Spy photos reveal 'secret launch site' for Iran's long-range missiles

[sabra]

Source: UK Sunday Times

The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.

...

Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane's Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3724048.ece

---

Can you hear those drums? BANG BANG BANG!

[JDPriestly]

1. I fell for it when Bush lied about Iraq. I'm skeptical this time.

I will wait until a Democratic president tells me Iran has missile sites. I do not trust Bush. I do not trust McCain.

[SpikeTss]

13. And Iran can't have long-range missile sites ... because?

WE are the ones who are threatening Iran, not the other way around.
Iran can take any measures it wants to protect itself I think.

[InfiniteNether]

20. Don't make that mistake. Think LBJ and Gulf of Tonkin.

[ReformedChris]

78. BINGO! (D) or (R) dosent matter when the POTUS is getting fed bad Intel or the drums of war beat

Good Men or Women can get pushed into war. President McKinley fell for the sensationalist reporting and massive public outcry that led to a war with Spain he had no desire to fight. LBJ tarnished his legendary presidency by pushing forward with the war in Vietnam. First Term Presidents have two goals 1: Get Re-Elected 2: Create a Legacy. War has a funny ability to do both of those things. I have faith Obama or Clinton will follow their common sense and know this Iran situation is being drummed up by the Neo-Con machine. But we never know what can happen.

[Thothmes]

62. May be like

trusting LBJ about the Gulf of Tonkin

[saigon68]

89. ~

[calimary]

2. Oh Geez... here we go...

Yes. I can hear those drums. They're damn near deafening.

:scared:

[mike_c]

3. and look, right there-- that's where they make the anthrax, just like...

...the white powder in THIS vial....

[Pavulon]

4. The sites are irrelevant

if they have a weapon that can be carried and yield over 200kt is all that matters.

If they do then there is a different set of rules. However ,then they are sitting at the adults table with nations that can remove all life from that nation in less than 30 minutes.

North Korea has had a few problems with long range rockets, breaking up in flight and nuclear fizzles.

The trident D5 and W8x warhead do not suffer that problem. They have no interest in that game.

[ronnie624]

23. Yeah! Our dick is bigger than theirs.

So, there!

[Pavulon]

41. No you missed the point all together

that unless they have a launchable nuclear weapon this is not a WMD issue at all. This is a missile issue.

Now if they pop off a test like N. Korea, there is a different issue.

Unless they have SLBM capability, which they do not, it is a fixed site. They are not moving it.

The point is that they are subject to a new set of rules once (IF!) they a become a nuclear power.

They are then dealing with many nuclear powers, like the French or Russia, who may not want to be within range of their weapon.

All that is probably irrelevant because no concrete proof exists about their program.

[ronnie624]

45. I was responding to the only coherent point in your message:

We're bigger and more powerful than they are. We're the "adults", so they better listen up and do as their told.

Characteristically, you start going on about missiles and nuclear weapons, as if the conflict with Iran isn't really about control of key resources. You buy into the establishment propaganda, and center your world view around it.

It's the U.S. that attempts to violate Iran's sovereignty, not France And Russia. They've been doing business all along. Russia is, in fact, helping Iran build its nuclear power plants. France and Russia seem to be attempting to thwart U.S. designs at every opportunity.

I think the U.S. is pretty much alone at the "adults table".

[Pavulon]

47. Missed again

There is no conflict in Iran, none. There have been several shooting events with iran since the revolution. They range in size from small boat stuff to a full on naval battle.

However the point is that the pictures are NOT TIED TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS. If they did buy a copy of the 3 stage big dong ill missile from the N. Koreans they still have to make it work.

That has not happened. Then they have to design a deliverable implosion bomb. Not all that easy. They would really need to deliver a two stage weapon because they cant afford to run the testing required to work from a single stage fission bomb to a two stage fusion weapon before the world cut them off. That is almost impossible.

After all that they then have to deal with the change in rules for nuclear powers. We are not the only nuclear power who has interest in non proliferation.

All those nations backed sanctions. None of those nuclear powers want the increased probability of a Nuclear War.

Russia is not selling them heu, they are not selling them SS-25 missiles. Russia has no interest in a nuclear Iran.

Note after their fizzle the N. Koreans are not shooting missiles over japan or towards Hawaii. Remember the shit they pulled during a shuttle launch? No more of that. There is a very good reason for that.

