So were the analysts mistaken and the launch was an old Ashura launch that Ahmedinijad (sic?) is claiming is new to use as a political stunt, or is it actually a new model with increased capabilities and the analysts were right (and the other analysts saying it was an old model were wrong)?
This is a new missle. The reportng just came out a couple hours ago but te missle is suspect of having some ne technology http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZfgLuKrg3QBRltJ0qQMIzgIohdQD98A9J500
I would imagine that U.S. Predators and the Israeli Moussad got some GREAT pictures of the "launch"...
On a serious note, I'm not so much concerned about any Iranian strategic advantage gained... Pakistan should be much more of a worry at this point.
My concern is for the absolute Hell that will be unleased if some "inspired" Mullah wants to launch one of these things into Israel.
We can only hope that they are smarter than that.
The 4th of July is getting near, he who sets off the biggest firecracker wins.
I don't Predators have the range to be able to make it to Iran. I now they sound all high speed but they really aren't all that.
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Iran shouldn't make missiles. In fact, nobody should but the USA.
I get it now.
You're in Sweden, no Iranian missile would be launched at your position. The rest of the Western world are getting nervous and territorial.
The next one will hit close to Israel, that's my prediction.
calm the fuck down bitches!
This is a threat to us how? The American Conservative's cover story has it right: "Apocalypse Not."
unfortunately - I don't think we get to choose which to worry about more - both require constant diligence and attention
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
any nation can build what they want - pardon us for worrying about our safety
Which they both get.
Well, if they could hit an embassy full of Americans in the Middle East, it's a threat. What do you think would happen if Iran sold one of these missiles to Kim Jong Ill?
The U.S. has flown Predators over suspected nuclear sites in Iran AT LEAST since 2005.
While spy satellites can detect different signals along the electromagnetic spectrum...and can yield very high-resolution pictures...Predators have special sensors that analyze the air to detect radiation levels consistent with uranium enrichment.
If we are not currently using them in Iran, its because the current operational Wing is tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan; not because of operational range.
This is a good thing for a couple of reasons.
If they attack with them, they open the door to their doom.
Having them and not using them gives them the respect of the international community. Plus the security against their enemies.
It's not a country that has missiles one has to worry about. It's those without who are scared of those with, that we should be worried about.
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don't need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea.