Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/26/2004 8:02:07 AM EST

Iran Says It Tested 'Strategic Missile'

Sat Sep 25, 4:56 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran added a "strategic missile" to its military arsenal after a successful test, and the defense minister said Saturday his country was ready to confront any external threat.

The report by state-run radio did not say whether the test involved the previously announced new version of the Shahab-3 rocket, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, or a different missile.


"This strategic missile was successfully test-fired during military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces," Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted as saying.


The exercises were held Sept. 12-18.


Shamkhani refused to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but he said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats," according to the radio.


Defense Ministry officials could not be reached for comment.


The announcement in Tehran came amid a war of words between Iran and Israel this week as Iran faces increasing international pressure over its nuclear energy program.


The United States — which once labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq (news - web sites) — and other nations suspect Iran is developing atomic weapons.


The United Nations (news - web sites)' atomic watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran freeze its uranium enrichment program — a demand that Iran has termed "illegal" but has not rejected outright.


Iranian officials have repeatedly said the country's nuclear program is a peaceful one.


Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Iran was a worldwide threat whose missiles can reach London, Paris and southern Russia.


In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor before the reactor could begin operating and the smart bombs are believed to be capable of destroying Iranian nuclear facilities.


Earlier this month, Israel said it was buying from the United States about 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 1-ton bunker-busters that can destroy 6-foot-thick concrete walls.


Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has warned that Tehran would react "most severely" to any Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.


Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons, although Israeli officials have refused to confirm this.


Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards staged military maneuvers earlier this month near the Iraqi border, with top military officials saying the exercise was designed to reinforce Iran's resolve to defend itself against "big powers."


During the maneuvers, a "long-range missile" would be test fired, state-run radio said. There was no official confirmation of the test.

In August, Iran said it test fired a new version of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile. Iran's Defense Ministry did not give its range, but Israeli sources in Jerusalem later said it could reach targets more than 1,200 miles away, or 400 miles farther than its previous range.

The development of the Shahab, whose name means "shooting star" in Persian, has raised fears in Israel about possible attack by the Iranian government, which strongly opposes the Jewish state's existence.

Earlier this month, Israel launched a spy satellite meant to monitor Iran but the Ofek-6 plunged into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after launch.


Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:02:55 AM EST
i say there is either an Israeli or American attack on Iran w/i the next 6 months.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:08:58 AM EST
Despite my support for the war in Iraq, I am still pissed that we didn't go for Iran first

To me, they were definitely the bigger threat.


A fundemantalist Islamic state, known to sponsor a variety of terrorist groups, with a nuclear program, and who regards the U.S. as "the Great Satan"

What's the freakin' holdup??? Why do we have all those nuclear ICBMs if we're never going to use them?


Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:14:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:14:32 AM EST
tick,tick,tick,tick..."You got tone Yanni?"tick,tick,tick.............
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:16:27 AM EST
Iran is definently MUCH more vulnerable to a invasion NOW than before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

The thing now is to get the Iraqis to take over their own cities so we can free our troops to invade Iran. To a lesser extent the same thing is needed in Afghanistan.

The Iranians KNOW this and this is why they are racing to head us off by building missiles and nuclear weapons. They are also trying to slow us down by taking a active part in the Iraqi insurgency. Al Sadr's 'militia' include MANY Iranian Revolutionary Guards and also are funded by Iran.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:17:41 AM EST
The Iranians are sure talking a big game now that they think we are bottled up in Iraq and Afghanistan. But with the seriousness of the situation, I surely hope we have a plan for dealing with them. I think it's almost reached the point now where we have to deal them a serious blow. And if we don't/can't, I hope that Israel does. We can't allow Iran to become a nuclear bully.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:20:38 AM EST
Iran also shares technology with North Korea

just to make you all a little more uncomfortable.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:20:51 AM EST
It'll go great with their peaceful nuclear power program.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:22:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
It'll go great with their peaceful nuclear power program.







Yeah - or maybe these missiles are for delivering humanitarian supplies to those poor opressed Palestinians
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:23:50 AM EST
That sounds real similar to "suicide by cop"!
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:25:58 AM EST
And take a look around the world. Only about 3 nations even seem to care about this issue. If the UN was worth a cunt full of cow slobber, it would already have an army massed on the Iranian border ready to invade and take care of this situation. But of course, we all know they are far too bigger wusses to attempt anything meaningful.

If the US, Britain and Israel don't have the forces to deal with this, then deal with it by way of some tactical nukes. Use some of the freaking weapons we have developed. That might teach these asshats to stop fucking with us if they see we are willing to use these weapons we've been developing for years. As DK_Professor says, "what good are they to us if we never use them".
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:30:00 AM EST
The Iranians haven't made much of a secret these past 25 yrs that threatening Israel with nuclear weapons is a goal of theirs.

Israel won't allow that to happen (IMHO).

Iran developing the means to deliver a nuclear payload (On Israeli soil) would open a Pandoras box that I don't think even the IRANIANS have fully considered yet.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:30:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:31:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Despite my support for the war in Iraq, I am still pissed that we didn't go for Iran first

To me, they were definitely the bigger threat.


A fundemantalist Islamic state, known to sponsor a variety of terrorist groups, with a nuclear program, and who regards the U.S. as "the Great Satan"

What's the freakin' holdup??? Why do we have all those nuclear ICBMs if we're never going to use them?



+1

Just when I think that liberal fiancee of yours is making you soft.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:32:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran is definently MUCH more vulnerable to a invasion NOW than before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

The thing now is to get the Iraqis to take over their own cities so we can free our troops to invade Iran. To a lesser extent the same thing is needed in Afghanistan.

The Iranians KNOW this and this is why they are racing to head us off by building missiles and nuclear weapons. They are also trying to slow us down by taking a active part in the Iraqi insurgency. Al Sadr's 'militia' include MANY Iranian Revolutionary Guards and also are funded by Iran.



Any more doubts about the AXIS OF EVIL? These guys in Iran are sounding just like the N. Koreans. Israel will not fly over NK to bomb a reactor but they might go for Iran. I think they are trying to rally the entire muslim world or at least trying to radicalise the poor and less-educated. It may work against them, they might radicalize the more educated to toss their ass out (PC for kill them all).
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:34:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 8:35:57 AM EST by CAAAwarfighter]
Russia is not going to take a Muslum Nuclear threat that close to them too lightly.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:34:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricE:
I don't think that the Russians want Iran to have Nukes either, as I am sure the child-killing terrorists that Russia has to deal with would LOVE to buy one.



Oh yeah, the Chechyans just guarenteed that the US would have access to Central Asian airfields as well as no Russian interference in the UN when the time comes
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:39:00 AM EST
here is a idea, get the Iraqi army to invade Iran
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:44:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By repub18:
here is a idea, get the Iraqi army to invade Iran



No we know how that would turn out already.

Besides, the largest ethnic group in both countries are the Persian Shiia Muslims. The last Iran-Iraq was really more of a Civil War for them.

If you got rid of the mullahs it would be interesting to see if the two countries would actually COMBINE.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:46:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:48:56 AM EST
I'll bet the targetting data for the cruise missles is already in the system.

Israel is being supplied 500 'Bunker Busters' after November… my bet?

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike, Iran will lash out at Coalition forces in the region and give them the excuse to attack in 'self defence'

As for Iran launching a missile with a Chem-Bio or Nuclear warhead at Israel… the Israelis WILL retaliate with Nuclear weapons… it's their policy. The best estimate is they have around 200 A bombs and 10 H bombs. That should be enough to get someones attention.

I agree with the sentiments about us having nuclear weapons and not using them. IMO, most of these little shit kicker countries think we will not use them so they play asymetric warfare, safe in the knowledge the 'Big Stick' will not come out. Perhaps it's time to remind someone what a nuclear weapon will do on a live target, a lot of people seem to have forgotten the lesson of Hiroshima.

There is a lot of crap talked by the Left about nuclear weapons being too aweful to use, 'what about the fallout' they yell. Its just a big bomb! Use an airburst and they're fairly clean.


ANdy
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:48:56 AM EST
Yes the Iranians do like us but also there is no sign of them being able to throw out the mullahs by themselves.

They remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in 1991 when we encouraged them to rise against Saddam and then did nothing to help them.

They will not rise untill LARGE US forces have crossed into the country. They want to see a irrevocable commitment, not just airstrikes and a few SF guys.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:24:09 AM EST
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:31:53 AM EST
Remember all that hubub about a US DOD employee being 'caught' passing information about Iran to Israel?
Remember how we just 'stopped hearing about it' as if it were all a big mistake?

