Iran has missiles capable of hitting Europe/Iran in the UN

[Ummon]

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=6936

Iran has missiles that put Europe in range: report
Thu. 27 Apr 2006
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Iran has received a first shipment of missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching Europe, Israel's military intelligence chief was quoted on Thursday as saying.

Known in the West as BM-25s, the Russian-designed missiles have a range of around 1,500 miles, giving them a longer reach than the Iranian-made Shihab-4 missiles which are capable of hitting Israel.

The intelligence chief, Major-General Amos Yadlin, was quoted by Israel's Haaretz newspaper as saying in a lecture on Wednesday that some BM-25s had arrived in Iran.

The BM-25 was originally manufactured in the Soviet Union, where it was known as the SSN6, a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, Haaretz reported.

After the Russians decommissioned the SSN6, the missiles were sold to North Korea, which adapted them to carry a heavier payload, the newspaper's military affairs correspondent said.

In February, a German diplomat, citing his country's intelligence data, confirmed a German newspaper report that said Iran had purchased 18 disassembled BM-25s from North Korea.

Israel has been urging the international community to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear programme as well as its efforts to obtain long-range missiles.

Iran, the world's fourth largest producer of crude oil, says its nuclear programme is a peaceful project to provide electricity.

Israel is widely believed to have more than 200 nuclear warheads. It declines to comment on its atomic program, saying only it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

[Emperor Dimitricus]

i say this brings the inevitable war with Iran even closer. unlike Iran, i think it is obvious that Iran is becoming a threat to its neighbouring countries, and now to europe.

[Tostig]

Incidentally what is Israel's current nuking ability? Unlike the Iran it lacks a constitution, and has abused human rights a number of times. Further more it actually has nuclear weapons and has declined to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Iran.

[Tiwaz]

So?

It's not like they would have any benefit out of them. They would be idiots to start a fight and there really is no reason for us to go bother them.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

And the point of this thread is?
How about "Israel/USA/China/Russia/Pakistan/Britain/France have missiles that are capable of hitting Iran"?

Oh and yeah, even if Iran gets it, it's not gonna use it.

[The White Knight]

And the point of this thread is?
How about "Israel/USA/China/Russia/Pakistan/Britain/France have missiles that are capable of hitting Iran"?

Oh and yeah, even if Iran gets it, it's not gonna use it.

I somehow doubt it.

And I agree with

all the more reason though, to put a stop to Irans nuclear program ASAP

...but not with

by whatever effective means necessary

There is time! Much much time! Enough time to use diplomacy!

[Ummon]

And the point of this thread is?
How about "Israel/USA/China/Russia/Pakistan/Britain/France have missiles that are capable of hitting Iran"?

Oh and yeah, even if Iran gets it, it's not gonna use it.

No US president has said he will wipe Israel off the map, and no US President says the holocaust did never occur. Additionally, no US president heads a country where priests (or their analogues) have absolute power, etc.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

No US president has said he will wipe Israel off the map, and no US President says the holocaust did never occur. Additionally, no US president heads a country where priests (or their analogues) have absolute power, etc.

Yes, and a US president is the only one to have used the bomb. Not once, but twice. Ironic, isn't it? How convenient that you forget that. Furthermore, I can't think of a single country that practises it's absolute power over others except Uncle Sam's. I'm not anti-US but I'm anti-imperialism and anti-hypocracy.

[Ummon]

Yes, and a US president is the only one to have used the bomb. Not once, but twice. Ironic, isn't it? How convenient that you forget that. Furthermore, I can't think of a single country that practises it's absolute power over others except Uncle Sam's. I'm not anti-US but I'm anti-imperialism and anti-hypocracy.

These attempts to equiparate the use of the A-bomb against Japan (a choice who saved maybe one-million lives, though horrible) to what Iran plans to do, are in truth very entertaining.

The United States do not "practice any absolute power" and there is no gain in allowing thugs free hand because the cop is corrupt.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

These attempts to equiparate the use of the A-bomb against Japan (a choice who saved maybe one-million lives, though horrible) to what Iran plans to do, are in truth very entertaining.

Different points of view. Ever thought that the Iranians could save "maybe one-million lives", by doing what they may do?

[Mangalore]

No US president has said he will wipe Israel off the map, and no US President says the holocaust did never occur. Additionally, no US president heads a country where priests (or their analogues) have absolute power, etc.

There is no point in your argumentation, is there? Your points are neither interconnected to prove a bigger point nor do they bear any significance for themselves. Of course the US never said it would wipe out Israel, it however said so about the Cuban or Iran regime plenty of times. The holocaust is no magic measurement to assess someone's intentions. So the Iranian president hates Israel's guts, big deal. He is neither the only idiot in that department nor is it likely to affect his immediate politics because it works far better in propaganda than in execution(=Middle Eastern politicians harvest the popularity they can get from this kind of antisemitism but would have no gain in pursueing their policy). And finally that the US doesn't have priests head it also has no impact on Iran's strategic situation.

[Ahiga]

And the point of this thread is?
How about "Israel/USA/China/Russia/Pakistan/Britain/France have missiles that are capable of hitting Iran"?

Oh and yeah, even if Iran gets it, it's not gonna use it.

See, I was going to say 'well thats because everyone but the muslim's can get such missles', yet Pakistan has it.

[Skyhigh]

Oh and yeah, even if Iran gets it, it's not gonna use it.

yeah thats my thinking exactly
if Iran launches nukes, there will be massive retaliation by all other nuclear powers and Iran will become a glass wasteland

[the Black Prince]

meh... shoulda just sunk the freighter they arrived on by submarine...

all the more reason though, to put a stop to Irans nuclear program ASAP - by whatever effective means necessary


would Iran use it?

most definately yes. given the right opportunity.

[Tiwaz]

meh... shoulda just sunk the freighter they arrived on by submarine...

all the more reason though, to put a stop to Irans nuclear program ASAP - by whatever effective means necessary


would Iran use it?

most definately yes. given the right opportunity.

And this opportunity would be what? They know they can't win shootout with Europe so they won't do anything. This isn't crappy Tom Clancy novel with evil ragheads just drooling for a chance to shoot stuff with missiles as soon as they get them.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

#1) If Iran uses it's nukes, it's gonna get nuked back. So if the mullahs love their hold on power so much, why would they wanna die and kill the only Shia regime in the world with them?

#2) Palestine and Israel have more holy places of Islam than all of Iran. Why would the ultra-fundimentalist mullahs wanna bomb them?

#3) There is a sizeable Muslim (and Shia Muslim) population in the region of Israel and Palestine.


Anti-Israel ehetoric is commonplace amongst Islamic fundimentalists. Ahmedinejad has grown up in a lower/middle-class community so for him to say those things is just the kinda stuff you hear from these people all the time. Pakistan doesn't recognize Israel and it has nuclear weapons.

There's just too much to risk as far as Iran is concerned, including the gas pipeline deal with India, trade with China and Russia, etc.

P

[the Black Prince]

actually, i was thinking more of a patrick robinson novel actually... (and don't you dare say there's no difference!!! lol)

bear with me here
the question of chinese ICBM and SSBN development has always hinged around taiwan, and ultimately, the question, "when it comes down to it, will the US be prepared to trade Los Angeles for protecting Taipai, or trade San Diego to hit Xianshen?"
generally speaking, the answer is no. ultimately, the chinese expect the US will back down if they can seriously threaten a major US city.

deterrent, this is the issue here.
its one thing to invade Iran, knowing they have highly capable missiles that could inflict numerous casualties on your troops... one thing to invade Iraq, thinking they may have chemical weapons they may use against your troops

its quite another to do it, knowing, in retaliation, that country will respond by attacking your own cities, killing your civilians. that kind of cost to a war is not something most western nations are prepared to accept, not when our national interests are not immediately threatened by the nation we are invading.

[Erik]

deterrent, this is the issue here.
its one thing to invade Iran, knowing they have highly capable missiles that could inflict numerous casualties on your troops... one thing to invade Iraq, thinking they may have chemical weapons they may use against your troops

its quite another to do it, knowing, in retaliation, that country will respond by attacking your own cities, killing your civilians. that kind of cost to a war is not something most western nations are prepared to accept, not when our national interests are not immediately threatened by the nation we are invading.

Exactly, and this is why I'm GLAD Iran can hit us back now.
This way I know my government won't be stupid enough to attack Iran.
If wars only caused casualties on one side then the other side would constantly be starting wars.

[Aristophanes]

Exactly, and this is why I'm GLAD Iran can hit us back now.
This way I know my government won't be stupid enough to attack Iran.
If wars only caused casualties on one side then the other side would constantly be starting wars.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the last thing on the minds of people starting wars is casualties. The only thing that matters to them is a betting chance that they, personally, can come out of it better off.

[Erik]

I don't know if you've noticed, but the last thing on the minds of people starting wars is casualties. The only thing that matters to them is a betting chance that they, personally, can come out of it better off.

What politician wins when their actions made Iran fire missiles at their own country?

The last thing on their minds are the casualties on the other side, or maybe even the casualties amongs their own soldiers, but of course they are conserned about casualties amongst the voting public. (not that Iran actually has a chance of hitting us with those old-fashioned rockets, not while we have our patriot air defense system)