NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Iran is either so shrewd and manipulative that they're miles ahead of what we can hope to figure out, or they're incredibly stupid. First the nuclear capability development, now this. Are they asking to be attacked? If so, why? If not, what the frack are they up to??? :confused:


Iran Tests Stealth Missile (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


Associated Press | March 31, 2006
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads, the military said Friday.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the Air Force chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying it depends on the weight of its warheads.

But state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" - suggesting it's of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which can travel 1,250 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Salami said on state-run television.

It showed a clip of the launch of what it called the Fajr-3, with "fajr" meaning "victory" in Farsi.

"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," Salami said.

He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.

"This news causes much concern, and that concern is shared by many countries in the international community, about Iran's aggressive nuclear weapons program and her parallel efforts to develop delivery systems, both in the field of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

"The combination of extremist jihadist ideology, together with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is a combination that no one in the international community can be complacent about," he said.

Yossi Alpher, an Israeli consultant on the peace process, said the news "escalates the arms race between Iran and all those who are concerned about Iran's aggressive intentions and nuclear potential."

"Clearly it's escalation, and also an attempt by Iran to flex its muscles as it goes into a new phase of the diplomatic struggle with the U.N. Security Council," Alpher said.

Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of which could be directed to a different target.

"From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said.

"But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said.

"If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way," he added. "But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years."

The existing rocket is the Shahab-3, which means "shooting star," and also is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Israel and the United States have jointly developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to the Shahab-3.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.

Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military.

Salami said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are scheduled to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.

The tests come amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear program. The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its program is for generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible."

They are asking to be attacked. I think they think they can taken on us. which is laughable and they will soon see how wrong that is.

They are asking to be attacked. I think they think they can taken on us. which is laughable and they will soon see how wrong that is.
If we do attack them we shouldn't be under any illusions that we can reform them by occupying and rebuilding their country for them. We should just bomb the shit out of them after destroying their air defenses.

Of course, they'll just pour across the Iraqi border and use suicide bombers and snipers to attack our troops. Gee I'm sure glad bush went into Iraq.

I don't know, if I had a hostle army occupying a country right next to me rattling thier sabres, I think I'd be developing defensive weapons like there was no tommorrow, since there might not be...

If we do attack them we shouldn't be under any illusions that we can reform them by occupying and rebuilding their country for them. We should just bomb the shit out of them after destroying their air defenses.

Of course, they'll just pour across the Iraqi border and use suicide bombers and snipers to attack our troops. Gee I'm sure glad bush went into Iraq.
Hmmm. That just got me thinking about all that. I might just have another "Great Idea!" :D

Film at eleven!

Eutursca are you saying Iran isn't allowed 'toys' other nations have?

Eutursca are you saying Iran isn't allowed 'toys' other nations have?

Not if it calls for the destruction of the West and Israel, proposed to spread an Islamic Revolution to the world, is led by an ultra-conservative president, has a history of human rights abuses, and will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organizations.

Not if it calls for the destruction of the West and Israel, proposed to spread an Islamic Revolution to the world, is led by an ultra-conservative president, has a history of human rights abuses, and will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organizations.
A mirror image of some other country. Which funnily happens to be the only one ever to use nuculars in war.

A mirror image of some other country. Which funnily happens to be the only one ever to use nuculars in war.

Lol, the US calls for the destruction of the West and Israel? Do you think we should give nukes to all the countries that want them?

Lol, the US calls for the destruction of the West and Israel? Do you think we should give nukes to all the countries that want them?
No, but the US should have their license revoked.

No, but the US should have their license revoked.

Everybody should have their license revoked, but that's not a reason to give more countries a license.

Not if it calls for the destruction of the West and Israel, proposed to spread an Islamic Revolution to the world, is led by an ultra-conservative president, has a history of human rights abuses, and will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organizations.
You mean like ....
Calls for the Destruction of other Governments
Proposing Forcing Democracy on all nations of the world.
Led by an ultra conservative President.
Has a history of Human rights abuses
And will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organisations?
Who on earth could that be?:rolleyes:

You mean like ....
Calls for the Destruction of other Governments
Proposing Forcing Democracy on all nations of the world.
Led by an ultra conservative President.
Has a history of Human rights abuses
And will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organisations?
Who on earth could that be?:rolleyes:
uhhmmm....Austria?

