Print 48 comment(s) - last by Martin Blank.. on Jan 5 at 8:26 PM

Surface-to-sea missile could target U.S. ships in the Gulf

Iran is one of the nations of the Middle East that much of the world watches closely. The country has a history of threats on those in its region and has been working to build its military might including a uranium enrichment program that has led to sanctions by the U.S. and other countries.
Iran has now announced that it has tested a new naval cruise missile in the Strait of Hormuz. The missile test was conducted during the final day of a 10-day military maneuver. The missile is called the Qader and it is a surface-to-sea weapon designed to destroy enemy ships. Iranian Admiral Mahmoud Mousavi said that the missile struck the intended target with precision and destroyed the target.

[Source: Vancouver Sun]

Iran offered the first glimpse of the missile in August of last year reports the NYT. The weapon is said to have a range of 125 miles, which would allow Iran to target some of the U.S. ships that are operating in the Gulf region. While some officials in the Iranian government have in the past threatened to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Mousavi has denied that the exercises have anything to do with such a blockage. The narrow Strait is a vital shipping lane for oil.
Admiral Mousavi said, "We won’t disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We are not after this."
The firing of the Qader missile isn’t the only weapons test that occurred during the exercises. The Iranian Navy also tested a short-range surface-to-air missile called Mehrab. The Iranian state news agency IRNA quotes Admiral Habibollah Sayari of the Iranian Navy saying, "[These military exercises promote] peace and friendship for all countries in the region." He also said that the exercises send a message that foreigners had no room in the region reports the NYT.
Iran also recently claimed to have forced a U.S. drone to land where it wanted using a GPS hack.

Source: NYT

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They are just looking for an arse woopin
By Beenthere on 1/3/2012 11:04:19 AM , Rating: -1
Morons in Iran think they can take on the world. More clueless terrorists... When will they learn?

By Mitch101 on 1/3/2012 11:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
Im all for countries that show off and tell the world where they are as a Military power. Then showing them our 50 year old technology beats them as we dispose of our aging surplus on them when they get seriously out of line.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By AntiM on 1/3/12, Rating: 0
By cruisin3style on 1/3/2012 2:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
The US has military ... bases in over 130 countries.

Don't be hatin'

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By FITCamaro on 1/3/2012 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 4
Ask Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea how they'd feel about the US pulling its military out.

The reaction would be negative. Germany and Italy are for a reason as well.

Our troops are hardly "occupying" any of those countries.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By Skywalker123 on 1/3/2012 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Cause Saudia Arabia rulers are such nice people. Why are German and Italian bases necessary?

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By JediJeb on 1/3/2012 6:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why are German and Italian bases necessary?

Two reasons I can think of. One they lost a war where they attempted to take over the world, and two they and other have feared expansion of the Soviet Union. Threats from Russia are still there though less than what they used to be, and I guess there are still some hard feelings left over from the first.

By Solandri on 1/3/2012 6:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Germany and Italy are both NATO members. So are the UK and Spain. During the Cold War, Germany was literally at the front line, bordering East Germany, so a NATO base there was a given. Bases are in Italy and the UK for similar reason. Whereas Germany was the front line, Italy was shielded by the Alps, and the UK by the Channel. This made them more defensible positions and thus good choices for secondary bases. Spain is at the Western end of Europe, so geographically represented the location of any "last stand" on continental Europe against a Soviet advance.

The bases are there with the assent of the host countries. France for example withdrew from the military arm of NATO and requested all foreign troops depart by 1967. That's when the U.S. closed its bases in France and left. If Germany, Italy, Spain, or the UK wanted U.S. troops out, all they'd have to do is ask. The U.S. would probably try to sweeten the pot to remain, like they offered Turkey a couple billion to be able to use the base there during the Iraq war. But the decision is ultimately up to the host country (Turkey declined).

By mmatis on 1/3/2012 8:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
By Paj on 1/5/2012 7:43:53 AM , Rating: 1
Ask Iran how they feel about having their democratically elected government overthrown.

Oh, wait.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By Skywalker123 on 1/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By JediJeb on 1/3/2012 6:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
I would be all for the US bringing home every deployed serviceman from around the world, as long as no other country followed them right up to our borders.

Anyone who thinks that Iran or any other Islamic Theocracy does not have ambitions of ridding the entire world of the infidels who are nothing more than servants of Satan(read any person who is not of the Islamic faith)then they are dreaming of an ideal world that never has or never will exist. There are many many peaceful followers of the Islamic faith, but just as with most societies in existence right now, most of those in power have global ambitions far beyond the average citizen of their government and they are always plotting ways to leverage any advantage possible to expand their influence. The only thing holding back countries like the US and most of western Europe is they are still constrained by democratic rules where the majority of the citizens must support what they do. The biggest problem is most all governments, including the democratic ones, are slowly working to take the power out of the peoples hands and place it into the hands of the elites, and they are doing it very slowly so they can avoid a revolt of the people. If we are not careful we will either lose our countries to powers within, or to invaders from without.

As for worrying about countries like Iran, I would not bet against them following our armies right up to our borders if we ever bring them all home. It is a sad reality that even if a country is peaceful at heart they must always be strong militarily to maintain their sovereignty.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By Skywalker123 on 1/4/2012 4:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
How are the Iranians going to "follow us up to our borders? they have neither the will nor the means. Are they going to station troops in Mexico? C'mon, get real.

By ekv on 1/4/2012 5:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out All-American Muslim, but I doubt you'd understand or appreciate that a terrorist-sponsoring nation will merely stop at a border. [I'm so unbelievable too ...]

Instead, wasn't it Obama that said about Iran "Let me be clear, they have neither the will nor the means" to build a nuclear weapon? After all, Islam means peace, no?

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By FITCamaro on 1/4/2012 9:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually its been shown that Islamic terrorists are sneaking across both our northern and southern borders.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By Skywalker123 on 1/5/2012 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
LMAO, Hundreds have been sneaking across the borders for years? so where are the attacks all these "terrorists" are making? I call bullshit.

RE: They are just looking for an arse woopin
By JediJeb on 1/4/2012 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
How are the Iranians going to "follow us up to our borders? they have neither the will nor the means. Are they going to station troops in Mexico? C'mon, get real.

That is a figure of speech, but if you want to take it literally then think of it this way. With less deterrent measures from countries like the US, what will stop them from slowly taking over the countries right up to our borders?

There are so many ways they can without having a battalion of troops standing side by side along or border. Let Iran build a nuclear weapon and they would not need a bomber or ICBM to deliver it to the US, they could more easily smuggle it into Mexico then across the US border just as easily as a drug cartel smuggles drugs across.

Even Russia has trouble with Islamic groups in their outer regions. If a country that exerts as much control as Russia does over its population has trouble with such things, how are we going to avoid it with our more or less open border policies?

By Skywalker123 on 1/5/2012 5:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
and what purpose would that serve?

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki