TEHRAN : Iran now has ballistic missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometres (1,240 miles), former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.
"Today, we have the power to send our missiles up to 2,000 kilometres, and experts know that once a country has made such a step, all further steps are accessible," Rafsanjani said Tuesday at a conference on "Space and National Security".
Steady progress made by Iran's ballistic missile programme is a source of concern to the international community, adding to worries about the country's nuclear activities, which Tehran insists are peaceful. On August 11, Iran tested an upgraded version of its Shahab-3 missile. Previous figures had put the missile's range at between 1,300 and 1,700 kilometres, already bringing arch-enemy Israel well within range.
Following the latest test, Israeli news reports put the range of the new Shahab-3 -- believed to be based on a North Korean design -- at 2,000 kilometres. "We have today the ballistic technology and if we had not limited our progress, we would have been even more advanced," said Rafsanjani. "With this ballistic power, we can today speak of an independent satellite launch and we should seek the technology to make our own satellites," he added, saying Iran "was at the door of the club of country's having satellite technology."
Iran has previously announced it hopes to launch its first satellite, for telecommunications, in 2005. During a military parade last month, Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles draped in banners vowing to "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map". "The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enables us to destroy the most distant targets," said an official commentary accompanying the parade.
While the country has announced it has upgraded the Shahab-3, it has denied it is working on a Shahab-4 -- a device that would involve a two-stage propulsion system and bring European capitals within range. But last week the government said it was being deliberately ambiguous over its missile capability, currently a topic of intense speculation following fresh tests and the introduction of a "strategic" device.
That comment came after Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani told state-run television that the Iranian army has taken delivery of a new "strategic missile" and that the weapon, unnamed for security reasons, had been successfully tested.
Iran says the Shahab-3 is simply a deterrent, while Israel charges that the Islamic state could have a nuclear warhead by 2007. Israeli alarm has led to speculation that Israel -- currently believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East -- may launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran says it now has missile with 2,000 km range
Moderator: S2k Moderators
- drudd1
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 466
- Age: 65
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:33 am
- Location: Chuluota, FL
- Contact:
This is not new, they have had it for quite some time. What bothers me is it being announced. Why now, what is the motive? The announcement was thought out, i.e. timing, etc., wonder what the agenda is?
0 likes
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products
well, we have nuclear weapons. who are we to say they cant? just trying to provoke a little thought here. and dont say we're more responsible than other countries. that isnt always true and lots of people interpret our "pre-emptive strikes" as terrorist activities. (not me, but a lot of folks around the world)
0 likes
- CaptinCrunch
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 8731
- Age: 57
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:33 pm
- Location: Kennedale, TX (Tarrant Co.)
- drudd1
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 466
- Age: 65
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:33 am
- Location: Chuluota, FL
- Contact:
The U.S. could disarm tomorrow, and it would not stop weapons proliferation by any country with a nut in charge that wanted such weapons. The general thought is that we are responsible for the world having nuclear weapons. No so, they were going to be built outside of this country irregardless of whether we built them or not. Many countries are working on their version of a big bad weapon at any given time. It is no different than when cavemen made the biggest club. They built it for dominance, and used it, I am sure, on other mens heads.
The fact is, man has been building bigger and more leathal weapons since time began, and eons before the United States was even a dream. Whether we like it or not, there will be bullies out there that will be more than happy to run you over unless there is a good reason not too. That is where deterrance comes in. Bullies tend to pick on the weak, those unable to defend themselves. It is no fun hitting someone that is capable of hitting you back even harder.
Alicia-W, I agree with you, armageddon will probably start in the Middle East. Battles have raged there for centuries, and armageddon will probably start there when one of the regimes has the power to destroy their enemies once and for all. And, sorry to say, that can and will happen irregardless of what president is in office, whether we stay out of it, get involved, or whatever. They cannot get along over there, never have, and probably never will. The hatred was pronounced and brutal in the Middle East long before the U.S. existed.
The only reason many of the countries haven't destroyed each other already, is that they are too busy hating us right now. Hmmmmm, maybe we are preventing armageddon at this point?
The fact is, man has been building bigger and more leathal weapons since time began, and eons before the United States was even a dream. Whether we like it or not, there will be bullies out there that will be more than happy to run you over unless there is a good reason not too. That is where deterrance comes in. Bullies tend to pick on the weak, those unable to defend themselves. It is no fun hitting someone that is capable of hitting you back even harder.
Alicia-W, I agree with you, armageddon will probably start in the Middle East. Battles have raged there for centuries, and armageddon will probably start there when one of the regimes has the power to destroy their enemies once and for all. And, sorry to say, that can and will happen irregardless of what president is in office, whether we stay out of it, get involved, or whatever. They cannot get along over there, never have, and probably never will. The hatred was pronounced and brutal in the Middle East long before the U.S. existed.
The only reason many of the countries haven't destroyed each other already, is that they are too busy hating us right now. Hmmmmm, maybe we are preventing armageddon at this point?
0 likes
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests