Iran may be developing missiles that can threaten the US

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Iran may be developing missiles that can threaten the US

Post by fgalkin »

U.S. Suspects Iran Is Making New Missiles

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) - Interception of several technology shipments to Iran has bolstered U.S. suspicions that Iran is secretly developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten Europe and possibly the United States.

An intelligence report this week to Congress said North Korea, China and parts of the former Soviet Union provided Iran through the end of last year with ballistic-missile equipment, technology and expertise.

The report said Iran, in trying to improve existing missiles, was ``also pursuing longer-range ballistic missiles.''

A well-placed Bush administration official told The Associated Press on Thursday that U.S. interceptions had strengthened U.S. suspicions that Iran was trying to develop an intercontinental missile that could reach Europe and possibly the United States.


The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to specify what material was intercepted and to identify the countries that sought to help Iran.


But he said North Korea, China and Russia all have contributed technology to Iran for its existing Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of about 600 miles and is believed capable of carrying nuclear weapons.


An Iranian spokesman at the United Nations in New York has been quoted as denying that Iran was developing a ballistic missile with a range beyond 1,250 miles.


The U.S. official said the project was being cloaked in terms of work on a space-launched booster missile.


The official said Iran was trying to expand the range of the Shahab-3 missile, which is a replica of a North Korean missile, so it could travel 1,250 miles.


Both newer missiles would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads as well as chemical and biological weapons, he said.


Secretary of State Colin Powell last month said Iran was trying to adapt missiles to deliver nuclear weapons.


``I have seen some information that would agree that they have been actively working on delivery systems,'' Powell said.


This week's intelligence report to Congress said, ``Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons'' and that Iran ``is also working to improve delivery systems.''


Daryl Kimball, president of the private Arms Control Association, said, ``It would not be surprising that Iranian engineers may be conducting paper studies of longer-range missiles.''


But, he added, there was a great difference between a paper study and a proven missile capability.


Kimball said there were substantial technical difficulties in building a longer-range missile that also could carry nuclear warheads.


``So we must be cautious in these estimates and understand that Iran is still years off from a proven capability for intercontinental ballistic missiles,'' he said.


Iran has promised to temporarily suspend all programs, including enrichment of uranium, that could be involved in developing nuclear weapons.


President Bush has called the promise a positive first step. But he also insisted on international verification and on a permanent halt of the programs.


Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna, the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran may be hiding equipment bought by its military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program despite the promised freeze.


Iran also has not responded to or denied IAEA requests for inspections at or complete lists of components used at suspect military sites, the diplomats said.


State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday, ``We would expect Iran to comply with all requests.''



12/03/04 05:38
linky

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Post by Lord Sander »

Deja Vu?
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Possibly. I'd say it's equally, if not more probably, Iran is looking for the complete package: nukes and ICBMs and all that. We know they're looking at nuclear weapons already and an ICBM will give them leverage against the entire world.

If true another reason Iran getting nukes would be a bad thing.
Image
Robert Walper
Dishonest Resident Borg Fan-Whore
Posts: 4206
Joined: 2002-08-08 03:56am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Post by Robert Walper »

For some strange reason, I just don't trust intercontinental striking capabilities with WMDs by Middle Eastern countries.
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

This article from Reuters seems to suggest that the Iranians are making missiles with a more limited capability - A missile with nearly 2,000 miles of range is still quite capable, but not capable of hitting the US from Iran. Could US officials be screaming bloody murder in order to justify a more hawkish position on Iran? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran is working on long-range missiles capable of hitting European capitals, as well as nuclear and chemical warheads, an exile group has said.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which has in the past given accurate information on some of Iran's nuclear facilities, said Tehran was working on missiles with a range of 2,500 to 3,000 km (1,600 to 1,900 miles), capable of hitting cities such as Berlin.

Iran denies any intention of making long-range ballistic missiles and says its existing medium-range missiles are purely for deterrence.

The NCRI told reporters on Thursday Iran was carrying out research, testing and making the Ghadr 101 and Ghadr 110 missiles, comparable to advanced Scud E missiles, at the Hemmat Missile Industries Complex.

Ghadr means value or merit in Farsi and Shab-e Ghadr refers to the night the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

The NCRI is a coalition of exiled opposition groups fiercely opposed to Iran's clerical rulers. The U.S. State Department lists the NCRI and its armed wing, the People's Mujahideen, as a terrorist organisation.

The exiles also said Tehran had in August tested a Shahab-4 missile with a range of 1,900 to 3,000 km (1,200 to 1,900 miles), depending on the weight of the warhead. Shahab means meteor in Farsi.

Iran has acknowledged it can make large numbers of medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of hitting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf, but has repeatedly denied Israeli accusations it is developing Shahab-4.

"Militarily speaking, by obtaining long-range and medium-range missiles, the clerics are trying to put many regions of the world, including all of Europe, within their range," NCRI's Ali Safavi told reporters.

The NCRI acknowledged that the missile programmes did not contravene international law. It provided site maps and detailed explanations but had no blueprints of the work.

Safavi also said Iran's Shahid Karimi Industrial Group was pursuing nuclear and chemical warheads, but he gave few details.

Last month U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested Iran was working to fit missiles with nuclear warheads but Iran says its atomic plants are solely for power generation.

Earlier this week the United Nations' nuclear watchdog decided against referring Iran to the Security Council after Tehran agreed to freeze all activities which could be used to make bomb-grade material.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Forgive me if the Suspicious Bastard Node just reminded me we were hearing lots of stories about how Saddam could strike the US with his WMDs.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

This article from Reuters seems to suggest that the Iranians are making missiles with a more limited capability - A missile with nearly 2,000 miles of range is still quite capable, but not capable of hitting the US from Iran. Could US officials be screaming bloody murder in order to justify a more hawkish position on Iran? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
There's a difference between making and working to develop. It's entirely possible for them to be working incrimentaly to get ICBMs and the US is more concerned about longer term. Either way, it's one more reason to not want Iran to get nukes.
Image
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Post by Big Phil »

Are the 1st Infantry and 1st Marine Divisions still in Iraq? Why not point them northest, tell them to shoot anything that moves, and let the problem be dealt with that way?

If that doesn't work, then let the Israelis have at them. I'll bet Israel could kick every military's ass from Morocco to Afghanistan, at the same time, within a month.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Are the 1st Infantry and 1st Marine Divisions still in Iraq? Why not point them northest, tell them to shoot anything that moves, and let the problem be dealt with that way?

If that doesn't work, then let the Israelis have at them. I'll bet Israel could kick every military's ass from Morocco to Afghanistan, at the same time, within a month.
Wow, what a shitload of stupidity that is. The US can't get into a shooting war with Iran because we're in horrible shape just trying to find troops for Iraq. Before we even think about going after them we'll need a lot more troops.

And Israel can't really invade either. They can kick ass when you're on their doorstep but they're too small to adequately push across that much hostile terrain.
Image
User avatar
Aaron
Blackpowder Man
Posts: 12031
Joined: 2004-01-28 11:02pm
Location: British Columbian ExPat

Post by Aaron »

Now why would Iran be concerned with hitting Europe? Europe doesn't seem to care what they do. Although this would give them a capability to hit Israel first, which seems far more likely to me than going nuts on Europe.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Image
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Cpl Kendall wrote:Now why would Iran be concerned with hitting Europe? Europe doesn't seem to care what they do. Although this would give them a capability to hit Israel first, which seems far more likely to me than going nuts on Europe.
ICBMs are a political bargaining chip and no doubt Iran wants them badly for that reason alone. I doubt they plan on using them against us, or will be any time soon, but they want the leverage that'll given them against their pariah-hood.
Image
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Post by Big Phil »

Stormbringer wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:Are the 1st Infantry and 1st Marine Divisions still in Iraq? Why not point them northest, tell them to shoot anything that moves, and let the problem be dealt with that way?

If that doesn't work, then let the Israelis have at them. I'll bet Israel could kick every military's ass from Morocco to Afghanistan, at the same time, within a month.
Wow, what a shitload of stupidity that is. The US can't get into a shooting war with Iran because we're in horrible shape just trying to find troops for Iraq. Before we even think about going after them we'll need a lot more troops.

And Israel can't really invade either. They can kick ass when you're on their doorstep but they're too small to adequately push across that much hostile terrain.

How is it stupid? We could have kicked Iraq's ass with a troop of girl scouts - their army is and was pathetic. The reason we're getting hurt in Iraq is because we're trying to police the country and fight a guerrilla war.

If we wanted to hold Iran, we'd need a lot more troops, but to move in, kill off their army, destroy the missiles and all related technology and leave, wouldn't be that hard.

The gap between US/UK/NATO warfighting capabilities and the rest of the world is pretty drastic - think Britain vs. the Zulus rather than Russia vs. the Germans. Yeah, every once in a while the Zulus won, but generally the Brits slaughtered them by the thousands. What was the difference?

TECHNOLOGY
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
frigidmagi
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2962
Joined: 2004-04-14 07:05pm
Location: A Nice Dry Place

Post by frigidmagi »

Kid, you're a fucking moron. Techonogly is not some uber magic bullet that magically ensures victory. Lower tech forces have defested high tech forces before.

Hell doofus the Nazis had better tech than the US in WWII and we still won.

The Marines are there to nail down the region and keep things under control. If they leave the region is likely to start burning and don't think Iran will just take a slap in the face like this and smile, this will start a war, where we're neck deep in hostile territory with no secure bases, no secure supply lines and vastly outnumbered. Lots of risk and guantneed lost for zero gain.

You're one of those jackasses who never served in a mordern unit, never fought, never even bothered to fucking read what going on operational wise and still thinks he can tell what the mordern military needs and can do. Go bugger yourself with a fucking baseball bat and get a damn clue.
Image
User avatar
Jon
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1501
Joined: 2004-03-02 10:11am
Location: Manchester UK

Post by Jon »

The US are desperately looking for an excuse to go up against Iran. These claims are no coincidence. Hopefully the initiative Europe just entered into with Iran can avert any US stupidity.
User avatar
Aaron
Blackpowder Man
Posts: 12031
Joined: 2004-01-28 11:02pm
Location: British Columbian ExPat

Post by Aaron »

frigidmagi wrote:Kid, you're a fucking moron. Techonogly is not some uber magic bullet that magically ensures victory. Lower tech forces have defested high tech forces before.

Hell doofus the Nazis had better tech than the US in WWII and we still won.

The Marines are there to nail down the region and keep things under control. If they leave the region is likely to start burning and don't think Iran will just take a slap in the face like this and smile, this will start a war, where we're neck deep in hostile territory with no secure bases, no secure supply lines and vastly outnumbered. Lots of risk and guantneed lost for zero gain.

You're one of those jackasses who never served in a mordern unit, never fought, never even bothered to fucking read what going on operational wise and still thinks he can tell what the mordern military needs and can do. Go bugger yourself with a fucking baseball bat and get a damn clue.
Just ignore him Frigidmagi, it seems like dozens of armchair Generals have cropped up on this board since Iraq started. They know nothing and never will.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Image
User avatar
Aaron
Blackpowder Man
Posts: 12031
Joined: 2004-01-28 11:02pm
Location: British Columbian ExPat

Post by Aaron »

Jon wrote:The US are desperately looking for an excuse to go up against Iran. These claims are no coincidence. Hopefully the initiative Europe just entered into with Iran can avert any US stupidity.
If we take Iraq and North Korea as an example, Iran will simply play the world community until it has the weapons it wants.

*Note: I am not advocating an Invasion of Iran, the USA doesn't have the capacity for that at the moment, and Europe will never contribute. The best that can happen is a bombing of the facilities.*
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Image
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:Are the 1st Infantry and 1st Marine Divisions still in Iraq? Why not point them northest, tell them to shoot anything that moves, and let the problem be dealt with that way?

If that doesn't work, then let the Israelis have at them. I'll bet Israel could kick every military's ass from Morocco to Afghanistan, at the same time, within a month.
Wow, what a shitload of stupidity that is. The US can't get into a shooting war with Iran because we're in horrible shape just trying to find troops for Iraq. Before we even think about going after them we'll need a lot more troops.

And Israel can't really invade either. They can kick ass when you're on their doorstep but they're too small to adequately push across that much hostile terrain.

How is it stupid? We could have kicked Iraq's ass with a troop of girl scouts - their army is and was pathetic. The reason we're getting hurt in Iraq is because we're trying to police the country and fight a guerrilla war.

If we wanted to hold Iran, we'd need a lot more troops, but to move in, kill off their army, destroy the missiles and all related technology and leave, wouldn't be that hard.

The gap between US/UK/NATO warfighting capabilities and the rest of the world is pretty drastic - think Britain vs. the Zulus rather than Russia vs. the Germans. Yeah, every once in a while the Zulus won, but generally the Brits slaughtered them by the thousands. What was the difference?

TECHNOLOGY
Quite apart from what frigidmagi correctly pointed out, have you actually read about what is actually commited not only to Iraq but elseware? have you considered that perhaps forces must be kept in reserve, and mobile, for other contigencies?. Then there is the financial/economic cost of such an effort, what would it do to oil prices and supply?.
You cannot just say "look there's a bad guy, lets kill him!" there are concequences which must be thought through very carfully both international and domestic.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Stormbringer wrote: Wow, what a shitload of stupidity that is. The US can't get into a shooting war with Iran because we're in horrible shape just trying to find troops for Iraq. Before we even think about going after them we'll need a lot more troops.
Image

Who needs troops when you have.....

Image
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Well, it really depends. The Iranian regime is not liked by the Iranian people, and the army won't fire on their own people--they have to rely on religious fanatics and mercenaries for that, now, which is a sign that the regime's grip on power is crumbling. One of my clever ideas for finishing off the Ayatollahs was to equip the army of Azerbaijan and have them invade. Azerbaijan was part of Iran until the early 19th century and they're also Shi'ites, just under a secular government, so quite possibly the Iranians would join them as they advanced on Tehran.

The downside to that is that it would drive Russia insane and would probably result either in the unification of Iran and Azerbaijan or in Azerbaijan resuming the war with Armenia they've maintained intermittently since the late 80s (when they were still Soviet republics), or both. A Bay of Pigs style operation might work, but I wouldn't want any Americans actually involved in it, even in aircraft, because that might trigger a nationalistic response.

Frankly the best thing to do is provide covert aide to the revolutionary groups in the country and hope at some point that they can defeat the security forces in street fighting and take the capital, after of which the regime would almost certainly collapse; a vast portion of the Iranian population is in Tehran and the country's power centres are centralized there.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Post by fgalkin »

Nukey Nukey Nukey! :D

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

MKSheppard wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Wow, what a shitload of stupidity that is. The US can't get into a shooting war with Iran because we're in horrible shape just trying to find troops for Iraq. Before we even think about going after them we'll need a lot more troops.
[img]snip[/img]

Who needs troops when you have.....
Air pollution! brilliant! :P
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
User avatar
Currald
Jedi Knight
Posts: 759
Joined: 2002-11-22 02:06pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, North America, Tellus, Sol System, First Galaxy
Contact:

Post by Currald »

I'm having a hard time believing ANYTHING the Bush administration has to say, let alone about WMDs. As far as I'm concerned, Bush spent all of his "political capital" with me in the Iraq invasion. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.
If the Iranians start enriching uranium again, the Israelis can just launch a cruise missile at them again. End of story.
Clear Ether, Currald
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

SancheztheWhaler wrote:How is it stupid? We could have kicked Iraq's ass with a troop of girl scouts - their army is and was pathetic. The reason we're getting hurt in Iraq is because we're trying to police the country and fight a guerrilla war.

If we wanted to hold Iran, we'd need a lot more troops, but to move in, kill off their army, destroy the missiles and all related technology and leave, wouldn't be that hard.
Hey, dumbass. You do realize that bring those troops over to invade Iran is going to mean Iraq is going to explode and when we get done smashing Iran then we've got two countries that have exploded into the hardest of hardcore Islamic States. Sorry, but it will turn into an unacceptable mess should we try that.

Yeah, we can smash up the place. But it takes a deluded fool like you to believe that it's a good idea to do that.
Image
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Post by Stormbringer »

Currald wrote:I'm having a hard time believing ANYTHING the Bush administration has to say, let alone about WMDs. As far as I'm concerned, Bush spent all of his "political capital" with me in the Iraq invasion. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.
Like it or not, and I suspect from the anti-Bush stuff it's not, but simply because Bush is one of the people saying it doesn't make it untrue. Iran has a nuclear program, it's there to see, and the only logical reason for it to exist is for nuclear weapons.

That they want a modern delivery system does make sense. I wouldn't trust Bush's word for it on it's own, but it does sound like that it's good bet. And Iran has been working on ballistic missles for a good long time.
Currald wrote: If the Iranians start enriching uranium again, the Israelis can just launch a cruise missile at them again. End of story.
Cruise missles are simply not a realistic option for a number of reasons.
Image
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Both newer missiles would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads as well as chemical and biological weapons, he said.
No one has ever put a biological weapon onto a missile. It's just not practical nor particularly achievable. Biological ICBMs ... morons.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Post Reply