Lol, the US calls for the destruction of the West and Israel? Do you think we should give nukes to all the countries that want them?

Not the West and Isreal, no, but tell me there's not anyone saying we should have turned Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Calls for the Destruction of other Governments

And usually follows up on it.

Proposing Forcing Democracy on all nations of the world.

Only those that harbor terrorists, have a dictator with a history of serious human rights abuses, or both (or if they have oil).

Led by an ultra conservative President.

Pfft, but God tells our president what to do.

Has a history of Human rights abuses

Yeah, but only suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, and they're Muslim, so who cares about them?

And will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organisations?

Actually, the US isn't going to sell its nukes to terrorist organizations.

.....
Actually, the US isn't going to sell its nukes to terrorist organizations.

:D no, but it gave the technology to iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html):D teeeheeheee

I tremble with fear. The Evil Republic of Iran can clearly crush the little, puny, US military like a bug. It poses an immediate and grievous threat to human existence.

:D no, but it gave the technology to iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html):D teeeheeheee

Well, we tried to give it flawed blueprints to delay its nuclear weapons research. Unfortunately, we gave the blueprints to a Russian nuclear physicist. We weren't trying to aid Iran in its nuclear ambitions.


I tremble with fear. The Evil Republic of Iran can clearly crush the little, puny, US military like a bug. It poses an immediate and grievous threat to human existence.

No, but Al may sell the nukes to terrorist organizations or he may invade other countries knowing that the US will risk nuclear war if it tries to stop him.

I don't know, if I had a hostle army occupying a country right next to me rattling thier sabres, I think I'd be developing defensive weapons like there was no tommorrow, since there might not be...
Exactly.
No, but Al may sell the nukes to terrorist organizations or he may invade other countries knowing that the US will risk nuclear war if it tries to stop him.
First of all, stop with the fear mongering. It’s disgusting.

Second, Reagan, the only major political leader in the past sixty years that seemed incapable of grasping MAD, is dead. We will not risk nuclear war.

We should pull our troops of Iraq now, to prepare for when the Middle East explodes like a firecracker. I don't think Iran is a direct threat to the USA or any other Western countries, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they sold their nukes to terrorists or ended up nuking Israel. Because of the debacle of the Iraq war, they know the populace will be opposed to another war and will probably use the weapons to blackmail other countries into giving them stuff. This isn't like Iraq- I mean, they're bascially going around yelling about their nuclear weapons. I say we take them out.

First of all, stop with the fear mongering. It’s disgusting.

Do you honestly think that Iran is going to do nothing with its nukes? Let's not forget AQ Khan.

Do you honestly think that Iran is going to do nothing with its nukes?
Yes. The risk of anything being traced back to them is too great.
Let's not forget AQ Khan.
I've heard of a fake organisation made up by the White House that is referred to by that name, yes.

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT:

Iran are attemting to provoke america into a premptive invasion of their country. they know that the american population are turning against the conflict in iraq, coupled with global waryiness of the american government. iran hopes that america becomes isolated from the international community and dealing with a protesting internal population. though the largest threat would come from final radicalization of the middle east. other muslim nations will feel threatened from future expansion by america. the war would act as black hole, with a feeling of west vs east, as radicals and newly radicalised muslim creating a true middle east war.

!!!!

Yes. The risk of anything being traced back to them is too great.

I'd place Al in the decidedly insane and ultra-religious category. Who knows what he'll do? And what about Iranian nuclear scientists who are willing to sell nuclear secrets to terrorist organizations? The risk is too great.

I've heard of a fake organisation made up by the White House that is referred to by that name, yes.

And while we're at it, the White House is a fake organization made up by the oil companies to make us think we live in a democracy, right?

I don't know enough about the details of this "stealth" to say anything.

Since it's said to be a ballistic missile, it wouldn't be diving underneith the radar.

I'm pretty sure that the missile isn't made of stealth materials and with stealth designs. That sort of thing is only now being introduced in the West for cruise missiles like the TAURUS and the Storm Shadow.

And the idea of actually evading ABM missiles by a proper big ballistic missile is AFAIK only really working in the Russian Topol-M. No way in hell would they hand over that technology to the Iranians.

So I'm thinking they might be bluffing.

As for the political implications - Iran has been testing new missiles for years. All the time.
Don't take these things so personal.

Calls for the Destruction of other Governments

Please show me one government the US brought down that didn't deserve it.


