Is Iran a step closer to creating intercontinental missiles?


noe 3 February, 2009, 15:28	yes, it is closer, which irritates more USA and Israel; the important thing is not ICBM, but having outer space devices to knock ICBM out, RUSSIA, SCO, and other freedom allies should race to conquer outer space before USA does (which is intended by 2020) in spite of RUSSIA and the world's request to put an end to space race, USA wants to be the first. RUSSIA, SCO should work together to win the space race as USSR did putting the sputnik on orbit, no matter how hard they have to work to achieve it; if Russia and SCO go to sleep when they wake up the sun and the moon will be NATO's permalink quote 0 noe
Vijay 3 February, 2009, 19:18	It already possesses the ICBM; the remaining piece of the puzzle is the BOMB or rather the Nuke warhead...!! That is, if it genuinely wants to...knock Washington/Tel Aviv off the map...!! Real crappy stuff that...unbelievable...!! However some may believe this fantasy story, or rather want others to believe in them! permalink quote 0 Vijay
Norman 3 February, 2009, 19:42	The American media has regularly reported that Iran is working on a nuclear device. But Iran should consider that for every device they build Israel has probably had a nuclear programme. And would all Sunni Islam nations risk war with Israel over a Shiite Islam rogue state?!? Shiite Islam is only about 15% of Islam. permalink quote 0 Norman
Peter 3 February, 2009, 23:16	Two points come to mind - has Iran ever used its military to start a war, and the answer is no, certainly not for 500 years. Has Iran helped other countries, the answer is yes - again and again throughout its history.The bad publicity that it gets is no different than the stuff published against Russia every time it does something not liked by others. Who says Iran is a risk? It seems, only those countries who have been using their own weapons in some unjustified wars, who themselves possess technological advantages that they do not wish anyone else to have. I think we have to come to terms with this - you will not be able to stop progress, but you CAN use diplomacy to strike deals so everything is in the open, instead of threatening a country to such a level that they need to hide their technological progress. permalink quote 0 Peter
Pauline 4 February, 2009, 01:58	I have not got a clue, but it occurs to me: why would Iran want ICBMs? Certainly, Iran would probably like her own GPS and phone/internet industry which requires satellites? Perhaps she would like her own media? I think when Iran can shoot satellites out of the sky, like China managed to do a few years ago, that makes the price of invading Iran too high since such capacity would put the internet out of commission. Therefore, I would suspect that they are working on that, i.e., another DEFENSIVE weapon. permalink quote 0 Pauline
Reza 4 February, 2009, 04:10	Well, Iran might as well have dual use for its tech just like any other country i the world has. But It is not in any position to attack any coutry but mainly to use scare tactics to defend its interests in the region, just like Russia. That is of course not liked by US and Israel. All this BS are about geopolitics , yet another big coutry is running out of western control and is getting technically advanced enought to defend its interest. permalink quote 0 Reza
rus 4 February, 2009, 06:17	I doubt Iran would use a nuclear weapon first unless it is about to be attacked or being attacked. Strategic forces are mostly a deterrent. Iran might have a nuclear ICBM in 5-10 years but that doesnt make up a nuclear strategic force. The only countries with real nuclear strategic forces are the USA, Russia, and some of the other major powers to a lesser extent - UK, France, China, India. The US and Russia have the most powerfull strategic forces although Russia has fallen much lower than the US especially in strategic bombers and nuclear submarines. Having said all that I think Iran should be allowed to have peacefull nuclear energy generation but should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran develops many nuclear warheads and mounts them on all of its IRBMs it would be a huge threat to not only Israel but Russia, China, and Europe. If Iran did test a nuclear weapon or develop any warheads it should suffer real blockade and sanctions by everyone including Russia, EU, China, the US, India etc. unless of course Russia and China plan to accept Iran into the SCO which they might... which would be an interesting step. In all cases the situation is complicated. However an invasion of Iran by anyone is not an answer and is not warrented. permalink quote 0 rus
Pauline 4 February, 2009, 23:45	Why? Why cannot Iran have nukes (not that they want them, they have said they do not, and their claim that they need nuclear energy to save their oil which runs out in 40 years is factual, at least, according to USA analysis when the Shah was in power. What is it about Iranians that is so awful? I am asking a question because, you know, I grew up hearing how awful black people were...or how terrible the communists were and none of it was true! So tell me, why are the Iranians being so demonized? If Israel can have nukes, why cannot Iran have nukes? What is so awful about Iranians that makes them unfit to have nukes? permalink quote 0 Pauline
Gazza 5 February, 2009, 02:11	There is a factor that no-one seems to consider in this discussion about "Iranian nukes", and that is the issue of the Ayatollahs fatwa that states nuclear weapons are "un-islamic" and "offensive to God". It seems to be that an Islamic religious theocracy can be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons when its very own ruling clergy issued a fatwa outlawing them. Secular nations (like the USA) can sign international agreements and break them when it suits, but Iran would be accused of breaking its own fatwa. How would the Theocracy justify its actions to its people? Would such a move not loose the repect of the Iranian public, and leave them open to charges of sacrilege. In any case, Iran does not have access to either a plutonium producing facility. permalink quote 0 Gazza
