Two seperate sentences to show the ties between Russia are commercial and military…
Of course I know they are different sentences. You started off the paragraph by saying, “Of course there has been military sales to Iran.” which would give the impression that you are saying that the alleged civilian nuclear reactor, also has military intentions. Your first sentence seems to be setting up a premise for the paragraph. Why mention it if is not part of your premise?
And who could they get superior aircraft and missiles from that would actually want an old model F-14 and Phoenixs?
Possibly Russia, China, and or France. And probably several other countries might have interests as a third-party. Weapons trade is much like laundering money; often there is a third party involved, as a proxy.
I realise you think just because something was made in america it must be better than everything else in every role
I obviously don’t think that way. Your accusation shows your own bigotry and prejudice.
Like they say: One should look at themselves, before they point the fingers and others.
I also think the F-14 is better than the Super Hornet
Such a blanket statement is untrue. Clearly the F-14 has advantages, as does the F-18. Which one is largely a matter of application and scenario.
Like they say: Apples and oranges.
So you don’t think the Mig-29s could be upgraded? You need to think outside of your broken box.
You are talking about technology transfer. Having a digital wristwatch instead of a wind up analog wristwatch somehow effects the user how? One has new technology and the other technology that is centuries older… the result of such technology transfer is that they can both tell the time… big deal!
Being able to tell time accurately is not technology? So you don’t think it is a big advantage to be able to tell time? It’s a good thing you don’t work for an airline railroad or military, they all know that time is extremely important. If watches are not technology and if they offer us know advantages, then why do people buy and wear them, for decoration (sarcasm)?
Real technology transfer is teaching the man to fish
Once again you’re confusing technology with the application of technology. That is just one application of technology transfer, it doesn’t mean is the only. What’s the point of teaching a starving man to fish that will not live long enough to live through the lesson due to starvation? In other words sometimes time is a factor; perhaps the Iraqis are buying foreign weapons as a stopgap measure and also for reverse engineering until they can meet their goal of manufacturing their own.
Otherwise it isn’t technology transfer
Without benefiting from technology transfer (an aircraft, aerodynamic engineering, ect…) I would like to see you try to fly.
We are not talking about selling guns here though.
It obviously was an analogy, genius.
but who cares
Analogy: If more people cared, WWII possibly could have been avoided by addressing the Hitler issue earlier.
xxx has the US been doing the last 150 years
What you think the Middle East and the rest of the world was doing long before there was a US? Like Billy Joel said “we didn’t start the fire”.
concoct a deadly poison that they could put in the water supplies of their enemies….
Your idea of putting poison into missiles to poison water wells sounds ridiculous, but I wouldn’t entirely rule it out even if it is impractical and on unethical. Being practical and ethical isn’t exactly Iran’s strong point.
It would not be the first time that water was the target of terrorism. Arafat rose to power with a plot to blow up dams. Arafat was also connected with a plot to poison water supplies.
Most of Irans threats to get rid of Israel were in the 80s.
Apparently you haven’t watched the news lately. People chant death to Israel, death to America, in the streets, in government, in synagogues, yet they portray themselves as having peaceful intentions.
They don’t even nearly have the forces to fight anywhere near Israel
Apparently you are not familiar with Iranian missile capability. Iran has already tested firing missiles from barges, that easily puts Israel within their range. You need to think outside your broken little box. You also need to study history and listen to more credible news sources.
1998 “Iran reportedly tests a short-range surface-to-surface missile from a barge in the Caspian Sea. This test may indicate that Iran plans to launch missiles from merchant ships, thereby allowing it to threaten Israel or the United States with its Scud missiles.”
This is a map of ranges of missiles fired from Iran. Now compare the range of Iran’s missiles, to the range of the distance Israel is from the sea, and you can see that Iran could easily attack Israel with missiles. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that Iran’s missiles can reach Israel or the United States.
Iran signed the NPT and is a member of the international organisation monitoring nuclear materials.
Signing a piece of paper means nothing, if you don’t abide by the contract. Iran has a history of violating its nuclear agreements. The Germans didn’t comply with the peace agreements at the end of WWI. So I guess you think Germany didn’t invade Russia, because Germany signed a nonaggression treaty?
In order for a treaty to work, treaty members have to be reasonably trustworthy. To try to keep treaty members honest requires; monitoring, verification, and real enforcement for noncompliance (effective consequences, not just symbolic gestures, reprimands or slaps on the wrists).
what do you mean by cheating?
