Iran Tested New Missile During Summit

[skunkworks]

Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.

Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.

The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow, said the TV channel.

According to the report, the new missile is an improvement on the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, giving it a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not specified whether it had actually been tested.
RELATED

According to the country's IRNA news agency, Najjar said the missile was named the "Ashoura," meaning "the tenth day" in Farsi - a sacred reference among Shi'ite Muslims to the martyrdom of the third imam.

The Iranian defense minister said that "the production of the new missile was one of the Defense Ministry's greatest achievements."

Analysts believe much of Iran's military production has benefited from assistance from Russia, China and other countries, but many of their weapons development claims have not been independently verified.

Recent weapons development has been motivated by Iran's standoff with the US over its controversial nuclear program.

The Shihab-3, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, has a range of at least 1,300 kilometers.

In 2005, Iranian officials said they had improved the range of the Shihab-3 to 2,000 kilometers, a range equal to that of the new missile reported Wednesday.

Experts also believe Iran is developing the Shihab-4 missile, thought to have a range between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometers that would enable it to hit much of Europe.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3883/satellitear6.jpg

Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847322495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Altron]

Europe now seems to be a more feasible target to Iran's new missile than the continental US since it does not have the range capabilities to hit our mainland. :awesome

[AbnormallyNormal]

whatever who cares... iran already had missiles that were basically the same

[Tleilaxu]

And people wonder why the US believes that Iran should not have access to advanced computers. Also disputing a missile system that could nullify this threat.

[That NOS Guy]

And people wonder why the US believes that Iran should not have access to advanced computers. Also disputing a missile system that could nullify this threat.

You don't need advanced computers to build solid fuel IRBMs (or ICBMs for that matter). The tech was figured out in the late 1950s for christ sake.

[Brokensharingan]

ok the time has come, lets blow these guys up or simply lock of their country so they starve to death, then we get the oil =) Ah the Bush approach is all fun

[RoomBurnerZ]

Iran 4 lyfe :vegetant

[~ Son of SPARDA ~]

Great, as if North Korea wasn't enough, now we have Iran to worry about...

[Sirah]

well the usa got wapons too, why isnt anyone worried about them? :pek

[Coteaz]

The fact that America is worrying about Iran having 50's-era tech is sad. We aren't the Global Police, people.

ok the time has come, lets blow these guys up or simply lock of their country so they starve to death, then we get the oil =) Ah the Bush approach is all fun:facepalm
Bush cavalier tactics have certainly served America well in the past, eh?

[Sky is Over]

well the usa got wapons too, why isnt anyone worried about them? :pek

Because we won't fire them unless fired upon, all part of DEFCOM.

We aren't the Global Police, people.

Then who should be?

[Sirah]

The fact that America is worrying about Iran having 50's-era tech is sad. We aren't the Global Police, people.

*reps*

i agree totally on this :awesome

EDIT:

Then who should be?

atlast not the usa, becuse they cant do the jobb, look at what they allready did -.-

[Springlake]

Exactly Sirah, and what about ol' good Russia that got enough nukes to nuke the whole planet into oblivion like 200-300 times over? :pek OR any other nation with nukes? :arg

[Coteaz]

Then who should be?
Ideally, the United Nations. That is, if anyone listened to it.

[Raiden]

well the usa got wapons too, why isnt anyone worried about them? :pek

The US has a solid government that though has many members believing in Christ, tries to omit religious decisions as much as possible. People are concerned about Iran's development becuase the country is religiously driven and could end up doing massive damage to Irsrael.

Along with that, who's to say another Iranian revolution won't happen? Imagine if such advanced and destructive technology were to get into the wrong hands, the entire world would be a battleground.

[Sky is Over]

atlast not the usa, becuse they cant do the jobb, look at what they allready did -.-

I didn't ask who it shouldn't be, but who it should be. -_-

Ideally, the United Nations. That is, if anyone listened to it.

The U.S.A. is the U.N. in a sense. :zaru

[Sirah]

I didn't ask who it shouldn't be, but who it should be. -_-


Norway :LOS














Or Russia :zaru

[Trov]

well the usa got wapons too, why isnt anyone worried about them? :pek
Because we aren't in an unstable region and our leader isn't a holocaust denier that wishes Israel had a "regime change"
Atleast our president just wants to get rid of one person, not a whole country.

The fact that America is worrying about Iran having 50's-era tech is sad. We aren't the Global Police, people.

We are looking out for our ally(Israel). We want Iran to know we have Israel's back. This isn't some instance where The U.S. stuck it's nose in something, we would just be shitty allies if we didn't.


atlast not the usa, becuse they cant do the jobb, look at what they allready did -.-
Every other country would do the same.

Ideally, the United Nations. That is, if anyone listened to it.
Ah, the UN... I'll reserve my comments.

[Coteaz]

The U.S.A. is the U.N. in a sense. :zaru
Just like Russia, China, Great Britain, and France are all "the U.N. in a sense." At least, they're permanent Security Council members.

We are looking out for our ally(Israel). We want Iran to know we have Israel's back. This isn't some instance where The U.S. stuck it's nose in something, we would just be shitty allies if we didn't.
True. This does, however, sum up the main problem I have with countries in general - they divide humanity and pit us against one another. Of course, the same can go for any group or religion...but eh.

[Sky is Over]

Norway :LOS














Or Russia :zaru


and why either of those countries?

Just like Russia, China, Great Britain, and France are all "the U.N. in a sense." At least, they're permanent Security Council members.

Yeah, but the U.S. has shown really to be the only one that can get the countries to really join together against a military threat (looking back at Korea and Desert Storm.)

[Sirah]

and why either of those countries?

i dont know :LOS

everything is better then the usa

[Sky is Over]

i dont know :LOS

everything is better then the usa

Why even talk, open your mouth for that matter? :zaru

[Sirah]

Why even talk, open your mouth for that matter? :zaru

i can do what ever i want becuse im a n00b :LOS

[Coteaz]

i can do what ever i want becuse im a n00b :LOS
Ah, ignorance is bliss...:LOS

Yeah, but the U.S. has shown really to be the only one that can get the countries to really join together against a military threat (looking back at Korea and Desert Storm.)
Korea was the proving ground for the United States' Containment policy against Communism. And seeing as how most of (pro-West) Europe was being aided by the U.S...:awesome

Point is, it is only due to the U.S.'s lone superpower status that we are able to coerce nations against "threats."

[Sky is Over]

i can do what ever i want becuse im a n00b :LOS

But noobs that don't act intelligent or screw around don't last long here. :tbh

[Sirah]

But noobs that don't act intelligent or screw around don't last long here. :tbh

i did alot of crazy stuff and im still not banned :zaru

[Sky is Over]

i did alot of crazy stuff and im still not banned :zaru

Do you think you're invincible from that possibly happening? :zaru

[That NOS Guy]

Do you think you're invincible from that possibly happening? :zaru

Of course, they have a spawn invulnerability for a period of time, remember?


Korea was the proving ground for the United States' Containment policy against Communism. And seeing as how most of (pro-West) Europe was being aided by the U.S...:awesome

Point is, it is only due to the U.S.'s lone superpower status that we are able to coerce nations against "threats."

It's interesting to note that the coalition against Iraq was pretty much formed for Gulf War I was formed before the fall of the Soviet Union, rather then after. Meaning, the US was not the lone super-power at the time.

[Coteaz]

It's interesting to note that the coalition against Iraq was pretty much formed for Gulf War I was formed before the fall of the Soviet Union, rather then after. Meaning, the US was not the lone super-power at the time.
The fact remains that the U.S. was still a superpower, lone or not. I am not trying to disprove the fact that America holds immense power and influence, simply that we are not the "savior of the world", so to say.

[That NOS Guy]

The fact remains that the U.S. was still a superpower, lone or not. I am not trying to disprove the fact that America holds immense power and influence, simply that we are not the "savior of the world", so to say.

Well, to be fair, the first coalition didn't revolve around coersion as it was built around a general and geniune international consencious, unlike round II.

That said, it always takes someone with immense power and influence to weld together grand allainces against a foe, even when it seems glaringly obvious. This has usually always been the case. In fact, the idea that smaller states will group around a more powerful one is the basis for the idea of maximal realism.

America certaintly isn't a saviour, and shouldn't believe itself to be one. Nations that develop messanic ideals tend to make things worse for everybody in the end. That said, we are the world police, a role that has been played for at least the past century. Being a cop is different then being a saviour, food for thought.

[Sirah]

Do you think you're invincible from that possibly happening? :zaru

yeah i kinda think im god :zaru
or atlast jesus

[Sky is Over]

yeah i kinda think im god :zaru
or atlast jesus

hmmm, maybe I should have toby talk something over with you...

[BandGeekNinja]

:oh whoop-de do? they're just trying to intimidate us that's all, we have bigger, badder, and meaner weapons of mass destruction then the Iranis will ever have...


does that sound a little like bush?

[Toby]

I wonder if people are trying to imply that we shouldn't be allowed to test missiles whilst a peace conference is going on. Where do we draw the line then? When people hold a conference about global warming, surely the emissions of the missile pollute too? So how about just looking that the right of Iran as a sovereign nation to test its missiles whenever it pleases, and try to understand why it does so on that date. For all we know, it can actually have been a coincidence.

