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

but will they get him back down?

[pha7boy]

sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there. When will they be able to do that?

Re:but will they get him back down?

[snl2587]

sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there.

No, see, you're assuming Iran wants them back. And that they were given oxygen.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

There will be no homosexuals in Iran because the government will send them all into orbit without means to get back down alive.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[JordanL]

I find this progression of events intersting...

Iran: "Yes, we're enriching nuclear material, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're employing nuclear scientists, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're creating nuclear production facilities, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're developing a missle for our space program, but we promise it's not to deliver warheads."

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?

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Ethanol-fueled]

They're going to send a man into space so that he can make a satellite map of the world...and then wipe Israel off of it :)

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.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[kneeslasher]

Incidentally, there's nothing mystical or religious about the crescent and star: it was adopted by the Turks from Asia Minor / Byzantium / Christians. It's relatively recent and has been used by many many groups and in (European) heraldry too. Somehow it is seen as some universal symbol of Islam on par with the cross for Christianity. It's nothing of the sort.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[JordanL]

I expect strategic strikes from Israel from the air during the next presidency, which might lead to all out war, but I doubt it.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[funwithBSD]

Oxygen? Insha'Allah.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your post for the most part. But, there is the small matter of the Palestinians who had been living there...

The (hypothetical) woman down the hall being beaten by her husband isn't allowed to forcibly evict me from my apartment to get away from him. On the other hand, given rampant antisemitism all over the world, where else could they have chosen to found Israel? I don't know. It's a crappy situation.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Kagura]

North Korea cannot be invaded, because Seoul will be devastated by artillery guns located just north of the DMZ, and the death toll will be hundreds of thousands of Seoul citizens in the first single-digit hours of the war. Their major artillery systems near the DMZ are more or less stationary and already known to US forces, but they are mounted on short railroad tracks that can quickly hide them inside mountains while not firing. 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.

I'm sure a similar situation exists with Iran and sea-based oil trade in the region, as well as the nation of Israel. It would be harmful to US and other international interests to invade Iran, since a huge portion of Iran's border is on the Persian Gulf body of water, as well as the narrow chokepoint of the Straight of Hormuz. 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.

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.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[Leftist Troll]

it was supposed to be a small piece of land where they could feel safe

If that was the goal, it's a failure. It hasn't made them safer, it's made them less safe.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[aero6dof]

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.

After looking at the U.S. military rolling into Iraq, what strategic calculation could a smaller nation make? How does a little country hold up against a superpower who doesn't hold back from using conventional military options? If they weren't going nuclear before, it must look at lot more attractive later - even if it only serves as a bargining chip in some future diplomatic deal. Yet another reason why invading Iraq was a monumentally dumb move.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[BCGlorfindel]

Did we forget that establishing this "small piece of land where they could feel safe" involved forcefully removing the people who were living there? ...
Perhaps it's better to stick to truths that far more people agree with, such as "killing is wrong", and the sovereignty of existing states and international borders.

Okay, let's talk about 1948. In 1948, there was already a large jewish population living in Palestine. The Palestinians were persecuting them for the last 40 some years, as was the custom in those times. As a result the Jewish people armed themselves and had a more or less autonomous state within Palestine. This resulted in a civil war and a UN mandate for two sovereign states of Israel and Palestine, with internationally approved borders. Israel declared it's independence and accepted these borders. The surrounding arab nations though declared war on the new state and sent their Nazi trained armies to destroy it. They so outnumbered the new state that they urged all Palestinians to leave their homes to return in a few days. Don't expect any tears from me that Israel won that war. In my opinion, that on top of the UN mandate for an Israeli state earned them the right to exist, and I could care less if that angers the nations that tried to destroy it.

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.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[JamesRose]

You do realise this will result in it raining men.?

Re:but will they get him back down?

[snuf23]

The Jews aren't the only displaced people in the world. Without leaving the US you can find all of native American tribes as well as the Hawaiians.
History is one long tale of more powerful groups killing or evicting others from resources they wish to claim. How do you decide who gets their land reinstated? Over the course of history this can happen repeatedly over the same territory.
Certainly if the UN decided Manhattan island had to be restored to the Lenape tribe there would be hell to pay.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[bigsexyjoe]

Terrorists are more sensational. But Iran has resources because of the oil trade. They are annoyed by the treatment of the Palestinians and U.S. involvement in the middle east. And this is all fueled by the U.S. thirst for oil.

And don't be a fool. A lot of people will die over peak oil. It's so funny that conservatives talk about how Russia invaded Georgia to control the oil supply, but deny that the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for the same reason, and deny that running out of oil matters on the world stage.

Re:but will they get him back down?

[ncc74656]

sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there. When will they be able to do that?

They're willing to send people on suicide bombing missions...it's plausible that they'd take up suicide space missions as well. The only problem (from their point of view) is that in space, no one can hear you scream Allahu akhbar.

They will start...

[Thelasko]

with a budget of $50 and use a hedgehog as a proof of concept to secure further funding.

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?

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[mweather]

Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[Experiment 626]

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

This is the problem with having a defense that is somewhat effective but not perfect. If you have a system that can shoot down, say, 50% of nuclear missiles, the Russians look at it and see that their nuclear arsenal is only half as effective a threat as it once was, and get annoyed. However, you still don't want to trust your life to something that has become a coin toss (maybe the shield will shoot the missile down, maybe the city will be obliterated, who knows?) The Russians also want to discourage further development of missile defense, because if America ever does manage to get it reliable enough to count on, that leaves them in the same losing position that unilateral disarmament would.

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[Shakrai]

Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.

