yet another Iranian scientist killed.

[LiuKangBakinPie]

You really don't understand the history of guided missiles. Germany fired thousands of V-1 & V-2 conventional warhead missiles against England as terror weapons & as a means to divert Allied resources. Saddam launched scuds against Israel in GW1 for much the same reasons & effect.

Missiles can also be made with a variety of guidance systems- GPS, inertial & can also be made to home in on various electromagnetic emissions, like radars. They're obviously a lot more accurate than in WW2, when the Germans used them to considerable effect.

They don't have to be nuclear weapons to be effective, at all.

First off all look at this

See how the graff goes down with distance?
At 1000km's you will have a kill probility of 0.001 percent with their current missile using a non nuclear war head on structures

Sajjil missile performance with distance vs payload
Do you see the payload the missile needs to be effective at that range? At 2000km's it needs a payload of over 2000kg's! That over 2 Tons!
Show me a missile that has a payload of 2 Tons and is small enough to fit on a bilistic missile. Show me a warhead that has that payload please. Only thing that small and that powerful is a nuke warhead. Go look it up if you want.

With a non nuclear warhead you will need over a 1000 missiles to destroy some structures over that distance. Thats what the graph shows. Thats why those missiles at those distances are military ineffective with a normal non nuclear payload. But with a nuclear payload they are lethal and effective.

That is how a non nuclear payload looks like.

Thats a nuclear warhead.Its got a payload of over 300 000 ton!! That would make the missile very effective. Remember when we are talking about nuclear bombs we are not only talking about the A-Bomb that blew half of Hirosjima away. There are different types of them.

What Israel and others are reffering to is the Neutron Bomb Neutron bombs with a payload of 1Kt was relatively ineffective at long ranges until the Irans missiles. Any of those nuclear bombs can fit on it.
Please do not think the nuclear bomb is the big bang. Go to that link of the neutron Bomb and see all the kinds of nuclear bombs there is.

Boosted Fission Weapons
Staged Radiation Implosion Weapons
Neutron Bombs
Cobalt Bombs and other Salted Bombs

 

[sleep]

Terrorism!!!!!!!!!!

USA

 

[silverpig]

First off all look at this

<snip>

I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about, but there are so many things wrong with this post, it is hard to know where to start.

The first graph's units are in metres, not km. It's not distance to target, it's distance from the intended target that the missile strikes (in metres). That graph shows accuracy, not distance.

The second graph shows payload (ie, fuel required) to travel a certain distance.

You are mistaking payload (weight) with yield (explosive power). They are not at all the same.

Like... understanding fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about, but there are so many things wrong with this post, it is hard to know where to start.

The first graph's units are in metres, not km. It's not distance to target, it's distance from the intended target that the missile strikes (in metres). That graph shows accuracy, not distance.

The second graph shows payload (ie, fuel required) to travel a certain distance.

You are mistaking payload (weight) with yield (explosive power). They are not at all the same.

Like... understanding fail.

Dunno about that, but he refuses to even acknowledge that ballistic missiles don't have to be nuclear, but rather insisting that Iranian efforts "must be!" all about nuclear weapons delivery, so they "must be!" developing nukes, somewhere, somehow, in some sekrit mooslim way.

Mostly, I think that the Neocons & the Israelis are projecting what they'd do if they were the Iranians, which would be to get nukes...

 

[Craig234]

Actually it was Ford who made the executive order making political killings illegal. Putting out 'kill or capture' notices in Iraq was legal since it is considered a wartime operation... yes, military targets.

In the mid-1970's, journalist Seymour Hersh wrote about the CIA's 'family jewels' exposing out of control assassination activities, leading to the Church hearings, with which the CIA Director, William Colby, cooperated with Congress, horrifying Republican politicians. This led to Ford's 'Halloween Massacre', in which he got rid of 'moderate' politicians - which included replacing Colby with the politically reliable George W. Bush as CIA Director. (Changes were organized by chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld, who moved himself to Secretary of Defense and brought his closest ally to replace him as chief of staff: Dick Cheney. Yes, a lot of our country's problems for decades happened with those changes).

After the Church hearings, Ford issued an executive order banning 'politicial assassinations'. Carter passed a stronger one to cover 'indirect involvement' in political assassinations.

