Slashdot Mirror
Iran Unveils Its First UAV Bomber
ms_gen writes "Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled today the first UAV bomber produced by Iran. The drone, named Karrar (farsi for Striker) can carry various types of bombs. It can reach up to 900 km/h in speed and has a range of 1000 kilometers (620 miles). The Iranian president mentions that 'Karrar is a symbol of the progress of defence technology in Iran.'"
How can one summarize this bit of news, and leave out the fact that Iran refers to this UAV as "The Ambassador Of Death?" I mean, come on. That's the best part.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?
great idea - then I can start marketing my specially designed oil drilling bits that can cut through the green glass that will be covering all of Persia
...The fact that UAVs were the stuff of science fiction for years until they started becoming commonplace?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I think this falls under "Stuff that Matters".
You know, since this is yet another "antagonize the West" type of action by Iran.
According to TFA. Diplomats are the same in all countries it seems.
Just what I'd expect from Iran, the use of UnAmerican Vile Bombers. So unlike the Righteous Holy American Bombers used by our own beloved military. It's like how Iraq stooped to deploying weapons of mass destruction; something we'd never dream of doing. At this rate we're going to have to liberate the entire world.
The US said it saw no "proliferation risk" from the plant, though Israel condemned the move.
Regarding the US's position, that pretty much contradicts everything I've been hearing in the news.
You mean 1944? That's when UAVs became commonplace.
That's a good one. A bomber being a defensive weapon. Hahahaha
More like "antagonize Israel and end up bringing a world of hurt upon oneself" or "how to commit suicide."
Our (America's) military fucks around because our moron leaders love to play politics and leach every bit of $$$$ out of defense-related conflicts, and not let the military do its job the way it should, because we're halfway around the world and our "enemies" can barely prick us from there.
Israel on the hand doesn't fuck around, since they are the primary target of jihadists, so there the politicians are very aware that it's a matter of survival. I'd say Iran is foolhardy in their nuclear and medium-range weapon efforts.
Great. So now we'll get a story about Turkey or Romania fielding its first UAV?
I can't wait.
I suppose if you're interested in terrorizing people in your own country it works, but military applications pretty much require that the user control the skies. Otherwise they'll just get shot down in short order.
And numbers only count if you can crank them out, something I suspect Iran might have a hard time with.
And Iran just opened its first nuclear power plant. Hm, this thing has a range of 1000mi. Iran's stated objective is to discontinue the existence of the Israeli state.
1) Say you are going to blow up Israel
2) Build a nuke plant claiming its for peaceful purposes.
3) Build a UAV ("The Ambassador of Death") bomber with a range of 1000mi.
4) Blow the shit out of Israel
5) Face NCB retaliation from a country with absolutely nothing left to lose.
If you weren't paying attention Iran views 4 as the profit step and doesn't seem to care about 5. Note the lack of "???" step. These sure are interesting/frightening times.
They both already operate UAV's, so I think such a story is unlikely.
So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?
OK.
But it's still not newsworthy.
Don't know if this would count as a major threat. It certainly might antagonize the West, but when you think about it, to fly UAVs effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from. In other words, your UAVs are only as effective as their operators are secure. Good strategy for the US, perhaps not so good for Iran.
Ok, really Iran? If you really want to be credible, you have to stop announcing military things when you have a "civilian" project going. So first off you make a nuclear reactor come online. No problem there, then on the same day you announce that you've upgraded your weaponry... I really, really want to believe that Iran just wants to use the energy for peaceful purposes... But with timing like this... it isn't going to make the west trust you anymore Iran.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yes, it would be perfect the worlds' biggest WalMart parking lot ---- plenty of space, and you won't hit any carts.
Video of a test launch and production.
http://vodpod.com/watch/4282312-iranian-karrar-drone
Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The UAE, Qatar and Saudis are all leery as hell about Iran right now too.
You seem to ignore the fact that Turkey, my country, is within obvious range of this missile, not the USA or most western European countries. Iran has never been a real friend with Turkey. Our relations appear to depend on the political stability in Turkey as Iran was a supporter of the terrorist organization PKK not long ago, with which it now seems to be struggling. Moreover, why shouldn't we have that aircraft? Don't we have the right to be strong and deterrant?
literacle.com
Or at the very least an attempt to keep up with western technology, a month ago the UK unveiled the Corax for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Corax), the french have the Dassault nEuron (Dassault nEUROn) or any of the many other armed UAV's.
What a country like iran doing this is show us how easy it is to do half decent version of this technology, and if it comes to a shooting war, how easy they are to hack.
Tries to help nerds get to know what's happening.
Though I'm not sure about the ultimate purpose Bushehr, it does seem to be designed for producing electricity and not weapons grade plutonium, the timing is really bad. I mean, first they load Bushehr and two days later they announce the "ambasador of death". It's almost like a bad fiction novel. You simply couldn't make this stuff up. My guess, it's all for internal propaganda but possibly also for Hezbollah.
What this AC wrote really means, "I'm not interested in this, therefore nobody in the world is, either."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I don't know why anyone is surprised at this latest development. We insisted on utilizing UAVs for more than "surveillance" purposes, so now everyone else is starting to get the same idea.
-Oz
Right, just to clear this up: the fact they've developed their own UAV bomber is purely to spite the 'West' whereas any similar defense technology development by a western nation should never be construed as antagonising the Middle East, let alone Iran. Furthermore, Iran should not by any means be allowed the same fear sodden defense industry that the West so covets and they should simply accept that.
OK, thanks, I think I've got it now - you're schlepping the same drag-and-drop late-night-international-espionage-TV-drama idiocy that practically defines the geo-political arrogance of our precious West in the eyes of others.
You ought to remember that many countries see the supposed leader of the West, The U.S, as a terrible and amoral aggressor, having willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons), continues to stockpile nuclear weapons munitions while chastising the rest of the world for doing so using trade and political embargoes, trades big-brother-style protection rackets to arm-bend smaller countries into accepting U.S military bases, has camps in which they not only 'disappear' but spiritually and psychologically humiliate the prisoners using methods not seen since Vietnam (the list goes on). This is the stuff they see in talk shows on their TVs, read in their opinion columns in their newspapers, talk about in political science classes at high-school, etc...
Just to point you to the other side of the coin where the opinions of 6 or so billion other people may differ from your picture of it all.
Iran can and has struck first. Iran can and has recently used chemical weapons.
Fully expect Iran to move into Iraq once US troops leave. they will do so under the same supposed reason the USA did, to stablize the region, and defend the shites from the kurds and sunni's.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?
OK.
But it's still not newsworthy.
Oh my, yes it is. This particular UAV doesn't have the range to threaten Israel (that would require another 500km at least), but you can bet that Iran wants the world to think that the next one will. Militarily, a UAV would be an less-than-ideal delivery mechanism for a nuclear weapon, but it might prove viable if it were able to fly low-and-slow with a negligible radar profile.
Iran's closer neighbours, meanwhile, have all been served notice, too. This is Iran's way of saying, 'Don't fuck with us.' Remember that most neighbouring countries do not love the Shi'ite version of Islam, which is a majority religion only in Iran and Iraq, I believe. Think back to the European wars that accompanied the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Shias and Sunnis are kind of like Catholics and Protestants. Peaceful now, but often at odds with one another.
Lastly, this is Iran thumbing its nose at US-sponsored economic sanctions. Effectively, they're saying, 'No matter what you do to thwart us, we can still acquire the technologies we want to be the threat you don't want us to be. So why not sit down and allow us to negotiate a better place for ourselves in the region?'
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Yeah, we could nuke them and bomb them but what would that accomplish? There will be another nuclear country, what do we do then? Eventually, if we keep up that strategy we end up with a country either too big to bomb or a country with enough bombs to destroy the US just like the Soviet Union. Diplomacy is the only reliable way to diffuse situations like this. Yeah, nuking Iran would buy us a decade possibly but eventually the US is going to have to realize that the west/Russia simply can't have a nuclear monopoly, it is impossible. If we could do it in the 1940s, chances are 3rd world countries can do it in 2010, even better when the 3rd world country is owned by a virtual dictator.
War breeds more war, diplomacy can keep peace. Look at WWI which bred WWII which bred the Cold War which helped breed many of the current conflicts. And I'm sure if you looked further you could see that there were conflicts which caused WWI
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Anyone else notice the irony of today also being when they announced their first /Nuclear/ Power Plant?
Amen! :).
Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.
At least roll-out something more advanced than a V-1 before calling it a UAV...
The AI has been promised 72 virgin iPads after it completes it's mission.
Decent chance pretty much anyone could cobble something together these days. Or at least take a reasonable crack at it.
Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.
The UAV does seem to be the poster-child of US military power in the region. Whether or not the Iranian weapon system is effective on the battlefield probably isn't as important as the propaganda it will generate.
That's just stupid. The US doesn't threaten India, Pakistan, Israel, England, etc. It's not just that they will get nukes, it's that they are crazy enough to use them. Diplomacy doesn't work on fanatics. And often it doesn't work otherwise. Chamberlain tried diplomacy 1937-1939. In case you don't know see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement to see how well that worked out.
Rest assured Turkey is very deterrent.
From the BBC photos it looks either to be 1) a first strike weapon as its not designed for reuse or 2) is part of a deadman switch retaliation for a strike against the iranian homeland.
Nazi V1 inspired rocket powered sled drones need not be rail based (iran has a few lines) but could be launched from modified SEA containers off semi-trucks (the drone quite stubby in wingspan) or dropped the wheeled carriage after takeoff.
Tactically in a moving / shooting war I doubt these are useful as they are easily destroyed on the ground after satellites and enemy surveillance drones pick them out of the other targets.
Denying lengthy roads, rail lines and destroying trucking depots would be the "counter offensive"
Now back to starcraft II.
The greatest difficulty so far is keeping the pilot with his Futaba radio within the quarter mile radio range of the plane to fly it.
Can't disagree there, or speak to what propaganda effect it might have. As far as the military is concerned, though, I think this announcement will have little impact. AKA no one cares.
On the other hand, perhaps this gesture speaks of the Iranian leadership's thoughts on being an important player on the world stage. Good luck to them.. frankly I think they'd be more effective if they explored other avenues.
I think people just find it funny when little countries get all excited about having a few jets or bombs. Ultimately it's about the friends you make. Iran is a pissy little country, but Russia is behind it, so if Israel bombs the reactor, it'll kill Russians and they'll get involved - it's not just a few bearded turds with big words but small defence budgets. Likewise with Turkey - they pose a threat to no-one, militarily. There's never going to be a war over Cyprus or whatever. Ultimately the US are on your side cos you're right next door (and a flight path to) all the trouble. I'm surprised there's surprise from the UN and whoever else about people not giving more aid to Pakistan after the floods. They've got nuclear weapons! People aren't stupid. They're not going to give money to a country to effectively subsidize their nuclear program when they're perfectly capable of spending a few million on boats, water purifiers, move food/medicine around etc.
Right? I mean, defensive missiles would be like SAMs and such, not a missile or bomb delivery system that can travel so far...
More BS from IRAN. It's getting to be that whatever they say, just take it in an opposite way.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
This can only end well. I for one, can't WAIT to meet this new 'ambassador'.
This thing is a gimmick. It is a small cruise missile with remote capabilities. The bomb on it is a tiny little dumb thing that isn't going to hurt anyone unless it hits them directly, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that the avionics on that drone don't amount to much more than a camera bolted on. In defense against the presumed target, the US, this thing is a novelty. The US gets giddy over electronic warfare and this thing is asking have its connection severed. The fuel and explosives are better spent on a missile that doesn't bother to return home and doesn't need an operator to guide it in. This does nothing to help the defense of Iran against the style of combat the US uses.
If you are going to fight the US, and you are not China or Russia, you need to fight dispersed, hidden, and from cover. The only time it is worthwhile to fully stand and fight is if the victory you achieve is worth the destruction of the force you are having stand and fight. It is worthwhile to launch a massive simultaneous missile on a US carrier battle group with everything you have knowing that force will be destroyed. If you kill a carrier, the fact that you just destroyed your missile force is worth it. Outside of that though, you need to fight with the understanding that the US has the capability to glass the shit out of any arbitrary size of land using just conventional weapons. Your goal as the defender is to make it so that your forces are concealed and doing hit and runs, and so never standing around waiting to be glassed, or to fight from a position the US is unwilling to destroy. Namely, if you fight from a city the US won't level the city World War II style. They might knock down the buildings one by one trying to take out suspected military units, but the won't just level the place in one swipe like they could with a few MOABs. This glorified cruise missile doesn't help this style of fighting. It can't be launched by field units, and even if it could, it is going to lead the US back to your position assuming it even makes it back. You are better off to launch a missile that isn't expected to return or, even better, save the money to arm your city bound army with more and better RPGs.
Personally, if I had to organize the defense of Iran from the US, the only conventional forces I would bother with would be sea mines and easily concealed cruise missiles. The only point of those forces would be to try and sacrifice themselves in doing damage to the ocean going invasion force. The rest of my defense would involve the army stripping down into civilian clothing the second the invasion hits and dispersing into the population with a plan, and giving everyone a (civilians included) gun. Train the army in guerrilla tactics, cache weapons and explosives all over the place, and never even make the pretense of fighting with uniforms on. Encourage the civilians to fight in their own amateurish way not to inflict any real harm, but to blur the line between military and civilian in the eyes of the enemy as much as possible. The only military tech worthwhile would be the kind useful to guerrilla forces. Bike bombs, all manner of concealed explosives, easily concealed weapons, concealed body armor, methods of communicating across cells and receiving orders, methods of smuggling, modified civilian vehicles (that still look civilian) with military applications, and that sort of thing are the techs worth developing in earnest. You still need the capacity to fight a conventional war against your neighbors, but the real threat, the US, is a fight you don't want to do standing up. The US loves nothing more than to see massive troop formations all lined up nice and orderly in a big open desert. See Iraq War part 1 for what happens to armies that stand.
eventually the US is going to have to realize that the west/Russia simply can't have a nuclear monopoly
... "China" or something like that. I suppose you'd rather forget about the UK, and France, and Pakistan, and South Africa, and India ... why, I'm not sure. But you have an odd working definition of "monopoly" (which is funny, because even in the way you used it, you implied that the US and Russia are somehow a single entity. Which is ridiculous.
What are you talking about? You do understand that there are many other countries with nuclear weapons, right? First, there's that funny litte country out east
War breeds more war, diplomacy can keep peace. Look at WWI which bred WWII
What are you talking about? It was diplomacy that bought Germany enough time to gear up for WWII. Google for "peace in our time" just for a refresher.
WWII which bred the Cold War
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion. It was the deterrent threat of an unwinnable nuclear war that ended that horrible regime.
And I'm sure if you looked further you could see that there were conflicts which caused WWI
You're completely missing the point. It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI. It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc. Physical conflict errupted as a means by which to resolve those differences - because talking about them did not, of course, actually change anything. The entire history of Europe involves thousands of years of territorial, religious, and familial squabbling over turf, power, and resources. War (against the Germans, twice) was what ended that. War with the Soviets never happened, and their system collapsed under its own ponderous, confiscatory, non-productive, Nanny State weight.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Wow - they invented a V1. What's next? Television?
The US doesn't threaten them because they are allies, the moment Pakistan stops cooperating with the "war on terror" the media and government will be just as hostile to them as we are to Iran.
Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force. In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power it was also the thing that pissed off Japan.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
World War III would last until some nuclear power felt that they were in serious danger of losing previously-held and non-disputed territory to an enemy. They'd drop a few tactical nukes on the invaders and the nuclear war would be on. Then it would leave little choice for everyone else involved because suddenly someone declared that they don't mind using nukes to put them at a tactical advantage. It wouldn't be a far stretch for said nuclear power to then decide that nuking someone else's border to soften up their defenses and prevent losses of their own forces. From there, it wouldn't be a far stretch for said nuclear power to then decide that nuking someone else's farm lands or industrial centers to prevent losses of their own forces in the future.
