Slashdot Mirror
Iran Launches Payload into Space
An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East:
"It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
From the article:
Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.
It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."
Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Iran cured AIDS, but the evil US is preventing the world from getting the cure.
Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.
It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Why is this such a big deal?
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.
I'm gonna need a spec.
Probably because Iran has supported coups in other nations...no...US does that too..
Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...
Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...
I guess you're right!
Blar.
But it just so happens that Iran is *in fact* on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances these two are connected? Very good. These rockets *could* be used by Iran to lob scientific and communications satellites into space, but what are the chances that instead, they will first be used for nuke missiles? Be realistic, now.
And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I'm going to have to disagree. It may very well escalate into a nuclear war amongst superpowers, but a single nuclear bomb (likely to be dropped on Iran by the US, considering their own rhetoric) on a non-superpower may illicit a large conventional response on key infrastructure. Or a limited nuclear retaliation.
Either way, a small nuclear attack will definitely not signal the end of the human race. You would need a large first strike which illicit a second strike and so on for that to occur. That would never happen due to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Nuclear doomsday scenarios are so overrated.
Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them, that's for sure.
If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.
--MarkusQ
It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...
Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.
Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-
People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
When the leader of a country demands the destruction of Israel and the fall of the West, the West has reason for concern.
When such a country actively seeks nuclear technology for power, in light of the fact it has quite a lot of petroleum for such uses, the west has reason for concern.
When the US administration said Iraq did this, and Iraq did that, with a lack of evidence, it was propaganda. When Iran cries death to Israel and the West, concern raised in the West is not baseless propaganda.
The West has done some stupid things, especially in regards to the Middle East, but assuming everything they do is bad is only going to make the situation worse. I know a white kid who counterfitted money; clearly all white people counterfit money.
It only went 90 miles high, and didn't have the ability to go into orbit.
Even if you accept what Iran says at face value, this was a ballistic missile test. It had nothing to do with space exploration.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Well, the international community protests when Iran gets a potentially dangerous technology and the same international community protests when U.S. behaves in a way that ignore human rights or international laws.
Why is that so ? Because there is a belief that it is easier to make US change its behavior than to make it drop its technologies. Currently it is believed to be easier to make Iran drop its technology than to change its international stance but this opinion could very well change in the near future.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
If you look at the news source for that claim that Iran is supposed to have made, its quite clear its a political game of chess. ynetnews is a a political newspaper for Israel, its in their best interest to portray Iran as some dumb country under the rule of Ahmedenijad.
However this current news in sync with recent events happening in Iran. And yes the region will be destabalized, the question is will it be for the good or for the ad. IRaq war destabalized the region, was it for the good or for the bad. Further, whats more important is will this destabalization be for the good of the Iranian people or not.
I think the answer is that destabalization will benefit Iran in the long but is a blow to percevied control of west and its allies in that region. Technological breakthroughs are always bebeficial to a country in the long run as they do not have to rely on bread crums thrown at them by those on power. India proved that by going nuclear in the 70s itself. I was tough to live in India during the 80s because of those sanctions, BUT because of those sanctions India learned to be self sufficient, damn US turned back a cargo ship full of rice when India did its first tests in the 70s, people went hungry, today India is oneof the largest exporter of rice. We wouldnt have Basmati rice if it wasnt fo rthose nuclear tests.
So I say go Iran, just dont make those damn nukes.
I'm not sure it actually works the way you describe. Not all the time, anyway. Personally, I've been watching the Iranian bravado for the last year with increased interest, and I've gathered enough from it to conclude that they are indeed deliberately provoking the US - but my thought on that was that whatever military response the US might come up with, Iran did ask for it, clearly and repeatedly. I'd be fully on US side in this one (and I didn't like the mess in Iraq the tiniest bit). I know quite a few people who came to the same conclusions as well...
So Iran, a country with no nuclear weapons at all, is the threat? There is no evidence of a weapons program, only vague allegations. Why are we so focused on Iran when it is the existing nuclear powers that present the real nuclear threat. None of the nuclear powers have any intention of disarming, which they are required to due under article VI of the NPT. And I mean fully disarm, not get rid of a few missiles as a token gesture.
The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 based on the flimsy excuse that the Soviet Union non longer existed, when we all knew Russia was effectively taking over in that role. Now the US is actively pursuing an ABM system and the Russians are getting quite twitchy about it. This presents much more of a nuclear threat than Iran's civilian nuclear program. Why are the media not continually harassing the US over the issue and accusing them of threatening world peace?
Clearly the US sets the news agenda, so perhaps the relative silence over the ABM threat is not surprising (even if it should be). If it is taboo to talk about the existing nuclear powers as the real threat, what about Saudi Arabia? There have been a number of independent reports over several years which claim Saudi Arabia is pursuing a secret nuclear program with Pakistan. Why is this being ignored. Could it possibly be because they are an ally?