Proposing Forcing Democracy on all nations of the world.

Surely there's no difference between spreading Western democracy and spreading radical islamic theocracy.


Led by an ultra conservative President.


Surely there's no difference between American conservatism and Iranian conservatism.


Has a history of Human rights abuses

See previous comment.

Please show me one government the US brought down that didn't deserve it.
Surely there's no difference between spreading Western democracy and spreading radical islamic theocracy.
Surely there's no difference between American conservatism and Iranian conservatism.
See previous comment.
I think you are missing the sentiment of the post. It's saying the US is no better than Iran in this regard.

We weren't trying to aid Iran in its nuclear ambitions.
I call bullshit on that. Back in the day, giving Iran nuclear power was a way of forestalling a relationship between Persian Gulf nations and the then-Soviet Union.

Now that it's inconvenient, your people back-pedal on your original intentions. What do you think, the rest of us who've also lived our lives on planet Earth are as big a bunch of dupes as your countrymen?

Puh-leeeeeeze.

And, yet, I'm still less afraid of Iran having nukes than I am the US.

*shrug*

And, yet, I'm still less afraid of Iran having nukes than I am the US.

*shrug*
Because there's no one stopping the US from using their nukes. Whatever, everyone can have their nukes. The world is going to end up in a nuclear holocaust sooner or later, so why are we so concerned about putting it off?

And while we're at it, the White House is a fake organization made up by the oil companies to make us think we live in a democracy, right?
No. Oil companies exercise some control over the White House sure, but the White House is ultimatly controlled by whatever ideology is in power.

Because there's no one stopping the US from using their nukes. Whatever, everyone can have their nukes. The world is going to end up in a nuclear holocaust sooner or later, so why are we so concerned about putting it off?

I'm not worried about a nuclear holocaust. But, then, to be fair, I don't really worry about very much at all.

No. Oil companies exercise some control over the White House sure, but the White House is ultimatly controlled by whatever ideology is in power.
The whitehouse has other ideologies?

I think you are missing the sentiment of the post. It's saying the US is no better than Iran in this regard.

No, I did not miss it.

However, I think it is wrong to say that, and I explained why.

The whitehouse has other ideologies?
If oil became inconsistent with neo-conservatism, it would be dropped by the White House. It just currently happens to coincide with this particular American plot to run the world.

No. Oil companies exercise some control over the White House sure, but the White House is ultimatly controlled by whatever ideology is in power.
Not quite... it's controlled by the ideologies of those who provide the occupants of the White House with the most cash.

I call bullshit on that. Back in the day, giving Iran nuclear power was a way of forestalling a relationship between Persian Gulf nations and the then-Soviet Union.

Erm...the article that was cited was dealing with the year 2000. And anyway, whatever happened back then had nothing to do with the current administration.

You mean like ....
Calls for the Destruction of other Governments
Proposing Forcing Democracy on all nations of the world.
Led by an ultra conservative President.
Has a history of Human rights abuses
And will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organisations?
Who on earth could that be?:rolleyes:

I love you. Couldn't have said it better myself. I think all of this attention that is being cast upon Iran is an American tactic to pull the controversy of the failed attempt to find Osama Bin Laden and the tiff with North Korea, which has amounted (so far, as they are wiley people), nothing.

I'll wait as all of this comes back to you.

What about this whole "US taking away licenses" thing? Ah-hem, exactly how many rights does the US have to do this? Can I count them with my toes and fingers? Can I really count them at all? No, that's right, I can't. The US may be the largest and most substantial superpower at the moment, but look at what it did to Iraq.

The UN does understand that Iran is a risk...that's what the UN is for. Why fight fire with fire? All that'll end up is with somebody seriously burnt. So let the UN do its bloody job for crying out loud.

The US should stop trying to be a martyr. Martyrs always die.

The US should stop trying to be a martyr. Martyrs always die.

America wants its 70 virgins.

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT:

Iran are attemting to provoke america into a premptive invasion of their country. they know that the american population are turning against the conflict in iraq, coupled with global waryiness of the american government. iran hopes that america becomes isolated from the international community and dealing with a protesting internal population. though the largest threat would come from final radicalization of the middle east. other muslim nations will feel threatened from future expansion by america. the war would act as black hole, with a feeling of west vs east, as radicals and newly radicalised muslim creating a true middle east war.

!!!!