Indeed, it really is a slippery slope. The problem with nuclear weapons isn't that someone may use one and then stop, the problem is that once someone uses them, it's a lot easier to justify future uses for similar reasons.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The bad news is Iran is run by crazies.
The good news is this puts us one step closer to real life robot wars!
You left out trumped up rape charges.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
As far as I remember, when a western nation tried to wipe a Muslim nation off the map NATO and the USA came to help the Muslims.
Unfortunately at the time, that was the only way to bomb people. We haven't "carpet bombed" anyone is a loooonggg time. And we weren't the only ones to use this technique. As for the nuclear weapons, it's not like we're lobbing those at countries left and right. We used two, "Fat man" and "Little Boy". We gained a lot of knowledge after using them and one of the things we learned is how horrific they are. I'm not really sure if these smaller countries understand that. Their more concerned with being able to use it as a bargaining chip without thinking about the responsibility that goes along with it.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't make anymore if no one else was trying to make them, but guess what. That's the problem. Countries still want to make these dammed things. And I find it somewhat laughable that you mention that we are "using trade and political embargoes" as if that's a bad thing. What would you rather us do, bomb them? How else are we going to convince countries not to pursue something against our interest? "Hey Iran, can you pretty please not pursue nukes!".
This is how the system is supposed to work, i.e. using non-violent means to convince them to not do something. We also give out a lot of monetary incentives for the exact same thing. I think the big problem is that these countries want to take the money, but they don't want to follow the conditions. But you know, the minute we stop providing cash, then these governments are going to start complaining to their citizens how evil we are for not giving support.
I'm sure it must be nice to have this view where the US is this evil entity and the rest of the world is perfect, but in reality every government sucks. Iran is still pissed about the Shaw. And honestly, I don't blame them. That was a huge cluster fuck on Carter's watch, but the world was a completely different animal at that time.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion.
Sort of... WWII (or the ending thereof) gave the USSR a foothold into Western Europe to expand their communist ideology. I would say the two (WWII and the Cold War) are highly related.
Look at the Treaty of Versailles
The Rhineland will become a demilitarized zone administered by Great Britain and France jointly. German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished. Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years. German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 6 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included. The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited. Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited. Blockades on ships are prohibited. Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles).
Because of these restrictions, the Germans were pissed because they could not defend their country which was surrounded by hostile powers. Because of this, they turned to extreme nationalism and the Nazi party which lead to WWII.
Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion. It was the deterrent threat of an unwinnable nuclear war that ended that horrible regime.
The Cold War was basically caused because the USSR managed to reverse engineer the atomic bomb which in turn scared the US based on an absurd notion of a huge Soviet Empire, of course ignoring the fact that Communism can never scale properly. So they fought a bunch of proxy wars to mask the problems of the Soviet economic system being nearly impossible to maintain in peace time because it all revolved around the government which needed war as a way to increase production without having to innovate which was nearly impossible in a communist state. Had the USSR never gotten the atomic bomb, why would the US really care that various third-world insignificant countries like Vietnam and Korea?
Why would Japan have attacked the west if it was allowed to defend itself with the proper amount of battleships? Why would Germany gone to extreme nationalism if it could maintain a proper armed forces? It wouldn't have, the results of WWI shaped WWII more than any socio-political differences ever could.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Is this the first time you've been here since 2001?
Ok come on. Iran is a very well developed nation. So we're talking about "color" television here.
Snide joke aside, they're an advanced nation. But I don't think UAVs will suit their military well.
It must just drop "friendship-bombs" then =)
And yet, in the fifty-five years since the two times they were used, we've managed to avoid sliding down that slope. So far, we've done something right; I just hope we can keep it up.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
....... Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force. In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power .......
The reason for Hitlers rise was that the victors of World War I had imposed such hash economic conditions on Germany that the country was a failed state. What would be called a Third World country today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_ultimatum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/history/bl_weimar_republic.htm
This isn't much of a threat to Turkey. You have F-16s and AIM-120s and Nato AWACS coverage.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
WMD = carpet bombing bullshit
carpet bombing is an WMD
WMD = chemical, biological, radiogical, and nuclear weapons
WMD not equal to carpet bombing
This particular UAV doesn't have the range to threaten Israel (that would require another 500km at least)
You should probably invest in a world atlas (or just look at Google Earth). There are plenty of locations inside Israel that are significantly less than 1,000 kilometers from the Iranian border, if one assumes that you don't necessarily need to get the UAV itself back afterwards. That includes basically the whole of Haifa, and parts of both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, all three of their largest cities.
Now, this does of course also assume that the claimed 1,000 kilometer range is accurate, and doesn't consider prevailing winds, which would affect range, perhaps substantially. Just measuring distance as the crow flies, though, parts of Iran's Kermanshah and Ilam provinces are within 1,000 kilometers of multiple major Israeli cities, and overall quite a bit of Israel is significantly less than 1,000 kilometers from Iran.
It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI. It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc.
Holy crap. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? WW1 was caused by military planners being absolute idiots and the political leaders spineless wimps. Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Jesus Christ, I wouldn't mind American adventurism in the world if the people advocating it would have any idea of the history of the areas they're meddling in.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
China, North Korea, Burma, Lebanon, Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Venezuela?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No coincidence that this device's range covers many of the nations over there that are 'friendly' to "the west". Jerusalem, Ankara, Riyadh are all potential targets, as is all of Qatar, UAE and most of Pakistan. Plus it can reach anywhere in Afghanistan, where many "western" military personnel are fighting against forces believed to be supported and partially funded by Iran.
Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Geographically, yes. Culturally, are you kidding?
"willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons" You mean WWII?
First carpet bombing are not considered WMDs.
Second Japan had already crossed the NBC line using chemical and biological weapons in China. A little deal that people forget. Wow this post sounds a lot like soviet propaganda at this point. trades big brother style protection for bases? A protection racket? What? You expect the US to protect other nations with out bases? It seems like many nations have decided to rewrite history to manufacture a villan and to manufacture a nice sense of moral superiority. The difference is that the US has step back twice and both times the rest of the world burned and dragged us in to put out the fire.
The US learned that it is better to fight small fires than to wait for the world to burn.
And before you say that you don't want the US to get involved just think about when ever anything happens how often do you hear where is the US and why are then not doing X.
As to this spiting the west... It is a drone with a bomb. It is not a threat to the West. Look at it and you will see that it isn't all that exciting.
No the west sees this and chuckles. This is for domestic consumption.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Learn about your enemies
Iran has every right to develop whatever weapons and energy systems it wishes. She is a sovereign nation. As mush as I think they are lying about their intents, it does not change the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation and can do whatever she pleases in terms of military and energy development.
What are you talking about? It was diplomacy that bought Germany enough time to gear up for WWII. Google for "peace in our time" just for a refresher.
Wrong on all counts. First, your quote is wrong. The correct one is "peace for our time". You don't read as much as you claim, or your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
Second, the person who is faulted with the policy behind the quote was in charge in the UK from 37 onwards. There was little that could be done in 37 to stop Germany's militarization - it was essentially geared for war at the time.
Third, Germany reading for war was to no small extend a result the way she was treated at the end of WWI by the victorious powers. Germany was being economically bled to death by the reparations, important industrial areas were cut off from it, this brought about a weak and corrupt democracy, which was subverted in more than one ways to finally bring about a militaristic regime.
The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else
Dead wrong. The Cold War was between the USSR(and her satellites on one hand, and the US (and her satellites) on the other. Most of the countries in the world did not fall in either category, and, consequently, did not participate other than profit from it :)
This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion.
Wrong again. The Cold War is an extension of the lasting policy of the UK to not let Russia out in Europe - a policy which US "inherited" when it took over the naval bases of the UK worldwide, which is a direct result of WWII.
The regime in Russia has no bearing on that policy, it would have been in place regardless of who was ruling Russia.
It was the deterrent threat of an unwinnable nuclear war that ended that horrible regime.
Dead wrong. The Soviet regime fell because it could not sustain itself economically. The nuclear deterrence had nothing to do with ending it.
You're completely missing the point. It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI.
You obviously don't know European history very well.
It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc. Physical conflict errupted as a means by which to resolve those differences - because talking about them did not, of course, actually change anything.
How come Europe became so peaceful after WWII then?
The entire history of Europe involves thousands of years of territorial, religious, and familial squabbling over turf, power, and resources. War (against the Germans, twice) was what ended that. War with the Soviets never happened, and their system collapsed under its own ponderous, confiscatory, non-productive, Nanny State weight.
You seem to contradict yourself a lot for one post :)
This is really part of the Pentagon's smaller budget. We're now getting the Iranians to build and launch new target drones for the US Navy.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
...and defend the shites from the kurds and sunni's.
Interesting typo you've got there. ;)
I've driven all those cars, and every year that rankings come out, the ones with best quality are the ones with least of local modifications (206 included). Every few years they announce a brand new "National Car" initiative which turns out to be a hybrid of several foreign designs put together usually poorly and then after it fails in the market, it becomes the mandatory car for government organizations. Considering 80% of economy is owned and run by the government, the manufacturing will survive with just one customer. In a few years, rinse, repeat, blah blah. Proof of the massive failure of auto industry in Iran is their constant lack of ability to penetrate even third world markets and even though they sell them to foreign markets at a fraction of the domestic price.
Generally speaking, while the state of industry in some areas is better than Iraq, Afghanistan and few neighbouring countries, it's nothing remotely comparable to west or even Turkey. Along with improving relations with China, the few barely competitive sectors are being bought one by one by the Chinese, then begin importing and labeling Chinese products to sell domestically as Iranian-made. The incompetence of government, powerful grip of Revolutionary Guards over virtually all industries and their profit at any cost MO as well as population's general ignorance are all contributors.
Iran's auto industry was founded almost the same time as South Korea. Saddens me to look at their global empire and our local disaster.
How is this thing piloted? Remote control? I doubt Iran will maintain the use of their electromagnetic spectrum during a conflict with the US or Israel. Inertial navigation? Maybe, but its doubtful they have the technology to hit small, hard targets. GPS? Good luck with that. We'll turn on encryption. Or worse yet, every potential target coordinate will resolve to downtown Tehran.
It's a neat little drone, but if it can't navigate, its useless for anything other then a terror weapon.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're totally missing the point in the US these days. Iran is fighting a Cold war, a propaganda war.
As long as they play it so that the US looks like the aggressor to Iran's target audience, and as long as they maintain a brave posture, but don't give outright reason to be attacked, they are winning.
Why do you think the US has so much trouble getting sanctions against Iran approved?
Whether you call it Farsi or Persian, Karrar is neither. It's Arabic and while many Arabic words and phrases are used in everyday Farsi, "Karrar" is definitely not one. As a native Farsi speaker with some knowledge of Arabic, I had to look the meaning up. Generally, the government has some fetish of putting Arabic names on everything, especially anything military related to make them sound more "holy" since Arabic is language of Islam.
I just found the following statement in an article (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2008/04/stagnate_wages_for_high_prices_1.html)
"Most significant of all is that Iran has virtually no foreign debt and it can spend its currency reserves on capital goods, rather than import of food."
and also "The difference, however, is that the experiences of war, revolution and naked threats of aggression have pushed Iranians towards an attitude of self-sufficiency and a search for an independent path, as chosen by China and India some 30 - 40 years ago. As such, it is a work in progress and the Iranian economy is growing at Chinese and Indian rates."
I would have to say that Iran is somewhat backwards from a developmental point of view but they do have potential.
The food issue was a problem for Russia for instance and initially also for Germany before the second world war so I wouldn't underestimate it.
I'm wondering for how long Russia and China will be supporting Iran, both have some issues with Muslim populations but obviously the problems aren't big enough to prevent support for Iran, seems like the West is the bigger problem. I wonder how far their support will go.
Besides the support Iran has been getting from Russia and China, Iran is trying to develop its own military hardware. I'm wondering how far along they are in terms of independence, i.e. can they produce their own semiconductors? They seem to have the people but can they produce their own chips? The hardware is obviously flying but by what means?
If Iran is as far along as mentioned, they certainly aren't a real threat just yet, maybe if they were a puppet I would be somewhat concerned.
I guess the current posturing is meant to give Iran some breathing room to develop a credible opposition to the West. With the current involvements in the Middle East I doubt that the West is going to do anything about it.
Je me souviens.
Problem is Israel is more than 1000 miles away from Iran. FAIL!!!!
Can we just bomb their nuclear reactor and take all their oil already and quit with the fake reasons to do so?
I come here for the love
Except that wasn't a nation (the Albanians already had a nation, it's called Albania, right underneath). It was a bunch of Terrorists who wanted to annex another countries land. Thanks to NATO they succeeded, and in return NATO got one of their largest european bases smack bang in a sensitive geopolitical area. In fact the Article you liked to pretty much mentions that it wasn't a nation.
Them being muslim's probably had little, if anything to do with it. Likewise the west's messing in the middle east also has little to do with them being muslims. They just want the resources and influence over the region. If being Muslim was a problem for the west, Saudi Arabia would not be as well received, especially as they are one of the primary financiers of terrorism.
We used two, "Fat man" and "Little Boy".
More than enough. The US should be ashamed, fuck, really ashamed, at the fact. And all you can say is that the US "just" used two.
We gained a lot of knowledge after using them and one of the things we learned is how horrific they are.
Bullshit, the US didn't didn't use any more nukes because the URSS had nukes too.
What would you rather us do, bomb them?
Well, you ALREADY bomb countries, I don't think I need to give examples, present and past. And what would those interests be?
How else are we going to convince countries not to pursue something against our interest?
And what would those interests be? Please, mention them explicitly, instead of just bombing the fuck of any country you want and excuse yourselves with WMDs and terrorism. Wait, no, even better, keep your "interests" in your own country and let Iran mind for themselves.
But you know, the minute we stop providing cash, then these governments are going to start complaining to their citizens how evil we are for not giving support.
Mention those governments, please. And also note that giving cash is not the same as a trade embargo. And also note that giving cash to buy weapons the US produces is not helping.
I'm sure it must be nice to have this view where the US is this evil entity and the rest of the world is perfect, but in reality every government sucks.
Yes, many governments suck, but the US is the one that is always at war. So yeah, the US is pretty evil.
Why are you worried about Turkey?
#1) Iran has demonstrated (via press release) the equivalent of a model airplane with a camera. They don't have the military data network capability to reliably deliver these anywhere outside their borders. Furthermore, Turkey has one of the largest and most powerful air forces outside of the major superpowers with approximately a thousand aircraft, and over 200 F-16's (mostly modern CCIP variety, and the ability to produce them locally). I wouldn't take Iranian air aggression too seriously.
more importantly it's who your friends are:
#2) Turkey is a NATO member country. That means that if Iran (an external force by NATO definition) attacks Turkey, the most powerful military powers on the planet are obligated to rip Iran a new one...
It's mostly been luck. It took us 100 years of using oil platforms to produce a respectable disaster...
Let me put it to you this way, USA didn't make any friends by bombing the former Yugoslavia, if anything, it has only succeeded in making more enemies, especially in the former Soviet block.
You can't handle the truth.
....too bad we invented these things in the early 90's, Iran. Your bombers wouldn't make it as far as Iraqi airspace before being taken out by a patriot missile.
The US doesn't threaten them because they are allies, the moment Pakistan stops cooperating with the "war on terror" the media and government will be just as hostile to them as we are to Iran.
Nonsense. Pakistan had nukes long before they started cooperating with the "war on terror".
Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force.
So let me get this straight ... you've got a document guaranteeing peace in our time? Peace, with honour?
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler
In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power
Right. Because, without those treaties, the peace-loving German people would have elected Ghandi, and made Judaism the official state religion.
Given that Iran's proxies Hezbollah have taken over Lebanon, it seems clear that the Iranians have invaded and occupied that country. Also consider than some of the great persian epic poems and ballads are about fighting in Afghanistan - Khorasan, as they call it. Certainly the Iranians have invaded that country, which is why there are so many Persian speakers there.
It's ironic that when Iran was politically benign during the 1950s, it was subjected to foreign meddling. But now that Iran is in the grip of an irredentist ideology and trying to build nuclear weapons, the Left are suddenly arguing they pose little threat.
It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Left has become, when they scoff and sneer at some poor illiterate woman who's facing death by stoning, claiming that her case is over-hyped and overblown. That's not the kind of liberalism I was raised to respect - kids these days (sigh).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
That's still two more than, ooh, every other country in the history of the world put together. Maybe it was the right thing to do, there's a perfectly good case to be made for it, but it's not clear how that history gives you any great moral authority to stop anyone else from developing that option in their own defence. And every US president for the past 50 years has insisted that nuclear weapons are purely defensive.
Not giving support, yet still presuming to tell everyone else what to do. That's the key point. You want other people to do what you want, you can either bully them or bribe them; and if you're telling them what to do and you're not bribing them, you're a bully.
It is time to swat some bugs and sober Iran up a bit.
That's true-ish, but kind of misses the point.
With the exception of helicopters, some VTOL / STOL aircraft, and some specialty aircraft that are just rugged (C-130s come to mind), what you said is true for ANY military aircraft.
"but when you think about it, to fly UAVs effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from."
can easily become
"but when you think about it, to fly aircraft effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from."
There's little practical difference. If the enemy bombs your command center and disables your ability to remotely control your UAVs, or the enemy bombs your runway and disables your ability to launch and land aircraft, you're still grounded.
That said, the idea that you need a "remote base" is not always true anyway. UAVs are operated by Forward Operating Base style improvised airstrips now. They even have small ones (think glorified RC helicopters with camera gear) that can be deployed and operated in the field by infantry units on the move to observe areas ahead.
This is to say nothing of automated UAVs, which I've not heard of existing yet, but let's face it, despite their inevitable weakness, will come some day. Pre-program a flight mission (bomb these targets, or patrol this area and challenge all aircraft for IFF, etc) then launch and let the onboard computer carry out the mission. No communication back to base needed.
Finally, remember from the Iranian's perspective. They have a lot of folks just in the region that are quite distrustful of them (and often for very good reasons!). Many Iraqis are distrustful because of mounting evidence that Iran has supported insurgents during the war, and tried to destabilize the already shaky government there. The Turks are distrustful of Iran for similar reasons involving the PKK, though Iran denies this, and helped to fight the PKK. This is to say nothing of Israel, who we all know is BFFs with Iran.
Just because this weapon system only represents a regional threat doesn't mean it's not a potentially serious one.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I figured they stole the design from the Intrepid Museum-the Submarine Growler has a first gen analog cruise missle right there in the harbor.
In 1982, Argentina caused major havoc in the war with Britain with just 5 exocet missiles. It nearly sank the Invincible, whicj probably would have made the war a draw. If Iran has these weapons that could have even a small chance of sinking or damaging a carrier, it will really complicate the war for the USA and could force it to restrict their use or keep even more forces dedicated to their defense. Dont underestimate countries like Iran, like the uk underestimated Argentina, or the USSR did with Finland in 1939, for instance...
That's still two more than, ooh, every other country in the history of the world put together.
So far. Give it time.
WWI came about in a large part because the French diplomats worked hard to create an anti-German alliance (see Triple Entente) after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. The Germans worked to create their own Triple Alliance to counter this. The Germans developed strong relations with the Ottomans in order to break the encirclement. This finely balanced internetwork of Defense Pacts led to the toppling dominoes which sounded the Guns of August.
so yes, diplomats caused WWI (with significant help from the generals)
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
"The US could bomb the shit out of the whole world if they really wanted to, and *everyone* knows that."
No. BTW, the B-1s don't carry nukes, nor do we have enough strategic bombers to level any major city with conventional weapons unless given months to do it, extreme force concentration, vast amounts of munitions, and few/no other missions. The days of darkening the skies with SAC are ancient history.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b1-lancer/index.html
You are utterly ignorant, and unless you are some idiot teenager whose youthful frothing is stupid but somewhat understandable, please remove yourself from the gene pool by suicide.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Hi. We are Iran. We are friendly and wish only peace. Here is our new drone bomber! All we have to do is point and click and * boom *. Nice meeting you friend, we want to be pals!
Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Yes. Which is to say: my wife is from Frankfurt. We have friends from Alsace. Grew up talking to diplomats working throughout western Europe. How's that? I can't believe you see the history between France and Germany like some sort of soccer league thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Somebody woke up cranky on the wrong side of the free world...
Hence, the "everyone else" only includes a few countries?? I guess you have not studied any Cold War at school, have you?
Of course it did, through the little proxy wars. You may have read about things like Vietnam and Afghanistan (1980s just so you are not confused). How about US aggression in Panama and Chile? No? If the Cold War wasn't over, you honestly think CIA would not assassinate Chavez when they had the chance? You bet your ass they would.
So let's see. US fucked up in last 60 years because of the Cold War policies,
1. Afghanistan - Osama was supported by CIA directly or indirectly, to fight the Soviets as revenge for Vietnam. Then as soon as USSR collapsed Osama was given the finger. I read in late 1990s when Taliban took over Kabul and I knew that was bad, yet that event was ignored. Oh well, I guess nothing like shitty blowback.
2. Iran - was a moderate country that nationalized their oil in 50s (like a lot of countries at the time). BP (the company!) was butt hurt and cried, US installed their puppet government and BP got their oil access back. As with most US puppet governments, it was not very liked and quite brutal. Country became radicalized because of this and OOPS, here's Khomeini!
3. Chile, Panama - both democratically elected socialist countries. US doesn't like that and sponsors coup d'eta. This results in thousands of deaths and dictatorial puppets for years that rob the country and screw their own people. Venezuela would have been next stop for this but thank god that Cold War ended.
4. Korea - US pulls in China into the war mostly thanks to them ignoring China at the UN. China, the communists, weren't even recognized as a country FFS!! Now that's convenient!
Now here we are, 60 years later, with Korea, Iran and Afghanistan still a problem. Thanks US! Now if there weren't a Cold War, maybe none of these fuck ups would have happened in the first place. And if the British didn't give a finger to Stalin when Stalin wanted a defense Pact with the West vs. Hitler in early 1939, maybe there wouldn't be a Cold War either (after British told Stalin off, he got a non-aggression pact with Hitler to at least stall for time - Russia would have lost the war in 1939 and almost lost it in 1941 anyway)
And yes, WW1 armistice led to WW2 which caused the Cold War which cased the fuck ups like Iran and Afghanistan and Korea that we still have today.
How is this entry "news for nerds, stuff that matters"????
A complete waste of time, bandwidth and cpu cycles!!
Them persians make some mighty fine rugs, I tells ya. Where can I git me one a those there bombers? Will Mugadean's Rug Emporium carry these? I gots to have one for the brick house baday !!
List of carriers and nations, all classes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Aircraft_carriers_in_service
lol "Vietnam" Actually the other way around most of these other nations laugh at the US for our weak will and our weak handling of prisoners.
+1000
I'm sure western politicians and weapons are portrayed similar by 'the orientals', as the were described by experts - flaunting power, arrogance, and foolish statements, all under an expert twist of 'objective', fact based journalism, with no bias. Everyone believes only what is true, on both sides. I'm glad to say I know the truth.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Right, just to clear this up: the fact they've developed their own UAV bomber is purely to spite the 'West' whereas any similar defense technology development by a western nation should never be construed as antagonising the Middle East, let alone Iran. Furthermore, Iran should not by any means be allowed the same fear sodden defense industry that the West so covets and they should simply accept that.
No, it's because we didn't announce that we had the things until a decade after we started using them to maintain their legitimate strategic advantage in battle (just like nearly every other military tech in the last 30 years). They're using this as saber rattling, not as a genuine strategic advantage.
You ought to remember that many countries see the supposed leader of the West, The U.S, as a terrible and amoral aggressor, having willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons), continues to stockpile nuclear weapons munitions while chastising the rest of the world for doing so using trade and political embargoes
As if the number isn't being gradually decreased, used as a bargaining chip to get other nations, one of which has many more nukes than we do, to do the same.
trades big-brother-style protection rackets to arm-bend smaller countries into accepting U.S military bases
Citation please?
has camps in which they not only 'disappear' but spiritually and psychologically humiliate the prisoners using methods not seen since Vietnam (the list goes on)
I don't agree with Guantanamo, but you tank as if no other country has those. I guess they don't, since the public doesn't know about it like we know about Guantanamo.
This is the stuff they see in talk shows on their TVs, read in their opinion columns in their newspapers, talk about in political science classes at high-school, etc...
Funny, we talk about that stuff too, in those same classes.
That's funny: The people I've met from Poland, Romania, the Chech Republic & Slovakia not to mention the Slovenes & Croats most all praised the US for bombing the serbs out of oppressing their minorities & neighbors. They saw it as standing up to an opressive bully much like the URSS had been & that they had personal experience of. The younger generation with fewer memories of "the good old days" were generally less supportive however.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
These explanations of why Hitler was so popular and was elected president are overly simplistic. It would be like offering an explanation of why Obama won the last election. Any such explanation is highly suspect. Probably each German had their own reasons for electing him. It is extremely difficult to deconstruct all those reasons and offer up one particular overriding factor. Germany was no third world country. If they had been they could not have conquered most of Europe. They were a major industrial power with a huge manufacturing base. And being poor isn't much of an excuse for genocide on a scale never seen before or since or trying to literally conquer the whole world. I've traveled to and even lived in some very poor countries where the average monthly wage is under $100 per month, and I didn't notice any Hitlers exterminating "inferior" races or even planning to conquer the world. Germany is the only country in the modern world that has ever been quite that naughty. In fact I think it's fair to say that the Germans of that time were pretty much the definition of evil. That's what makes them so great for computer games. It's rare that such purity of moral blacks and whites exists in the real world. You have to remember that they actually voted for Hitler. It would be the equivalent of the US voting for a skinhead KKK leader with real plans to attack and conquer every other country in the world. Can you imagine if Hitler had gotten his hands on nukes? And he was working on it. I don't mean to compare the leader of Iran to Hitler. The only thing they really have in common is the promise to exterminate all or most Jews. If Iran really did rain nukes down on Israel and kill 99% of the population there I wonder if that would satisfy them. Probably if they also nuked NYC that would be enough Jew killing. Unlike the Third Reich, I doubt if they would devote much energy to individually tracking down and exterminating every jew on the planet. And they probably wouldn't bother with gypsies or homosexuals at all.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
We used two, "Fat man" and "Little Boy".
More than enough. The US should be ashamed, fuck, really ashamed, at the fact. And all you can say is that the US "just" used two.
There's no reason for the US to be ashamed - Japan attacked the US first (this was almost 10 years after Japan first invaded Manchuria - think "Rape of Nanking"), Japan was preparing to use biological weapons against the US (fortunately for Japan, the Japanese ship carrying these weapons was sunk en route - US retaliation would have been massive) and the bombing ended up saving a lot of Japanese lives (while there have been stories of Japanese peace feelers, Truman didn't think any were credible - remember what was going on just prior to Pearl Harbor).
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Watch out! That bomb is packing Care Bears!
Can you be more specific about in what ways France and Germany are similar culturally? While I have never spent any time in Germany, I have spent some in France. I just don't see much cultural similarity. In fact it's really hard for me to think of two European cultures that are less similar. For one thing French culture would never have allowed going on a worldwide rampage trying to take over the whole planet and exterminating every one who looks different from your ideal. French people are laid back and not particularly obedient. They just want to be happy enjoying their beautiful women, their beautiful language, and their delicious food. Germans are good with science and technology and manufacturing. In fact they have always been one of the leaders in those areas. They are also one of the more robotic and hard working cultures in the world. Similar to Japan in that sense. I don't really see how the two cultures could be more different.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
They will probably fly a few dozen planes into Iran and bomb the snot out of every facility they have intelligence on.
Depending on the number of facilities and the general touchiness of Iran, which is not likely to be low...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
2. Iran - was a moderate country that nationalized their oil in 50s (like a lot of countries at the time). BP (the company!) was butt hurt and cried, US installed their puppet government and BP got their oil access back.
The US was so altruistic. To overthrow a government just so British Petroleum could profit. Admittedly the UK was certainly our ally, but still. That is rather extreme. Maybe that's the problem. The US is too altruistic. Always putting others before ourselves.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"Iran's industrial sector is more advanced than you might think"
To be clear, you're talking about a country that sits on a giant reserve of oil, but has to import gasoline because they have no refining capacity. Iran's industrial sector is a fucking embarrassment.
You're talking about Tehran, a city whose building codes will be cited as the cause of the worst single humanitarian disaster in history when the big one finally hits NW Iran. 10 million dead is going to be an interesting psychic moment for the Islamic Republic.
Iran's great defense is their mountains. No one wants to fight from valley-to-valley killing thousands of poorly armed soldiers trying to fight a country that's one bad natural disaster away from being the next North Korea or Pakistan.
Even Saddam Hussein was only dumb enough to try it once.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
You might be confused, here. I'm not the one suggesting they're the same. I was replying to the guy who was scolding me for calling them different.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Firing stuff into the expanses of the Iraqi desert is a wasteful proposition. American intelligence will jam this thing's controls into oblivion the first time they try to bomb Baghdad.
This thing is a far cry from an Exocet or a Tomahawk. And it's a really far cry from a Predator.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Until I hear Hezbollah taking interest in it, I will consider it a piece of crap. Although I could see Hugo Chavez wasting money on it. He's pretty damned nuts.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
The only thing they really have in common is the promise to exterminate all or most Jews.
Being a Jew, that's the bit I'm worried about! Seriously, what the fuck do you think you're doing trying to calculate how much Jewish blood will satisfy the Iranian regime? We're not giving you a drop!
Iran's core military strategy is to send one guy with a rifle and ten unarmed guys behind him. The Iranians' grand military plan is to refight the Battle of Stalingrad. Even deploying this strategy, they basically fought Iraq to the ugliest stalemate since the trenches in France in 1915. A full-on war between the US and Iran would result in the equivalent of a one-sided Verdun every single week.
A couple missiles aren't going to mitigate the fact that Iran has no strategic petroleum reserve and zero refining capacity. Its transport would fail in the first week of any war and agriculture couldn't last a year. Probably less if the attacker(s) launched a prolonged ground war in late winter (as is US tradition in the region) before crops go in the ground.
A couple missiles are also not going to mitigate the fact that Iran would mostly depend on imported Hezbollah fighters to train its army how to fight a ground war the right way. And, frankly, you can't take a military modeled on the Red Army and convert it into a competent guerilla force like Hezbollah without years of advance planning. That planning hasn't happened. Iran doesn't have any commando force of any international reputation.
In short, Iran is not prepared to fight the war it would need to fight to take advantage of its rough terrain.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Ignore the girly peach fuzz on her face and kiss her pouty lips.
In every Board over on 4chan, there are 72 virgins trolling eachother night and day about how they have
big cox and neckbeards and can break-down any barrier with exception of the most-feared a hymen.
What kind of sadistic joke is to for a supposedly sinless suicide bomber to sacrifice his otherwise purity
to commit the sin of killing himself moments before causing the death of untold others, and then arrive
at a coveted place beyond space and time to meet these 72-virgins towering over him in all aspects of
Anonymous cruelty?
Something tells me, those vereses are being mis-interpreted to make the most spineless of jelly-fish
muster just enough blind bravery; with all the gang-rapes I hear that occur at the hands of muslims who
blame the beauty of a scantily-clad woman as to be the lady's fault for them raping her, that poor suicide
bomber is go'na git raped by those 72-virgin neckbeards. My question is, does God will it? God wills it??
GOD WILLS IT!!!!?????
I'd be willing to bet that if a large enough R/C club or community college had the budget, they could come up with something even more effective in 2 months. (Pretty much all the parts - even the small jet engine, camera package, avionics, etc. are available either commercially, or in the case of some research-grade command and control software - as open source.) Regarding know-how and materials, I wouldn't even be all that surprised if drug cartels have UAVs and are using them for smuggling at this very moment.
Despite Iran's boasts, having a working UAV is not as impressive as they think it is.
And a range of 620 miles? Isn't that about the distance between Iran and Israel? How sweet of them.
(This "coincidence" is the surest sign to me that it doesn't have nearly the claimed range.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I thought the borders of Iran and her sky would've been well protected by the Burka-force Coverture renouned
by Arabs for erecting over their most feminine customs. I thought myself after seeing the "Modonnas" Nuclear-
reactors along PCH101 near San Diego CALIFORNIA to be the most perfect example of how more willing us nerds
are willing to come between them if ever we snuck on the premises for kicks and giggles, and the plant Employees
raised a security fence and alarm system to disuade such visits of my favorite peaks topped by seagull-shat.
Yet here we see of all mudslim countries, the same beautiful femininity lacking visual concealment than the
fancy goyim nations. In the words of their Prophet, they are responsible alone for the raping they are about
to commit against theirselves.
And worse, they got big cox and neckbeards and their faces as though staring into the abyss of darkness of
which has no end into the deep under their feet from which they troll the most horrendous of cruelities to
ever consume their adversaries.
Don't. mess. with. Anonymous.
Air war is as much about intelligence these days as anything else. Long gone are the days of the dog fights. Now, at least if you are talking the US, you engage targets beyond visual range with extremely smart guided missiles.
So if you want to have an airforce that can deal with the US you need four things:
1) Something to counter their AWACS. It might be stealthy jets, it might be good jamming hardware, whatever the case you have to have something to stop that. Otherwise, they'll know ever every single thing in the air is, with pinpoint accuracy. This can be crossdecked directly to new fighters, or simply told to older ones, so their jets can come in without ever turning on a radar. They don't even need them on to fire with AWACS coverage.
2) Something to pick up their planes. The US has a bunch of stealthy craft these days. Even the F/A-18Fs aren't easy to pick up and the F-22As are close to invisible unless the fire, never mind the B2-Bs. You need to have some technology to be able to find those, otherwise they'll pick off your planes, destroy your bases, etc and you won't be able to do anything about it. I don't know if there is such a technology, but you'd need to have some reasonable way to find their craft to kill them
3) Good night fighting ability. The US loves night attacks, because they are really good at it and most people are really bad at it. So you need the equipment and the training to have your jets as effective at night as during the day. Otherwise they'll simply wait until your air cover becomes weak at night and destroy the air bases.
4) Long range, highly effective missiles. Even if you can find their craft and so on you still have to engage them at a long range. The US has long range missiles that are hard to jam, you have to have the same if you are to have a realistic chance in air combat.
Without those four things, the US WILL have air superiority. They'll simply shoot down any fighters, bomb air bases (which can be done with extreme accuracy) and then blast SAM sites.
Assuming you could even pull such a thing off, it is signing your own death warrant. US doctrine about WMD is very explicit. They'll respond in kind. Blow up a bunch of cities and it'll result in the US removing your country from the map. While the US has greatly drawn down its nuclear weapon stores, it still has more than enough for anything. It also has a bunch of extremely hard to counter delivery mechanisms, like ICBMs, sub launched missiles, bombs from B-2s and so on.
Attacking the US with nuclear weapons, especially on a large scale, would be signing your national death warrant. The "Do what we say or we'll hurt you more," is just even more excuse for it. Kill everyone before they have the chance.
Also what you are proposing is difficult to the point of impossibility. It would require smuggling in lots of large weapons (the kind of thing that can take out a city is not small) unnoticed, hiding them and keeping them hidden, and having some remote triggering mechanism, again that goes undetected. All this considering that if they are found, it could be good cause for the US to simply say "Fuck it," and nuke you.
I wouldn't be surprised if in some nondescript office building in Virginia sits someone with nothing better to do than ponder the consequences of using some of the Iranian drones they just hacked to reduce Ahmadinejads presidential palace to rubble.
But seriously a jet powered UAV? Whats the point? Is there a network of invisible stealth refuling blimps to go with them? If you can't use them for spying they are basically mirv like missles except many many times slower and easier to defeat than a conventional missle. Whats the point in that?
It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Left has become, when they scoff and sneer at some poor illiterate woman who's facing death by stoning, claiming that her case is over-hyped and overblown. That's not the kind of liberalism I was raised to respect - kids these days (sigh).
How about this for a liberal value: LEAVE SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALONE. If we have to invade Iran for stoning women, we've got about twenty other countries with worse human rights records - including some of our biggest allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan - that we'd have to invade. And those other allies I mentioned are far less democratic than Iran.
Hezbollah did not appear out of Iran's magic crystal ball. It appeared directly as a result of Israeli and American forces invading Lebanon in 1982. If you'll remember at the time, Iran was fighting an all out war against the US backed henchman Saddam Hussein, because we didn't like their chosen government back then either. I don't think they had time to form a commando unit and invade Lebanon while they were losing that war. (Gee, and that was around the time that Reagan and some current Fox News personalities were committing treason by selling weapons to sworn enemies, taking the money to Colombia, and playing the other side of the drug war to fund the unconstitutional CIA. Fascinating!)
We like destroying secular Arab nationalism and getting absolutely shocked when it turns into extreme islamic fundamentalism. We destroyed the Iranian government in 1953 and ended up with the Islamic Revolution in 1979. We destroyed the marxist government of Afghanistan and eventually got the Taliban. We destroyed the PLO and got Hamas. We destroyed Lebanese movements and we got Hezbollah. We destroyed Iraq and I'll guaran-fucking-tee you we're going to get some crazy Shia elements there as well. Amazing! It's like if you subject people with war and misery for decades, they come out the other side with some kind of chip on their shoulder.
Can we see a pattern here? Just like if you invaded South Carolina and took out their army, you'd have a bunch of fanatical Christians blowing themselves up trying to take just a piece out of whoever invaded. It's a rational response when you have no options left.
So, seriously, shut the fuck up about Iran. You can get all offended and moral about their religious laws when you stop Catholic priests from using their separate religious rules to rape children and get away with it. Oh, but I guess child-rape is morally sound in your sad, fucked up world, huh? Either that, or you think it's easier to go halfway around the world and start another war in the same spot for the third time this decade to stop some injustice.
If you really think that's the case, I have only one thing to say: go. fuck. yourself.
Sincerely,
A "Liberal" Who Has Values,
Including Calling A Spade A Spade
"This jet is a messenger of honour and human generosity and a saviour of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind,"
It must be me, but from this line i deduce that they're going to shoot this thing at aliens ? I'm pretty sure all the other enemies of Iran are also part of "mankind" ...
It isn't a matter of calculation. The only evidence of Iranian thirst for Jewish blood is in their leader's announcement that he essentially plans to nuke Israel as soon as he has the capability. And he is getting closer. I was just thinking out loud about the difference between Hitler and the kind of president that would make such a statement. Since Persia has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine, I don't really understand the animosity unless it is based on a deep seated hatred for all things Jewish. Obviously Israel is no military light weight and they have been a member of the nuclear club for a hell of a lot longer than Iran. I highly doubt Iran would "win" in a nuclear war with Israel. As soon as any Israeli cities were destroyed, Iran would be mushroom clouds from horizon to horizon. If there is any country that really *needs* nuclear weapons it is Israel.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Was it just me who looked at the picture attached to the article and thought "Thunderbirds"? ...then I looked at the bunch of characters next to it and I swear I saw some puppet strings.
There's something else that most people do not know about the war in the Pacific. There were discussions at the highest level of government as to whether it might be necessary to exterminate the Japanese people altogether should they refuse to surrender.
No, I'm scolding you for saying that WW1 was the result of cultural and economical differences between Germans and French. Resource differences - yes. Your wife might have clued you in on the entire Alsace and Rhone issues, which had some influence on the WW1. Though I have to admit I have no idea what you meant with your soccer league comment.
As for your parent, the French were happy going on continent-wide rampages. Remember Napoleon? Or Algeria for colonial brutality. As for racism, it is quite present in France, as it is Germany. There are superficial differences, but at the core, Germany and France are much closer than either is with Britain or with Russia.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Despite what you might think, most Iranians hate the USA more than they hate their government.
Thankfully, someone paid attention in history class. I wouldn't so much say diplomats caused WW1, because diplomats always, always work under direct orders of the national government. And yes, the generals certainly get a solid heaping of blame.
But it had nothing to do with supposed cultural or economic differences. And what has stopped it for a record length isn't the two World Wars, but the EU. And that was my point.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Were you there during these high level discussions?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It's not like there haven't been any close calls though. For instance, have you ever heard of Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky and Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov who were stopped by Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov A bit too close for comfort, wouldn't you say?
do you *really* think this thing can fly? where's it's wings?
"Hitler was so popular and was elected president are overly simplistic. "
Those opinions are also wrong. Hitler was not "elected" until his party had, by manipulation, control of the government machine and was able to use that as tool of pressure.
So, stop perpetuating them.
Oh, because Napoleon never existed in your timeline? France didn't colonise large parts of Africa and Asia? What was the first thing France did after being liberated in WW2? Attempt to crush the liberation movements in Algeria and Indochina.
Lovely people the French, not like those nasty Germans.
(I live in France).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So far, we've done something right; I just hope we can keep it up.
--thats what she said
While the B-1s were converted to conventional capabilities in the 1990s (a direct result of them being unable to take part in the First Gulf War), they never lost the ability to carry and deploy nukes - they stayed in a dual capabilities role until fairly recently when the B-1B was paper derated from the nuclear role. To return to the nuclear role would be a simple enough exercise.
I sure didn't see any landing gear on this "UAV". It looks like a one way vehicle which would put it in the low budget cruise missile category that has to be remotely flown to the target by a human.
The rest of the region hates Iran. The Arabs have no affinity with the Persians. It's why Iraqis Shiites were glad to shoot at the Iranians during the war.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
"...a symbol of progress in defense technology for Iran."
Israel, US, Anyone attacks Iran and up go these 'bombers'. Where will they come down? Israel? Naw. Israel is too well defended and would never dream of blaming the US for collateral damage caused by an attack on Iran. But how about Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? the UEA? Even Iraq would be a good target. Maybe Iran launches a dozen, maybe twenty, maybe fifty. These things are cheap. Maybe a quarter come down and, yeah, the governments that get bombed will hate Iran but they will hate Israel and the US even more. "You Jews! You Americans! If you hadn't attacked Iran this wouldn't have happened." Maybe we don't get the fly-over rights any longer. Maybe a few of our bases close. Maybe oil is a few dollars more expensive. Little things start happening and other little things stop. No country within striking range of Iran is safe and they know it. I bet there were a lot of angry messages on Mrs. Clinton's desk when this came out and I bet they all said 'don't touch Iran'.
It is now political suicide for Israel and the US to attack Iran and it won't matter a whit how much damage is inflicted because the real damage will be to the attackers.
*Defense
They went from flinging their own poop at each other to building a UAV in a matter of months!
Gladly, Pakistani flood victims' anger at US
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
There's no reason for the US to be ashamed
But still I'm yet to see a high-budget, special effects packed Hollywood movie about Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. Let it be even as stupid as this 2001 Bay/Affleck Pearl Harbour thingy.
Is it me, or does this thing resemble a V-1 just enough? I'm impressed that in 60+ years, there has been only minor advancement in this field. Apparently, Iran needs more German scientists. The biggest change is that the ordanance is now carried underneath so the vehicle is re-usable.
Usually, countries start out with a cruise missle platform, but Iran has leapfrogged right into UAV. It's probably controlled by a cell-phone too. Note the stubby wings that are reaward of midpoint, meaning the CG is probably somewhat more towards the rear as well, meaning the engine is heavier than the fuel supply and avionics. The V-1 was that way as well, even thought the pulse-jet engine on the V-1 wasn't much more than a tube and a set of flaps.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You are delusional if you think the U.S. is the only country trying to persuade foreign policy. Every country, and I mean EVERY country is only looking out for it's own interest. And as a U.S. citizen, I don't have a problem with that. If you want to be mad at anyone, then be mad at your elected officials (or kings, dictators, or whatever) for accepting the terms in the first place.
You expect other countries to give you money and support with no strings attached? Wake up, that's not how the world works.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Not to mention how easily they'll show up to Patriot.
Someone wrote a book about it: The Confederate Dirty War
A short review.
The book details how elements within the Confederacy, acting officially or otherwise, developed and attempted numerous plans to inflict terror and death on the Union populace and bring down the government. Singer introduces the reader to such shadowy characters as Professor Richard Sears McCulloch, who resigned a faculty chair at Columbia College to assist the Confederacy in making a chemical weapon; Luke Pryor Blackburn, a physician and, later, governor of Kentucky, who allegedly spread smallpox and yellow fever throughout the North.
This is a war against other Christians and fellow countrymen. Imagine if South Carolinians were under the thumb of Muslim or Chinese forces.
Not to discount at all the terrorism inflicted on the South by the North. Most terrorism is committed by the powerful, but that doesn't mean the oppressed population just gives up without a fight.
"Neither party is wrong" perhaps but both are ironic: http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html (see my comment there on irony).
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
No No No No No. The Germans were pissed because the reparations utterly destroyed their economy which allowed the Nazi Party to gain control of the Wiemar Republic and for Hitler to fuck over the election laws.
If by the EU you mean the USA standing over Europe's shoulder with a ruler to whack the knuckles of any country that got out of line, then yes, it was the EU.
You completely missed my point. Iran and everyone else in the eorld knows that they are no match whatsoever against the US in a full out war. So, Iran, even the maniac version of Iran, is not going to use these UAVs for anything of consequence. Any irrational leader that goes to use them in any significant way would be replaced in about 2 weeks.
As for "what nuking them would accomplish", I offer Japan 1 and 2 as examples of how quickly you can get a warrior nation on their pathetic knees. Believe me, the mental muslim fucknuts would be no different. They don't care about living? Ha, neither did the kamakazis...the problem is that not EVERYONE back home is so nutfucked as those willing to die in the name of the Emperor/God/Wahtever The Fuck You Want To Insert Here. You get it?
It amazes me how people don't get how impotent the rest of the world is militarily compared to the US. So they buy into this paranoia. Wow. Tinfoil hats on sale.
Oh yeah....Troll?? Who the fuck rated that? The person representing the compay that is selling some defensive system designed to take out said UAV? Ah....now all this Slashdot shit fucking makes sense. The only trolls are the corporate shills bending your minds in the name of profit. idiots.
i did not say that the B1s drop nukes. note. but they are part of a massive scale of armements that would go on display if the us needed to really flatten a place.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1937-unnatural-acts-breaking-the-fever-of-militarism.html#comment-2450
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? Likewise, nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land? "
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Thank you for your comforting words :) Yet, it is not that I consider Iran a serious threat for Turkey. The reason I wrote that comment was that some people seem to consider Turkey a threat and compare it to Iran in that respect.
literacle.com
If ground forces are clearing out the AA, that means that the grounds forces own the area and there is no need to bomb it! The US Air Force has specialized warcraft for taking out AA sites. Look up "Wild Weasels".
I agree with most part of your commentary. However, the term "little countries" is rather disturbing. As far as I know, the USA wasn't born a great country. And I don't think that it will ever be a great country. There was the Romans, where are they? And the Persians, and the Ottomans...
literacle.com