Rome within Iran missile range: Israeli FM

Hey NR does that article I link to, with a end of the decade predicted date for a Shahab 5 missile seem correct?

Also any plans for a Shahab 4 you know of?

Originally posted by defcon5
Well for one thing Christianity teaches that suicide is a sin and you go to hell, but Islam teaches that is the express train to the 7th level of heaven.

in Islam it is forbidden to harm an inncocent person or their crops who has done nothing to you.
and suicide is strongly against islam and is a one way trip to hell

read this

also the only time someone may kill someone is if that person is
1. stoping the person from practicing their faith
2. they are fighting for their way of life

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Hey NR does that article I link to, with a end of the decade predicted date for a Shahab 5 missile seem correct?

Also any plans for a Shahab 4 you know of?

Shahab-5 wouldnt be out yet, we still got to work on Shahab-4 that can attack its target through satelite for more better accuracy. We also got to launch mesbah satelite since we already did the same to Sina-1. The name would most likely be Shahab-3C.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by NR]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Hey NR does that article I link to, with a end of the decade predicted date for a Shahab 5 missile seem correct?

Also any plans for a Shahab 4 you know of?

Shadow, Iran may already have a Shahab 4 missle. Of course, they may have simply forgone the Shahab 4 for the Shahab 5.

IMHO, it makes no difference. Iran can not be allowed to aquire nukes under any circumstance. If it takes diplomacy, we should do it. If it takes airstrikes, we should strike them. If it takes a full scale invasion, well, that is what should be done.

By October 18, 1997 it was stated in the Washington Times that: "Iran was just three years (2000) from fielding the first of two versions of the North Korean, No-dong missile called the Shehab-3 and 4... ."(4) On July 29, 1998 The Washington Times stated that the Iranian Shahab-4, (the North Korean Taep'o-dong-1/NKSL-1) which has a range of 1,240 miles (1,995.16 km) will require 2-5 years (2000-2003) to appear.(5)

The Shahab-4 is projected to include improved guidance components, a two stage version would have a range of 2,000-2,200 kilometers while the three stages Shahab-4 could potentially have a range of 2,672-2,896 kilometers range with a warhead weight on the order of 1,000-760 kilograms. The Shahab-4 would be capable of hitting targets as far away as Germany and Western China. The Iranian Zelzal project provided for the rework development of the North Korean No-dong missile with a 1,350-1,500 kilometer range.

Link

Most likely they can hit southern Europe with this type of missle.

So it's OK for Cheney to say they'll be nuking Iran if any terrorists attack America, whether they are Iranian or not and it's OK for Americans to openly talk about bombing Mecca flat if America is attacked,

BUT,

Iran saying they can reach Rome is the worst thing you could possibly hear?

I thought hype went out with the 80s?

Shadow, Iran may already have a Shahab 4 missle. Of course, they may have simply forgone the Shahab 4 for the Shahab 5.

IMHO, it makes no difference. Iran can not be allowed to aquire nukes under any circumstance. If it takes diplomacy, we should do it. If it takes airstrikes, we should strike them. If it takes a full scale invasion, well, that is what should be done.

you dont make sense in all of your posts and they all are lame, if your smart and not an idiot than you would know that we are monitered by IAEA and U.N and we signed NPT and dont want nukes so how could we acquire them? diplomacy wont work and it has failed many times, airstrikes wont do anything because your jetfighters are going to get taken care off and we could just easily repair them. Full scale invasion would be impossible and it wouldnt work, we also can make hell for your troops in Iraq because we have the Shias with us which they are currently working with you guys but wont be for long....

[edit on 2-11-2005 by NR]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
So it's OK for Cheney to say they'll be nuking Iran if any terrorists attack America

Link please?

I love the "airstrikes wont do anything because your jetfighters are going to get taken care off " that shows some real intellect. I guess Iran would have a way of stopping hundreds of surface to surface missiles as well. I wonder why they haven't invaded Israel yet? Maybe just out of kindness?

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis


So it's OK for Cheney to say they'll be nuking Iran if any terrorists attack America, whether they are Iranian or not and it's OK for Americans to openly talk about bombing Mecca flat if America is attacked,

I think we should have nuked Mecca a long time ago, along with the rest of the "cradle of civilization." The only reason the rest of the world puts up with that armpit of the world is oil, once that's gone Islam will be just a fading memory and if any muslims are left they'd be praying to a crater of melted glass.

Originally posted by NR
you dont make sense in all of your posts and they all are lame

Take a good long look in the mirror buddy.

if your smart and not an idiot than you would know that we are monitered by IAEA and U.N and we signed NPT and dont want nukes so how could we acquire them?

Iran is working a civilian nuclear reactor. If you aren't stupid and/or ignorant you would know exactly how this aplies to Iran developing nuclear weapons.

diplomacy wont work and it has failed many times

Agreed, and it is because Iran does not want to give up it's nuclear weapons program.

airstrikes wont do anything because your jetfighters are going to get taken care off

Talk about stupid

Exactly what id going to "take care" of our fighters? What do you have that could poosably counter, say, a B-2 bomber? Or a cruise missle? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

and we could just easily repair them.

And we could just as easily take them out again.

Full scale invasion would be impossible and it wouldnt work

LOL!

Why - because you say so?

Iran stands NO CHANCE against a full on US invasion. That is not to say this would be the right move NR, but it would be VERY achievable for the US.

we also can make hell for your troops in Iraq because we have the Shias with us which they are currently working with you guys but wont be for long....

Again, this is not to say it would be the right thing to do, or even the smartest course of action, but the US could just as easilly make life "hell" for all of the Iraqis and Iranians. If anything NR, Iran should just play ball with Europe.

Believe it or not, EUROPE is the one freaking out over this (and handling it BTW), and it is not in the best intrest of Iran, the US, or Europe to get into a war over this...

But I promise you, if Iran doesn't play ball, they will be neutralized

I think we should have nuked Mecca a long time ago, along with the rest of the "cradle of civilization."

Why? What do you think it will accomplish to annihilate tens of millions? Will the remaining Muslims have a new found respect for the USA and clamp down on the extremists? Or will every person with a gun start taking pot shots at US interests around the world.

Think before you speak please. And incidentally why 'cradle of civilisation'? The Euphrates river is the cradle of civilisation.

Who cares if Iran can shoot Rome? There not going to do it. If they could hit the entire world it would make no difference, since by doing so they guarantee transforming their nation to a smoking hole.

The people who expect Iran to go nuts and nuke everything the day they get the bomb are the same people who shouted through the cold war that every day brought the threat of nuclear annihilation by the USSR.

It didnt happen, despite a good few oppertunities. Why? Because everyone loses in a nuclear war.

(Just out of interest, this is a new one to me but since when was Iran supposed to 'invade' Israel?)

The only thing Europe is "freaking out" about is the possibility of yet another disaster in the ME if the current administration in the USA takes the lead on Iran and pursues yet more counter-productive, short-sighted and wholly unnecessary belligerent policy.

Considering 'we' in Europe are supposed to be in range of these missiles and their imaginary nuclear warheads is it not amazing that 'we' Europeans have been quite happy to calmly negotiate and inspect using the agreed protocols of the IAEA & UN.

What we do not want to see is the kind of laughably ridiculous and frankly unhinged and insane 'thinking' that desires to turn the ME into a 'glass bowl' taking the lead here.

Iran is a very very different prospect than Iraq (which is a horrible disaster all of its own and getting worse day by day).

[edit on 2-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The only thing Europe is "freaking out" about is the possibility of yet another disaster in the ME if the current administration in the USA takes the lead on Iran and pursues yet more counter-productive, short-sighted and wholly unnecessary belligerent policy.

Franly, you are wrong here Sminkey. Europe is scared of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, and for good reason. If they can't get it done in diplomacy, you better believe they will go the military route.

Considering 'we' in Europe are supposed to be in range of these missiles and their imaginary nuclear warheads is it not amazing that 'we' Europeans have been quite happy to calmly negotiate and inspect using the agreed protocols of the IAEA & UN.

From recent news, it doesn't seem Europe is as "happy" as you think Sminkey.

What we do not want to see is the kind of laughably ridiculous and frankly unhinged and insane 'thinking' that desires to turn the ME into a 'glass bowl' taking the lead here.

As if Americans do?

Iran is a very very different prospect than Iraq (which is a horrible disaster all of its own and getting worse day by day).

Horrible disaster?

Now that is laughable.

Have you been there Sminkey? Because I have litterally a dozen friends who have been there, and they don't agree with your uninformed opinion that it is a disastor. As a matter of fact they say it is going pretty damned well.

In any case, military action in Iran would most likely involve air strikes, not a full on invasion.

Anyway you cut it, you have 2nd hand information. If you want to put yourself in a position where your word has more credibility than Sminkeys, go over there yourself. Until then, your "friend of a friend' info doesn't mean a thing.

You present a 3rd party's opinion as fact.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by cargo]

Originally posted by cargo
You present a 3rd party's opinion as fact.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by cargo]

It's first hand info. My buddies were over there, hence they are a primary source. I trust them more then Sminkey cause I know he hasn't been there and I know they have, and have the shrapnel scars to prove it.

Hell, I'll take their word over the "news" too, seeing as how these guys are living it everyday for 9+ months at a time. I have known them for years, and they wouldn't lie to me, much less all of them.

In any case, people like you want it to go bad, so I wouldn't expect you to believe anything positive going on over there any way.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by American Mad Man]

We should all take with salt any Israeli claim that a European nation is at risk of attack as it's just part of the ploy to reinforce support for Israeli foreign policy.

i.e. Hey Catholics, your holy city is at risk from Iran. We reckon you should support attacks on that nation or it could be blown to kingdom come.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX



Irans current range is the first circle using the Shahab 3. So thats as far as Iran could hit right now Israel is well within that range. Russia is helping Iran develop a Shahab 5 missile and that would have a range indicated by the second circle.

Iran plans to have that by the end of the decade.

www.telegraph.co.uk... /news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/16/wiran16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/16/ixportaltop.html

Well at least Russia isnt worried about Iran's intentions. It's not often that one country will help another country build missiles that can nuke the capitol of the helper nation. The U.S. wouldnt even give UK ICBM's without retaining final launch authority, I can only hope a similar deal is in place here. And Iran being able to take out the Catholic Church's "capitol" city is not a good situation. As has been stated they have an overt policy of promoting Caliphate and Islam worldwide.

+ altho u cant tell in the pic I think that the current home of the Dalai Lama is also in range, making another head of a major religion under threat from Iran.

This is all assuming Iran actually is buliding nuclear weapons though...

Is that the same PM that said Iran could have the bomb in six months?

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Europe is scared of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, and for good reason.

- Europe doesn't want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons.

But then Europe isn't the one crying loud and long that they are trying to get them either.

If they can't get it done in diplomacy, you better believe they will go the military route.

- Europe has been caught between a USA attempting to 'backseat drive' this matter (issueing statements and demands that are neither helpful nor welcome) and an Iranian desire to follow what they see as their legitimate right to their own independant nuclear power supplies (hence their desire for an enrichment capability of their own).

'We' have been trying to get Iran to go along with an openness on it's most sensitive secrets (an openness you guys certainly wouldn't tolerate yourselves.....especially from a country fairly recently involved in a despised former regime there) so as to defuse the tensions some (on each side) have been only to happy to foster.

You can dream on all you like AMM but there is no European appetite for a 'military route' at all; the voting public would eject any gov suggesting such action because so many see this as little or nothing to do Iran getting the bomb and instead it is all about the US attempting to dominate the region and pacify it in the mould they wish to impose.

From recent news, it doesn't seem Europe is as "happy" as you think Sminkey.

- What "recent news"?

So someone turned up an Italian mouthpiece, big deal.

Even Tony Blair is regularly at pains to stress 'we' are not interested in a military 'solution' ( , yeah, as if) to this 'problem.

The funny part is just how disconnected you are from European opinion yet you happily present the almost 180' opposite of reality as some kind of fact.

European politicians (with very very few exceptions) know the European people is not interested in these stories.
Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

(In fact considering US influence in europe what is amazing is that you can't turn up more examples of those unhappy scared Europeans.)

As if Americans do?

- It is quite plain that a segment of US opinion is actually that deranged.

Now that is laughable.

- I find nothing laughable about it, it is as I said, horrible.

Have you been there Sminkey?

- I have friends out there.

As a matter of fact they say it is going pretty damned well.

- I just don't believe this; there have been too many deaths (even locally to me with guys from Northern Ireland never mind the daily car bomb slaughter or the now 2000+ US killed).

Even the SE/Basra area, the supposedly quieter region, is getting worse and worse.

I have been shown the maps over the last year and a half; I have seen the 'red' areas grow and grow, not diminish.
I have heard the stories of the roadside bombs getting more and more sophisticated and the countermeasures getting less and less effective.

I'm not claiming to know it all, but yes, I know people out there and they tell me it is far from "going pretty damn well".

Jayzuss wept, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Maybe your pals are in a (rare) quiet zone somewhere?

In any case, military action in Iran would most likely involve air strikes, not a full on invasion.

- Oh well that's alright then.

You'll still be alone if it comes to it.

Face the truth AMM.
Europe will not support further US 'adventures' in the ME.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, people like you want it to go bad, so I wouldn't expect you to believe anything positive going on over there any way.

- WTF?
Well there's a ridiculous shut eyes, stick fingers in your ears and shout "la la la la!" 'arguement' if ever there were.

Where the hell does this come from AMM, hmmmm?

What makes you think I (or for that matter anyone else here) want things "to go bad" out there, eh?
I have friends out there.
Things "going bad" out there have had an impact here in my country.

As a human being I am repelled by the deaths and injuries inflicted on all suffering out there.

Jayzuss wept man is that how degenerate this debate has become?

Are you really going to reduce yourself to inventing an absurd and frankly offensive 'position' for those you disagree with and claiming it true?


[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

You'll still be alone if it comes to it.

Out of interest, what would your opinion be if Iran were to "not play ball"? Sure, they've let some inspectors in to a site today (which, the skeptic in me, says has been nicely cleaned out by now anyway...) and I've no doubt they'll keep on with the line that they'll cooperate. But that's my worry - they 'll probably just string the UN along for years to come, giving them the run around, letting them inspect sites on their own terms, doing just enough to make it seem to the world like they are cooperating, and then one day "hey - we have the bomb!".

I don't think anybody in the world wants Iran to have nukes. But it's going to happen unless somebody gets tough or they will just lead us on a wild goose chase until they've got them. I'm not saying military action is the only answer - I just think the EU/UN needs to show Iran it means business, rather than its usual method of sitting around in the UN offices all day scratching their backside. There should no messing around - give us totally unlimited access, on our terms, or we take it to the UNSC and get tough. If they've got nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about, etc, etc.