Daniel 5 February, 2009, 21:13	The Islamic republic of Iran has the right to have any weapon it wants to have. Just as all sovereign and widely recognized states has. permalink quote 0 Daniel
Gazza 5 February, 2009, 22:58	There is a factor that no-one seems to consider in all this talking about "Iranian nukes", and that is the issue of the Ayatollahs fatwa that states nuclear weapons are "un-islamic" and "offensive to God". It seems to be that a Islamic religious theocracy can be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons when its very own ruling clergy issued a fatwa outlawing them. Secular nations can sign international agreements and break them when it suits, but Iran would be accused of breaking its own fatwa. How would the Theocracy justify its actions to its people? Would such a move not loose the respect of the Iranian public, and leave them open to charges of sacrilege. In any case, Iran does not have access to either a plutonium producing facility, nor can it produce HEU at the Natanz facility without the IAEA being aware (as Natanz is a safeguarded facility, fully in compliance with IAEA obligations). permalink quote 0 Gazza
Aryan_Indian 6 February, 2009, 08:14	Iran should have Nuclear weapon and Nuclear technology, so does India also. Why only Israel,UK,USA,France,Australia and all WESTERN countries have nuclear weapon, only few eastern or so called NON-WESTERN countries has nuclear weapon, India,Russia,China. Balance of Nuclear weapon in the world should be even. There are Few eastern countries, while MOST OF THE WEST has nuclear power plant. When France, Israel build nuclear power plant, NO ONE questions their Intention, when Iran or N.Korea build nuclear power plant, USA always DECIDES for most of the EU that Iran and N.Korea will creat Missiles. So what about Israel? Occupiers on Palestinian land can have Nuclear weapon while Iran can not. permalink quote 0 Aryan_Indian
Ra 6 February, 2009, 10:28	Any country has the rights ... permalink quote 0 Ra
ahmed333 6 February, 2009, 13:12	i think that Iran has all capabilities to creat intercontinental missiles,Iran is supported by Russia in the military field,Iran will be a countrey which the USA cant attack in the future because of the Iranian military strength permalink quote 0 ahmed333
bob 6 February, 2009, 13:30	If America has right to crate intercontinental missiles why iran doesn't? We are in democracy:) so it is ok if iran has some:) permalink quote 0 bob
Auntie Establishment 6 February, 2009, 16:03	Are you kidding? The difference between launching something into space and having it come down in exactly the correct trajectory to hit a major city is huge. Russia should understand this well as both our countries tried hard to do more than just launch something into space for fifty years before a quality ICBM could be produced. That was with the might and capability of a superpower, it just isn't that simple for a tiny nation with barely the ability to keep its own people in line. A tiny nation by the way that is far from collectively suicidal, and as Bush proved with New Orleans a major US city can be wiped off the map without much effect. The retaliation for such an act would be collective suicide for Iran though. permalink quote 0 Auntie Establishment
DD 6 February, 2009, 18:20	Even if it is closer, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend theirselves against any aggression? Israel is the only nation in the middle east to have nuclear bombs. Why are they allowed to have them? We all know what it has brought untill this day, death misery illegal occupation,settlements and no peace deal with the Palestinians. The west should not be hypocrite, nuke-free middle east means no nukes for Israel too. permalink quote 0 DD
ergatis 7 February, 2009, 05:28	THE CHESSBOARD IS SET, THE PIECES ARE MOVING... I really don't care if Iran is about to create nulear weapons. It is important for Russia to put Iran and Syria into Sangai treaty and CSTO. If these countries are under the protection of Russia and China, they will be safe from USA and Israel and will have no reason to use terrorists. Especially if Russia set the "no terrorism" condition to accept them into these alliances. A look at the map is enough to see how much improved will be the strategic position of Russia. Russia will gain some control of Middle East. The fact that Iraq is under USA's control is the worst headache for Moscow because Iraq used to be an ally of the USSR. If Iraq changed "protectors", Russia would have a strong influence zone in Middle East. Another important point is Afghanistan. The current rullers there had been allies of the USSR while USA supported ... Tallibans and Al Qaeda!!! Unbelievable!!! So the NATO base in Kyrgyzstan is being finally shut down and soon Russia will regain control of Afghanistan. permalink quote 0 ergatis
rus 7 February, 2009, 07:23	Enough countries have nuclear weapons. The major powers should really work together to prevent anymore states building strategic weapons. Due to human nature more countries having nuclear weapons doesnt make everyone safe because when things get to a certain point humans have proven very capable of killing eachother. If the START treaty is allowed to expire by the USA and Russia the chance of nuclear exchanges increases by at least 50%. I dont think Russia is really the main player here though. I think Russia is acting more like a shield for China which is the real up and coming global player while Russia hangs onto China for the ride - much like Britain clinging onto the USA for its ride to power. Its both Chinese and Russian policy to stop any invasion of IRan by the US which would destablize the entire Asian region. permalink quote 0 rus
Mike 7 February, 2009, 14:15	DD is right. Every country has the right to protect themselves, as well as self determination. If WMD can keep western countries from meddling in Iran's affairs, fine. Plus if Israel has nuclear weapons and claim security, Iran and others can too. permalink quote 0 Mike

