PDA

View Full Version : We have a satellite of Iran in orbit. What next?



Zvezdichko
2009-Feb-03, 09:56 AM
According to independent sources, Iran successfully launched a satellite yesterday.

What is next and is this good news?

Ronald Brak
2009-Feb-03, 10:23 AM
Congratulations to Iran on a sucessful satellite launch.

Is this good news? Well it's a lot better than an unsucessful satellite launch. But it is certainly possible to make the arguement that people living in Iran would be better off if the money had been spent on other things, such as flu vaccines, better education and so on.

DISCLAIMER: I live in a house contructed entirely from flu vaccine and textbooks.

Middenrat
2009-Feb-03, 11:32 AM
It's a geopolitical exercise. Heck, all rocketry is basically about dominance, with some science bolted on to keep the labcoats interested.
Long-term, it's another nation with a shout in the future of our species.

JonClarke
2009-Feb-03, 08:28 PM
They should definitely be congratulated, this is a great achievement. What next? More satellites, serving a range of purposes. Which will depend on what their launch capabilty is. But with the current launcher small science and space weather payloads, radar target, or packet communications capability are possible, I think. Larger satellites for remote sensing, communbicatiosn etc. will need more capable boosters, but Iran has already shown it can build its own large satellies and have them lauched by a third party.

Jon

mugaliens
2009-Feb-03, 08:31 PM
According to independent sources, Iran successfully launched a satellite yesterday.

What is next and is this good news?

Umm... antisatellite missile test?


Long-term, it's another nation with a shout in the future of our species.

And possessing the ability to saber-rattle from space.

Seriously, if a nation had a fairly clean history of non-...

But I digress into politics, which stops now.

Technologically, it's a feat no greater than any other nation who has achieved it. As more nations rise in gross domestic product, this will become more commonplace. Whether or not it's a good thing depends on the nation.

JonClarke
2009-Feb-03, 09:11 PM
It's a geopolitical exercise. Heck, all rocketry is basically about dominance, with some science bolted on to keep the labcoats interested.
Long-term, it's another nation with a shout in the future of our species.

Please define "dominance".

ravens_cry
2009-Feb-03, 09:26 PM
Good for Iran.
Space is big enough to share.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Feb-03, 09:29 PM
I only see one possible problem with dozens of nations launching satellites: an inadvertent collision, especially in low Earth orbit.

JonClarke
2009-Feb-03, 09:50 PM
I only see one possible problem with dozens of nations launching satellites: an inadvertent collision, especially in low Earth orbit.

That is why satellite orbital parameters are listed by various authorities.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Feb-03, 09:56 PM
That is why satellite orbital parameters are listed by various authorities.

Yes, but any technology can fail and mistakenly place a satellite into an improper orbit. I'm sure the USA has done that on occasion. The more nations launching, the more likely the chance.

But, bottom line, I think the Iran launch is a good thing.

tdvance
2009-Feb-03, 10:08 PM
When I hear "Iran launches satellite", my first thought is: ICBMs.

This launch would be a bad thing only if they developed both nuclear weapons and the means to lift them into orbit--launching a (presumably small) satellite being a good step in that direction. I for one don't trust Iran to use the same discretion other nuclear countries have so far used.

I know it's current US policy that if Iran (or any nation) were to nuke the US (or use any weapon of mass destruction on the US, the other two big ones being chemical and biological), we'd respond with nukes. A question is, suppose they nuked Israel (or any ally for that matter)? I don't know if our policy is to respond in kind in that situation or not. We'd respond, and respond hard, but I don't know if it would be a full-scale nuclear response.

This general type of thing is why we kicked our space program into gear when the Russians launched Sputnik. The good news is this could push our space program back into gear.

Doodler
2009-Feb-03, 10:09 PM
According to independent sources, Iran successfully launched a satellite yesterday.

What is next and is this good news?


Next: Iranian ICBMs

Good News: Not really.

Larry Jacks
2009-Feb-03, 10:33 PM
There doesn't appear to be an immediate concern about an Iranian ICBM. The rocket appears to be the Iranian equivalent of the Army Jupiter booster used to launch America's first satellite. The Jupiter booster used a short range Redstone missile with two solid fueled stages to add sufficient velocity to achieve orbit.

