GUEST,petr - 20 Jan 07 - 02:07 PM

"the us navy really doesnt have a defense against the supercavitating torpedoes.

but in fact the Iranians could target tanker traffic with plenty of repercussions for oil traders"

Part a) of the above - "defence against supercavitating torpedoes" - Oh yes it does, in depth and rather well practiced.

Part b) of the the above - "Iranians could target tanker traffic" - Oh no they couldn't, or wouldn't.

You and Peace seem to be rather over-awed by this torpedo, to the extent that you have forgotten the vulnerability of the vessel that carries it and the array of vessels, weapon systems and weapons that would be deployed against it. As always it boils down to the following:
- Accurate intelligence
- Positioning
- Target acquisition data
- Firing solution

Your Iranian submarine commander must somehow gather all of those, before he even opens the outer-doors of his tubes. He must do it without communicating and he must manouevre without attracting attention.

Also remember that the former Soviet Union bankrupted itself five times trying to develope a weapon that would be successful against a US Navy Strike Carrier and its associated battle-group. They never managed to do it, and have not done so with this latest toy, that they have sold to the Iranians.

The policy of MAD would not apply in the middle-east. For MAD to be viable each "nuclear power" must have a second strike capability, and at the moment none do. While no second strike capability exists, the doctrine that applies to a regional conflict would be "who strikes first wins".