Iran Cracks US Stealth Spy Drone’s Secrets, Shows Proof

[Phantasee]

Go fuck yourself you little shit. People you're talking down to have been posting on SDN far longer than you, long before any "Testingstan" forum existed. We have as much right to participate in a fucking N&P thread as you.

I fucking hate people like you.

Re: article

I see where D13 is coming from. It may be a technical article, but it's got the same biases and prejudices you'd see in a Fox News article, but that's because it seems to do the Fox thing of fair and balanced where "journalists" just quote press releases and make no judgement of the validity of the statements.

[HMS Conqueror]

They're not developing nuclear weapons.

Then they have nothing to fear!

I love your fascism, quite apart from the fact that this did nothing to help Iraq or Afghanistan when they were threatened with American invasions.

Afghanistan was invaded for harbouring Bin Laden, unless you think he doesn't exist/didn't do WTC.

Iraq was unfortunate, but do you think less reconnaissance would have made it less likely that Iraq would have been invaded? It was the doubt that gave ground for peoples' suspicions to predominate over the incomplete evidence.

[evilsoup]

Iraq was unfortunate

Hey go fuck yourself. And that doubt was artificially manufactured, and there were still enough people who didn't think Iraq had WMDs for a million-man march in London. Everyone who wasn't a fucking idiot was opposed to that war. However, the facts about WMDs (which Saddam totally could have launched in 45 minutes), or rather their non-existence, were wholly irrelevant. Certain people wanted that war, and so it happened.

Those same people (not all the same individuals, but the same type of contemptible pigfucking profit-uber-alles scum) are pushing for war with Iran. These flyovers with drones are clearly preparation for the invasion. Good on the Iranians for cracking the codes this much, if they did do that; and if they did down the drone, that's a good sign. But as the article said, the Iranians probably don't have the tools to reproduce it (unless I'm overestimating the complexity of these things). I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Would counter-drone drones be useful at all? Or are they only useful for spying and exploding funeral processions?

[weemadando]

Afghanistan was invaded for harbouring Bin Laden, unless you think he doesn't exist/didn't do WTC.

Pakistan was "harbouring" him too. We haven't invaded them yet. Bloodlust was a big motivator for the Afghanistan invasion, regardless of whether you think offers to turn Bin Laden over by the various factions were legitimate.

Iraq was unfortunate, but do you think less reconnaissance would have made it less likely that Iraq would have been invaded? It was the doubt that gave ground for peoples' suspicions to predominate over the incomplete evidence.

No, it was avarice, expediency, greed and a base uncaring for the lives of brown people.

There wasn't "incomplete evidence" shithead, there was OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AGAINST the existence of WMD programs.

But the US went out of their way to restructure all of their intelligence programs to create a special clearinghouse to only let through the stuff that Rummy and co. instructed them to.

[HMS Conqueror]

Hey go fuck yourself. And that doubt was artificially manufactured, and there were still enough people who didn't think Iraq had WMDs for a million-man march in London. Everyone who wasn't a fucking idiot was opposed to that war. However, the facts about WMDs (which Saddam totally could have launched in 45 minutes), or rather their non-existence, were wholly irrelevant. Certain people wanted that war, and so it happened.

Those same people (not all the same individuals, but the same type of contemptible pigfucking profit-uber-alles scum) are pushing for war with Iran. These flyovers with drones are clearly preparation for the invasion. Good on the Iranians for cracking the codes this much, if they did do that; and if they did down the drone, that's a good sign. But as the article said, the Iranians probably don't have the tools to reproduce it (unless I'm overestimating the complexity of these things). I'm not sure how I feel about that.

1 million people is almost like 1.8% of the country. Clearly democrazy failed that day. Perhaps they were right, but a lot of people were also opposed to war with Hitler's Germany, and those people were wrong. Sadly history does not give us simple solutions.

Now I have some respect for the view that we should not attack Iran, and even some respect for a hard-line pacifist view that we should never attack anyone (though I strongly disagree). But you and DXIII and the rest of that small minority who marched in London in 2003 seem more like opposed to the West winning wars than opposed to war as such. These are the same people who think that replacing Trident is a travesty, that fundamentalist Christianity is a threat to mankind, and yet a theocratic dictatorship obtaining nuclear bombs is something to be blithely positive about. It may be that Iran is not producing bombs and has simply acted in an extremely suspicious and belligerent manner for no obvious reason, but it takes a blind ideologue to think it's reasonable to take their word for that.

[Stark]

Don't interrupt, he's assigning his own fear-boogeymen to your motives so that he can dismiss your views. It's important for him that his fear becomes strength.

[HMS Conqueror]

Russia Today is what used to be called Pravda (actually Pravda is still going, but not the main state mouthpiece). It is the Russia Government's propaganda outlet. The article does not cite or even repeat the claim of the headline.

[evilsoup]

What's the name of that... false dilemma, that's it!

Either invade Iran, or they get nukes. This in spite of the fact that even Mossad and the CIA, those famously hard-line pacifist antiwestern organisation, have said that Iran isn't working on nuclear weapons. So you want to turn a vague risk in the future of the Iranians 1. changing their minds and 2. deciding to commit suicide by... I don't know nuking Israel? Because... moo hoo ha ha, I guess?

Please provide examples of Iran acting more belligerently than the US and UK (et al). Actually that's irrelevant. Because they haven't done anything anywhere near bad enough to justify a war that would cost at least tens of thousands of lives. You need very high levels of fuckery to justify that (invading others for imperialistic reasons, torturing prisoners, bombing funerals - that sort of thing).

But more importantly than that, please have a little fucking pride in your country, you unpatriotic shitbag. Do you not think we, with the mother of parliaments and so on, should hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard than we hold a fucking theocracy to? I live in a democracy, which means that I am in part responsible for everything my country does - every murder, rape and evening spent in a low-lit MI6 torture chamber. If fuckwits like you get there way and we go to war with Iran, a part of that blood would be on my hands. So no, fuck you and your paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings about Iran building nukes.

And fuck me, you don't think a million people marching is significant?

EDIT:
If a Russian propaganda machine is uncceptable, how about an American one?
New York Times

[HMS Conqueror]

The topic of the thread isn't invading Iran, but monitoring their activities with unarmed drones. People apparently disapprove of this, and think we should take Iran's word that they are not developing bombs.

For paranoid conspiracy theories, idk what to say. We can agree that it is not 100% certain Iran is developing a bomb, but for whether it is a reasonable possibility, there is no debate. They have produced hardened centrifuge facilities that produce enriched fuel that is not necessary for powerplants. They have refused international offers to provide them with fuel and reactors that cannot be used to produce bombs, and to dispose of the waste (something that would otherwise cost them a lot of money) afterwards. They have developed ballistic missiles whose primary purpose for every other country that has developed them is the delivery of nuclear weapons. They have acted in the way that every legitimate nuclear power has acted when they developed their own bombs. They have furthermore hidden and hardened their facilities, which the legitimate nuclear powers have not needed to do.

Maybe you think Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. But that's very different and much shakier ground to stand on. Most people want to know, and I would say most would only be comfortable taking no action if they were not developing bombs.

EDIT: This is what the CIA actually has said:

As a result, officials caution that they cannot offer certainty. “I’d say that I have about 75 percent confidence in the assessment that they haven’t restarted the program,” said one former senior intelligence official.

Another former intelligence official said: “Iran is the hardest intelligence target there is. It is harder by far than North Korea.

[Aaron MkII]

Don't interrupt, he's assigning his own fear-boogeymen to your motives so that he can dismiss your views. It's important for him that his fear becomes strength.

Someone should do a comparison of posts during the leadup to Iraq and now with Iran, i bet we find the same attitudes, just different names.

[HMS Conqueror]

Don't interrupt, he's assigning his own fear-boogeymen to your motives so that he can dismiss your views. It's important for him that his fear becomes strength.

Someone should do a comparison of posts during the leadup to Iraq and now with Iran, i bet we find the same attitudes, just different names.

Do another for WWII. You can't use the forum, ofc, but extend to the published press and you may even find some of the same names.

[Stark]

Remember a time before everyone knew how everything claimed was false? When people were still waiting to find the WMD the US government knew they didn't have?