It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth. That's just above the Karman Line. And it's important to note that bragging in the Middle East is often like the threat-display behavior of elephants -- lots of posturing. Recent memory should provide some guidance and experience here!!
Because Iran has publicly threatened allied countries. Iran has a mixxed bag on human rights (it is actualy one of the better in the area but not alway that way). Because Iran has attempted to make the bomb. Becuase Iran has supported terrorist groups currently in conflict with the US. Because Iran has performed terrorist acts itself. Because Iran is a threat to many countries at the moment.
As for the bomb. It has long been considered a bad thing to let other get it. It isn't because they need it to defend themselves or anything. It is more in the opinion that we know we won't use it unless it was used against us but we cannot be certain they won't.
As for the rest, Americas interactions that parralell Iran's have been done in the Best ofr the interest of the united states and it's allies. Even when later it was found to have little positive effects it was considered at the time to be the best thing to do. Unfortunatly, this isn't an ideal world and not everything done has the greatest outcomes and not everything done was the best choice of the time. Although it was thought to have been the best choice. And the people not directly influenced by the positive results only see the negtive results but the key here isn't the results at all, It is who interest the actions were supposed to benifit. Iran's interest as presented presently will be against the interest of the US and some of it's allies.
When you ask a question like that, You have to look at what can come from it, what it is likly to be used for and who it could effect. If it could effect you and it could damage your reletive's property and possibly lives, you tend to want them to stop doing it. Whatever "it" is. And unfortunatly, the intentions could be admirable, the outcome could be non threatening and we end up with something like chernobyl.
As for being the only country to use a nuke. At the time it was used, there wasn't a concept of the damges it caused. It wasn't until after theat we discovered how bad they were. All we knew was an invasion into mainland japan would reult in massive loss of life for the good guys. While the intent of the bomb was only to inflict those losses on the enemy and save the "goodguys" (and yes are the good guys in that war) We unleashed something that couldn't be hidden again. Hilter was trying to find "the bomb" too ubt was unsuccessfull.
So our only instance of using it, we found how bad it was and at the same time, we showed it was possible. This meant that anyone else working on it would have found it too eventualy. To take nukes off the table reagon made a decision that elimintated it's use for the vast majority of wars. Mutualy asured destruction (mad) means that If you use it, we use it and anything you would hope to gain from us will be lost in your lands and possibly more too. The fatal flaw here? the rogue state who doesn't want to invade someone. They want to see them completly destroyed as a clensing process simular to the final solution for the jews. Except countries like Iran have this concept imbeded in their religion wich ultimatly rules the lands. This religious clensing concept is most noticable in the goups labeled as terrorist and etream in the middle east areas.
Yes Iran is more of a therocracy then a democracy or dictatorship. The president of Iran can be overruled at any time by the supreme leader (rahbar) who is a high prist or whatever the muslum position is with the same eeffects. SO lets say that Iran has the bomb and a delivery system that can reach anywere on earth. Now lets say that the extream religios factions infiltrate the churches in Iran and make the whole killing everyone else idea more popular. Now lets sat the Ayatollah is assasinated and his replacment is a follower of this extream belief. Now you will get atomic cleansing of all that disagree's with their religion and they see any retaliation as a test from god to determine how loyal they are. This exact scenario is the reason we are having so much of a problem fighting terrorist. How do you defeate an nemy that see dieing for the cause as the cause winning? And this makes Iran particularly dangerous moreso then other who mihgt get the bomb.
Seriously though, nobody likes the regime in Teheran, but they sure seem a lot less beligerent than the one in War-shington. Unless the US stops meddling with other countries' for their selfish buck-driven interests, gives up veto-ing every single resolution concerning Israel and agrees to implement partition plans approved by the international community, radicalism and extremism is likely to foster. Oh, and did I mention the majority of Americans wants their government to give up Veto power and stop agressing other countries. So much for democracy...
Res publica non dominetur
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and therefore not bound by its protocols. Further, the five major nuclear powers have generally lowered their nuclear stance, as the US has seen a general reduction in weapon counts since about 1965, and the Soviets peaked in 1985 or so; at that time, the US and USSR combined for a total of around 70,000 weapons, and this has declined to about 26,000 weapons, with further withdrawals scheduled. There is no prohibition in the NPT for replacing old warheads with newer ones, as the concept of MAD still stands. Generally speaking newer warheads are less powerful than older, anyway. It was not uncommon to see 1MT or larger yields on warheads in the early decades, and yet (except for China) the yields of nuclear warheads that have been cycled in have decreased to an average of somewhere around 300kT, with many of them settable to well below that. This is because the accuracy has increased dramatically making it less necessary to have that kind of power to ensure destruction of the target. The last new warhead to come online in the US was the W88 warhead used in the Trident II SLBM which debuted in 1988, and for Russia possibly the warhead on the Topol-M which debuted in the mid-1990s.
