Israel new missiles reach New York and Tokyo

[revelarts]

Israeli military men conducted a successful launch of Jericho-3 intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday. The test was carried out at the Palmahim air base, the Irish Times said. At the same time, officials with Israel Defense Forces said that they had conducted the tests of a new missile engine in the morning of November 2. The launch of the missile could be seen from Ashkelon to Tel Aviv, Newsru Israel said. According to publications in the media, the three-stage missile is capable of delivering a 750-kilo warhead to a distance of more than 10,000 kilometers. If the reports about the range of Jericho-3 are true to fact, then it means that the missile can reach such cities as Tokyo and New York. The distance between these two cities and Tel Aviv makes up a bit more than 9,000 kilometers (5500 miles).
According to Western sources, Israel passed the Jericho-3 missile into service in 2008. However, the work on the project still continues, MissileThreat.com says. According to the publication, the takeoff weight of the missile makes up 29 tons. The missile is 15.5 meters long. The website says that in addition to the 750-kilo nuclear warhead, a Jericho-3 is capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles. Even though the Jericho-3 is designed for deep underground basing, it will be possible to launch the missile from mobile platforms, including railway platforms. The high speed of the missile makes it practically invincible for interception. The Palmahim airbase is a range ground for testing various missile systems including Hetz and Jericho. Palmahim is the base for the Hetz-2 missile defense system. In addition, Israel uses the base as a spaceport.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/03-11-2011/119521-israel_jericho-0/

Our allies , but somehow this doesn't make me comfortable, how about you folks?

[jimnyc]

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/03-11-2011/119521-israel_jericho-0/

Our allies , but somehow this doesn't make me comfortable, how about you folks?

So you are worried about Israel having missiles but you protect Iran's right to have nuclear weapons? LOL

[Nukeman]

So you are worried about Israel having missiles but you protect Iran's right to have nuclear weapons? LOL

Rev.. I ahve to go with Jimmy on this one. YOU have been talking about the RIGHT of Iran to have their missles yet you are worried about Israel. they have been staunch supporters of ours since inception, even though our country has been rather pissy with them...

[revelarts]

what? LOL
I guess for some folks if it makes you feel uncomfortable it MEANS it's time for a preemptive strike.
umm I don't just don't think that way. LOL

I never said Israel doesn't have a RIGHT, I just said it doesn't make me comfortable.
Israel does have a right. I've defended their right to defend themselves as well. Still Just feels weird.

[jimnyc]

what? LOL
I guess for some folks if it makes you feel uncomfortable it MEANS it's time for a preemptive strike.
umm I don't just don't think that way. LOL

I never said Israel doesn't have a RIGHT, I just said it doesn't make me comfortable.
Israel does have a right. I've defended their right to defend themselves as well. Still Just feels weird.

I've never seen you state that it made you uncomfortable for Iran to possess nukes, even though they lie about it. You only go crazy trying to defend their rights and claim how they never did anything wrong to warrant stopping them. But now you're uncomfortable about an ally having weapons. Shall I list all the reasons you have given us as to why Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[revelarts]

I can List them fine myself thanks.
But I've said clearly I wish Nukes had never been invented. Frankly I'm not comfortable with anyone having them including us. But I'm not for disarmament. never have been, Reduction meh ok some probably that makes sense, but full disarmament No.
Should we discourage proliferation to none nuke states? YES, Inspect? YES. Sanction none agressive states? No. Preemptively ATTACK 3rd world 2nd world nuke researching states? um.. H377 NO. I hope that's clear. My view is the tech is old and it will get around eventually, keeping an eye on it and punishing Aggressive players early in DEFENSE is fine but this preemptive BS makes me puke.
My base point with Iran is that they are a sovereign Country that has no record of offensive war and they don't need to be Preemptively ATTACKED because they might one day maybe get 1 nuclear weapon.

basically I think the 2nd amendment applies to all nations, but it doesn't make me feel comfortable that even a friend who "borrows" money from me and spys on me now has howitzer like mine 5 blocks away either.