This is not a funny thing, it is not a joke. The N. Koreans are now assumed to be a nuclear state. Any missile that fires with no notice will be detected within a few seconds by a heat ploom. Radar based on land and space will begin calculating its trajectory. If it is determined to be headed to Japan or our west coast the process will begin to authorize firing SLBMs that are certainly in the area. Those targets are already planned and sitting on paper in an Ohio class sub. If the missile does not break up the US will fire Trident D5 missiles into N. Korea. They will fly for 15 minutes or less and then kill tens of millions of people. They do not recall, they do not fail.

As sure as the sun rises that is the response when a nuclear state fires an ICBM at another nuclear state. China and Russia would act in the same manner.

Anything that can be done to lessen the chance of a Nuclear War is a great thing.

That is the adults table, every nuclear power follows those rules.

[ronnie624]

49. I said conflict WITH Iran, not IN Iran.

The remainder if your message is.....interesting.

[katsy]

5. Oh yeah!

Those launch sites are kinda north, south, east, west of the WMDs.

pffffft.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. These guys really should stay away...

...from using satellite photos as evidence...

[Warpy]

7. Let's take a look at it

The building on the lower left is for storing, manufacturing and/or repairing some sort of mobile equipment. That's why the road goes right through it.

The picture is too grainy and of poor quality so it's nearly impossible to tell what the structures next to it are. The other structures to the right look like some sort of manufacturing operation. The pit at the lower right looks like some sort of mining operation. Absent are missile silos, fuel storage tanks or anything that looks like a missile testing setup. Unless they're setting fire to them indoors and risking burning down those structures, it's hard to tell from this picture just what is going on at that site.

I just remember the buildup to the Iraq war, when we were shown a building with a lot of tractor trailer trucks outside it and told it was a poison gas facility. It could have been a Wal Mart distribution center in Nevada for all the picture showed.

Even if they are testing missiles, Iran is in a very dangerous neighborhood. They are a Shi'a minority within a Sunni majority.

This picture and the spectre of Iran with longer range missiles do not convince me that the sky is ready to fall.

[atreides1]

19. One point

Iran has a Shia population of 90%, so the Shia are the majority in Iran. However, in Saudi Arabia the Shia are in the minority with an estimated 33% of the population.

[paparush]

8. Mine Shaft Gap

/obligatory

[orleans]

9. here is another view of it!

when i first read your thread title i thought it said:
Spy photos reveal 'secret lunch site'

[martymar64]

43. I know that place! That's SouthCenter Mall in Tukwila, WA!

That's a better map than that "launch site". :rofl:

[last1standing]

10. Like father like son.

bush senior threw us into Somalia without a plan just before Clinton took office and bush* the lesser is determined to do the same thing.

[FreepFryer]

11. I think I see aluminum tubes! (n/t)

[ckramer]

12. Easy - Ask Iranian for a visit to this site

all you need to an inspection team.

[Wizard777]

14. Remember the spy photos of the mobile biological decontamination unit?

That actually turned out to be a fire truck. They are still lacking in creativity. I think it's their super colider where they are trying to create a black hole that could devour the entire galaxy. No wait a minute! We're the ones trying to do that. :eyes:

[chknltl]

15. What IF: The Iran strike is a cover-up?

Perhaps I should start my own thread or perhaps I should remove my shiny hat but I think this needs to be put out there:

Depleted Uranium use throughout Afghanistan and Iraq is an international war crime. The devastating footprint from it's use is a smoking gun, there for all to see. What if a series of strikes in Iran created radioactive clouds that spread out throughout the Middle East dropping fallout randomly? Couldn't this be used to disappear that smoking gun? "Depleted Uranium??? No that's just fallout from those Iranian nuke sites we just had to bomb! If those Iranians hadn't been so far along with their Nuke Tech we wouldn't have had to hit them and all that fallout wouldn't have happened!"

Here are a couple of potential scenes:
Bush launches a "Shock and Awe" style strike. Covertly mixing in mini tactical nukes with this strike and sending them at sites around Iran. When radioactive fallout starts coming down, bush tells America that the radioactive clouds are from the very sites that got destroyed and this proves that Iran actually was working on Nuke-WMD.

Bush helps Israel to launch an actual nuke attack on Iran. Nothing covert here, Israel is doing this to prevent Iran from completing it's supposed nuke missile program which American intelligence has proven is going to be used against Israel.

In either case, radioactive fallout could reasonably be expected in the countries neighboring Iran: Afghanistan and Iraq! The DU contamination which is poisoning Afghanistan and Iraq could then be attributed to this fallout! Smoking gun disappeared! The bfee skates off with one very BIG charge of war crimes removed.

