Russia thinks the launch of an Iranian rocket into space raises suspicions over the true aim of its nuclear programme.

''Long range missiles are one of the components of a nuclear weapon system''.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov told Interfax.

Therefore Mondays test launch of Irans Explorer 1 space rocket was ''of course, a cause for concern''.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7230396.stm

i bet it's a bigger concern for the Irainians freezing to death this winter.

No doubt Iranians freeze to death every year.

The reason I found this story worthy of world news is because it gives credit to a very unusual source-The White House.

I normally dont believe much that comes out of either the White House-State Dept or the Pentagon, but I have to say, looks like in this case they were correct.
Why I think this.
Moscow would never go on the same line as Washington unless they were worried, thru deduction, a nuclear energy facility and long range missile testing only mean one thing.

No doubt Iranians freeze to death every year.

The reason I found this story worthy of world news is because it gives credit to a very unusual source-The White House.

I normally dont believe much that comes out of either the White House-State Dept or the Pentagon, but I have to say, looks like in this case they were correct.
Why I think this.
Moscow would never go on the same line as Washington unless they were worried, thru deduction, a nuclear energy facility and long range missile testing only mean one thing.
but it's not a missile, Paul, it's satellite lifting rocket!:@@:

sure, it's dual-use technology, but the Iranians say it for their satellite launching business...why wouldn't the world believe them?:confused:

As far as I know, the European Space Agency will stick a Sat in orbit for about £20 million, why would you want your own system,Europe isnt fussy, theyll take anybodys money-its bullshit.

In my case the jury was out as regards Iran, now I smell a rat-big time.

As far as I know, the European Space Agency will stick a Sat in orbit for about £20 million, why would you want your own system,Europe isnt fussy, theyll take anybodys money-its bullshit.

In my case the jury was out as regards Iran, now I smell a rat-big time.
well maybe Iran is willing to do it for less? you know, under cut the compittition....and i'm sure ESA would ask questions from the Bond villain types that Iran never would:cool:

Moscow suspicious of Iran Missile Test


As well they should be.

Moscow should be a lot more worried than we are...geographically speaking, that is.

to have had a double Major in College.

I Majored in Space with a Minor in the Broad Jump.

.
.

Russia give to Iran deler for built the missile.this are stupi d thin g to do.
.
.

but it's not a missile, Paul, it's satellite lifting rocket!:@@:

sure, it's dual-use technology, but the Iranians say it for their satellite launching business...why wouldn't the world believe them?:confused:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you NUTS

.

Russia give to Iran deler for built the missile.this are stupi d thin g to do.
.

This is getting ridiculous.

No one, even Foolsworth, is so mentally vacant as to word a post that badly or to type in such a silly way.

"Russia give to Iran deler for built the missile.this are stupi d thin g to do."

?!?!?

Come on.

You are purposely concocting your missives in this goofy manner. Why, I cannot imagine.

The reason I found this story worthy of world news is because it gives credit to a very unusual source-The White House.

I normally dont believe much that comes out of either the White House-State Dept or the Pentagon, but I have to say, looks like in this case they were correct.

Correct about what, paul, if you don't mind my asking.

Moscow would never go on the same line as Washington unless they were worried, thru deduction, a nuclear energy facility and long range missile testing only mean one thing.

Ok, paul.

Let's say that the Iranians do want to have a nuclear missile. Why is it perfectly "okay" for nations like Russia and the US to have thousands upon thousands of very long range nuclear weapons, but somehow not okay for Iran to have one of them.....?? Where is that written?

From the Iranian's point of view, they just watched the greedy, calculating, imperialist RightWing leadership in Washington murder over a million innocent people in a neighboring country and bomb it to absolute ruin, even though said country had never done a thing to the U.S.

Can you blame them for possibly thinking they need some serious means of protection, and quickly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you NUTS
sorry, i thought the sarcasm was more transparent.

As far as I know, the European Space Agency will stick a Sat in orbit for about £20 million, why would you want your own system,Europe isnt fussy, theyll take anybodys money-its bullshit.

In my case the jury was out as regards Iran, now I smell a rat-big time.

You mean you want the yanks to solve your problem? lmao No doubt you'll soon be whining about it. Solve it yourself.

From the Iranian's point of view, they just watched the greedy, calculating, imperialist RightWing leadership in Washington murder over a million innocent people in a neighboring country and bomb it to absolute ruin, even though said country had never done a thing to the U.S.

