Iran launches its first satellite

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster
who cares?

People with kids?

Iran is not going to attack anyone.
If they wanted to attack someone they would have done it already

People who worry are paranoid freaks. If a Muslim sits next to them on the subway they'll be thinking "omg what is under their shirt omgg God be with me".

Yeah, we've watched too much TV. Several beheadings come to mind. Did they ever catch and punish those guys?

Beheadings?

Your short memory reveals the reason for your lack of concern.

What the hell does beheadings have to do with 1) Iran or 2) Muslims on a subway.

3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: brandonb
All the sabre rattling over the last 5 years has caused Iran to jump start weapons programs. I guess I would have too in their position. So lets blow them up and cause even more instability in the region. Maybe that will fix it. Yep. I think it will. *boggle*

All of the "sabre rattling" happened because they started a weapons program. And we haven't blown up anything yet in Iran.

And a country can't pursue a weapons program? Only with Israel's and American permission?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster
who cares?

People with kids?

Iran is not going to attack anyone.
If they wanted to attack someone they would have done it already

People who worry are paranoid freaks. If a Muslim sits next to them on the subway they'll be thinking "omg what is under their shirt omgg God be with me".

Yeah, we've watched too much TV. Several beheadings come to mind. Did they ever catch and punish those guys?

Beheadings?

Your short memory reveals the reason for your lack of concern.

What the hell does beheadings have to do with 1) Iran or 2) Muslims on a subway.

Dude, they now can Behead Anyone, Anywhere, at Anytime! How long will it be before the InterContinental Beheader Missile becomes a reality?

 

[filetitan]

Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: filetitan
Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

Remember, over the past 20+ years, we have seen the quality of Russian equipment in action.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: filetitan
Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

I don't think the S-300 is the big factor, a sophisticated system for sure, but it can be defeated. Iran can cause much more trouble for Israel and the US if they want to. They can wage a proxy war by supporting Hezbollah and destabilized Iraq, they're doing it now, but it can be much worse. The Iranian people are not happy with their government right now, bombing a few buildings will just make the people support the government more.

 

[ElFenix]

France has also expressed concern, saying the technology used was "very similar" to that used in ballistic missiles.

i really have to wonder who writes these things. very similar? what's different, the paint?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: CLite
3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

great post. Don't expect them to respond to it. Ohh and I live in La and am willing to accept that risk instead of sending our troops out. :thumbsup:

 

[OCGuy]

Wow...welcome to the 1900's.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: filetitan
Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

Remember, over the past 20+ years, we have seen the quality of Russian equipment in action.

let's see if Israel is willing to test the quality of their equipment by attacking those Iranian reactors.

 

[rudder]

What I want to know is... how effective will Iran be in monitoring that satellite? The U.S. space agency monitors even the tiniest spec to avoid a catostrophic collision. Imagine one satellite breaking up... it would take out plenty of others. I would be severly pissed if Iran took out my directv.

That was why all the nations with satellites were pissed when the chinese decided to demonstrate thier satellite destroying prowess.

There is already a lot of space junk up there.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: filetitan
Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

Remember, over the past 20+ years, we have seen the quality of Russian equipment in action.

let's see if Israel is willing to test the quality of their equipment by attacking those Iranian reactors.

Reading is your friend Ol' Pooty-poot is still scratching his head. SA-300 will be just as easliy countered. SA-400, on the other hand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

 

[Ozoned]

<---------------wonders if it is as easy to kill a satellite, as it is to cut undersea internet cables. Heh heh.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: filetitan
Plus Iran's facilities are being built by Russian contractors along with the Russian S-300 system in place to protect it from Air strikes. Given Israel's motive they would of attacked by now if they didn't foresee possible trouble in doing so.

S-300
http://www.defence.pk/forums/w...on-delivered-iran.html

Russian's building their reactor.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/09/61689.html

Remember, over the past 20+ years, we have seen the quality of Russian equipment in action.

let's see if Israel is willing to test the quality of their equipment by attacking those Iranian reactors.

Reading is your friend Ol' Pooty-poot is still scratching his head. SA-300 will be just as easliy countered. SA-400, on the other hand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

"Syria is reported to have the new state-of-the art Pantsyr-S1E Russian radar systems. However, the system had not been functional at that time. The Syrian air defense that was operational at that time was suspected to be the Tor-M1 (SA-15) and outdated Pechora-2A (S-125/SA-3) surface-to-air missiles.[20][21]"

^ System did not fail, it was due to the users behind the system who did not know how to use it properly.


