Jump to content


Photo

its pretty much official now: Iran is making nukes.


  • Please log in to reply
958 replies to this topic

#941 DADI

DADI

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 March 2010 - 1747 PM

I've never studied the things I find distasteful, Dadi and that includes anti-Semitism. You however seem able to find anti-Semitism in almost anything. As usual, more sophistry to try and obscure the truth, Dadi. Lehi were terrorists. Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. As day follows night. People who engage in activities intended to promote terror are terrorists. Lehi did that, therefore they are. I wouldn't care if they were Buddhists like myself - they'd still be terrorists if they did the things that they did. That you attempt to make excuses for and Israel attempts to glorify their acts, makes it all the more reprehensible. Now I expect to read more excuses, more efforts to try and suggest I am a Nazi or an anti-Semite. It appears to be your usual tactic against anybody who dares to criticise you or Israel or Israelis.


I believe you are drinking water from the wrong fountain. You have no idea what to criticise Israel with, so you find it in places that do that for a living. Criticising Israelis is like criticising the French - always tells half the story.. :),
Criticising me, OTOH, IS anti-Semitism in its original version. My own wife - anti-Semite, who would have imagined?
Your fixation on Lehi tells more about you than about them. Personally, I find only one of their known actions something I consider to be instrumental for the future of an independent Israel, which was their goal. You are welcome to try and guess which.
On the rest of their actions, I'd say not very fruitful, not very well executed and not very well planed.
I say, if you are going to be terrorists, do it well, and create a critical mass for your ideas.
In the Israeli case, the critical mass was created by others (hopefully, not regarded by you as terrorists), and the dirty stories were pinned to the smallest group, that managed to recruit only 40 men to the Deir-Yassin occupation attempt, failed, and became the symbol of extreme weirdos in the same country they fought to establish. I wonder why they sat quietly for so many years taking those insults, deprived of honor and glory (that was taken by others) and did not even try to fight their way, like a decent terrorist, to power in the state that disowned them. Maybe it was because the were not terrorists?!
  • 0

#942 A2Keltainen

A2Keltainen

    Creating a people's republic near you

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,375 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 0223 AM

Readers of this thread are recommended to take a look at:

Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea
Jeffrey Richelson
W. W. Norton & Company
2007

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0393329828/

I'm 3/4 through it, and it has been an interesting read so far. Richelson is one of the leading researchers on US intelligence matters, and has also written the following books:

A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/B000C1ZX3G/

The US Intelligence Community

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0813343623/

The Wizards of Langley: Inside the Cia's Directorate of Science and Technology

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/B001OMHSSA/

America's Space Sentinels: DSP Satellites and National Security

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0700610960/
  • 0

#943 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,544 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 07 April 2010 - 1001 AM

Israel gets serious, sends message to China:

http://www.timesonli...icle7086688.ece
  • 0

#944 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 1125 AM

That's the way Israel has to do it - get everyone on board first, and none of this 'rogue' nonsense. If the Chinese can be brought on board, then diplomacy just might work after all!

Dadi - do you understand now why it would be a dumb idea to rush off and bomb Iran too quickly?

Edited by glenn239, 07 April 2010 - 1128 AM.

  • 0

#945 DesertEagle

DesertEagle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,812 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

Posted 28 April 2010 - 1450 PM

This thread is getting too quiet. Where is everybody?

Edited by DesertEagle, 28 April 2010 - 1450 PM.

  • 0

#946 DADI

DADI

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 12 June 2010 - 0346 AM

On the time wasting side:

White House works to ease Iran proposal in Congress
The Obama administration fears tough U.S. sanctions against companies doing business in Iran would anger foreign allies.

And on the more practical side:

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

That brings up the question:
Pence to Obama: Whose side are you on, anyway?

Turkey and Brazil vote against sanctions on Iran... Turkey launches a wild and violent campaign against Israel, In the name of humanitarian aid to poor Palestinians while massacring thousands of Kurds without remorse. President Obama launches a costly attack on AQ and Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan. Many innocent lives are lost along with the guilty. Not a word of self criticism by Obama, only calling the death of 9 AQ operatives on board the Marmara - "Tragic".
  • 0

#947 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Totally uninteresting.

Posted 12 June 2010 - 0851 AM

Come on, Dadi, give the man a break, he's got to earn his Nobel prize anyway :P
  • 0

#948 LeoTanker

LeoTanker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 12 June 2010 - 0929 AM

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites


Now this sounds like a very important step. The bigest obstaccle to a potential attack (flight route) could now have been over come. But how did The Times find out about it?

Trying to fly over Turkey is a big no-no nowadays I guess.. So that the Saudis once again are willing to back stab fellow muslims (albeit Shiites) must be like a gift from above. Wonder how the royal family have planed to manage the civil unrest that well might breake out after the raid though..

Can Israel use its submarines in the attack as well, btw? Or are the the Irani targets beyond reach of SLCMs? If I was the irani minister of defence I would have my navys sub hunting groups patroling the Gulf 24/7 these days...
  • 0

#949 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,552 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, MO area

Posted 12 June 2010 - 0931 AM

Now this sounds like a very important step. The bigest obstaccle to a potential attack (flight route) could now have been over come. But how did The Times find out about it?


