Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously, a development that raised concerns in the United States and Israel. The Fajr-3, which means "victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, Iranian state media indicated. The announcement of the test-firing is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions. "I think it demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military program under way," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said in Washington. "I think Iran's military posture, military development effort, is of concern to the international community." Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying how far it can travel depends on the weight of its warheads. But state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" — suggesting it is of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which can travel about 1,200 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region. "Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Salami said on television, which showed a brief clip of the missile's launch. "It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," the general said. He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely. "This news causes much concern, and that concern is shared by many countries in the international community, about Iran's aggressive nuclear weapons program and her parallel efforts to develop delivery systems, both in the field of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. "The combination of extremist jihadist ideology, together with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is a combination that no one in the international community can be complacent about," Regev said. Yossi Alpher, an Israeli consultant on the Mideast peace process, said the news "escalates the arms race between Iran and all those who are concerned about Iran's aggressive intentions and nuclear potential." "Clearly it's escalation, and also an attempt by Iran to flex its muscles as it goes into a new phase of the diplomatic struggle with the U.N. Security Council." Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of which could be directed to a different target. "From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said. "But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said. "If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way," he added. "But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years." Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called Shahab-3, which means "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Israel and the United States have jointly developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to the Shahab-3. Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane. Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military. Salami, the Revolutionary Guards general, said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships. The tests come amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear program. The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its nuclear program is for generating electricity. The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible."
Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously ___________________
Good for Iran. As more countries have capable missile warheads and especially nuclear capabilities, the world will become a safer place, due to the upkeep of the balance of power.
the assumption that states would give their resources to fringe terrorist groups who they probably can't control is unsubstantiated.
Yes, but (1) the idea that states would <B>sell</B> their resources to terrorist groups is perfectly reasonable, especially as non super-powers gain more access to this stuff. We already know multiple states (Pakistan, China, North Korea) have sold various aspects of their nuclear technology. We also know that North Korea is dirt poor and their #1 export is weapons and weapons technology. It's not a reach to think they could or would sell that technology to a terrorist group if they have the primary financing. (2) Al Queda is not a fringe terrorist group. It has funding, organization, and credibility. Power brokers in countries such as Saudi Arabia are happy to finance nuclear purchases in the right scenarios. (3) Theories of MAD or balance of power involve top-tier nation states with rational leaders and the idea that they hope to maintain their place in the world. Countries such as North Korea won't necessarily fit that model as it collapses from the inside. The #1 reason we are partnering with Pakistan instead of simply going in and doing our thing is to prevent an Islamic coup that would put nuclear weapons in the hands of people who don't function based on these principles. Iran could be in a similar situation with a future change in leadership.
A regional conflict through pre-emption would flatten these states before any balance is reached. I'm not even assuming the US as Israel and even Russia and Europe have a stake of not letting Iran's mullahs own nukes and continental delivery systems.
Wow Now you are calling the Saudi government terrorists Tust me they have too many problems of their own to be thinking of buying nuclear weapons. They havn't discovered new oil reserves for a while now, within 20-25years that country will have nothing to show for their blessings. Only recently have they started to branch out into other economic ventures. A little too late in my opinion.
Iran has invested heavily in it's indigenious Missel program. they know that there Air force or there army dosent have any offensive military strengths but they have heavily bolsterd there missel program to combat that. whats even more impressive is all this missel are built by iranian's.
Let's see, there are less than 20M Saudis, and they pull in $200B+/yr in oil revenues which will likely increase w/ the prices of oil over the next 20-25 years, and they already have quite a bit o' cash saved up. I would think that they're in an 'ok' spot.
This is what happens when you let Israel have all the weapons including nuclear weapons and then try to make sure others in the same area do not. A better option would be for NO ONE to have any weapons. Any country to go after another country gets taken out by international community. Our current biased policies is going to wipe out that entire region off the map sometime in the future. And who will be the biggest sufferers? Innocent people on both sides of course, who had nothing to do with the policies in the first place.
When's the last time Iran was involved in Terrorist acts? A honest question to back up your response.
But you gotta admit, oil companies and defense firms will make a killing. Yay for policies claiming economic and national security.
No it's not, it's idiotic. A nuclear weapon is not an AK-47, it's not a stinger missile, it's an extremely valuable and an extremely costly weapon that no state has nor will ever pass on cheaply to some third party over which they have no control or say as to how it's used. That's the dumbest assertion ever, I don't care if it's Iran or someone else. The scenario that's more feasible (yet still extremely unlikely) is if some rogue officers in Russia sell a nuclear warhead on the black market, but that too has very little chance of happening. When the Saudis want nukes, they will get 'em for themselves, they won't hand 'em over to an organization whose leader has declared as his primary objective the overthrow of the House of Saud. LOL! Good one, Major.
sure but to other states. not toterrorist groups. sharing nuclear technology between pakistan and iran is similar to the exchange of technology of virtually all aspects of nuclear programs between britain and america. saudi arabia wont be able to have a nuke for decades. and iran and al qaida dont exactly get along either. remember al qaida for the most part is of the wahabist saudi islam which for the most part considers iranian shia'ism to be heretical. given that we emphasize the religious leanings of these countries/terrorist organizations we should use them in these discussions too. the reason why pakistan got nukes was balance of power and nuclear deterrence. bhutto knew pakistan couldn't compete in a conventional buildup with india so by having nukes theoretically you dont have to spend as much on conventional warfare. and cohen believe me im not fan of the current fellow in charge in iran. but the fact is that his role is severely limited in anything serious. we all know this. this is why khatami couldn't get anything done. and khamenei is still the supreme leader and he has said nothing to think that he'd work with terrorist groups (outside of hezbollah/hamas). larijani is the nuclear guy and he's a typical hardliner with little to gain from sharing this stuff. ideally it would be grand if no one had nukes. but the hypocrisy of the nuclear nations is absurd. especially given the current deals that the US is making with india. and essentially overlooking pakistan's program.
I don't think you understand (the government system is a little different from that of the U.S ). The Saudi's have spent heavily! in the past. They can not survive for long after their oil reserves have been depleted. When you don’t have many revenue streams and are solely reliant on one major resource, I think you will be a little worried when it’s drying up on you. I really don’t know how informed you are about Saudi, but from what I hear they are investing heavily in other industries in order to create additional revenue streams.
Do terrorist acts against Iran count? Then this is a pretty good one US Navy shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing all 290 aboard
A good point. Right before 9/11, Iran was very close to going to war with the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies.
