Iran Developing Long-Range Missiles

I'm worried about longer range missiles hitting the US not europe.

Their enemy is the great satanic US of A and Israel, prob us as well. You stick to your anti-western arguments, I'll stick to my pro-western. You can't argue with someone with a closed mind. If it looks like chicken, smells like chicken guess what its chicken. So stick a few quote boxes up, makes your arguments look good at least (Well for a liberal anyway or are you monster raving looney party?).

On a serious note, why does a country like Iran need long range missiles?

If they can hit their enemies with the ones they have (I did know that) whats the point, surely you can see this is just taking things to a new and more dangerous level.

Should we not bother let them get on with it and trust them not to do something stupid?

It is totally irrelevant what you or I think, its the people in charge of the bombs and their political masters that count. If they get nervous in the US, I do believe they will do something about it and then explain later. I can only imagine the amount of wargame scenarios being played out in the pentagon on this subject. And that if it happens can only be bad for the rest of us.

Well cant wait for your witty reply, later.

they wouldnt strike them now. If they had an assurance the west couldnt do much maybe they would. That assurance being a Nuke. Bit of a bad way to look at it I know. Still Israel has nukes and I think they would blow up Iran before the U.S or UK would. Still I dont think nuking that area would be fruitful

Iran has been taking agro' from the US and co ever since 1953, I see this as an detterent to any future violations into Iranian affairs.

If Iran is able to hit US/Europe it can lower the chances of an pre-emptive strike from the West.
Does that makes any sense to you warmongers out there? Jeez.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by shire19]

mod edit: censor circumvention.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by sanctum]

Originally posted by stumason
They would be nuked into oblivion. Remember MAD?

It wouldnt be MAD but only Irans destrution. MAD is for equalls and their is no group that equalls the US currently.

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?

You also know that Iran was formed by the hate of its people against the West, they regularly hold meetings and " Hate America" days. In the end they all are muslims, OBL will play that card for sure and say that since the Iraqis cant defeat the US it is Iran's religious duty to help Iraq's muslims in every way possible. Also the Iranian mullah's hate America more than the Iraqis, their hatered for the West is a sort of common thread that holds their nation together and with this carzy president who is sure to say something stupid enough to provoke washington, I dont think that it is such a remote possibility.

That was the same situation with Iraq, but enough Americans still believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11,

You mistake the demographic present on ATS to represent the overall US demographic's intelligence. I agree that their are some who believe that but they are very few and very ignorant of Iraq's role in 9/11.

Even if they did give a weapon to terr'ists, nuclear weapons are traceable,

Traceability depends on how much we know about the various Iranian nuclear plants and their methods. Not knowing enough will not give any credible evidence as to where the bomb is from.

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?

Some reasons might be that Chemical and Biological weapons are difficult and dangerous to use or store and requires a level of expertise to operate that the terrorists just dont have. Also their might never have been the need for such drastic measures as the US was always far away and with our presence in Iraq they might feel otherwise.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod

On a serious note, why does a country like Iran need long range missiles?
If they can hit their enemies with the ones they have (I did know that) whats the point,

Iran might want to posses long range missiles to get heard more and taken more seriously as a "player" in the international scene, with nations like China, India,Pakistan etc building militarily they expect to follow them and acheive what they have.[well Pakistan hasnt acheived much!]
I think also that the Israelies have made them jittery and they want to be sure that even if the US directly supports them they can take out the US support forces or atleast make the threat to do so.
About the range of their long range missiles, I seriously doubt that they can go past the Uk let alone hit the US. To hit the US from where they are, the missile would have to circle the globe before it reaches its target and with todays anti-missile tech that the US possess such a feat would be difficult for even the Russians forget the Iranians.
This whole thing about long range missiles is like giving the crazy kid a stick, even if its made of foam its still a stick and he may still try to get you.

Originally posted by shire19
Iran has been taking agro' from the US and co ever since 1953, I see this as an detterent to any future violations into Iranian affairs.

That is highly immpossible, all this brings is more attention that Iran doesnt need. They have no credibility and no support, any recklessness now will be only detrimental to their survival.
The US should have finished off Iran when they attacked the US embassy in Tehran, set up the shah of Iran and then the whole situation in the middle east would have been a non issue. Islam might actually have benifited but that was not ment to be.

If Iran is able to hit US/Europe it can lower the chances of an pre-emptive strike from the West.
Does that makes any sense to you warmongers out there? Jeez.

NOT AT ALL, take N.Korea just because the chinese gave them the tech and instigate them to issue threats doesnt mean that the US has laid off. In fact they have made it much more difficult now for the North Koreans than before, the US has issued more threats and may eventually just take the North if they can find a recognisable resistence movement in the North.
If Iran is able to hit the US, which is highly unlikely, the US would cerainly be interested and unlike the N.Korean Chinese backing the Iranians have no " Big Brother" to help them out. Also it would be easier to convince the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish etc to join against the Iranians and any action agaisnt Iran would be by them because they are affected directly.
As for attacking Iran, the best and most effecient way to take it would be a rapid blitz through the Caspian Sea from the Ukraine, something like Normandy without the casualies and air & naval attacks from the south. Most of Iran's assets are in the Northern half and thats where any strike should take place rather than going through the desert like the iranian did with Iraq.
But thats just my opinion, the ppl in DC have to decide and the world has to agree, atleast the Europeans have to, to close this violent chapter of the middle east.

mod edit: quote

[edit on 4-12-2005 by sanctum]

ACtually Iran has energy deals with Russia and China and they bothe wouldnt exactly be pleased of the U.S giving Iran a kicking and then gettin the oil for itself. Which is exactly they way they would see it.

If Iran discontinued its attempt to build bigger missiles and improved relations with the US. I believe that possible solutions could be found to the middle east 'problem'.

If Iran continues building larger missiles it will be 'hit' pre emptively by nervous onlookers. Someone in one of the threads earlier mentioned the fact that Iraq was rumoured to have WMD and look what happened their. Do not be lulled into a believe that the US/EU/Israel will not do the same to Iran if they believe WMD are about to be deployed.

Just look at history same things happen over and over again.

I'm worried about longer range missiles hitting the US not europe.

Personally, I would rather worry about them hitting us than the States, but whatever floats your boat. Them hitting anyone would be a bad thing, but so would starting a war for no reason at all.

(I am getting a strange feeling of deja vu here, Iraq anyone?)

Their enemy is the great satanic US of A and Israel, prob us as well. You stick to your anti-western arguments, I'll stick to my pro-western.

Typical kneejerk response from someone who can't debate like an adult. Anti-Western? Where the fudge did you get that from?

Anti-War-for-no-good-reason, yes....Not anti-western. What is anti-western? Not agreeing with every shoddy line we're fed about our latest enemy?

You can't argue with someone with a closed mind

I think you'll find me most open-minded and willing to look at the facts. However, I'm not about to join the "Bomb Iran" campaign merely because Bush says they have "WMD"...again...

If it looks like chicken, smells like chicken guess what its chicken.

Could be Quorn......... , sorry, couldn't resist

So stick a few quote boxes up, makes your arguments look good at least

I will . My arguments are good, it's your that lack any substance, apart from repeating the same, tired old rhetoric that gets churned out of the White house and Number 10.

Lets repeat for arguments sake, there is NO proof that Iran is building nukes and after the last debacle, ie Iraq, I am inclined to want something a bit better than unsubstantiated "intelligence" this time round.

If they are building Nukes, then by all means, do what needs to be done, but at the moment, they are completley within the NPT, so we have no right to demand they stop enrichment, or anything else. Merely saying they can't be trusted as they are "nasty muslims" is not going to cut it this time round.

(Well for a liberal anyway or are you monster raving looney party

Are you really Scottish, or are you an immigrant for the "land of the free"? I ask this, as no-one I know in the UK would allign themselves under a liberal banner or any other. Surely you are not that naive that you cubby hole yourself and everyone else into these nice fitting little brackets?

"Liberal"..what does that even mean?

From what I understand of the word from US politics, I wouldn't call myself one of those, except on a few key areas of policy, ie: Drug Reform and Social Welfare.

Apart from that, My views can vary quite wildly, mostly hinting towards the right, which would make me a conservative, wouldn't it?

Bah, labels...only for the foolish.

On a serious note, why does a country like Iran need long range missiles?

Why not? What do you mean, a country like Irans? Why do WE need long range missiles? Why does anyone?

If they can hit their enemies with the ones they have (I did know that) whats the point, surely you can see this is just taking things to a new and more dangerous level.

IF they are building nukes, then they are probably copying North Korea. It is a detterant to fend off any US aggression that would be coming their way if they were weak. You know America only attacks third world countries, right ?

Should we not bother let them get on with it and trust them not to do something stupid?

IF they are building nukes and can be proven, then by all means, do something about it. There is no point however punishing a country, it's people and the regional stability by sanctioning them, or worse, attacking them for no real reasons. It will only breed further hate and make matters a whole lot worse.

It is totally irrelevant what you or I think, its the people in charge of the bombs and their political masters that count. If they get nervous in the US, I do believe they will do something about it and then explain later. I can only imagine the amount of wargame scenarios being played out in the pentagon on this subject. And that if it happens can only be bad for the rest of us.

Agreed ...As always, it's the little people who end up paying for the follys of our masters, who are nicely tucked away in their bunkers.

Well cant wait for your witty reply, later.

I hope I have satisified

[edit on 7/12/05 by stumason]

[edit on 7/12/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.




In the same way that the U.S doesn't have a peaceful nuclear prong.

... In fact it's frightening to think of a country like the U.S being let loose with the weapons... headed by the biggest madman walking the planet.

Nevermind Iran. Look a bit closer to home.

Looking at the general 'opinion' of members of the IAEA not myself their is a growing concern that Iran is going down that road.

'many board IAEA members are concerned about Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion - a precursor to enrichment. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.'

They have the plans to build one.

newswww.bbc.net.uk...

And as others have mentioned its the Long range missile development that is the problem. Could they not use chemical or biological agents in a missile or do they not have them either.

My point for the slow of learning is once again IF Iran have the capability to hit the USA with missiles this would make a first strike option look like a very good idea to those in washington. Where is the flawed logic in this.


The EU is not seen by Iran as a threat 'well maybe the UK.' my point in saying this is an attack on any NATO country is an attack on NATO so America is brought in anyway and vice versa. Why give yourself the grief.

Maybe if Mr Bush was as liberal minded as some contributors to this thread Iran might be trusted to use its nuclear capability for electricity production only.



And its long range missiles for purely defensive purposes. Never even thinking of combining the two to make a deadly weapon.

Yeh and pigs might fly

Repeating the same tired, old viewpoint their, Munro.

You are making the ASSUMPTION, based on nothing less than a racist view of Muslims/Iranians/the nasty middle easterners, assuming they want nothing other than death.

By spouting this, you ignore the fact Iran is a fast growing, developing nation with alot to gain from peace, but nothing from war.

They're also not as stupid as some think they are (and as some act), as it would serve no strategic purpose other than detterance, that is assuming they want the bloody things anyway.

Iran would not use it's WMD for a first strike option, as they haven't so far with their Bio/Chem weapons.

Albeit, they might be more difficult to deploy, but they've had them for over 2 decades and considering the amount of effort you guys are saying their putting into their "nuclear" programme, you'd think they'd have done this with the Chem/Bio weapons too.

A first strike by them would serve no purpose other than to get Iran annihalated. However, if they had them and kept them close to thier chest for "detterance", they would be safe in the knowledge they would not get "regime changed" the next time some cowboy is in charge at the White House. That is assuming they want them anyway.

Fact is, Iran has a right to a full nuclear fuel cycle under the NPT. If we are not happy with the terms of the NPT, then we shouldn't have signed it or stipulated clauses in their for protection. As it stands, they have not broken the NPT and are fully within their rights to have a full nuclear cycle.

No if's, but's or maybe's, that is what they signed and what we signed. Deal with it.

Like I said, if some sort of proof came out, be it either them expelling the IEAE (ala Saddam) or otherwise being shifty, obtrusive or possibly some James Bond type sneaks out of Iran from capture, but after he is made to suffer some monologue by the Ayatollah on how he is going to blow up the world unless they pay him "1 billion dollars", then we should do something.

Until then, we can't do Jack, not unless we want to enrage the ME, piss off 1 billion people and possibly plung ourselves into a wider regional war with Iran which would fiond a hard time winning.

This is the problem with some people today. They fail to see the bigger picture and the consequences actions have in the real world. I for one do not want to wake up one day and find we are at war, or worse, having some draft papers come through my door asking me to fight, for what is, quite honestly, an unproven claim by a US admin which is known to lie.

All I say is Prove It, I will gladly join you then. Until then, Iran has done nothing wrong.

We already have kind of pissed off everybody with Iraq why not Iran. I'm not saying that the Iranians are mad enough to first strike, again just that it will make the US military nervous and who knows what might happen then.

Almost enjoyed your last post thats worrying.

Originally posted by stumason

Anti-Western? Where the fudge did you get that from?

Perhaps he reads your posts.............

I'm not about to join the "Bomb Iran" campaign merely because Bush says they have "WMD"...again...

My arguments are good, it's your that lack any substance, apart from repeating the same, tired old rhetoric that gets churned out of the White house and Number 10.

Sort of like a Neville Chamberlain/Arthur Scargill Chimera.

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]