Slashdot Mirror
Iran Has Put a Satellite Into Orbit
Dekortage writes "'Dear Iranian nation, your children have placed the first indigenous satellite into orbit,' announced Iran's President Ahmadinejad yesterday. The satellite, named Omid ('hope'), was launched to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Video shown on Iranian television shows a Safir-2 rocket rising into the sky, as a follow-up to a test firing last August."
I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away.
I dunno, but I'd like to see some third party confirmation before I believe that Iran has a satellite in orbit. Launching a satellite and putting it in orbit is a tricky thing to do; only a few countries have managed it, and none the size or technology level of Iran, IIRC.
Honestly, look at this list. One of these things in not like the others.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
FYI: Canada has nuclear power stations AND has launched satellites. Are you scared now? We have just demonstrated that we can drop nuclear beer and back-bacon on any city worldwide.
Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.
Thank you.
John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962
839*929
iran doesnt invade any country actively, but they invade them through the religious terorrist organizations they fund. hezbollah, hamas, ibda-c, numerous groups trying to invade pakistan, afghanistan are just a few.
much more annoying and dangerous.
Read radical news here
The mark of a civilised mind would be to celebrate this achievement. Those gripped by tribal paranoia, searching for ways to disparage the Iranians should take a good look at themselves (I'm mainly looking at you now Americans). Relax, I've played football with some Iranian guys seen for myself in the shower, their dicks are not significantly bigger than the average Western male.
I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away.
There is. In reality, this is more akin to Sputnik than an ICBM.
Nevertheless, we and the Soviets started like this, and it didn't take many years before both we and they had intercontinental capability in weapons delivery. Furthermore, the Iranians (and everyone else interested in near-space) have the advantage of knowing what can be accomplished. We and the Russians did not, and spent a lot of time and money figuring that out.
They also don't have to come up with anything akin to a Saturn V or Energia heavy-lift booster to become a real threat, if they want to be. Why they'd want to be on the U.S. and Soviet target list is beyond me though. Being a nuclear power today (even a nuclear superpower) is risky business, no matter how you slice it.
Honestly, I'm not really all that worried about this: a cruise missile is a lot cheaper to develop and deploy than an ICBM, and damn near as deadly.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well first off every Canadian knows that there is no way we are going to irradiate our beer. And for sure there is no way in H E double hockey sticks that we are going to irradiate it and then strap it onto a rocket and shoot it out of the country. Don't even get me started on the bacon... mmmmmm bacon....
What do you mean? This satellite is a shoe... and it's expected to de-orbit over Texas in the near future.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If this is true and the satellite reached escape velocity you have just demonstrated that Iran can drop a warhead on any city worldwide.
Super happy fun times to come, good job on easing tensions.
Iraq: No ICBMs, no nukes, invaded and President executed after a mock trial.
Korea: Nukes, ICBMs (not worldwide range, but can hit California), currently negotiating in multilateral talks.
I think this move by Iran actually may ease tensions.
from cnn:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.satellite/index.html
"The United States has confirmed that Iran launched a low-earth orbit satellite on Monday night, two U.S. officials told CNN's Barbara Starr. "
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
FYI: Canada has nuclear power stations AND has launched satellites. Are you scared now?
Canada is a responsible member of the international community that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.
If Iran wants to be treated like a grown up member of the international community perhaps they could borrow a few lessons from our neighbors to the North? Besides which, ice hockey is way cooler than soccer anyway.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I have never heard of a ballistic missile that could not be tracked back to its point of origin. That means if Iran ever launches a missile as a weapon it'll be her last.
"Acting up"? *Sigh* Why do I respond to trolls?
Go read a bit of modern Iranian history, before you fall back on stereotypes of Islam-vs-the-rest-of-the-world. If it hadn't been for our meddling (oh, overthrowing governments, oil grabs etc--none of this is controversial), Iran would not be in confrontation with us today. Twenty years after the revolution, they tried peace overtures, but Bush decided instead to dub them an "Axis of Evil" (wow, thank god our era of world-as-cartoon presidents is over). I can't understand your claim of Iran expanding its values into Israel.
We have no right to overthrow other people's governments, and even less right to act surprised when they get pissed over it. And speaking of Israel: when they behave all might is right, others are going to try to acquire might to counter that.
Lies about crimes
To that end, I suppose that those who would argue that strategic missile defense cannot be built, or that militarization of space should be avoided, or that Iran is not a threat, need to rethink that.
Strategic missile defense is a waste of money and effort, equivalent to airport metal detectors. They're security theater - if successful, they may prevent an attack from that vector, but their real value lies in making the citizens feel safer and deterring attempts along that one vector.
Problem is, there are so many other vectors that are easier - millions if not billions of shipping containers enter the US each year entirely uninspected. Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Want a scarier idea? Say we do start inspecting all the shipping containers to enter the country... where would we do it? Probably dockside in major coastal cities, so even if we do happen to check the right container, a simple deadman switch would still make for a successful attack.
Defense is not the solution, and security theater is just a waste.
I can see where this AC is coming from. Iran seems to be doing a good job these last few years, but people still give them a bad rap. This isn't the first headline I've seen with something positive about Iran. If anyone actually bothers reading a bio, you'll see that Ahmadinejad has been doing a really nice job compared to his predecessors. For example, he reestablished relations with the US after 30 years of the silent treatment. That sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
I just hope the intelligent, calm, undiscriminating folk on slashdot can give Iran a chance. Both of them.
Iraq: Invaded another country, didn't have powerful friends.
North Korea: Hasn't invaded another country since the 1950s, has powerful friends in Russia and China, and has enough conventional artillary already positioned to flatten Seoul within an hour.
Nukes aren't the only reason for the current situation.
Dear Sir,
I understand your request for mobilization, I understand that the Western world is in great peril. Please be assured of my everlasting support to your cause against these 1500 years (or 3000 years or something...) old enemies. I would be glad to help but I am currently too busy digging some trenches to protect me from our neighbors. See, my nation is fighting since 1000 years (or 2000 or whatever) against the Germanic people. Our feud is so old that I think reconciliation may prove impossible. All we can do is arm for war.
Please be assured of my deepest sympathy
A French guy.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
ZOMG Iranians have reached space age, we must re-assert our technical superiority by building seven invincible mechas, and we shall call them GUNDAMS! *back drop music*
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
It's not a very difficult engineering problem.
Riiiight... That's why the term "rocket scientist" is used as a synonym for intelligence - because the engineering is so easy anyone can do it...
Oh wait, it requires expertise in (per wikipedia) fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics, physics, mathematics, control engineering, materials science, aeroelasticity, avionics, reliability engineering, noise control, and flight testing among other domains. Yeah, real easy.
that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.
Just to be clear, are you talking about Iran or the US here?
Recall that is came out that Nixon was buying weapons in China and sending them through Russia to Afghani "freedom fighters". The same guys we call "insurgants" today. And that was 30 years ago. It didnt stop happening, they just cover it up better these days. Cept for Col. North who got caught.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Was being lazy...after digging a little
"Two objects from the launch, likely the Omid satellite and part of its booster, are circling Earth in oval-shaped orbits.
The orbits range in altitude from low points of 153 miles to high points of 235 miles and 273 miles. The orbital inclination is 55.5 degrees, according to U.S. military tracking data."
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn-090203-iran-satellite-launch.html
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the missile is better.
It doesn't take more than a half an hour to hit the USA. It doesn't have any risks in transportation. You can't practically recall a ballistic missile after it has been launched. You can launch a missile ad-hoc, and finally, a missile launched high above the USA fries all of our electrical shit. Fatman in the truck can't do any of that.
The smuggled weapon in the back of the truck, on the other hand, requires every single person on the way to not notice, or actively participate in the delivery of the weapon. And, it's less effective militarily.
