fast topedo to hit a stationary pipe.

Just a thought but if the torpedo was moving fast enough and had enough mass, the kinetic energy of the impact would be enough to damage the target so you would not need an expensive warhead.

Visage · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:05

brakeinup said:
Just a thought but if the torpedo was moving fast enough and had enough mass, the kinetic energy of the impact would be enough to damage the target so you would not need an expensive warhead.

The cost of an engine capable of driving a missile throough water at those speeds is a LOT more than the cost of a few pounds of explosive.....

Yas786 · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:06

ElRazur said:
Hmm not a good idea.

Of course its a great idea, i mean think about it nuke iran and get rid of those nutcase muslims for good...less muslims mean a better world does it not??....that cant be a bad idea surely???

Scam · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:06

I think in a few months or so we'll start getting reports that Iran poses an immediate threat to us all. In a few months after that, off we'll trot into another huge mess because Dubya says we should.

Murf · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:06

I don't think we should be worried of Iran at all. They could fire every single weapon they've got at us, and well, they'd fall short. So I'm not that fussed.

Besides, we have nuclear powered submarines capable of delivering Trident missiles which carry multiple warheads. We could level the entire country before you could say "Kill the infidels".

Edit...

Scam said:
I think in a few months or so we'll start getting reports that Iran poses an immediate threat to us all. In a few months after that, off we'll trot into another huge mess because Dubya says we should.

Never happening, Bush is a dead duck now. He'd never win popular support for another war, neither would Blair. The only way we're going to war with Iran is through the UN or in response to a direct attack against NATO interests.

Yas786 · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:10

Scam said:
I think in a few months or so we'll start getting reports that Iran poses an immediate threat to us all. In a few months after that, off we'll trot into another huge mess because Dubya says we should.

Or better still Bush the religious nutjob will claim that God told him to invade Iran for the greater good of the world. I just wish God would tell Bush to invade himself for the greater good of the world

Glaucus · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:11

Scam said:
I think in a few months or so we'll start getting reports that Iran poses an immediate threat to us all. In a few months after that, off we'll trot into another huge mess because Dubya says we should.

One slight diffrence between this and iraq, The UN is acturally willing to do something.

goatse · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:18

Spawn said:
less muslims mean a better world does it not??

brakeinup · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:22

Visage said:
The cost of an engine capable of driving a missile throough water at those speeds is a LOT more than the cost of a few pounds of explosive.....

Thats probably right.

I personally don't think that there is anything that can travel that fast under water yet.

But the idea is already being developed - Supercavitation

http://www.supercavitation.com/index.html

Glaucus · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:25

brakeinup said:
Supercavitation is what is it called I think.

Isn't that only to do with propellers though? At a certain speed you get a air pocket forming around the screw and making it inaffective?

Oh no both wrong..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

brakeinup · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:32

AcidHell2 said:
Isn't that only to do with propellers though? At a certain speed you get a air pocket forming around the screw and making it inaffective?

Oh no both wrong..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

Heh well there you go

Interesting stuff though. That info mentions not being able to streer it at high speeds - hardly surprising!

brakeinup · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:45

This is some pretty fascinating and scary stuff - subs doing mach 2 underwater?

Link

xander_uk2 · 3 Apr 2006 at 16:48

Murf said:
Never happening, Bush is a dead duck now. He'd never win popular support for another war, neither would Blair. The only way we're going to war with Iran is through the UN or in response to a direct attack against NATO interests.

My thoughts exactly.

We shouldn't be worried about Iran in my opinion, but rather Bush's future plans for Iran. They are developing weapons, fair enough. But look at the arsenal the US and even Britain has.
Iran seem to be developing their Nuclear programme quite quickly, Q the "OMG WEAPONZ OF MASS DESTRUCTION KILL THEM" crew