It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Developing Long-Range Missiles

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said recently that it was an "incontrovertible" fact that Iran is developing long rage missiles. One cannot help but think of the coincidence that this development coincides with Iran’s nuclear program. After all you surly cant have a peaceful nuclear prong if you don't have long rage missiles wit the capability to carry a nuclear warhead.


Questioned in the British parliament's lower House of Commons, Straw was asked what plans were in place to deal with the "doomsday situation" of Iranian weapons being developed capable of reaching England's south coast.

He replied: "The fact that the government of Iran are developing longer range missiles is incontrovertible. Whether they are using their nuclear power programme to develop nuclear weapons is not yet incontrovertible.

"There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which has raised significant anxieties in the minds of the international community."

Straw said he believed Iran was "at the very least developing options for a nuclear weapons programme" but stated the current approach to control this was favoured.


Link



Sep

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Iran's space program is progressing rather quickly, with one satellite (Sina 1) being launched just a while ago and one (Mesbah) being launched in 2 months. No doubt that Iran would like to gain self-sufficiency in launching satellites as well as making them.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
It is clear Iran does not want just civy nuclear energy. They want nuclear weapons, and will be prevented from doing so... By force if it is needed.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Iran does not require nukes for its protection. Nuclear weapons are plain and simply WMD and terror.

If Iran is building long range missiles you can only ask why. Which countries are they trying to hit. If they are worried about Israel then they still don't need long range their current missiles have the range. The two things added together can only make the US nervous 1 - Material for making Nukes 2 - Developing long range missiles.

The US or any advanced nuclear capable country could sit off the coast and launch an nuclear attack from the sea. Limiting Irans response time to launch missiles. Effectively sending the country back to the middle ages. They know this so in my tactical opinion if they are determined to build these missiles for long range attack they are being built as first strike weapons as I would imagine certain assets are deployed to keep an eye on Iran.

They should do themselves a favour and stay their hand as this course just gives fuel to military advisors to certain governments who would like to end the problem before it starts. But i believe that the top men in Iran and please note not the people of Iran have an agenda with the US which i believe they will carry through at any cost. Just look into the new presidents history with the US in the past for an insight.

To put it bluntly and debunk deny all you want Iran is building these missiles to hit the US end of.

I posted this answer on another thread but seems relevant to this one too.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
If Iran is building long range missiles you can only ask why. Which countries are they trying to hit. If they are worried about Israel then they still don't need long range their current missiles have the range. The two things added together can only make the US nervous 1 - Material for making Nukes 2 - Developing long range missiles.

The US or any advanced nuclear capable country could sit off the coast and launch an nuclear attack from the sea. Limiting Irans response time to launch missiles. Effectively sending the country back to the middle ages. They know this so in my tactical opinion if they are determined to build these missiles for long range attack they are being built as first strike weapons as I would imagine certain assets are deployed to keep an eye on Iran.


From my point of view, I see things a bit differently. They are making missles that can hit the west, and also making nuclear warheads to put in them, to prevent a response.

Think of this situation...

Iran gives nukes o terrorists and they bomb Isreal, the US, Europe, etc.

Now, you can't really prove Iran provided them with the nukes, and since Iran now has retalitory ability, you can't really take any military action unless you want more nukes flying at you.

Irans goal is to be a nuclear power. Frankly, I would attempt the same thing if I were in their shoes with their values.


They should do themselves a favour and stay their hand as this course just gives fuel to military advisors to certain governments who would like to end the problem before it starts. But i believe that the top men in Iran and please note not the people of Iran have an agenda with the US which i believe they will carry through at any cost. Just look into the new presidents history with the US in the past for an insight.

To put it bluntly and debunk deny all you want Iran is building these missiles to hit the US end of.


Like I said, I see it as more of a deterence for an attack by them. If they make 5 nukes give them to terrorists, and blow 1 up in Isreal, 1 in NYC, 1 in LA, 1 in DC and 1 in London they will have more or less crippled the western world and Isreal, and the US in particular. Again, they have a legit nuke response that the west must consider while aso contimplating that they don't know for sure that Iran acively sponsered this.

Like I said, this is what I would do if I were Iran. I would BS the world as long as I coul and try to get nukes. Once I got them, I'd develop a missle system and then send warheads covertly into the US, Isreal, and other NATO/allied/western nations (UK/Europe, Australia...).

Of course this is all moot, as I have complete faith that the US will destroy Irans nuclear ability if it comes to it, and I have even mre faith in Isreals determination to keep Iran from becoming nuclear.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yip I agree that the US/NATO/Israel will not allow Iran to get to a point where they have the capability of nuclear attack. However with China/Russia heavily involved with Iran especially China things are getting complicated.

I would expect some kind of setback to Irans nuke program within a set timeframe, 3 months to a year as i would imagine Israel is being held at bay by pressure from the west as we speak.

The EU is pressurising Iran and this new deal with Russia is a little suspect to me. If Iran does not back down on this then...... well you can guess the rest.