The thing about container ships, is that there are not that many of them, as they are so big these days, that stopping them and tracking them is actually pretty practical. You can monitor a ship as its sailing all the way from Iran or an Arabian port all the way to the USA. You can fly geiger counters over it and around it to look for neutrons coming out of it. There's just way more risk for the delivery and its not a good deterrent.
Defense is not the solution, and security theater is just a waste
If defense is not the solution, then why preach birth control? Defense doesn't solve everything, but it does increase the probability of failure to an attacker, so that he or she won't attack, and also reduces the likelihood of the attacker of spreading that attack to other parties. To put it another way, if Hitler had been stopped in France, do you think he still invades Russia?
This is my sig.
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the former can go from "mere deterrent" to "enemy city exploding" in an hour, can't be countered without even more advanced technology, and gives you deterrence value for decades. The latter can go from "act of war that we'd better hope nobody discovers" to "enemy port city exploding" in days, doesn't work well if the enemy is on heightened enough alert to search or blockade approaching vans and ships, can't be demonstrated without actually committing an act of war, and so is relatively useless as a deterrent. Vans may be the delivery system of choice for terrorists planning surprise attacks, but nations hoping to commit other acts of war without reprisal are going to want nuclear weapons that can be effectively brandished without being used.
Not that I'm accusing Iran of plotting wars; the same deterrence tactics for a nation that wants to get away with an invasion apply even more strongly one that is just afraid of being invaded.
Other attack vectors (smuggling in warheads by sea/land) may be technically easier and more likely, but (being cold about it) the end damage potential is much less. If terrorists set off a bomb or two, there's lots of damage, but the rest of the country is still intact. But if a missile launches, the end result is basically that all the missiles fly. And that ruins everyone's day.
To quote Stuart Slade, defense analyst (emphasis mine):
The problem with missiles is this; once they are fired, they are on their way. Nothing can stop them (in the sense that the launch decision is final; contrary to many people's opinion, ICBMs do not have a destruct system - ones fired on range testing do, but operational ones do not) and nothing can prevent them striking their targets. The other problem is that they are very fast-moving and give the forces on the other side very little chance to decide what is happening and why. If a launch is detected now, the President has less time to make his decision over future action than most people to chose their meal at a restaurant.
Thrown into that is the inevitability of the whole thing; a missile fired means a target hit. Unless the wretched thing malfunctions, of course, but nuclear weapons are not a good place to start relying on luck. So the simple fact that a missile is on its way means that a country is about to have some fairly catastrophic damage inflicted on it. But is that all? Is that first missile the start of a salvo? Is it aimed at the deterrent forces on the ground - so that any response will be ragged? Without going too deeply into the dynamics of the decision (that would take a book rather than an answer to a question on an essay), the odds stack so that if a missile is inbound, it requires immense faith and courage not to return fire. That's step one.
Now we go to step two. The nation that has let one fly either by accident or design. Its government knows that the "other side" has immense pressure on it to return fire, that the odds in the decision-making process stack in favor of opening fire. If they hang around and wait to see what will happen, the rest of their forces get caught on the ground - and destroyed. So they require immense faith and courage not to continue firing.
Step three - the nation that is being fired on knows that the other guys are working on the basis that the odds stack in favor of continuing firing. That ends it; they know the other guys will open fire, so even if they had decided not to, they will reverse that decision. The guys who fired first know that so, even if they had decided not to fire, they reverse that decision.
Everybody fires, everybody dies. More or less. Both sides know it so they don't bother with the question. One flies, they all fly. The only question is the timing.
How does BMD figure into this? It buys time. A single missile inbound can be shot down reasonably easily. So if a single inbound is detected, it can be shot down - stopped from reaching its target. That takes the dreadful time squeeze out - both sides can afford to wait to see what happens. The side that is being shot at can see what develops and also contact the other side and ask. Not a joke - that may be the most important single step. The side that let one fly by accident knows that the other side is going to wait so they can also afford to do so. And the whole situation is a lot cooler.
That's not to say we shouldn't secure ports and borders and all that. We certainly should. But we can't ignore the less-likely but potentially more catastrophic threat, either. The "we can't stop everything, so let's do nothing" approach is stupid, too.
It should also be noted that the US had a working missile defense system in the 70s.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
has nothing to do with being pro-israel, or pro-western, or anti-muslim
suspicion of iran has to do with it being a theocracy. doesn't matter that it is a muslim or christian theocracy, or whether it is located in the middle east, or south america, or antarctica. the issue is it being a theocracy. begnning of valid concern about iran, end of valid concern about iran
if someone is concerned about iran, it very well could be for mindless ethnocentrism, religious bigotry, or tibal chest thumping reasons. it is very easy to be concerned about iran for the lowest and most disgraceful reasons
but someone can also be concerned about iran simply from a strictly globalist, humanist, universal, highminded reason:
a theocracy is a very bad thing
why?
we are talking about a government that has, ensconced in its constituion, a bunch of grumpy old men, who are above all law or ability to be questioned, who act in the name of god, and have a monopoly on interpretting the will of god, according to law. that doesn't bother you?
power in iran is not ahmadinejad. power is in the ayatollahs. ahmadinejad is a figurehead. he does not hold the final power. the ayatollahs can freely choose to disavow any candidate form office, and have done so exorbitantly in past elections to disallow popular reform candidates from running
would you consider it a problem if the pope could, without any ability to question or veto his decision, walk into the elections in germany, or the usa, or great britain, and simply cherry pick the candidates he wants to run?
again, the problem is not islam. the problem is not the middle east. the problem is not being anti-israeli. the problem is not being anti-western. all of these instincts are perfectly valid and defensible world views
the problem is with iran being a THEOCRACY. on that issue alone, is suspicion of iran perfectly valid, from either a pro-western or anti-western point of view
pay attention to the below text... this government is going to get a nuclear warhead:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html
so these grumpy old men, with a monopoly on intepretting what the will of god is, are about to get control over a nuclear warhead
and people wish to say that if you are concerned about this, you must be some brain dead tribal pro-western muslim hater?
really?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No army before WW2 eh? So how did we fight world war one? How did we fight the civil war? How did we fight all those wars before then?
We had a policy to stay out of European affairs but we damn sure had an army. We changed that policy after being dragged into two world wars and seeing the tragic loss of life they caused.
Sure, we do have a lot of bases worldwide but many of them are because of defensive treaties. For example our bases in Japan are there for defensive purposes and were used for reconstruction of Japan after the war, same with Germany.
Also, a lot of them are holdovers from the cold war in which we prevented the soviets from taking over Europe. Or do all you Europeans want to be praising the soviet motherland?
You should try getting the story right at least. Accuracy is a basic requirement for being taken seriously. You aren't even close.
The Soviets (Russians) had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Immediately afterwards, Carter (not Nixon) approved sending arms to the insurgents within the country. This policy was continued by the Reagan Administration. The Soviets withdrew in 1989 with their tails between their legs. This was all above-board, the US made no bones about opposing this and arming the insurgents.
The Sandinista regime in Nicaragua was aligned with Moscow and Havana which was unacceptable to most people in the US. From the instant that the Sandinista regime was in power (1977), there was a homegrown insurgency against the communist-dominated regime. The US began assisting the insurgents shortly thereafter. However, some Massachusetts and NYC Democrat types managed to get a set of amendments collectively called the Boland Amendment tacked onto some other bills which specifically instructed the DoD, CIA and ultimately the rest of the US Government to cease supporting the Contras. In this context, the Iran-Contra Affair occurred. Finally, we get to Ollie North.
I recommend reading the talk page on the Contras. The disagreements there, while profound, are also enlightening to show how much politics affect remembrance of the past.
Sheesh, kids these days. No one remembers the Cold War.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
For those of us that worked in the Defense Industry, this is a classic. For those that are new, you can probably appreciate this.
This WAV is from a military training video on missile guidance.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I'm Canadian, and I feel the same way about GW.
Maybe we should just go with "Politicians of any form should not be allowed to control weapons of any form."
