WND: Be Afraid of Iranian Boats


Iran has sent a couple of small warships into the Atlantic ocean where they will come some relatively short distance from the United States. The Worldnetdaily predictably, and amusingly, thinks you should be very afraid of this because they might shoot off a nuclear weapon they don’t have.

National security experts have expressed alarm over the announcement by Iran that it will position its warships off the coast of the United States, from where they could launch a nuclear warhead to explode at high altitude to create an electromagnetic pulse.

That could knock the American electrical grid out of commission, disrupting supplies of energy, food, communications, fuel and more for a long period.

These experts agree that there would be no warning and that the U.S. missile defense system would not be able to respond in time to prevent the high altitude nuclear explosion. They also believe that if such a missile were launched, it would not be from an Iranian warship but from a commercial vessel sailing along the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

“It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if Iran has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.

Except they don’t have any nuclear warheads. And if they did this, we would drop so many bombs and fire so many missiles at that country that they would virtually cease to exist. And they know it. So why the hell would anyone think they would do that? They aren’t suicidal, for crying out loud. Seriously, on the list of things to worry about, this ranks somewhere beneath another Brett Favre comeback attempt.

Comments

  1. John Pieret says

    “It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if Iran has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations …

    Damn stupid of the Iranians! If they hadn’t sailed a couple of small warships into the Atlantic, our crack “National security experts” would have never known that they could sail freighters right up to American shores!

  2. Phillip IV says

    National security experts have expressed alarm over the announcement by Iran that it will position its warships off the coast of the United States, from where they could launch a nuclear warhead (…) They also believe that if such a missile were launched, it would not be from an Iranian warship…

    So these “experts” admit they’re actually alarmed over nothing?

    “It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if Iran has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast,” said John Bolton

    Apparently he was up to now unaware that ships can move. Not much into yachting, I take it.

  3. colnago80 says

    Actually, Iran wouldn’t have to penetrate US coastal waters to fire a ballistic missile from a merchant ship as they have the Shahib 2 missile capable of carrying s small nuclear warhead with a range of up to 2000 KM.

    http://goo.gl/gQ1DaV

  4. colnago80 says

    In all fairness, Iranian capabilities are, as we sit here today, rather less then Israel’s. Israel’s Jericho III missile appears to have the capability of delivering a 1000Kg warhead some 5000 KM. this is in addition to their Dolphin class submarines capable of delivering nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

    http://goo.gl/Wp3HU5

  5. eternalstudent says

    I’m speculating here, but I would expect the US Navy knows exactly where those ships are. And the crews of those ships can see exactly where the US Navy ships are. At least some of them.

  6. says

    Shorter:

    Iran has two shitty warships from its tiny, shitty fleet in the Atlantic, which they can use to fire weapons they don’t have to knock us out. Also, if they had the weapons they don’t have, they wouldn’t put them on those ships. “Somehow there are still people who listen to me.” said moron and bullying aficionado John Bolton.

  7. Dunc says

    So these “experts” admit they’re actually alarmed over nothing?

    Well, the only one named is John Bolton, so what do you expect? “National security buffoons” would have been a better label…

  8. says

    I fear the day when we don’t have any real enemies for the Right to freak out over. They’ll have to engage in some combination of grossly exaggerating the threat of weak, ineffectual nations and accusing our own citizens and perhaps even our President of trying to destroy America.

    Oh, wait.

  9. lclane2 says

    We ought to worry about earthworms. We’ve treated them badly. They might rise up and attack us. In fact it would be to their benefit to destroy human civilization.

  10. dingojack says

    “National security experts have expressed alarm …”

    Really Whirled Nuts Daily? And who exactly are these (dare I say it) sinister unnamed sources ?
    It’s not that bloody ‘Curve-ball’ again is it? Or are you pulling it out of your rectums (as usual).
    @@
    Dingo

  11. dingojack says

    Dear Whirled Nuts Daily –
    remember what happened to the boy who, due to a right-wing religious-induced psychotic-break, totally lost contact with reality and cried ‘wolf’.
    This, in high doses, over a long period of time.
    :( Dingo

  12. bargearse says

    National security experts have expressed alarm

    So does this make StevoR a national security expert?

  13. colnago80 says

    Re Dachshund @ #12

    I contend that Farah the fucktard really doesn’t believe most of the crap that he puts up on the Whacknutdaily web site. He, like Ann Coulter, has found a lucrative source of income from the rubes who go their. It’s called pandering and they do it well.

  14. vmanis1 says

    Contrary to popular belief, there really is a Swiss Navy, patrolling the interior waterways of the country. Switzerland has resolutely refused to join NATO, and following the `you’re either with us or against us’ principle, they must be considered an enemy of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. When will WND draw attention to this threat? Or have they already been bribed with cuckoo clocks and really nice chocolate?

    Just asking.

