Analysis: Iran Fired "Same Old Missiles"

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CBS News

Iran's missile test this week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, according to a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials claimed the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put much of the Middle East in striking distance, including Israel - as close as 650 miles from Iran - as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian peninsula.

The tests drew immediate criticism from U.S. officials. In Eastern Europe during the launches, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the missile tests underscored the need for a U.S. missile shield in the region.

But an independent national security blog, , Thursday analyzed video footage of the launch posted by the Iranian government. It determined the missiles were identical to a version of the Shahab missile first demonstrated in Iran in 1998 that has a known range of 746 miles.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/11/world/main4255073.shtml

[DJ13]

1. It served its purpose

The oil speculators took it as an excuse to set even higher oil prices.

Just as the Iranians wanted.

[Rick Myers]

2. The bell rings and the monkey gets on the bike!!!

County Fair 1975

[depakid]

8. Like clockwork

[ohio2007]

13. and wait til a hurricane threatens gulf oil platforms !

They've missed using the hurrican threats excuse for two years in a row.......

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Wrong - They Demonstrated New Capabilities

Iran has apparently been secretly developing a robust PhotoShop capability for some time - it snuck up on us, and now we have to live with the terror of knowing that even bottle rocket launches can be morphed into massive, horrific events at the click of a mouse.

Unless, of course, the Israelis can take out Iran's Adobe products, sending them back to the WordPerfect age where the mullahs belong!

[StercusAccidit]

4. At least their Photoshopping is better than Fox News'*

nm

[legin]

18. LOL n/t

[Posteritatis]

36. I won't be afraid until they develop 3D graphics capability! (nt)

[The Liberal Thinker]

5. Silly Iranians!

We could destroy their entire country if we wanted to. So could Israel.

[Matilda]

6. I don't doubt they could inflict a lot of damage before it was over.

They're just letting everyone know they won't go quietly.

Can't blame them for that.

[ronnie624]

9. "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You, along with the Republicans, neocons, fascists and other right-wingers may wish to see the Iranians bow and scrape before the will of the United States, but it is unlikely that such will occur. Most nations will not simply strip themselves of their dignity at the demand of others, no matter how "silly" it may appear to the aggressors.

There will always be those who will resist dominance by you and your corporatist system.

[The Liberal Thinker]

21. What the fuck?

I was just saying that Iran had better watch itself because of the crazies in this administration, not that I personally wanted to see Iran destroyed, and perhaps touching on the point that perhaps a country that small should not be rattling its sabre at a moment like this. Geez, chillax for a second.

[Hugabear]

10. You're not fooling anyone

Liberal thinker, my ass.

[DCKit]

17. Shush! Let's draw this out for a change. It's always fun to watch. n/t

[fla nocount]

27. What he/she said

Let em run with it. It's a slow day and this is a diversion...... what a screen name.

[The Liberal Thinker]

22. What are you talking about?

Is it a conservative / nonthinking belief to say that the United States / Israel could destroy Iran at a moments notice? Because, I mean, we could, and its not that unlikely with this administration in power.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. This is only true from a technological perspective

Which is to say, from an utterly idiotic and simplified perspective. The fact is that the world is much more complicated than what you CAN do technologically. Of course countries with nuclear weapons can completely incinerate other countries technologically, but technology is always embedded in rather more complex social, economic, ecological, and political relationships. And the fact is that from this broader perspective, neither Israel nor the United States CAN completely destroy Iran without severe consequences in all of these other areas. Which is to say, you're totally wrong: when we think in broader terms than the stupid and reductive technological capacity, it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for the United States or Israel to completely destroy Iran in the way you're describing, because the consequences for doing so would be so severe. Unless you're under the extremely deluded belief that "nuking" Tehran is socially, economically, ecologically, and geo-politically feasible.

So, yes, you do have a "nonthinking" belief, because you reduce a complex question to the only factor that supports your belief, and proceed from there. Put another way, you hold a dumb opinion. The US and Israel cannot destroy Iran. At best, they can enter into a technologically limited war. I don't think there's any doubt that the regional and global superpowers would "win" this war in a kind of imbecilic nineteenth century sense of "winning." But it would be drawn out, mutually destructive, and not at all easy. haven't we had enough of dumb fucking opinions that project a 'cakewalk" based on technological capacities. You need to learn to think more complexly, or you'll always be a sucker that keeps shooting himself in the foot.

[The Liberal Thinker]

26. Thanks for calling me an idiot.

Sorry if my comment was not reasoned or too simplified for you. Obviously I know the consequences for destroying Iran would be severe. But you fail to realize that the consequences for invading Iraq were severe, but we did it anyway. The fact is, it's really not that unbelievable that if Iran attacked Israel that Israel and the United States would destroy Iran. In fact, that's pretty much U.S. and NATO policy, considering that politicians on both sides of the aisle and in other countries have described obliteration as a consequence for attacking Israel.

The major failure of your diatribe is not the accusatory tone or the asinine paranoia of Democrats who think differently from you, but the assumption that my comment was in any way reducing a complex question and that I had some underlying belief that was warping my opinion.

[TheWatcher]

28. Perhaps you fail to realize that Invading Iraq should not have been done in the first place.

But you're such a "Liberal Thinker", perhaps that just slipped your mind.

You're just overwhelmed with concern today aren't you?

Keep up with the theater though.

If anything, you are moderately entertaining, but not fooling anyone.

[The Liberal Thinker]

31. Sometimes I just want to hit ignore for you, Watcher.

But you do make me laugh so.

[TheWatcher]

33. Oh, Sweetie I'm so touched.

The fact you think I could care less gives me a chuckle as well.

*Ruffles Your Hair*

The little thing actually thinks he's relevant. ADORABLE.

What's even more laughable is you think you're clever.

If ignorance is bliss, you're the happiest person I know. :hi:

[sourmilk]

16. It wouldn't be that difficult for them, either.

The entire GLOBAL economy moves on an ocean of OIL, remember?

Russia and China are not going to sit idly by while the US and Israel destroy 4 million barrels a day of refined capacity almost exclusively reserved for their economies.

Iran will not sit idly by, either, and you better believe that every Shiite-dominated nation in the ME and Eastern Europe-Western Asia will not, either.

It's a recipe for the M.A.D scenarios of the 1980s...

[The Liberal Thinker]

23. Yeah, true...

But I draw a distinction between economic hardship and having your entire nation be incinerated in radioactive nuclear armageddon.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Are we the only country allowed

to periodically test its weapons systems?

[The Liberal Thinker]

24. Hey, anyone can test their weapons systems.

But let's be honest, Iran isn't any country. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran and the U.S. are in a staring match in the Middle East. This is probably not the best time to test weapons, especially if they suck.

[TheWatcher]

29. Still going with the tired Iran Wants To Destroy Isreal Meme, huh?

Please, get some new Booga Booga material.

[The Liberal Thinker]

32. Booga booga?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1164881801325
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277448,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484958,00.html

But no, Iran totally doesn't want to destroy Israel.

Maybe Iran isn't actively jumping at the gun here. But they want to destroy Israel. There's no doubt. Please go away and stop commenting on my posts.

[TheWatcher]

34. The So-Called "Liberal Thinker" is now linking to Fox News Stories To Prove A Point?

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you are stupid enough to think anyone on the board buys any of your nonsense, or that you are stupid enough to think you are fooling anyone with it.

And after 77 Posts, already ordering people around like you own the place.

If you don't like my comments, then put me on ignore little lamb.

I'll comment on your posts whenever I feel like it.

And you'll Deal With It. :)

[The Liberal Thinker]

35. The FOX news story was really an AP story.

If your concern is with the FOX news packaging it came in, I guess there's nothing I can tell you other than find something else to do except harass me and say "No, you're wrong" to everything I write without providing any justification for your arguments? Oh that's right, you're probably incapable.

And sorry if I don't buy into your more posts = more authority idea, but judging from the poor quality of the posts that I've seen that you've made, it really doesn't seem like the number of posts should have any reflection on, well, anything, right?

[TheWatcher]

37. Sorry kiddo, but you really don't post anything that's really worth getting into deep discussion

over.

Like I said, you've been obvious since day 1. If you were a serious poster interested in real discussion, then you'd probably find the quality of my responses much deeper and more thoughtful.
So far, all you've really showered us with is tired talking points and obvious crap that we've seen from so many that came before you. That kind of blather really isn't worth wasting much time on, other than the fun of of rebuking it.


If you want serious discussion, the post something worthy of it.

That is all. :)

By the way, aren't you supposed to have me on ignore?

[daleo]

7. Some more details

"Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length to width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea's Nodong-1, according to the blog."

The article doesn't actually state who does the blog (the double comma suggests there was a name, but it was removed), although it sort of implies it is the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I don't know about this reasoning. We all know that it is possible to soup up a car, such that the same outwardly appearing vehicle has dramatically improved operational characteristics (souping up Honda Civics is quite a popular hobby, for example). I don't know why the same thing couldn't be true of a missile.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Yes, The Nodong Has Insignificant Structural Mass

And the thrust... let's just say it's lacking.

[Carmavore]

15. source of article..

The article doesn't actually state who does the blog (the double comma suggests there was a name, but it was removed), although it sort of implies it is the Union of Concerned Scientists.


I found the source...

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1951/shahab-boasts

[daleo]

30. Thanks for that

It's an interesting blog - it looks legit (i.e. not an obvious propaganda site). One poster has included two pictures of the missile in question, and pointed out that the latest variant does seem to have a larger diameter. It's hard to be sure from pictures, though.

[FarCenter]

19. Some differences

1. A Civic isn't mostly fuel tank. Changing the performance of a vehicle that is mostly fuel tank is harder. The performance of a rocket is largely determined by the ratio of fuel to empty vehicle weight, as well as the velocity with which the exhaust gases exit the rocket nozzle.

2. A Civic comes from the factory with a conservative design. Those wily Honda engineers design Civics that are capable of running for well over 200,000 miles. Rockets are one-time-use vehicles and deliberately designed to operate close to the maximum performance achievable with the materials and manufacturing expertise at the time. There is a lot less margin for tuning without a whole new design. That said, I suppose you could do a wholesale changeout of everything except external appearance -- like a NASCAR Sprint Cup car or NRHA funny car -- neither of which have any significant parts in common with the vehicles they vaguely resemble.

[DRoseDARs]

12. Wait, so, it was just so much ado about nothing? Shocked, just shocked. n/t

[DainBramaged]

14. Terra, terra, terra, fear, fear, fear, duct tape and plastic sheets

utter bullshit from the war mongers.