Can you blame them for possibly thinking they need some serious means of protection, and quickly?

How is iran having the bomb going to protect it from invasion by anyone? They going to set it off in tehran to prevent it's takeover. :rolleyes:

How is iran having the bomb going to protect it from invasion by anyone? They going to set it off in tehran to prevent it's takeover. :rolleyes:How is Israel having the bomb going to protect it from invasion by anyone?

They going to set it off in Tel Aviv to prevent it's takeover? :rolleyes:

How is Israel having the bomb going to protect it from invasion by anyone?

They going to set it off in Tel Aviv to prevent it's takeover? :rolleyes:

This obviously comes as a surprise to you but the israelis, unlike the iranians, have a means of delivering the bomb to their adversaries. Wonders never cease eh.

This obviously comes as a surprise to you but the israelis, unlike the iranians, have a means of delivering the bomb to their adversaries. You do realize this thread is about Iran acquiring such a capability, don't you?Wonders never cease eh.Not when you're posting.

Let's say that the Iranians do want to have a nuclear missile. Why is it perfectly "okay" for nations like Russia and the US to have thousands upon thousands of very long range nuclear weapons, but somehow not okay for Iran to have one of them.....?? Where is that written?


It not ok, but we do, as a relic of the Cold War.

It's about nuclear non-proliferation. Iran signed the treaty.

You do realize this thread is about Iran acquiring such a capability, don't you?

Indeed, but your post suggested the israelis had no means of delivering the weapon. And that is demonstrably wrong.

Indeed, but your post suggested the israelis had no means of delivering the weapon. And that is demonstrably wrong.Maybe that's what it suggested to you.

A more discerning reader would have seen I was mocking the double-standard your argument employs.

This obviously comes as a surprise to you but the israelis, unlike the iranians, have a means of delivering the bomb to their adversaries. Wonders never cease eh.

What makes you think the Iranians don't have the means?

It's about nuclear non-proliferation. Iran signed the treaty.

Interestingly enough, India didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Internationa l_Treaties), yet India is estimated to have anywhere between 50 to 200 nuclear weapons, and is involved in weapons-grade plutonium production.

In addition:

Controversially the United States is now willing to provide India access to civilian nuclear technology through the 2006 United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, despite India not being a member of the NPT which normally precludes such international cooperation. This is the direct result of the fact that India is recognized by the US and many other developed regions of the world as an important ally in the war on terror and further testifies to the fact that the West believes that the nuclear technology is intended for peaceful purposes.



Basically, what we've got here is BushCo doing whatever the hell it wants (yet again) to further its impossible-to-win War on Terror goals, proclaiming this one or that one an "enemy combatant" as needed; international laws/treaties/rationality be damned.

:rolleyes:



What are we to make of that?

Interestingly enough, India didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Internationa l_Treaties), yet India is estimated to have anywhere between 50 to 200 nuclear weapons, and is involved in weapons-grade plutonium production.


Basically, what we've got here is BushCo doing whatever the hell it wants (yet again) to further its impossible-to-win War on Terror goals, proclaiming this one or that one an "enemy combatant" as needed; international laws/treaties/rationality be damned.

:rolleyes:



What are we to make of that?

That's just it. India didn't sign it. They have nuclear weapons. Iran did sign it, they are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That is against the treaty they singed.

That's just it. India didn't sign it. They have nuclear weapons. Iran did sign it, they are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That is against the treaty they singed.

And the treaty WE signed states that we will not "transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Article I).

But we're doing exactly that, aren't we? Breaking international laws to merrily go along doing whatever we damned well please.

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). This is why the recently proposed U.S.-India nuclear energy deal has come under (legal) controversy as it threatens to undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation regime exploiting the loophole granted by the dual use nature of nuclear technology, as has the Russia-Iran uranium deal. --Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#First_pillar:_non-proliferation)

Also, please note that Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) speaks to reducing nuclear weapons around the world. Essentially, it:

constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation. Some government delegations to the Conference on Disarmament have tabled proposals for a complete and universal disarmament, but no disarmament treaty has emerged from these proposals. Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post-Cold War era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals. --Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Second_pillar:_disarmament)

It bears repeating:

Basically, what we've got here is BushCo doing whatever the hell it wants (yet again) to further its impossible-to-win War on Terror goals, proclaiming this one or that one an "enemy combatant" as needed; international laws/treaties/rationality be damned.

Basically, what we've got here is BushCo doing whatever the hell it wants (yet again) ...