That may be part of even half of the reason actually. The rest is Ahmadinejad and his cronies doing a global chest-puffing rhetoric as usual. Unless the US is actually stupid enough to make a pre-emptive move on Iran, then he's got a lot to lose if he actually uses those missiles on Israeli or American targets.

On the other hand, this is the Bush Administration we're talking about and unless the Democrats take back a sizeable chunk of Congress or the real Republicans distance themselves from Shrub, they just might fall for the baiting.

Eutrusca, I would have thought you of all people would have had the good sense not to fall for all this Dale Brown shit. This "omg they have the ONE weapon system which could turn the tide of war" stuff is a dumb plot device from paperback conspiracy thrillers people buy to read on trains and planes. It doesn't work like this for real.

This is actually a reason to be concerned, MIVs is the whole reason why original Anti-ICBMs were done away with, now the Iranians have MIRV'd a Theatre Ballistic Missiles? This is concerning indeed, IF they get nuclear warheads(I am not positive that they are pursueing them, but I would most likely think they would), they could easily perform a saturation attack on Isreal with these nuclear tipped missiles. It would also be able to hit any intervening troop formations.

This is concerning indeed, IF they get nuclear warheads(I am not positive that they are pursueing them, but I would most likely think they would), they could easily perform a saturation attack on Isreal with these nuclear tipped missiles.
There is a lot of engineering involved with doing this. It's not simply a matter of putting a bit of uranium on top of a rocket.

And even if they do manage, Israel's got the Arrow II system.

Which is why you chuck more offensive missiles then, you know, there are defensive missiles.

Which is why you chuck more offensive missiles then, you know, there are defensive missiles.
That is a lot of missiles. Cuz the Arrow II can cope with a lot of incoming stuff all at once.

Suffice to say that it is of course possible, but it requires a lot of thinking and engineering, and I don't think the Iranians are near that sort of level for years to come (add to that the CIA saying it'll be another decade until Iran could be ready to build any sort of nuke at all). The threat to Israel is usually being exaggerated quite a bit.

Now... maybe I'm going about this the wrong way... but for those of you who know your geography, take a look at this jetstream map, and the wind directions around Isreal/Middle East.

http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif

If Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel... which way is the fallout going to blow?
That would be like California turning into a terrorist state, and the rest of the US nuking it. It's going to irradiate your own people/land.
Just a thought, but I doubt that's really what the Iranians want to do. Individual suicide bombers: okay. Suicide NATION? Unlikely.

Now... maybe I'm going about this the wrong way... but for those of you who know your geography, take a look at this jetstream map, and the wind directions around Isreal/Middle East.

http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif

If Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel... which way is the fallout going to blow?
That would be like California turning into a terrorist state, and the rest of the US nuking it. It's going to irradiate your own people/land.
Just a thought, but I doubt that's really what the Iranians want to do. Individual suicide bombers: okay. Suicide NATION? Unlikely.

Wouldn't Israel respond with very deadly force? Israel is no pushover and Iran would regret messing them as they also have nukes.

Wouldn't Israel respond with very deadly force? Israel is no pushover and Iran would regret messing them as they also have nukes.

The missile exhibition is nothing more than chest puffing. The only time Iran would seriously launch missiles at Israeli and American targets- and this is assuming they even have nuclear weaponry- is if the country is invaded in a pre-emptive strike and Ahmadinejad feels there's nothing left to lose.

Do you think we should give nukes to all the countries that want them?No.

I think we should NOT give nukes.. to anyone.

And usually follows up on it.
Only those that harbor terrorists, have a dictator with a history of serious human rights abuses, or both (or if they have oil).
Pfft, but God tells our president what to do.
Yeah, but only suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, and they're Muslim, so who cares about them?
Actually, the US isn't going to sell its nukes to terrorist organizations.
Harbour has a u in it.

Their God tells them what to do
See now you add Nukes to the equation how convienant it wasn't discussed before.
in any case i'll blame the US for Israel having nukes so i don't see why Iran can't have them.

Nukes or no Nukes this is about Missiles and although they may be able to carry Nuclear payloads is irrelevant others have that luxury so let them have theirs.

Not if it calls for the destruction of the West and Israel, proposed to spread an Islamic Revolution to the world, is led by an ultra-conservative president, has a history of human rights abuses, and will likely sell its weapons to terrorist organizations.
Also if the idiot seems to be believing that if he starts a global war it will cause the end of the world, which will cause the Last Muslim Prophet to appear and lead the world to a muslim golden age.