Iran has obligations under the NPT to open up its nuclear research program to international inspectors to allow them to confirm what Iran says is taking place, something that even the US and Russia do. Iran has refused to allow inspectors entry into several key facilities, and has refused to turn over information about them, violating their Safeguards agreement, according to the IAEA. Pakistan's refusal to make available A.Q. Khan -- known for stealing from other nations several plans critical for development of his own country's nuclear weapons -- for interviewing by the IAEA even after evidence came to light that he supplied at least some of Iran's nuclear technology has further heightened suspicions as to the nature of the program.
I do see some hope in that Iran's economy -- which Ahmadinejad promised to turn around -- has continued to further tank even as Ahmadinejad has poured what may be billions of dollars into the nuclear program which has done little more than raise tensions with the West even as employment problems worsen. Evidence of support issues within the elite ranks of the clerics has come to light, and it may well be that Ahmadinejad will last only one term (though that means we still have to put up with him for another 2.5 years).
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Ah, thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious. That'll teach me to post anything before my daily dose of caffeine has kicked in!
With respect to your point, I'm torn with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions. There has been a lot of jumping up and down about Iran's nuclear program *might* lead to weapons and *might* destabilise the Middle East even more. That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use. The crux of the issue seems to be Iran's assertion that it's simply trying build a power source versus the U.S. position that Iran is clearly planning to turn Israel into a glass parking lot.
The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies. Although I of course acknowledge that fear-based policies existed long before the U.S. troubles with Middle Eastern societies, I really believe that the most terrible and far-reaching consequence of the September 11th attack was the conversion of the U.S. into an almost entirely fear-driven nation. Rationality in policy really seems to have been set aside and I fear that the situation in Iran will be the latest evidence of that.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Hang on.
All countries defend their interests. All countries reserve the rights to things (although most are less brazen at actually doing them than the US). China just demonsrated it has the ability to shoot down a satellite in space; both Russia and the US have done so in the past. No country unilaterally bars itself from future actions, or at least not without a clear benefit.
So; the US is just like any other country. Only slightly bigger and a little bit more scary.
--- My dad's political betting
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
It's been a long time.
Secular jews are some of the smartest, funniest and most loyal friends I've got, and anyone who judges their people by their race should be condemned for it.
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
The Prince of Persia is right.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Ha! Thanks for the chuckle! I've heard about a mental condition in which people are entirely unable to recognize sarcasm. It seems you and three mods all suffer from this terrible disease.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
First and foremost, I am categorically not a fan of US foreign policy, as it is myopic, petty and/or inhumane more often than not.
That said, the iranian government has, in succession:
1. Threatened to destroy a nation.
2. Turned itself into a global focus point for nuclear rethoric and chest-thumping.
3. Declared the triumphant launch of an ICBM equivalent.
WTF are they thinking? It's almost as if they're screaming at Cheney-Bush Inc: "Lookee here, fuck us up! We'll give you excuses to do it!"
Can't they keep their zipper closed until there's hope for dialogue in 2009, once the jug-eared goon squatting in the White House moseys on back to his ranch in Texas or Paraguay or wherever?
Are they itching to have their country and population brutally victimized? Then again, remember how they used children as suicide soldiers during their war with Iraq back in the eighties.
Are they itching for an excuse to turn off their oil spigot, generating a global economic crisis, enriching the texan oil robber barons in the process? Remember that whenever there's a crisis of this sort, Chevron, Texaco and Shell invariably end up reporting their highest quarterly earnings in history.
As the cherry on the putrid cake, both sides in this fiasco play the religious card, the impending fulfillment of prophecy as some sort of implicit fact and key policy element.
All the world is threatened to get caught in the crossfire. Just another in-your-face scenario that reiterates the urgent need for alternative energy sources, as decentralized as humanly possible.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I think you wanted to say Saudi Arabia but somehow got things muddled.
Oh wait, they are US allies.
Er, never mind.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The real danger lies, I think, in Bushco staging an elaborate Gleiwitz incident type of operation that makes Iran look like an immediate, credible threat, in which case, they could, with only minor political backlash, re-institute the draft, and get the 300,000 men in Iraq that they needed to begin with, plus the addition 200,000 to 400,000 (minimum) that they would need to successfully invade Iran. Unfortunately, with the rhetoric coming out of the Bushco Corporate HQ, it seems like that might be exactly what they're planning.
my pet machine
I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but Mr AC - you are an imbecile if you cannot see that we are going through a repeat of what happened a few years ago.
* GWB is talking up how Iran might soon have nuclear weapons. c.f. Saddam's fabled WMDs.
* Dodgy evidence is appearing (this laptop which contains plans for a nuclear device ENTIRELY IN ENGLISH with no notes in farsi!) c.f. dodgy stories about Saddam trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger which subsequently turned out to be BS.
* He is drawing different conclusions from intelligence than his own intelligence agencies (for example saying that the Iranian government is providing weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq)
* Troops are moving to the gulf despite no war having (yet) been declared. c.f. Iraq buildup.
SURELY NOT!!!!!