[melody]

16. And this is how it's done ... they fan the flames while the corporate candidates pummel the Democrat

That's why nothing ever changes.

[mac2]

17. Maybe those photos were taken for Colin Powell's album

[Purveyor]

18. Good. Considering the threats against their sovereign land by israel and the US, any reasonable

country concerned about their defense would be doing the same...

[cstanleytech]

26. Oh please, I really doubt we are a threat

to them and remember they were the ones who took us citizens hostage a few decades ago or atleast we are not much of a threat once bush is out of the whitehouse sitting on the curb where he belongs and assuming McCain is not in.
Dont matter if obama or hillary wins right now as long as mccain is not the one in the whitehouse in the end.

[eridani]

29. Taking hostages is in no way shape or form like waging aggressive war

That is something which no government of Iran or any of its predecessor states have done in the past 700 years, roughly the era of the Sassanid dynasty.

[cstanleytech]

31. Well you are partly right

its actually worse to take hostages like they did.

[SpikeTss]

32. I think what the Libyans did was much, much worse

Taking people as hostages who went to Libya to help there and then pressing half a billion dollars as ransom for them is much worse and, might I add, stupid?

Who in right mind is traveling now to Libya anymore, after the Libyans made clear that any foreigner is subject to torture and worse, should this lawless state decide to seize the occasion and try to get money in exchange for foreigners taken hostage?
Libyan prisons are the last place anyone would want to be ...

[eridani]

33. Right. Who died when they took hostages? We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians

You know, back when Saddam was our ally and we and the Euros and the UAE egged him on in attacking Iran for an eight year war. Then we made sure it lasted as long as possible by helping whichever of the two was at a temporary disadvantage.

[cstanleytech]

52. We've? I dont recall approving or ordering that

our government should do such things.
Anyway the fact is they are not a friendly government and to try to blame the US for it all is shortsighted.
Sure our governments decisions have influenced some of what went on but we did not force them to stone women to death nor did we force them to censor most of their media in the country, they did that all by themselves.
The fact is they are very aggressive and they would still be even if we had a hands off approach in that region of the world.

[eridani]

63. Iran is not an imperial power. The US is. Where are the Iranian military bases in Canada?

How in bloody hell can you call a country that has not waged aggressive war against any of its neighbors for more than a millenium "aggressive?"

[cstanleytech]

64. "Iran is not an imperial power. The US is." ?

You know, every time I see someone parrot that or similar stuff along those lines my eyes roll, I mean come on get real now we have not attempted to take over any country or foreign land in a damn long time.
As for them not waging an "aggressive war" I would consider the taking of civilians as hostages as an act of aggression by anyone I dont care what country does it or whatever the hell reason they try to use an excuse for it as its inexcusable and its the act of a coward.

[eridani]

73. Really? What in bloody hell do you call the Iraq invasion?

It is military conquest, pure and simple. 700+ military bases around the world have jackshit to do with self defense. What else are they for but an aggressive boot in the face of the rest of the world?

Iranians taking hostages in their own country is a nasty thing to do, but it is not aggression, period. Unless you count all kidnappings anyplace in the world as military actions, which is idiotic.

[cstanleytech]

82. "What in bloody hell do you call the Iraq invasion?"

A possible treasonus action by the president, assuming of course it can be proven the president knowingly lied about the WMDs, lot of questionable intel was used and like i said if it can be proven he knowingly lied he should be charged with treason or atleast with murder for all the soldiers in the military he helped kill.
As for Iran, taking civilians as hostages was aggression so stop trying to sugar coat it, they were wrong for doing it big time just like the president is wrong big time for putting people in Gitmo and allowing waterboarding to be used to torture them to confess.

[eridani]

85. There is no way that hostage taking amounts to military attack period

That doesn't mean it is good, but on the scale of evil it is way below the US and British overthrow of Iran's secular democracy in 1953, without which the fundies would never have gotten any traction in Iran in the first place.

[cstanleytech]

88. *shrug* We are going to just have to

agree that we just are not going to agree on that aspect.
I see them taking civilians as hostages as an aggressive action that they should not have done and furthermore it was in an embassy which technically is US soil so it was an act of war technically there as well.
As for them not getting traction, I think the think the real problem was the blind support of Israel the US has been practicing, now that probably did more to incite them and gave them something to rally around more than anything.