But it was Reagan who issued the stronger order in December 1981, 12333, which said:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. "

Starting in 1998, though (Clinton), the order was 're-interpreted' as to all assassinations if 'terrorism' was involved.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about, but there are so many things wrong with this post, it is hard to know where to start.

The first graph's units are in metres, not km. It's not distance to target, it's distance from the intended target that the missile strikes (in metres). That graph shows accuracy, not distance.

The second graph shows payload (ie, fuel required) to travel a certain distance.

You are mistaking payload (weight) with yield (explosive power). They are not at all the same.

Like... understanding fail.

I'm not even going to waste my time replying to this serious. Can someone please explain to this guy what PAYLOAD means because he's clueless. Yes they put FUEL on the front of a missile. I think that fail of yours = stupidity.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

In the mid-1970's, journalist Seymour Hersh wrote about the CIA's 'family jewels' exposing out of control assassination activities, leading to the Church hearings, with which the CIA Director, William Colby, cooperated with Congress, horrifying Republican politicians. This led to Ford's 'Halloween Massacre', in which he got rid of 'moderate' politicians - which included replacing Colby with the politically reliable George W. Bush as CIA Director. (Changes were organized by chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld, who moved himself to Secretary of Defense and brought his closest ally to replace him as chief of staff: Dick Cheney. Yes, a lot of our country's problems for decades happened with those changes).

After the Church hearings, Ford issued an executive order banning 'politicial assassinations'. Carter passed a stronger one to cover 'indirect involvement' in political assassinations.

But it was Reagan who issued the stronger order in December 1981, 12333, which said:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. "

Starting in 1998, though (Clinton), the order was 're-interpreted' as to all assassinations if 'terrorism' was involved.

Serious. Do you know what military ineffective means??????
http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/Missiles_Iran_ACAbriefing_Nov22_10_Elleman.ppt

 

[silverpig]

I'm not even going to waste my time replying to this serious. Can someone please explain to this guy what PAYLOAD means because he's clueless. Yes they put FUEL on the front of a missile. I think that fail of yours = stupidity.

Uh, no.

Payload means non-fuel weight. In a missile like this, it's "the bomb". You put a 500 kg bomb on the missile and it can fly farther than if you put a 1500 kg bomb on the missile. This makes perfect sense.

If payload included fuel, then you would see the opposite - range would go UP with payload. Look at the Saturn V rocket - tons of fuel, huge range. Look at a bottle rocket - very little fuel, tiny range.

An atomic bomb doesn't have 300,000 tons of payload. You're not sending 300,000 tons of stuff on a missile, anywhere. 300 kT refers to the explosive yield of the weapon expressed in equivalence to a certain mass of TNT. A nuke warhead weighs probably several hundred kg, yet explodes with the same energy as several hundred thousand tons of TNT. The yield is 300 kT, but the payload is around 300 kg.

All your units are wrong for the other graphs and they show completely different things that what you are talking about.

 

[kylebisme]

I'm not even going to waste my time replying to this serious. Can someone please explain to this guy what PAYLOAD means because he's clueless. Yes they put FUEL on the front of a missile. I think that fail of yours = stupidity.

He is wrong about what the payload is (It's actually what is being delivered, the warhead(s) in the case of a ballistic missile), but right about everything else. What you were claiming is distance in kilometers in the first graph actually shows "Kill Probably vs Accuracy", as it says right in it's tittle. More specifically, X axis doesn't refer to kilometers, and rather is clearly labeled as "CEP[m]", which a few moments with Google reveals is circular error probable and a bit of common sense reveals the "[m]" bit specifies meters. Such flagrant misreadings of the images you cite continue throughout the post, which leaves me to wonder: what is your source for those graphs and your misguided understanding off them?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Anyways lets move on

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 09, 2010

Fact Sheet on the new UN Security Council Sanctions on Iran

Earlier today, in response to Iran&#8217;s continued refusal to comply with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, imposing a strong, broad-based new set of sanctions on Iran.

Resolution 1929 increases the cost to Iran's leadership of their continued defiance of the international community, and aims to persuade Iran that it is in its interest to peacefully resolve concerns about its nuclear program. The Resolution builds on three previous rounds of UN sanctions on Iran by strengthening and expanding existing measures and breaking ground in several new areas. It is a clear and strong response to Iran's refusal to address international concerns over its nuclear program.

This resolution complements our diplomatic efforts to engage Iran. We will continue to work with our international partners to forge a peaceful solution. The United States remains open to dialogue, but Iran must live up to its obligations and clearly demonstrate to the international community the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities.

These sanctions have been carefully designed to target those individuals and entities that are most responsible for Iran's nuclear program. They are not intended to hurt the people of Iran.

What does the resolution do?

The resolution restates the Security Council's longstanding demand that Iran's suspend its enrichment program and other proscribed nuclear activities. It also highlights and clarifies Iran's existing obligations to accept and facilitate the implementation of rigorous international safeguards on its nuclear program.

The resolution imposes a series of new sanctions that will increase the cost to Iran's leaders of their current irresponsible policies. These measures include:

1. Ban on Iranian certain nuclear and missile investment abroad. Iran is prohibited from investing in sensitive nuclear activities abroad, like uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, where it could acquire nuclear technology and know-how, as well as activities involving ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The ban also applies to investment in uranium mining.

2. Conventional arms ban. States are prohibited from selling or in any way transferring to Iran eight broad categories of heavy weapons (battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems). States are similarly prohibited from providing technical or financial assistance for such systems, or spare parts. States are also to exercise vigilance and restraint in supplying any other arms or related materiel to Iran.

3. Ban on ballistic missile activities. Iran is prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons and States are required to take all necessary measure to prevent the transfer of related technology or technical assistance.

4. Additional items banned for transfer. The resolution updates and adds to the list of technical items related to nuclear and missile proliferation that are banned for transfer to and from Iran.

5. New cargo inspection framework. Iran is subject to a new regime for inspection of suspicious cargo to detect and stop Iran's smuggling. States should inspect any vessel on their territory suspected of carrying prohibited cargo, including banned conventional arms or sensitive nuclear or missile items. States are also expected to cooperate in such inspections on the high seas.

6. New procedures to deal with contraband items. Once prohibited items are found, States are now obligated to seize and dispose of the items.

7. Ban on bunkering services. States are required not to provide critical support services (e.g., fuel, water) to ships suspected of carrying prohibited cargo.

8. Measures to restrict the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and Iran Air's cargo division. States must require their nationals to exercise vigilance over IRISL, a known sanctions violator. Three IRISL-related companies will have their assets frozen. States are requested to report any information on activities by IRISL and Iran's Air's cargo division to evade sanctions, including by renaming vessels.

9. New tools to block proliferation finance. States are called upon to prevent any financial service -- including insurance or reinsurance -- and freeze any asset that could contribute to Iran's proliferation. This broad language will help states take action when there are suspected financial links to Iran's banned nuclear activities.

10. Vigilance over all Iran's companies. States are required to ensure their nationals exercise vigilance when doing business with any Iranian firm, including IRGC and IRISL, to make sure such business does not contribute to Iran's proliferation.

11. New banking measures. States are called upon to prohibit on their territories new banking relationships with Iran, including the opening of any new branches of Iranian banks, joint ventures and correspondent banking relationships, if there is a suspected link to proliferation. States also should prohibit their own financial institutions from opening branches in Iran if there is a suspected link to proliferation.

12. New measures to limit the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The resolution highlights the IRGC's role in proliferation and requires states to mandate that businesses exercise vigilance over all transactions involving the IRGC. Fifteen IRGC-related companies linked to proliferation will have their assets frozen.

13. Targeted sanctions on specific individuals and entities. Forty Iranian companies and one individual will be subject to an asset freeze. The individual -- the head of a critical nuclear research program -- will also be subject to a travel ban. Thirty-five additional individuals previously subject to "travel vigilance" will now be subject to a travel ban.

14. Appointment of a UN sanctions monitoring panel. A UN "Panel of Experts" will be established to monitor states' implementation of the sanctions, report on sanctions violations and recommend ways to continually improve enforcement.

In addition to imposing these sanctions, the resolution highlights the potential linkage between Iran's energy sector revenues and procurement and its nuclear activities and proliferation. It also stresses the need to exercise vigilance over all Iranian banks -- specifically including the Central Bank of Iran -- to prevent proliferation-related transactions.