Perhaps not likely, you may say, but what do you expect Iran to say if the US said it was an aggressor's act?

The fear which is being spread now about an Iranian nuclear arms program extends into the actual construction of a nuclear warhead. That is how sad this situation is, people. Some of us think this actually means something.

Well, it doesn't. What is actually a good reason to be afraid of is if the nation makes progress in producing the nuclear material necessary for arming such a warhead. And even that can take anything from year 2009 and beyond, perhaps even to 2013 to accomplish. Got it? Iran is currently spinning its centrifuges at Natanz to produce low-grade uranium. That must be spun again and again and (guess what) again until it is ready for being used in a nuclear warhead.

So progress made in ballistics missiles can surely be a minor threat. What is a threat to the US is only an intercontinental ballistics missile, and that wasn't what the Iranians were testing.

So don't fret yet.

And people wonder why the US believes that Iran should not have access to advanced computers. Also disputing a missile system that could nullify this threat.

The missile system which is now unearthing unnecessary disagreements over international security between the US and Russia. You ought to be more careful with those comments, because as I have mentioned earlier Russia is a threat to several nations. Just because it doesn't pose a threat to US soil doesn't mean it poses a threat to the ideals and the work which the US has done over the years of establishing spheres of influence in Europe and the Middle East, amongst other places.

well the usa got wapons too, why isnt anyone worried about them? :pek

Because the US has a political face and an economic body which is international. Iran doesn't. Its most distant trade partner is China, and it hardly complains like the US when 40% of its oil import is from Iran.

Because we won't fire them unless fired upon, all part of DEFCOM.

Then who should be?
Ideally, the United Nations. That is, if anyone listened to it.

Exactly, the United Nations. Problem is, Iran is in defiance of the Security Council rulings and resolutions demanding it ceases to spin the centrifuges at Natanz. Making their objection an argument of national sovereignty versus international interventionism is their core case of defence, and it is a very well
picked one since the US claims that its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to protect its own borders as well as others.

On these grounds, it is up to the UN Legal Committee to have a proper discussion about the topic. But with the recent NIE report which came out, the problem is that the US spies provided the Americans with new intelligence that makes their case of suspicion and dubiousness a lot weaker. They can't go the international court either for the same reason, and this is really bad both because the body is internationally recognised, which would work as a depressor on the world community's feelings about the US - but this shall never come to pass under a US administration where the head of state does not recognise the international courts.

Meaning, the US can keep forcing the UN Security Council to procure new resolutions about sanctions, but they will be weaker due to the newly acquired information. I feel the sanctions must go on still, but not that Iran should be let off after a while. Just because they ceased to continue the '03 programme doesn't mean they are done with it. The International Atomic Energy Agency must be given clearance to investigate all of Natanz and due time to do so or the Iranian case of national sovereignty will be just as much of a mockery of international law as the US's seemingly baseless accusations of fear.

Option 2: Dissolve the UN and fight it out as World War III. Maybe after this one we'd learn to stop fucking ignore treaties and laws for the sake of political dominance.

[Kira]

Big deal. Many other countries have tested way more powerful missiles. Of course, there'll be talk about war now. World War 3 seems to be getting closer and closer:facepalm.

[Toby]

;12532130']Big deal. Many other countries have tested way more powerful missiles. Of course, there'll be talk about war now. World War 3 seems to be getting closer and closer:facepalm.

Well, actually, Bush has now little carpet to roll out a war on, so he won't weave that into his last story of his presidency. I think his disappointment at Annapolis will be the main focus for him now, since his representatives in Iraq have already stated that Iran's cooperation is necessary. By toning down the war-talk and simply pressuring Iran to be a more accountable nation to the UN, he can perhaps say that as a show of good will the Iranians ought to contribute towards finding a new solution with the old Road Map and a Two-State solution for the Israel/Palestine problem.

Ahmedinejahd will of course look like a tater when he refuses to do this, and then we start all over again with the sour relations between the two countries. I fear that this is bound to happen regardless of which party gets presidency next year.

[Dr.Majestic]

:facepalm why do we even bother giving these people the time of day.

you cant trust iran, why does the west even consider trying?

[Coteaz]

:facepalm why do we even bother giving these people the time of day.

you cant trust iran, why does the west even consider trying?
Because trying is the only way towards some semblance of global cooperation. If we all simply gave up and nuked Iran into glass, all that we would prove is that we are as "bad" as Iran is made to seem.

[AbnormallyNormal]

yeah the question is not "is iran's government crazy/evil" the question is "how best can we deal with it peacefully" thats the thing conservatives dont get. they just react and lash out to how bad iran's govt acts, without cautiously analyzing the various options we have to deal with it sensibly