Which makes Russia's bellyaching over our deployment all the more amusing. The base in Poland can't intercept missiles launched from Russia to North America (they tend to go over the pole) and even if it could Russia probably has the technology to defeat or at least overwhelm it.

That 50% might just be enough to stop an Iranian or North Korean missile though.

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[MightyYar]

To be fair, it's possible that the anti-ballistic-missile tech will progress in the time that it takes Iran to finally get an ICBM with nuclear warhead working.

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[Hatta]

Actually, it makes Russia's bellyaching all the more appropriate and reasonable. There's no way this system could be used to provide any reasonable sort of defense. It just doesn't work well enough.

So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for? Most likely offense.

Re:How is this a threat anymore?

[PhreakOfTime]

So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for?

Have you not been paying attention? Its 'use' is simply to be able to award no-bid contracts to defense contractors.

Next question...

Atmosphere out of reach...

[MarvinIsANerd]

"After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere"

And we all know how hard it is to reach the Earth's atmosphere!

Re:Atmosphere out of reach...

[Areyoukiddingme]

And if you read to the end, you see it took four people to come up with that linguistic gem... The author, two contributors, and an explicitly named editor.

From people who are paid to communicate. That's all they do.

The species is doomed...

Fortunately I hear magpies are self-aware...

Re:Atmosphere out of reach...

[Thelasko]

And we all know how hard it is to reach the Earth's atmosphere!

It is if your launching a missile from underwater you insensitive clod!

Wow, I never thought I would use the "insensitive clod" joke... but there it is.

uh huh...

[spiffmastercow]

The ballistic missiles? Nah, they're just launch vehicles. And the nuclear material? It's just for power plants. We really need these things, since we have so little power-generating natural resources, and such a booming commercial satellite launching industry.

Re:uh huh...

[L Boom]

Pretty simple, actually. Iran has very limited capability to refine their own oil, so they need to pay to get it to a country with more refining capability, then pay to get it back.

Re:uh huh...

[CyberLord Seven]

1)Because "Peak Oil" has come and gone! In other words, it would be a waste.

2)Abdulrahman Al-Zamil, former Governor of Electricity, Saudi-Arabia

From the documentary "Energy War"

(Speaking about the failed Saudi solar energy project of the 1980s.) We were not convinced that solar energy could be a major source of energy.

Now, we spent the money. It never supplied more than probably five hundred, six hundred kilowatts. And the maintenance of that is tremendously troublesome. Running the project is highly costly. So, time has proven that we were correct in our pessimism, and that all the vision that the West have been trying to promote were dreams.

First of all, the world's needs of energy is tremendous. You talk about, in terms of power-plants, we need 10,000 mega-watts, 20,000 mega-watts every two, three years. I mean you have to have a whole desert to produce two mega-watts.

Second, Saudi-Arabia spent billions of dollars to develop it's own (unintelligible - may be an Arabic word) supply to the world. We just promised the world that we will supply them in the next - with trillion barrel (pause) in the next twenty-five years, with a commitment of spending twenty-five billion dollars.

Now we need governments, major corporations to have that kind of commitment if they want to develop an alternative energy.

It's not a joke. It's not a hobby. It is not a university research. It is not a - uhhhh - politicians talk big, but they deliver less. That is the story of solar energy in the last fifty years.

***END QUOTE***

In other words, nuclear looks pretty promising at this point in time.

And nuclear enrichment...

[snaildarter]

is just for a peaceful (and extremely expensive) nuclear power program. Not that I blame them.

Should provide entertainment.

[halivar]

Will there be a Iranian Space Information Minister to tell us about all the wonderful things happening in the space program?

"Our cosmonauts have reported to have seen from space that Italy looks like the boot of Allah striking the Zionist regime. Soon we will harvest the moon for cheese and will no longer rely on the vile cartoon-drawing Danish."

Now mods... before you mod me flamebait, first consider this: could I possibly be trolling, instead?

Re:Should provide entertainment.

[MPAB]

Sicily is shaped like a pyramid ... like the one in the dollar bill .... COINCIDENCE?

Re:Should provide entertainment.

[dotancohen]

The Jews control Sicily now?!

You really didn't think that Moshe's Pizza in Haifa would keep us satisfied for very long, did you?

Re:Should provide entertainment.

[hey!]

I know you're making a joke here, but the joke is less funny the more you know about Iran. Iran and Iraq differ by a lot more than one consonant. For one thing, the way their government works is much more complicated than the old Baghdad Bob's Baathist regime.

First of all, charming Mr. Ahmadinejad, although he is quite capable of saying some pretty outrageous things, doesn't wield supreme power, or even anything close to it. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni, is much more powerful. But even his power is arguably the ultimate one, it is by design much more awkward for him to wield than, say, Saddam's version of ultimate power.

There are even relative moderates in the government like Akbar Rafsanjani, former president and current chairman of both the Expendiency Council and Assembly of Experts. The Assembly theoretically has the power to dismiss the Supreme Leader, although no actions in that direction have ever, so far as we know, been taken.

The point here is that the Iranian government isn't even close to being the kind of dictatorship where everybody has to parrot the President's fantasies. To tell you the truth, it isn't quite like any other form of government I can think of, it's more like a hybrid of a democratic Republic and a theocracy, with the theocracy acting primarily in a judicial role but with certain executive powers theoretically in their direct or indirect control. Ack, that's a really bad summary, but the best I can do.

The important thing that everybody should understand about Iran is that the Iranian government is not anything monolithic entity driven by the ego or ideology of any single person, not even the Supreme Leader.