The resolution reaffirms the international community's willingness to resolve international concerns over Iran's nuclear program through negotiations, while laying out the steps that Iran must take to restore international confidence in its nuclear program, thereby allowing for the suspension or termination of these sanctions.

Then heres part of the Original report from the security council

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Report by the Director General

Summary

While the Agency continues to conduct verification activities under Iran&#8217;s Safeguards Agreement, Iran is not implementing a number of its obligations, including: implementation of the provisions of its Additional Protocol; implementation of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment related activities; suspension of heavy water related
activities; and addressing the Agency&#8217;s concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran&#8217;s nuclear
programme.

51. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

52. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

So did they declare everything?

What about his site

Information on an Iranian regime strategic secret nuclear enrichment site at Behjatabad-Abyek

Presented by Soona Samsami and Alireza Jafarzadeh

Soona Samsami was US Representative of National Council of Resistance of Iran until August 2003; She first exposed the Kala Electric nuclear site near Tehran in February 2003.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, author of The Iran Threat, was media spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran in the United States until August 2003. Jafarzadeh exposed the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and heavy water facility in Arak in August 2002 which triggered the IAEA inspection of Iranian sites since 2003.

Today, according to information obtained by Iran 's main opposition, the People&#8217;s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), we would like to make public for the first time exclusive details on a major top-secret and strategic nuclear enrichment site in the town of Abyek, 120 kilometers west of the Iranian capital, Tehran . The Behjatabad-Abyek nuclear enrichment site is code-named 311, and is near Qazvin.

The details on this site were made possible by the several-year of extensive and vigilant investigation, research and intelligence work by the internal network of the PMOI. The work, as complicated as it has been entailed serious risks and danger for the sources.

The construction of this site began in early (February or March) 2005 and 85 percent of the construction work on it has been completed. The site is built deep inside mountains to withstand aerial bombings and confirms that the regime is in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons and will in no way abandon it.

The Armed Forces General Headquarters, headed by Major General Hassan Firouz-Abadi, and the Ministry of Defense, headed by Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, have embarked on building this new secret site, located between the cities of Abyek and Qazvin . The project began under the former Minister of Defense who is currently Minister of the Interior, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar

Agencies involved in the construction of the sites:

The Armed Forces&#8217; General Headquarters has set up an extensive organization to construct underground secret site. The head of this organization is Brig. Gen. Jalali, Deputy Commander of the Passive Defense forces for the Armed Forces. Brig. Gen. Tabatabi, his deputy, oversees the day-to-day operations. Brig. Gen. Jalali is Deputy to Major General Hassan Firouz-Abadi, the Commander of the Armed Forces&#8217; General Headquarters.
The AFGH has tasked the MoD and the IRGC&#8217;s engineering directorates with constructing secret tunnels. The Aero-space Engineering Directorate headed by Brig. Gen. Nasrollahi-Zadeh is the executive director of the project in Abyek. The official directly responsible to implement the plan is Brig. Gen. Abolqassem Amiri, who is Nasrollahi-Zadeh&#8217;s deputy.
The AFGH and the MoD have set up a series of companies to construct the tunnels. &#8220;Pars Garma [Heat] Company is a MoD subsidiary and responsible for excavating and drilling the tunnels and constructing the underground centers. The company has set up a workshop in Abyek region to advance the work on the project.
In addition to Pars Garma, Shams Omran Company, which is another MoD front company, is working on the building of the underground facilities in the site. Hamidreza Moniri Abyaneh is the head of this company. The company has transferred many of the experts and technicians who worked on Qom &#8217;s Fardow site to this site to use their expertise. This company was also involved in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor.
In early 2005, the Ministry of Defense began building this site, but the work has proceeded slowly. One reason was the geology of the land, which made the drill of the tunnels very difficult. The ground in this area is hard and includes volcano-type rocky area. Another reason has been the extreme security measure adopted to avoid detection.

Security measures:

All commute to the site is controlled by the Armed Forces Counter-Intelligence Department in Tehran . Even MoD officers are not allowed to enter the site.
All maps, blueprints and plans for the site have been removed from the computers of the engineers who were involved in drafting the plans and building the site. The Counter-Intelligence Department has them stored in its top-secret archives.
Due to the sensitivity of the project, all those involved in the work on this project are kept uninformed as to which MoD agency will be using this site.