Of course. Just as the crooked sons of bitches have done since B*sh was appointed pResident.

.....to further its impossible-to-win War on Terror goals, proclaiming this one or that one an "enemy combatant" as needed;


The Rightwing scum holding the reins in Washington make the determination of who is an "evil doer" based on who they want to attack, who has oil they want to appropriate, who they can squeeze a few more billions in bloodmoney out of, who they can incite a war against so as to provide megabillions in war profits to their Defense company cronies, who they can unilaterally and unprovokedly attack in order to further their goal of control of the Middle East, etc.

Maybe that's what it suggested to you.

A more discerning reader would have seen I was mocking the double-standard your argument employs.

That you think it's about double standards says more about your understanding of the discussion. ft said that the acquidition of the bomb was about self-defence. The fear of nuclear retribution is only useful as a means of self-defence if the nuclear retribution can be delivered. At the moment, besides not having a bomb, the iranians can't deliver one either. Ergo its usefulness as a means of self-defence is as useful as tits on a bull.

Israel on the other hand has the ability to deliver it and thus a credible means of self-defence.

What that has do with double standards is unclear but you will explain won't you.

At the moment, besides not having a bomb, the iranians can't deliver one either. Ergo its usefulness as a means of self-defence is as useful as tits on a bull.


Again, why do you believe the Iranians lack a method for delivering nuclear weapons?

What makes you think the Iranians don't have the means?

Like every other nation that has acquired the ability they annouce it immediately to the world. The fact that they haven't makes me think that they don't have the means.

Like every other nation that has acquired the ability they annouce it immediately to the world. The fact that they haven't makes me think that they don't have the means.

I see. They have at present at least two versions of the Scud missile capable of carrying a 1,500 lb. warhead 350 km. While this isn't capable of hitting Israel from Iran, it certainly has the range necessary to use it "defensively", to forestall an invasion by a foreign power. The question remains whether they can build a nuclear warhead light enough and small enough to be carried by this missile. Additionally, they have many aircraft capable of carrying a sufficient payload to carry a nuke.

The fear of nuclear retribution is only useful as a means of self-defence if the nuclear retribution can be delivered. At the moment, besides not having a bomb, the iranians can't deliver one either. Ergo its usefulness as a means of self-defence is as useful as tits on a bull.Well, then, why do you think Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? As an ornament, perhaps? If it isn't for self-defense it can only be for an offensive purpose -- but then, that requires a delivery system as well. Hence this discussion, which is about Iran acquiring said delivery system.What that has do with double standards is unclear but you will explain won't you.The double-standard is pretty obvious: you think Israel having nukes deters aggression while Iran having nukes does not.

And as Vile is pointing out, your "tits on a bull" contention doesn't hold much water.

Originally Posted by waldo
Like every other nation that has acquired the ability they annouce it immediately to the world. The fact that they (Iraq) haven't makes me think that they don't have the means.

They have at present at least two versions of the Scud missile capable of carrying a 1,500 lb. warhead 350 km..........Additionally, they have many aircraft capable of carrying a sufficient payload to carry a nuke.

Whew. Could there ever be anything that would better demonstrate how goofy waldo is.....??

Unlikely.

ROTFLOL.

Correct about what, paul, if you don't mind my asking.



Ok, paul.

Let's say that the Iranians do want to have a nuclear missile. Why is it perfectly "okay" for nations like Russia and the US to have thousands upon thousands of very long range nuclear weapons, but somehow not okay for Iran to have one of them.....?? Where is that written?

From the Iranian's point of view, they just watched the greedy, calculating, imperialist RightWing leadership in Washington murder over a million innocent people in a neighboring country and bomb it to absolute ruin, even though said country had never done a thing to the U.S.

Can you blame them for possibly thinking they need some serious means of protection, and quickly?
No FT I dont blame them for wanting to protect themselves, but.

When Moscow (a keen allie) has concerns about Irans intentions, we should sit up and listen.

I can never understand why a country,once it has the ability to destroy the planet, continues to build these planetry destructing weapons, no matter who it is.

The problem with WMDs lies at the UN. Where five permanent members of the security council ALL have nukes, its a farce, they merely use it to dictate to the rest of us.

You mean you want the yanks to solve your problem? lmao No doubt you'll soon be whining about it. Solve it yourself.

PS: I got news for you.
It isnt my problem, and I dont want Washington to sort out anything for me,thanks.