Iran has cahoneys though especially with a sizeable western army already on its doorstep got to give them some cred for that, unless they have some kind of agreement with interested parties on mutual defence.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
As was said above I dont beleive that yet another war destabilising the region we get oil from even further is an answer at all. We will just get in even more trouble and have more attacks to bear. George Bush should of just attacked Iran in the first place instead of Iraq since Iraq posed no threat at all. The we would have the same problems with our troops stuck out there but at least a countrys nuclear capabilities would of gone too. Still theres not much we as people can do about it. Since when has George Bush listened to anybody? I cant remember.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Theres a sheriff in town big George and he aint taking no BS. Interesting waiting to see what hes going to do next. Understatement of the decade.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
***Shudders*****


It's like walking into a Neo-Con, back-slapping convention....

Always wanting War, aren't we, regardless of the excuse?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
And calling people Neo-con whats that about. If you can read you'd understand that. Easy to comment without commenting isn't it.

I'm not building long range missiles nobody posting here is (I hope), we are commenting on why Iran is. No but really we do want war, pencil it in for next tuesday would you old chap but not before lunch - tally ho.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
And calling people Neo-con whats that about. If you can read you'd understand that. Easy to comment without commenting isn't it.

I'm not building long range missiles nobody posting here is (I hope), we are commenting on why Iran is. No but really we do want war, pencil it in for next tuesday would you old chap but not before lunch - tally ho.


If you could read you'd understand what I meant


I open up a thread on Iran and nukes and what do we have? A bunch of "bomb Iran and their nasty nukes" cowboys who believe all they are fed by the media.

There is no evidence of a weapons programme in Iran. Even if they did have one, what makes you think they'd use them? They would be nuked into oblivion. Remember MAD?

Also, you do know that the branch of Islam that Iran follows is ideologically and fundementally different to all these terr'ists you guys fear so much, so why would they give them weapons?

That was the same situation with Iraq, but enough Americans still believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, even though the very idea of Saddam supporting OBL is against any intelligent thought.

Even if they did give a weapon to terr'ists, nuclear weapons are traceable, so they would suffer from the same MAD response as they would if they launched themselves.

The Iranians have had Chem/Bio weapons for decades that could kill far more than any nuke can, but so far, none have turned up in terr'ist hands, have they? Or do the Iranians have a "nuclear only" policy when handing out weapons to terr'ists?

Apply some simple bloody logic to the situation and stop with the testosterone fuelled, pro-war, blind patriot chest thumping.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

They would be nuked into oblivion. Remember MAD?


Iran is run by people that follow the same ideology as suicide bombers, they blow themselves up just to get a chance at killing one US GI, you think they care about MAD? If they are willing to die for one US soldier, millions of infidels would just be too irresistible.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Getting "intelligence" from Jack Straw or from any european should be carefully examined.

They didn't do to hot the last time around, remember?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Havnt the likes of the US and British governments heard of the boy who cried wolf to many times?
Assuming Iran is a geniune danger who will heed the warning after the Iraq debacle?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
They blatantly do want to acquire nucelar weapons. Its no secret. The UN said so here look at this news.bbc.co.uk... they want the weapons. They have also said they would pass the weapons onto other musilim arab countrys. These countries would then have no qalms about giving us a good kick in the balls. They dont think like western leaders do. They have far more balls then our leaders do and they are a proud people. No more cheap oil for us if they did get nukes. Plus I doubt China or Russia would be pleased about an ivasion of it. Since they both have deals with Iran for fuel. You wanna invade Iran then you are possibly looking at WW3. If not that then a bloody hard war anyway. Problem is if we cant inavade them what can we do? They could hold us to ransom any time they liked with nuclear weapons. What will we do? Nuke the area we get Oil from? I think not. We need to invest in alternate energy like clean coal or nuclear power stations as we cant rely on these regions any more. No disrespect to them at all but its such an unstable region. Things dont look good at any rate. The fact that it is said they want long range missle technology does sound much like the speech made to bolster support for war in the UK. So we are getting a touch peed off with it all. Our countrys just need to stop giving the arabs such a raw deal.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

They would be nuked into oblivion. Remember MAD?


Iran is run by people that follow the same ideology as suicide bombers, they blow themselves up just to get a chance at killing one US GI, you think they care about MAD? If they are willing to die for one US soldier, millions of infidels would just be too irresistible.


Westy, it would make no logical sense for them to do so. They would lose any hope of winning any war. Also, following on from your, now infamous, fuzzy logic, they have Chem/Bio weapons that can cause much more damage than any nuke they could have, why don't they use them?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Hunter of the ignorant


Well i'll tell you something stu i'd rather not wait and trust in those very nice and logical, peace loving people in charge of Iran to attack first. As stated please back up your comments with something solid not just your opinions. Laughingly I searched the net for positive Iranian comment and found very little, but then I can't read. LOL

What is your argument, MAD - only works if the people your up against are afraid of being destroyed, and guess what I don't think they are. Or are you a liberal. maybe you could sing Kumbia and stick flowers in the barrell of guns down Middle east way. Their is a guy who was all for peace an nice quiet english professor over 70 years of age, he tried to help the peace process in Iraq, now they are going to kill him.