Its called a deterrent.

Have you people forgotten about the cold war so quickly?

Second, Reagan, the only major political leader in the past sixty years that seemed incapable of grasping MAD, is dead. We will not risk nuclear war.


From the sound of it, you seem to wish that Reagan never had the balls to force the USSR to outspend itself and put the finishing blow on their already bad economy. Is that to mean you wish the USSR was still around? I do.


To add to Gargantua City State's statement, not only will all of the nuclear presents be delivered back to Iran, but the Palestinians will all die from it, as, minus the Gaza, they're pretty much centred around the Israeli capital. But I wonder sometimes if they really give a damn about them. Anyways.

Ahmadi-Nejad is a fanatic, but he's not a dumbass. He wouldn't use nuclear weapons unless Khamenei went into a frenzy and ordered it. Remember, the President of Iran doesn't have a whole lot of power -- even if he wanted to, he couldn't order a launch.



Should Iran have the missiles? Not now, no. Nuclear weapons? Lord no, not with their current government. However, with the massive democratic movement within the nation itself, I pray that our current friendly supporters of the Jewish People, Khamenei and Ahmadi-Nejad, suddenly find themselves out of a position in the near future.

No, but Al may sell the nukes to terrorist organizations or he may invade other countries knowing that the US will risk nuclear war if it tries to stop him.

Except that means that he'll be risking nuclear war, and Iran's leadership is not at all insane. Blustering, sometimes, but not insane.

Except that means that he'll be risking nuclear war, and Iran's leadership is not at all insane. Blustering, sometimes, but not insane.



Exactly. Sure, he may have a nuke, but we've got ten thousand more. The US alone could exterminate all life on the planet through our nuclear arsenal. (off topic, but, out of the three main nuclear powers, US, then USSR, and China, we had the least amount of nuclear weapons /random fact)

off topic, but, out of the three main nuclear powers, US, then USSR, and China, we had the least amount of nuclear weapons /random fact
"Had"? When?

The US has warheads 7000 (plus 3000 in reserve), the Russians have 16,000, although many of them are probably not operational (but they've got the most advanced ICBMs), and the Chinese have 400, although that is an official number and some suggest they have more like 2000.

"Had"? When?

The US has warheads 7000 (plus 3000 in reserve), the Russians have 16,000, although many of them are probably not operational (but they've got the most advanced ICBMs), and the Chinese have 400, although that is an official number and some suggest they have more like 2000.

Well, the source I looked at was from the...eighties, I think, and I looked at it in 1999, or something. So I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

And those statistics I read were in the tens of thousands, but I think they were counting all nuclear devices -- warheads, bombs, etc -- So I was reading things like 20,000, 30,000, etc (I don't remember the numbers anymore).


I never said we didn't have a hell of a lot.

Wouldn't Israel respond with very deadly force? Israel is no pushover and Iran would regret messing them as they also have nukes.

Hell yes! Though I cannot see Iran ever being stupid enough to attack Israel or anyone else.

I never said we didn't have a hell of a lot.
My point was about the Chinese though. They never got around to building a stockpile bigger than what they could actually use, unlike the US and the USSR.

in any case i'll blame the US for Israel having nukes so i don't see why Iran can't have them.

You don't see why Iran can't have nukes? You're joking, right? Why should a regime with serious human rights abuses that calls for the destruction of the West and especially Israel have nukes? Because they probably won't use them, despite their strong anti-Israeli and anti-West rhetoric? Maybe we should also give a serial killer a gun because he won't use it, else he'll go to jail.

Its called a deterrent.

Have you people forgotten about the cold war so quickly?

Exactly. Now Iran can do whatever the hell they like in terms of funding terrorists or participating in human rights abuses and no one is going to stop them because they have nukes to deter war.

Do it to them before they do it to us.

Under slightly more relaxed circumstances, I'd advise to let 'em get away with for any iranian nuke would be more likely to produce mushrooms above the heads of the sunni arabs - but in the tense times we are in, even the less likely events warrant an assertive action.

Wouldn't Israel respond with very deadly force? Israel is no pushover and Iran would regret messing them as they also have nukes.