  15. Pierce R. Butler says

    As usual, WND has it all backwards. Those Iranian ships will not fire nuclear-warhead missiles at the US coast.

    They will instead launch a flotilla of inflatable boats to send to our shores a massive squadron of those slick buff gay men Ahmedinejad insisted Iran does not have. Our heroic defenders will all be overcome within days!

  16. Chiroptera says

    So when are the Iranians going to land on US soil to start their occupation? And can someone tell me when they reach the Mississippi? I’m not going to evacuate further west until they reach the Mississippi.

  17. says

    Can our international relations evolve past “I’m not touching you!” at some point please? I know we are pretty shitty monkeys but really!

  18. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    National security experts have expressed alarm over the announcement by Iran that it will position its warships off the coast of the United States, from where they could launch a nuclear warhead to explode at high altitude to create an electromagnetic pulse…

    They also believe that if such a missile were launched, it would not be from an Iranian warship but from a commercial vessel sailing along the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

    So what’s the problem?

  19. says

    Given some of the con artists WND treats as credible, like Walid Shoebat, it’s a reasonable assumption at least some of these supposed “national security experts” are fakes who’ve conned WND.

  20. freehand says

    If one has a political philosophy based on fear of the enemy, then if they grow up, lose interest, or are defeated, one must manufacture new ones.
    .
    Weapons of News Destruction must generated fear somehow or they will not be able to earn an honest living.

  21. dingojack says

    Nick Gotts – perhaps you can post a couple of those flatworms* to Ed, SLC, Michael Heath et al. and they can release them into the forests and voila! Problem solved!
    No, no need to thank me. (Just send cash).
    :) Dingo
    ———-
    * I’ll send some of our old friend Rhinella marina to eat the flatworms (of course)

  22. colnago80 says

    Re pekinese @ #25

    Obviously, the pekinese failed to read the link provided. We are talking about new construction, not some old frigate purchased from Russia.

    By the way, just building an aircraft carrier is only part of the problem. China also has to develop a fleet of support vessels, aircraft capable of carrier operations, and trained pilots. I have a flash for chihuahua, landing on an aircraft carrier at sea is one of the most dangerous operations in flying. The flight deck on even the largest vessel is 1000′ or less, as compared with a 10,000 foot runway on an airforce base and the vessel is moving up and down with the waves. “When I took airforce ROTC in college, the instructors, all of whom were fighter pilots, informed us that if they had to land at sea, there was no way they would attempt to land on the flight deck of a carrier; they would ditch into the drink. It was their considered opinion that naval aviators were a little nuts.

  23. says

    Terrorists might set off an electromagnetic pulse to take down our infrastructure? Well, as long as it all leads to Jessica Alba running around in tight leather, saving the day, I’m on board.

  24. colnago80 says

    Re Dachshund @ #27

    And when the Chinese navy shows up in Sydney harbor, it will be the Dachshund who will not be laughing.

  25. Pierce R. Butler says

    colnago80 @ # 26: … if they had to land at sea, there was no way they would attempt to land on the flight deck of a carrier…

    For excellent reason: USAF aircraft don’t have tailhooks.

  26. dogmeat says

    For excellent reason: USAF aircraft don’t have tailhooks.

    *chuckle* Beat me to it. [tip o’ the hat]

    SLC,

    China’s navy has virtually no strategic offensive capability. Their mentality is all wrong as well, they have their navy as part of the People’s Army. The fact that they’re beginning the basics of developing naval aviation isn’t particularly troubling. Their current capability is laughable, much as it was laughable when the Soviet Union first produced the Liaoning twenty years ago. Its ability to project force is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of a US equivalent.

    The projected “super carrier” that seems to wig you out, and they plan to complete by 2020 is a pipe dream. For example, the Gerald Ford (which should be named the Enterprise) took 8 years to construct 4 years from keel to launching, 7 for the actual commissioning, so really 11 total) and we’ve been building the damn things for almost fifty years. I find it highly unlikely that they will be able to construct a similar ship, with no experience doing so, and have it completed in just 6 years. Add to that, we’ll have the Ford and the Kennedy, more than matching their first attempt to construct a ship of this type, entering service prior to their overly ambitious predicted completion with the new Enterprise likely entering service around the time their first true carrier will likely actually enter service. Assuming we continue to retire the Nimitz and the Eisenhower, which we can choose to delay if they actually do become a threat, that will give us a 10-1 advantage in active super carriers.

    Then, once they actually have built the damn thing, they’re going to have to build the support ships that can escort her and protect her from air, surface, and sub-surface attack; not to mention supply. As it now stands, their capabilities are about right for protecting a single carrier, but not much more, the supply question appears to be a potential problem. On the combat side, they have some interesting looking new ship classes under construction and/or just entering service, but I don’t see much evidence that more than a handful of their newest ships would be a match for a Tico-second batch or Arleigh Burkes. Their ASW capability seems like a secondary concern with a major focus on air operations which I think reflects their ties to the land and PLA. They have officially 48 attack submarines, but about a quarter of these are based on ’70s designs. Another dozen are upgraded 80s Kilo class subs, a good boat when I was in the navy, but that was twenty years ago.

    I see a lot of self defense capability, with some moves towards a blue-water navy, but nothing I’d be too concerned about for another twenty years or more.

  27. colnago80 says

    Re dogmeat @ #31

    Actually, the airforce pilots wouldn’t have attempted to land on a carrier even if they had been flying navy planes. As I stated, landing on a carrier requires specialized training that airforce pilots don’t get. Now they could probably take off from a carrier, as Doolittle’s B25 force accomplished in 1942.

    In what way did your comment negate anything I said? I entirely agree with your comment that their single carrier will not be combat ready anytime in the immediate future, even after it is completed. However, IMHO, I don’t think that the Chinese naval construction is much of a threat to the US in the near or medium term. However, it is a threat to Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan, which is,IMHO, what it is designed for.

  28. colnago80 says

    Re Pekinese @ #33

    What is the point that the Dachshund is trying to make. I suggest that you read what dogmeat has to say @ #31, with which I am in entire agreement. The Chinese naval buildup is a far greater threat to Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Australia, and New Zealand then it is to the US. Not today and not tomorrow but 10 to 20 years down the pike.

  29. matty1 says

    Is China (or Iran come to that) actually expansionist? The desire to show themselves as a naval power seems a different thing to wanting to invade Australia. Aside from anything else what does the Chinese government want from Australia that it couldn’t get faster and cheaper through trade?

  30. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ matty1 : How about you ask the Tibetans or the Saudis?

    I don’t think Iran or China wishes to invade Australia or the US of A right this second but both have plans for becoming major global powers and are extremely hostile to Western interests and allies.

    Both the People’s Republic (of running over its ow freedom-seeking people with tanks and setting their corpses on fire and murdering Tibetans and others brutally and often) China and iran are driven by extremist ideologies and hope to attain “full spectrum dominence” over the rest of our planet. Both are murderous, nasty, totalitarian states with policies and goals that make the worst imagined excesses of G. W. Bush look like particularly mild and sweet child’s play.

    @bargearse :

    “National security experts have expressed alarm.. ”
    So does this make StevoR a national security expert?

    Thanks for the flattery I guess, but I only read about this from here.

    Of course I’m probably at least as much if not lot more of an “expert” about National Security than most of the commenters here with a few exceptions.

    @

  31. dogmeat says

    SLC,

    Yet again, your comments bear little resemblance to reality. You may want to refrain from trying to use your cadet “experience” in college to try to teach someone about the Navy and Navy operations when they actually served in the Navy. Your arrogance is seldom, if ever, justified.

    As I stated, landing on a carrier requires specialized training that airforce pilots don’t get

    No, aside from a little snippet shoved in with other factors, your comment really emphasized how your airdale instructors, noted fighter pilots, thought Navy pilots were crazy:

    “When I took airforce ROTC in college, the instructors, all of whom were fighter pilots, informed us that if they had to land at sea, there was no way they would attempt to land on the flight deck of a carrier; they would ditch into the drink. It was their considered opinion that naval aviators were a little nuts.

    That statement is what led to Pierce’s joke as well as my tip of the hat to him. Also, your instructors were idiots, they’d be better off ejecting than trying to ditch in the sea. If the sea state were such that a Nimitz class carrier was pitching and rolling to a significant degree, the likelihood that they would be able to ditch without cartwheeling into a fireball would be effectively nil.

    In what way did your comment negate anything I said?

    Perhaps it was your usual ridiculous scare mongering @29?

    And when the Chinese navy shows up in Sydney harbor, it will be the Dachshund who will not be laughing

    That might have left the impression that, much like Iran, you exaggerate the threat posed by China.

    The Chinese naval buildup is a far greater threat to Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Australia, and New Zealand then it is to the US. Not today and not tomorrow but 10 to 20 years down the pike.

    Actually, no, not really.

    First, you ignore the fact that we alliances with Japan, Taiwan, and A-NZ which represents a fundamental ignorance of the strategic situation.

    Second, we have a carrier battle group stationed in Japan, currently the George Washington is home ported there. Added to the Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Australian military forces, China would have to be looking for a full fledged war to pick a fight.

    Third, much like we have with Iran, we have the capability to send two or three more battle groups to bolster the defenses of our allies if necessary.

    Finally, add in the economic realities, and China is unlikely to threaten our allies in the foreseeable future.

    India is far enough away that China would have to seriously upgrade their capabilities, far beyond the worst case scenario chicken-hawk arguments we’re even seeing now. Vietnam has always had conflicts with China, building up their navy wont impact that, you do realize they share a land border, don’t you?

Leave a Reply