[Nevernose]

70. Their war with Iraq was pretty darned aggressive.

Yes, I know I'm cherry-picking.

From wikipedia:
The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution. Although Saddam's Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years Iran was on the offensive.<5> Despite several calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.<6><7>

And further down:
In 1975, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had sanctioned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to attack Iraq over the waterway, then under Iraqi control

And again:
In turn the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed Muslims, particularly the Shias in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, whom he saw as oppressed, could and should follow the Iranian example, rise up against their governments to join a united Islamic republic.<12> Khomeini and Iran's Islamic revolutionaries despised Saddam's secularist, Arab nationalist Ba'athist regime in particular as un-Islamic and "a puppet of Satan,"<13> and called on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and his regime.

Was Iraq more aggressive than Iran? Yes. Is the United States more aggressive than Iran? Undoubtedly. Does that make Iran innocent in every regard? No. You seem to be saying that if one side is black, then the other must be white, and that's virtually never the case in world events.

Iranian leaders for the last 30 years have talked trash to Israel and the West, and the Israel and the West responded by pointing guns at them. Now everybody feigns surprise when they point guns back. Worse than feign, we then justify our guns with theirs. But then the Iranians feign surprise that building bugger guns might make us more afraid, thus escalating the situation. And pretty soon we're fighting over chickens versus eggs instead of what needs to be done and how we can achieve it.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that the Middle East is full of villains -- it's no use picking sides-- and the few heroes they've had have all died early.

[eridani]

72. As you pointed out, Iraq attacked them first. That ain't aggression.

What I am suggesting is that we just quit fucking with them. They had a secular democracy in 1953, which the US and Britain deliberately destroyed. We can't possibly be an honest broker in the ME until we quit trying to conquer the damned place by military force.

[martymar64]

44. Consider our history in Iran

The CIA overthrew Moosadegh in 54, installed the Shah, who with his murderous secret police SAVAK, brutally suppressed the Iranian people. When they protested in the late 70's the Shah's forces, with a wink from the Carter Administration, fired on the protestors causing mass civil unrest, resulting in the Shah's overthrow. Then we allowed the Shah into the USA, resulting in the outrage that caused the students to storm the US embassy, taking the hostages.

And people complain because they don't like us there?

[cstanleytech]

53. And the current governments

stoning of women and censorship is better how exactly?

[SOS]

79. If stoning women and censorship were an actual concern

the US would withdraw it's ambassador from Saudi Arabia.
But for some odd reason these human rights abusers are given red carpet dinners at the White House.

[ronnie624]

46. The taking of hostages by the Iranians

was in response to U.S. activities in their country. The U.S. government was using their embassy as a base of operations for covert war against the Iranian government. They were attempting to reinstall a dictatorship that was friendly to U.S. business and strategic interests.

If foreign agents were in your country, bombing and assassinating in an attempt to generate chaos and destabilize your government, I wonder what your response would be. I think you would see the matter differently.

[Pavulon]

48. Mining the Straights of Hormuz, an act of war

was all our fault too. Iran has a history of conflict with the US. Not words like now, but real shooting events.

Iran's theocratic government should be overthrown. Quietly, internally.

That does not require a shooting war.

[ronnie624]

50. Yes, it is the fault of the U.S. government.

Every case of conflict and hostility between Iran and the West since the toppling of the Shaw in 1979, flows directly from Operation Ajax. Policies of aggression and dominance over other countries will always sow the seeds of extremism and war. To deny it is folly.

If, when you say the theocratic regime of Iran should be deposed internally, you mean the Iranian people should do it, then I agree. Ever should a people have a right to shape their own political destinies. If the Iranian people feel compelled to overthrow an oppressive government, then they will doubtless do so.

If however, you mean the U.S. government should intervene in the affairs of Iran even further than it already has, I would have to say you are a fool who will never learn from history.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. our very own theocratic government will take care of those theocracies

that are not illuminated by God and will be expelled from the eden garden.

[jberryhill]

83. How are we doing on "executing homosexuals"?

I think the Iranians are one up on us in that department.

[Zhade]

66. Yeah, because this country doesn't invade other countries over nonexistent threats!

Oh wait, IRAQ.

[Pavulon]

42. All it does is up the probability

that someone will use the technology. So I would say it is a bad thing if they broke the NPT they signed and tested a nuke.

[SpikeTss]

54. Why don't we ourselves follow the NPT?

I think that's the most important question: Instead of planning wars of aggressions against the populations of other countries, why don't we ourselves start adhering to the NPT?
That would be the logical thing to do, because we can't demand anything from other countries if we breach the contract year by year.

[hack89]

58. So who are we selling nuclear technology to? nt

[SpikeTss]

59. India, to name just one

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13988

"08 August, 2007 -- Nuclear-armed states are criminal states. They have a legal obligation, confirmed by the World Court, to live up to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls on them to carry out good-faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. None of the nuclear states has lived up to it. The United States is a leading violator, especially the Bush administration, which even has stated that it isn’t subject to Article 6.

On July 27, Washington entered into an agreement with India that guts the central part of the NPT, though there remains substantial opposition in both countries. India, like Israel and Pakistan (but unlike Iran), is not an NPT signatory, and has developed nuclear weapons outside the treaty. With this new agreement, the Bush administration effectively endorses and facilitates this outlaw behaviour. The agreement violates US law, and bypasses the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 45 nations that have established strict rules to lessen the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, observes that the agreement doesn’t bar further Indian nuclear testing and, “incredibly, … commits Washington to help New Delhi secure fuel supplies from other countries even if India resumes testing.” It also permits India to “free up its limited domestic supplies for bomb production.” All these steps are in direct violation of international nonproliferation agreements."

[xioaping]

21. Is It still secret?

Or do we have a picture and news stories on the subject...?

[balantz]

22. I'll wager the Middle East catastrophe grows to huge proportions before November.

By then it will be a whole new ball-game, and it will be far uglier, and we will be in up to our bloody ears.

All three of the candidates know this inevetible truth.

That be my guess.

[harun]

75. I think this is the Republican plan, it is really the only thing they could

do to change the game. I don't hold out much hope of the Corporate MSM standing up to them or questioning them. They will be more than happy to have their ratings pumped up again with shots of AAA fire.

[DCKit]

24. Alert, Alert, Alert. Republicon Homelander Bait Thread.

It's too late Mr. and Mrs. Mid-America, they're already IN YOUR HOME and we have to search your house to make sure they're not going to rape your grand-kids and steal our freedoms. What's left of them, anyway.

Booga, booga and Dick Cheney masks for all.

[cstanleytech]

25. Some of you have doubts

and I dont blame you however an easy way to settle the matter is if Iran lets in a group of the UN weapon inspectors to that site with free access for a week.
If they cannot find anything then we know its bogus right?

[Nihil]

74. I'm trying to work out if you believe what you're saying or if it is just very subtle sarcasm

> however an easy way to settle the matter is if Iran lets in a group
> of the UN weapon inspectors to that site with free access for a week.
> If they cannot find anything then we know its bogus right?

:banghead:

[DRoseDARs]

27. Didn't we do this schtick before? Used the same "satellite" photo to detail 2 seperate sites in....

...different countries separated by several thousand miles? Was it North Korea and Iraq or Syria; been a few years, so I forget. This one looks similar to the one used after Israel attacked Syria a while back.

[Hardrada]

28. Just another tiresome ruse by the warmongers

none of whom should be believed.

[BunkerHill24]

30. ain't this just lovely.......

"A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector."


Who is this Iraq weapons inspector?....inquiring minds want to know?

[Art_from_Ark]

86. What is the Arabic word for "Curveball"?

[santamargarita]

34. Actually, that's where they buried Jimmy Hoffa

More "Bush Bullshit"

[caseycoon]

35. Uh-huh... but what is it REALLY?

The boy emperor wants to play with his nukes
& Cheney et al want to let him.

[lostnotforgotten]

36. Let's See - A Commercial Satellite Company And Jane's Put This Together

What are the US intelligence services doing?

I guess those keyhole satellites just don't work as well anymore!

[bobthedrummer]

65. Privatized ears and eyes above the skies. "U.S. Reconnaissance Satellites: Domestic Targets"

yep, "Domestic Targets" too-this is a link to an active thread that has a lot of historical links in it. A thread that would be used for indictments in any representational Constitutional democracy, but not HOMELAND (tm).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x352054

[Diclotican]

37. sabra

sabra

Everything to get the war thing going you know.. Everything to get a "right" to go to war. Even if it could be stopped very fast. Just send in the UN inspectors, and find out.

And if Mr Bush and mr Cheney are using nuclear weapon, even a "mini-nuke" US are into so much problems..Becouse Iran have two big friends with interest in the area. China and Russland. And mr Cheney and mr Bush have better take notice about what they are saying.. If not, Russia and China can give Iran whatever they need. To defend their nations... And then US have to take the fallout from the rest of the world, who would be less than happy about US using nuclear weapon. It IS a reason that nuclear weapon are not been used since 1945...

And as some have pointed out. Iran are living in a dangerous neighborhood, and it is possible this rocket thing, is because they want to be defended by conventional deeds..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[zanne]

38. Are you sure that isn't old Iraq footage? nt

[Life Long Dem]

39. I'm not falling for this n/t

[Tab]

40. Wolf! Wolf!! Wolf!!!

"What is it now, young boy?"

"Wolf! Iran this time!".

"Ya. Didn't you call wolf before?"

"That was then, this is now."

[Canuckistanian]

51. What possible gain could Iran get from firing a missile into Europe?

They're not stupid. In fact, they're probably MORE intelligent than most western states.

They would realize that it would bring on INSTANT retaliation and/or invasion from the West or Israel.

[sofa king]

55. The same sense of security we Americans think we enjoy.

Assuming this story is not total bullshit--a dangerous assumption--there is a strategic reason for extending the range of Iranian missiles beyond, say, Israel. It's the same reason North Korea lobbed a rocket over Japan. The rocket is actually only symbolic; it's supposed to send the message that a nuclear weapon could be riding that type of rocket the next time.

Ultimately, it's a smaller and cheaper version of the space programs of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in the late 1950s. Hefting a rocket a certain distance (or into orbit) shows potential enemies, or the friends of those enemies, that they can be reached. In the Iranian and North Korean cases, they're effectively holding other nations hostage in case their sovereignty is violated by the United States. (America, Russia, and China hold all other nations hostage.)

Of course, as soon as one does that, other nuclear powers dip into their considerable store of weapons and point a few at the demonstrator, which actually makes that country much, much less safe. An accident or a psychopath like Uncle Dick can now visit serious damage upon them with fewer safeguards and less time to correct a mistake.

Iran in particular has every reason in the world to want a nuclear weapon defense, because it's obvious to all but the most ignorant that America's psychotic leadership has Iran at the top of its list of countries with oil worth stealing.

Worse still (for humanity at large) America's typical bullying immediately stopped as soon as North Korea faked a detonation of a nuclear weapon, thus giving the practice a certain legitimacy that it wouldn't otherwise deserve.

Oh, yes, it's all incredibly stupid. But I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

[Canuckistanian]

60. Oh, I agree (if true) that it's a dangerous game

But I don't believe for a second that Iran is serious about making such a point to the outside world.

It MAY just be for "internal consumption", to show their own people just how big and powerful they are.

[rAVES]

56. Anyone who believs for 1 second that Iran would strike Israel or anyone else is stupid.

[ToughLuck]

57. Here we go..McCain will start singing his Bomb Iran song again..will Nov. 2nd ever come ?

[ryanmuegge]

61. They aren't going to do shit to Iran.

They just aren't. They won't jeopardize their chances in the upcoming election. The economy is the #1 issue right now, and attacking Iran would send oil to $200 a barrel or more. The public would know to blame the Republicans.

[alfredo]

67. No earlier than Nov 5.

[DainBramaged]

68. Is this where they test the intercontinental balsa wood projectiles??

:rofl:

[unkachuck]

71. I hear those drums....

....loud and clear....could it be a water filtration plant with a drive-thru Dairy Queen on the opposite corner/center-bottom? It gets hot in the desert.

[Javaman]

76. What? no cartoon pictures of the rockets to go along with the photos?

I love how, just because they say that this is a launch site for long range missiles, we are supposed to believe them out of hand.

[crim son]

77. Jeebus H. Christos, not this shit again.

Impeach the bastard and put the rest of them in jail. War with Iran is NOT AN OPTION. Will nobody stop this insanity?

[DainBramaged]

80. K&R

THIS is important

[auburngrad82]

81. Satellite pics only count if they show what you want them to show

Leading up to the first Iraq war (Poppy's war) the Bush administration said there were 200 thousand Iraqi troops across the border from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Satellite photos were purchased by the press that showed NO troop buildup. But the press was asked by the White House not to disclose the fact that there really was no threat from Iraq. They went along and the rest is history.

[Jersey Ginny]

84. Looks like a picture of where I work in Jersey City

I think I see my building . . .

[Kool Kitty]

87. Shit-there are long range missiles in Jersey City?

;)

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.