S-400 is not for sale =0, well not until the S-500 system comes out.

S-500: http://www.missilethreat.com/m...d.54/system_detail.asp

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Iran has just launched its first satellite:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7866357.stm

As Khruschev would've said, this means the country now officially possesses intercontinental ballistic missiles. When you also take into consideration the official rhetoric coming from Tehran (see http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2273659 ), and the persistence of continuing the uranium enrichment program (http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2272026 ), one can't help but wonder if some circles aren't just salivating at the idea of starting a war...

Timing is everything...

Oh, I think some circles are, just not the ones you are thinking of.

Here's a hint: who has invaded more countries in the last 10, 25, 50 years, us or Iran?

One of the techniquest used by a country who wants to be aggressive but not look aggressive is to say that the country it wants to invade is the aggressor.

Therefore, the aggression is really just protection from that crazy nation (e.g., Nicaragua).

Sound like anyone you know?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Iran is a very different nation now than it was in the mid-1980's, when it was reduced to begging for the means to defend itself from the armies of Saddam Hussein. Iran, has shown it can pull itself up by its own bootstraps even if they are still far behind other nations. And it shows Iran, rather than going wacko Taliban type retro, has its eyes on its future.

IMHO, the new Iran would make a better natural ally than a enemy of the USA and Western interests. And for all of Cheney's snit against Iran, Iran is advancing while the US is failing.

The people of Iran are more American in there approach to life than most other countries. It is like America with a different religion if you have ever visited it.

Congrats on the post, RhcardE. It's interesting when the conflict arises between the situation you describe, and the desire to dominate them for resources as under the Shah, which creates the demad for demonizing the nationto justify aggression against them, which of course then creates 'blowback' as they are angry at our actions - indeed, the term 'blowback' was created for the reaction when we installed the Shah in 1953 in our first CIA clandestine operation.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CLite
3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

great post. Don't expect them to respond to it. Ohh and I live in La and am willing to accept that risk instead of sending our troops out. :thumbsup:

Actually it's a pretty dumb post on several levels. It's overly simplistic, the assumption over "risk" is downright silly, and comparing apples to oranges in an irrelevant death toll comparison is perhaps the worst.

1.5/10

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
<---------------wonders if it is as easy to kill a satellite, as it is to cut undersea internet cables. Heh heh.

The voice of peace.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CLite
3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

great post. Don't expect them to respond to it. Ohh and I live in La and am willing to accept that risk instead of sending our troops out. :thumbsup:

Actually it's a pretty dumb post on several levels. It's overly simplistic, the assumption over "risk" is downright silly, and comparing apples to oranges in an irrelevant death toll comparison is perhaps the worst.

1.5/10

oh... I'm sorry........

Apparently you judge Iran to be a huge threat because they can throw a satellite in the air. You can conjecture that OMG they have ICBMs. Then you can realize they are so far from any kind of nuclear bomb, and the first nuclear bomb they will make would be an enriched uranium bomb which will be heavy as fuck and not deliverable in a ICBM package. Then you could use your tiny brain to realize that no one in Iran would be dumb enough to give their first uranium enriched bomb to a terrorist organization because all the fall out is entirely trace-able to the source of uranium. If you then further think outside the box you will realize how your trolling one liners add nothing to this topic and you could just leave and it would be all for the better.

Or.... you could be a coward and promote military action which ruins the entire country's reputation worldwide because your scared of the monsters under your bed.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ozoned
<---------------wonders if it is as easy to kill a satellite, as it is to cut undersea internet cables. Heh heh.

The voice of peace.

"We are not going to apologize for our way of life."

You are the exception.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CLite
3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

great post. Don't expect them to respond to it. Ohh and I live in La and am willing to accept that risk instead of sending our troops out. :thumbsup:

Actually it's a pretty dumb post on several levels. It's overly simplistic, the assumption over "risk" is downright silly, and comparing apples to oranges in an irrelevant death toll comparison is perhaps the worst.

1.5/10

oh... I'm sorry........

Apparently you judge Iran to be a huge threat because they can throw a satellite in the air. You can conjecture that OMG they have ICBMs. Then you can realize they are so far from any kind of nuclear bomb, and the first nuclear bomb they will make would be an enriched uranium bomb which will be heavy as fuck and not deliverable in a ICBM package. Then you could use your tiny brain to realize that no one in Iran would be dumb enough to give their first uranium enriched bomb to a terrorist organization because all the fall out is entirely trace-able to the source of uranium. If you then further think outside the box you will realize how your trolling one liners add nothing to this topic and you could just leave and it would be all for the better.

Or.... you could be a coward and promote military action which ruins the entire country's reputation worldwide because your scared of the monsters under your bed.

Damn, those are my only two choices? I'm totally screwed now... :Q

2.5/10 (for the extra little zeal on that one)

 

[AFMatt]

The capability to produce rockets able to deliver satellites, or even weapons long distances is nothing new, nor is it classified. Were talking about 64 year old technology here. After getting Russia's help last time, it was only a matter of time before they started trying doing it themselves. Now, this particular case was a fairly early tech solution that only reached low orbit. But, with time, they will obviously build on that and reach further. In a peaceful sense, is there anything wrong with other developed countries trying to join the space race?

Were talking about Iran of course. Not many people believe in any of the claims to peaceful purposes they claim. Especially with their current nuclear program under such a watchful eye by the international community. With that, some of you jumping right to a nuclear solution need to keep in mind the word "nuclear" is not part of the acronym ICBM.

If they are thinking nukes, however, the timing in building the ICBM capable of fitting their needs and the development of a nuclear RS could pretty much line up at this point.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Aimster
who cares?

People with kids?

Iran is not going to attack anyone.
If they wanted to attack someone they would have done it already

People who worry are paranoid freaks. If a Muslim sits next to them on the subway they'll be thinking "omg what is under their shirt omgg God be with me".

Yeah, we've watched too much TV. Several beheadings come to mind. Did they ever catch and punish those guys?

Beheadings?

Your short memory reveals the reason for your lack of concern.

What the hell does beheadings have to do with 1) Iran or 2) Muslims on a subway.

3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

Ayup, sometimes, to keep from stepping in dogshit, you get so focused on the path that you forget where you were going.

Or in your case, you never knew at all.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CLite
3) Iran launching it's first satellite.



I love how conservatives have become scared princesses who'd rather send the troops out to do the dirty work than take some personal risk.

Be a man and except some personal risk in life, you have a higher chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack (90 lightning deaths / year, compared to I guess just averaging out 9/11). I live in Hoboken, NJ right across from NYC and am willing to accept the risk that entails. No I don't have kids yet, but even when I do I will not want to ruin our idealogy, risk our troops, and breed whole new generations of terrorists because I was a scared bitch.

further rant: People who cry about the "nanny" nation with helmets etc., when more americans probably die because they didn't wear a helmet than due to terrorist attacks is just freaking hillarious, not to mention wearing a helmet doesn't come with 3,000 + american soldiers dead and our international relations a complete mess.

great post. Don't expect them to respond to it. Ohh and I live in La and am willing to accept that risk instead of sending our troops out. :thumbsup:

Actually it's a pretty dumb post on several levels. It's overly simplistic, the assumption over "risk" is downright silly, and comparing apples to oranges in an irrelevant death toll comparison is perhaps the worst.

1.5/10

oh... I'm sorry........

Apparently you judge Iran to be a huge threat because they can throw a satellite in the air. You can conjecture that OMG they have ICBMs. Then you can realize they are so far from any kind of nuclear bomb, and the first nuclear bomb they will make would be an enriched uranium bomb which will be heavy as fuck and not deliverable in a ICBM package. Then you could use your tiny brain to realize that no one in Iran would be dumb enough to give their first uranium enriched bomb to a terrorist organization because all the fall out is entirely trace-able to the source of uranium. If you then further think outside the box you will realize how your trolling one liners add nothing to this topic and you could just leave and it would be all for the better.

Or.... you could be a coward and promote military action which ruins the entire country's reputation worldwide because your scared of the monsters under your bed.

Damn, those are my only two choices? I'm totally screwed now... :Q

2.5/10 (for the extra little zeal on that one)

Keep on trolling or would you care to contribute your point of view on Iran relations?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: brandonb
All the sabre rattling over the last 5 years has caused Iran to jump start weapons programs. I guess I would have too in their position. So lets blow them up and cause even more instability in the region. Maybe that will fix it. Yep. I think it will. *boggle*

All of the "sabre rattling" happened because they started a weapons program. And we haven't blown up anything yet in Iran.

And a country can't pursue a weapons program? Only with Israel's and American permission?

I'm no nuclear policy expert so I have no clue.