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It explains why the US didn't invade North Vietnam, or bomb China in the 50s, or make a real attempt at invading Cuba. It's why neither side pushed too far in 1973.
To quote Mr. Slade again:
When a country first acquires nuclear weapons it does so out of a very accurate perception that possession of nukes fundamentally changes it relationships with other powers. What nuclear weapons buy for a New Nuclear Power (NNP) is the fact that once the country in question has nuclear weapons, it cannot be beaten. It can be defeated, that is it can be prevented from achieving certain goals or stopped from following certain courses of action, but it cannot be beaten. It will never have enemy tanks moving down the streets of its capital, it will never have its national treasures looted and its citizens forced into servitude. The enemy will be destroyed by nuclear attack first. A potential enemy knows that so will not push the situation to the point where our NNP is on the verge of being beaten. In effect, the effect of acquiring nuclear weapons is that the owning country has set limits on any conflict in which it is involved. This is such an immensely attractive option that states find it irresistible.
Only later do they realize the problem. Nuclear weapons are so immensely destructive that they mean a country can be totally destroyed by their use. Although our NNP cannot be beaten by an enemy it can be destroyed by that enemy. Although a beaten country can pick itself up and recover, the chances of a country devastated by nuclear strikes doing the same are virtually non-existant. [This needs some elaboration. Given the likely scale and effects of a nuclear attack, its most unlikely that the everybody will be killed. There will be survivors and they will rebuild a society but it will have nothing in common with what was there before. So, to all intents and purposes, once a society initiates a nuclear exchange its gone forever]. Once this basic factor has been absorbed, the NNP makes a fundamental realization that will influence every move it makes from this point onwards. If it does nothing, its effectively invincible. If, however, it does something, there is a serious risk that it will initiate a chain of events that will eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. The result of that terrifying realization is strategic paralysis.
With that appreciation of strategic paralysis comes an even worse problem. A non-nuclear country has a wide range of options for its forces. Although its actions may incur a risk of being beaten they do not court destruction. Thus, a non-nuclear nation can afford to take risks of a calculated nature. However, a nuclear-equipped nation has to consider the risk that actions by its conventional forces will lead to a situation where it may have to use its nuclear forces with the resulting holocaust. Therefore, not only are its strategic nuclear options restricted by its possession of nuclear weapons, so are its tactical and operational options. So we add tactical and operational paralysis to the strategic variety. This is why we see such a tremendous emphasis on the mechanics of decision making in nuclear powers. Every decision has to be thought through, not for one step or the step after but for six, seven or eight steps down the line.
We can see this in the events of the 1960s and 1970s, especially surrounding the Vietnam War. Every so often, the question gets asked "How could the US have won in Vietnam?" with a series of replies that include invading the North, extending the bombing to China and other dramatic escalations of the conflict. Now, it should be obvious why such suggestions could not, in the real world, be contemplated. The risk of ending up in a nuclear war was too great. For another example, note how the presence of nuclear weapons restricted and limited the tactical and operational options available to both sides in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In effect neither side could push the war to a final conclusion because to do so would bring down nuclear
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Respect. The USA does not treat countries without nukes with the same kind of respect as they do otherwise.
US:"Iraq, you have nukes and we must stop you immediately."
Iraq:"No we don't. Look, inspect all you like."
[Iraq is invaded]
US:"North Korea, you have nukes and we must stop you immediately."
North Korea:"Damned right we do. What are you going to do about it?"
[North Korea is ignored]
The ______ Agenda
Apollo 11 ran on an insanely sucky chip
Apollo 11 (and all the others) actually ran on a shitload of NOR gates, the single chip CPU not having been invented yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
That list is so redudant, A) every thing on the list is a subset of mathematics
I am an engineer and if you think engineering is nothing more than a subset of mathematics you don't understand engineering. There are many aspects to engineering that have nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics. With a little poetic license math could rightly be called the language of engineering but that does not make engineering a sub domain of mathematics. Math is indispensable to the study and practice of science and engineering but don't ever confuse the the tool with the discipline.
"There is. In reality, this is more akin to Sputnik than an ICBM."
Sputnik was launched with an ICBM -an R-7 to be exact.
Sig this!
how many new countries have we annexed in the past couple of decades
Nicaraugua, Panama, and in 03 the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez./p>
Ok, that brings the count to zero. Got any more? (Oddly enough, this list doesn't include any of your suggestions.)
This for a country that had no army before WWII.
LOL. Seeing nonsense like this modded up to +5 really turns me off to reading slashdot comments anymore. Metamods, are you reading this?
So how did we fight world war one? How did we fight the civil war? How did we fight all those wars before then?
By drafting civilians into a temporary army for a specific war, as opposed to hiring them for a government career in a standing army.
Apples and oranges. An accidental bombing under the fog of war hardly compares to overrunning a foreign embassy and holding the people therein hostage for over a year.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yeah, you're right, with the U.S. trade imbalances over the last umpteen years, what nerve of us to open our markets and buy all that stuff. And guess what happens when we stop buying the rest of the world's stuff? The current economic meltdown. That's some definition of imperialism, ya got there, son.
Gerry
No army before WW2 eh? So how did we fight world war one? How did we fight the civil war? How did we fight all those wars before then? We had a policy to stay out of European affairs but we damn sure had an army. We changed that policy after being dragged into two world wars and seeing the tragic loss of life they caused. Sure, we do have a lot of bases worldwide but many of them are because of defensive treaties. For example our bases in Japan are there for defensive purposes and were used for reconstruction of Japan after the war, same with Germany. Also, a lot of them are holdovers from the cold war in which we prevented the soviets from taking over Europe. Or do all you Europeans want to be praising the soviet motherland?
What gp meant was we had no large standing army. At the end of each conflict before the Second World War, units were disbanded back to a peacetime force level. After the Second World War we did not continue this routine, but built up forces in Europe and Asia to maintain deterrence against the Soviets - even though we were in peacetime. Eisenhower had the foresight to warn against the rising Military-Industrial complex forming in the US, but we didn't care because the Commies were going to come get us in our sleep and we had to be ready. Since the Soviets don't exist to produce that fear anymore, we had to scramble for something else to hang on to. Towelheads and terrorists are now the reason for a large standing army and continuous military operations to feed the machine. And they're all going to get nukes and make us all Muslims and kill us. Thus we extend our military influence further abroad. Whether we claim to own the territories we are in or not is irrelevant, we have military presence that allows us to influence other nations to our will. Do me a favor and try to point out the nearest foreign military base on US soil. When your military is extended throughout the world but the rest of the world is not extended in your own nation, you are an empire, whether you have territorial claims or not.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Do we really have to turn this into a discussion of nuclear weapons? Can't we just accept this at face value -- a very difficult technical achievement made all the more impressive for occurring in a country that's under international sanctions designed to prevent, among other things, advancements in the field of rocketry?
Yes, nuclear missile technology is closely related to satellite launch technology. Yes, future iterations of this could potentially be adapted into payload delivery systems. Yes, Iran has been provocative in the past. But they're not doing offensive missile tests. They're not doing war games. They're not trying to be provocative here -- they launched a satellite, not a bomb. A satellite called Hope. This isn't a message to the world screaming, "Fear Us!". This is a message to the world asking, "Respect Us."
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
Really? When exactly did this happen, in the lead up to the last invasion? UN inspectors were in Iraq only days before the US invaded and only left because the UN told them to get the hell out before the US started dropping high-explosives on their heads. Hans Blix was telling the UN Security Council flat out that Iraq was complying with the inspections and essentially pleaded for more time to complete the inspections before the US decided that Iraq had WMD. The US ignored all of that and invaded anyway.
Some people have fucking short memories.
Really, grow up. War isn't a game.
I think it is maybe perceived more so by the USA as the majority of their citizens have not experienced a modern war on their own mainland territory. For many people in other countries the experience of war is more direct and people are less likely to be so gung-ho about it. Mainland USA was untouched in the major conflicts of the twentieth century. While terrible events were unfolding the lights were on in Main Street, small town America and you could walk down that street eating ice cream as if nothing was happening. I honestly believe this has given Americans a profoundly different idea of what a war is from the majority of the rest of the world.
Don't talk lightly of wars, they are certainly not games.
This notion that we must intervene in any government we don't like is exactly why we're in the position we're in now with the Middle East.
We don't like Mossadeq, we intervene to overthrow him, despite his being democratically elected. Khomeini replaces our hand-picked Shah, so we support Saddam Hussein in his ridiculously unjust war against Iran.
This is the most obvious example; but we've been through this in a half-dozen South American countries as well. We have no sense of time in this country. We don't take the long view of anything, anything at all.
And by the way, I do remember the Cold War. I've done a duck and cover drill. I've been afraid of the Russians. We acted with more measure and reason when we worried about the killing the planet. As it is now, we'll do anything if it just involves killing regionally.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Except, you know, all that territory we took from Indian nations. And from Mexico. And from the Kingdom of Hawaii, though that was covert activity backed up by U.S. military forces rather than all-out war.
But you don't have to make an area a state: you can make it a U.S. territory, like we did in the Philippines, though we decided they were more trouble then they were worth. We still have the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Mariana Islands.
Generally, though, we're preferred the neocolonial approach: you can run your own affairs so long as your governance is compatible with U.S. economic interests. You get in the way, you get toppled. A lot less trouble than running things directly.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This isn't a message to the world screaming, "Fear Us!". This is a message to the world asking, "Respect Us."
Yeah, right. Just like China's message to the world after shooting down one of their old satellites wasn't "look, we have the technology to shoot down satellites", it was "everyone rejoice, we now have the means to help defend our great united human race when Mars Attacks!!"
Yes, because it's applicable technology (as you later admit).
Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I don't really see what the name of the satellite has to do with the fact that Iran has proven it is fast approaching the capability to launch payloads. Whether those payloads will be for peaceful or wartime purposes remains to be seen. However, given President Ahmadinejad's statements over the last couple of years, I think it's important to take this demonstration and its purpose with a healthy dose of suspicion.
He who has no
Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Just like other launches they've done.
I don't recall mentioning Israel in my post. Odd.
It would be fantastic if my point would have been taken at face value. Iran's President has been making a variety of strong statements for quite some time now, and I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point. The simple truth to the matter is that Iran's strong words and sabre-rattling imply that we need to take the purposes of this launch with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is that too much to ask?
I wasn't debating what bearing the US' history has had on Iran's statements as of late. I'm simply pointing out that their statements are indicative of ulterior motives with regards to demonstrations like this launch.
He who has no
> Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Let me clarify, I don't believe everything they do is for peaceful purposes, just like I don't believe everything WE do is for peaceful purposes.
> I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point
I would like you to actually point me to the text of any speech of Ahmadinejad's where he threatens any state with military action. Just one. Most of the articles you speak of are basically recycling the whole "Iran is evil/wipe us off the mat" meme and most of it based not on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, but on our politician's rhetoric. i.e. no different to the whole "US is evil" meme that pervades most of the rest of the world (and with a similar level of evidence to back it up).
How different are Ahmadinejad's speeches regarding the US from say, Reagan's speech about the "evil empire" (USSR)?
> their statements are indicative of ulterior motives
Indeed. Same applies to our guys too.
Ever looked at how much of our electricity is generated from oil? A tiny percentage. Why? Because oil is very expensive per unit energy. It's always better to sell it and make your power another way. It'd probably be cheaper for them to sell their oil and import coal from halfway around the world than to burn the oil (certainly last summer it would have been; not so sure now).
That's not to say that Iran *doesn't* want to have nuclear weapons. But there's a completely rational explanation to not want to burn oil for power. If gold burned, would you suggest that gold-rich nations burn their gold for power?
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.