[jimnyc]

I can List them fine myself thanks.
But I've said clearly I wish Nukes had never been invented. Frankly I'm not comfortable with anyone having them including us. But I'm not for disarmament. never have been, Reduction meh ok some probably that makes sense, but full disarmament No.
Should we discourage proliferation to none nuke states? YES, Inspect? YES. Sanction none agressive states? No. Preemptively ATTACK 3rd world 2nd world nuke researching states? um.. H377 NO. I hope that's clear. My view is the tech is old and it will get around eventually, keeping an eye on it and punishing Aggressive players early in DEFENSE is fine but this preemptive BS makes me puke.
My base point with Iran is that they are a sovereign Country that has no record of offensive war and they don't need to be Preemptively ATTACKED because they might one day maybe get 1 nuclear weapon.

basically I think the 2nd amendment applies to all nations, but it doesn't make me feel comfortable that even a friend who "borrows" money from me and spys on me now has howitzer like mine 5 blocks away either.

And my point is that you go out of your way to show you think Iran isn't a problem and give reasons why, then come back a few days later and state you are alarmed by Israel having a missile. Why would you be concerned about an ally having a missile but show lack of concern, and even even give reasons as to why it's not a problem for them to have them?

[revelarts]

I just told you , but to put it another way I've got a thing about countering war propaganda, it gets me going Jim.

[jimnyc]

I just told you , but to put it another way I've got a thing about countering war propaganda, it gets me going Jim.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. I just find it odd that you have 2 countries having/acquiring missiles and/or nuclear weapons. The one who sponsors terrorist activities doesn't concern you much but you are uncomfortable with an ally having a weapon. Your line of thinking makes my head, well, ache!

[Thunderknuckles]

There is no historical precedent by which the United States should be overly concern with Israel possessing long range nuclear arms.
One could argue that it increases the threat of the U.S. being dragged into full scale war in the Middle East but that threat exists with or without nuclear arms in the hands of Israel. One could also argue that the risk of our enemies criminally obtaining a nuclear weapon from Israel is also greater but that just reinforces the idea of the U.S. actively discouraging anyone from obtaining a nuclear weapon, ally or otherwise.

Israel is not a direct threat to the U.S. nor will it be in the long foreseeable future. On the other hand, those who have historically coveted the land occupied by both ancient and modern day Israel have every reason to be concerned and it's their own damn fault.

[logroller]

Seems to be a few issues working themselves here. Is it nukes, missile or terrorism? I'd like to say its all of them; but the facts don't really support all that. I mean, many of terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudi-- supposedly our allies.

Anywho, hey Jim-- do you understand why Iran doesn't like the US?

[Little-Acorn]

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/03-11-2011/119521-israel_jericho-0/

Our allies , but somehow this doesn't make me comfortable, how about you folks?

We have missiles that can reach from here to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, too.

Are you as uncomfortable about the U.S.?

.

(You know what truly funny? Some people in this country would actually answer Yes to that question!)

[logroller]

Seems to be a few issues working themselves here. Is it nukes, missile or terrorism? I'd like to say its all of them; but the facts don't really support all that. I mean, many of terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudi-- supposedly our allies.

Anywho, hey Jim-- do you understand why Iran doesn't like the US?

On reread,that kinda sounds condescending; if I could rephrase that "Why do you think Iran doesn't like the US?

[revelarts]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. I just find it odd that you have 2 countries having/acquiring missiles and/or nuclear weapons. The one who sponsors terrorist activities doesn't concern you much but you are uncomfortable with an ally having a weapon. Your line of thinking makes my head, well, ache!


Not sure why your head hurts, should be fairly easy to make the distinctions of and uneasy feeling of new countries actually getting weapons and the conviction of supporting the idea that every fairly civil nation has a RIGHT to THINK about getting a weapons without getting attacked.

My Daughter will drive one day. I know that's coming but when it really gets here i'm sure I'm going feel a bit different about it, uneasy maybe, than i do today. Maybe i should preemptive strike all of the others kids her age so i'm sure they won't become drunk or careless drivers and possibly hurt her, there is this 1 kid that's been bugging her in school....

[revelarts]

We have missiles that can reach from here to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, too.
Are you as uncomfortable about the U.S.?
.
(You know what truly funny? Some people in this country would actually answer Yes to that question!)

ummm... Do you get the impression from my posts that i have a lot of faith in the U.S. gov't?

[jimnyc]

Seems to be a few issues working themselves here. Is it nukes, missile or terrorism? I'd like to say its all of them; but the facts don't really support all that. I mean, many of terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudi-- supposedly our allies.

