Iran's launch 'impressive'

[killadoob]

um, because their president is a freaking looney maniac?

O yes Bush was a pillar of amazingness.

Pullllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz gary bush was worse than most governments FFS.

If a guy like bush can freakin launch satellites so can Iran, bias towards the US is astounding in this forum.

Bwhahahahahaha gary your comment made my day, guess some people actually think bush was a good president .

How many satelites where launched while bush was in power?

 

[Alan]

i dont have the knowledge to say whether he is a maniac or not
but my point is, why does america have to be against anyone who wants nuclear power when they themselfs have it !

It's not only America. It's every other democratic country as well. If you had a gun would you not be against the guy next door having one if he was raging lunatic.

 

[killadoob]

Alan if i had a choice between giving Bush a gun and Iran's president i would give it to Iran's president so he could shoot bush

 

[LazyLion]

O yes Bush was a pillar of amazingness.

Pullllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz gary bush was worse than most governments FFS.

If a guy like bush can freakin launch satellites so can Iran, bias towards the US is astounding in this forum.

Bwhahahahahaha gary your comment made my day, guess some people actually think bush was a good president .

How many satelites where launched while bush was in power?

Aw... Come on... Bush has never gone on record as saying he wants to wipe out an entire race of people....

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

That is the difference. And your signature puts words in my mouth. You have no idea what my stance is on Bush. I never said anything about him. Please edit it.

 

[Frankie]

Do you think that with all this "achievement" in the Islamic Republic of Iran they may now focus on tackling their poor human rights record?
They could stop their notorious child executions.

http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Child_Executions_Campaign

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6244126.stm

 

[Alan]

Alan if i had a choice between giving Bush a gun and Iran's president i would give it to Iran's president so he could shoot bush

ROFL too mush drugs

With in a few weeks in Iran glowing Ahemi would have you hanging from a tree

 

[jvk]

this thread is too serious for me, plus i think im under age

oh well....off to go do some work

 

[Sackboy]

This satellite launch was a stupid thing to do by the Iranians. It can only do them harm politically. Firstly, it will escalate their potential nuclear capability in the eyes of NATO, Israel and the USA, thus significantly increasing the risk of them being destroyed militarily by one or more of the above mentioned entities.

Secondly, this launch will increase the legitimacy of the missile shield that the Yanks are deploying in Eastern Europe under the pretenses of defense against "rogue states". Everybody knows that this missile shield is really targeted at Russia and not some small, insignificant country in the Middle East. This, in turn, will escalate the missile race between the Russians and the West which, again, is to the benefit of nobody on this planet.

Iran screwed up big time by launching this satellite.

How would they counter is with any shield. If they wanted to, they could let it reach orbit and then drop out of orbit over any country. I don't believe there's any shield that will stop that.

 

[StrongTurd]

How would they counter is with any shield. If they wanted to, they could let it reach orbit and then drop out of orbit over any country. I don't believe there's any shield that will stop that.

The technical merits of the US missile shield (although very sketchy) appear to be quite impressive. Nobody ever claimed that such a shield would be 100% (or even remotely close to 100%) effective, however.

It would be quite easy for the latest generation Russian MIRV-ed ICBMs like the Topol-M to defeat any missile shield due to various measures like maneuverability of the MIRVs during the reentry phase, the presence of decoys, chaff dispensers etc. etc. Alternatively, the Russians could simply saturate the system by launching a large first strike.

What it DOES do, however, is to shift the balance of strategic power decidedly in the favour of the Yanks due to the fact that the Russians now need to allocate more nuclear resources towards any particular target that is protected by a missile shield.

Seeing that the Russian and American nuclear forces were more or less in parity before the deployment of any missile shields, its presence would mess around with this equilibrium and would give the Americans a significant advantage in the case of a retaliatory strike.

This upsets the whole MAD-scenario which obviously worries the Ruskies no end. It might also potentially make the Yanks more likely to order a limited strike against someone like Iran. In short, it messes with current missile parity levels and might unleash another cold war.

 

[Alan]

I don't see how this missile shield can protect the U.S or it's allies from the sheer number of Russian ICBMs. The "protection" offered against Russian ICBMs is so minimal as to be insignificant. Hence it holds no strategic influence at all. Secondly even if it did Russia claims not to be an adversaries so why the need for equilibrium

The Russians are just conveniently using it as pretext to justify their attempts to restore themselves to their former glory that so obsesses their dictator

 

[krycor]

I think the US sentiment is damn funny.. and while there is still ZERO conclusive proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons their comments always makes me wish they were just give a big 'up y***s' to the US.

I'd be more worried of North korea but alas people with oil prices targeted to $75/barrel this summer(northern hem) no guessing who they will go after

The ICBM claim is far fetched as it requires another 15-20yrs dev considering the missile used in launch was not very different from current ones, just slightly modified. Nuclear program.. lmao are u seriously gonna believe the US AGAIN?? even if they were it would be another 10-15yrs.

And lets not forget the Israeli's are itching to flatten Iran from the distance, in the last 2 weeks i don't think Levini has mentioned Hamas as much as she has Iran. Seems they trying to garner support.

Of cause there is a HUGE difference between Iran and Iraq in that the people aren't as oppressed(the sanctions of US does worse to them hence the anti-america/israel sentiment) and their current president actually did quite a few good things for their people so much so that the US has supported, equipped & trained Iraqi militants (not called terrorists as they anti-Iranian) which bit them in the a$$ when they fought US troops

Incidentally the 40yr revolution is celebrated this month.. and I don't hear Iranians whining about anything more than we whine about(election promises.. corruption seems less than US contrived Iraq)

 

[Alan]

Incidentally the 40yr revolution is celebrated this month.. and I don't hear Iranians whining about anything more than we whine about(election promises.. corruption seems less than US contrived Iraq)

What's there to whine about. It's not like they stone girls or hang people from trees in town centers for being homosexuals.......

 

[StrongTurd]

I don't see how this missile shield can protect the U.S or it's allies from the sheer number of Russian ICBMs. The "protection" offered against Russian ICBMs is so minimal as to be insignificant. Hence it holds no strategic influence at all. Secondly even if it did Russia claims not to be an adversaries so why the need for equilibrium

The Russians are just conveniently using it as pretext to justify their attempts to restore themselves to their former glory that so obsesses their dictator

Alan, it does not appear like you read my post or, if so, it seems like you didn't understand it.

I'll try explaining again: In an all-out nuclear exchange between two superpowers, you've got only two shots at the other guy - your initial salvo and your second strike after your opponent has replied in kind. The second strike will likely come from mobile forces, SLMBs, B52's etc. as the silo-based forces will likely have been destroyed after the first exchange. That's also why the silo-based forces will probably be used during either a first strike or as a response to the other guy's first strike.

The end result of these two nuclear exchanges will be the total annihilation of the command and control structures of both countries and their allies as well as a significant percentage of each country's military hardware - hence the term MAD. MAD is what keeps these guys from attacking each other in the first place.

Now, provided that you've got nuclear parity - as is currently the case between the USA and Russia - then nobody can win in a nuclear exchange; both will be obliterated. However, once the one side comes up with a way of diminishing the effectiveness of its opponent's first strike, you'll rapidly lose parity due to the fact that the other side will have to significantly increase their resources allocated to a first strike against targets protected by a missile shield.

This greatly diminishes the other side's ability to launch an effective second strike. In reality, you lose parity, giving the guy with the missile shield a decided advantage. This leaves the other guy with no other option but to increase the size of his arsenal. This leads to a new strategic arms race.

 

[Albereth]

I think the US sentiment is damn funny.. and while there is still ZERO conclusive proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons

Does ZERO conclusive proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons = 100 PERCENT conclusive proof of Iran not developing nuclear weapons?

 

[StrongTurd]

Does ZERO conclusive proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons = 100 PERCENT conclusive proof of Iran not developing nuclear weapons?

Can you prove a negative?

 

[JK8]

Does ZERO conclusive proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons = 100 PERCENT conclusive proof of Iran not developing nuclear weapons?

This question was asked before the US went to war with Iraq....

 

[Alan]

Alan, it does not appear like you read my post or, if so, it seems like you didn't understand it.

I'll try explaining again: In an all-out nuclear exchange between two superpowers, you've got only two shots at the other guy - your initial salvo and your second strike after your opponent has replied in kind. The second strike will likely come from mobile forces, SLMBs, B52's etc. as the silo-based forces will likely have been destroyed after the first exchange. That's also why the silo-based forces will probably be used during either a first strike or as a response to the other guy's first strike.

The end result of these two nuclear exchanges will be the total annihilation of the command and control structures of both countries and their allies as well as a significant percentage of each country's military hardware - hence the term MAD. MAD is what keeps these guys from attacking each other in the first place.

Now, provided that you've got nuclear parity - as is currently the case between the USA and Russia - then nobody can win in a nuclear exchange; both will be obliterated. However, once the one side comes up with a way of diminishing the effectiveness of its opponent's first strike, you'll rapidly lose parity due to the fact that the other side will have to significantly increase their resources allocated to a first strike against targets protected by a missile shield.

This greatly diminishes the other side's ability to launch an effective second strike. In reality, you lose parity, giving the guy with the missile shield a decided advantage. This leaves the other guy with no other option but to increase the size of his arsenal. This leads to a new strategic arms race.

Yes I got it. But your argument hinges on two points. 1) the shield has a significant impact on Russia's current nuclear offensive arsenal and 2) Russia's need to to stay on a nuclear weapons parity with the U.S

My point is 1) the shield makes no significant impact on Russia's offensive capabilities and 2) Russia supposedly now a western democracy allied with the U.S has no need for parity because there is no threat at all of a nuclear exchange.

 

[Albereth]

Can you prove a negative?

Yes - but it depends

 

[Albereth]

This question was asked before the US went to war with Iraq....

And they missed by a whole country...

 

[StrongTurd]

Yes I got it. But your argument hinges on two points. 1) the shield has a significant impact on Russia's current nuclear offensive arsenal and 2) Russia's need to to stay on a nuclear weapons parity with the U.S

My point is 1) the shield makes no significant impact on Russia's offensive capabilities and 2) Russia supposedly now a western democracy allied with the U.S has no need for parity because there is no threat at all of a nuclear exchange.

Totally untrue. If the Russians only have 12 operational Topol-M's (I think that's the number I saw last time) and the Americans have a fighting chance of stopping at least 25% of its MIRVs, then what does it do for the effectiveness of that weapon when compared to around 50 Peacekeepers, each with 10 MIRVs that it needs to oppose, considering that there is no active shield against any of the Peacekeeper's MIRVs?

There's no denying the fact that the Russians will have to increase their resources allocated to any particular strategic target in order to compensate for the presence of anti-missile defenses.

Regarding point 2: Again, if you don't have parity then the party holding the balance of power is far more likely to start pushing red buttons. In the presence of strategic nuclear arsenals, MAD is essential.