sekantif it is in the courts then there is enough evidence to warrant going to court.. they wouldnt out someone they thought was a spy or espionage without having proper proof to back it all up!
.
I suppose you mean as in the case of Wen Ho Lee, the scientist of Chinese extraction who was accused of stealing nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos research lab and of transmitting them to the Chinese back in the late 1990s.
And the accusations was probably even more true as he was lynched by the right-wing media (as well as Clinton).
Then, too bad he was proven innocent and acquitted (i.e. released in 2000, the judge apologizing for the witchhunt) !!!!!!
sekantKid you sitting on your village 16000 kilometers away and speak about a country you don’t have any idea about never been in etc….
The Defense Ministry is pursuing a new top secret missile project in the Missile Industries — a subunit of the Aerospace Industries Organization. It is called Ghadr 101. The improved version of it is called Ghadr 110. The above missiles are produced in Hemmat Missile Industries Complex.
Ghadr missile differs from Shahab 3 and Shahab 4 missiles. It has better maneuverability. This means that it could be prepared for launch in 30 minutes, whereas Shahab 3 missile would take several hours to launch.
Ghadr missile has a range of 2,500 to 3,000 km and is designed in such a way that the range could be increased.
The missile is completely manufactured in Iran and is not a copied version of Russian or Korean missiles. In designing and manufacturing Ghadr missiles, Shahab 3 was used and many changes were made to the missile. Ghadr missiles could be compared to the advanced Scud E missiles.
The industrial groups in Hemmat Complex involved in the research, testing and manufacturing the missile and its warhead have been given code numbers to maintain the secrecy of the project. All the communications among the above industrial groups are done by code numbers. Here are the code numbers allocated to the industrial groups
Iran has already tested shahab 3 eight times you say 8 times test all failed or didnt answered there needs!!!
Well looks like discussing with you is kinda wast of time because you don’t have sufficient knowledge about those things.
And don’t bring you CRS Report for Congress reports again ! I think some reports said Iraq has all those VX gas biological weapons lab lab labbb
lol
Dude, you are such a joke.
The report on Iran Ghadr missile programme comes from the NCRI (or National Council of Resistance of Iran), a Paris based organisation, which is a political front for the terrorist group People’s Mudjahedin of Iran (I will let you check on the State Department why they appear on the US list of terrorist organisation, in the unlikely case you are not aware of who they are).
In other words, these reports are about as credible as those of Chalabi.
Now, if you dont find the reports of the Congressional Report Service or those of the US National Intelligence Council I postedcredible, what about you come up with credible alternative sources. And, btw, this does not include rantings by terrorist groups such as the NCRI, or some information dating back to the mid 1990s.
sekantDon’t watch one side!
IF iran make a missile capable of hitting US you wont hear that info from U.S congress reports etc..nor from iran for some years.When i was In iran i raed many reports about progress of shahab missiles.and to be honest not actualy 100% sure they have it as you can read on my above texts I mentioned “If” but everything is possible with 60 bucks the price of oil 😉
You make an erronous statement because based on totally out of date information. I provide you with the most recent serious assessments on the matter, and your response is that, well, no one can know anything anyhow. Well, if you believe that no assessment can be made, then dont try to make a point based on one to start with.
and about shahab 3 it is already tested by them many many times maybe you better update your “database” .
Dude, you may want to read what people write. I never said that the Shahab 3 has not been tested, I said that it has been inconclusively tested. Why? Because several of the tests, including the last one that took place in August 2004, did not go according to plan. This is why I stressed that using the Shahab 3 would hit or miss for the Iranian. It is not a proven missile !!
sekantIts not about need and its not smoke and mirrors, the simple fact is that under international law, in this case derived from the NNPT Iran is perfectly entitled to develop civilian Nuclear technology. The fact of the law is that unless Iran makes a Bomb it has not broken any law.
Whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for Iran to develop Nuclear power is of course up for debate but at the moment it is perfectly legal.
This is true, but not all the truth. Iran has failed to meet some of its reporting requirements under the NPT safeguards (ie among other things, it failed to report the acquisition of centrifuges). Iran being in breach of its safeguard obligations,the IAEA imposed a few additional obligations on Iran which it is fully entitled to do.
