An attack on Iran is an economic attack on China

Iran does not need any ICBM's for a sufficient deterrence posture since a robust arsenal of IRBM's and possibly CM's (similar in quantity and capability to Pakistan's current arsenal) would be able to do the job.

Similar to Pakistan they have to create a kind of equilibrium with a regional foe (albeit backed by extra regional major power with regional bases) but Tehran would have to concentrate all available resources to achieve that aim, so developing ´pie in the sky´projects like an ICBM would only complicate Iran's diplomatic stand further and limit progress on other ´fronts´.

Interestingly India will probably be the country really attaining ICBM capability around 2015. India tested her Agni-III successfully this year and this 48 t missile would be capable of throwing a lightweight warhead 8000 km. After adding a more powerful second stage plus a specially adapted third stage India would have created a fully functional ICBM probably called Agni-IV. Of course these developments are the ´little secrets´ George W. Bush (and also his potential successors...) would never dare to speak out in front of tv cams...

Violet Oboe said:

Iran does not need any ICBM's for a sufficient deterrence posture since a robust arsenal of IRBM's and possibly CM's (similar in quantity and capability to Pakistan's current arsenal) would be able to do the job.

Click to expand...

I agree. But the current diplomatic effort is all about creating fear in Europe and the U.S. gain support for an attack on Iran. That's why the emphasis on ICBMs.

Recently, some Chinese military analysts came up with the theory of 小国无空军--small countries have no air forces. The argument is that, due to financial and technological constraints, small nations will inevitably have some sort of systematic generation gap with major powers, and in the air, this generation gap will give major powers overwhelming superiority and there is no way to nullify that superiority, making the air forces of small nations into complete junks. So it is unwise for small nations to spend a large part of its limited funding into building a rea air force, instead invest in long range offensive weapons such as long range rockets and ballistic missiles which can actually reduce the opponents offensive capabilities.

So, in case of an US attack, it is highly likely that Iran will use its long range rockets and ballistic missiles to attack US military bases throughout middle east, and possibly oil production and storage facilities in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, making the war prohibitively expensive for the US.

I don't understand why it is so hard for a country to develop ICBM technollogy. I mean, Russia got it since 50 years ago... Ok, they had a huge budget, but it was in the 1950's... The technical dificulties back there were much bigger. A country like Iran fifty years later should be capable of developing ICBMs if they want to.
The same happens with aircraft carriers... Come on, England, USA and japan had aircraft carriers since the 1910's, how can be possible that even China has so much of a hard time in developing her own carrier almost 100 years later?

Never mind that rockets are a tricky business...:rofl:

Just have look at the decades long very unfortunate attempt of your brazilian neighbors to create a solid fuel satellite launching vehicle (VLS). After several ´impressive´ mid air explosions in the late 90's their vehiculo detonated in '03 a day before the intended start at Alcantara base incinerating more than 20 scientists and engineers.
Brazil wanted to acquire the tech on the cheap off the shelf so they paid a heavy price in blood...

As for your statement about carriers:
These are very expensive and complicated machines (probably the most complex weapon system currently existing...) and even the mighty Sovietunion had a slow and deliberate approach in introducing big fleet carriers into her navy. (...in fact so slow that the USSR had already collapsed in 1991 as her first nuclear fleet carrier eventually took shape in Nikolayev.)
Building real carriers (nuclear propulsion, 50000 ts +) is a monumental challenge for China and PLAN would be only the third navy commissioning a nuclear fleet carrier after the US and France.

DumLoco said:

I don't understand why it is so hard for a country to develop ICBM technollogy. I mean, Russia got it since 50 years ago... Ok, they had a huge budget, but it was in the 1950's... The technical dificulties back there were much bigger. A country like Iran fifty years later should be capable of developing ICBMs if they want to.
The same happens with aircraft carriers... Come on, England, USA and japan had aircraft carriers since the 1910's, how can be possible that even China has so much of a hard time in developing her own carrier almost 100 years later?

Click to expand...

I think you need to distinguish between 'research' and 'development'.

Everybody has the basic technology to build both ICBMs and aircraft carriers today, in the sense that the physics needed are taught in every university in the world.

But actually designing and testing a working machine is a big, complicated, and expensive job.

I guess buildings might be a good analogy. There are thousands (at least) of companies that can build 15 story office buildings, but there are only a handful in the world that could build the . The technology isn't that different, but getting all of those resources together in one place and working on a single project is difficult.

I should add, that I disagree with lot of people on this forum in that I don't think China would have any problem building a carrier (although building a 'quality' carrier might require several iterations). For China it's simply a matter of priorities. They can build a carrier, but they would have to trade that against advancements in other areas. They've decided that it makes more sense to focus on subs, destroyers, frigates, and amphibious landing craft first.

Even the U.S. would have a hard time renewing it's entire fleet at once. Perhaps possible in wartime, but not otherwise.

Oil Hits Record Above $90 on OPEC Report
Thursday October 25, 4:23 pm ET
By John Wilen, AP Business Writer
Report That OPEC Won't Lift Production Quotas Lifts Crude Oil Prices Back Above $90 a Barrel


NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil futures jumped to a new record close of $90.46 a barrel Thursday on news that OPEC production increases aren't coming as fast as expected and that the cartel won't announce new output quotas when it meets next month.Prices rose in early trading on growing concerns about conflict in the Middle East and declining supplies of crude in the U.S. They got a further boost after Dow Jones Newswires reported that Oil Movements, a company that tracks oil tanker traffic, said crude shipments from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members will grow more slowly than anticipated through early November.

Meanwhile, OPEC Secretary General Abdalla el-Badri told The Wall Street Journal Asia the cartel is not in discussions to boost production by 500,000 barrels. El-Badri's comments counter rumors that Saudi Arabia is pushing for a production increase. In September, OPEC bowed to Saudi pressure and announced a production increase of 500,000 barrels a day, effective Nov. 1.

"It shows a little drama in the cartel," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

Light, sweet crude for December delivery rose $3.36 to settle at $90.46 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after rising as high as $90.60 earlier, a trading record.

Geopolitical events influenced early trading, with crude rising after Lebanese troops fired on Israeli warplanes. A conflict between Israel and Lebanon wouldn't itself have much impact on oil supplies, but traders worry that any hostilities in the Middle East would eventually draw in big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Energy traders also remain concerned that a threatened incursion by Turkish armed forces into Iraq in search of Kurdish rebels would cut oil supplies out of northern Iraq.

On Wednesday, crude prices jumped sharply after the Energy Information Administration reported that oil inventories fell by 5.3 million barrels last week, much more than analysts expected. That report reversed a three-day downward price trend, and put energy traders back in a bullish mood, analysts said.

"Yesterday's EIA report pretty much changed the personality of the market," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill.

In other Nymex trading, November gasoline rose 8.83 cents to settle at $2.2358 a gallon, and November heating oil added 6.64 cents to settle at $2.4084 a gallon.

November natural gas rose 21.6 cents to settle at $7.188 per 1,000 cubic feet as traders shrugged off a government report that inventories grew by 68 billion cubic feet last week, more than analysts had expected, and focused instead on forecasts for colder weather in the Midwest and Northeast and the possibility that a storm system in the western Atlantic could develop into tropical strength as it moves into the Caribbean Sea.

In London, December Brent crude rose $3.11 to settle at $87.48 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

At the pump, gas prices slipped 0.2 cent overnight to a national average of $2.82 a gallon, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

Thanks for the answers, they make sense... I trend to look for conspiracies everywhere

Back to the topic: Nothing is gonna happen with Iran. It's a country that world economy depends on, and it isn't like Irak or Syria. They have a pretty big economy and military with some degree of retaliation capability. The middle east would turn in a real mess if Iran gets invaded or even attacked.

It's hard to say, U.S. government is running out of options, and time.... and is getting desperate.

Getting desperate at what? may I ask?

Iran is all a show to take attentions of Iraq, nothing going to happen the effect on world economy is to much for any country to handle and we just be heading to another crash. However this time it would possible hit US harder then any other country cos they are involve in 2 war which they can't just pull other over night. The stake a to high even for the USA.