Iran Announces Manned Space Mission Plans

Lucas123 writes "After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere (though Iran claimed it made it into orbit), government officials stated they intend to put a man into space within 10 years. The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into space can also be used for launching weapons. Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."

Comments

How is this a threat anymore?

[Sir_Real]

I thought we neutralized the ICBM boogey man with our missile defense stuff. Isn't that why Russia's pissed at Poland right now?

just slight of hand

[jriding]

Just another way to say "we are really not trying to improve our missile technology." then one day they will all of a sudden have a intercontinental missiles, with a look what we found expression on their face.

not good.

developing technology for a nuclear weapons prgrm?

[Webious]

despite all the propaganda, I really don't see the Iranians ever developing a nuclear weapons programs as it will ultimately work against them. They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel. Maybe they really want to use nuclear energy for power generation as their population is exploding, creating more demand for energy (at this time they import more than %40 of the gasoline they need for domestic consumption and have to burn fuel to generate electricity). and maybe they do want to have a space program without diverting the technology for use in ICBMs.

That's Not "Ironic"

[Doc Ruby]

That wouldn't be ironic. That would simply be consequences.

And no coincidence. The Bush dynasty has been working closely with Iran, arming it, even protecting AQ Khan (the Pakistani whose stolen nuke secrets started the Iranian, N Korean and Libyan nuke projects). That's why the "Iran" in "Iran/Contra" was always the worst part of that traitorous operation out of Oliver North's White House basement office. And why the resumes of the Bush Jr "brain trust" are full of "Iran/Contra" experience.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Doc Ruby]

What tinfoil hat? You're right about all those accusations about Iran. They just happen to also be partners in crime with our own government's people, as is very well documented. You do know that the Iran/Contra criminals were convicted on proven charges of conspiracy, right?

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[R2.0]

"Once China's economy is bigger than ours, will China suffer terrorist attacks?"

It might have slipped your notice, but it is already happening. Yeah, right now the Uighurs look like the keystone cops of Islamic terrorism, but at one point so did the Chechens and the Taliban. Now that things are getting less comfortable in Iraq for Al Quaida, I would not be surprised if some of them start showing up in Western China.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[smashin234]

However, the Chinese and American economies are getting more and more tied together every year to the point that a war and/or cold war is going to just be counter-productive. China is becoming more of a western nation with a strong oligarchy then anything and America has no reason to cause unrest in China when theres more threats closer to home...

An alliance between terrorists and America in general went down the tubes after 9/11 too...any politician seen in any way helping terrorists would become the old world "communist" and would immediatly be jailed or at the very least ostricized and lose any hope of ever gaining power again. Things may go round and round, but subtle changes do occur....

OR put more bluntly: terrorists have become what communists used to be.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Iftekhar25]

The parent poster is possibly either a Sunni ethnic Muslim, or a Sunni sympathizer of some sort, because his obvious disdain for the Shi'ites in Iran is a classic symptom of this deep, deep schism within Islam.

The Arab states don't like Iran at all, and it's largely because they see Iran as the heretical, more organized, non-Arab, superior brothers. The Gulf Arab states as a group are very suspicious of the relatively successful model of Iran. Shi'ites, as a minority group within Islam, are generally very well-educated in both the religious and secular sciences, and as the grotesquely rich Gulf Arab states have squandered the first few decades of their oil wealth, Iran has a very well-organized military, some great universities, a great sense of national pride that pre-dates Islam, and have committed resources to nation building.

The Sunni Gulf-Arab states dread Iran for these very reasons, and lots of Sunnis hate Shi'ites more than they hate non-Muslims.

Other things the Arab states don't like because it's heretical and/or destabilizing: women's rights, infidels (aka: anyone they disagree with on practically anything), beer, etc, etc.

Having lived in a Gulf-Arab state for a long time, I have to say, the Gulf-Arab states get a bad rep because of Saudi Arabia. Not all Gulf-Arab states are the same. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, all have very emancipated women in social life, even though their legislation is still based on some form of male chauvinism. Some of these countries have women in their fledgling democratically-elected legislative assemblies, and one of them actually recognizes Israel, if I'm not mistaken.

Many of these countries are moving forward, slowly, but surely. The transition from a nomadic lifestyle diving for pearls or wandering the desert, to a fully modern, post-industrial society is a generations-long journey, and many of these Gulf-Arab states, though with deep-seated social and political immaturity (I would know, I grew up in one), are making the first strides towards some form of acceptable modernity.