Add 500 'smart' penetrator bombs to Israel...

I'm expecting something to go down post November...

As for nukes, we have them so we will NEVER use them, although I think it's been a little too long since we blew up an uninhabited island or two....
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:32:16 AM EST
Are we really worried about a counrty that caught up with 1943 last week ?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:34:16 AM EST
Strike date just got moved up, eh?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:44:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.



I guess maybe some of you dont really understand what nuclear war means.

The first country to launch a nuclear strike in this day and age will set off a chain reaction that will make your head spin. The last thing we need is for ANYONE to go the nuke route.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:51:17 AM EST

My guess is that Iran is baiting Israel
to attack them. The mullahs in Iran and
across the region want to start a holy war.

Unfortunately, if Iran is confirmed to have
a nuclear capability, I don't see any way
to avoid a preemptive strike.

I know everyone is fired up to kick some
ass, but I think that this one might be
something that would be officially a
Bad Thing(tm).

Iraq would revolt, Iran would revolt (an
attack by the "Zionists" would supersede
any problems that the Iranian citizens
have with the mullahs), the Saudi royal
family would fall, Syria would revolt. I think
that the term "shit hitting the fan" was
coined specifically to describe this scenerio.

If this comes to pass, we will be living in
interesting times...
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:56:21 AM EST
Weather or not people want to believe it or not its just a matter of time before Isreal is hit by some means of nuclear device...And I am no means a arab semp or jew hater.......But it wont be long before we long for the good ole days of the cold war..Sad but true.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:59:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:59:25 AM EST by Dave_A]
P.S.

Look for any action against Iran, if it happens, to come AFTER JANUARY...

Why?

Because anything of that nature will be held off untill the Iraqis get their government elected & constitution ratified...

Once they are 'on their own', and merely recieving security assistance, then we will be free to deal with Iran.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:02:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By CAAAwarfighter:
Russia is not going to take a Muslum Nuclear threat that close to them too lightly.



Russia is giving them the bomb on a silver platter...

Remember: Outside of 'Planet ARFCOM', it's 'Terrorists vs', not 'Muslims vs'...

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:04:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By mrphelps:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.



I guess maybe some of you dont really understand what nuclear war means.

The first country to launch a nuclear strike in this day and age will set off a chain reaction that will make your head spin. The last thing we need is for ANYONE to go the nuke route.



How so?

Andy
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:08:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 10:09:00 AM EST by ikor]

Originally Posted By mrphelps:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.



I guess maybe some of you dont really understand what nuclear war means.

The first country to launch a nuclear strike in this day and age will set off a chain reaction that will make your head spin. The last thing we need is for ANYONE to go the nuke route.



Not necessarily so, mrphelps.

Nukes, from tactical sized to the extra-large size, have been part and parcel of our defense system for decades now. Most of the countries who actually do have them don't have enough to begin to contemplate wiping us out and are far more likely to be cowering in their holes praying that we will forget all about them should we decide to unleash a few.

Nations without the discipline to NOT use them for just any old dispute are the real danger...North Korea, Iran and...should they have a disasterous change in outlook...Pakistan and maybe India as well. I have no doubt that should Iran under the mullahs get nukes, they will make one or more available to terrorists for use against "The Great Satan" as well as for their "holy war" against the Jews. I am pretty sure that I am not the only one around who believes this. A nation that will happily send to almost certain death a million of its poorly trained and equipped troops cannot be considered logical, and Iran has already done that. It is no coincidence that the President named both North Korea and Iran in the Axis of Evil, and I am pretty sure he is getting ready to do something about it other than just talk...or beg those fucktards at the UN for another worthless resolution.

Al Capone is credited with saying that "In my neighborhood, you could get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word." The Iranians are now trying to muscle in on the Nuclear Neighborhood. Can you imagine them with nukes and harsh thoughts and words for both Israel and the west? It simply cannot be allowed to happen...and despite what some seem to think, my belief is that it won't happen...most likely due to a little intervention in their nuke programs...reactors DO blow up from time to time... as well as maybe, just maybe, an example of why its not nice to piss off Uncle Sam and the Israelis.

And at age 22, I doubt that you understand nearly as well as many others here what nuclear war would really mean.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:08:26 AM EST
Their are no 3 arab countries combined stupid enough to f!?k with Israel. The F-22 is very soon to be operational in the states and I think the Israelis get them too, Hint!!, Hint!!!!!!! We have developed stealth aircraft for this specific type of reason. When you see the B-2 and F-117's deploy that is the sign, also if they do get planes in the air THEY WON'T the F-22 or F-15 will probably be there to wipe the skys clean. I totally agree it will come Inaguration Day+1 or after
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:12:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.



Yeah but the ramifications of such are long term. Look at Chernobyl. Happened how many years ago? to this day kids born today have cancer and an unusual number of heart defects. All I am saying is that if such country has to use nukes or destroy an operational nuke plant. There are major considerations.

Then again if you are a target of such an attack then kill them first.

Yes, the UN will kick and scream should Israel attack but... what the hell is the UN gonna do about it? Smack Sharon's hand?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:13:20 AM EST
... I see a surgical strike in the future. It will be the reactor. Their "strategic missile" program is in its infancy and the Patriot PAC-3 is finally able to defeat nearly anything lobbed to them by Iran. The nuke plant strike won't be during Ramadan.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:21:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:22:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
agreed. One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around.

and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.



Yeah but the ramifications of such are long term. Look at Chernobyl. Happened how many years ago? to this day kids born today have cancer and an unusual number of heart defects. All I am saying is that if such country has to use nukes or destroy an operational nuke plant. There are major considerations.

Then again if you are a target of such an attack then kill them first.

Yes, the UN will kick and scream should Israel attack but... what the hell is the UN gonna do about it? Smack Sharon's hand?



What about the hundreds of devices we detonated above ground between 46 and 63?
Chernobyl is a large wad of highly radioactive material that keeps leaking, it is more akin to what a large "dirty" bomb will be like NOT what a nuclear or thermonuclear device would be like.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:23:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... I see a surgical strike in the future. It will be the reactor. Their "strategic missile" program is in its infancy and the Patriot PAC-3 is finally able to defeat nearly anything lobbed to them by Iran. The nuke plant strike won't be during Ramadan.



The plant at Bushir is right on the beach… you could take it out with naval gunfire.

Andy
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:23:55 AM EST
I will revoice a war cry somehow I know has beensaid here before. PULL US OUT OF THE U.N. AND EVICT ALL NON U.S. DIPLOMATIC OCCUPANTS FROM NEW YORK. Also cut U.S. funding to it let the COCKSUCKING COWARD French foot the bill. "French rifles never fired only dropped once"
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:26:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:30:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By ColonelKlink:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
i say there is either an Israeli or American attack on Iran w/i the next 6 months.



Sooner, much sooner.



I doubt much sooner than January, late January at that. Centcom is already leaking about a large series of offensives against both Anbar provence and Najaf to destroy or drive out of the country both Zarqawi and Al Sadr before the Iraqi elections.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:31:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:32:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 10:33:02 AM EST by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:33:06 AM EST
you cant commit ships that close anymore they can't exit fast enough if things go south and they can only defend themselves so long against a concentrated naval and aerial attack. Their is a possibility of thousands of casualties no politician or senior party official would risk it, it would almost insure majority control loss in the house and senate and probably kill any chance of the next Republican candidate for President as he would be identified with his party.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:34:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
you cant commit ships that close anymore they can't exit fast enough if things go south and they can only defend themselves so long against a concentrated naval and aerial attack. Their is a possibility of thousands of casualties no politician or senior party official would risk it, it would almost insure majority control loss in the house and senate and probably kill any chance of the next Republican candidate for President as he would be identified with his party.



Do you even know what you are talking about?

"A concentrated air or naval attack" from who? Iran?

Im guessing you were not even born yet the last time Iranians in ships tried to tangle with the US Navy in 1987...
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:37:37 AM EST
The strike will come from the air.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:40:11 AM EST
By all means enlighten me if you mean the 2 f-14s that were engaged and scored 2 or 3 kills, that was Libya.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:43:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 10:44:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By Mattl:
Im guessing you were not even born yet the last time Iranians in ships tried to tangle with the US Navy in 1987...



Now that was a short but 'exciting' war they had!

Andy
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top