Iran Has Put a Satellite Into Orbit 923
Dekortage writes "'Dear Iranian nation, your children have placed the first indigenous satellite into orbit,' announced Iran's President Ahmadinejad yesterday. The satellite, named Omid ('hope'), was launched to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Video shown on Iranian television shows a Safir-2 rocket rising into the sky, as a follow-up to a test firing last August."
Citation Needed? (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno, but I'd like to see some third party confirmation before I believe that Iran has a satellite in orbit. Launching a satellite and putting it in orbit is a tricky thing to do; only a few countries have managed it, and none the size or technology level of Iran, IIRC.
Honestly, look at this list [wikipedia.org]. One of these things in not like the others.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is true and the satellite reached escape velocity you have just demonstrated that Iran can drop a warhead on any city worldwide.
Super happy fun times to come, good job on easing tensions.
Iraq: No ICBMs, no nukes, invaded and President executed after a mock trial.
Korea: Nukes, ICBMs (not worldwide range, but can hit California), currently negotiating in multilateral talks.
I think this move by Iran actually may ease tensions.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you Western types want to have a World War 3 so soon, count us out. We may not honor-kill and we may have high technology, but we are a Middle-Eastern civilization and we see no reason to side with a group of so-called "friends" who spend their media time calling us Nazis over ancient "friends" who turned against us in fundamentalism 30 years ago. We'll just protect ourselves like we always have.
Sincerely,
The Jews
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI: Canada has nuclear power stations AND has launched satellites. Are you scared now?
Canada is a responsible member of the international community that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.
If Iran wants to be treated like a grown up member of the international community perhaps they could borrow a few lessons from our neighbors to the North? Besides which, ice hockey is way cooler than soccer anyway.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if you consider that embassies are technically the territory of the country they represent, then Iran HAS invaded a country in recent history...
Respect (Score:2, Interesting)
Why they'd want to be on the U.S. and Soviet target list is beyond me though. Being a nuclear power today (even a nuclear superpower) is risky business, no matter how you slice it.
Respect. The USA does not treat countries without nukes with the same kind of respect as they do otherwise.
Over the years and especially after two Presidents with the name of "Bush" I have changed my point of view drasticly.
Those who warned about the "American Imperialism" had been right all along and if I became head of state somewhere I would terminate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty right away.
Martin
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Interesting)
The more a nation like Iran embraces technology and science, the more difficult it is to reconcile that with crazy religious ideas. People are asked to accept the advanced scientific learning provided by reason, while at the same time suspend that reason when thinking about their ideology.
You do realise that for a very long time, the Muslims lead the world in terms of technology, science and mathematics? They only had problems when the fundamentalist crazies took over. Once you start making laws that place religion above science, you start to follow that route to crazyness - Americans should take note!
I can only hope that with the recent regime change in the US, some of the damage can be reversed before it's too late.
Re:Respect (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah right....ok, how many new countries have we annexed in the past couple of decades
Nicaraugua, Panama, and in 03 the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez.
The US has 186 military bases in 150 countries. This for a country that had no army before WWII.
Go watch the documentary "Why we fight" It's a great eye opener on the American military culture. Its on youtube and archive.org.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Interesting)
Canada is a responsible member of the international community that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.
Well, maybe Canada hasn't, but both the US and Israel come pretty close. And that's not even considering they actually followed up on some of those threats. And spreading lies and FUD about terrorists, WOMD and the nuclear and/or missile programs of the 'rogue states' we should be so fucking scared about.
Haven't heard much complaining about Pakistan lately (note: missiles and nuclear technology), but that's probably because they are so helpful 'catching Bin Laden' (enemy of the state #1 you know).
Please stop basing your world views on the propaganda spread by the US and all those other 'responsible members of the international community', your only fooling yourself. We are being lied to and told half-truths by our prime minister here in the Netherlands, who still refuses to acknowledge Iraq was invaded based on false intelligence, and is still desperately trying to prevent the truth being uncovered. And we like to view our country as one of the most democratic and free in this world.
Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the missile is better.
It doesn't take more than a half an hour to hit the USA. It doesn't have any risks in transportation. You can't practically recall a ballistic missile after it has been launched. You can launch a missile ad-hoc, and finally, a missile launched high above the USA fries all of our electrical shit. Fatman in the truck can't do any of that.
The smuggled weapon in the back of the truck, on the other hand, requires every single person on the way to not notice, or actively participate in the delivery of the weapon. And, it's less effective militarily.
The thing about container ships, is that there are not that many of them, as they are so big these days, that stopping them and tracking them is actually pretty practical. You can monitor a ship as its sailing all the way from Iran or an Arabian port all the way to the USA. You can fly geiger counters over it and around it to look for neutrons coming out of it. There's just way more risk for the delivery and its not a good deterrent.
Defense is not the solution, and security theater is just a waste
If defense is not the solution, then why preach birth control? Defense doesn't solve everything, but it does increase the probability of failure to an attacker, so that he or she won't attack, and also reduces the likelihood of the attacker of spreading that attack to other parties. To put it another way, if Hitler had been stopped in France, do you think he still invades Russia?
"monotheism, peace and justice" (Score:3, Interesting)
From The Beeb [bbc.co.uk]: Mr Ahmadinejad said the satellite was launched to spread "monotheism, peace and justice" in the world.
Interesting. I wonder how the polytheist countries feel about this?
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other attack vectors (smuggling in warheads by sea/land) may be technically easier and more likely, but (being cold about it) the end damage potential is much less. If terrorists set off a bomb or two, there's lots of damage, but the rest of the country is still intact. But if a missile launches, the end result is basically that all the missiles fly. And that ruins everyone's day.
To quote Stuart Slade, defense analyst (emphasis mine):
The problem with missiles is this; once they are fired, they are on their way. Nothing can stop them (in the sense that the launch decision is final; contrary to many people's opinion, ICBMs do not have a destruct system - ones fired on range testing do, but operational ones do not) and nothing can prevent them striking their targets. The other problem is that they are very fast-moving and give the forces on the other side very little chance to decide what is happening and why. If a launch is detected now, the President has less time to make his decision over future action than most people to chose their meal at a restaurant.
Thrown into that is the inevitability of the whole thing; a missile fired means a target hit. Unless the wretched thing malfunctions, of course, but nuclear weapons are not a good place to start relying on luck. So the simple fact that a missile is on its way means that a country is about to have some fairly catastrophic damage inflicted on it. But is that all? Is that first missile the start of a salvo? Is it aimed at the deterrent forces on the ground - so that any response will be ragged? Without going too deeply into the dynamics of the decision (that would take a book rather than an answer to a question on an essay), the odds stack so that if a missile is inbound, it requires immense faith and courage not to return fire. That's step one.
Now we go to step two. The nation that has let one fly either by accident or design. Its government knows that the "other side" has immense pressure on it to return fire, that the odds in the decision-making process stack in favor of opening fire. If they hang around and wait to see what will happen, the rest of their forces get caught on the ground - and destroyed. So they require immense faith and courage not to continue firing.
Step three - the nation that is being fired on knows that the other guys are working on the basis that the odds stack in favor of continuing firing. That ends it; they know the other guys will open fire, so even if they had decided not to, they will reverse that decision. The guys who fired first know that so, even if they had decided not to fire, they reverse that decision.
Everybody fires, everybody dies. More or less. Both sides know it so they don't bother with the question. One flies, they all fly. The only question is the timing.
How does BMD figure into this? It buys time. A single missile inbound can be shot down reasonably easily. So if a single inbound is detected, it can be shot down - stopped from reaching its target. That takes the dreadful time squeeze out - both sides can afford to wait to see what happens. The side that is being shot at can see what develops and also contact the other side and ask. Not a joke - that may be the most important single step. The side that let one fly by accident knows that the other side is going to wait so they can also afford to do so. And the whole situation is a lot cooler.
That's not to say we shouldn't secure ports and borders and all that. We certainly should. But we can't ignore the less-likely but potentially more catastrophic threat, either. The "we can't stop everything, so let's do nothing" approach is stupid, too.
It should also be noted that the US had a working missile defense system in the 70s.
suspicion of iran (Score:4, Interesting)
has nothing to do with being pro-israel, or pro-western, or anti-muslim
suspicion of iran has to do with it being a theocracy. doesn't matter that it is a muslim or christian theocracy, or whether it is located in the middle east, or south america, or antarctica. the issue is it being a theocracy. begnning of valid concern about iran, end of valid concern about iran
if someone is concerned about iran, it very well could be for mindless ethnocentrism, religious bigotry, or tibal chest thumping reasons. it is very easy to be concerned about iran for the lowest and most disgraceful reasons
but someone can also be concerned about iran simply from a strictly globalist, humanist, universal, highminded reason:
a theocracy is a very bad thing
why?
we are talking about a government that has, ensconced in its constituion, a bunch of grumpy old men, who are above all law or ability to be questioned, who act in the name of god, and have a monopoly on interpretting the will of god, according to law. that doesn't bother you?
power in iran is not ahmadinejad. power is in the ayatollahs. ahmadinejad is a figurehead. he does not hold the final power. the ayatollahs can freely choose to disavow any candidate form office, and have done so exorbitantly in past elections to disallow popular reform candidates from running
would you consider it a problem if the pope could, without any ability to question or veto his decision, walk into the elections in germany, or the usa, or great britain, and simply cherry pick the candidates he wants to run?
again, the problem is not islam. the problem is not the middle east. the problem is not being anti-israeli. the problem is not being anti-western. all of these instincts are perfectly valid and defensible world views
the problem is with iran being a THEOCRACY. on that issue alone, is suspicion of iran perfectly valid, from either a pro-western or anti-western point of view
pay attention to the below text... this government is going to get a nuclear warhead:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html [iranonline.com]
so these grumpy old men, with a monopoly on intepretting what the will of god is, are about to get control over a nuclear warhead
and people wish to say that if you are concerned about this, you must be some brain dead tribal pro-western muslim hater?
really?
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:1, Interesting)
You know, that's exactly how I felt about President George W. "Untreatable-Psychotic" Bush and his crusadin' White House.
I'm an American, and I'm dead serious.
Being a nuclear power today (even a nuclear superpower) is risky business, no matter how you slice it.
There's only one problem with this:
According to a number of sources, President Mahmoud "Untreatable-Psychotic" Ahmadinejad of Iran firmly believes that Allah will aid him in wiping out the infidels of the world. Therefore, if he were to start a nuclear war that wiped out the entire planet, Iran would be safe amid piles of smoking rubble covering the rest of the planet.
I don't know how much truth there is in this, as it could be at least partially manufactured propaganda by the political/media elite on our side, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on that, especially considering the behaviour of some others in the region.
Re:Wake up from what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's wake up from the idea that our technological progress was related to our inherent superior american-ness, and not our now-defunct levels of education and reserch investments.
In the first case, only we can lead. But if anyone can have brilliant humans simply by hard work and a real commitment to education, and we're not doing that anymore, then our continued access to Gossip Girl is in trouble.
Oblig: Missile Guidance (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of us that worked in the Defense Industry, this is a classic. For those that are new, you can probably appreciate this.
This WAV is from a military training video on missile guidance. [uwyo.edu]
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
As an outside observer, I think putting Iran in the "axis of evil" was pretty close. Couple that with the general perception that the USA would just look away if Israel would take military action against Iran, and I think any sane Iranian would worry that sooner or later one of the two would try something.
Of course, Ahmedinejad's spouting off at any possible opportunity that Israel should be wiped off the map can only increase the likelihood of the USA or Israel taking action, for exactly the same reasons that Iran is trying to build up some muscle.
The only thing that's certain is that Iran won't back down until they do have nukes, because only at that point will tensions be equal on both sides, where they both have equal amounts to lose.
Unless Iran or Israel go all religious-fanatic over it, actually believing that their respective God gives them the upper hand. And I think *that's* what we all should fear the most.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re. your sig: are you aware that there IS a car made of Legos at Legoland in CA?
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"monotheism, peace and justice" (Score:2, Interesting)
Is anyone else equally concerned at the thought of a nation developing it's own nuclear power projects without assistance from nations / specialists that have learnt from previous mistakes? (Chernobyl, TMI et al)
Re:Respect (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Respect (Score:4, Interesting)
There was still a standing army with career military. That was the framework on which to hang the mass of drafted civilians to form a army at war.
Of course, that was a different era. Today's military is nothing like the conscripts of the past. And that was before WWII changed a lot of outlook towards whether isolationism is viable (its an ongoing debate throughout the centuries).
Re:Respect (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, you're right, with the U.S. trade imbalances over the last umpteen years, what nerve of us to open our markets and buy all that stuff. And guess what happens when we stop buying the rest of the world's stuff? The current economic meltdown. That's some definition of imperialism, ya got there, son.
Gerry
There is no greater crime than war (Score:2, Interesting)
For all the bad things we hear about Iranians (most of which are very likely to be true), there is one fact that should stand out: Iran has never started a war in centuries, if not millennias.
Sure, killing gays is bad, stiffling freedom of speech is bad, beating women for not wearing the right clothes is bad, and I'm forgetting a lot of very bad things.
Still, on the evil-o-meter, for all the great buzzwords the United States and its affiliates such as Israel claim ("Democracy!" "Freedom!" "Capitalism!"), one thing stands.
War is the ultimate evil.
Murder is evil, rape is evil, theft is evil, deportation is evil, destruction is evil. But war's got it all, as judge Jackson pointed out during the Nuremberg trials.
Past performance is no guarantee that they won't, this time, start a war. But if I were to bet all my money on a pointless bet, I'd wage that the end of the world is to start when noted war criminal and all around right wing nutbag Netanyahou, as the most likely next PM of Israel, is going to start it all by attacking Iran. Not the scaaary iranian boogeymen.
Your take on the contras is hilarious (Score:3, Interesting)
Hilariously disgusting. The Sandinistas were democratically elected. The contras are generally acknowledged as "death squads," and not just by "liberals" in MS.
Furthermore the US has been sentenced to pay $1 billion by the International Court of Justice in restitution, which it refuses to pay.
Stick that right wing murderous propaganda up yours.
Re:Respect (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not writing this post to bash the US.
Having said that, there are actions that the US took in the 20th century that ought to be condemned. Could you call it "imperialism"? That might be a bit of a stretch, but I think one could certainly argue that the US used military means to interfere with the politics of other countries to the benefit of the US and without concern for the other country's citizens.
Sure, plenty of countries do plenty of terrible things and I think they should be criticised too -- but be careful if you are defending the US just because it is _your_ country.
Re:Respect (Score:4, Interesting)
Would this be the same Hans Blix who couldn't get inspectors, ever, into many areas he wanted to inspect? The same Hans Blix who expressed shock - shock! - at the discovery that Saddam was taking UN oil-for-food money and using it for anything but feeding his people, and especially for doing things like buying and building long range missiles, right up until the invasion? People with deliberately, rhetorically selective memory shouldn't bitch about anyone else's short memory.
They aren't idiots. Even Stalin needed a people. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say it is more like the fact their leaders would think nothing of nuking Israel even if it meant the deaths of 3/4ths of their populations.
MAD doesn't apply when the leaders don't give a crap about the people under them. Our entire strategy for keeping leaders with nuclear weapons in check is the utter certainty that their countries would suffer terrible retribution. I don't believe Iran is affected by this at all. I am equally unsure that North Korea's leaders care about the civilian population. It isn't like in either case there is a chance the civilian population is going to rise up in outrage and displace their government.
What is the point of attaining all of that power, only to have it all erased in a nuclear blast? Not caring about the people they rule is not at all the same as not caring if they have a people to rule at all! Do you think Stalin gave a flying rats ass about his people for their own sake? Ha, not a chance. He intentionally starved more than died in the Holocaust, and burned through more people on the Eastern Front than all the other Allies lost combined. And yet, we were able to count on MAD to keep him and his equally callous successors in check. Because while he didn't care at all about his people as such, he did care about the power they brought him. Having his country lain to waste would eliminate that power.
You can think of the leaders of Iran as similar. They aren't going to go through all the decades-long trouble of solidifying their control of the nation, staving off aggressive neighbors, jockeying with the U.S. and other international powers, in order to build the kind of industrialized nation that can actually build a nuclear deterrent, only to throw it all away by having the entire country bombed into oblivion in response to a nuclear attack. If one quarter of the people even survived, it would still be many decades more before they could return to similar levels of power, if they ever could recover at all. Sure, Israel may be gone, but that's hardly Iran's only enemy and those enemy's would find the post-nuclear-attack Iran an easy target.
Say whatever you want about them, the leaders of Iran are not dumb. If you said you thought they were blinded by religious zealotry, you'd be wrong but I'd at least understand why you think that. Why you think the Iranian leaders would "think nothing" of throwing away their entire power base and all the advantage they had struggled to gain by building nuclear weapons on a whim, I have no idea.
So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
iran doesnt invade any country actively, but they invade them through the religious terorrist organizations they fund. hezbollah, hamas, ibda-c, numerous groups trying to invade pakistan, afghanistan are just a few.
much more annoying and dangerous.
So what? All it proves is that Iran has been playing the game intelligently, as opposed to the ham-fisted Israelis and Americans. This is how one plays the Great Game and Iran has thousands of years of history and experience to fall back on. They have masterfully benefited from your idiotic George Bush and should be admired because of this. The Iranian people are rightly proud of their heritage. I have had many Iranian science students at my University where I teach and they are adamant that they are not Arabs. They are Muslims, but they have their own history and cultural identity. With this launch, in my opinion, signals that it is now too late for Israel and her backers to staunch the re-emergence of Iran as a power in the Middle East, short of a long and bloody war that will not benefit both sides. A strong, nuclear Iran would actually bring balance back into the Middle East by moderating the excesses of the already nuclear armed Israelis. This is the real reason why Israel is so against a nuclear Iran. Not because Iran is a berserker country but because Israel will now have to tread more carefully in the region.