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."
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, but it can. It can get much worse.
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.
Think about it. Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech. Washington turned down Teheran's 2003 offer to open negociations. The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place. Everything indicates an imminent attack.
On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The white house's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer. Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran's nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
Mad world.
Res publica non dominetur
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.
Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negotiating with them about that thing.
In other words, the administration doesn't want to negotiate with Iran, but they also don't want average dumb Americans to realize that. Americans hear "We'll negotiate as soon as (blah blah blah)", but most Americans don't know enough backstory to realize that the (blah blah blah) is an unreasonable precondition to negotiating.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
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
allegations of Iraqi insurgents getting weapons from Iran
So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history. Obviously, when Saddam attacked Iran, he certainly didn't do anything to make Iran less inclined to establish regular covert (and not so covert) forrays into that country to erode the Sunni-ness of the place.
Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech
Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world. They openly and proudly finance and support organizations that do seek to destabilize the middle east and throw it back into a medieval environment. They did and do still speak in terms of wiping Israel off the map. So, that makes them more like Canada, maybe? If you had to name a couple of countries most on the "evil" list, in terms of trafficking in weapons and daily support for Really Bad People, Iran and North Korea definitely are at the top, especially in the context of extremist Islamic militancy.
The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
Do you not even WATCH press coverage of Europe? The US has been bending over backwards to allow Europe, the UN, and the IAEA to do what the EU has been insisting they be allowed to do: talk this to death, and use sanctions to make Iran somehow magically not want to have nuclear weapons while at the same time talking up the pending demise of its most hated regional enemy. The people establishing the "impossible situation" are the whole of the UN security council. European big-wigs are the ones standing up and saying the same things: this can't be allowed, sanctions will be needed, etc. Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?
Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?
The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it? The point is that they (Iran) are unwilling, as expected, to demonstrate any interest whatsoever actually not producing nukes. Why even bother sitting through pointless and empty negotiations if the very first step - which includes them doing something to show they even have an interest - is something they're already saying they won't do? It just saves everyone a lot of time. There doesn't need to be any negotiation because they don't intend to carry them out or abide by them anyway. It's hardly a mystery. Do you really wonder if the same guy that says he's just cured AIDS is going to negotiate in good faith to give up something he's already said he'll never give up... and says those things in the context of his promises to see the US and her allies destroyed?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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