Based on what little information I can find about the booster, it appears they added an upper stage to an existing intermediate range ballistic missile to put a small payload into orbit. The missile version reportedly has a range of 1200 miles with a one ton warhead. The satellite reportedly weighed 60 pounds - well under the size of a serious warhead especially when you consider the need for heat shielding to survive reentry. The difference in velocity required to achieve orbit and to achieve ICBM range is quite small. The difference in velocity between a missile with a 1200 mile range and orbital/ICBM velocity is quite considerable. My guess is that almost all of the mass that would've been associated with the missile's warhead was used by the upper stage.

If the payload had been on the order of 200+ KG, I'd be concerned. Even then, it takes a very advanced nuclear program to produce a warhead and associated reentry vehicle with a mass that small.

KaiYeves
2009-Feb-03, 10:56 PM
Welcome to the club, Iran!
(How do I say that in Arabic?)

Larry Jacks
2009-Feb-03, 10:59 PM
They don't speak Arabic in Iran, they speak Persian/Farsi.

KaiYeves
2009-Feb-03, 11:09 PM
Right then, one learns something new every day. How do I say it in Persian or Farsi, then?

ravens_cry
2009-Feb-03, 11:22 PM
Right then, one learns something new every day. How do I say it in Persian or Farsi, then?
" خوش آمدبه باشگاه ،ایران "
Or at least that's what the Internet translator spat out.

RGClark
2009-Feb-04, 03:08 AM
There doesn't appear to be an immediate concern about an Iranian ICBM. The rocket appears to be the Iranian equivalent of the Army Jupiter booster used to launch America's first satellite. The Jupiter booster used a short range Redstone missile with two solid fueled stages to add sufficient velocity to achieve orbit.

Based on what little information I can find about the booster, it appears they added an upper stage to an existing intermediate range ballistic missile to put a small payload into orbit. The missile version reportedly has a range of 1200 miles with a one ton warhead. The satellite reportedly weighed 60 pounds - well under the size of a serious warhead especially when you consider the need for heat shielding to survive reentry. The difference in velocity required to achieve orbit and to achieve ICBM range is quite small. The difference in velocity between a missile with a 1200 mile range and orbital/ICBM velocity is quite considerable. My guess is that almost all of the mass that would've been associated with the missile's warhead was used by the upper stage.

If the payload had been on the order of 200+ KG, I'd be concerned. Even then, it takes a very advanced nuclear program to produce a warhead and associated reentry vehicle with a mass that small.

Sure it is not an immediate concern, like it happening tomorrow. But if it can happen within say five years it's something the U.S. and its allies does have to worry about now.

Iranian satellite launch prompts concern.
By Alan Cowell and William J. Broad
Published: February 4, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/04/africa/04iran.php

Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 19, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html

A Tantalizing Look at Iran’s Nuclear Program.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: April 29, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29nuke.html


Bob Clark

Swift
2009-Feb-04, 03:31 AM
I know it's current US policy that if Iran (or any nation) were to nuke the US (or use any weapon of mass destruction on the US, the other two big ones being chemical and biological), we'd respond with nukes. A question is, suppose they nuked Israel (or any ally for that matter)? I don't know if our policy is to respond in kind in that situation or not. We'd respond, and respond hard, but I don't know if it would be a full-scale nuclear response.

Do not take the discussion in this direction. Do not discuss politics or foreign policy such as this on BAUT.
Please keep this within the rules of this forum.

raptorthang
2009-Feb-04, 04:44 AM
Congradulations to Iran. It's a positive that more countries are developing advanced rocket technology. Back in the 1920's if asked what country would be the first to send a man into space... the answers would have revolved around Germany, Britain, the USA, France etc. What countries will be sending the first humans to Mars.....India? Iran? Brazil?..maybe someone not even in the game yet like Malaysia or Chile. Or perhaps future advances will be multinational.

Jeff Root
2009-Feb-04, 05:31 AM
I know it's current US policy that if Iran (or any nation) were to
nuke the US (or use any weapon of mass destruction on the US,
the other two big ones being chemical and biological), we'd respond
with nukes. A question is, suppose they nuked Israel (or any ally for
that matter)? I don't know if our policy is to respond in kind in that
situation or not. We'd respond, and respond hard, but I don't know
if it would be a full-scale nuclear response.
Do not take the discussion in this direction. Do not
discuss politics or foreign policy such as this on BAUT.
Please keep this within the rules of this forum.
Since it is obviously far more important for everyone to discuss and
understand this subject than it is to maintain decorum on BAUT, or
even than it is to promote good science in general, you need to
suggest alternate venues for discussion of the subject if you expect
to successfully restrict discussion of it here. Where do you suggest
we go to discuss serious life-and-death problems relating current
politics to technology?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ara Pacis
2009-Feb-04, 05:49 AM
the article in the International Herald Tribune linked above seems unclear. Is the range of 1500 based on having a warhead in lieu of a second stage or having a nuclear weapon class re-entry vehicle atop the second state instead of the 60lbs satellite? How much does a rudamentary Uranium bomb mass? Maybe it would be simpler to just fit it with freshly ground-up reactor waste. The question then becomes, would they use a direct trajectory or a Fractional Orbit Bombardment System.

Larry Jacks
2009-Feb-04, 01:47 PM
From what I've been able to determine, the missile that served as the first stage of the booster has a range of approximately 1200-1500 miles with a one ton warhead. To make the booster, they substituted an upper stage for the warhead leaving about 60 pounds for the satellite. They could use the same technique to extend the range of the missile. Suppose they reduced the warhead to 600 pounds. That would leave 1400 pounds for the upper stage. Without any firm numbers, I'd offer a SWAG that the range of the new missile would be roughly double (perhaps more depending on a lot of variables) of the old missile.

A state-of-the-art thermonuclear warhead (~250 KT) and reentry vehicle can weigh somewhere in the area of 200-400 pounds. However, it takes a lot of advanced nuclear and RV technology to get it that light, something an aspiring nuclear power isn't likely to achieve on the first go. That's why I allowed 600 pounds for the RV/warhead for the hypothetical missile. That's more than enough for a Pu implosion device or even a relatively unsophisticated thermonuclear weapon. Developing high accuracy guidance systems is another challenge as is the RV itself. My guess is that the Iranians are still a number of years from having a viable ICBM capability.

Swift
2009-Feb-04, 02:33 PM
Since it is obviously far more important for everyone to discuss and
understand this subject than it is to maintain decorum on BAUT, or
even than it is to promote good science in general, you need to
suggest alternate venues for discussion of the subject if you expect
to successfully restrict discussion of it here. Where do you suggest
we go to discuss serious life-and-death problems relating current
politics to technology?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
I don't completely understand your comment - I don't need to do any such thing. And if you have problems with the moderation, you need not to discuss it in this thread.

But, if you are looking for a place to discuss such matters, I am fond of the forum FWIS (http://www.loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php), where there are several present and former BAUT members.

Zvezdichko
2009-Feb-04, 06:30 PM
I apologise for posting the thread in such manner, because it provoked political discussion.

ravens_cry
2009-Feb-04, 07:14 PM
A lot of both the former Soviet Union and United States of Americas early launch vehicles were variants of various ballistic missiles. In fact the worlds very first ICBM is still in use today as a launch vehicle (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm).
So, go Iran. All I ask is that they "use them in peace."

JonClarke
2009-Feb-04, 08:26 PM
My guess is that the Iranians are still a number of years from having a viable ICBM capability.

Assuming of course they actually want one to.

Jon

mugaliens
2009-Feb-04, 08:51 PM
Where do you suggest
we go to discuss serious life-and-death problems relating current
politics to technology?

I think if there were a way to discuss the technology, particularly from a space/astronomy/science perspective, while keeping the politics to a minimum, it would meet board decorum. I've witnessed this board doing just that in the past, but it was difficult, as it's a fine line, and it usually didn't take long before someone crossed it.

I agree with your sentiments that we should be mature enough to be able to discuss it on this board without devolving into politics. If you have a proposition as to how we might accomplish this, please start another thread in the FIF section and lay it on us.

Jeff Root
2009-Feb-05, 12:34 AM
The problem I see is that the politics is the important thing that needs
to be understood in this case, as in many others. The technology is
what makes the politics so critically important to understand. While it
is also important to understand the technology, that is rather minor
compared to the importance of the politics.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

ravens_cry
2009-Feb-05, 12:50 AM
The trouble is, politics is based on opinions, not facts, like religion and fanboyism and people tend to get a little hot under the collar about things like that. There is things I would like to discuss that would be considered topical for this forum but can't under these rules, like the history and origin of religion.
And I accept that, because I know the feelings and emotions these kinds of topics can arose are just not worth the trouble.

BigDon
2009-Feb-05, 01:31 AM
I don't completely understand your comment - I don't need to do any such thing. And if you have problems with the moderation, you need not to discuss it in this thread.

But, if you are looking for a place to discuss such matters, I am fond of the forum FWIS (http://www.loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php), where there are several present and former BAUT members.

Thanks for the link Swift!

Swift
2009-Feb-05, 03:25 AM
The problem I see is that the politics is the important thing that needs
to be understood in this case, as in many others. The technology is
what makes the politics so critically important to understand. While it
is also important to understand the technology, that is rather minor
compared to the importance of the politics.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
The problem is that it is against the rules of this board, no matter how important it may be. This is not an issue of debate - certainly not in this thread. If you would like to convince Fraser and the BA to change the rules, you can take it to the Forum Introductions and Feedback area, but I doubt you are going to change this.

If you want to discuss the technology, even the question as to the technical capabilities as a weapon, please do so. Any further debate about politics, or if politics can/should be discussed, and I close this thread.

Ara Pacis
2009-Feb-05, 01:34 PM
I think we managed a good discussion of tech with the North Korean rocket thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/43795-north-korea-launches-missile.html) two and a half years ago.

Extracelestial
2009-Feb-08, 11:01 AM
Congratulations to Iran on a sucessful satellite launch.
... But it is certainly possible to make the arguement that people living in Iran would be better off if the money had been spent on other things, such as flu vaccines, better education and so on. ...

I agree with your congratulations (I love space faring) but I certainly disagree with your assessment. This achievement shows that their education system lives up to the task.
What might be argued is what Ahmadinedshad wants to prove. He is notorious to blurt out the wrong message at the wrong time. It isn't as if he's alone in such a club - there come several other western politicians to my mind who excel in this disipline - but he seems to like it. And for this he is not undisputed even in his own country.

Extracelestial

Ronald Brak
2009-Feb-08, 11:13 AM
I agree with your congratulations (I love space faring) but I certainly disagree with your assessment.

That's not my assessment. I said it was possible to make that arguement, not that I was making it. As to my own accessment I'll keep that to myself for now. If you want to make another thread to discuss it to avoid derailing this one I'll join in if I am still online.

publiusr
2009-Feb-13, 11:05 PM
It might not take much to convert this into something like--
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tamouz.htm
http://www.space.com/news/090211-iran-launch-analysis.html
http://www.astronautix.com/country/iran.htm

mugaliens
2009-Feb-15, 02:02 AM
A small country like Iran has no need for telecommunications satellites or a satellite-based navigation system or...

Tucson_Tim
2009-Feb-15, 02:19 AM
I only see one possible problem with dozens of nations launching satellites: an inadvertent collision, especially in low Earth orbit.

I was right and wrong. There finally was a collision (over Siberia) but it wasn't the fault of the newcomers to space. It was the two nations with the most experience in space.

scottlowther
2009-Feb-15, 05:44 AM
Even then, it takes a very advanced nuclear program to produce a warhead and associated reentry vehicle with a mass that small.

A few points:
1) Lower-weight nukes are probably available to Iran via the former Soviet Union.
2) RV's would not necessarily be needed.

Iran is unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future to come up with enough of a nuclear missile force that they could take out US response capability. So designing ICBMs like the Soviets/Russians had/have doesn't make sense. Any Iranian nuclear attack on the US would be an irrational act.

However, that said, a single decent nuke popped off over the central US at, say, 300 miles altitude would cause untold havoc via EMP. Chances are good it would trash the US economy. To do this, Iran (or anyone else) would not need a decent RV. They would not need decent targetting abilities. All it would need would be a nuke that would fit on a satellite that it could launch onto an inclination that would take it over the US, and which could be detonated on command. Even getting into a precise orbit would not be a requirement; where a circular error probability for an ICBM warhead may be measured in dozens of yards, an orbital EMP "CEP" might only need to be accurate to a few dozens of miles. Wait for an orbit to get right, then *bang.*

Easy. And a way to turn a very limited stockpile of nukes - either home-grown or black market - into something that can cause some real trouble.

loglo
2009-Feb-15, 05:58 AM
A more apt question might be "what capability within their region, as far as nuclear weapon launch capacity is concerned, does this new launcher provide the Iranians?"

scottlowther
2009-Feb-15, 06:41 AM
A more apt question might be "what capability within their region, as far as nuclear weapon launch capacity is concerned, does this new launcher provide the Iranians?"

The Safir-2 launcher is based on the North Korean Nodong-1, which itself was a Scud derivative. It's basically a modernized Scud witha second liquid stage and a small solid upper stage. The Shahab-3, which formed the basis of the first stage, has a max range of about 2,000 kilometers, with about 1000 kilograms of payload. Basically a long-range V-2 rocket, unless the Iranians can pack a 1000-lb nuke on it. Using the Safir-2 launcher as the basis for a military missile would greatly extend the range, but likely lower the payload.

BigDon
2009-Feb-17, 05:28 PM
A few points:
1) Lower-weight nukes are probably available to Iran via the former Soviet Union.
2) RV's would not necessarily be needed.

Iran is unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future to come up with enough of a nuclear missile force that they could take out US response capability. So designing ICBMs like the Soviets/Russians had/have doesn't make sense. Any Iranian nuclear attack on the US would be an irrational act.

However, that said, a single decent nuke popped off over the central US at, say, 300 miles altitude would cause untold havoc via EMP. Chances are good it would trash the US economy. To do this, Iran (or anyone else) would not need a decent RV. They would not need decent targetting abilities. All it would need would be a nuke that would fit on a satellite that it could launch onto an inclination that would take it over the US, and which could be detonated on command. Even getting into a precise orbit would not be a requirement; where a circular error probability for an ICBM warhead may be measured in dozens of yards, an orbital EMP "CEP" might only need to be accurate to a few dozens of miles. Wait for an orbit to get right, then *bang.*

Easy. And a way to turn a very limited stockpile of nukes - either home-grown or black market - into something that can cause some real trouble.


You mean like Operation Starfish didn't do?

RalofTyr
2009-Feb-17, 05:46 PM
With the responses, you'd think Iran lunched Sputnik.

Ronald Brak
2009-Feb-18, 01:34 AM
A small country like Iran has no need for telecommunications satellites or a satellite-based navigation system or...

People in small countries generally find these things very useful. But one could certainly argue that it isn't cost effective for small countries to try to develop them on their own.

scottlowther
2009-Feb-18, 06:01 AM
You mean like Operation Starfish didn't do?

Starfish Prime was hell and gone out over the Pacific, not over the central US. There were also not a hell of a lot of consumer electronics using microchips in service underneath it either. Starfish Prime did, however, cause an electronic ruckus in Hawaii, about 1000 miles away

JonClarke
2009-Feb-18, 08:57 AM
People in small countries generally find these things very useful. But one could certainly argue that it isn't cost effective for small countries to try to develop them on their own.

Iran isn't a small country. It has a larger population that the UK, Italy. France and the Ukraine (all of which have launched their own satellites and/or sounding rockets and have extensive space industries). Its economy has a PPP GDP larger (in some cases considerably larger) than a number of countries with respectable space sectors like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway.

Jon

JonClarke
2009-Feb-18, 09:00 AM
Starfish Prime was hell and gone out over the Pacific, not over the central US. There were also not a hell of a lot of consumer electronics using microchips in service underneath it either. Starfish Prime did, however, cause an electronic ruckus in Hawaii, about 1000 miles away

New Zealand too.

Warren Platts
2009-Feb-18, 12:53 PM
Here's their COPUOS report:

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/stsc2009/tech-15.pdf

KaiYeves
2009-Feb-18, 03:50 PM
With the responses, you'd think Iran lunched Sputnik.
:lol:

Argos
2009-Feb-18, 04:27 PM
A small country like Iran has no need for telecommunications satellites or a satellite-based navigation system or...

Thatīs not the best argument, since even smaller countries like Japan, France, Britain, have them.

Ronald Brak
2009-Feb-19, 01:33 AM
I look at Iran and see a country that really needs telecommunication services and satelite based navigation services. But I doubt they could save money by lauching there own satellites to do it.

ravens_cry
2009-Feb-19, 03:50 AM
I look at Iran and see a country that really needs telecommunication services and satelite based navigation services. But I doubt they could save money by lauching there own satellites to do it.
Maybe not. But space is more then just useful. It is also a good boost to national pride. Launching ones own satellite may or may not be cost effective, but it helps the citizens feel good about their country.

Murphy
2009-Feb-19, 05:26 AM
The reason for Iran wanting to develop its own satellite and space capabilities are obvious. If they want any chance of defending themselves in the 21st century, they need Spy satellites and GPS-like systems for their military.

The reason they are doing it by themselves is that they have to, Iran has no reliable Allies and are effectively under economic blockade, they can't rely on any outside governments or corporations to help them in the long run. Sure Russia or China may sell them tech, but only so long as it is in their interests and that kind of thing can change quickly. They have no choice but to build it all themselves, no matter the cost.

JonClarke
2009-Feb-19, 08:48 AM
The reason for Iran wanting to develop its own satellite and space capabilities are obvious. If they want any chance of defending themselves in the 21st century, they need Spy satellites and GPS-like systems for their military.

And of course developing space technology is good for the research sector and builds the aerospace industry. It is not surprising that a country the size of Iran has developed space capabiolities. it would be more surprising if it did not.

Good on them.

Jon

Larry Jacks
2009-Feb-19, 09:27 PM
The reason for Iran wanting to develop its own satellite and space capabilities are obvious. If they want any chance of defending themselves in the 21st century, they need Spy satellites and GPS-like systems for their military.

Reconnaisance satellites, sure. They don't need their own GPS-like system. All they have to do is use either GPS, Glonass, or Galileo.

cjameshuff
2009-Feb-19, 09:59 PM
And of course developing space trechnology is good for the research sector and builds the aerospace industry. It is not surprising that a country the size of Iran has developedf space capabiolities. it would be more surpsing if it did not.

And it's certainly not a bad idea for them to be looking at increasing the diversity of their economy. They're already based largely on energy exports and have domestic uranium reserves, so it is in fact quite reasonable for them to want to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful power production, especially since it'd enable them to go further with large-scale desalinization projects. They are not badly positioned to try to expand their aerospace industry, either, and it might ease the "brain drain" they've been experiencing.

Everything they say they're trying to do is quite reasonable. The only real question is whether they can be believed. It seems unreasonable to insist that they outright abandon projects that might be vital to their future because of what they might do, and the technology will certainly be developed or bought eventually...the best route may be to lend assistance in designing peaceful reactors and rockets, in exchange for supervision.

Murphy
2009-Feb-20, 04:21 PM
Reconnaisance satellites, sure. They don't need their own GPS-like system. All they have to do is use either GPS, Glonass, or Galileo.

Eh, but the point is that the owners and controllers of GPS, Glonass, or Galileo (namely the US, Russia and the EU) are not going to let Iran use their systems for military purposes. If their is a war and Iran needed such systems they would almost certainly be denied their use, that is to say if they are not directly at war with one of the above mentioned parties, (which is not out of the question) in which case they'd be used against them.

In the situation Iran finds itself in, they can't rely on anybody else when it comes down to it, if they want something, they have to do it themselves. That said, I think a real GPS-like system is well beyond their current capabilities, but given a few decades of development, who knows.

publiusr
2009-Feb-20, 06:46 PM
I don't think the former Soviets really care who uses what system--as long as they get some money along the way.

Also remember this: Just about any dictator who has an Air Force, probably has a few Mirage to go with his MiGs.

galacsi
2009-Feb-20, 08:02 PM
I don't think the former Soviets really care who uses what system--as long as they get some money along the way.

Also remember this: Just about any dictator who has an Air Force, probably has a few Mirage to go with his MiGs.

Oh I understand , that's why Saoudis got F15 and F16 , because they are true democrats !

(And ex Iran's Shah got F14 , and . . . )

Argos
2009-Feb-20, 08:13 PM
Just found out that Wiki has no entry on Mirage, the fighter [an outstanding aircraft]. :surprised

Edit: in fact it does have.

publiusr
2009-Feb-20, 08:55 PM
Sad that Iran has the F-14 and we don't any more.

Oh well. I just hope developments in these fields--Bush's micronukes--don't turn Iran's LV curiosity into a real threat... American research has been stolen and used against us in the past after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballotechnics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon

Doodler
2009-Feb-22, 06:55 PM
With the responses, you'd think Iran lunched Sputnik.

I don't find the analogy inapt.