Simpler times.

Lol; you know if you compare WW2 to the present ... the US is the one doing the conquering. That's why other countries see them as the bad guy who needs to be resisted. You can see that, right, through the fog of fear you live in?

[Aaron MkII]

Don't interrupt, he's assigning his own fear-boogeymen to your motives so that he can dismiss your views. It's important for him that his fear becomes strength.

Someone should do a comparison of posts during the leadup to Iraq and now with Iran, i bet we find the same attitudes, just different names.

Do another for WWII. You can't use the forum, ofc, but extend to the published press and you may even find some of the same names.

Yeah, except the internet makes it much easier to tell whose full of it and access information. So I don't have to tune into CBC in my outhouse to get my propoganda.

[HMS Conqueror]

Stark: idk, maybe you should discuss that with your master Putin on your way to Koran studies class, you fifth columnist traitor!

Now that the mandated SD.net ridiculous character attacks are out of the way, idk what is so odd about the comparison. Plenty of people argued that Hitler was an honourable man with limited intentions, who was only building a suspiciously huge army to assuage the damaged pride of defeat in WWI. Unfortunately those people turned out to be naive fools who are indirectly responsible for the death of more people in a typical day of WWII than the entire course of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars on all sides combined.


Destructionator XIII: Yeah, thanks for citing the Iran Government and Fidel Castro. That adds a lot to the debate. The NYT provides a more complete view including the quotes that don't agree so much with its editorial line, including the ones in my post.

[Stark]

Obviously you can look at any situation from the reverse perspective, but that should equip you mentally to step beyond 'do what I say or else' and imagine that other countries cooperating to resist American aggression and seeking security from their casual attacks casts their actions in a less simplistic light.

I mean I doubt you're actually interested in considering other views, but it'd not even difficult.

[weemadando]

So Iran now is the same as Germany in 1936?

Good to know.

When is your next lecture on public policy?

[HMS Conqueror]

Obviously you can look at any situation from the reverse perspective, but that should equip you mentally to step beyond 'do what I say or else'

No one made that argument except in your imagination.

[weemadando]

Obviously you can look at any situation from the reverse perspective, but that should equip you mentally to step beyond 'do what I say or else'

No one made that argument except in your imagination.

Funny, the point where you said "Then they have nothing to fear" kind of indicates that you've got a very limited ability to comprehend the situation beyond the most basic posturing.

[atg]

They have produced hardened centrifuge facilities that produce enriched fuel that is not necessary for powerplants.

There have been repeated threats in Western media that military action may be taken against their nuclear facilities, and Israel HAS taken such action in the past (such as bombing Iraq's reactor)... OH noes taking precautionary measures against attack by forces who have threatened them = teh evil!
Fuel enriched to ~5-20% is necessary for powerplants. When IAEA found residue in the Iranian centrifuges that pointed to enrichment to weapons grade level it was discovered that it was residue from the Pakistani weapons program as the centrifuges had been purchased from Pakistan. This was in fact part of how the USA managed to get Pakistan to 'retire' Dr Khan and stop one of, if not the, worst proliferator of nuclear technology that has ever existed... guess the US should actually be thankfull to Iran? lol

They have refused international offers to provide them with fuel and reactors that cannot be used to produce bombs, and to dispose of the waste (something that would otherwise cost them a lot of money) afterwards.

Why should they have to be reliant on the good graces of others years into the future other than "we westerners don't trust dem brown people"?

They have developed ballistic missiles whose primary purpose for every other country that has developed them is the delivery of nuclear weapons. They have acted in the way that every legitimate nuclear power has acted when they developed their own bombs.

So primary purpose = only purpose? What kind of retarded logic is that? Not to mention many nations have owned and operated many ballistic missiles without seeking nuclear warheads for them. A perfect example was the V-2 which was developed and put into operation before nuclear weapons even existed.

This of course forgets the fact that ballistic missile programs have legitimate dual-tech purposes such as say a space program, you know, like the one Iran has...

They have furthermore hidden and hardened their facilities, which the legitimate nuclear powers have not needed to do.

Cause when someone threatens to break into your house and steal your TV you totally don't buy a security system or make any preparations... Also which 'legitimate nuclear power' has a neighbour that openly threatens military action against their program and has done so to others in the past?

[Zinegata]

Go fuck yourself you little shit. People you're talking down to have been posting on SDN far longer than you, long before any "Testingstan" forum existed. We have as much right to participate in a fucking N&P thread as you.

I fucking hate people like you.

In short. "WAAAH! You're not allowed to talk back to the Old Boys Club!"

Sorry, but as the mods say: There is no such thing as an Old Boys Club.

Re: article

I see where D13 is coming from. It may be a technical article, but it's got the same biases and prejudices you'd see in a Fox News article, but that's because it seems to do the Fox thing of fair and balanced where "journalists" just quote press releases and make no judgement of the validity of the statements.

Uh, right. A failure to comment on the political situation by a technical article from an aviation blog is now the same as chest-thumping pro-Americanism ala Fox News. Again, read the article. Maybe try quoting where it actually says that Iran is a threat to world peace next time and America is numbah one, okay?

[Zinegata]

My comments were about the US government (the source of most the article's quotes), not specifically the article author.

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm not objecting to any of your comments specifically on this point, just with the guys claiming that the article is blatantly Fox-Newish in tone.

[MKSheppard]

Fuel enriched to ~5-20% is necessary for powerplants.

BZZT. Incorrect. Guess what the initial enrichment level of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station (CCNPS) in Maryland when it went online with it's initial fuel loading in 1974?

2.05% to 2.99%.

[MKSheppard]

What really happened is the US accused him and gave a list of demands to the Taliban, and they replied "prove it".

We didn't bother and just put more aggressive pressure on them.

The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third party for a trial under their law.

We refused and attacked them instead.

In diplomatic terms, this is called an ultimatum. You may know this term from the one delivered August 1914 by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the one delivered November 1950 by the People's Republic of China.

[Zinegata]

What really happened is the US accused him and gave a list of demands to the Taliban, and they replied "prove it".

We didn't bother and just put more aggressive pressure on them.

The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third party for a trial under their law.

We refused and attacked them instead.

In diplomatic terms, this is called an ultimatum. You may know this term from the one delivered August 1914 by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the one delivered November 1950 by the People's Republic of China.

Saying it's an ultimatum doesn't really mean much though. The real reason why the US rejected the Taliban "counter offer" was because it was a blatant delaying tactic and only crazy people believe it was a sincere gesture for peace.

At the same time the Taliban ambassador was demanding more evidence, he was at the same time making wild accusations that it was all just a Jewish plot and that 4,000 Jews had advanced warning of the suicide attacks. Uh, right, you demand evidence but then make crazy unsubstantiated accusations?

And that the Taliban were essentially asking that Bin Laden be tried under Shariah law, because apparently the only way for him to get a "fair" trial is to have one under a court that believes homosexuals is a crime that can be punished by death (instead of say, The Hague).

Plus, the whole other issue of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, to which the Taliban played Wall of Ignorance.

But really, these attempts to claim that the Taliban were sincere in their effort to hand over Bin Laden are such blatant lies that anyone who tries to make that kind of argument is most likely just trolling and should be ignored. Don't waste your time with this nonsense Shep.

[atg]

Fuel enriched to ~5-20% is necessary for powerplants.

BZZT. Incorrect. Guess what the initial enrichment level of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station (CCNPS) in Maryland when it went online with it's initial fuel loading in 1974?

2.05% to 2.99%.

Wow so a reactor in the USA, which has nothing to do with the Iranian program, can operate at less than 5% enrichment.

Way to miss the bloody point.

While I'm sure there are many reactors that can do less than 5% enrichment (IIRC the CANDU reactors can), the point is that its not unusual for reactors to run at levels of around 5% (PROTIP: one of the meanings of '~' is 'approximately'). IIRC the reactor type installed at Bushehr runs at 4-5% enrichment. And of course as Destructionator XIII pointed out up to 20% is used for research reactors such as what Iran plan to do. So there is nothing out of the ordinary with what Iran are doing in terms of enrichment which is what I was trying to point out.

But hey lets ignore all that to nit-pic a useless point