Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And yes, any deity who sees you as his equal after you fight alongside him is awesome so Odin counts as okay in my book. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd have a beer with Odin

 

I'd fire the christian god for being lazy and incompetant though.

 

Personal belief isnt really dangerous since people who have arrived at that conclusion are happy to let others do the same.

[Blank]

If the Jews aren't special then whey do they factor into all End Time prophecies so heavily Blank? 

 

They are still God's People even after they rejected Christ.  Unless you've cut of a very Calvinist cloth, certainly you believe that you had to accept Jesus into your heart to become a Child of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They never accepted Him though, so the fact that they reject Him means they never had Him, so they aren't children of God by faith, but they have always been children of God by the law, but we all know that the law cannot save one from their sins, since all have sinned and one sin=death according to the law. so their status as children of God by the law is only to serve as an endtime reminder that they rejected their own Messiah and aren't saved unless they accept Him.

 

I do accept that you have to "accept Jesus into your heart" (i.e. believe that He payed the penalty for your sins and accept His sacrifice for your own acknowledged sins) in order to become a Child of God. But like i said in the previous paragraph, just because Jews are born children of God by the law doesn't automatically cause them to accept Jesus. Many haven't, some have. Why would Peter minister the gospel to the Jews if they were already saved? it is because they weren't already saved. They still needed Jesus like the gentiles did, and like everyone else did.

 

I'd fire the christian god for being lazy and incompetant though.

just wondering, in what ways do you think he is lazy and incompetent?(so that i can refute as a Christian with the reason why i don't think He is lazy and incompetent)

Edited December 6, 2005 by Blank

[Walsingham]

May I suggest that the religious debate move to a new thread? The principle is simply one of courtesy to those using this one, and you never know, you may attract some peripatetic theologians.

 

Thanks to y'all who put the data on the Iranian/Israeli tech here. Hello to kinslayer.

 

If I can sum up, I think you've indicated that the Iranians and Israelis view the most likely reaction to an Iranian nuke will be an air strike by the Israelis. The Iranians are trying to bolster their defenses. The Israelis are trying to give themselves fast striking craft.

 

However, I find neither gambit reflective of the inegnuity of either side. each side will not react in the obvious way and will be trying to pitch curveballs. I came up with a bunch of neat ideas, but a couple of them were far too neat, so I'm not going to share them for fear they might be used!

[Blank]

very well then Walsy, i will start a new thread with my previous post so as to give context.

 

Edit: The Religion + Other Views Thread

Edited December 6, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's hard to do Isreal without religion. However it's pretty easy to see why the Jews have a persecution complex isnt it. Which in turn makes their reactions easy to predict and understand.

Edited December 6, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Gabrielle]

Go away with that religious nonesense. Don't ruin a perfectly good political thread.

[kumquatq3]

I came up with a bunch of neat ideas, but a couple of them were far too neat, so I'm not going to share them for fear they might be used! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ever heard of Project Paperclip?

 

A CIA jet has already departed and Opereratives will be at your door shortly.

 

Please, don't struggle.

[Child of Flame]

So when we make the essplosions?

[Craigboy2]

And the Russian Foreign Ministry, without commenting on the reported missile sale, said Saturday that all Russian weaponry supplied to Iran is purely for defensive purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bull****! Ya and that's the same reason why N. Korea wants them too!

[Commissar]

Kinslayer scares the everloving hell out of me.

[Atreides]

We need to send Steve to Iran. Only his love can save the Middle East!

[Commissar]

When the enemy has anti aircraft weaponry you just don't use aircraft.  Israel will probably use the same tactics that their enemies use.  Well placed car bombs and attack on key civilian centers.  They have done so before in Syria.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iranian air defense honestly wouldn't be as big of a problem as everyone's making it out to be, even with a few new Russian toys.

[SteveThaiBinh]

We need to send Steve to Iran.  Only his love can save the Middle East!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How prophetic of you.

[Azarkon]

Under what circumstance could there be peace and harmony between Israel and the Middle-East? Seriously? This was a long time coming.

[Lucius]

Let them eradicate eachother then, I'm not too fond of either Israel OR Iran.

 

Btw. lets send in Commie, Iranian airdefence will never spot him on the radar.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Lucius

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

We need to send Steve to Iran.  Only his love can save the Middle East!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or at least incapacitate everyone

[Commissar]

Let them eradicate eachother then, I'm not too fond of either Israel OR Iran.

 

Btw. lets send in Commie, Iranian airdefence will never spot him on the radar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I don't want to go.

 

Just to play devil's advocate here...so what about the whole thing? It's not an illegal purchase, right? Any sovereign nation in the world would be allowed to buy missiles off the Russians if they wanted, and Iran is still a sovereign country, so how could we justify stopping them?

 

Now, I know that's a simplistic view, with the whole nuclear thing going on, and I don't actually take it myself. However, it would be a stupid country indeed that saw a storm coming and didn't buy a raincoat.

[Walsingham]

I have to agree with Commissar. There is quite simply nothing illegal or even unusual about a state as fractious as Iran buying arms. And realistically we cannot prevent anyone selling them such weapons. After all, while they do improve the state's capacity to wage war, they do not in themselves permit a form of attack (bar some slightly hamfisted poaching at passing planes).

 

However, what this does do is ramp up the tension, because anyone wanting to have a pop at them would be well advised to do so before they can get fully trained up on the new hardware.

[Kinslayer]

I refuse to pick any of them as I firmly believe there are many other possible outcomes/solutions that are much brighter for the people of the Middle East.

 

Um...like?

 

What I've read, you have (at most) a year before Iran has nukes. At that point, the "fluffy happy ending" doesn't even exist. At that point, things change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not neccessarily....if Iran aquire nukes it doesn't mean they'll fire them the next minute or let's say give them to Hamas. Sure, there will be a nuclear standoff in the ME, but there doesn't have to be a nuclear war - status quo. Israel views a 'nuclear Iran' as unacceptable, I can understand that, but if they start a war with an airstrike against Iran then they're to blame as much as Iran who has been pursuing a nuclear weapon for a long time now. But when I look at it from the Iranian side, if my worse enemy has such weapons and they do, I would as hell want them too. Israel never signed any non-nuclear prolification document of the UN, neither has Iran.

 

Israel pursued further developing nukes and got away with any significant condemnation/action from the international community....and now when Iran does the same/similar thing there is a widespread threats of serious embargoes and even military action. I mean no ofence but it seems a bit hypocritical to me as we know that Israel in the past has been warmongering as much as its Arab neighbours, justified or not. What I understand where the biggest fear of a 'nuclear Iran' comes from - it's the alleged connection of terrorist organizations to Iran, like Hamas ( - to some a terrorist organization, to others freedom fighters) aquiring nuclear weapons through Iran.....but I don't think that theory stands so much.

 

I mean even the radicalism of the Iranian regime doesn't cloud their judgement so much they would risk everything - their country, their people....just to do so, it's ludocrious - even for the Iranians. Sure their leader called for Israel to be wiped of the map - it's unacceptable and I would take it into notion, but I wouldn't take it so seriously as some do because the Iranians know if they destroy/nuke Israel they'll be dead aswell. I just don't think they would sacrife it all for that cause, it's clear there are many wanna be suicide bombers in Iran I just don't think it will be the whole country of Iran.

 

 

And BTW your objectivity seems to be clouded by your pessimism which isn't so realistic as you may think and it shouldn't be anbodies point of view who'll have an impact on the future of the ME because quite frankly I've never met or heard in my life of a pessimist who has achieved a significant goal in life and I can't name one person in history who really made a difference for the humankind in a positive way and been a pessimist.....hope.....there's always hope....tomorrow is a whole new day

 

Cheer up

 

 

Did.....did he just try and win an arguement with Hope and Love?

 

**** it, we're all screwed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't need to be so hostile, I meant no disrespect or anything like that and I'm not trying to 'win' anything here. I was just saying that, although the current situation gives little room for optimism, there is no need to cancel any possible chance for a diplomatic solution no matter how small it seems. Sure it doesn't look good I agree with you, but never should our spirits yield in the quest for a peaceful outcome, no matter how distant that hope or dream appears to be.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Kinslayer

[Kinslayer]

Kinslayer scares the everloving hell out of me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this a joke? If not would you care to elaborate please.

 

Just to play devil's advocate here...so what about the whole thing? It's not an illegal purchase, right? Any sovereign nation in the world would be allowed to buy missiles off the Russians if they wanted, and Iran is still a sovereign country, so how could we justify stopping them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It isn't an illegal thing and I think nobody here said it was. Iran has been buying weapons from Iran for a very long time, these missle thing is nothing new or sudden because Iran was planning to buy them since the early 90's when they tryed to buy the SA-12 missle systems and fortunatly for the US/Israel they didn't manage.

This business deal is perfectley legal but it does come down as a boost to tensions in the region. Make note that they're buying defensive weaponary not something that would enchance their ofensive capabilities and any country in the world has a right to improve their defenses if they see neccessary so does Iran.

 

Iranian air defense honestly wouldn't be as big of a problem as everyone's making it out to be, even with a few new Russian toys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I strongly disagree with this statment for reasons I already stated in my previous posts in this thread, especially on Tor M1, Iran has been buying weapons from Russia since the revolution and the US or Israel didn't object much to it. But with this deal, the US and Israel strongly condemned the purchase because these aren't just another 'Russian toy', it's the state of the art SAM system and that's the main reason why all the comotion around this thing started in the first place. The Iranians will most probably next seek to buy the latest Igla-S MANPADs from the Russians and the Tors and Iglas may be transferred in a matter of months unlike the powerful and expensive S-300PMU1/2.....furthermore the fulfillment of the Greek and Chinese contracts by Antey Concern and the Indian contract by Kolomna Machine-Building Design Bureau prove that Iran's purchase of powerful anti-ship missiles that would threaten the U.S. naval group in the Persian Gulf and seafaring in the Strait of Hormuz would be a strong military-technical response.

And if you ask yourselves if Iran can afford such purchases do note that the Iranian defense budgit is $9.7 billion per year and for example Israel's is $8.97 billion (plus the yearly $2 billion financial/equipment aid for defense spending from the US).

[Lucius]

You sure know a lot about Iranian defence.

[Commissar]

Kinslayer scares the everloving hell out of me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this a joke? If not would you care to elaborate please.

 

Just to play devil's advocate here...so what about the whole thing? It's not an illegal purchase, right? Any sovereign nation in the world would be allowed to buy missiles off the Russians if they wanted, and Iran is still a sovereign country, so how could we justify stopping them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It isn't an illegal thing and I think nobody here said it was. Iran has been buying weapons from Iran for a very long time, these missle thing is nothing new or sudden because Iran was planning to buy them since the early 90's when they tryed to buy the SA-12 missle systems and fortunatly for the US/Israel they didn't manage.

This business deal is perfectley legal but it does come down as a boost to tensions in the region. Make note that they're buying defensive weaponary not something that would enchance their ofensive capabilities and any country in the world has a right to improve their defenses if they see neccessary so does Iran.

 

Iranian air defense honestly wouldn't be as big of a problem as everyone's making it out to be, even with a few new Russian toys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I strongly disagree with this statment for reasons I already stated in my previous posts in this thread, especially on Tor M1, Iran has been buying weapons from Russia since the revolution and the US or Israel didn't object much to it. But with this deal, the US and Israel strongly condemned the purchase because these aren't just another 'Russian toy', it's the state of the art SAM system and that's the main reason why all the comotion around this thing started in the first place. The Iranians will most probably next seek to buy the latest Igla-S MANPADs from the Russians and the Tors and Iglas may be transferred in a matter of months unlike the powerful and expensive S-300PMU1/2.....furthermore the fulfillment of the Greek and Chinese contracts by Antey Concern and the Indian contract by Kolomna Machine-Building Design Bureau prove that Iran's purchase of powerful anti-ship missiles that would threaten the U.S. naval group in the Persian Gulf and seafaring in the Strait of Hormuz would be a strong military-technical response.

And if you ask yourselves if Iran can afford such purchases do note that the Iranian defense budgit is $9.7 billion per year and for example Israel's is $8.97 billion (plus the yearly $2 billion financial/equipment aid for defense spending from the US).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

[Kinslayer]

MORE ON TOPIC FOR THOSE INTERESTED:

 

As we all know Moscow will sell Tor M-1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) surface-to-air missiles capable of knocking down cruise missiles and aircraft bombs to Iran, but this contract does not violate any of the Kremlin's international commitments.

 

Several days ago, Russia and Iran signed a contract for the delivery of Tor M-1 SAM systems, a defense factory manager said. This concerns missiles that were produced on a previous Greek contract.....in all, Athens bought 21 Tor M-1 systems and had the right to purchase another 29. However, it decided to scrap this deal in the late 1990s.

 

The Greek contract was worth $526 million, while the Iranian contract's price may exceed $700 million up to $1 billion. However in 2000, Moscow withdrew from a secret Russian-U.S. agreement, also known as the Gore-Tchernomyrdine protocol, that restricted arms deliveries to Iran. Consequently, it was believed that Iran would become the third largest importer of Russian combat hardware after China and India. But Tehran spent not more than $300-400 million on Russian weaponry because it was not sure whether Moscow could implement its military-technical policies without asking Washington's advice.

 

The Russians are arguing that the sale of Tor M-1 missiles to Iran should be viewed as a purely commercial operation because they are tactical weapons for defense purposes and Russians explain that Iran must defend the Bushehr nuclear power plant due to be completed by Russia by 2007, because Israel has repeatedly said that it was examining a possible preventive strike against that facility.

 

Iran is not covered by any international arms-trade sanctions, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the State Duma's international affairs committee, noted. In his opinion, the Russian-Iranian contract does not therefore violate any of Moscow's international commitments. Therefor instead of taking legal action, the West would react politically to this deal as many already have.

 

 

*Aside the politics, the Tor-M1 is very special because it can detect and in 3.4 seconds engage any aircraft at altitude between 10m and 6km which gives him the ability to detect the low-flying cruise missles and aircraft which makes it rather impossible to sneek in undetected like the Isrealy did back in Iraq.

Another thing, what demonstrates Tor's high lethality is the Russian and international testing of Tor's capabilities which proved its aircraft kill possibility ranges between 92 and 95% - and itis capable of maneuvering at loads up to 30gs. Also the missile is also effective against precision guided weapons and cruise missiles, in tests the missile demonstrated kill probability of such targets ranging from 60 to 90% which is highly admirable.

 

One would think that using stealth planes would then be the best option, but it's not so easy as you think. If you remember when the Serbs shot the F-117 down it was primarily because its missons were ordered to use the same flight path on several consecutive missions - which the Serbs understood when they got hit and didn't have any radar contact on and on....the following time they just fired a barrage of SAMs and one picked the F-117s heat signature and nailed him.....the funny part is the missle that shot him was the acient SA-3 that was developed and deployed back in 1961...and when you compare the SA-3 and the SA-15(Tor) it's like comparing a steam locomotive to the TGV.

 

Now the nuclear sites in Iran are the most obvious targets, together with Teheran and key industrial and military sites and they're heavily defended by Iran's AA defenses which include small numbers of Chinese SA-2s, along with SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs. Total holdings seem to include 30 Improved Hawk fire units - US missles(12 battalions/150+ launchers), 45-60 SA-2 and HQ-2J/23 (CSA-1 Chinese equivalents of the SA-2) launchers. Some sources claim that Iran might have 25 SA-6 launchers, but other sources are doubtful. There are reports of the transfer of eight SA-6 launchers to Iran from Russia in 1995/1996. In January 1996 US said had recently added Russian-built SA/6 missile defense systems.

 

In 1997 the Iranian Air Defense forces declared the Almaz S-200 Angara (SA-5 'Gammon') low-to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) operational. The missile has a comparatively modest acceleration rate, and relies on its small wings for maneuverability. Furthermore, the mechanically steered radars used by the SA-5 are vulnerable to saturation by decoys. Sources disagree on the number deployed, with some claiming four batteries, while others claim ten. Another source reports that the Air Force had three Soviet-made long-range SA-5 units, with a total of 10-15 launchers -- enough for six sites.

 

Make no mistake about it - it will be difficult to engage Iranian key nuclear sites and get away with it with no casulties and with the Tor in place and operational the chance of a successful outcome will most certainly decrease.

Now you can argue that Tor would be ineffective defending against a Stealth attack, that it would of course be open to attack from Wild Weasels

Edited December 8, 2005 by Kinslayer

[Commissar]

Are you Hildegard?

[Hildegard]

Are you Hildegard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won't even ask what gave me away. "

 

I've been going through tough time and radical change in my life and I wanted to forget most of things in my 'previous' life so I thought a new account would be according. Guess you can change the enviorment you live in but you can't change yourself - who you really are. Soon I'll be gone for real and while I'm still around I'll use this new account as you probably won't see me posting from this account for a long time - maybe never again as I want to leave behind most of everything from my past.

 

Kinslayer