Environmental impact:

The constant use of the Behjatabad village road by heavy 50-ton trucks has destroyed the pavement and has angered the local people.
Large areas of land that belong to the villagers have also been confiscated by the MoD, which has aroused opposition from the population. The MoD has also seized parcels of land around Todaran village which originally belonged to the Agency for Environmental Protection. (The area has a very small population).
Because of the drilling inside the mountain, the rocks that are turned into powder enter the springs in the area, which contaminate the water, turning it into a milky-like thick liquid that has damaged all the gardens in Tazeh Abad and Jazmeh villages. Because of its cement-like quality, all trees have been affected by it. (Two rivers adjacent to the two villages can be seen in the satellite imagery).
Todaran villagers have been contemplating taking legal action, which the MoD&#8217;s legal department is trying to avert.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2010/iran-100909-spc01.htm

I mean seriously hell what are they hiding here? Do they think the US and Israel is that stupid and they can hide from a Satelite?

I mean serious people if you really want to look into a issue its not hard to find info about it. Reading what some newspaper said doesn't give you a behind the scenes look you have to go lift your arse and find it yourself

For the Original reports from the Security council on Iran you can find here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2011/index.html

For Press Obama on the Defense Strastegic Review you can find here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/01/mil-120105-whitehouse01.htm

Foreign Spies Stealing US Economic Secrets in Cyberspace Orignal report to congress you can find here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2011/foreign-economic-collection_2011.htm

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Uh, no.

Payload means non-fuel weight. In a missile like this, it's "the bomb". You put a 500 kg bomb on the missile and it can fly farther than if you put a 1500 kg bomb on the missile. This makes perfect sense.

If payload included fuel, then you would see the opposite - range would go UP with payload. Look at the Saturn V rocket - tons of fuel, huge range. Look at a bottle rocket - very little fuel, tiny range.

An atomic bomb doesn't have 300,000 tons of payload. You're not sending 300,000 tons of stuff on a missile, anywhere. 300 kT refers to the explosive yield of the weapon expressed in equivalence to a certain mass of TNT. A nuke warhead weighs probably several hundred kg, yet explodes with the same energy as several hundred thousand tons of TNT. The yield is 300 kT, but the payload is around 300 kg.

All your units are wrong for the other graphs and they show completely different things that what you are talking about.

I rest my case
/Insert *face palm pic here

 

[kylebisme]

Uh, no.

Payload means non-fuel weight. In a missile like this, it's "the bomb".

Right, where you in your previous post you said:

The second graph shows payload (ie, fuel required) to travel a certain distance.

Which your more recent post shows was obviously just a misstatement rather than a misunderstanding, but then Lui's "Yes they put FUEL on the front of a missile" was obviously just an attempt at sarcasm, albeit a poorly constructed one.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

He is wrong about what the payload is (It's actually what is being delivered, the warhead(s) in the case of a ballistic missile), but right about everything else. What you were claiming is distance in kilometers in the first graph actually shows "Kill Probably vs Accuracy", as it says right in it's tittle. More specifically, X axis doesn't refer to kilometers, and rather is clearly labeled as "CEP[m]", which a few moments with Google reveals is circular error probable and a bit of common sense reveals the "[m]" bit specifies meters. Such flagrant misreadings of the images you cite continue throughout the post, which leaves me to wonder: what is your source for those graphs and your misguided understanding off them?

Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
Look at the 2nd picture. Payload at the side and underneat it says????????????? Km! Again Km
Stop being ignorant and read that ppt document I linked. Thats a official report.

Those pictures have some stuff missing that didnt come out when it was converted. In the document you can see clearly what it means. Here it is again
http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/Missiles_Iran_ACAbriefing_Nov22_10_Elleman.ppt

 

[silverpig]

Right, where you in your previous post you said:


Which your more recent post shows was obviously just a misstatement rather than a misunderstanding, but then Lui's "Yes they put FUEL on the front of a missile" was obviously just an attempt at sarcasm, albeit a poorly constructed one.

Yeah I was writing a few things at once and chopped up and edited that post a few times. I didn't even reference it when I wrote the follow up.

Although, in my defense, payload and fuel required are quite linked

It still doesn't matter as he got everything in his post wrong, and not by a misstatement.