If Israel WERE to be bombed by Iran, which I've already stated as unlikely, then yes, they'd respond with deadly force. So, not only would Israel be a tiny chunk of glass, but the fallout from them, and impact of their own nukes would destroy Iran.
Just from the wind directions alone, I'd say Israel would be more likely to be the offender of a nuclear assault, since most of the fallout would blow towards Afghanistan/China... but then Israel's pretty screwed. :p

You don't see why Iran can't have nukes? You're joking, right? Why should a regime with serious human rights abuses that calls for the destruction of the West and especially Israel have nukes? Because they probably won't use them, despite their strong anti-Israeli and anti-West rhetoric? Maybe we should also give a serial killer a gun because he won't use it, else he'll go to jail.

If Dubya can safely handle nukes and not launch them, then ANYONE can realize the negatives of a nuclear attack.
Seriously... the guy is chompin' at the bit to go to war with everyone, but he hasn't used nukes, which surprises me a little. It'd be a diplomatic nightmare to use them again, but since when has Bush showed ANY sort of care for what the rest of the world thinks, anyway?

If Israel WERE to be bombed by Iran, which I've already stated as unlikely, then yes, they'd respond with deadly force. So, not only would Israel be a tiny chunk of glass, but the fallout from them, and impact of their own nukes would destroy Iran.
Just from the wind directions alone, I'd say Israel would be more likely to be the offender of a nuclear assault, since most of the fallout would blow towards Afghanistan/China... but then Israel's pretty screwed. :p

Wouldn't Iran piss off the rest of the Arab world too? They would end up destroying Jeruselem and all the Palestinians that are there as well as the Israelis. Wouldn't Iranian leaders be facing the wrath of their fellow Muslims as well as Israel's and the West's response?

Wouldn't Iran piss off the rest of the Arab world too? They would end up destroying Jeruselem and all the Palestinians that are there as well as the Israelis. Wouldn't Iranian leaders be facing the wrath of their fellow Muslims as well as Israel's and the West's response?

Which is why it's all chest-puffing. Ahmadinejad and his masters wouldn't dare make the first strike. If the US and Israel got stupid and invaded through, then Muslim public opinion in the Middle East would spin it as a desperation move by an oppressed Muslim people trying to protect itself from the imperialist Zionist alliance.

My point was about the Chinese though. They never got around to building a stockpile bigger than what they could actually use, unlike the US and the USSR.

Okay, yeah, I won't disagree with you. As I said, I don't remember the exact numbers, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the source was BS anyways.

You're an Iranian. You have two cows. ...... ? :D

You're an Iranian. You have two cows. ...... ? :D
The government takes both of them, kills you, and somehow turns the cows into nuclear missiles.

The government takes both of them, kills you, and somehow turns the cows into nuclear missiles.
Heh! Not bad! Not bad! :D

we should turn iraq into the new mega wal mart and iran into its parking lot.

Please show me one government the US brought down that didn't deserve it.

Surely there's no difference between spreading Western democracy and spreading radical islamic theocracy.

Surely there's no difference between American conservatism and Iranian conservatism.

See previous comment.

1) Panama, North and indeed South Vietnam, Iraq and Brazil for starters.

2) Usually the U.S. installs some kind of dictator which they think they can control, but about 15-20 years later it all goes a bit "OH NOES". See Iran, Panama, Brazil and South Vietnam. Those governments were terrible for their people and you put them in power, amongst people like the Muhaj'adeen.

3) Both governments garner popular support via religion, both have large armies and both governments have vast records of human rights abuses. You are also both militaristic. You also both refuse to abide by the UN's child labour laws, and are actually the only two.

There are two differences, though. The USA interferes everywhere and Iran is more honest about its views.

A mirror image of some other country. Which funnily happens to be the only one ever to use nuculars in war.
The only country ever to use nuclear weapons in war is the USA.

The USA:

- does not call for the destruction of the West and Israel

- does not propose to spread a religious Revolution to the world

- is not led by an ultra-conservative president

- does have a history of human rights abuses (but not as severe as that of Iran)

- and is unlikely to sell its weapons to terrorist organizations

2) Usually the U.S. installs some kind of dictator which they think they can control, but about 15-20 years later it all goes a bit "OH NOES".
Does it matter what they "usually" do when they're spreading democracy now? Is that the best you can do? It sounds like you're reaching desperately for reasons to bash America.

I don't know enough about the details of this "stealth" to say anything.

Since it's said to be a ballistic missile, it wouldn't be diving underneith the radar.

