[quote]Sifu wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
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.
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?
What he wrote about solid fuel vs. liquid fuel is absolutely true. It is exponentially easier to manipulate a solid fuel rocket than a liquid fuel one. You can easily have variable thrusts over time just by changing the shape of the solid fuel. It’s easy as pie, and even an undergraduate could calculate and draw a thrust-vs.-time graph. Doing the same with liquid fuel, however, is very difficult.
Would Iran drop a rocket on anybody? Is it a major breakthrough if Iran now has solid fuel rocket? I don’t know.
But the part about solid vs. liquid rocket fuels in the post you quoted is correct.
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about the idea of Iran launching a nuclear missile at LA or New York. This isn’t Hollywood. Deterrence works against states. Iran has actually been a pretty conservatives regional power since 1979. Remember, Iraq attacked them.
And if sifu and co. are trying to start the bomb Iran drumbeat, Gates himself has said bombing Iran would, at most, set their nuclear program back a few years. So that’s not a solution.
You are certainly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas tree. The Iranians having the ability to take out New York is a big deal. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. If they nuke Israel they will have to nuke New York as well. New York is one of the places that the IDF draws it reserves from. During the 1973 war they were flying charter flights of reservists out of JFK.
The Iranians are not that conservative and they certainly don’t keep to themselves. The only reason why they haven’t done more so far is because they have been more or less contained. That is why they work through proxies like Hizbollah. You should learn about that. While you are at it you should learn about the Jewish community center the Iranians blew up in Argentina. They have spread death and destruction far outside their borders for no good reason.
Detterence is way over rated. Especially when we are dealing with a bunch of ultra religious zealots. Just for your information the word zealot comes from an ultra religious sect of Jews who were called the Zealots. The Zealots were the ones who lead the uprising agaisnt Rome and finally ended up cornered on top of Mt Masada. The Iranians are reading from almost the exact same rulebook as the Zealots. They are both apocolyptic, messianic cults who believe that the messiah is going to rescue them when the apocolypse comes. So there is nothing to fear with bringing on the apocolypse because it will herald the return of the Messiah or in the case of the Iranians the Mahdi.
People like that having the ability to wipe out entire cities is a huge risk to take. Setting them back a few years is much better than allowing them to go nuclear. If we have to in a few years we just repeat it. They are not going to have the resources to keep rebuilding.
[/quote]
Ah, nothing like being talked down to by a guy who proselytizes for neo-fascist political parties (it must warm your heart that your BNP could actually pick up a few votes in Britain because everyone else is so corrupt).
I know about the Buenos Aires bombing, and the Zealots, got a little dose of Josephus in college, but thanks. What that has to do with some fevered Hollywood idea about Iran launching a nuclear weapon at New York City so that all of its people could perish is beyond me. You realize Iran, despite the many American deaths it has had a hand in, actually HELPED us with valuable intelligence after 9/11?
Believe it or not, I’m more inclined to trust academics who study Shia Twelvers, or realist political scientists and practitioners, than some xenophobe on a bodybuilding website. For example, National Defense Univerity’s “Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran”: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf
You don’t hear any of those folks losing sleep over an Iranian missile launched at New York. Know why? Because it is never going to happen.
If you want to argue that an Iranian nuke is a really bad thing because it will lead to two or three or four Arab countries deciding they need nukes, that is a real argument. It’s Henry Kissinger’s fear, for example. But there are ways to handle that situation.
Again, our own Defense Secretary says bombing Iran will delay them at most one to three years, while uniting the whole country in hatred of whoever bombed them:
“Using his strongest language on the subject to date, Gates told a group of Marine Corps students that a strike would probably delay Tehran’s nuclear program from one to three years. A strike, however, would unify Iran, “cement their determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them,” he said.”
So there is no military solution, short of invasion and occupation. Do you want to advocate that?