I hate to do this because its going to bring out the ultra-militant 'Nuke Iran' wingnuts, but here it is anyway. This missile program is IMO sufficient evidence that if they aren't working on nukes right now, they plan to real soon. Long range ballistic missiles aren't cost effective without nuclear warheads. source [rquoter] Iran builds new longer-range missile TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran announced on Tuesday that it has built a new missile with a range sufficient to put Israel and US bases in the Middle East within easy reach, amid rising tensions over Tehran's contested nuclear drive. Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said the new "Ashura" missile had a range of 2,000 kilometres (1,240 miles) -- the farthest in Iran's arsenal, state media reported. "The construction of the Ashura missile with a range of 2,000 kilometres is one of the accomplishments of the ministry of defence," Iranian news agencies quoted Najjar as saying. "The missiles are being made in line with Iran's deterrent and defence doctrine," he added. However, there has been considerable confusion in recent months about the capacities of Iran's longer-range missiles, seen by experts as one of its chief military assets. At its main military parade in September, Iran unveiled the Ghadr-1 (Power), which was said to have a range of 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles). The country's best-known longer-range missile, the Shahab-3, has been said by officials in the past to have a range of 2,000 kilometres. Yet at the military parade it was said to have only a 1,300-kilometre (800-mile) range. Some Western military experts claimed that the Ghadr-1 was no more than a Shahab-3 under a different name. It has the "baby bottle" style nose for extra aerodynamic efficiency seen on versions of the Shahab-3. The agencies did not publish any pictures of the Ashura, which is named after the holy mourning ceremony marking the death of Shiite Imam Hossein. Najjar added to the confusion on Tuesday by saying Iran was developing Ghadr missiles that would also have a range of 2,000 kilometres. Iran has regularly touted the abilities of its missiles at a time of mounting tension with the West over its nuclear programme. France, which has in recent months expressed increasing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, said it was worried by the new longer-range missile. "This news is a cause of concern for us, and it illustrates the need to be extremely vigilant with regard to Iran's actions and intentions," foreign ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani told reporters. Najjar also announced that Iran had developed a new submarine named "Ghadir" after another holy day and a destroyer called "Moj" (wave), without giving further details. The United States has never ruled out a military attack against Iran to punish its years of defiance in the nuclear crisis, even though Washington says it favours resolving the standoff through diplomacy. Tehran has said it will never initiate any attack but has also warned it will strike back with crushing force if the United States launches an assault. Iranian military officials have publicly threatened to hit US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and on the Arabian peninsula with their missiles if Washington attacks. "Iran will never launch an attack but if Iran is attacked we will respond with all our force against aggressors," Najjar was quoted as saying. The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jarari echoed that on Tuesday, adding that Tehran had "other capabilities that we believe it is our right to use throughout the region and also around the world." In remarks on state-owned Press TV, he said "we think there is a possibility of air campaign against a number of special sites ... but if our enemies are wise, they will never even do that." Without elaborating, he said that with the "same strategies" used by Hezbollah in the Lebanese Shiite movements summer war with Israel last year "we can nullify their (US) military superiority. "Keep in mind that they are stationed near Iran's borders and well within the range of our different weapons." The United States accuses Iran of trying to develop a nuclear weapon, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies. It has also vowed never to recognise Israel -- the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power -- and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the Jewish state to be "wiped from the map." Iran is one of the few regional powers absent from a US-hosted meeting in Annapolis, Maryland that aims to kickstart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Iranian officials have expressed frustration that states such as Saudi Arabia and its ally Syria are attending the meeting. [/rquoter]
"Long range ballistic missiles aren't cost effective without nuclear warheads." What do you mean by that?
Destructive power vs. cost of the missile system -- nuclear weapons give you a lot more bang for the buck.
so what do you think would be an effective approach, given that, by your own admission, iran is lying about it's nuclear ambitions? or do think a nuclear iran w/ long range missiles is acceptable?
If you pay $2,000,000 to build and launch a missle that delivers a 1000 pound bomb, you are hurting yourself (in terms of expended goods) worse than the people you are shooting at (in terms of damage inflicted). Lots of cost with little damage is not a good weapon.
So should I assume that you think we should nuke Iran? If you decide you need to attack Iran, you need to position yourself so that they can't hurt you right back worse than you hurt them. The first thing, though, is I would publicly declare in the UN that the US would consider the development of a nuclear arsenal by Iran to be a causus belli tantamount to the use of that nuclear weapon on the continental USA. Then I'd plan on how I can kick them in the groin without getting my lights punched out in return.
Well, the alternative is to hit nothing at all. Therefore in economics, this ballistic missile is a inelastic good in which price/cost doesn't matter as much as you think
What kind of logic is this? The proposed missile only has 1100 miles range. There is no way they can do anything to Continental US (well, not even Hawaii). How come we can live with nuclear-armed and ICBM-ready China and Russia but not Iran???
No, nothing at all is a better option. This is a net loss. And I'm sorry, but price/cost matters a whole lot more than you think.
It depends on what they think is of value to them. So if they think having that kind of capability can work as a deterrent, then there is value to them. Or maybe the mullahs just want toys to feed their egos. Your only place value on weapon destruction, then of course you don't understand what they are thinking. Plus, there is no treaty to limit development of ballistic missile. Can you tell me what Iran did wrong to develop these missiles?
They have an absolute value of destruction. Analyzing them on any other metric is not wise. You can't assume that they are too stupid, lazy, or crazy to legitimately judge the value of their assets in military terms. In your own words: source
Well we oftentimes shoot a missile or use expensive bombers to destroy, mud huts, tents or guys riding on camels. How does your logic apply to the use of US military force? Of course I guess you can argue from an economic standpoint that Bush-Cheney or buds can benefit economically If we shoot a cruise missile at a guy on a camel, it does lead to the profit, at the taxpayer's expense, of replacing the missile.
Although I support US to have double standard but it depends on whether doing so is beneficial to the US. If the cost of preventing Iran from getting nuke is war, then I am against it because doing so has costs outweigh benefits based on my assessment. Apparently, your assessment is the opposite of me.
Surely nobody actually believes those morons in Iran that they are simply interested in nuclear energy. Well at least they don't have any homosexuals in Iran.
I think that being clear that you are willing to go to war to prevent it will hopefuly be enough to prevent said war from happening. That, really, is the point of being very clear and forward about it. It is a better option than sitting back until you feel boxed in and then attacking them with no warning. I think a war is a bad idea, but it seems fairly clear to me based on everything that I've heard and seen that 'doing nothing while Iran develops nuclear weapons' is not an option that is being considered.
Everyone run for your lives. Those dreaded Iranian boogey men are going to ruin us all. We are all in grave danger from them. Save yourselves quickly! I'm not poking fun at your article at all, just some of the reactions in the thread. There has been so much crying wolf not just from this administration, but really as part of the Cold War as well. The whole Iranian thing reeks of so much hype. I'm not fan of the Iranian govt. at all, and would love to see huge changes made to that nation's govt. But forgive me if I don't get particularly alarmed about anything their doing right now.