In addition, from a legal point of view, the US Security council is also entitled (if the P5 concur) that the Iranian nuclear programme is a threat to international peace and/or security, and take coercitive under Chapter VII.
sekantSource:http://www.fas.org
Shahab-6
IRSL-X-4The Shahab-6 is expected to have a range of 5,470-5,500 and 5,632-6,200 kilometers with a 1,000-750-500 kilogram warhead. This range capability will depend on the number of stages used in the launch vehicle and their performance. December 1996 news reports claimed that Iran is developing a 3,500-mile (5,632 kilometers) range missile called Shahab-6 that would be capable of reaching Europe. The technology for this system was cited as coming from Russia and North Korea. Reportedly the missile would become operational by the year 2,000, though others reports claim that Iran intends to complete the development of this system within five to ten years. Presumably this missile will turn out to be a totally redesigned Taep’o-dong-2/NKSL-X-2 Iranian first stage derivation with new redesigned shorter larger diameter second and third stages.
who said shahab 3 is not yet fully tested!!!?
Are you kidding me or what!! The info you provide on both Shahab 3 and 6 comes from the FAS section on missile, which has not been updated since the year 2000 (like most of the FAS website, given that John Pike moved on to create globalsecurity.org).
Do you understand that our estimates have changed since the year 2000, that the Shahab 3 has been inconclusively tested by the Iranians, that in all likelihood the Shahab 6 programme has never taken off.
All this info can be found in the reports issued by the Congressional Report Service (CRS Report for Congress: missile survey – Ballistic and Cruise missiles of selected countries (see report of 4 March 2004, update of July 2005).
You may also refer to the estimates from the “Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States, Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, U.S. Navy Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Testimony Before the Senate Intelligence Committee, 16 February 2005” which states that “we judge that Iran will have the technical capability to develop an ICBM by 2015. It is not clear whether Iran has decided to field such a missile.”
sekantI don’t think they hit with missiles iraq and afghanistan instead they hit european countries. If ther Shahab 6 is ready its capable of hitting some parts of europe.
Shahab 6???!!? What the heck are you talking about. The Shahab 3 is not even fully operationnal yet, and using it would be hit and miss for the Iranians (i.e. the Shahab 3 has not been fully tested yet). The Shahab 3 could reach Israel, but nothing beyond Turkey, if it works.
Talks of an Iranian ICBM (ie a Shahab 6) is highly speculative and the “worst” estimates (those put out by the US) state that Iran could have that capacity around 2015 (and this is even contested by many, if not most, analysts).
sekantbecause the iranians are not going to just bend over and take it from you. if america bombs sites in iran, they will seek to ‘get back’ at america by killing as many GIs and marines in iraq as they can manage.
Somehow I doubt they would be able to pull this off.
If the US limits its operations to aerial bombardment (which they will unless they run totally amok), I do not see Iran retaliating militarily. Indeed, what could they do? Sending a few Scuds into the Green zone would only elicit further US bombardment (and I take it that the Green zone is protected against such attacks). Sending land and air forces makes even less sense – Iranians would be rapidly wiped out!
There is, of course, the possibility for the Iranians to instrumentalize the Iraqi Shias. But somehow I doubt that this would be really effective. The Iranians have never controlled the Iraqi Shias in the way they control Lebanese Shia (i.e. hizbollah). As a matter of fact, Iraqi Shias have always refused to do Tehran’s bidding, and one should not forget that in the Iran-Iraq war they did side with Iraq. In my view, unless Iraqi Shias see that their own interests are promoted by abetting Iran, they will not go down that road. And at this stage, the interest of the Iraqi Shia is that the US gradually relinquish power over Iraq.
So what is the most likely options for Iran? I would suspect some type of oil embargo for some time to ensure that the price of oil sky rocket. They could also seek to hamper shipping in the Gulf. But that is about as far as they can go.
sekant3. Need for development of countermeasures.
Who will pay for increased security? – Passengers!
Even unsuccessful attempt to hit commercial aircraft will cause catastrophical results.
..
Both BAe and Northrop have developped defensive systems for airliners (i.e. adapted their military systems for civilian aviation) on a mandate from DHS.
FAA certification of those equipments is expected in the first quarter 2006. The price of those equipments is estimated at US$ 2 millions (ie DIRCM, or Direct Infrared countermeasures). The question that is going to be raised now is whether every single aircraft should be equipped, or only those going into sensitive regions.
sekantNATO wont expand… well it will but it will never include former Soviet Republics…
Estonia, Lithuania and Lettonia will be glad to learn that they a) either were never Soviet Republics b) or are not NATO members today (or both). 😮
sekantQuestions to those Indians on the board: to what extent is a US success (F-16 / F-18) linked to an approval by Congress of the nuclear deal passed by the US administration in New-Delhi ? In other words, if the Congress scupper the deal, does that mean that those planes stand no chance ??
sekantBut shelf life depends on storage conditions and maintenance.
Most of “customers” are purchasing only missiles and launchers.
No spare parts, no training and testing means.
Even hand held weapon, but Igla is not AK-47!
As result, after several years missiles become unoperable.
Remember that Russian manpads are not maintenance free.
If certain country do not have such missile system in the inventory usual delivery should include N missiles with spares kit #1 (individual), N/100 spares kit #2, N/300 spares kit#3, approx. N/5 launchers and related spare kits, trainig sets with spare kits, testing means with spare kits.Btw, do you know what type of testing equipment is used for Igla-s?
1) The problem in terms of shelf life is not that drastic. The one element that poses a problem are batteries. But as has been demonstrated (notably in the case of the attack outside Nairobi airports with two SA-7), it is not that difficult to find alternative batteries,
2) Training is certainly a problem (the attack in Nairobi failed because the MANPADS were launched too early (ie plane not fat enough)), you could until fairly recently find the manuals to use the different MANPADS on the web. In any case, the numerous succesful attacks in Chechnya and other places show that you dont need advanced military training to use those weapons.
3) You are right in stressing that the main threat is from the proliferation of MANPADS from Russian conception (either sold from former Soviet Republics during the 1990s or then looted when State collapsed (such as in Iraq). The threat posed by the Stinger is less important – at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, it was assessed that between 100 to 300 weapons given to the Mudjahidins had not been used. Some have been recovered since then (including buybacks). Otherewise, the Stinger has not proliferated (ie if you buy Stingers from the US, you have to accept that the US monitors them in your country (ie storage security, book-keeping….).
sekantThe 737NG has no FBW. The wing and airframe is suited for short- and medium-haul service, thus having not enough wing area and restricted MTOW. A B737-800 max loaded won’t get out out of any runway shorter than 8000 to 10000ft.
The B767 is the best proposal. Even if Boeing shuts down the line it can be re-opened. Surely less expensive than building a new KC-330 line. The B777 and B787 are either too expensive or too big. Always remember that Air Force means robustness, so one plane falling out of the sky should not crash your plans.
A possbility would be a mix of B767-200ER and B767-400ER, which differ significantly in MTOW. The fuselage can be adapted to military usage.In terms of runway restrictions the B737 does not behave better. Always ask: How much fuel can an aircraft bring to which point. The B767 will outclass every B737, even if runway size is restricted.
B767 may be 20 years old, but for military that is on no importance. Please note that benefits of the B787 comes mostly from engine and partly from composite. Both are very optimised and not really good for military. For military tankers good ol’ reliable and affordable technology is best. Compared to a B707 the savings in maintenance and fuel will be enormous.
1) My bad ! The 737 NG being presented by Boeing as its response to the A320, I assumed that it had to be FBW but you are right, it is not !! Considering this, the fact the 737 NG holds its ground vis-Ã -vis the 320 is remarquable.
2) By and large, I agree with the fact that the 767 makes more sense than a 737 as a tanker. If you (re) read my previous post, I was simply disputing the fact that the 767 was a more moder, design than the 737 NG. This is not the case (even without the fbw) !
sekantI can’t see the 737 becoming a tanker in the USAF. If there is a “high-low” mix it will prob be 777/767. The 767 isnt all that much more expensive than the 737, is a newer design, and can carry much more payload. In other words….its just way more flexible than the 737.
Not quite, the 737 NG (ie the serie -600, -700, -800, -900) is a far more moder design than the 767. The 767 is in fact “old technology”, while the 737 NG was Boeing’s effort to catch up with airbus in terms of technology (fly by wire, wings, alloys et al.). IIRC, the only evolution of the 767 over older boeing was a redesigned cockpit (replacement of some analogic systems with screen displays).
sekantThere’s not agreement that says you can;t explode an enemy soldier with
a laserm signed or otherwise.The only stipulation is that laser weapons ar enot used to BLIND
someone. This requires a very simple laser, some of which are used for
targetting on aircraft, and rangefinding on ships. THAT is wghat’s not
allowed.
.
Yep, that is right – that is the 4th protocol to the the 1980 UN CCW conventions. But again, as the US as not ratified this additional protocol that deals specifically with blinding lasers, you could even argue that the US could use lasers to such an effect.
However, again from a legal point of view (law of war/IHL), the use of (and limit thereof) a laser would be guided by the two more general principles of 1) discrimination (being able to distinguish combatants and non-combatants) and 2) not inflicting superfluous and unnecessary injuries.
On both counts, a laser seems to fit the bill.
sekantFrom a legal standpoint, there does exist a limit as to how lasers are used on the battlefield. Those limits are to be found in the 4th protocol to the 1980 UN Convention on certain conventional weapons (CCW). The US having neither signed nor ratifed this 4th protocol, it is not bound by its provisions/limits.
Sign In