Anywho, hey Jim-- do you understand why Iran doesn't like the US?


On reread,that kinda sounds condescending; if I could rephrase that "Why do you think Iran doesn't like the US?

In a nutshell, our support of Israel.

[jimnyc]

Not sure why your head hurts, should be fairly easy to make the distinctions of and uneasy feeling of new countries actually getting weapons and the conviction of supporting the idea that every fairly civil nation has a RIGHT to THINK about getting a weapons without getting attacked.

We're not talking an "attack", so please leave that out of the equation. Your "support" in other threads, was for Iran to have the "right" to possess nukes. You outlined your reasons.

Israel already has MANY types of weapons. They are an ally. They are building a new weapon. This makes you uncomfortable.

Or am I reading between the lines here that you don't believe the IAEA reports and think they're lying?

[Dilloduck]

There is no historical precedent by which the United States should be overly concern with Israel possessing long range nuclear arms.
One could argue that it increases the threat of the U.S. being dragged into full scale war in the Middle East but that threat exists with or without nuclear arms in the hands of Israel. One could also argue that the risk of our enemies criminally obtaining a nuclear weapon from Israel is also greater but that just reinforces the idea of the U.S. actively discouraging anyone from obtaining a nuclear weapon, ally or otherwise.

Israel is not a direct threat to the U.S. nor will it be in the long foreseeable future. On the other hand, those who have historically coveted the land occupied by both ancient and modern day Israel have every reason to be concerned and it's their own damn fault.

There is certainly a precedent for having assistance (including weapons) turned around and used against us. Besides---Israel must maintain it's vigilance. They never know where the next attack will come from.

[revelarts]

We're not talking an "attack", so please leave that out of the equation. Your "support" in other threads, was for Iran to have the "right" to possess nukes. You outlined your reasons.

Israel already has MANY types of weapons. They are an ally. They are building a new weapon. This makes you uncomfortable.

Or am I reading between the lines here that you don't believe the IAEA reports and think they're lying?

I think the Iaea report says they suspect this and suspect that but still can't prove jack squat.

But I do think Iran wants all kinds of weapons and one day Nukes. If I were Iran I would want nukes. I don't blame them. But at this point the U.N. U.S. and Israel are so far up the butts i doubt they have much of anything going on. Which is good. I don't mind the scrutiny What I don't like are the THREATS OF ATTACK. how can we "take that off the table" conversationally? if it wasn't for the trheat I probably wouldn't even be commenting on the issue. Because the news would be saying things like ...
"
"...Iran is complying with all the IAEA inspections but the IAEA still suspects Iran wants to take their nuke program much farther. The US says as long as Iran complies with the treaty protocols we don't have problem, Israel is somewhat uncomfortable but not truly concerned about an iranian nuke program based on their own intel, military strength and strategic alliances. Chet what going on in Switzerland?..."

[jimnyc]

I think the Iaea report says they suspect this and suspect that but still can't prove jack squat.

But I do think Iran wants all kinds of weapons and one day Nukes. If I were Iran I would want nukes. I don't blame them. But at this point the U.N. U.S. and Israel are so far up the butts i doubt they have much of anything going on. Which is good. I don't mind the scrutiny What I don't like are the THREATS OF ATTACK. how can we "take that off the table" conversationally? if it wasn't for the trheat I probably wouldn't even be commenting on the issue. Because the news would be saying things like ...
"
"...Iran is complying with all the IAEA inspections but the IAEA still suspects Iran wants to take their nuke program much farther. The US says as long as Iran complies with the treaty protocols we don't have problem, Israel is somewhat uncomfortable but not truly concerned about an iranian nuke program based on their own intel, military strength and strategic alliances. Chet what going on in Switzerland?..."

Hmmmm


The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.

Work on fast-acting detonators that have "possible application in a nuclear explosive device, and... limited civilian and conventional military applications".

Tests of the detonators consistent with simulating the explosion of a nuclear device

"The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network."

"Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."

And read their entire report here:

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf

[logroller]

In a nutshell, our support of Israel.

You don't think our integral role in the overthrow of their republic and installation of the Shah have anything to with it?

[jimnyc]

You don't think our integral role in the overthrow of their republic and installation of the Shah have anything to with it?