The way we deal with such a country isn't quite the same as you would deal with a dictatorship. Perhaps one might approach Iran in the way we dealt with the old totalitarian states, although Iran isn't really very much like them. There is a power structure there which, through its various organs, might be dealt with pragmatically. Such dealings might even, in some cases, tip the balance of power between factions.

The Iranians take seriously the idea of being an "Islamic Republic". It seems almost incomprehensible to the Western mind that this could be anything but a sham, but it's not. There's a thousand years of Shiite historical and religious thought which limits the ability of even senior religious leaders to wield absolute power.

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.

Sensationalism Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

It could also be used to deliver a payload of the following things to the earth from orbit

- Ice Cream
- Ninja Stars
- Signed copies of Limbo of the Lost or Daikatana

You think that we could leave the nefarious plans, no matter how obvious, up to the readers? Sheesh!

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.

Reuters and singlepage

[Anonymous Coward]

Single page link.

Greasemonkey script to do that automatically.

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"

[gormanw]

Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the Iranian govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the mullahs, and the face of Iranian govt. is the whack job Ahmedinijad (sp). Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Notquitecajun]

Worse, there's a case that can be made that it's Napoleonic crossed with some sort of Messiah complex. Some of those guys REALLY don't like everyone else, and may take the admonition in the Koran that a Muslim can lie to a non-Muslim in a time of war seriously.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you proposing that we should be at war against Iran right now instead? Just what is it that Iran is doing that you think they wouldn't be doing if we weren't in Iraq?

I suppose you think we'd be loved and respected by the rest of the world, if ONLY we hadn't invaded Iraq! Iran would be our friend. Europeans-on-the-street would be saying they wish they could be just like us.

Think again. We're unpopular, we're often complained about, BECAUSE WE ARE PREEMINENT. No other reason is necessary.

And the spread of nuclear tech is hardly a Bush legacy- when I read heavily on the subject (up to the point got my BA in PoliSci in 1995) it was all but universally seen as inevitable. The debate was over how to handle it.

Bush is not my favorite guy. I didn't vote for him either time(although I certainly didn't vote for that ridiculous parody of a political candidate John Kerry- sat that one out). But you're giving aid and comfort to Bush and his set by demonizing him- just like the GOP gave aid and comfort to Clinton with their rabid hyperbole in the 90's.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead punk, make my day.

Oh good, it's your day they'll be making. So, we can expect your enlistment...when?

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"

[Doc Ruby]

You must really be crazy to call the proven conspiracy of Bush's team members to arm Iran something worthy of a "tinfoil hat".

Especially when you yourself link Rumsfeld and Cheney with Ford. But then, you don't bother to point out that Rumsfeld and Cheney met while working together for Nixon. All of which is consistent with working with America's enemies.

You've got your tinfoil hat on backwards. It's frying your brain.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[value_added]

Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.

Indeed. They still haven't had much luck in forming a working republic after having their elected leader deposed by the US, suffering under economic sanctions, fighting an over-long brutal war with Iraq, being surrounded by not so friendly Arab states, the nukes in India, the nukes in Pakistan, and now that the US has moved in next door (complementing their previous and continuing efforts elsewhere in the region), they can't seem to win for losing.

And you thought South Central was a bad neighbourhood.

If there's a bright side, it's that their fellow Shia have come to power in Iraq.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[twistedcubic]

Think again. We're unpopular, we're often complained about, BECAUSE WE ARE PREEMINENT. No other reason is necessary.

Nonsense. If the U.S. doesn't have a history of meddling in middle eastern affairs, there is no 9/11. This is the explanation given by the terrorists. What reason is there to lie? If China wins more gold medals in the current Olympics, won't they be "PREEMINENT" as well? Once China's economy is bigger than ours, will China suffer terrorist attacks?

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the American govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the neo-cons, and the face of American govt. is the whack job Bush.

America has a serious case of "big man" syndrome.

See the difference?

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Thelasko]

you don't bother to point out that Rumsfeld and Cheney met while working together for Nixon.

I was trying to be subtle. I couldn't find a good picture of them with Nixon. (I love how they both are grinning deviously while Ford has a confused look on his face)

I think it's more likely that they're meddling in the middle east to manipulate the oil market. I mean, for a group of people to demonstrate such a profound level of incompetence as they have... and keep their jobs for over 30 years... (thinking about people I work with)...maybe they're just that incompetent. (intended with the appropriate amount of sarcasm)

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Doc Ruby]

I don't think you really know what's going on here.

Cheney and Rumsfeld kept their top-level jobs their whole lives because they were good at it. Sure, they caused catastrophes wherever they went. Sure, their careers cost America vast, often irreparable damage, and many, many lives (and even more of non-Americans). But their bosses made out like bandits. That's not "incompetent". That's highly productive, while not caring who or what they destroy to get what they want.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[dpilot]

re: PREEMINENT

I expect to see the political fallout from this within the next 10-20 years, assuming there isn't fallout of a more physical nature before then. There is something of an unholy alliance between China and the Islamic world, IMHO driven by pragmatism on China's part, and "enemy of my enemy is my friend" on the Islamic part. But at some point the Islamic side will wake up and see just how godless the Chinese can be, and the Chinese will wake up and see just how unsensibly non-pragmatic the Islamic fundamentalists can be, and things will become "interesting", in the Confucian sense.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[gormanw]

It would make my day if the Iranian population could rise up against the mullahs and live in freedom and peace. Too bad the secret police and "foreign thugs" menace the populace. Iran, like Iraq, have been and could be again places of great culture, learning, and commerce. Iraq is on its way, with Saddam out of the way. However, a bellicose Iran, run by the "Assembly of Experts" and the "Supreme Leader." Face facts, it can't all be the fault of the US or George Bush!

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"

[BCGlorfindel]

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.

AQ Khan wasn't selling 'stolen' secrets, he was selling the nuclear plans he used to build Pakistan's nuclear weapons. He is a hero in Pakistan for giving them the bomb to rival India. He was also selling much more than just plans for nuclear weapons, he was selling the equipment needed to implement the plans as well.

AQ Khan didn't start the Iranian program either, he just jump started it with better technology. He also sold them the plans for machining enriched Uranium into spheres(unless of course you believe the Iranians story in which case he just gave it to them for free, without even being asked). The slashdot crowd is probably aware that weapons are the ONLY use for Uranium spheres.

Of course, it gets better. AQ Khan is such a hero in Pakistan that when Musharraf made him apologize for selling nuclear technology there was a public backlash for embarassing a national hero. AQ Khan is now on loose house arrest in Pakistan and the US/CIA have been refused access to question him.

Now here's the greatest parts:
1. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces that were chased out of Afghanistan are now based in the Northern tribal region of Pakistan, where they enjoy tremendous public support.
2. After Musharraf and the Pakistan military co-operated with the US to crack down on Islamic extremism, there is a virtual civil war going on in Pakistan. On one side is the corrupt military that controls most of the country by force. Scarily, those are the 'good' guys. The other side are the religous mullahs. They aren't the moderate muslim leaders we have over here. They are pro-bin laden jihadists who we really wouldn't like to see in control of the nuclear weapons that AQ Khan built for Pakistan. The Best part is they control the region the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated so completely the military is scared to go there and it would be suicide for the police to enter it.

Frankly, that all scares the willies out of me.

but ignore the real world, lets worry about the Bush Dynasty and it's heinous attempts at holding a free election in Iraq.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[spuzzzzzzz]

I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah!

I believe parent was talking about the prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953. I suggest you google "Operation Ajax".

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Macrat]

But at some point the Islamic side will wake up and see just how godless the Chinese can be, and the Chinese will wake up and see just how unsensibly non-pragmatic the Islamic fundamentalists can be, and things will become "interesting", in the Confucian sense.

It isn't reported much, but there ARE Islamic bombings in China already...

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Chris Burke]

2. After Musharraf and the Pakistan military co-operated with the US to crack down on Islamic extremism, there is a virtual civil war going on in Pakistan. On one side is the corrupt military that controls most of the country by force. Scarily, those are the 'good' guys. The other side are the religous mullahs. They aren't the moderate muslim leaders we have over here. They are pro-bin laden jihadists who we really wouldn't like to see in control of the nuclear weapons that AQ Khan built for Pakistan. The Best part is they control the region the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated so completely the military is scared to go there and it would be suicide for the police to enter it.

Don't forget when our only real choice for a "good guy", a moderate and a reformer loved by the people, willing to work with the West, and aligned with neither the jihadists nor the military, was assassinated on the campaign trail. What a sad day that was.

Frankly, that all scares the willies out of me.

No kidding.

but ignore the real world, lets worry about the Bush Dynasty and it's heinous attempts at holding a free election in Iraq.

Hey now. Not that Bush is actually the greatest danger in the world (I mean, he's a short-timer and lame duck at this point), don't sugar coat the massively stupid fuck-up that was the invasion, and it's effects on the situation. I mean aside from strengthening Iran, how fucking insane is it that because our military is so entangled in Iraq that we can't field enough forces in Afghanistan to hold onto bases and cities we'd previously taken from the Taliban? And forget about being able to do what the Pakistanis can't and go into the northern regions where the Taliban retreats to every winter! There's a real battle with real fronts against our real enemy going on, but we can't do the needful because we're stuck in a pointless quagmire!

The frightening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is exactly why invading Iraq was the stupidest fucking thing we could have done.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[sabre86]

I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle

1) If you're going to call people idiots, perhaps you should back it up and not make mistakes yourself. 2) You don't look so smart yourself, as it's clear that the parent wasn't talking about the Shah being overthrown, but the government of Mohammad_Mossadegh. 3) The idiom is "it takes two to tango," not tangle.

You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing.

That's a stupid reason not to like a country. 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.

Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran.

I'm afraid that the prospect of having your neighbor nuked is always cause for concern. Winds and radioactivity don't care about national borders. I suspect that there's some national angst there.

The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat.

Iran is a man now? With an ass to be whipped? You know better than that kind of oversimplification.

Odd, I thought the U.S. was in the region in such force to rebuild Iraq after deposing of Saddam Hussein because he was allegedly violating the terms of the 1991 armistice and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Your language sounds about as jingoistic as I could imagine. It's not an asswhipping, because it's not a fistfight. It's a war your talking about here -- murder writ large and sometimes a bit of actual self defense.

Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!

What's the difference between Iran and it's people? Perhaps you shouldn't pity them, but actually work to understand them, and not just the ones who "yearn to be free," but all of the Iranians. I'm not saying agree with them, nor even try to befriend them, but merely to look past Khomeini and friends and view Iran not as a single militant entity, but as millions of different people, many of whom have unjustly suffered at the hands of their neighbors, their religious kin, their government and, sadly, the United States' government.

Cry for them.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Gavagai80]

China suffers a lot more terrorist attacks than the United States does right now. Most countries do. One attack doesn't make an epidemic, no matter how bad it is.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Chris Burke]

But it did demonstrate American will to deploy far more forces than needed to conquer Iraq(enough to militarily conquer Iran or Pakistan in fact), if WMD ever got in the hands of someone like Saddam who was willing to use them.

The thing is, I doubt Iran and Pakistan believed the ludicrous WMD lies, so all we really proved is that we're willing to invade a country that doesn't have them. Which I think is the major reason why Iran wants them, to deter us from attacking (this being even before Iraq). Pakistan already had nukes for years; they aren't worried about us invading them. Their change of heart came after 9/11 when they suddenly became our buddies in the War on Terror. I've seen no evidence that the invasion of Iraq has lessened the relationship between the ISP and the Taliban.

I mean, it's possible that Iraq at least showed that we were willing to mobilize a lot of troops, I'm just not sure what that actually could have bought us.

But that's alot of speculation. I think we are largely agreed that Bush/Cheney are either dangerously incompetent or dangerously corrupt, or both. But even with that, the leadership in Iran and Pakistan is a much greater threat and orders of magnitude more frightening.

I'm quite certain of their extreme incompetence, and confident of a fair measure of corruption by Cheney and company just from their Nixon/Regan days. Of course they aren't much of a threat any more, their damage has been done, and soon they'll be out. The only danger left, then, is that we repeat the same stupid mistake by which we let them back into power after getting rid of them before. Obviously Iran is a bigger threat than these neocon losers.

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"

[rjstanford]

I suppose you think we'd be loved and respected by the rest of the world, if ONLY we hadn't invaded Iraq! Iran would be our friend. Europeans-on-the-street would be saying they wish they could be just like us.

Think again. We're unpopular, we're often complained about, BECAUSE WE ARE PREEMINENT. No other reason is necessary.

Actually, before 9/11, the US had fairly strong support in Europe and elsewhere. Not massive, but nothing terribly bad either. After 9/11 when the US retaliated against Afghanistan, there was very strong support. It really is only since the invasion of Iraq for the flimsiest of excuses that recent worldwide anger against the US and its policies became widespread.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Just so you know, China's economy will have to grow at its current rate for the next 97 years to catch up to the US at the current growth rate (which is currently terrible)

Hmmm...

China's GDP in 2007 was $3.3 billion growing at 11%, US $14 billion growing at 0.9%. My back of the napkin calculation indicates that China will be at $15 billion in 15 years or so (3.3 billion * 1.11 to the 15th power), the US will be then at $16 billion. In 16 years, assuming the same growth rates, China will surpass the GDP of the USA nearly by a billion dollars or so.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Oops.

In my previous reply replace "billions" with "trillions". The gist of the calculation remains the same.

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:That's Not "Ironic"

[Chris Burke]

Sorry, but the idea that the Bush adminstration wasn't at least fairly positive there were WMD's in Iraq when they said so is ludicrous, or I can't believe they wouldn't have worked in a way to cover their butts by planting something. Not that I think Bush is above that sort of action, but it didn't happen.

Why is it ludicrous? They had decided they wanted to invade Iraq two days after 9/11. Then they came up with a reason why, and decided WMDs would sell to the public best. They asked for intelligence that showed Iraq had WMDs -- they did not ask for all intelligence in order to make a decision, just what supported their pre-decided case. It is conceivable that after two years of hearing nothing but what they wanted to hear, that they ended up actually believing it to an extent, but how they went about showing that intel and combating anyone who tried to tell the truth shows they were well aware of the need to spin it.

And after all their failures, why is a failure to cover their butts so ludicrous? Maybe it's harder to sneak WMD materials into a place than you think, and the consequences for getting caught quite severe. They certainly grasped at any straw they could -- remember the Trailers of Mass Destruction? And in the end, all they needed WMDs for was to convince the people to go to war, after that they could switch to any of their other reasons to justify continuing. And it worked -- Bush got his second term, didn't he? So where exactly is the problem?

Of course, there's also the still not-entirely discredited theory that Saddam shipped WMD-related equipment (not functional WMD's, however) forbidden by the Gulf War treaty to Syria.

Not entirely discredited? Forgive me, but I'm more interested in whether this theory has been credited in any way, or is it still simply the dream of those who think that ultimately Bush's WMD BS will be vindicated with no evidence behind it at all?

Also, the invasion was not soley predicated on the existance of WMD's or an active WMD program

No shit, and I never said it was. WMDs were the primary thing they kept harping on, because it resonated best with the American people who didn't give much of a crap about UN resolutions or any of that other stuff.

But since you obviously didn't notice, what we were talking about was how the invasion of Iraq may affected Iran and Pakistan, with the one I was talking to theorizing that it at least demonstrates that we will invade a country with WMDs. I'm saying it doesn't, they knew damn well we invaded Iraq because they were weak and non-threatening. We were not discussing the "Rational for the Iraq War" issue. Try to keep up.

Regime change, mind you (which does not necessarily require force)was an official US policy that came from the Clinton administration, and was furthermore part of the Bush administration's election platform (now that's a tidbit you won't see mentioned in most mainstream discussions of the invasion!).

So what. Regime change in Cuba has been the official policy for fifty years now, and since Kennedy who has taken any direct action? Obviously we wanted regime change in Iraq, but there was no move to actually do it. Hell, in early 2001, Colin Powell was giving speeches about how harmless Iraq was, how well they'd been contained and how well the sanctions were working. You remember that little tidbit?

I'm not a vocal supporter of the invasion. It was at best half-justified in my opinion, but it bothers me to no end to continuously see at least 99% of the discussions about it twist basic facts about something that happened only 5 years ago.

Since you didn't even know what the conversation was about or what facts were being put forward, I'm guessing 99% of the time it's you who is twisted.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Curtman]

Put the blame where it belongs, Al-Qaida in Iraq

Right. Nobody saw that one coming before the occupation.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[Doc Ruby]

There's very little Qaeda in Iraq, and it's just a brand name some local assholes use to puff themselves up and get publicity (it works).

There's also no real evidence of Iran's special forces in Iraq. There is plenty of Iranian political force in Iraq, but calling Iraq's Shia Arabs "Iranian" is the kind of insult that sparks wars that kill a million of both of them.

Killed with US help to both sides in the 1980s. Including Rumsfeld selling Saddam the poison gas that were the actual charges that actually got Saddam hanged for.

But "foreigners who want to completely destabilize the region" is right on the money. 200,000 Americans can shout together "Mission Accomplished".

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

[gormanw]

And so it goes into ad hominem attacks. It appears that I have proven my point as you can not question either my logic or my facts. I have been accommodating and open minded and willing to read your replies. However, your most recent reply is a flight of conspiracy theory fancy. I would also recommend that you not state as fact "Considering how many Iraqis have been put in wood chippers, gang raped, and specially treated Saddam style by Americans, with no end in sight I don't expect many thanks from them, no matter how "used to it" they should be by now." as that is false. Such false witness reflects badly on you, and if you are a believer/follower of the 10 Commandments, you will know its a pretty big no-no. I wish you peace and hope you find it in your life.

now that's thinking outside the box

[Anonymous Coward]

A small child can be trained on video games and then sealed into the warhead's reentry vehicle to steer it down to its target. Won't add too much weight, and it's probably cheaper to develop than an equivalent electronic guidance package, given the flexibility and intelligence of the control module. A culture of martyrdom gives Iran some interesting design options.

Space X

[Bombula]

So how did Iran - apparently a country containing only religious nutbags, comic book villains, and the lost apprentices of the former Iraqi Intelligence Ministry, according to the news - manage to successfully launch rocket capable of carrying a satellite while Space-X os 0-for-3?

Maybe we should be a little concerned...

Re:Space X

[thermian]

Actually, the Iranian education system for the sciences is one of the best in the world.

Note that this is for the upper/middle classes only.

Iranian doctors have long been, or at least were until the whole post 9/11 thing started, considered to be among the finest in the world.

My point is Iran doesn't only contain religious nutbags, that's a little thing called propaganda.

Model Rocket already available!

[StefanJ]

Get out the sandpaper and white glue space cadets, it's
The Gee-Hod!.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[Life Liberty Freedom]

And maybe the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny are real too....

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[Shakrai]

They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel

They don't have to match our arsenal. All they need to be able to do is reach a major city in any one of the countries you mentioned. Yeah, we could obliterate them (to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton) if they hit us but would we be willing to go to war with them in the first place if it was going to cost us New York City or Washington?

We need a workable missile defense technology.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[CodeBuster]

They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel.

They don't care. That is the problem. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that kept the peace (at least relatively, proxy wars were still fought in a limited fashion but only up to a point) for nearly fifty (50) years during the Cold War was based upon one simple notion: the other side might no like us but at least they are not crazy OR in the words of our late great President John F. Kennedy,

"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

Iran is a theocracy officially governed by religion which doesn't cherish the future of its children (instead it glorifies suicide bombing) and believes in immortality with Allah and 70 virgins in heaven. Now you begin to see why allowing such people to have even one bomb is such a concern. There is more than an outside chance that they might choose to use their bomb against Israel or the United States or Europe regardless of the consequences (i.e. in their minds they all die in the retaliatory strike and go to their reward of 70 virgins). Religion and powerful weapons are and have always been a dangerous mix.

Re:Countering propaganda

[Mix Master Nixon]

Or, you could just say "Bring it on!" That worked wonders for us in Iraq.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[BitterOldGUy]

Maybe. Or it's Government that's feels continually threatened by Western powers and Israel, it finds it's control continually slipping among the populace, worried about their enemy to the South will become more of a threat now that it's an American ally, a leadership that's embolden by Islamic militancy to stand up to the Great Satan, and a Government that fears that unless it goes nuclear, it will never be treated with the respect, no reverence, it thinks it deserves from the International Community.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[smooth wombat]

I really don't see the Iranians ever developing a nuclear weapons programs as it will ultimately work against them.

No, it will work for them by being a deterrent to Israel (and by extension the U.S.) with its nuclear armament. It will be the same situation as exists between the U.S. and Russia with one vital difference: when Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it can hold the oil fields of the entire Middle East hostage if the U.S., or Israel, decides to attack it.

And before someone asks the obvious question, "What's to stop them from holding the oil fields hostage regardless of being attacked?", there would be no benefit to threaten the oil fields other than to drive up the cost of oil. However, as a poster up the way has already pointed out, Iran imports roughly 40% of its gasoline. Thus, any benefit from higher oil prices would be negated by the higher gas prices.

Weapons vs. Science

[TheDarkener]

Why is it every time Iran is mentioned in the mass media, that 'Nuclear weapons' has to be included?? Seems like we're just awaiting the day that they do something even remotely close to that, so we can say "SEE?? I TOLD YOU SO!"

Jeez. Just let them go to the moon already. Not like we don't have an arsenal of nukes pointed in their direction anyway. Why are we any better? Because we already *have* them?

Russia?

[sckeener]

Is it any wonder that they are doing this? I'm sure this has been in the works, but with what Russia is doing, how many things can the US be a watch dog on? I'm sorry world...but at some point y'all have to be concerned too...can't just rely on the US...and you shouldn't because by evidence of the Iraq War, we aren't always (or even close to) right.

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:Are they selling bridges too?

[daveime]

Just like USA, UK, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan et al then ... Nobody "SAYS" they will launch a nuclear warhead, they're all to deter the other bunch of crazy bastards from doing it. So why is is okay for say Israel to have them pointed at Iran, and yet Iran cannot have any "deterrant" ? And don't say that Iran are crazy religious nuts, because Israel would launch one in 5 seconds if they could get away with it (and probably would too). Unfortunately there is no "-1 painful truth hurts" moderation.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[dkleinsc]

Yeah, just like how having only a few nuclear weapons had absolutely no benefit to North Korea.

Oh wait ...

Re:Just remember. . .

[AP31R0N]

All of that could true (i'm not going to get into the details of your delusional post)... AND Iran could be up to something that violates the NPT they signed. There was an Iran before Bush, and (just maybe) there will be one after. Just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean that the Iranian gov't doesn't mean us harm. Bush's idiocy and Iran's theocracy seeking WMD are not mutually exclusive.

If Bush did nothing about Iran, and Iran does something bad in 2009... "Bush let Iran build nukes!". Looks like a lose/lose proposition. Act, and he's an evil dolt. Do nothing, calamity strikes, and Bush is still an evil dolt.

Are you an brilliant troll or are you really that blinded by partisanship?

Re:Are they selling bridges too?

[Colonel Korn]

There are a lot of people who recognize this as hypocrisy, but the smarter anti-proliferation (aka sane) people have a more nuanced position than "it's okay for XXX and YYY to have nukes, but not for ZZZ." Instead, the idea is that it's not really okay for XXX, YYY, or ZZZ to have these things, but getting XXX and YYY to drop theirs is a separate problem that will take different problem solving techniques to fix. Most people can agree that ZZZ shouldn't have nukes. If I lived in a non-nuclear nation, I certainly wouldn't want my own military to acquire these weapons (Though I would support efforts to generate nuclear power).

Just like USA, UK, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan et al then ...

Nobody "SAYS" they will launch a nuclear warhead, they're all to deter the other bunch of crazy bastards from doing it.

So why is is okay for say Israel to have them pointed at Iran, and yet Iran cannot have any "deterrant" ?

And don't say that Iran are crazy religious nuts, because Israel would launch one in 5 seconds if they could get away with it (and probably would too).

Unfortunately there is no "-1 painful truth hurts" moderation.

Re:Just remember. . .

[Vohar]

I was with you for the first couple paragraphs, but that post took a nose-dive into conspiracyland after that. When I got to the 9-11 bit I would have laughed if it all weren't so sad.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[NeutronCowboy]

Yup. Now combine this with the fact that if Iraq had actually had nuclear-tipped ICMBs, the USA would not have attacked it, and you have
a) a very powerful incentive for Iran to have nuclear missiles for self-preservation
b) less of a self-preservation instinct than other nuclear nations that came before
c) a lot of powerful Iranians who are very pissed at certain segments of the world population

All of this means that there isn't shit anyone can do to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (short of turning it into a giant glass parking lot), and that Iran will be far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Thanks, Bush and Co. There are so many things wrong with invading Iraq that that decision alone - regardless of how well anything else turns out - will cement Bush's place in history as worst president ever.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It is completely different thing to use suicide attacks in warfare or terrorism and to commit a national suicide.

We heard this same crap about Chinese and Russians. You know, they're not real people, they're not thinking like us etc. etc. etc.

The leaders of Iran are very much interested in maximizing their well-being in this world. And filling up their pockets in the process. Most of Iran's theocrats are also businessmen. Christians are not the only hypocrites.

Irans business-plan

[ZarathustraDK]

1. Drill a lot of oil.

2. Send iranians into space.

3. ???????

4 Prophet!!!

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[Plutonite]

Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?

If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.

The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[Chris Burke]

I'm not even going to argue with your characterization of Muslims. There are certainly some that more or less fit your description, and while I may think they are an extremely small percentage, that isn't the point.

The point is, no matter how crazy and suicidal you imagine the average Iranian, their leaders certainly are neither. Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and all the ruling clerics didn't go to the trouble to acquire all that power just to lose it in a nuclear blast over Tehran. Like all politicians, whether superficially religious or not, they're after power and control not a glorious death. Who is it that you think goes on the suicide bombing missions? It ain't the leaders, it's the grunts. The leaders want to stay home and be safe and gain more wealth and power. Promises of virgins are for the ones who don't have anything better to look forward to in this life.

So what I'm saying is, MAD will work, just like it worked against the Russians. Iran's leaders aren't crazy, and they're actually quite intelligent. Losing the Islamic Republic is not acceptable to them. They will not launch a preemptive nuclear strike, because they know that no matter what they accomplished in that strike they would be annihilated, Iran would be destroyed, and all their plans and schemes would be for naught. So unless our or Israeli nukes are in the air, or tanks are rolling over the border, then they aren't going to use their bomb.

No, the fact is that MAD will work, and that's why Iran wants the bomb. Because MAD works both ways, and once they have the bomb then they get to join the Nobody Fucks With You Country Club. Those neo-con dreams of invading Iran would be out the window, permanently. And at that point, they can work on whatever their regional ambitions for their non-nuclear neighbors are, and not have to worry about a U.S. or other world power response more severe than our response to Russia in Georgia.

That's plenty of reason to not want Iran to go nuclear. You don't need to imagine a mushroom cloud in NYC or Tel Aviv (which won't happen) to be concerned.