 

[kylebisme]

Look at the 2nd picture.

Look at what I said, and pay particular attention to what I've now bolded:

What you were claiming is distance in kilometers in the first graph actually shows "Kill Probably vs Accuracy", as it says right in it's tittle. More specifically, X axis doesn't refer to kilometers, and rather is clearly labeled as "CEP[m]", which a few moments with Google reveals is circular error probable and a bit of common sense reveals the "[m]" bit specifies meters.

As for the second graph, it doesn't show "the payload the missile needs to be effective at that range" that you claim, but rather describes how when "You put a 500 kg bomb on the missile and it can fly farther than if you put a 1500 kg bomb on the missile", as Silverpig explained.

Stop being ignorant and read that ppt document I linked. Thats a official report.

A collection of slides isn't the same thing as a report, and the PowerPoint document you linked is from a private thinktank rather than any official body. It also doesn't contain any of the graphs you posted here (though one is similar), nor does it say a word about nukes. So, I'm still left to wonder: what is your source for those graphs and your misguided understanding off them?

 

[silverpig]

Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
Look at the 2nd picture. Payload at the side and underneat it says????????????? Km! Again Km
Stop being ignorant and read that ppt document I linked. Thats a official report.

Those pictures have some stuff missing that didnt come out when it was converted. In the document you can see clearly what it means. Here it is again
http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/Missiles_Iran_ACAbriefing_Nov22_10_Elleman.ppt

Sajjil missile performance with distance vs payload
Do you see the payload the missile needs to be effective at that range? At 2000km's it needs a payload of over 2000kg's! That over 2 Tons!
Show me a missile that has a payload of 2 Tons and is small enough to fit on a bilistic missile. Show me a warhead that has that payload please. Only thing that small and that powerful is a nuke warhead. Go look it up if you want.

Your analysis of the graph is completely wrong. Yes, the graph shows range vs payload, but the way to read it isn't "at x distance it needs a payload of y to be effective". You read it as "if you are carrying a payload of x, you can only travel y km to your target."

You are still mistaking payload and yield.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah I was writing a few things at once and chopped up and edited that post a few times. I didn't even reference it when I wrote the follow up.

Although, in my defense, payload and fuel required are quite linked

It still doesn't matter as he got everything in his post wrong, and not by a misstatement.

You can say the word -- misstatement over and over it does not make it so.

You really have no clue what you are talking about!!

 

[silverpig]

You can say the word -- misstatement over and over it does not make it so.

You really have no clue what you are talking about!!

Uh, what else have I gotten wrong then? I made one mistake when writing a post while doing other things, which I've admitted and my follow up post shows I understand full well the difference between payload, yield, and fuel required. Everything else I've posted is accurate.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Your analysis of the graph is completely wrong. Yes, the graph shows range vs payload, but the way to read it isn't "at x distance it needs a payload of y to be effective". You read it as "if you are carrying a payload of x, you can only travel y km to your target."

You are still mistaking payload and yield.

No. First off all we are talking about a Long range Ballistic Missile. It's design is to have a range between 1600 to 2000km's. Stop thinking about fuel needed to travel the distance because at high altitudes a dense packed object only needs a bit of gas to get it somewhere.
We are talking about the PAYLOAD. The amount of bang needed for that missile to be effective at that range. Because its aim must be astronomically precise. Even the US missiles launched from the sea at a closer range don't hit the target spot on but because at a closer distance its a bit easier to hit the target so its more accurate.
Now what happens when you launch that missile from that range its going to land a bit off the target or do minimal damage to the target because it inaccurate and anti missile defense will take it down 9 out of 10 times.

But launch a nuclear warhead then shooting it down becomes a problem because its a armed warhead. 2nd of all when it hits for that small piece of warhead needed it have a big bang radius it can cover and a 90 percent success rate. North Korea are busy developing a nuclear ballistic missile with the exact same engine as well.

Why? Because LAUNCHING A MISSILE FROM 1600km with anything other than a non nuclear payload makes it ineffective. Not even the USA have developed a missile with a non nuclear payload to go that distance. That's why they get close with the ships.

Let me make it really simple once again
Missile + huge distances + non nuclear payload = Military Ineffective
Missile + huge distances + nuclear payload = 90 Percent success rate

Iran is the only country to develop a missile for that range without developing a nuclear missile first.

North Korea at least are honest building their.
But Iran using using the exact same engine as the North Koreans deny it. Yet they are testing their missile.

And lets not forget the fact back in November 2011 one of the top Iranian Scientist that was killed at the site I mentioned in a earlier post while fitting a warhead onto a long range ballistic missile. So tell me WTF is a long range ballistic missile doing at a Uranium enrichment site? And why are the scientist fiddling with warheads on it if they are suppose to be there for their countries power???????

If your not going to see it now or your still trying to bend something into a excuse you never will. The evidence that that there is something going on outweighs there's nothing going on.

 

[silverpig]

No. First off all we are talking about a Long range Ballistic Missile. It's design is to have a range between 1600 to 2000km's. Stop thinking about fuel needed to travel the distance because at high altitudes a dense packed object only needs a bit of gas to get it somewhere.
We are talking about the PAYLOAD. The amount of bang needed for that missile to be effective at that range. Because its aim must be astronomically precise. Even the US missiles launched from the sea at a closer range don't hit the target spot on but because at a closer distance its a bit easier to hit the target so its more accurate.
Now what happens when you launch that missile from that range its going to land a bit off the target or do minimal damage to the target because it inaccurate and anti missile defense will take it down 9 out of 10 times.

But launch a nuclear warhead then shooting it down becomes a problem because its a armed warhead. 2nd of all when it hits for that small piece of warhead needed it have a big bang radius it can cover and a 90 percent success rate. North Korea are busy developing a nuclear ballistic missile with the exact same engine as well.

Why? Because LAUNCHING A MISSILE FROM 1600km with anything other than a non nuclear payload makes it ineffective. Not even the USA have developed a missile with a non nuclear payload to go that distance. That's why they get close with the ships.

Let me make it really simple once again
Missile + huge distances + non nuclear payload = Military Ineffective
Missile + huge distances + nuclear payload = 90 Percent success rate

Iran is the only country to develop a missile for that range without developing a nuclear missile first.

North Korea at least are honest building their.
But Iran using using the exact same engine as the North Koreans deny it. Yet they are testing their missile.

And lets not forget the fact back in November 2011 one of the top Iranian Scientist that was killed at the site I mentioned in a earlier post while fitting a warhead onto a long range ballistic missile. So tell me WTF is a long range ballistic missile doing at a Uranium enrichment site? And why are the scientist fiddling with warheads on it if they are suppose to be there for their countries power???????

If your not going to see it now or your still trying to bend something into a excuse you never will. The evidence that that there is something going on outweighs there's nothing going on.

You are still mixing up payload with yield, and still have the wrong units on all of your graphs but one.

Even the percentage one is off by a factor of 100.

 

[kylebisme]

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Why? Because LAUNCHING A MISSILE FROM 1600km with anything other than a non nuclear payload makes it ineffective. Not even the USA have developed a missile with a non nuclear payload to go that distance. That's why they get close with the ships.

Let me make it really simple once again
Missile + huge distances + non nuclear payload = Military Ineffective
Missile + huge distances + nuclear payload = 90 Percent success rate

Ever heard of the Tomahawk missile? It can (and almost always does) carry a conventional payload, and it's accurate enough to be used with a non-nuclear warhead.

It's been used many times on targets without problems.

 

[silverpig]

Ever heard of the Tomahawk missile? It can (and almost always does) carry a conventional payload, and it's accurate enough to be used with a non-nuclear warhead.

It's been used many times on targets without problems.

I was about to make that point, but the Tomahawk is a cruise missile, not ballistic.

 

[umbrella39]

Feed not the troll...

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Look at what I said, and pay particular attention to what I've now bolded:



As for the second graph, it doesn't show "the payload the missile needs to be effective at that range" that you claim, but rather describes how when "You put a 500 kg bomb on the missile and it can fly farther than if you put a 1500 kg bomb on the missile", as Silverpig explained.


A collection of slides isn't the same thing as a report, and the PowerPoint document you linked is from a private thinktank rather than any official body. It also doesn't contain any of the graphs you posted here (though one is similar), nor does it say a word about nukes. So, I'm still left to wonder: what is your source for those graphs and your misguided understanding off them?

I think your are blind because that's where I got the graphs from.