Why do you think france,germany and the UK and other EU members are trying their utmost to stop Iran from processing? And if you want i'll get you a couple of links to the missile development, which if you have more than two brain cells you put one bit of the puzzle with the other bit and you get?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   


Maybe they need longer range missiles helloooo.


Their missiles have plenty of range on them. Not very well informed are you? The Shahab-3 has a range of over 2000 KM and can quite easily strike targets in Eastern Europe, let alone Israel.

Hellooooooo....




Well i'll tell you something stu i'd rather not wait and trust in those very nice and logical, peace loving people in charge of Iran to attack first.


So you'd rather have the nice, logical, peace loving people in charge of Israel or the US to attack first on baseless paranoid claims.

North Lorea was apparently some super-dooper threat when they publicly stated they wanted a bomb.

Now they have one.......Where's this iminent world-wide destruction that was claimed at the time?

Turns out that they wanted it for what they said they wanted it for. To stop the US from attempting some dumb-monkey ass regime change.

You seem to have some ill-founded notion that the leadership of Iran are suicide loving, martyrdom seeking Jihadists. I bet you think they sit round a cabinet meeting with suicide vests on?




As stated please back up your comments with something solid not just your opinions


The irony in that statement is laughable. Why don't you back your claims with some bloody evidence? The onus isn't on me to prove they don't have weapons, as even the IEAE can't find any, but rather it is on those that claim they DO



Laughingly I searched the net for positive Iranian comment and found very little, but then I can't read. LOL


What exactlty were you looking for. If ANY positive comment is being looked for then you probably didn't look much further than the FOX website, as there is plenty of "positive" info about Iran.



What is your argument, MAD - only works if the people your up against are afraid of being destroyed, and guess what I don't think they are


Hang on a minute...I thought a minute ago you blasted me for stating opinion, but in the very next paragraph, your using opinion to form an argument?


They're afraid of the US, which, if they are building a bomb, is what they want it for. Same as NK. The Soviets were a bigger threat and were not scared of taking casualties and MAD worked there. They may give it the talk, but they won't first strike anyone for the same reason they haven't with the tons of chem/bio weapons they already have.

But as far as any proof they are building anything, there is none.



Or are you a liberal. maybe you could sing Kumbia and stick flowers in the barrell of guns down Middle east way.


Oooh..Starting with the personal attacks? Suggest you stop right there sunshine, besides, your US political labelling doesn't apply here where things aren't quite so black and white and people have the ability to think for themselves.



Their is a guy who was all for peace an nice quiet english professor over 70 years of age, he tried to help the peace process in Iraq, now they are going to kill him.


Now, they are going to kill him on spying accusations, not because he is a peace activist. Iraq is also not Iran. Two completley different scenarios. Also, couldn't really care less about him, it's a war zone and the dozy idiot shouldn't have been there. Sorry to be harsh, but it's the truth.



Why do you think france,germany and the UK and other EU members are trying their utmost to stop Iran from processing?


I'll tell you why. It has several reasons.

Firstly, to prevent Iran from having the capability to build a bomb. Important word there. They can't even build one now.

Secondly, there's alot of money to be made from processing Irans fuel for them.

Thirdly, US pressure and a desire to "gone done blown things up" is driving the whole bloody show.



And if you want i'll get you a couple of links to the missile development, which if you have more than two brain cells you put one bit of the puzzle with the other bit and you get?


Again with the personal attacks. You are an insecure little fellow, aren't you?

I am well aware of their missile development. They also have a pretty advanced space programme, which goes hand in hand with the missile developement.

Missiles also a bomb do not make. The're several things that could be strapped to the front of a long range missile, only one if which is a nuclear warhead. It is conceivable that the missile developement goes hand in hand with their space programme...After all, the US and Russias did.

As stated, they have chemical and biological weapons and if they are so hell bent on killing everyone, they could have done so already.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Their missiles have plenty of range on them. Not very well informed are you? The Shahab-3 has a range of over 2000 KM and can quite easily strike targets in Eastern Europe, let alone Israel.


Yes but they cant reach the US can they? And if they attack our troops in the area with chemical weapons we have ways to defend against that, but a nuke, well that's a different animal altogether. A chem. suit and mask wont stop radiation.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Their missiles have plenty of range on them. Not very well informed are you? The Shahab-3 has a range of over 2000 KM and can quite easily strike targets in Eastern Europe, let alone Israel.


Yes but they cant reach the US can they? And if they attack our troops in the area with chemical weapons we have ways to defend against that, but a nuke, well that's a different animal altogether. A chem. suit and mask wont stop radiation.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



Point being that Irans supposed mortal enemy is Israel, who they can strike easily, yet they do not.

Besides, an NBC suit and mask will defend against Alpha and Beta radiation, which are the most dangerous.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join