I just feel credit must be given where credit is due. :)

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Chris Burke]

Wouldn't it be poetic justice and just a tad ironic if the US spent all this time and money on the "boogey man in Iraq", then like the boy who cried wolf, is criticized and ignored over Iran?

I guess. I knew that was going to be the score from the second Bush uttered the words "Axis of Evil". I knew damn well that the actually dangerous countries, Iran and North Korea, would be left more or less alone while the weak and harmless one was going to be invaded. That it was going to be the one invaded exactly because it was harmless. I mean, we wouldn't invade a country if we really thought they could retaliate with nukes. So NK and Iran, the ones with real nuclear programs, get all the diplomacy while Saddam got the U.S. Armed Forces Steamroll.

If it makes you feel any better, lots of countries are worried about Iran's nuclear program. They agree with the U.S. even if they aren't listening to U.S. "intelligence" any more. Just don't expect them to invade any time soon; even the Bush admin realizes how nasty and terrible that would be.

Religion in space

[jbeaupre]

I enjoy learning about religions. The various traditions and such. And one of the fascinating aspects is translating certain rules, laws, customs, etc into space. Presumably Iran, as an Islamic republic, will send devout Muslims into space and will have to answer some interesting questions. For instance, if you orbit the earth every 90 minutes, you experience a very short day. If you are Muslim, how does that effect praying 5 times a day (every 18 minutes!). And what about direction? If anyone has any serious thoughts, I'm curious hear them. In a related vein, can devout Jews use thrusters (light a fire) on the Sabbath?

Re:but will they get him back down?

[0111 1110]

What problem was solved by the establishment of Israel?

My understanding was that after hundreds of years of being persecuted and murdered by the Christians in Europe and then on a far more massive scale by Hitler and the rest of WWII era Christians in Germany and by pretty much everyone else, it was supposed to be a small piece of land where they could feel safe from such persecution and actually have the power of a government to defend themselves. It is not surprising that the rest of the world should object to such a refuge. After Hitler, I think it was supposed to be a sort of "enough is enough!" kind of thing. I'm not clear on whether people who object to the existence of Israel are doing so on the basis of the particular spot that was chosen (The Holy Land! LOL) or on the fact that a refuge for Jews should exist at all.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Chris Burke]

The only way to win against North Korea is not to play, and wait for it to collapse... but our predictions of "collapse within this decade" are repeatedly pushed back.

Yeah, Kim is kinda like Castro that way. Only with a more messed up country, but more artillery and thus better bargaining power for aid to extend his rule.

Unfortunately, Iran is heavily involved in fueling both sides of the insurgency in Iraq, in order to kick US influence out of the region and keep the government from being too pro-US, which in turn means anti-Iran. I don't know about Afghanistan, but I'm sure Iran is involved in the same way with the Taliban as they are with various players in Iraq.

Iran is definitely involved with the Iraqi insurgency, but I don't think they have much if any influence over the Sunni part. But they're doing just fine fueling both "sides" of the Shia insurgency. SIIC (ne SCIRI) and its militia the Badr Brigade and al Sadr's party and Madhi Army militia are heavily influenced by Iran; the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq was actually founded in Iran by Iraqi ex-patriots. It's funny how now that the Badr Brigade has been largely absorbed into/become the Iraqi Army and is thus the "good guys", we totally played up the Iranian connection to Sadr when the army went after him, but ignored the even deeper connection to the ruling party. But reality is, whichever side of the insurgency wins, it's a win for Iran. The whole Iraq war is a huge win for Iran.

As far as the Taliban, I doubt Iran has much influence over them. As the hardest of hard-core Pushtun Sunnis, the Taliban hate Iran, and Iran hates them as much as they hated Saddam. But that's okay. Getting rid of one hated enemy and replacing it with a sympathetic government on one side, and getting rid of another hated enemy and merely replacing it with a weak government on the other is more than enough.

I have very mixed feelings about the invasion of Iraq, intended to be a easy operation over quickly but marred by incompetent civilian leadership. It is extremely unfortunate that we simply can't respond to other problem states in the world due to the smaller-scale MAD circumstances that exist.

Well thanks to all our forces being focused on Iraq, we can't respond period. It was never going to be an easy operation, it was never going to be quick, but the very fact that the idiots in charge thought otherwise made it so, so much worse than it would have been. It's mind boggling how badly we've shot ourselves in the foot.