Iran has a history of violating its nuclear agreements and deceptions and lies.
http://www.solami.com/nytiaeairan.htm
Fuel rod supplies might suddenly get embargoed if the price of oil is too high or too low.
Nuclear fuel lasts for years. Stockpiles of petroleum fuels would be exhausted in a matter of a few months. If Iran is that concerned about embargoes, doesn’t that imply that it doesn’t plan to comply with international law?
Unlike Iran, Israel is not provoking a malicious unjust war.
In the United States most citizens have the right to bear arms, however by committing a criminal act that is severe enough they can have the right to bear arms revoked. Also people that are insane or mentally incompetent are not guaranteed the right to bear arms.
International law has similar standards. Iran’s history of malicious violence and criminal behavior and other behavior is more than grounds to bar Iran from having nuclear weapons. Implying there was no Holocaust is questionable sanity. Malicious war propaganda seems to be showing intensions of malicious war and is provocative.
people who sold Iraq anthrax think he was going to do with it
The anthrax Iraq purchased was a culture for making vaccines.
I think it was a stupid sale. However if we didn’t sell it I am sure the sale denial would have been used as lying propaganda. We could expect your hero Baghdad Bob (or some other facsimile) to get on the air and start claiming that Iraqis were being murdered, because they were being denied the ability to make their own vaccines.
The sale was not my choice, a choice I would have not made if I had the power to stop it. If they really wanted vaccine they could have purchased it, there is no doubt that they would whine and cry and use it as propaganda claiming that we are profiteering by murdering them with overpriced vaccines, and they would probably spread rumors that the vaccines are contaminated with something malicious. It is a behavior we have seen before, not just from Iraq, but from other countries.
I have little knowledge of this issue, but from what I understand the agreement allowed for small-scale military R&D for research purposes. Until the US started the agreement there was a very little limits. The US via Nixon set an example by voluntarily ceasing large-scale R&D on offensive fatal biowarfare weapons, ceasing production, and slowly phasing out stockpiles.
I think Russia eventually pretended to voluntarily follow suit and tore down its old biowarfare facilities, however secretly it built new much more advanced facilities and dramatically increased production. Russia pretty much got away with the cheating, until it had a loss of containment that contaminated a nearby city. At first they tried to deny it was from anthrax from a weapons facility, however it was obvious it wasn’t because many of the families that got sick and died had knowledge, and became vocal at risks to their own lives to the international community.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61/
Once again you are perverting things into meaning completely different things than I obviously meant. You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. You should pay more attention to news and history and you should get and you should get it from more reputable sources. You should also pay attention to people when they use footnotes.
When I use the word *SCUD I used and asterix to note a footnote (common practice). It contained the following footnote.
*(the name commonly used, but technically incorrect, and are usually referring to Al Samoud 2 and family)
I don’t think the exact identity of all the missiles have been identified that Iraq shot during operation “Iraqi Freedom”. Some of them could be SCUDs, but to the best of my knowledge they are all Al Samoud 2. However they could be any of the family of missiles. The media automatically assumed they were SCUDs so everyone jumped on the bandwagon. I use the word SCUD, because the identity of all the missiles are not positively identified, and if I use the correct name that experts assume they are, most people wouldn’t have a clue what I was talking about. I use the asterix to denote that most if not all of them are not really SCUDs, but they are in a similar family.
The *SCUD that Iraqis shot at coalition troops. (They were banned WMDs)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm
Generally when experts plan for warfare, do they only plan and prepare for only one scenario, or do they have several plans and procedures to cover most or all scenarios? I would suspect part of the reason is because Iran’s relationship with Russia is not dependable. The other reason is that they can gain a lot of knowledge by reverse engineering which could eventually lead them to be more capable of producing their own domestic ATA missiles.
You ever hear of something called flexibility? You never hear phrases like “no war plan ever survived contact with the enemy”?
Some Iranians have all reclaimed that they were trying to develop their own equivalent of the R-33/AIM-54.
At least you admit you are using jargon definitions. I am trying to use real technical definitions and terms, not jargon. You seem like you get your knowledge off of popular TV and out of sources like military wannabe magazines, your terminology and definitions are distorted from reality and loaded with propaganda and myth and misunderstanding. You seem to be like much of the media you start believing your own hype.
The definition of jargon:
1. the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon.
2. unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; gibberish.
3. any talk or writing that one does not understand.
4. pidgin.
5. language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak in or write jargon; jargonize.
—Synonyms: babble, gabble, twaddle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jargon
By your own admission and the dictionary definition, you seem to admit you’re babbling.
The way you are using the term “technology transfer” is bogus and prejudice and misleading.
So you don’t think having different types of SAM’s in their possession wouldn’t help them to develop their own version of a SAM, via reverse engineering?
Or why didn’t WWIII start when the Soviets attacked the US by shooting down Francis Gary Powers.
The planes were not violating Iraqis airspace; part of the peace agreement was that the coalition was to enforce a no-fly zone to make sure that Iraq didn’t threaten its neighbors.
The Gary Powers incident as most of the other flyovers could technically be considered acts of war. Even though our intentions were clearly not war, though at the time I would imagine at the time, Russia perceived it as possible war like activity.
You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. You should pay more attention to news and history and you should get and you should get it from more reputable sources. You should also pay attention to people when they use footnotes,
Patriot missiles intercepted two Scud-type missiles over Kuwait.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/2867593.stm
“Of the 20 missiles fired, nine were directed against a defended asset and nine were destroyed”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052951/posts
The US was building up forces to enforce the peace agreement because Iraq was violating the peace terms and continuing to attack the coalition. How come when they shoot at us, you call it peace, and when we fight back its called war?
I have even stated on other threads that everybody copies from each other. I even quoted the famous quote “Know thy(n) enemy” like I have said before. Most of technology is in increments based on previous technology. It’s funny how you argue from both sides of the issue against me. It is like you are schizophrenic or and have multiple personality disorder. But nooooo, apparently according to you it’s preposterous to think Iran could have reversed engineered any US or Russian weapons. Yet in your last snippet you admit everyone copies from each other.
The US already had similar concepts, however self appointed experts in the US military and political system deemed that it was not necessary to continue development of the systems because according to them “the days of the gun fight is over, from now on battles will be done with missiles”. That may not be an exact quote but it was something to that effect.
How were the highly precision centrifuges made, if not with advanced technology, they grow on a tree, did cavemen make them with simple rocks?
It is a processed material, not a technology. Or are you going to say the carbon fibre in my bike is an advanced technology and I can’t ride over any international borders without permission?
Most carbon fiber bicycles would be considered fairly advanced technology, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s illegal to cross the border with it. Once again you’re making ridiculous assumptions. Not all advanced technology is considered a security risk to transfer. On the contrary most advanced technology is legal to transfer.
A plasma TV is advanced technology. What is next, are you going to say that transferring plasma TVs is a national security risk to Russia’s plasma stealth program? That would be making ridiculous generalizations and inferences like you have been through this whole thread.
Hypocrisy. You expect to judge, analyze, criticize, accuse, use vulgar language, and use vague inaccurate language to mislead. Yet you don’t want to be judged or analyzed or criticized yourself.
By your own admission you use jargon. The textbooks synonyms for jargon as how you use it: babble, gabble, twaddle.
Wait 10 years and see if USA are still in Afganistan 😉 Besides, USA already had it much worse in Vietnam, you cant deny THAT :dev2:
Vietnam was a stalemate for the US. The US forced a ceasefire and pulled out its combat troops. NV kept violating the treaty. SV defended itself but collapsed after congress withdrew funding to SV. US won virtually all the military battles, but lost the political war. March 29, 1973, the last U.S. combat troops pulled out, Saigon didn’t fall till April 30, 1975
The difference between the old Russian scenario and the current coalition scenario is somewhat different. The old Russians intentions seemed more of long-term occupation much like an empire ruling with an iron fist. The coalition’s main plan was to be short-term operation, clean out terrorism, restructure and rebuild the country and withdraw; unfortunately due to persistent terrorism coalition troops have had to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq longer and in higher numbers than we hoped.
With 20/20 hindsight, I’m not so sure that the Russians old idea of empire and ruling with an iron fist wasn’t such a bad idea.
In the end I still want to pull out our troops (but occupy a few airbases and ports for a while and on the condition if Iraq relapses or continues to be a haven for terrorism that we return with a larger force, and might not be so nice), however being so politically correct and using such kit gloves could be part of the reason we are having to stay there so long.
my tinfoil hat keeps slipping
It is not legal to drive a car like that
You seem to have made a Freudian slip, even though you say the reactor is civilian, your implication is that it is military.
I never said it was proof the Iranian government handed over an F-14 or a Phoenix missile to the Soviets. Now did I? I was making an entirely different point. Though it is quite possible they did.
If the AL-31 could fit the F-14? That’s a pretty big IF. Why wouldn’t it make more sense for the Iranians to trade their a few F-14’s for more modern equipment that they can get parts and weapons for more easily? Some Iranians even claim that is what they already have done with some of the F-14’s and Phoenixs.
By saying the F-14 is Iran’s best fighter defense, that implies you are saying the newer MIG-29s are inferior. So an older F-14 that you can’t easily get parts for is better then a more modern Mig-29 that they can more easily get parts and weapons for; that’s what you seem to be saying.
Rubbish. A person doesn’t have to be able to build a computer to be able to benefit by having a computer. Sure a person might benefit more by being able to manufacture a computer, but that is not the definition of technology transfer. Manufacturing really isn’t a technology transfer, the licensing is the further exploitation of the technology transfer.
It’s easier to make a computer if you already have some.
Once again you ignored what I said. As I said; in my opinion the TOR-M1 missile deal seems legal, even though it seems shady.
Analogy: In many places it is legal for someone to buy a gun that has a history of threatening to kill people. Even if the clerk knew about the threats, it still would be legal in many places for a clerk to sell the person a gun, though I would consider it morally shaky ground. However if the clerk new the persons intension was not for self defense, but for murder, then in most places the clerk could be considered an accessory to a crime.
The TOR-M1 can be used offensively, your end of the runway scenario is one, Iranian F-14s armed with MIM-23 HAWK (SAM) missiles is another example I gave, cover for an offensive force would essentially be offensive. There are more ways it could be used offensively. You need to start thinking outside of the box/propaganda/hype.
Iran clearly has the right to defend itself. Iran clearly already has the ability to defend itself. However the threats that Iran has been making, makes it clear grounds for limiting arms and nuclear capability of Iran.
Since Iran has a history of cheating on its nuclear program, it cannot be trusted to have nuclear power. Iran has been offered peaceful nuclear power, but Iran has refused, that indicates Iranians nuclear intentions are malicious, like it’s threats.
No analogy is perfect. The analogy had a clear and intended point, which you have ignored. Instead you are making wild assumptions that I clearly was not intending. The anthrax vaccine culture that Iraq purchased was not a WMD, Iraq manufactured it into a WMD.
Analogy. By your logic; a hardware store that sells stock steel to a man, that the man later machines into a gun. By your logic, the hardware store sold the man a gun.
You act like one of the people that thought airliners were no significant terrorist threat. Yet now you act as if an airliner is a larger threat than an actual military weapon. You’re still thinking in the box.
So you think a Sam couldn’t be fired from an F-14 as an offensive weapon?
Apparently you are unaware that the Russians sold SAM motors to the Iraqis, the Iraqis used the motors to manufacture *SCUDs. So don’t try to tell me SAMs can’t be used offensively.
I already knew that. What’s your point? It would take a consider amount of modification to fire a Hawk from an F-14 (without any consultation from the manufacture of the missile). Why would it be so hard to believe the Iranians couldn’t take it one steep farther using theTOR missiles with the consultation of Russian missile manufactures? Even though the job might be a little harder, if they had consultation, it might even be easier then converting the hawk to fire on the F-14.
Once again you are thinking in a box that already has been busted.
The military uses Webster’s definition for “technology transfer”. Webster is a dictionary for language; it is not a military reference. Anyway “short range” is a relative term, arrows (as in bow and arrow) used to be mainly considered long-range weapons, and still are under some “relative” circumstances.
I know the media and the GP uses the name SCUD improperly, just as you and many others are using the term “technology transfer” improperly. I have even noted both of these errors on other threads. It is clear you still don’t understand the definition for “technology transfer”, despite the fact I posted it.
If the transfer of the 30 vehicles is no benefit to them, then why did they make the deal?
Wrong. Iraq made attacks on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. So I guess I just imagined the *SCUD missiles attacks that Iraq launched. I guess I imagined that cruise missile hitting the Kuwaiti shoreline mall/theater. You’re one of those people that call is at peace when people attack the coalition; and when the coalition fights back, you call it war.
*(the name commonly used, but technically incorrect, and are usually referring to Al Samoud 2 and family)
In the military, “technology transfer” means the same thing as I say, you are making false narrow inferences.