Sure, but curiously, what would that have to do with Revelarts not being concerned about them acquiring nukes, but alarmed at Israel for having missiles?

[logroller]

Sure, but curiously, what would that have to do with Revelarts not being concerned about them acquiring nukes, but alarmed at Israel for having missiles?

Well, its always a challenge in politics to understand the positions of others. Why would Israel need a long range missile-- do they have enemies which they need to potentially dissuade from hostile action from 10000km away? I can understand why Iran would want nukes, they feel they are threatened and seek nuclear capability to dissuade others from attacking them-- which many have in the past and some would still like to.

Put yourself in Iran's position, what would you do?

[jimnyc]

Well, its always a challenge in politics to understand the positions of others. Why would Israel need a long range missile-- do they have enemies which they need to potentially dissuade from hostile action from 10000km away? I can understand why Iran would want nukes, they feel they are threatened and seek nuclear capability to dissuade others from attacking them-- which many have in the past and some would still like to.

Put yourself in Iran's position, what would you do?

From a 100% impartial POV, I would do what every other country does, protect themselves by having weapons. As someone who is American and knows our history with Iran, and knows their history of supporting terrorism and terror groups, I feel a little uncomfortable with them gaining WMD's of any kind. So while you can make a case for them having the right, it would still make me, and many others, uncomfortable.

Israel already has many weapons. Now they have more. They are an ally of ours. Regardless of the weapons in their arsenal, they don't go after anyone at all unprovoked. I am very comfortable with them having any weapons on hand in order to protect themselves from a variety of threats surrounding them.

[Monkeybone]

Do we not want them to have long range missles because of the country that Israel has vowed to wipe off the map? Oh wait...

This would be like you having a gun and your neighbor, who happens to be a great friend, you trust blah blah etc, gets gun and now suddenly you don't trust him and are waiting for him to shoot through your windows or car jack you or break into your hourse, whatever.... rumbly tumbly tummy worries ensue.

VS the street thug that has threatened to get you and the moment that he gets his hand on a gun you are dead. But hey... he needs a gun to protect himself...

[Gunny]

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/03-11-2011/119521-israel_jericho-0/

Our allies , but somehow this doesn't make me comfortable, how about you folks?

I'd have less a problem with Israel having them IF you anti-Israel-types led by Obama would quit trying to piss them off.

[logroller]

From a 100% impartial POV, I would do what every other country does, protect themselves by having weapons. As someone who is American and knows our history with Iran, and knows their history of supporting terrorism and terror groups, I feel a little uncomfortable with them gaining WMD's of any kind. So while you can make a case for them having the right, it would still make me, and many others, uncomfortable.

Israel already has many weapons. Now they have more. They are an ally of ours. Regardless of the weapons in their arsenal, they don't go after anyone at all unprovoked. I am very comfortable with them having any weapons on hand in order to protect themselves from a variety of threats surrounding them.

Israel=not a concern. I don't think Israel will attack us, and that they have legitimate concerns and reasons to arm themselves.

Iran feels that others, including us, but mostly our then allies(ie Iraq) in the area have went after them without provocation. Sure they support a terrorist org, and that's bad and we shouldn't just turn a blind eye; but the terror support arose long after we started meddling in their affairs. I mean, we talk about diplomacy, but seems we only do so in our interests (and our allies), not those of Iran. Admittedly the last pres of Iran was a bit more friendly to us, but he was replaced, perhaps because the Iranian people, or atleast the leaders, don't trust our intentions for peace-- if history is any indication, they're right. We're a lot better at war than peace, and many a time we have used not just diplomacy like UN inspections (or IAEA, whoever, it's us) but clandestine military support to achieve the ends and resources we desire. Is peace with Iran truly what we seek? or have we made our minds up and now we're just building a case for attacking them? I like to hope the former, but I would understand Iran's leanings towards the latter. I believe it to be our responsibility to convince them we aren't, not their responsibility to convince us. ----Or just stay the course, attack them, because we, and our allies, have more to gain from overthrowing Iran. But don't don't sugar coat it with talk about how we're right. We're just bigger and more powerful and have in place the alliances and mechanisms to legally justify the imposition of our will upon others.

[revelarts]

I'd have less a problem with Israel having them IF you anti-Israel-types led by Obama would quit trying to piss them off.
Israels not perfect and neither is the U.S. doesn't mean I'm Anti either one.

[Gaffer]

Israel=not a concern. I don't think Israel will attack us, and that they have legitimate concerns and reasons to arm themselves.

Iran feels that others, including us, but mostly our then allies(ie Iraq) in the area have went after them without provocation. Sure they support a terrorist org, and that's bad and we shouldn't just turn a blind eye; but the terror support arose long after we started meddling in their affairs. I mean, we talk about diplomacy, but seems we only do so in our interests (and our allies), not those of Iran. Admittedly the last pres of Iran was a bit more friendly to us, but he was replaced, perhaps because the Iranian people, or atleast the leaders, don't trust our intentions for peace-- if history is any indication, they're right. We're a lot better at war than peace, and many a time we have used not just diplomacy like UN inspections (or IAEA, whoever, it's us) but clandestine military support to achieve the ends and resources we desire. Is peace with Iran truly what we seek? or have we made our minds up and now we're just building a case for attacking them? I like to hope the former, but I would understand Iran's leanings towards the latter. I believe it to be our responsibility to convince them we aren't, not their responsibility to convince us. ----Or just stay the course, attack them, because we, and our allies, have more to gain from overthrowing Iran. But don't don't sugar coat it with talk about how we're right. We're just bigger and more powerful and have in place the alliances and mechanisms to legally justify the imposition of our will upon others.

Your thinking the same way most people and especially our govt thinks about iran. That they just want to be left in peace and provide for their own country and well being. But that is wrong, that is not what they want. There are over 50,000 qods forces scattered throughout the ME. Their purpose is to foment revolutions, assassinations and terror activities. The iranians want nukes so they can dominate the region and put it under a caliphate headed by the mullahs in iran. Taking out Israel is the best way to impress the other muslim countries to join them. It would mean a war of course but that is part of the plan. They want to force the return of the 12th imam who is only suppose to return when the world is in a cataclysmic war. And the decimation of iran in the process doesn't mean anything to them. It's considered acceptable. They are religious fanatics with no concern for human life. do really think these guys should have a right to any kind of weapon?

To touch on the history. The shah was overthrown with the help of carter. But it was suppose to be an arab spring type of revolt headed by iranian communists. It worked fine until the mullahs got into power instead of the communists. All the commies were imprisoned and then executed. what was suppose to be a socialist regime turned out to be a fanatical bunch of loonies.

[logroller]

Your thinking the same way most people and especially our govt thinks about iran. That they just want to be left in peace and provide for their own country and well being. But that is wrong, that is not what they want. There are over 50,000 qods forces scattered throughout the ME. Their purpose is to foment revolutions, assassinations and terror activities. The iranians want nukes so they can dominate the region and put it under a caliphate headed by the mullahs in iran. Taking out Israel is the best way to impress the other muslim countries to join them. It would mean a war of course but that is part of the plan. They want to force the return of the 12th imam who is only suppose to return when the world is in a cataclysmic war. And the decimation of iran in the process doesn't mean anything to them. It's considered acceptable. They are religious fanatics with no concern for human life. do really think these guys should have a right to any kind of weapon?

To touch on the history. The shah was overthrown with the help of carter. But it was suppose to be an arab spring type of revolt headed by iranian communists. It worked fine until the mullahs got into power instead of the communists. All the commies were imprisoned and then executed. what was suppose to be a socialist regime turned out to be a fanatical bunch of loonies.
So we then supported Iraq n the war against Iran...then sold weapons with Iran-Contra...then Iraq became a problem....now Iran is a problem, again

I can understand two steps forward, one step back; but it appears almost even, but I guess that's still better than going backwards.

[Gunny]

Israels not perfect and neither is the U.S. doesn't mean I'm Anti either one.

I'd as soon Israel have them as us. They at least have the balls to go out and kill the enemy. A fact and an art lost on idiots with their heads in up ther asses in their own little dreamworlds making excuses for our enemies and always wanting to give them more rights than our own military.

[Gunny]

So we then supported Iraq n the war against Iran...then sold weapons with Iran-Contra...then Iraq became a problem....now Iran is a problem, again

I can understand two steps forward, one step back; but it appears almost even, but I guess that's still better than going backwards.

Want to bring some relevant talking points to the paper? I had hair when those events took place.