I'm pretty sure that the missile isn't made of stealth materials and with stealth designs. That sort of thing is only now being introduced in the West for cruise missiles like the TAURUS and the Storm Shadow.

And the idea of actually evading ABM missiles by a proper big ballistic missile is AFAIK only really working in the Russian Topol-M. No way in hell would they hand over that technology to the Iranians.

So I'm thinking they might be bluffing.

As for the political implications - Iran has been testing new missiles for years. All the time.
Don't take these things so personal.


That was almost my exact first response on reading "stealth missile". I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thought it was fishy.

That was almost my exact first response on reading "stealth missile". I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thought it was fishy.
*Does a little research*

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_396.shtml
Doesn't say anything about stealth, but at least the possible evasion of ABM-systems could be true (see Shahab-3B).

1) Panama, North and indeed South Vietnam, Iraq and Brazil for starters.

2) Usually the U.S. installs some kind of dictator which they think they can control, but about 15-20 years later it all goes a bit "OH NOES". See Iran, Panama, Brazil and South Vietnam. Those governments were terrible for their people and you put them in power, amongst people like the Muhaj'adeen.

3) Both governments garner popular support via religion, both have large armies and both governments have vast records of human rights abuses. You are also both militaristic. You also both refuse to abide by the UN's child labour laws, and are actually the only two.

There are two differences, though. The USA interferes everywhere and Iran is more honest about its views.

Uh... if it's an evil dictatorship especially one which goes a bit "OH NOES" then isn't that exactly the sort of government which deserves to be brought down?
The USA, vast records of human rights abuses? Lol. Yes, the USA does have records of human rights abuses, but not exactly vast, and it's not like Iran which basically abuses the random Average Joe on the street.

The only country ever to use nuclear weapons in war is the USA.
Also threatened Saddam with nuclear weapons at the start of the Gulf War.

The USA:

- does not call for the destruction of the West and Israel
Yet through war mongering could very well precipitate such an outcome?

- does not propose to spread a religious Revolution to the world
Isn't the Religious Revolution in full swing in the US? Abortion and anti-gay legislation?

- is not led by an ultra-conservative president
IS an ultra conservative and cowtows to the oil cartel specifically and big business in general.

- does have a history of human rights abuses (but not as severe as that of Iran)
However, the US is growing their modern dossier....Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, etc.

Also the US used white phosporus armaments as a weapon against the residents of Fallujah.

- and is unlikely to sell its weapons to terrorist organizations
Huh? The US has been selling weapons to terrorists hand over fist. The weapons industry is big bucks in the US. The US has supported dictators for a long, long time.

So true, it's pretty funny seeing America condemning religious fundamentalism, when it is an emerging theocracy itself.

The government takes both of them, kills you, and somehow turns the cows into nuclear missiles.

Atomic Cow Missiles. Sounds like something Lunatic Goofballs would come up with if given the reins in nuclear weapons research....

Naaah. He'd do it with nuclear mud missiles.

Yet through war mongering could very well precipitate such an outcome?
That doesn't make sense. How can US warmongering be directly to blame for the destruction of the West?

Isn't the Religious Revolution in full swing in the US? Abortion and anti-gay legislation?
In the US. The operative phrase in the original comment was "to the world".

IS an ultra conservative and cowtows to the oil cartel specifically and big business in general.
The ruling class and president of the US believes that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. The ruling class and president of Iran believes that gay people shouldn't be allowed to live. There's a good example of the extent of the difference.

I agree 100% when you say that the US government serves the interests of big business first.

However, the US is growing their modern dossier....Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, etc.

Also the US used white phosporus armaments as a weapon against the residents of Fallujah.
Make no mistake, I condemn these completely. But they do not equal Iran's human rights abuses in its prison system and in its wars.

Huh? The US has been selling weapons to terrorists hand over fist. The weapons industry is big bucks in the US. The US has supported dictators for a long, long time.
Upon subsequent thought, I was in fact wrong. The US has supported terrorists and dictators quite a lot in the past. I'm not so sure that the US will continue to support terrorist groups, but looking at Uzbekistan, the US is not above supporting dictatorships.

So true, it's pretty funny seeing America condemning religious fundamentalism, when it is an emerging theocracy itself.
I both agree and disagree. On a technical level, the current "God in government" movement is mild compared to similar movements in the 1920s and 1950s. Another point is that Iranian theocracy is more extreme than almost any leading figure in the US Christian Right movement desires to implement.

