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.

 

Does this mean Iran has ICBM capability?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Iran plans new satellite launch in late August: minister




Telecommunication Minister Reza Taghipour said on Wednesday that Iran is expected to launch a new satellite, Rasad 1, in the last week of August, the Mehr news agency reported. "Rasad 1 (Observation) satellite is expected to be launched into space on the back of a domestic carrier during the period marking the government week (last week of August)," Taghipour said. He said the launch would mark Iran's "newest achievement" in space technology.


I have read that when sputnik was launched the US was worried about the Russians having the capability to reach us with nukes.

so if Iran has the capability to launch satellites, does this transfer or relate to ICBM capability?

They do seem to have the resources to put spy sats in orbit...


The minister had previously said that during the current Iranian year to March 2011, new satellites capable of transmitting data and images would be launched.


www.spacedaily.com...

And I do understand they do not have the capability to make a warhead, much less shrink it down to a size they can lift into space.

But if I am not mistaken, doesn't this mean they can reach out and touch us?




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 




The America is the only nation in entire world used WMDs against the other nations by any means..!



Why are you so afraid of the Iranians space explorations..?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
In theory yes, but in all practicality no.

Just getting a satellite into space does not directly equate to military capability to deliver a warhead to any area globally.

Many other systems have to be in place to solve other problems.

Also satellites are in a stationary orbit path, and can only be changed with thrusters or whatever. This really puts limits on what it can do. And makes it super easy to shoot down.

The US military *(and about a dozen other nations globally) have somewhat sophisticated capabilities to shoot down enemy satellite systems.

Since Iran does not control outer space, even a long range ICBM would be ineffective. It would be shot down easily and never reach it's target.

What a nation like Iran really can use, is a suitcase nuke. Something they can sneak into the target location on foot, the most difficult way to interdict of all.

So suitcase nuke is my most likely scenario. It is the only thing they really have a chance in possibly using to any degree of success.

Also the suitcase nuke is difficult to trace it's origins. People would not know who to blame...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by amkia
 


Complete BS, Japan used massive amounts of biological warfare against China during the Second World War. Both the Allies and Central Powers used Chemical Warfare during the First World War. Please educate yourself before you shoot your mouth off.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by amkia
 


That's not true, unless you mean nuclear bombs are the only WMDs. Just saying........mustard gas used in WWI. Napalm use by the U.S. during the Viet Nam conflict. Just tossing out two examples.

Meanwhile, a satellite being launched is not necessarily a prelude to ICBM use. Other countries have launced satellites as well. Communication devices, atmospheric testing devices, cameras, mapping technologies are launched often. If I was in the upper echelons of the Iranian government, I'd like a satellite that can help me determine just what the hell is Israel up to.

It seems like Iran might be interested in space exploration. Maybe NASA should reach out to Iran and get them involved in finding a way to expand research in space, a trip to Mars, etc. Oh, wait, the NASA chief said that reaching out to Muslim countries was one of the main goals he was given to achieve.
blogs.abcnews.com...< br />
[edit on 7-7-2010 by kyred]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
this thread isnt about the u.s.a using horrible weapons in the past, it's about if iran may obtaining ICBM's....and yes if you can launch a "satellite into orbit, then you are pretty close to having an ICBM. russia and the us used this tactic of "space satellite development" to coverup the development of ICBM weaponry in the 50's and 60's. its a common tactic because the two are so closley related.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
That is the freaking problem... Russia and the US own almost 20,000 nuke war heads altogether in any form and sizes…!

On the other hand Iranian has said millions of time that their nuclear tech ambition is targeted for civilian sectors and benefits but the whole world gone crazy for (they might produce ..(ONE nuke war head) ..!??

Where the hell is your logic..?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by amkia
That is the freaking problem... Russia and the US own almost 20,000 nuke war heads altogether in any form and sizes…!

On the other hand Iranian has said millions of time that their nuclear tech ambition is targeted for civilian sectors and benefits but the whole world gone crazy for (they might produce ..(ONE nuke war head) ..!??

Where the hell is your logic..?


North Korea used to say the same thing. There's a thing called "lying" that governments do. And that ONE nuke warhead could kill millions of men, women, and children. That's no small deal to anyone with a heart or a brain.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by amkia
 


It's not what / how many you have, it's how you use them.
My family's originally from Hiroshima, I doubt anyone wants to see any unstable state or organisation with nukes and the will to use them.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by amkia
That is the freaking problem... Russia and the US own almost 20,000 nuke war heads altogether in any form and sizes…!

On the other hand Iranian has said millions of time that their nuclear tech ambition is targeted for civilian sectors and benefits but the whole world gone crazy for (they might produce ..(ONE nuke war head) ..!??

Where the hell is your logic..?


The problem is that they might use that one warhead to nuke Israel (probable) or to pop a cap in Iraq/Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia which would throw the entire Middle East into disarray. Oh yeah, there's the whole "Let's do it to bring the 12th Imam out of hiding" too. Additionally, you have terrorists with ties to Iran, so let's give them a nuke to detonate somewhere.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Modern ICBMs are not a missile with a nuclear warhead, they are much more sophisticated. For instance, they carry 6-12 MIRVS which are independent nuclear warheads that fall from space after the missile reaches orbit.

People who keep on claiming Iran has nuclear weapons and are intent on using them are nothing but fearmongerers who know nothing of what they talk about. If Iran has a nuclear bomb then they would only need one as long as they could bring it to the right target.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


SO YOU DON'T MIND, if a nuke flys over your backyard, aye.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


They need to master re-entry technology to get a fully fledged ICBM capability. They also need to hone the missile to reduce the CEP.
Lastly, all they can put on this missile is a conventional warhead.

They do not have the ability to create a nuclear weapon, moreover the size to fit the top of a small payload missile.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Are people really starting to believe all this "Evil Hellbent on Destruction Iran" propaganda?
Come on people, please, lets not do this again. Remember Iraq?
Iran is NOT going to nuke the US. Why the hell would they shoot off ONE ICBM when they know full well their entire country would get glassed into oblivion in retaliation?

The only reason they want a nuke is to discourage Israel from firing off nukes at them.

C'mon, use your heads, they are people too, not psycho comic book villians.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by Funk bunyip]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   


Are people really starting to believe all this "Evil Hellbent on Destruction Iran" propaganda? Come on people, please, let's not do this again. Remember Iraq? Iran is NOT going to nuke the US. Why the hell would they shoot off ONE ICBM when they know full well their entire country would get glassed into oblivion in retaliation C'mon, use your heads, they are people too, not psycho comic book villians.


I don't believe I advocated any attack on ANY country, against ANY country.

Russia and China have the capability to 'reach out and touch us'. Just stating that fact is not propaganda, it is just that, fact.

Does this mean Russia and China will nuke us? No, at least not now.

Does this mean I imply that Iran will launch an ICBM at the continental US?
No, I am just stating fact. It would be unwise to know if ANY country had the ability to launch an ICBM to your country.

I think the real, or perceived, threat from Iranian nukes would be as an unconventional weapon, not ballistic. (Since when did Nukes become conventional?)

But please don't misunderstand my post, I don't advocate war, read my sig.

Just trying to understand, my belief is they would have the capability to launch a 'bomb' if they can launch satellites. Its just a matter of targeting and launch physics. Not my strong subjects I'm afraid.

I am not saying anywhere in my post, anything about the US getting attacked, just the capability of the Iranian military.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


I'm sorry, my mini-rant wasn't specifically targeting your words, more the overall re-curring theme i see lately. Deja-vu. You cannot deny that Iran is increasingly being set-up as the new bad guy.



Does this mean I imply that Iran will launch an ICBM at the continental US? No, I am just stating fact. It would be unwise to know if ANY country had the ability to launch an ICBM to your country.


Why, so the US knows which countries it can and can't bully? NO-ONE will EVER fire an ICBM at US soil. It would be suicide. So why do they need to know, other than finding out who is weak enough to push around?

As you say though, a suitcase nuke or another type of unconventional weapon on the other hand is absolutely possible, as it could be set off without any one country having to take the blame.