noe 3 February, 2009, 15:28

yes, it is closer, which irritates more USA and Israel; the important thing is not ICBM, but having outer space devices to knock ICBM out, RUSSIA, SCO, and other freedom allies should race to conquer outer space before USA does (which is intended by 2020) in spite of RUSSIA and the world's request to put an end to space race, USA wants to be the first. RUSSIA, SCO should work together to win the space race as USSR did putting the sputnik on orbit, no matter how hard they have to work to achieve it; if Russia and SCO go to sleep when they wake up the sun and the moon will be NATO's

permalink quote noe

Vijay 3 February, 2009, 19:18

It already possesses the ICBM; the remaining piece of the puzzle is the BOMB or rather the Nuke warhead...!! That is, if it genuinely wants to...knock Washington/Tel Aviv off the map...!! Real crappy stuff that...unbelievable...!! However some may believe this fantasy story, or rather want others to believe in them!

permalink quote Vijay

Norman 3 February, 2009, 19:42

The American media has regularly reported that Iran is working on a nuclear device. But Iran should consider that for every device they build Israel has probably had a nuclear programme. And would all Sunni Islam nations risk war with Israel over a Shiite Islam rogue state?!? Shiite Islam is only about 15% of Islam.

permalink quote Norman

Peter 3 February, 2009, 23:16

Two points come to mind - has Iran ever used its military to start a war, and the answer is no, certainly not for 500 years. Has Iran helped other countries, the answer is yes - again and again throughout its history.The bad publicity that it gets is no different than the stuff published against Russia every time it does something not liked by others. Who says Iran is a risk? It seems, only those countries who have been using their own weapons in some unjustified wars, who themselves possess technological advantages that they do not wish anyone else to have. I think we have to come to terms with this - you will not be able to stop progress, but you CAN use diplomacy to strike deals so everything is in the open, instead of threatening a country to such a level that they need to hide their technological progress.

permalink quote Peter

Pauline 4 February, 2009, 01:58

I have not got a clue, but it occurs to me: why would Iran want ICBMs? Certainly, Iran would probably like her own GPS and phone/internet industry which requires satellites? Perhaps she would like her own media? I think when Iran can shoot satellites out of the sky, like China managed to do a few years ago, that makes the price of invading Iran too high since such capacity would put the internet out of commission. Therefore, I would suspect that they are working on that, i.e., another DEFENSIVE weapon.

permalink quote Pauline

Reza 4 February, 2009, 04:10

Well, Iran might as well have dual use for its tech just like any other country i the world has. But It is not in any position to attack any coutry but mainly to use scare tactics to defend its interests in the region, just like Russia. That is of course not liked by US and Israel. All this BS are about geopolitics , yet another big coutry is running out of western control and is getting technically advanced enought to defend its interest.

permalink quote Reza

rus 4 February, 2009, 06:17

I doubt Iran would use a nuclear weapon first unless it is about to be attacked or being attacked. Strategic forces are mostly a deterrent. Iran might have a nuclear ICBM in 5-10 years but that doesnt make up a nuclear strategic force. The only countries with real nuclear strategic forces are the USA, Russia, and some of the other major powers to a lesser extent - UK, France, China, India. The US and Russia have the most powerfull strategic forces although Russia has fallen much lower than the US especially in strategic bombers and nuclear submarines. Having said all that I think Iran should be allowed to have peacefull nuclear energy generation but should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran develops many nuclear warheads and mounts them on all of its IRBMs it would be a huge threat to not only Israel but Russia, China, and Europe. If Iran did test a nuclear weapon or develop any warheads it should suffer real blockade and sanctions by everyone including Russia, EU, China, the US, India etc. unless of course Russia and China plan to accept Iran into the SCO which they might... which would be an interesting step. In all cases the situation is complicated. However an invasion of Iran by anyone is not an answer and is not warrented.

permalink quote rus

Pauline 4 February, 2009, 23:45

Why? Why cannot Iran have nukes (not that they want them, they have said they do not, and their claim that they need nuclear energy to save their oil which runs out in 40 years is factual, at least, according to USA analysis when the Shah was in power. What is it about Iranians that is so awful? I am asking a question because, you know, I grew up hearing how awful black people were...or how terrible the communists were and none of it was true! So tell me, why are the Iranians being so demonized? If Israel can have nukes, why cannot Iran have nukes? What is so awful about Iranians that makes them unfit to have nukes?

permalink quote Pauline

Gazza 5 February, 2009, 02:11

There is a factor that no-one seems to consider in this discussion about "Iranian nukes", and that is the issue of the Ayatollahs fatwa that states nuclear weapons are "un-islamic" and "offensive to God". It seems to be that an Islamic religious theocracy can be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons when its very own ruling clergy issued a fatwa outlawing them. Secular nations (like the USA) can sign international agreements and break them when it suits, but Iran would be accused of breaking its own fatwa. How would the Theocracy justify its actions to its people? Would such a move not loose the repect of the Iranian public, and leave them open to charges of sacrilege. In any case, Iran does not have access to either a plutonium producing facility.

permalink quote Gazza

Daniel 5 February, 2009, 21:13

The Islamic republic of Iran has the right to have any weapon it wants to have. Just as all sovereign and widely recognized states has.

permalink quote Daniel

Gazza 5 February, 2009, 22:58

There is a factor that no-one seems to consider in all this talking about "Iranian nukes", and that is the issue of the Ayatollahs fatwa that states nuclear weapons are "un-islamic" and "offensive to God". It seems to be that a Islamic religious theocracy can be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons when its very own ruling clergy issued a fatwa outlawing them. Secular nations can sign international agreements and break them when it suits, but Iran would be accused of breaking its own fatwa. How would the Theocracy justify its actions to its people? Would such a move not loose the respect of the Iranian public, and leave them open to charges of sacrilege. In any case, Iran does not have access to either a plutonium producing facility, nor can it produce HEU at the Natanz facility without the IAEA being aware (as Natanz is a safeguarded facility, fully in compliance with IAEA obligations).