However, it does anger me that the leading force against Islamic fundamentalism does not embrace secular values more enthusiastically. The fight against fundamentalism should be led by the world's most left-wing, secular country. Unfortunately, I have observed, too many of my fellow secularists tend to be either apathetic, or relativist fools.

Enough of this pussy-footin' around.

If the Iranians have problem with rolling over and playing dead when the 5 Veto-powers say so, I guess its a pretty good time to make sure they look dead and ain't playin'.

Let's call it an obedience-issue: quod licet iovi, non licet bovi.

That was almost my exact first response on reading "stealth missile". I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thought it was fishy.
Then, if they can't back up what they say, why would they say it? Surely even the Iranians know that the US has ways of finding out that they're just blowing smoke? :confused:

Enough of this pussy-footin' around.

If the Iranians have problem with rolling over and playing dead when the 5 Veto-powers say so, I guess its a pretty good time to make sure they look dead and ain't playin'.

Let's call it an obedience-issue: quod licet iovi, non licet bovi.
I think this bears a bit of explaining. Are you railing against the "5 Veto-powers," or what??? :confused:

That doesn't make sense. How can US warmongering be directly to blame for the destruction of the West?
It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out? World wide terrorism has increased since the War on Terrorism began. The US is sabre rattling with Iran, and North Korea, and isn't winning over any hearts with the new Palestinian government. US involvement in the Middle East is creating a backlash that could result in a world wide conflict that could cause immense damage to the west.

In the US. The operative phrase in the original comment was "to the world".
Then why does Bush want to dictate what kind of government the Iraqis should have?

Iraq's Premier Asserts His Right to Stay in Office (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/international/middleeast/30baghdad.html?ex=1144299600&en=ec9617c9219e1164&ei=5018&partner=BRITANNICA)


The ruling class and president of the US believes that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. The ruling class and president of Iran believes that gay people shouldn't be allowed to live. There's a good example of the extent of the difference.
There are many fundies in the US who would like to see "gays" erradicated. A religious agenda can grow over a period of time?

I agree 100% when you say that the US government serves the interests of big business first.
Which is unfortunate for the middle and lower classes.


Make no mistake, I condemn these completely. But they do not equal Iran's human rights abuses in its prison system and in its wars.
Because they don't equal Iran's abuse of human rights, does not make it right. The US is currently on that slippery slope in regards to human rights.


Upon subsequent thought, I was in fact wrong. The US has supported terrorists and dictators quite a lot in the past. I'm not so sure that the US will continue to support terrorist groups, but looking at Uzbekistan, the US is not above supporting dictatorships.
Exactly, and those actions have historically harmed the US.


I both agree and disagree. On a technical level, the current "God in government" movement is mild compared to similar movements in the 1920s and 1950s. Another point is that Iranian theocracy is more extreme than almost any leading figure in the US Christian Right movement desires to implement.
I agree that there are more extremists in Iran, but never-the-less the US does have quite a few whack jobs in the religious field.

However, it does anger me that the leading force against Islamic fundamentalism does not embrace secular values more enthusiastically. The fight against fundamentalism should be led by the world's most left-wing, secular country. Unfortunately, I have observed, too many of my fellow secularists tend to be either apathetic, or relativist fools.
I somewhat disagree. I think that governments of moderation should lead the way by example. The people in the middle need to reign in the extremists?

I think this bears a bit of explaining. Are you railing against the "5 Veto-powers," or what??? :confused:

I'm not railing against the 5 Veto-powers.

I think a bit of Order in the world would be a lot better than this mess.
I think the 5 Veto-powers, when acting in unison, are the best feasable enforcers of such an Order.

Now, if the Big 5 call upon Iran to behave or face serious consequences, and Iran fails to show obedience, docility and servility, the 5 could, and should, authorize the use of force.

The purpose of the use of force is to make it clear that any and all States have a very practical obligation to behave in a docile and submissive fashion towards the Big 5. For no State that does not submit to the established authority will be suffered to exist.

This arrangement is not unknown in history: it is analogous to the Shikken-arrangement that ended the 'civil war' period in Japan.

It may not be seen as just - but it sho'nuff is effective in establishing Peace and Order.
Wars between a potentially ever increasing number of minor atomic powers will be very much like fights inside phoneboots with hand-grenades.