I am not saying anywhere in my post, anything about the US getting attacked, just the capability of the Iranian military.

-


But if I am not mistaken, doesn't this mean they can reach out and touch us?


Oh, I'm sorry, i didn't realise you meant good touching

And it's a pretty linear thought progression from "capability" to "attack"

also, you may have missed my edit as you didn't quote it:



The only reason they want a nuke is to discourage Israel from firing off nukes at them.

..and i think that is perfectly justified considering Israel's ongoing aggresion in the region.

Again though, i do apologise if i am being confrontational, i am not targeting you, just the issue.

Peace




ed for spelling and added quote


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Funk bunyip]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Funk bunyip
 





The only reason they want a nuke is to discourage Israel from firing off nukes at them. ..and i think that is perfectly justified considering Israel's ongoing aggresion in the region.


An excellent point, I agree totally.

No offense was taken, just wanted to clarify my position, didn't want to be pegged as a 'warmonger'. I think we all in the US have had our fill.

But I do think it is important for us to know that if one day, Iran did threaten anyone, they actually had the capability. Not like NK, they got some rocket problems.

Not saying they would threaten us, but I like to know which neighbor is packing heat.

Peace back at ya!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 




Not saying they would threaten us, but I like to know which neighbor is packing heat.


Yeah, that's fair enough too


But i believe in this instance that Iran wants to launch the satellites for the same reason, they just want to be able to see what their rabid chihuahua neighbours, Israel are doing.

The US seriously has to cut the cord with Israel. They are like that one friend who always get into fights when you go out drinking.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


No. Iran does not have ICBM capability as of right now. Suppose they did, attacking America is the last thing they would do. Don't let Fox News scare you. Their hunt for a nuclear weapon doesn't directly translate as a threat to us. Its boiling down to Iran being untouchable by the neighboring countries.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6 reply to post by amkia[/url]
 
Complete BS, Japan used massive amounts of biological warfare against China during the Second World War. Both the Allies and Central Powers used Chemical Warfare during the First World War. Please educate yourself before you shoot your mouth off.


And may I suggest Sir, that it is YOU who needs to be educated. America is the only country in the world that has used the ultimate weapon of mass destruction when she bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Biological and Chemical weapons are not WMD's as defined by America prior to Gulf War I when Bush Snr told Saddam that if he [Saddam] used Biological or Chemical agents against the coalition forces, he would regard such an attack as being an attack with weapons of mass destruction and he [Bush] would respond with nuclear weapons!

For the record Sir, chemical weapons are, at their best, when used to bombard enemy fortified positions on the FEBA or just behind it, in order to exploit a conventional attack. V Nerve or Blood agents are particularly useful when combined with conventional artillery.

Biological agents on the other hand, have no use on the modern battlefield.
Period. No country in the world possesses sufficient artillery, missiles, bombs, mortars or whatever, to deliver sufficient viruses or pathogens to the battlefield area in sufficient quantities to cause casualties.

This continued American stance that Biological and Chemical agents are WMDs belies the truth behind their own strategy during the Viet Nam War when US forces continually used [by their own standards] WMDs against the peasants of the Viet Minh and the NVA soldiers.

Another thing strikes me with America and that's the terminology frequently used. When I was in the RAF and TA, I taught a suject called Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare or just plain old NBC.

Now, it's called CBRN and, as far as I can tell, Radiological is the same as Nuclear in which you still require some radioactive source before you can manufacture any nuclear device.

Why complicate an already complicated subject?

Sorry, I forgot to respond about Iran's intention to launch a ReconSat in to low earth orbit.

How can the launching of just one long range space rocket [if it works] be seen as the Harbinger of Doom for America?

Will you Americans please fall out of bed and wake up! NOW! Go and get a shower, have some breakfast and make your way to the nearest P-Shrink.

Lie down on his [or her] couch and tell us all about your paranoya, that everybody is out to get you. They aren't!

Just get over yourselves and remember that if you continue to act the bully in the playground, sooner or later, somebody will give you a bloody nose!

But seriously - Iran............................................?

[edit on 03/07/10 by fritz]




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join