I see. They have at present at least two versions of the Scud missile capable of carrying a 1,500 lb. warhead 350 km. While this isn't capable of hitting Israel from Iran, it certainly has the range necessary to use it "defensively", to forestall an invasion by a foreign power. The question remains whether they can build a nuclear warhead light enough and small enough to be carried by this missile. Additionally, they have many aircraft capable of carrying a sufficient payload to carry a nuke.

Merely having a missile on which to stick a bomb doesn't make it nuclear or even capable of delivering the bomb. As you point out it's a litle more complicated than that. Not to mention the detontation of said bomb on a missile or gravity bomb. Not much good if all it does is burrow into the ground and explode.



If 350 km is the missile range would you identify the adversaries likely to invade/attack iran within that range. The iranians don't have air refueling capacity either so their ability to deliver a bomb by plane is even more limited. So who would they be defending themselves against?

People are concerned about the US attacking iran. How would the possession of a nuclear bomb act as a deterrent to the US/

Well, then, why do you think Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? As an ornament, perhaps? If it isn't for self-defense it can only be for an offensive purpose -- but then, that requires a delivery system as well. Hence this discussion, which is about Iran acquiring said delivery system.

The same challenge applies to you. Who exactly are they defending themselves against? Afghans, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis...?

The US is often cited as the most logical adversary. How praytell are they going to deliver the bomb to the US? How will having the bomb deter the US?

The double-standard is pretty obvious: you think Israel having nukes deters aggression while Iran having nukes does not.

Israel can deliver the bomb to it's likely adversaries, iran can't. Hardly a double standard.

The US is often cited as the most logical adversary. How praytell are they going to deliver the bomb to the US?.
shipping container.

The same challenge applies to you. Who exactly are they defending themselves against? Afghans, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis...?

The US is often cited as the most logical adversary. How praytell are they going to deliver the bomb to the US? How will having the bomb deter the US?US naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be a likely target.

Or do you think the Persian Gulf is an insurmountable distance from Iran? Israel can deliver the bomb to it's likely adversaries, iran can't. Hardly a double standard.If it can't now it most likely will by the time it gets the bomb.

That's the whole idea behind developing both at the same time.

If 350 km is the missile range would you identify the adversaries likely to invade/attack iran within that range. The iranians don't have air refueling capacity either so their ability to deliver a bomb by plane is even more limited. So who would they be defending themselves against?

People are concerned about the US attacking iran. How would the possession of a nuclear bomb act as a deterrent to the US/

I'm guessing that any adversary attempting to invade Iran will, at some point, have to get within 350km of Iran.

As sedan pointed out, Iran having a nuke might make us less likely to park a Navy task force in the Persian Gulf.

I'm guessing that any adversary attempting to invade Iran will, at some point, have to get within 350km of Iran.

As sedan pointed out, Iran having a nuke might make us less likely to park a Navy task force in the Persian Gulf.
parking a boomer in the Arabian Sea is still an option.

US naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be a likely target.

Or do you think the Persian Gulf is an insurmountable distance from Iran? If it can't now it most likely will by the time it gets the bomb.

That's the whole idea behind developing both at the same time.

Now you're really reaching.

If you think an iranian airplane is going to get anywhere near enough to naval forces to drop a bomb, any bomb much less a nuclear one, i've got some swampland in florida for you. It's all they can do to keep their civilian fleet together much less their airforce.
Unless someone gives them the missile technologyy it'll be decades before they have anything. Just look at the NOKO's attempts.

ON top of that a bomb in the Gulf, fouls their own nest. Not much of a defence when you're killing off a sizeable portion of your own people as well as your primary source of income.

The notion that they're developing a nuclear bomb for self-defence is a flawed one.

No FT I dont blame them for wanting to protect themselves, but.

When Moscow (a keen allie) has concerns about Irans intentions, we should sit up and listen.

I can never understand why a country,once it has the ability to destroy the planet, continues to build these planetry destructing weapons, no matter who it is.

I agree completely.

But THAT circumstance applies completely to the United States......and not at all to Iran.

Also, paul.............what about when many other nations around the world --who now have to live in terror every day of being preemptively attacked by the U.S. and bombed into ruins-- speak up about the imbecile from Crawford Texas having his finger on the big red button, a button that controls not one nuclear warhead, but many thousands of them??......

......doesn't the entire planet need to **sit up and listen** when they voice their concerns about the continued bullying, militaristic, aggressive nature of the extreme RightWing political leadership in the U.S. .............?!?!?

I for one am more concerned -to the nth degree- about when and where the dishonest, inhuman RightWing faction in this county will eventually set off the immense nuclear arsenal that they already possess than I am about a country thousands of miles away that is merely trying to get to the point that they have one nuke.

__________________________________________________ ______________

We --the U.S.-- are more feared than Al Qaeda.

""Bush's radical new policy of "preemption"--a self-ascribed right to invade other countries based on a presumed hunch--has terrorized then international community. Even though they have never threatened us, nations like Iran and Syria wonder whether or not Bush will invade them next--and are racing to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S. threat. Our traditional allies, who still want to engage themselves with the rest of the world, have been forced to distance themselves from our bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy. We, not Islamist terrorists, are the world's most feared power. We are feared, which is why we are hated.""

Of all the countries that have nukes today there remains only one country that actually used them on civilian populations...twice.

Now you're really reaching.

Not at all. Do you think the Iranians are so stupid they'd spend billions of dollars developing a nuke if they had no idea how they might deliver one to the target?


If you think an iranian airplane is going to get anywhere near enough to naval forces to drop a bomb, any bomb much less a nuclear one, i've got some swampland in florida for you. It's all they can do to keep their civilian fleet together much less their airforce.
Unless someone gives them the missile technologyy it'll be decades before they have anything. Just look at the NOKO's attempts.

Waldo, they already have "short range" missiles which can probably carry a nuke, and then there's this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190219,00.html


ON top of that a bomb in the Gulf, fouls their own nest. Not much of a defence when you're killing off a sizeable portion of your own people as well as your primary source of income.

If the Iranians do successfully build a nuke, it's not likely their first one will be a big one. It'll probably be in the 10-20 kiloton range, similar in effect to the ones we dropped on Japan. If it's detonated out in the gulf, the only thing they need worry about is which way the wind is blowing.

Mind you, it's not like they'd ever have to use the thing, it's there to deter someone else from invading them by it's presence alone. I do think however, that if they had had one in 1985, they'd have used it on Iraq.


The notion that they're developing a nuclear bomb for self-defence is a flawed one.

Yet they do seem to be building one, or at least they want everyone to think they are. You may think they want to use it offensively, but that notion is even more flawed.

Of all the countries that have nukes today there remains only one country that actually used them on civilian populations...twice.
and we'll do it again if we need to.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
Of all the countries that have nukes today there remains only one country that actually used them on civilian populations...twice.

and we'll do it again if we need to.

Right.

We'll do it if we "need to".

Or, more likely, if the U.S. political leadership sees some way that it would create massive profits for some of their Big Business cronies by detonating a nuke. Or several.

Anything to increase profits for the Corporate State.

Right.

We'll do it if we "need to".

Or, more likely, if the U.S. political leadership sees some way that it would create massive profits for some of their Big Business cronies by detonating a nuke. Or several.

Anything to increase profits for the Corporate State.
i don't think KBR handles HAZMAT cleanups that big.:rolleyes:

and we'll do it again if we need to.
There is something scary about that statement.

Not at all. Do you think the Iranians are so stupid they'd spend billions of dollars developing a nuke if they had no idea how they might deliver one to the target?



Waldo, they already have "short range" missiles which can probably carry a nuke, and then there's this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190219,00.html



If the Iranians do successfully build a nuke, it's not likely their first one will be a big one. It'll probably be in the 10-20 kiloton range, similar in effect to the ones we dropped on Japan. If it's detonated out in the gulf, the only thing they need worry about is which way the wind is blowing.

Mind you, it's not like they'd ever have to use the thing, it's there to deter someone else from invading them by it's presence alone. I do think however, that if they had had one in 1985, they'd have used it on Iraq.



Yet they do seem to be building one, or at least they want everyone to think they are. You may think they want to use it offensively, but that notion is even more flawed.

When i asked who they were defending against the best you could come up with is the US fleet, if it's in the Persian Gulf. You haven't identified a single entity that would be likely to attack them. Who are they defending against? Until you can answer that question it's a moot discussion.

You haven't identified a single entity that would be likely to attack them. Who are they defending against? Until you can answer that question it's a moot discussion.

Waldo, it's not important to the Iranians what you or I think. It's only important who they think might attack them, and I would Imagine the US falls into that category from their perspective.

and we'll do it again if we need to.

And that is why the rest of the world is rightfully worried about us more than they are Iran.

And that is why the rest of the world is rightfully worried about us more than they are Iran.

There is something scary about that statement.

Case in point.