Steve Sailer: The Iranian War Machine--what the neocons are "afraid" of

[BurtWorm]

:eyes:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/08/iranian-war-machine.html

I did some Google searches for "Iran" and "military build-up" and found lots of documents ... almost all from the mid-1990s.

If Iran is really out to conquer the region, it would need tanks, lots and lots of tanks, plus air cover, since tank armadas are dead ducks in the open desert. So, is Iran building up its tank fleet and air force preparatory to its upcoming blitzkriegs? Here's what the Center for Strategic and International Studies says about Iran:


"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."


Here is Iran's tank fleet, according to a site called MILNET:


Tank Type Count Manufacturer
M-47/48 150 U.S. (*)
M-60A1 150-160 U.S. (*)
Chieftain Mark 3/5s 100 U.K. (*)
T-54/55 250 Russia/Soviet
T-59 150-250 (35-?) Russia/Soviet
T-72/S 480 Russia/Soviet
T-69II 150-250 ? Russia/Soviet
Zulfiqar 100 Iranian made from T-72 and M48 pieces
Total Estimate 1600
* delivered prior to the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979

[European Socialist]

1. And we fear them like Nazi Germany???

[Johnyawl]

2. That's not an armored corp, that's a junk yard

I wonder if their airforce is in that good of shape?

[FogerRox]

4. I would offer those tanks are museum peices

T-55 tanks came out about 1958.
M-60 tanks, we used those in Viet Nam.

I know Armor modeling club guys that would love to crawl over a good example of a T-55, measuring it and taking pictures.

[BurtWorm]

3. Just listen to neo-con hysteria over Iran

Rich Lowry was on this issue back in June, when the North Koreans tested their missiles. (See his "Shot Down.") Rich explains why, in the current environment, an anti-missile system actually serves as a stabilizing force. Looking to save money, no doubt, the Republicans slightly pared back the Bush administration’s recent request for missile interceptors. Unfortunately, times have changed. The likelihood of a nuclear Iran means that we must now sharply expand our missile defense capabilities. By the way, Kirkpatrick notes that an Iranian representative was present at the recent North Korean missile test. Given their established network of cooperation, it is all-too-possible that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons will be speeded up through the purchase of nuclear materials from North Korea. (Surely Saddam would have been next in line at Korea’s nuclear supermarket, were he still in charge.)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGNiZjBlYTU2ZWRhNWYzMDNlNThiMmEzZmY1OTM5ZWU=

:eyes:

[warrens]

5. Why bother with N. Korea

Our bestest buddies Pakistan will sell you whatever you want for a song. Where do you think N. Korea got ITS stuff?

[BurtWorm]

6. Excellent point.

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

7. kick