Vader

U.S. says Iran has missile that could hit Europe
By David Morgan Tue Jul 15, 7:15 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that Iran has the ability to launch a ballistic missile capable of hitting sections of eastern and southern Europe.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told reporters he believes Iran now has a missile with a range of 1,250 miles, but he declined to say whether the weapon has been test-fired.
Iran said last week it conducted two missile tests involving a number of weapons including what Iranian state television called a "new" Shahab-3 missile, a medium-range missile that could be used to strike Israel.
Tensions over Iran's missile arsenal and accusations from the United States and its allies that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons have roiled international financial markets with fears of a possible military confrontation.

Iran denies it wants nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is designed to produce electricity to increase its output of oil and natural gas.

Older versions of the Shahab-3 have a 800-mile (1,300-km) range. But a new extended version is believed to have a range of up to 1,250 miles, making it capable of hitting targets as far away as Greece, Serbia, Romania and Belarus.

Full Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080715/wl_nm/usa_missiles_iran_dc

This thread disproves the nonesense being spewed by those who claim Iran's missiles are nuclear program are not realateed.

Clearly Iran is planning to strike somebody... probably Israel with a WMD. As a result, Iran needs to be embargoed until their economy colapses.

This will force the Iranian people to seek a change of government. This is what needs to occur so that military force is not needed to stop the mullah whores from starting WWIII.

__________________

rathi

Nothing could possibly be worse than nuclear missiles in the midst of an unstable country. Its basically asking for terrorists to take them. The best way to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions is diplomacy, and if that fails, let Israel stop them using their military. NK is embargoed quite heavily, and that certainly hasn't stopped their nuclear ambitions much.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Tashah

A few points...

Iran has in its inventory the Shahab 3 missile family. There are three variants of the Shahab 3. The one tested recently is the Shahab 3a which is a variation of the original and older 3. This missile can reach Israel and parts of the European continent. The 3a warhead can carry either conventional munitions or biological/chemical agents.

Iran has also displayed (but has not yet publicly tested) the Shahab 3b missile. This is basically a 3a but features a distinctive conical nose to accomodate a nuclear warhead.

__________________

Vader

North Korea is in the process of destroying (so they say) their nuclear arsenal.

NK is still a threat; however, Iran is possibly the foremost nuclear threat in the world at this moment.

Also ... NK's people didn't revolt against Pyonyang ... the Iranians WILL rebel against the government in Tehran (most Iranians dislike the mullahs and Aminajackoff).

I think a HUGE embargo that terminates all Iranian imports and exports will force Iran's hand. They will cease enchrichment and missle building activities or they will end up in economic ruin.

Iran WILL give in or the regieme WILL be overthrown! Which alternative do you think is more frightning to the ruling ****bags in Iran?

obvious Child

Missiles? Not really. The actual warhead, yes. As I understand it, Pakistan, the most dangerous country in the world, keeps its nuclear weapons in pieces for two reasons. One to reduce any loss of inventory from an Indian attack and two, to secure and prevent the unauthorized use of them. Having a terrorist with a missile isn't that scary. And terrorists, usually the suicidal Islamic kind would use some other method of delivery.

__________________
"They are the key to my eventual rise to the throne. Why would I abandon them?"

"Because I have asked you. And because your loyalty to our people should be greater than your ambition. And because I have poisoned your drink."

obvious Child

NK is a threat due to its conventional forces and its ability to act as a black market supplier of know how. They ain't going to use their weapon unless the face annihilation. NK's regime derives its legitimacy from the US being a boogey man. One of the oldest forms of national unity is external threats. If we got chummy with NK, they'd fall apart. Unlike SK, there is no other form of legitimacy, such as economic prosperity or democracy.

Nope. That would be Pakistan. Iran's government isn't going anywhere soon. Iranian nukes aren't as big of a threat as Pakistani nukes. Pakistan's government could be gone tomorrow and their nuclear weapons assembled and controlled by Islamic terrorists. That's frightening. Obama could have been prophetic when he said that we'll need to invade Pakistan at some future point.

Therefore you don't support an attack or an embargo then? The last administration in Iran had the Mullahs on the brink of losing power. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech pushed massive support for the Mullahs. Way to go Bush. Embargoing or attacking Iran would do the same thing. America posing again as a threat to Iran and taking or threatening action. Not a good way to support anti-Mullah groups. If you really want to support those groups, we should be bombing them with packages of video cameras, pirate radio equipment, printing presses, satellite uplinks, all kinds of stuff to promote freedom of the press and ways to get their messages to the world.

Or push the people to support the Mullahs even more. Besides, Russia and China would veto that so fast your head would spin.

Neither. Both would likely drive non-supporters to support the Mullahs.
I'll agree that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons, but they are also trying to get civilian power too.

Vader

In Iran the only goal in nuclear weaponry. A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

I am not in favor of military action against Iran; however, they must be stopped ... even if stopping them involved using MOAB technology on all Iranian nuclear sites.

obvious Child

Simplistic. Try think for a change.

Because, let's see some reasoning. Let's see your argument.

So you're okay with a military action even if it delays the overthrowing of the Mullahs?

Could you add sarcasm/parody tags? It's hard to figure out when you're serious and when you're joking.

Vader

Only the jihadists and their liberal allies are "OK" with Iran having nuclear weapons.

NOBODY who has any common sense (which excludes jihadists and thier allies, supporters, and friends) is willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran. Why is this so hard for your to grasp?

I am ok with the removal of the Mullahs, the Ayetolietbowl, and Aminajackoff by WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THEM.

I think you need to move to Iran and see for yourself why the above-mentioned anal jockies need to be disposed of.

VTA

Iran isn't an unstable country though... That's what's most problematic. Iran is a very shrewd nation and unlike Pakistan, they have a handle on their society and don't allow rogue elements, like Al Qeada in Pakistan, to function within their borders.

Through Hebollah, they encourage militancy, but the Revolutionary Guard is a well managed military that maintains a clear line of command, without getting the nation of Iran dirty.

They are a threat, because they are not unstable; they are fully capable of forming a coordinated effort.

__________________
-VTA