Re:Ignored? Hardly

[Kagura]

Replying to my own post, I wanted to make it clear that I am calling the OP a ridiculous liar trying to act like he has access to "special information" that he has decided to leak to Slashdot.

That, or I'm one of the guys who pilots the black helicopters. But nobody would believe that, even if I said it.

It is to laugh.

[arthurpaliden]

You know at one time Iran had the only democraticly elected secular government in the area. Unfortunatly they ran afoul of the oil companies. Something about wanting a proper return for their natural resources. Anyway this democratic secular governemt was overthrown in a US/UK backed coup and a dictator who was nice to the oil companies was installed. Which leads us to today. If the west would just keep their noses out of everybodies business the world would be so much better off. By the way the same applies to Afganistan, only now we have a real mess to clean up.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

[BlackSnake112]

The leaders do not want to die. And they have convinced many young (often no to educated) to die for them. That way they get to continuing to spread the word and recruit more people to die for them.

Pretty Much...Rocket Details

[iamlucky13]

Their rocket development program is almost that elementary compared to their stated goals.

The Safir rocket is an adaptation of their Shahab-3 missile. This is a medium range ballistic missile and one of several they claimed to have test-launched en masse last month, giving Stephen Colbert an easy 10 minutes of fill material after it was found out the photos of the launch were doctored. It seems their Shahab inventory, at least flight-ready Shahab's, is not as large as they want outsiders to believe.

The Shahab itself is based on the North Korean Nodong missile, which in turn was developed from second-hand Scud missiles acquired from Egypt. Going back even further, the Scud originated in the 50's in the Soviet Union as a scaled down, improved version of the German V-2. Whew! Talk about a long lineage.

For the launch vehicle derivative, it apparently has been fitted with a different second stage, possibly derived from Soviet SA-2 surface to air missiles, and probably a small third stage with a payload fairing for the orbital version. Payload would likely be very small...the Shahab-3 only carries a 1 ton warhead on a sub-orbital trajectory. The launch weight is less than SpaceX's Falcon-1, which has a 700kg LEO capability and presumably a higher-performance engine.

Despite not having a large technical infrastructure, Iran is not entirely devoid of reasonably competent engineers. Given enough resolve and a couple more tries, they will probably succeed. It at least appears theoretically possible for that rocket to reach orbit.

However, that is still a very, very long ways from putting a man in space, even counting on existing technologies. Such a rocket will not scale well at all, meaning they will need to develop something completely new from the ground up...because North Korea isn't going to be able to supply them with a Soyuz to copy. China, for example, launched their first satellite in 1970, but it wasn't 2003 that they actually put a person in orbit. That was after drawing on Soviet experience and 3-4 generations of their own ballistic mis...err, I mean expendable launch vehicles.

Like many of their past claims, there's little reason to expect Iran to be able to follow through on the man in space claim for the foreseeable future.

Analogies suck...

[mangu]

The (hypothetical) woman down the hall being beaten by her husband isn't allowed to forcibly evict me from my apartment to get away from him.

I thought only car analogies were allowed here... OK, just kidding. The situation in Israel is more like an abused woman who moves to a new apartment to get away from her husband who beat her. Her new neighbors say "hey, we are into this sadomasochism thing too! Let's slap that bitch around!" Only to find that she has taken self-defense training and got a gun and learned to shoot.

When the old Palestine British protectorate was divided by the United Nations in the 1940s, the smaller Jewish part was named Israel and the larger part of the territory was named Jordan. "Palestine" is actually Jordan. But, different from Israel, Jordan was never a fully democratic country and in september 1970, the "Black September", a faction of the Jordanians tried to overthrow the government and failed. That faction are the people now known as "Palestinians".

When Egypt sat down to negotiate and recognized the right of Israel to exist, they got back all the territory they had lost in the wars against Israel. If Syria and Jordan wished to negotiate, they would probably get the same results Egypt did. The problem is that it's a bit hard to negotiate with someone whom you have publicly sworn to kill, unless you agree to back off a bit from that position.

Re:Analogies suck...

[g8oz]

Wrong. The Palestinians are the people evicted from the land now called Israel. They are distinct from the Bedouin tribes that constitute "real" Jordanians. Many elderly Palestinians still have the keys to their long gone houses in Israel.

And in Mahmoud Abbas, the Israelis have the most reasonable pragmatic Palestinian leader they have ever dealt with. And what is the reward? More roadblocks, more checkpoints, more walls and last but certainly not least, MORE SETTLEMENTS.

Maybe they should focus on basics...

[rahvin112]

For all their attempts to be a major regional power they should spend less money on putting some Iranian in space a lot more effort on making sure the Iranian people have food, shelter, heat, roads, sewers, water and jobs.

On one hand you have a country developing ICBM's and trying to put people in space and on the other you have hundreds of people freezing to death because a government with some of the largest energy reserves in the world can't provide natural gas to rural populations living in the mountains.

Personally I'm astounded the Iranian people or even the clerics of Iran put up with it. Everyone in control must be so out of touch with the people on the ground they don't even realize the difference they could make and the power Iran would have if they could solve the real economic and infrastructure problems the country has.

Re:Maybe they should focus on basics...

[shutdown -p now]

Iranian people have food, shelter, heat, roads, sewers, water and jobs.

Iranian people have food, shelte,r heat, roads, sewers, water and jobs. It may come as a surprise to some, but Iran, theoratic and totalitarian as it is, is not that poor. It's not up to the western life level, of course, but it is still a welfare state (as written in its constitution) with some fundamental guarantees for its citizens.

Exporting the dark ages to outer space

[Deputy Doodah]

Then they'll be able stone women to death with moon rocks.