You seem to think that Iran has no history of reverse engineering, I suggest you review their inventory and study a little history.
To my knowledge there was no reverse engineering involved with the Sergeant York air defense system to copy off another, and I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that. Like the F-15 and the MiG-25 may look somewhat similar and have a similar concept, I think it’s a pretty far stretch to say it was direct reverse engineering to develop one into the other, in either of those two cases.
However just because their likely wasn’t direct development from one another, doesn’t mean their wasn’t reverse engineering involved with both of them. Both sides have done considerable reverse engineering of the others; to develop tactics and counter measures.
You seem to think the Russian fishing trawlers shadowing the US fleet were interested in non-tetrapod chordate. I guess you think the only people that looked at the defecting MiGs were museum patrons.
I guess you never heard the phrase “know thy(n) enemy”.
Products can be considered technology if they are technological products. It takes a considerable amount of technology to enrich uranium. I would consider am enriched uranium sale to be advanced technology transfer.
Once again you have to learn the difference between “technology transfer” and “manufacturing”.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have several Gen3 night vision devices at home. Now, according to your logic that means my country, Slovakia, has access to Gen3 GaAs night vision technology… :rolleyes:
You said it right, but your apparent inference is incorrect.
Analogy. If an unoccupied extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed on Earth, that would be a form of technology transfer. Whether or not we could exploit it, would be another matter.
When a kindergartener goes to school and the teacher teaches the kid to paste paper together with glue. That is a form of “technology transfer”.
When a store sells you matches that is a form of technology transfer.
Example: There was swept wing technology transferred to the United States long before we realized the significance and exploited it.
What some of you don’t seem to realize is that there is a difference between just “technology transfer” and a “violation of technology transfer” or exploitation. Many people are too lazy to state it properly. So many lazy people say “technology transfer” when they mean there something more like a “violation of technology transfer”. The term technology transfer does not mean application, violation, manufacture, licensing, ect….
Kill probabilities for later versions are quoted as:
* 0.92-0.95 against aircraft
* 0.80-0.96 against helicopters
* 0.60-0.90 against cruise missiles (with an effective range of around 5 km/3 miles)
* 0.70-0.90 against precision munitions (LGBs, glide bombs, etc.)
* 0.90 against UAVs
That almost certainly does not take into consideration, evasive actions and countermeasures. That figure is also likely for single target engagements. The more targets that are simultaneously engaged in a shorter time frame the less likely hits are.
It also considers a hit a kill, not all hits are going to be kills, and particularly LGB penetraters. Penetraters can go through concrete and steal, so a SAM will likely do little harm. You would have to hit and significantly damage a fin or seeker before the bomb would stop guidance.
Some bombs are even concrete, the best a SAM could expect to do is to divert the course and make more smaller pieces. But buy doing so you’re adding mass, and explosives and more shrapnel. So it might make things worse for the defender. Hehe
Once again you are extrapolating a definition to mean what it doesn’t mean. To assume “kill probability” statistics to be realistic under combat situations and disregarding countermeasures and other factors is unrealistic and deceptive.
What is sometimes called “kill probability” by some, really should be called “hit probability”. And even then that usually does not consider countermeasures and evasive actions.
You’re a lot like a brook, you babble a lot.
I’m not sure exactly what type of bird and is, however it is almost certainly a raptor, a bird of prey.
I am not familiar with the birds in the area you live. Also the names of the birds very. What the Europeans call a buzzard, is not the same thing that North Americans would call a buzzard.
It would probably be impossible to positively identify the exact species of bird without a better photograph.
I think what Europeans call a buzzard is similar to what North Americans call a hawk.
I suspect it is a type of hawk, kestrel, or falcon. (That means I’m using our regional, so they may not apply to your region).
Here are a couple of photos of birds in similar families.
Osprey
Male American Kestrel
I’m not sure exactly what type of bird and is, however it is almost certainly a raptor, a bird of prey.
I am not familiar with the birds in the area you live. Also the names of the birds very. What the Europeans call a buzzard, is not the same thing that North Americans would call a buzzard.
It would probably be impossible to positively identify the exact species of bird without a better photograph.
I think what Europeans call a buzzard is similar to what North Americans call a hawk.
I suspect it is a type of hawk, kestrel, or falcon. (That means I’m using our regional, so they may not apply to your region).
Here are a couple of photos of birds in similar families.
Osprey
Male American Kestrel
Sign In
