It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Iran Announces Development of Ballistic Missile Technology

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:11 PM
Iran Announces Development of Ballistic Missile Technology

Days after an agreement that the US made that frightened the MIddle East Iran has made a declaration that they have ballistic missile technology at hand. If they are not intent on creating nuclear payloads then why have the technology? What else do we need on the world stage to show they are serious about nuclear weapons?

ran’s claim to ballistic missiles would be a major development for a country known to use its military machinery as a means of intimidating its regional neighbors.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Iran’s ballistic missile announcement is no surprise.

“Iran’s ballistic missile program has always been to provide the delivery vehicles nor nuclear warheads,” Bolton said. “The timing of the IRGC announcement is no coincidence.”

As Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other officials celebrate the recently announced nuclear accord, Tehran’s military leaders have adopted a harsh line on the West.

Another IRGC leader said on Tuesday that Americans only understand “the language of force.”

The US only understands force...force folks. So, how many still want to believe that Iran is after nuclear technology to power homes?

“The fact of the matter is that Kerry and crew left both ballistic missiles and the nuclear warhead trigger experimentation at Parchin [military site] off-the-table” during talks in Geneva, Rubin said. “It’s the diplomatic equivalent of installing a burglar alarm system in your house but leaving the keys in the door.”


Remove sanctions and a few days later an announcement like this. Where are the balls in the US foriegn policy anymore?

This is also a nice link to them continuing effort to refine when telling us they are not.

edit on 11pm30pmf0000002013-11-27T13:12:53-06:000153 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)

edit on 11pm30pmfu2013-11-27T13:14:01-06:000101 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:15 PM
Chemical weapons can be the payload of ballistic missiles too you know and are possible more scary.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

Calm down. It isn't just for nuclear weapons.

A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

You're barking up the wrong tree. This is exactly like pre-WWII Europe/America. They won't believe that Iran wants and will use nukes until there is an actual mushroom cloud somewhere.

Obama is the age's Neville Chamerlain.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:24 PM
From the link here it says that they are not the same as nuclear ICBMs.

It is not thought to have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon, but Iran has stockpiled a range of short and medium-range missiles.

The official Irna news agency said the upgrade included quicker launching, a longer life and use in poor weather conditions

So Iran already had these missiles, they just upgraded them, supposedly.. I can't say what they intend to do with the stockpiled missiles, if anything.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:29 PM
You realize they don't need to announce this how short is your memory of Iran firing a monkey into space as well as other organics, this is old news. But new to the fear mongers who don't feel that a country should have all capabilities available when dealing with terrorist Isreal next to them, itching to light up the middle east with there illegal nuclear weapons.

Whats a good deterrent for one is equally good for the other, besides most of there weaponry already has the capability to inflict massive damage even with conventional delivery systems. So this is more in my opinion a see we can do it too now STFU type bravado statement.

Still no threat as Iran hasn't and doesn't have plans to attack anyone unless in a retaliatory stance as they have stated over and over, so pretty sure anyone parroting there destruction is just going to have to wait.


posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

Can someone remind me, why is it bad if Iran has weapons, nuclear or otherwise?

Unlike the US, its not as though they've used chemical and nuclear weapons on civilian populations, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, Agent Orange, Napalm etc.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

Now substitute "Iran" with any other nuclear nation name and see if the rational still makes sense...

The only issue would be because Iran is a theocracy. Now if we shift the discussion of why being a theocracy is more dangerous than having a democratic elected president that thinks he talks to god (Bush) or that as a theocracy they are more willing to be moral corrupt (that does not compute to me, even if I see problems with that particular religion they dispensary if I contrast it with any other).

If anything Iran has a "good" record, it did not retaliate against Iraq with chemical weapons (those that have been provided by the West to CIA Saddam), and I think that a theocracy would have a harder time explaining how it is OK to destroy its God's creations and survive the break with its religious dogma it would imply. It easy to kill off a few political decenter in secret but it is harder to use a WMD in secret (especially a nuclear one, that can be easily traced).

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

For as long as there are resources and there are smart people living in Iran the technology will advance and soon Iranians as well could make almost everything big powers manufacture.So the world should grow up,get used to the idea and stop whining and fear mongering because this is quiet frankly not even funny anymore...Not that it ever was anyways.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:00 PM
Next up for the club if not already members will be Saudi Arabia and Japan.

What's in a name? Nuclear NON-PROLIFERATION Treaty. Iran as a signatory has agreed to an inspection regime predicated upon stopping diversion of resources to military use - the continued violations of the inspection regime are what the problem is and has been.

NK showed the way on this with its so-called peaceful use of nuclear power and its violations of the inspection regime.

Its well documented that the Iranians have done implosion experiments as well as trigger device experiments well in hand with a military program to develop nuclear warheads - many keep insisting on Iran only having a civilian program and I wonder when heads will come out of the sand.

The entire idea of non proliferation was to keep from getting into a situation where the spread on nuclear weapons become rampant as country after country justifies the need based upon a rival having them.

Its bad enough the countries that do have them have provably come accidentally close to using them by mistake.

Allowing more and more nations the ability is just upping the odds of an open nuclear conflict in near future.

Ballistic missile go hand in hand with nuclear warheads as a means of delivery. While I am not worried about a direct missile attack where I live due the response were one or more fired from national territory of another country I do worry what happen when the inventory is such that national defense needs were met and a surplus was arrived at.

Yes Iran has not directly attacked anyone in modern times, they have proxies for that job, its those proxies delivering a warhead that I worry over.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:07 PM
Sure looks like Iran is playing Obama for sucker, putting this news out right after the agreement.

Good job Iran.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:10 PM
Is this really a surprise to anyone? I mean, Iran has sent a rocket into space. Unless you have been living under a rock since 2009, this is not news to anyone.

And good for Iran. Americans want the government out of their personal business...guess what? Sovereign nations wish for the same.
edit on 27-11-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:15 PM
What laws are they breaking? Iran has every right to develop weapons for their defense. Yes they give weapons away the same way as America, Israel and Saudi Arabia does.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:22 PM
Honestly it's a smart move as they will just end up nuking themselves, lol.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:43 PM
have you seen it looks pretty badass...

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:49 PM
This is not about fear mongering. Why is it always about that???

This is about the fact that there was just a BS agreement about nuclear enrichment and a few days later they are discussing technology that could be used for what the argument was about and that is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

No one should have them so if there is a country trying to join the rest it should NOT be allowed. Not just Iran.

No one is living under a rock except maybe those who brokered a deal with a regime that is holding an American priest still hostage for no good reason. None.

I am suprised so many of you are ok with Iran developing WMD's and if you think they are not then, well, there is nothing else to say.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:54 PM
Let's see, there are Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Medium Range Ballistic Missiles, Theater Ballistic Missiles, Long Range Ballistic Missiles, and the well known ICBM. All ballistic missiles, not all capable of a nuclear payload.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:57 PM
Say thank you China.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

No proof they are developing nukes. I still don't believe they are. The first line of that article describes Israel far better than Iran. Ballistic missiles aren't solely used for nukes (it doesn't say ICBMs), but could simply be to expand range. They know that Israel is getting close to attacking them so they are puffing up a bit.

If you were running a country and you knew one of your neighbors was determined to attack you, wouldn't you do the same?
They have been allegedly 6 months from a nuke for 10 years. Why do you buy into the media's version of these events? Their implications. When you know that Israel and to an extent the US, have been hard after Iran for years. How many countries in the mideast have to fall before you realize this isn't about protecting us or Israel?

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by matafuchs

Good thing Kerry and 0bama are pushing hard for less sanctions.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in