I suspect this is intentionally being leaked by the Saudis to put Iran on notice that they're no longer playing games. Things are about to get really real...
  • 0

#950 DADI

DADI

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 12 June 2010 - 1211 PM

I suspect this is intentionally being leaked by the Saudis to put Iran on notice that they're no longer playing games. Things are about to get really real...


Leaked by the Saudis? Probably... But not as a wake up call for Iran, but as a cry for attention to the US, and a warning to Turkey.

The Obama administration is playing tough announcements, weak action and zero effectiveness.
Turkey is betting on the Iranian horse, looking all shiny and ready for battle.
Egypt and SA somehow aren't taken as players recently. Egypt, wisely, has "released" it's own blockade on Gaza, making sure that future "relief operations" come through its gates for inspection, and not direct attention from Iran (which is just what Turkey is all about these days). And SA, on its side, pointing the spotlight directly at what's bothering every one here.
Basically both are calling Erdogan to get lost, and for Obama to air his own thumb.

Can Israel use its submarines in the attack as well, btw? Or are the the Irani targets beyond reach of SLCMs? If I was the irani minister of defence I would have my navys sub hunting groups patroling the Gulf 24/7 these days...


He might find that a bit hard, as the gulf is busy with quite a few NATO vessels.

I have no idea what Israeli submarines are capable of.
  • 0

#951 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 13 June 2010 - 0923 AM

Can Israel use its submarines in the attack as well, btw? Or are the the Irani targets beyond reach of SLCMs? If I was the irani minister of defence I would have my navys sub hunting groups patroling the Gulf 24/7 these days...


If they could transit the canal or go all the way around the horn of Africa, I dont' see range being a limitation once they were in the Gulf. And I don't see any Iranian assets being able to find them. I believe at least one is actually based in Eliat right now; seem to remember something about one making the canal crossing.

On the other hand, is there any reason there isn't an air launched version of the same cruise missile that would allow IAF a/c to stand off outside of Iranian territory?
  • 0

#952 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Totally uninteresting.

Posted 13 June 2010 - 1050 AM

Theoretically no, but since Brezhnev awarded himself the Star of Hero of the Soviet Union five times at least there is a precedent. :closedeyes:
  • 0

#953 Assessor

Assessor

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Tanks, flyfishing, wargaming, mending things...

Posted 14 June 2010 - 0905 AM

Can you get a bar added to a nobel prize? :)

Marie Curie got two...
  • 0

#954 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2010 - 2337 PM

Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.

Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a cable dated Feb. 24 of this year. The cable is a detailed, highly classified account of a meeting between top Russian officials and an American delegation led by Vann H. Van Diepen, an official with the State Departmentís nonproliferation division who, as a national intelligence officer several years ago, played a crucial role in the 2007 assessment of Iranís nuclear capacity.


http://www.nytimes.c...29missiles.html
  • 0

#955 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 01 December 2010 - 1912 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missiles.html



US papers twist Iranian missile tale
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - A diplomatic cable from last February released by WikiLeaks provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic-missile program refuted the United States suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals, or intends to develop such a capability.

In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the US claims Iran acquired from North Korea. But readers of the two leading US newspapers never learned those key facts about the document.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither



newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the US view of the issue, or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the US side.

The Times, which had obtained the diplomatic cables not from WikiLeaks but from The Guardian, according to a Washington Post story on Monday, did not publish the text of the cable.

The Times story said the newspaper had made the decision not to publish "at the request of the Obama administration". That meant that its readers could not compare the highly distorted account of the document in the Times story against the original document without searching the WikiLeaks website.

As a result, a key WikiLeaks document, which should have resulted in stories calling into question the thrust of the Obama administration's ballistic-missile defense policy in Europe based on an alleged Iranian missile threat, has produced a spate of stories supporting the existing-Iranian-threat narrative.

The full text of the US State Department report on the meeting of the Joint Threat Assessment in Washington on December 22, 2009, which is available on the WikiLeaks website, shows that there was a dramatic confrontation over the issue of the mysterious BM-25 missile.

The BM-25 has been described as a surface-to-surface missile based on a now-obsolete Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, the R-27 or SS-N-6. The purported missile is said to be capable of reaching ranges of 2,400 to 4,000 kilometers - putting much of Europe within its range.

The head of the US delegation to the meeting, Vann H Van Diepen, acting assistant secretary for international security and non-proliferation, said the United States "believes" Iran had acquired 19 of those missiles from North Korea, according to the leaked document.

But an official of the Russian Defense Ministry dismissed published reports of such a missile, which he said were "without reference to any reliable sources".

He observed that there had never been a test of such a missile in either North Korea or Iran, and that the Russian government was "unaware that the missile had ever been seen". The Russians asked the US side for any evidence of the existence of such a missile.

US officials did not claim to have photographic or other hard evidence of the missile, but said the North Koreans had paraded the missile through the streets of Pyongyang. The Russians responded that they had reviewed a video of that parade, and had found that it was an entirely different missile.

The Russian official said there was no evidence for claims that 19 of these missiles had been shipped to Iran in 2005, and that it would have been impossible to conceal such a transfer. The Russians also said it was difficult to believe Iran would have purchased a missile system that had never even been tested.

United States delegation chief Van Dieppen cited one piece of circumstantial evidence that Iran had done work on the "steering [vernier] engines" of the BM-25. He said Internet photos of the weld lines and tank volumes on the second stage of Iran's space-launch vehicle, the Safir, showed that the ratio of oxidizer to propellant was not consistent with the propellants used in the past by the Shahab-3.

That suggests that the Safir was using the same system that had been used in the R-27, according to Van Dieppen. The Russians asserted, however, that the propellant used in the Safir was not the one used in the R-27.

Even more important evidence from the Safir launch that Iran does not have any BM-25 missiles was noted in an authoritative study of the Iranian missile program published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last May.

The study found that Iran had not used the main engine associated with the purported BM-25 to help boost its Safir space-launch vehicle.

If Iran had indeed possessed the more powerful engine associated with the original Russian R-27, the study observes, the Safir would have been able to launch a much larger satellite into orbit. But in fact the Safir was "clearly underpowered" and barely able to put its 27-kilogram satellite into low-Earth orbit, according to the IISS study.

The same study also points out that the original R-27 was designed to operate in a submarine launch tube, and a road-mobile variant would require major structural modifications.

Yet another reason for doubt reported by the IISS is that the propellant combination in the R-27 would not work in a land-mobile missile, because "the oxidizer must be maintained within a narrow temperature range".

Van Diepen suggested two other Iranian options: use of the Shahab-3 technology with "clustered or stacked engines" or the development of a solid-propellant missile with a more powerful engine.

The Russians expressed strong doubts about both options, however, saying they were skeptical of Iranian claims to have a missile with a 2,000 km range. They pointed out that the longest range on a missile tested thus far is 1,700 km, and that it was achieved only by significantly reducing throw weight.

Van Diepen cited "modeling" studies that showed Iran could achieve a greater range, and that adding 300 kilometers "is not a great technological stretch". But the Russian delegation insisted that the additional length of the flight could cause various parts of the missile to burn through and the missile to fall apart.

The head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, said Russia believed any assessment of the Iranian missile program must be based not only on modeling but on "consideration of the real technical barriers faced by Iran".

One of several such barriers cited by the Russians was the lack of the "structural materials" needed for longer-range missiles that could threaten the United States or Russia, such as "high-quality aluminum".

The Russians maintained that even assuming favorable conditions, Iran would be able to begin a program to develop ballistic missiles that could reach Central Europe or Moscow only after 2015 at the earliest.

The Russians denied, however, that Iran has such an intention, arguing that its ballistic missile program continues to be directed toward "regional concerns" - meaning deterring an attack on Iran by Israel.

The US delegation never addressed the issue of Iranian intentions - a position consistent with the dominant role of weapons specialists in the US intelligence community's assessments of Iran, and their overwhelming focus on capabilities and disinterest in intentions.

Michael Elleman, the senior author of the IISS study of the Iranian missile program, told Inter Press Service that the report on the US-Russian exchange highlights the differences in the two countries' approaches to the subject. "The Russians talked about the most likely set of outcomes," said Elleman, "whereas the US side focused on what might happen."

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.
  • 0

#956 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 December 2010 - 2041 PM

Seems like much ado about nothing. Everyone knows Iran is developing ballistic missiles; the Iranians have come out and said it and sent us pictures. We're just arguing over a nozzel design and and an extra 500 kilometers now as far as I can tell. If you steal someone's analysis or opinion they have no obligation to prove its accurate, though it does sound like shody reporting.
  • 0

#957 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 01 December 2010 - 2114 PM

Seems like much ado about nothing. Everyone knows Iran is developing ballistic missiles; the Iranians have come out and said it and sent us pictures. We're just arguing over a nozzel design and and an extra 500 kilometers now as far as I can tell. If you steal someone's analysis or opinion they have no obligation to prove its accurate, though it does sound like shody reporting.


The Iranians are still quite far away from even making missiles that can strike Europe, much less the US. Why Iran even wants to make such missiles is beyond me. They are more concerned about Israel and the Arab countries rather than Europe. The whole missile defense shield is an excuse for other reasons, not Iran.
  • 0

#958 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,869 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 01 December 2010 - 2202 PM

They want to become a regional superpower and a nuke umbrella balance the power projection the US has. the nukes will have two purposes, bend the ME countries to their will and hold the US at bay.
The one thing that gives me hope is that the Revolutionary Guard is busy taking over the economy of the country by hook and more likely by crook, which means their desire for Jihad that interferes with their wealth making machine will be quickly temperared.
  • 0

#959 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 December 2010 - 2247 PM

The Iranians are still quite far away from even making missiles that can strike Europe, much less the US. Why Iran even wants to make such missiles is beyond me. They are more concerned about Israel and the Arab countries rather than Europe. The whole missile defense shield is an excuse for other reasons, not Iran.


I can't think of any other reason, but your mileage may differ.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users