permalink quote Gazza

Aryan_Indian 6 February, 2009, 08:14

Iran should have Nuclear weapon and Nuclear technology, so does India also. Why only Israel,UK,USA,France,Australia and all WESTERN countries have nuclear weapon, only few eastern or so called NON-WESTERN countries has nuclear weapon, India,Russia,China. Balance of Nuclear weapon in the world should be even. There are Few eastern countries, while MOST OF THE WEST has nuclear power plant. When France, Israel build nuclear power plant, NO ONE questions their Intention, when Iran or N.Korea build nuclear power plant, USA always DECIDES for most of the EU that Iran and N.Korea will creat Missiles. So what about Israel? Occupiers on Palestinian land can have Nuclear weapon while Iran can not.

permalink quote Aryan_Indian

Ra 6 February, 2009, 10:28

Any country has the rights ...

permalink quote Ra

ahmed333 6 February, 2009, 13:12

i think that Iran has all capabilities to creat intercontinental missiles,Iran is supported by Russia in the military field,Iran will be a countrey which the USA cant attack in the future because of the Iranian military strength

permalink quote ahmed333

bob 6 February, 2009, 13:30

If America has right to crate intercontinental missiles why iran doesn't? We are in democracy:) so it is ok if iran has some:)

permalink quote bob

Auntie Establishment 6 February, 2009, 16:03

Are you kidding? The difference between launching something into space and having it come down in exactly the correct trajectory to hit a major city is huge. Russia should understand this well as both our countries tried hard to do more than just launch something into space for fifty years before a quality ICBM could be produced. That was with the might and capability of a superpower, it just isn't that simple for a tiny nation with barely the ability to keep its own people in line. A tiny nation by the way that is far from collectively suicidal, and as Bush proved with New Orleans a major US city can be wiped off the map without much effect. The retaliation for such an act would be collective suicide for Iran though.

permalink quote Auntie Establishment

DD 6 February, 2009, 18:20

Even if it is closer, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend theirselves against any aggression? Israel is the only nation in the middle east to have nuclear bombs. Why are they allowed to have them? We all know what it has brought untill this day, death misery illegal occupation,settlements and no peace deal with the Palestinians. The west should not be hypocrite, nuke-free middle east means no nukes for Israel too.

permalink quote DD

ergatis 7 February, 2009, 05:28

THE CHESSBOARD IS SET, THE PIECES ARE MOVING... I really don't care if Iran is about to create nulear weapons. It is important for Russia to put Iran and Syria into Sangai treaty and CSTO. If these countries are under the protection of Russia and China, they will be safe from USA and Israel and will have no reason to use terrorists. Especially if Russia set the "no terrorism" condition to accept them into these alliances. A look at the map is enough to see how much improved will be the strategic position of Russia. Russia will gain some control of Middle East. The fact that Iraq is under USA's control is the worst headache for Moscow because Iraq used to be an ally of the USSR. If Iraq changed "protectors", Russia would have a strong influence zone in Middle East. Another important point is Afghanistan. The current rullers there had been allies of the USSR while USA supported ... Tallibans and Al Qaeda!!! Unbelievable!!! So the NATO base in Kyrgyzstan is being finally shut down and soon Russia will regain control of Afghanistan.

permalink quote ergatis

rus 7 February, 2009, 07:23

Enough countries have nuclear weapons. The major powers should really work together to prevent anymore states building strategic weapons. Due to human nature more countries having nuclear weapons doesnt make everyone safe because when things get to a certain point humans have proven very capable of killing eachother. If the START treaty is allowed to expire by the USA and Russia the chance of nuclear exchanges increases by at least 50%. I dont think Russia is really the main player here though. I think Russia is acting more like a shield for China which is the real up and coming global player while Russia hangs onto China for the ride - much like Britain clinging onto the USA for its ride to power. Its both Chinese and Russian policy to stop any invasion of IRan by the US which would destablize the entire Asian region.

permalink quote rus

Mike 7 February, 2009, 14:15

DD is right. Every country has the right to protect themselves, as well as self determination. If WMD can keep western countries from meddling in Iran's affairs, fine. Plus if Israel has nuclear weapons and claim security, Iran and others can too.

permalink quote Mike

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields