back to article Iran develops working ICBM: Intercontinental Ballistic Monkey

Iran’s first monkey astronaut successfully completed its debut mission into space on Monday in what the Islamic republic said is a prelude to manned expeditions within the next few years. The courageous simian travelled in a bio-capsule aboard the Pishgam (Pioneer) explorer rocket and orbited the planet at an altitude of 120km …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Alien

    "before returning safely to Earth"

    That's not bad for a first attempt. Certainly better than some countries with bigger budgets managed.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "before returning safely to Earth"

        Silly me. I thought that when the first four words of the article said "Iran’s first monkey astronaut " I thought it meant it was Iran's first monkey astronaut. I shall go to bed without supper tonight feeling suitably chastised..

        1. Wize

          Re: "before returning safely to Earth"

          "I thought that when the first four words of the article said "Iran’s first monkey astronaut " I thought it meant it was Iran's first monkey astronaut."

          It may not be the first intended astronaut, just that its predecessors didn't get far enough from land to get the title before they became an ex-monkey.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Devil

            Re: "before returning safely to Earth"

            Did it go into orbit in one piece?

            That's the major issue.

            Anyway, BBQ'd monkey (even if in bits) is hallal food.

            Mo would approve, I am sure - because a monkey got closer to his god, than he did.

            Satan - because all sorts of weirdo's throw rocks at her.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Does Islam allow men to travel in space?

      1. The Axe
        Angel

        Muslims in Space

        Islam doesn't stop Muslims going into space, the only problem is knowing which direction to pray as they always have to face Mecca.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Muslims in Space

          > is knowing which direction to pray

          "Down" should usually cover it.

        2. My Alter Ego

          Re: Muslims in Space

          Not as complicated as for Jewish astronauts. An Israeli who was on a Shuttle mission had the problem that the Sabbath is every 7 days (or 7 sunsets on earth), unfortunately the Shuttle was orbiting every 90 minutes, meaning a Sabbath comes around every 10.5 hours, which would have been quite distracting. They resolved it by deciding that he could observe the Sabbath as if he were at Cape Canaveral.

          http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2014606/Chabad-Rabbi-Guides-Astronaut-in-Keeping-Shabbat-in-Space.html

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Muslims in Space

            Maybe anybody on a space mission could give up their superstitions for the duration of the trip, making life easier for everybody.

            1. Marvin the Martian
              Paris Hilton

              Re: Muslims in Space

              This raises the question of stasis chambers for deep space travel: should Jewish and Muslim astronauts be defrosted (once a week, resp. 5x a day) to do their praying?

              (Same for Catholic monks, of course, just with more singing at dawn and vespers.)

              1. Ralph B
                Angel

                Re: Muslims in Space

                I too prefer Science Fiction (stasis chambers?) over Religious Fiction (gods?) but we shouldn't pretend they are not both fiction, for the moment at least, before we get too bogged down in planning intergalactic defrost cycles.

                Perhaps supernatural beliefs will die out before stasis chambers are invented (or are needed). That may be a depressing or a hopeful thought. You decide.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Muslims in Space

                  "I too prefer Science Fiction (stasis chambers?) over Religious Fiction (gods?) but we shouldn't pretend they are not both fiction, for the moment at least, before we get too bogged down in planning intergalactic defrost cycles."

                  But one of them may, one day, become real. The other has no hope.

                  Surely occupying the same location as 'god' would sort some of their heads out.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Muslims in Space

                "This raises the question of stasis chambers for deep space travel: should Jewish and Muslim astronauts be defrosted (once a week, resp. 5x a day) to do their praying?"

                No. Lets leave the crazies here. We don't want to take that nonsense with us.

                1. Graham Marsden

                  Re: Muslims in Space

                  I read some years ago about a Muslim who was in the US Navy and who had the problem that, since the ship could often be manoeuvring, it was very difficult for him to pray towards Mecca.

                  He asked his Imam who apparently told him "Which is more important? That you pray towards Mecca or just that you pray?"

                  Oh and to some of the posters above, I don't share his faith, I don't have any religious beliefs, but I'm willing to respect his Right to hold those beliefs in the hope that he will reciprocate and not say "You must think the same way as me" as certain fanatics do...

                  1. JeevesMkII

                    Re: Muslims in Space

                    I have no doubt that in the future someone will invent a gimbal-mounted platform that auo-orients to Mecca for orbital prayer.

                    On a related note, are Jews permitted to fire thrusters on the sabbath?

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Muslims in Space

                    "I'm willing to respect his Right to hold those beliefs in the hope that he will reciprocate and not say "You must think the same way as me" as certain fanatics do..."

                    If someone had a crippling mental illness, say, OCD effecting them to the point where it took up an hour of their time, would you not suggest they need help?

                    An adult having an imaginary friend who helps you is seen as a mental illness, unless you claim they are God, Jesus or some other deity.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: superstitions

              Giving up reflex prejudice* whilst commenting would be useful too. We're all different - better live with it than fight it.

              * against anyone

            3. Philip Lewis
              Pirate

              Re: Muslims in Space

              Since we are ALL on a "space mission" aboard the good ship "Earth", I second that motion and suggest it therefore apply to everybody, now.

              1. Esskay
                Joke

                Re: Muslims in Space

                I'm sure that by the time we sort out stasis chambers and extended space flight, this whole religious conflict malarkey will have sorted itself out, and everyone will be much more tolerant of each other and not so obsessed with 2000-year-old rituals.

          2. Steve Evans

            Re: Jewsish sabbath, was Muslims in Space

            Even if he did obey the sabbath every 10.5 hours, if would hardly have been the end of the world. If would have only last 90 minutes.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Mahatma Coat Re: "before returning safely to Earth"

      "That's not bad for a first attempt......" It's not their first attempt, that failed. They also only got the monkey on this launch to sub-orbital space. So far the Iranians have two failed satellite launches and a sub-orbital monkey - hardly comparable to the Chinese, Indian or Japanese programs. Indeed, a quick look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launchers_families) would show they are just following many other countries, the difference being the other programs are building satellite launch vehicles and not ICBMs in disguise (excepting probably their equally whacky buddies in North Korea).

      "......Certainly better than some countries with bigger budgets managed." Do you mean countries that did original research and development, as opposed to the Iranian effort, which is just a rehash of Sixties Russian unguided missile tech and some tech they bought from China (which copied/stole it from Russia)? The Pishgam rocket was a Safir-2 which is based on the Shahab-3, which is a copy of the Chinese Nodong-1, which is in turn just a minor development of the old Russian Scud. You can see a pic of it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21230691) on the BBC site - does that look like a proper launcher compared to an Ariane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5) or an Altlas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V)?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    US State Department is concerned?

    'US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that if the launched had taken place it would be viewed as “a serious concern”, according to Reuters`.

    Israel is concerned about an Iranian nuclear missile.

    'That concern may arise because the launch probably violated UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which bans “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology"'.

    Israel told the US to pretend Israel doesn't have a nuclear missile ...

    1. My Alter Ego
      Mushroom

      Re: US State Department is concerned?

      I also don't understand how it can "probably" violate Resolution 1929. It achieved orbit (not sub-orbital or ballistic) and if they've managed to launch satellites before they already have the capability to launch a ballistic missile. To get to 100km you only need 1.4km/s Δv, to get into LEO, 9.4km/s Δv is needed.

      The words Horse, Stable and Door spring to mind when I saw that quote.

      1. James Micallef Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        resolution 1929 WTF??

        So does resolution 1929 mean that if you already have ballistic missiles (US, Russia, UK, China, etc etc), then you're allowed to keep them but if you don't have ballistic missiles you're not allowed to develop them? And by extension, does that mean "if you're not a member of the nuclear club, we're not going to alllow you to explore space?"

        Right now there is only 1 country in the middle east that has nukes. There's only 1 country in the middle east that has delivery capability to at least elsewhere in the middle east. And there's only 1 country in the middle east that is occupying territors that isn't theirs, in violation of a number of UN resolutions not to mention those vetoed by the US.

        Israel DOES have legitimate security concerns, to which I am extremely sympathetic. Thing is, I would be a LOT more sympathetic to their concerns if they weren't using them as cover to cynically expand their territory in ways that make it impossible to achieve a 2-state solution, while at the same time publically proclaiming that they're ready to talk peace, only not now because teh conditions aren't right.

        So bottom line, screw the US state department concerns, and congrats to Iran for a good tech achievement.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Boffin

          Re: resolution 1929 WTF??

          "Right now there is only 1 country in the middle east that has nukes. There's only 1 country in the middle east that has delivery capability to at least elsewhere in the middle east. "

          I think you'll find they have orbital capabilities. It's IIRC a 4 stage solid but it takes a big hit on payload because they have to launch over the Med as dropping spent stages on the neighbours is likely to annoy them.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: resolution 1929 WTF??

            "but it takes a big hit on payload because they have to launch over the Med as dropping spent stages on the neighbours is likely to annoy them"

            What, annoy them more than bombing their cities because you feel like it, seizing their land, or asassinating their scientists?

            Personally I can't see the neighbours giving a hoot about a manky bit of used rocket dropping in the desert - and if it's because they are delivering a warhead on some other neighbour, you're not exactly going to register a complaint, are you?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Ledswinger Re: resolution 1929 WTF??

              ".....What, annoy them more than bombing their cities because you feel like it, seizing their land, or asassinating their scientists?...." <Yawn> Change the record, we've debunked all those pet assertions in previous threads.

              "....Personally I can't see the neighbours giving a hoot about a manky bit of used rocket dropping in the desert...." It's more of a case of the overflight being mistaken for an attack or intrusion, in which case a panicky Jordanian, Iranian, Syrian or even Lebanese officer could fire something back and kick off another war. After all, Hezbollah got shirty and started firing when the Israelis cut down a sapling on the border (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10851692), do you think they'd remain calm at a piece of superhot stage casing, possibly accompanied by burning residual rocket fuel, falling on Lebanese territory?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Angel

                Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                "<Yawn> Change the record, we've debunked all those pet assertions in previous threads."

                Ahh look, it's Matt The Twatt. No "we" haven't debunked anything, and in fact neither have you. You have in your usual noisy, pompous manner disagreed, and evidently in recent threads persuaded yourself that you're correct, even when (as often) you're not, or the issue is more nuanced than your primitive black and white thinking can accept. Perhaps that's because you often go off on some illogical tangent.

                In this case you're on topic for a rare change, just wrong. Israel has in recent history fired into Syria, Gaza, Lebanon as they see fit, without provoking any meaningful wars, so a bit of smoking debris isn't going to start any war.

                So again, you're talking out of your arse.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                  ".....haven't debunked anything, and in fact neither have you...." Oh dear, that goldfish memory of yours must be playing up. If you like we can skip right back to A$$nut's fake illness saga for examples of where you blindly posted something that had been debunked weeks before (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/11/29/julian_assange_lung/#c_1644387).

                  "....persuaded yourself that you're correct...." Being able to post verifiable facts rather than just ranting and frothing (as you do) is pretty good for the old conviction thingummy. You should try it some time.

                  ".... Israel has in recent history fired into Syria, Gaza, Lebanon as they see fit...." "as they see fit"? Really? So you can post verifiable links to news items for those events? Oooh, is that a flying pig? Any time Israel has fired into any neighbouring state (or the hellhole of Gaza) is in response to attacks on Israel. Even the targeted killings that you no doubt prefer to call murder or assassinations are of known terrorists with records of violent attacks on Israel, or (such as the scientists and Revolutionary Guards in Iran) those facilitating or planning attacks on Israel.

                  Oh look, you've just been debunked again.

                  1. James Micallef Silver badge
                    Facepalm

                    Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                    (such as the scientists and Revolutionary Guards in Iran) those facilitating or planning attacks on Israel

                    How clever of you to conflate "scientists and Revolutionary guards" together as if they were the same thing. Hint : they are not. the scientists killed were civilians, working on nuclear power technology. It's only in the deranged minds of Israel's and USA's far right that Iran is a threat to Israel. Ahmadinajed is all bluster no substance. Iran's supreme leader has publicly, clearly and repeatedly stated that using nuclear weapons is a grave sin, and for all their bluster Iran knows full well that their attacking Israel will result in tehran being nuked.

                    But sure, otherwise go on believing whatever Fox news tells you

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: James Micallef Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                      ".....How clever of you to conflate "scientists and Revolutionary guards" together as if they were the same thing. Hint : they are not. the scientists killed were civilians, working on nuclear power technology...." Actually they were directly employed by the Iranian government, often by the Revolutionary Guard, making them part of the government structure if not part of the Revolutionary Guard structure. This makes them just as valid targets as the civilian German rocket scientists working on Peenemunde in 1943.

                      ".....Iran's supreme leader has publicly, clearly and repeatedly stated that using nuclear weapons is a grave sin...." Wow, how gullible are you? Khomeini himself stated publicly that he wanted to return to Iran to support a democracy and had no plans for forcing a theocracy on the Iranian people, you want to pretend that happened too? But I see appealing to reason is a lost cause so maybe you should go ask the IAEA why they are convinced Iran is making nuke weapons?

                      1. James Micallef Silver badge
                        Facepalm

                        Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                        "This makes them just as valid targets as the civilian German rocket scientists working on Peenemunde in 1943"

                        German rocket scientists were valid targets because UK and Germany were, you know, at WAR with each other. Israel isn't at war with Iran, so Israel is wrong to assassinate any Iranian.

                        Re gullibility, did you believe there were WMDs in Iraq? Do you think the US is winning the war in Afghanistan? I have no doubt that, as the IAEA says, that Iran is building the CAPABILITY of making nukes, that they want to have nukes, and maybe they even will build some actual nukes. Why? Because Israel has them, and when you're in a territorial standoff (US vs USSR cold war, India vs Pakistan), it's better to have nukes when your opponent has them.

                        What I do not believe is that they will randomly decide to lob one at Israel. Thinking that Ahmadi is waiting poised with his finger over a big red button, waiting for it to light up so he can press it is just nuts!

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                          "German rocket scientists were valid targets because UK and Germany were, you know, at WAR with each other. Israel isn't at war with Iran...." Oh puh-lease! Iran's support and arming of Hamas and Hezbollah is grounds enough for a declaration of war, let alone Iran's many pronouncements of wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Whilst they are not in an open, declared and conventional war, they are very obviously in a covert war, a Cold War if you like. Hence why Israel did not claim responsibility for killing the Iranian scientists. Put it this way - when Clinton sent cruise missiles into the AQ camps in Afghanistan in 1998, part of the reason was to hit civilian bomb-makers and scientists working on chemical and biological weapons for bin Laden. Do you consider those scientists as invalid targets seeing as there was no declared war with Afghanistan?

                          Ironically, pre-revolution Iran was invited to be on the UN body that came up with the Partition Plan. The Shah rejected the Plan as he predicted that it would not lead to peace and hence did not recognise Israel in 1948, but Iran was one of the few Muslim nations (alongside Turkey) that built up close relations. It wasn't until Khomeini arrived and proclaimed Isreal "The Little Satan" that relations soured.

                          "....Re gullibility, did you believe there were WMDs in Iraq?...." Gee, I've never had to deal with that sheeple boilerplate before! Oh, actually I have. Under UN Resolutions 687 and later 1441, Saddam had to submit to UN inspection to ensure ALL his chemical weapons were accounted for, destroyed and their production facilities disassembled. He was barred from developing or producing chemical, biological, nucleur and certain missile weapons after 1991. For you to grasp what that means, just one tear gas grenade in post-1991 Iraq was enough to be in breach of those Resolutions, let alone the 550 155mm mustard gas shells still not accounted for. Now, take a deep breath, adjust your ideological blinkers, then go read this http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html. If your head hasn't exploded then go read the other sections on biological, nuleur and missile work all in breach of the UN Resolutions and all WMDs. Then go tell whomever spoonfed you the claptrap you bleat they were wrong.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                          "Thinking that Ahmadi is waiting poised with his finger over a big red button, waiting for it to light up so he can press it is just nuts!"

                          A common mistake throughout history is for otherwise intelligent people to disregard the rhetoric of dictators and fail to take appropriate precautions, .often entering into dialogue or other forms of engagement with individuals and regimes whose intent was known and public.

                          Hitler made no secret of his intentions. No one should have been surprised. Saddam made no secret either, and he and chemical Ali had no hesitation of pushing the red button and gassing the kurds.

                          Just because YOU think "it's nuts" does not make it untrue. It merely indicates your limited fantasy and lack of historical education.

                          Just saying ...

              2. James Micallef Silver badge
                Mushroom

                Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                @Matt Bryant - out of the three " bombing their cities because you feel like it, seizing their land, or asassinating their scientists?", I'll grant you one - the bombing of cities 'because they felt like it'. When Israel has bombed arab cities recently it's been in retaliation for rocket attacks or bombs, not on a whim. Whether the Israeli response was proportional is another matter*.

                Regarding "asassinating their scientists" I might even give you half a point because it's never been conclusively proven that Israel was behind the assassinations even though it's a sort of assumed open secret. It certainly is not "debunked"

                I leave the best for last, you think it's "debunked" that Israel have seized land that isn't theirs? All of the settlements on the West Bank are an illegal land-grab. saying that they only occupied this land after being attacked by arabs is a red herring. Firstly that was 50 years ago, secondly, it's still not their land. By their reasoning, it would have been OK for England to send over a bunch of English people to build new cities in Germany after the second world war displace the Germans and render them second-class citizens in their own land. If Israel REALLY were just concerned about their security, they would just leave some military outposts on the west bank until a 2-state solution is found. Putting their settlements there is de-facto saying they do not want a 2-state solution, they want to permanently annex that land. What Israel SAYS in the matter is irrelevent if it's the exacz opposite of what they DO.

                *Personally I think it's WAAAY disproportionate, but thenI'm not in teh line of fire so I can give them the benefit of the doubt

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: James Micallef Re: Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                  ".....I leave the best for last, you think it's "debunked" that Israel have seized land that isn't theirs?....." So who does it belong to? The Arabs in the area often claim "ownership" of land they do not live on or have only recently moved to. The E1 area which is causing the current level of chest beating is a good example - barren hillsides and peaks not even used for grazing, with no Arab housing, villages or farms in the area, but suddenly it's "vital" land when the Israelis want to build on it.

                  "......All of the settlements on the West Bank are an illegal land-grab......" Illegal how? All we hear is this "illegal" claim yet it has never been taken to court of law as it has long been acknowledged the laws in question simply do not apply.

                  "..... saying that they only occupied this land after being attacked by arabs is a red herring....." In the UK the government can seize land to build a road or government structure. This is quite legal and draws no comment outside the loonie Green quarter. A perfect example is the "new towns" of the Sixties, such as Milton Keyne. Same goes in the US or any part of Europe. Compensation is usually paid. In the West Bank, in the areas not ceded to PNA control under the Oslo Accords (which the PNA is in breach of anyway), the Israeli government is the legal controller, even if you want to apply the international law of one military occupying another sovereign state (which "Palestine" is not), and can confiscate land with exactly the same legal rights and pay compensation if an owner comes forward. No-one accused the builders of Milton Keynes of being "illegal settlement builders". Even in the case of occupation of sovereign states (which "Palestine" is not) there are plenty of precedents. For example, in post-War Germany, no-one accused the Allies of "illegal settlement building" when they ordered the building of refugee housing for non-German refugees. Until the PLO sits down and negotiates a proper peace with Israel that's the simple and legal truth. Do you really think any of the heavy-hitter anti-Israel politicians in America alone would have let Israel get away with it if it really was so easy to prove in court it was "illegal"?

                  "..... it would have been OK for England to send over a bunch of English people to build new cities in Germany after the second world war displace the Germans....." I suggest you go look at some of the massive building projects the Allies completed in occupied Germany post-War. Some of the military bases built did resemble cities and did involve lots of confiscation of German land.

                  ".....and render them second-class citizens in their own land....." Seeing as Fakeistinians seized Jewish land in the West Bank, you can argue that the Arabs are "illegally occupying" as well. Many areas in question had Jewish people living in it before the Jordanians chased then out in 1948. Indeed, many Arabs moved to the West Bank before 1948 to work on Jewish farms. Either way, those Jewish refugees that survived the ethnic cleansing by the Jordanians were absorbed and integrated into Israel without any problems, despite the lack of resources of that nascent state. Yet the Arabs forced the Arab refugees to become "second-class" citizens, in contravention of international refugee laws, and despite their much greater resources. Even when Jordan was in control of the West Bank they did nothing to integrate the Arab refugees.

                  ".....If Israel REALLY were just concerned about their security, they would just leave some military outposts on the west bank until a 2-state solution is found....." Under the Oslo Accord, Bibi can declare any area of the West Bank a military zone, giving him complete control of the area. If the Israelis really did want to just clear out the Arabs as you pretend then Bibi would have a perfectly legal tool to do so. Try reading and thinking for yourself, it might help.

                  ".....Putting their settlements there is de-facto saying they do not want a 2-state solution...." How? Is there some minimum amount of land required to declare a state? Better not tell Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg or Andorra. In fact, all this male bovine manure about E1 making it impossible to create a Palestinian state is complete rubbish, as proven by the above countries. Indeed, Monaco is only 2.05 square kilometers, which makes even the Gaza Strip look big, and is TWICE as densely populated, exposing another bit of bleating about Gaza. In short, the only thing stopping the two-state solution is Arab refusals to negotiate.

                  "..... they want to permanently annex that land....." From a security viewpoint it makes sense. Whenever Israel has withdrawn from an area in the hope of peace (such as the Gaza Strip or Southern Lebanon) the Arabs have immediately used the returned land to launch rocket attacks on Israel's civilians. If Israel is to protect their own people in a future two-state deal, it needs to have military security and hence the high ground around Jerusalem and down the old 1968 Disengagement Line (which was NOT an international border before you start that rubbish). Prior international peace treaties have concluded with parties gaining more land than they started so it is neither unique nor illegal, the creation of the Second Polish Republic in 1918 being a perfect example. And since the Fakeistinians won't sit down to negotiate it gives the Israelis a perfect tool to beat them back to the negotiating table. Israel gave up the far more important oil fields and settlements in the Sinai for peace with Egypt, so maybe you should stop shrieking assumptions about what Israel may do and instead start looking at simple facts such as the Fakeistinian refusal to negotiate and ask yourself why they won't.

                  "....Israel SAYS in the matter is irrelevent if it's the exacz opposite of what they DO." Wow, where did you get that amazing insight spoonfed to you?

                  1. James Micallef Silver badge
                    Facepalm

                    Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                    Yes it's so generous of Israel to occupy all the land they want and let Palestine have a state with what's left over.

                    Israel really has 2 choices:

                    1) Help to set up a real 2-state solution and reach a deal with a Palestinian government that acknowledges Israel and can co-exist peacefully. The size of Luxembourg and Monaco cuts both ways - by your same reasoning that viable states can be tiny, Israel does not need to expand. Israel is undermining this by grabbing more and more land. Just because 'there's no one there right now' is no justification. Also don't forget the protected corridors between settlements which means that even if Israel only has settlements on a tiny amount of west bank, in reality it controls a huge part of it. Like I said, Israel can be perfectly justified to have military bases in west bank till things are agreed, but settlements are de-facto annexation of territory.

                    2) Officially annex west bank and make it part of Israel. But in that case it has to either grant citizenship to all the arabs there, or else become a new apartheid south africa where arabs are second-class citizens

                    Israel says it's all for (1), and in the meantime it's doing (2) bit by bit and unofficially .

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                      ".....Israel really has 2 choices...." <Yawn> Thankfully, you are not in a position to influence their or anyone elses' decisions as they really need someone a lot more imagintaive than you. Apart from option 3 - the status quo, where Israel carries on, the PNA never gets their state, and Hamas runs their own de facto state in Gaza regardless - you have failed to consider what happens between Hamas and Fatah. Israel can sit down and discuss a two-state treaty with Fatah and then have Hamas come along and tear it all up. In reality, one of the reasons Abbas does not want to negotiate with Israel is because he has to sort out the Hamas issue first, which probably means Abbas and his Fatah chums giving up power and all the trappings of luxury and corruption they have derived from it. Oh, and then there is Hezbollah, stridently using the made-up excuse of the Shebaa Farms area as an excuse to maintain a threat to Israel, plus rising radicalism in Egypt. Maybe you should sit down and realise the problem is not as straightforward as you think.

                      ".....by your same reasoning that viable states can be tiny, Israel does not need to expand...." But Israel does need to be defensible. The eventual Palestine state will be surrounded by historic allies that have helped it attack Israel, they have no enemies in the region (well, until the likely Shia-Sunni war engulfs the region in general). There are dozens of friendly Muslim nations in the area and Worldwide. Israel is the only Jewish nation, is surrounded by enemies that have attempted to destroy her for years, and has no allies in the immediate neighbourhood. Palestinian security is easy to guarantee in any solution, Israels is not. Historically, relying on international goodwill has not worked for Jews, they'd kind of like to stop the whole Holocaust thing happening again. You were aware of the Holocaust, right, or are you going to deny that as well?

                      1. James Micallef Silver badge

                        Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                        "You were aware of the Holocaust, right, or are you going to deny that as well?"

                        The standard trope of the neocon right - reasoned argument is never enough isn't it, you have to throw in thinly veiled accusations of anti-semitism. I have repeatedly said in my posts that Israel is perfectly justified in military (but not civilian) occupation of West Bank, and that it has a right to defend itself, so you are making that shit up. I think an apology and a retraction is warranted.

                        "Israel does need to be defensible"

                        Israel is perfectly defensible within its current borders and with it's current military strength, not to mention the support in both money and arms from the US. If Israel reaches an agreement with Palestinians for a viable 2-state solution, they don't need to annex parts of the west bank.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Boffin

                          Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                          "The standard trope of the neocon right...." So standard I notice you concentrated on that rather than trying to deal with the points raised about Hamas and Fatah or Hezbolah or Egypt. This is my surprised face, honest.

                          "....Israel is perfectly defensible within its current borders...." If Israel withdraws to the 1967 ceasefire line it will commit itself to a country where every major city can be hit by conventional artillery, no need for Scuds, and where an enemy tank force could drive from the West Bank to the Med in an hour. One of the reasons they took the Golan Heights from Syria was they were sick and tired of the Syrians shelling Israeli towns from there.

                          You really don't understand the mindset of the Israelis, especially not the older citizens. One of the reasons the Israelis celebrated when the UN decided to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't because they loved the Kuwaitis (indeed, the Kuwaitis funded the terror attacks of the PLO for years), it was because they knew it meant Saddam's military machine was going to get pounded into the sand. The biggest defence nightmare for years for Israel was that Saddam would come to an agreement with Syria that would allow Saddam to bring his massive tank army down the Jordan Valley into the West Bank, creating a three-front war with Israel trapped between the Syrians to the north, Egypt to the south, and the Iraqis coming from the east. There is still a considerable number of ex-soldiers in Israel that insist the only way to ensure the safety of Israel is to control the northern end of the West Bank and the head of the Jordan Valley. As they have endured far too many massed attacks by the Arabs in the past, I can't see them just taking your word for the old frontiers being safe.

                          1. James Micallef Silver badge

                            Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                            "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 ceasefire line it will commit itself to a country where every major city can be hit by conventional artillery"

                            See, this is a core source of disagreement. In your worldview, it doesn't matter what settlement Israel reaches with Palestine, Israel will always be under attack from all sides so there is no point in even trying to improve relations with their neigbours. I can understand that old Israelis have this mindset, they HAVE been repeatedly attacked without provocation. BUT the last major attack by a state (not guerilla / terrorist activity) was as far as I know in 1967, nearly 50 years ago. It might be inconceivable to many Israelis that there will ever be a peaceful solution. But probably it was equally inconceivable to Germans, French, British etc in 1945 that there would be 70 years of peace after hundreds of years of almost uninterrupted conflict.

                            I happen to believe that if Palestine has a viable state, they won't be attacking Israel and everyone else will stop having an easy excuse to hit on Israel. They might not be best friends, but they can be at least civil neighbours, which is definitely possible (eg Jordan).

                            When people have a stable job and a family they tend to concentrate on that. When there are no jobs and no economy, the devil finds work for idle hands.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                              ".... In your worldview, it doesn't matter what settlement Israel reaches with Palestine, Israel will always be under attack from all sides........" No, Israel has successfully negotiated peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Peace with Lebanon is blocked by Hezbollah, and Hamas will ensure there will be no peace even if Abbas was willing to negotiate, and Syria will probably have to wait until after the current civil war settles. The simplest immediate solution would be to partition the Gaza Strip off into a seperate entity, call it Hamastan or whatever, let the PNA create a state in the West Bank after negotiations with Israel, and then let Hamastan and the PNA negotiate if they want to merge afterwards. Obambi then has to bring real pressure on states like Turkey, Lebanon, Qatar, Egypt and Saudi, and whichever party rises to power in Syria, to stop them funding terror so that Hamas has to make peace. Threatening to leave them to the tender mercies of Iran might do the trick.

                              ".....the last major attack by a state (not guerilla / terrorist activity) was as far as I know in 1967, nearly 50 years ago......" Apart from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Oh dear, more reading for you! Since, Israel has fought a continuous series of small wars with terror groups, culminating in major incursions into Lebanon in 1982 (when it fought a very hot cold war with Syria) and 2006, due to terror attacks on Israel. Besides, it is stupid to say just because the last war was x number of years ago there will never be another. We had that idea in Europe after 1918, right up until Hitler got uppity. No-one thought modern Europe would ever see an armed coup after the Sixties, yet we had one in Portugal in 1974. Full on, genocidal civil war in a modern European country was also thought impossible, then we had Yugoslavia's break up in 1991. There is one tiny Jewish state in the whole World, and they only have to lose once through not being prepared and that is it, all finished, so relying on "it's unlikely" doesn't exactly seem a bright idea. Especially given that a key tenant of the fundamentalist Islamism still very prevalent in the World is wiping out Israel.

                              "......I happen to believe that if Palestine has a viable state....." So what is a "viable state"? Monaco is obviously a viable and very rich state on a much much smaller area of land than the PNA insists they need. The truth is the "viable state" bullshit is just a refusal to cede any land to Israel.

                              "...... they won't be attacking Israel and everyone else will stop having an easy excuse to hit on Israel....." So as well as not knowing about the 1973 war, you also don't know that the Hamas charter includes a blank regusal to recognise Israel, and that their stated aim is to take control of ALL the Palestine Mandate territory west of Jordan, including removing or killing ALL Jews? BTW, that is the very definition of ethnic cleansing. A lot more reading required on your part.

                              "......They might not be best friends, but they can be at least civil neighbours......" Lets see - Israel withdraws from Lebanon in the hope of peace but Hezbollah just carry on firing rockets at Israel until Israel has to invade again and smack them down. Hezbollah does not learn but instead starts restocking their rocket arsenal and now it looks like they are trying to smuggle chemical weapons out of Syria before Assad falls. Israel withdraws from Gaza and Hamas seize power and repeatedly attack Israel despite a major incursion and a an aerial bombing campaign against their rocket teams. Yeah, such nice neighbours.

                              "......When there are no jobs and no economy, the devil finds work for idle hands." Why do you think the Arab nations kept the Arab refugees poor and desperate in the refugee camps? Duh!

                              1. James Micallef Silver badge

                                Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                " The simplest immediate solution would be to partition the Gaza Strip off into a seperate entity, call it Hamastan or whatever, let the PNA create a state in the West Bank after negotiations with Israel, and then let Hamastan and the PNA negotiate if they want to merge afterwards. Obambi then has to bring real pressure on states like Turkey, Lebanon, Qatar, Egypt and Saudi, and whichever party rises to power in Syria, to stop them funding terror so that Hamas has to make peace. Threatening to leave them to the tender mercies of Iran might do the trick."

                                Finally, something we agree on :)

                                Re Hamas / Hezbollah attacks, you are completely right, they are crazy fundamentalists who will not be reasoned with. These are basically militant groups, sure they have more influence in Gaza / Lebanon than mere political parties. The only way to get rid of them is starving their recruitment. Better governmance in the middle east will help, besides this the one single factor that will undermine their credibility is the existence of a Palestinian state. As you state above, the best way to undermine Hamas is to negotiate a Palestinian state with Fatah/Abbas... only, so far, Netanyahu is going out of his way to undermine Abbas by continuing settlement expansion.

                                "viable" state - Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein are small rich countries because they are tax havens and/or have strong financial services industries,a combination that attracts rich people and wealth. Somehow I doubt that many playboy billionaires would move to Palestine, whatever the tax incentives. So 'viable' means they have enough land to comfortably accommodate the population, farmland for growing crops and other land to establish industry / power generation. Most importantly, access to water which is the single scarcest resource in the region. I don't really know the lie of teh land, but somehow I doubt that Israeli settlements are being built on random places in the west bank, rather, I suspect, they are taking teh prime spots.

                                It's long been the position of Israel itself, or was until a couple of years ago, that a 'fair' area for Palestine would be 1967 border + some land swaps of for any land that Israel keeps from the west bank. For me this is a reasonable position if both Israelis and Palestinians agree on what bits of land to swap. It is not a reasonable position if one side is taking the bits they want unilaterally.

                                "Why do you think the Arab nations kept the Arab refugees poor and desperate in the refugee camps?" I know and I agree, for the other arab states it's convenient to have Palestine as an excuse to rip on Israel. I mean, why the hell is Egypt 'blockading' Gaza but still let all the rockets through?

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  Facepalm

                                  Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                  ".....Netanyahu is going out of his way to undermine Abbas by continuing settlement expansion....." Bibi knows Abbas is not a real partner for peace as the Hamas factor means Abbas cannot deliver on a peace unless he jettisons the Gaza Strip. So Abbas makes pointless excuses about settlement building for the sheeple to bleat about, and Bibi builds settlements to make "facts" on the ground to use as bargaining chips if Fatah and Hamas ever do reconcile. Remember, the Israelis evacuated settlements in the Sinai and Gaza Strip when they thought it would gain them peace.

                                  "..... Monaco, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein are small rich countries because they are tax havens and/or have strong financial services industries,a combination that attracts rich people and wealth....." Ever heard of Dubai, a tiny Arab emirate with a very prosperous financial sector to rival Monaco's? There is nothing to stop even the Gaza Strip doing the same. Well, except for their preference for self-destructive holy war.

                                  ".....Most importantly, access to water....." They have a coastline, they can build a desalination plant. And they don't need to grow all their own food, they can import if they need to as long as they have an industry to export stuff in return. At the moment their only "exports" are rockets and mortars fired over the border at Israel.

                                  1. James Micallef Silver badge

                                    Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                    Gaza strip/west bank can be another Dubai??? you're having a laugh, right? Dubai (and Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi etc etc) has built itself up on the back of humungous oil revenues that do not exist in either Gaza or West Bank. there is NO WAY that Palestine could set itself up as a financial services centre without a similair windfall, so a viable Palestinian state needs agricultural and industrial land. The only other source of revenue could be holy land tourism (which, besides being a small niche market, also requires access to holy sites such as Jerusalem + serious peace).

                                    Water access - for Gaza, yes, however I was referring to West Bank which has a severe water shortage. (In 100% agreement with your revious post that the way forward is to ditch Gaza, at least temporarily, and in this case there needs to be a viable state on West Bank territory only). Yes, they could pipe it in from a nearby desalination plant, but in this case the pipes would have to pass through Israel, and possibly the desalination plants themselves would be in Israel.

                                    (now that I think of it, it could be quite a coup for Israel to propose to build such plants and pipeline themselves as part of a peace deal. they would be giving a big peace offering to Palestine while at the same time have a 'cutoff switch' on the water flow that will get Palestine to think twice before starting any violence)

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      FAIL

                                      Re: James Thickiellef Re: James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                      ".....you're having a laugh, right? Dubai (and Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi etc etc) has built itself up on the back of humungous oil revenues....." Oh dear, you're just exposing your lack of education. Dubai was an important business center and trading port long before the discovery of oil. Indeed, Dubai's tourist and financial industries both make more then their oil industry, which has always been smaller than the oil industries of their neighbours. It is becoming very obvious that you didn't bother to learn anything about the Middle East before letting someone give you an opinion.

                                      "..... there is NO WAY that Palestine could set itself up as a financial services centre without a similair windfall...." Really? So Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Isle of Man, the Bahamas - all started off the back of massive oil industries? No. All with intelligent and inventive taxation and financial systems, designed to appeal more than those of surrounding countries? Yes. Again, you don't have a clue. Indeed, Gaza was also a major historic trading port, just like Dubai, but it fell into decline whilst under Ottoman control.

                                      ".....so a viable Palestinian state needs agricultural and industrial land....." Apart from the fact that the Gazans terrorised the other Gazans that worked in the co-operative industrial parks set up by Israel, they also have plenty of agricultural land. But that also gives a lie to the PNA claims on the E1 area as they are an area not even used for goat grazing!

                                      ".....however I was referring to West Bank which has a severe water shortage...." Yeah, ever wonder what the West Bank is the west bank of? It's called the River Jordan, the largest river in the region. So, as well as history, you failed geography too?

                                      "....they would be giving a big peace offering to Palestine while at the same time have a 'cutoff switch' on the water flow that will get Palestine to think twice before starting any violence." Reality check - Israel supplies the majority of the oil, gas, water and electricity to Gaza, but Hamas knows they can throw as many violent tantrums as they like and then get their Western sheeple to bleat about "collective punishment" if Israel threatens to cut off any supplies. So, that's history, geography, and current affairs, all to be added to your homework list.

                                      1. James Micallef Silver badge
                                        Facepalm

                                        Re: James Thickiellef James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                        Hmm, see up until then I thought you did have some clue, now it appears clear that you are contradicting anything I say for the heck of it. Have you ever been to Dubai? Do you really know ANYTHING about it? It was an 'important business centre' in the sense of regional boat trade up and down the gulf. 30 years ago it was just a desert and no international company except oil was present, and sure as hell no tourists ventured there. 20 years ago it was half-skyscraper-half-desert. Dubai was clever that it re-invested oil revenue very heavily into infrastructure like cheap hotels, relatively cheap intercontinental flights with Emirates, big salaries to attract ex-pats. Having an oil industry 'smaller than it's neighbours' still means it's huge resource, which they used to build an infrastructure for financial services and tourism.

                                        You can have all the intelligent and innovitaive taxation systems in the world, no-one is going to put their money there if there isn't any stability. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco are old established and STABLE states with clear rule of law, thinking Palestine can turn into Monaco is optimistic at best, and will anyway take decades. According to you Palestinians should say "OK, you know what, we can have Israel have big chunks of our land because after all we can develop into a financial services hub in a few decades"??

                                        Re river Jordan - Once again, it's you who are showing your ignorance. 'Largest river in the region', how about 'ONLY' river in the region! Again, have you ever been to Jordan or West Bank, have you ever SEEN the river Jordan? I have, and calling it a 'river' is a joke, even 'stream' would be pushing it. According to historical roman records it was at maximum 1km wide. Now an olympic-level long-jumper can clear it. Jordan river levels and levels of dead sea are at record historical lows due to over-use of water and lack of rainfall. Jordan is the country that is listed as 4th dryest in the world. Obviously there are no records for West Bank as it's not classified as a country, but ball-park precipitation will be the same as Jordan.

                                        As for the rest of your reality checks, I am talking about West Bank, you keep banging on about Gaza. I know Gaza is a complete basket case / lost cause, I'm not talking about it. I'm talking only about establishing Palestinian state on West Bank territory pre-1967 lines (possibly with some land swaps), and the inadvisability of Israel building settlements there. The only 2 arguments you have given in defence of this are (1) "Palestinians aren't using the land so it's OK". This is a spurious argument that can be easily debunked by hypothetically reversing the roles. Can Palestinians just wander into an unoccupied area of Israel and set up camp there? Of course not, they would be kicked out in no time.

                                        (2) Defensibility - This is the only argument that at least makes sense. I have argued that military outposts will do teh job just fine for now without needing settlements and long-term if there is peace then Palestine can have that land. If you don't believe that, fine, believe what you want.

                                        BUT please stop inventing pipe-dreams like Palestine can survive as a state the area of Monaco by being a financial services centre, or that the river Jordan is a plentiful supply of water

                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                          FAIL

                                          Re: James Thickiellef James Micallef Ledswinger resolution 1929 WTF??

                                          "....Have you ever been to Dubai? Do you really know ANYTHING about it? It was an 'important business centre' in the sense of regional boat trade up and down the gulf. 30 years ago it was just a desert and no international company except oil was present...." Once again, you display nothing more than your ignorance and presumption - if anyone disagrees with you it must be because they lie! I was working in Dubai over thirty years ago and I have never worked for the oil industry. Don't assume everyone is as lacking in first-hand, real World experience as you are.

                                          "....how about 'ONLY' river in the region!...." Now you're just being stupid. Well, even more stupid. You should have gone and looked that one up first, even Wikipedia can give you a comprehensive list of rivers in the area, such as the Yarmouk and Jabbok which drain into the Dead Sea, and some of which are the four tributaries of the River Jordan. If you are trying to convince everyone that you simply attack your keyboard without the slightest recourse to facts then you're doing a great job! If you're trying to convince anyone that your arguments carry merit then I would suggest that is unlikely.

                                          "....Jordan is the country that is listed as 4th dryest in the world......" Jordan is largely desert, stretching from the east bank of the River Jordan to the Persian Gulf, so it's hardly surprising it would be dry..... duh!

                                          "....As for the rest of your reality checks, I am talking about West Bank, you keep banging on about Gaza....." Ignoring your attempts to seperate the two, the West Bank is just as dependent as Gaza on Israel, it's just Abbas is currently being bribed by the UN, EU and US to try being peaceful. As soon as Hamas look like coming back to the West Bank he starts making anti-Israel comments to bolster his credentials with the Arab world, but the reality is he will be out of a job (and lose his corrupt incomes) if Hamas are ever allowed back into the West Bank. Who do you think told Israel where all the 20-odd Hamas reps they arrested yesterday in the West Bank were hiding? By getting Israel to do his dirty work, Abbas can pretend he wants reconciliation, but he has no intention of ever handing power over to Hamas, and whilst they do not agree there will not be any final solution with Israel. Instead of bleating about Israel, you should be paying more attention to what the PNA actually gets up to.

                                          "....This is a spurious argument that can be easily debunked ....." So easily that you have completely failed to do so? Don't worry, I wasn't actually expecting you to be able to, that would be just cruel of me. Tell you what. I'll give you an easy one - please go read up and then explain why Bethlehem, which was origianlly included in the "International Zone" of the UN Partition Plan for Mandate Palestine, has not been handed back by the PNA? Surely, if your argument holds, then the PNA should give up Bethlehem to the international community, and any Arabs that have moved there in the years since Jordan annexed it in 1948, whether they are refugess from another area of Mandate Palestine or not, are "settlers" and need to be ejected? Surely a building ban should be imposed on Bethlehem until a final solution is agreed? LOL, I'm laughing at the idea of you trying to get your head round that one!

                                          ".....Can Palestinians just wander into an unoccupied area of Israel and set up camp there?...." No, but neither can Jews, they will get charged with trespass. But Arabs that did not flee the area were made Israeli citizens and given full rights, still own land and can vote in Israeli elections - they even have Israeli Arab MPs! Jews that didn't flee the Arabs in the West Bank were murdered or forced out. Even now, the PNA has insisted that it will never grant citizenship to Jews, even if the settlements are handed over to PNA control as part of any negotiated solution. Did you know Jews were living in Gaza and the West Bank even before Ottoman times? The Israeli government is not threatening to remove the Israeli Arabs, so which side is it you think is pushing ethnic cleansing? Oh, sorry, did I ask you to think?

                                          "....BUT please stop inventing pipe-dreams like Palestine can survive as a state the area of Monaco by being a financial services centre, or that the river Jordan is a plentiful supply of water." LOL! So what do you expect any future sate of "Palestine" to do? You want to condemn them to being a Third World country simply because you think they can't do finances, that they are somehow too pathetic to manage? How arrogant of you. And as for the Jordan being low, it has completely dried up at times during its history. Shortage of water has always been a fact in the Middle East, but other countries in the area are dealing with it rather than trying to blame it all on Israel. Dubai is in a desert, it has NO rivers at all, yet I never went short of water there even in the Seventies! The Jordan tributaries arise in Syria and Lebanon - maybe you should point your ire at them instead, they draw water from them too. Indeed, the Lebanese are damming many of their rivers in an attempt to cut of water from Israel, but I don't see you complaining, or is it that you think cutting off water from Jews is different from Arabs? Gee, I wonder why - not.

                                          If you insist on providing more unintentional amusement, please at least try the modicum of research before your next frothing rant.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: John Smith 19 Re: resolution 1929 WTF??

            Since 1988 the Shavit launcher has made six successful launches out of nine and has put three satellites in orbit. However, the Israelis decided it was cheaper to buy launches on the Indian PSLV program instead.

            The 1980s Shavit was acknowledged to be based on the already operational Jericho 2 ICBM, which is thought to have been developed into a Jericho 3 variant that entered service in 2008, and possibly tested a fourth version in 2012. Going on leaks and Shavit performance, it is reckoned the Israelis have a current ICBM capability with 750kg to 1300kg payload (depending on range), and the tech to put MIRV warheads into the package, capable of hitting any spot in the Mid East, Africa, Europe, possibly all of Asia, and even as far as South America. The number of Jericho 2 and 3 ICBMs in service is guestimated as anything from ten to 200.

  3. JeevesMkII
    Alien

    Going in to space doesn't seem so special now every pissant despot has their own rocket ship. We need to hurry up and get to Mars to bring some of the mystique back.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Alien

      We need to hurry up and get to Mars to bring some of the mystique back.

      I tend to agree but have the feeling that when the ship lands it will probably find a Chinese base there full of children making iPhones. It's be Scott/Amundsen all over again.

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Coat

        Scott arrived at the South Pole to find that Amundsen had already set up a child labour sweatshop making iPhones?

        I missed that bit in history at school......

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Happy

        "I tend to agree but have the feeling that when the ship lands it will probably find a Chinese base there full of children making iPhones."

        True. But they can have a really good Chinese before starting the return journey.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Alien

    So now we have to worry about muslim monkey space invaders?

    Yikes!! The good thing is that all the fasting makes them easy to track down during Ramadan....

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: So now we have to worry about muslim monkey space invaders?

      "....The good thing is that all the fasting makes them easy to track down during Ramadan...." Muslims are excused the fasting if they are killing infidels.

  5. Rattus Rattus

    "Iran’s first monkey astronaut"

    Good to see their president has so much faith in the programme he is willing to get personally involved.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I [don't] spy...

      99% of spy satellites look down ...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I [don't] spy...

        "99% of spy satellites look down ..."

        I think you'll find that putting a rocket into orbit requires a fair amount of infrastructure and the site is readily visible from space, along with the preparations for a launch.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: AC Re: I [don't] spy...

          "I think you'll find that putting a rocket into orbit requires a fair amount of infrastructure...." I think you'll find, if you bothered to do any research, that the Iranian launcher is a basically a souped-up Scud on a mobile trailer, and the launchsite is just a dustbowl (pic halfway down this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21230691).

          Iran has hundreds of Scuds and launchers, and often paints them up and drapes them with patriotic slogans, flags, banners and other junk, so spotting one with a hidden monkey is not that easy. Iran periodically launches such missiles as part of their military development program, so it is hard to verify if the event even took place or was just a face-saving bit of theatre seeing as Ahm-mad-in-a-dinnerjacket had sworn he would make the launch happen.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: AC I [don't] spy...

            "the Iranian launcher is a basically a souped-up Scud on a mobile trailer,"

            If the Iranians can put something into orbit purely off the back of a truck, and the US aren't able to track or spot that, then hats off to Iran.

            If find it strange that Google + world and dog can see me in my garden, viewed from space for the sheer hell of it, but the world leading technology power hasn't got the capability to keep track of a handful of rocket launchers in one of the world's most volatile regions? A seventy to ninety foot rocket on a huge trailer plus support vehicles isn't the sort of thing that looks like a forty foot container full of Chinese made furniture, so all the pifffle about "disguising" them doesn't sound very impressive. More so when you remember that at the end of the Cold War twenty years ago the US were busy working out how to track Russian mobile rocket launchers. You are old enough to remember the Cold War, aren't you?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Ledswinger Re: AC I [don't] spy...

              "If the Iranians can put something into orbit purely off the back of a truck...." The Iranian ICB Monkey only went sub-orbital, i.e. a basic ballistic shot, not too much unlike what an ordinary Scud shot looks like.

              ".....but the world leading technology power hasn't got the capability to keep track of a handful of rocket launchers in one of the world's most volatile regions?...." Dear clueless, go look at a map of Iran, it's a rather big place. There are also thought to be up to 300 of the longer-range Scud derivatives alone in Iran, plus another unknown number of ordinary Scuds (estimates range from 100 to 4000, many having been fired or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war). They all use identical and interchangeable launch trailers or trucks. From the air they all look the same and, as I mentioned, are often draped in flags, banners and patriotic slogans, so identifying one out of all those as special and different is quite a task. Iran did not announce the launch in advance so there was no way to tell the rocket with a monkeynaut from all the other Scuds.

              Even if you just looked at the Iranian Space Agency sites they have three major launch sites and a fourth under construction, each covering dozens of miles of desert. Since it takes less than 30 minutes to fuel and launch a liquid-fueled version of a Scud, and since you can keep it out of sight in a simple hangar or tent right up until you need to elevate for launch, unless you have a 24x7x365 stream from a geostationary satellite over each site you'd miss it, and even then how would you know it was a monkeynaut flight and not just one of the regular missile tests?

              ".... A seventy to ninety foot rocket on a huge trailer plus support vehicles...." Here is an article with a pic of the actual rocket on a Scud trailer:

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21230691

              Here is a pic of a whole lot of Scuds, some Iranian, for comparison:

              http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Diverse/Scud/index.htm

              If they launched from the Iranian Space Agency sites they have control buildings, as do the Revolutionary Guard bases where they launch Shahabs from and have previously launched "satelite" shots from, so no big caravan of control vehicles to spot either.

              ".....More so when you remember that at the end of the Cold War twenty years ago the US were busy working out how to track Russian mobile rocket launchers...." Yet the US had such troubles tracking Saddam's Scuds in 1991 and 2003, even though you insist it should have been child's play.... duh! That's beside the fact that no-one knew it was a special Scud up until AFTER the event, and even then looked just like an ordinary Scud launch - kind of hard to watch for something that you don't even know is going to happen!

              What did you expect the US to use, ESP?

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Ledswinger Re: AC I [don't] spy...

              "If the Iranians can put something into orbit purely off the back of a truck....." Oops, forgot to add that the amateur World record for a rocket is 116km (100km is the marker for space, not for getting into orbit) which didn't even require a launcher/trailer and was built by 25 part-timers quite literally in their garages, all way back in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Space_eXploration_Team). That's 116km verified as opposed to an Iranian claim of 120km.

  7. Tank boy

    So The Onion was right!

  8. jake Silver badge

    But did it actually happen?

    Inquiring minds want to know ...

  9. Bent Outta Shape
    Black Helicopters

    Resolution 1929

    "That concern may arise because the launch probably violated UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which bans “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology""

    So only *good people* are allowed to join the space race? Or is this a tacit acknowledgement that every other country that lobbed someone into space did so in conjunction with anywhere-on-the-planet range missiles?

    Cynical minds need to know :-)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Resolution 1929

      Effectively yes.

      The original security council, USA, Russia, China, UK and France had the tech others were not supposed to develop nuclear missiles and in return the big 5 would slowly disarm (which they have in part done).

      Since then though we have had Pakistan and India join the club and Israel got given theirs by the USA, which never admits to it.

      Other nations were allowed to develop nuclear power though.

      Hence the confusion as in many cases there is not much difference between enriching fuel for missiles or power generation. Thinking about the fast breeder reactors.

  10. ratfox
    Coat

    Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

    How are their space-faring people going to be called??

    As everyone knows, Russians are called cosmonauts, Americans are called astronauts, French are called spationauts, and Chinese are called taikonauts. Now we need a word for the Iranians.

    1. myob
      Joke

      Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

      Since the Americans don't like them, how about naughtynauts?

    2. Andus McCoatover
      Windows

      Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

      Monkeynauts?

      Or Monkeynuts.

      Whichever.

    3. My Alter Ego

      Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

      Persionauts? Not to be confused with a French car manufacturer.

      1. CmdrX3

        How about Nuttynauts

      2. Crisp

        Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

        Argonauts?

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

        "Persionauts? Not to be confused with a French car manufacturer."

        Indeed not.

        Aren't they meant to have problems with their electrics on a regular basis?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Never mind the nuke angle, there are more important questions:

      مشوي الأرض رجل

      Simply rolls off the tongue.

  11. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Mushroom

    "nuclear fears grow"

    You mean as warmongering by lobbys connected to Israeli crazies and possibly X-tian end-timers grow. Not to mention attempts to get rid of Chuck Hagel who seems to be not immediately ready to go for another war. Luckily spineless ooze John Kerry has been removed from the freezer to provide much-needed pliability

    I hope to $DEITY they all get throat cancer from the yelling.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: "nuclear fears grow"

      "You mean as warmongering by lobbys connected to Israeli crazies and possibly X-tian end-timers grow. Not to mention attempts to get rid of Chuck Hagel who seems to be not immediately ready to go for another war. Luckily spineless ooze John Kerry has been removed from the freezer to provide much-needed pliability"

      And that's what makes America the best damm democracy money can buy.*

      *I like to think what that line lacks in originality it makes up for with truth.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: "nuclear fears grow"

      "....I hope to $DEITY they all get throat cancer from the yelling." Dude, if anyone is due throat cancer your perpetual shrieking and bleating must put you top of the list by a massive margin.

  12. Shaun 2

    How exactly did the UN Security Council create a resolution 16 years before the UN existed, and 5 years before Leó Szilárd came up with the idea of an atomic bomb?

    1. frank ly

      @Shaun

      UNIT is part of the UN and the Doctor helped them out with some time travel.

    2. jake Silver badge

      @Shaun 2

      It's not a date, idiot, it's a reference.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Orbit

    Did it really 'orbit' the earth? If it did and then re-entered it means they have solved the re-entry heat shield problem and can make ICBMs. If on the other hand this was a sub orbital lob (like first US manned missions) then this is less significant. On the other hands I doubt the Israelis would be delighted at a shower of monkeys landing outside tel Aviv. Anon because they are watching me.

    1. Duncan Macdonald

      Re: Orbit

      Heat shield technology is old. Anyone can get details of the Apollo and earlier spacecraft with their ablative heat shields. It is also not difficult to test a heat shield - put one in front of a suitably sized rocket exhaust. Reusable heat shields (as on the shuttle) are more difficult but are not needed for a missile.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Orbit

      ".....I doubt the Israelis would be delighted at a shower of monkeys landing outside tel Aviv...." Unless they prove to be a lost tribe of Jewish monkeys of course.

  14. Miek
    Linux

    " at an altitude of 120kms" -- Huh?

    1. MajorTom

      " at an altitude of 120kms" -- Huh?

      Yes, right. Assuming they did orbit at that altitude, that's hardly a stable orbit. Not sure it would even complete one full orbit at that altitude. A proper LEO needs to be 150km or higher, preferably 200km+

      And even for a suborbital flight, an adequate heat shield would be needed for the very sharp and intense decel, maybe up to 12 g's?

      1. Miek
        Linux

        Re: " at an altitude of 120kms" -- Huh?

        but, "kilometres-per-second" or just kilometres?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: " at an altitude of 120kms" -- Huh?

          "...."kilometres-per-second" or just kilometres?" Sorry, I'm old, we used to type 120 kilometers as 120KMs before it got de-capitalised.

  15. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Monkey spacemen...

      What is Paul Burrell doing these days?

    2. andy gibson

      Re: Monkey spacemen...

      How many monkey spacemen will there be?

      One, but he'll train others....

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Iran + ICBM = We're all doomed to wear head dress and chant religious bollox or be nuked.

  17. fawlty
    Thumb Up

    2 Things

    a) X37B probably handed the hirsuite hero a yellow crescent shaped source of potassium while it was up there, pretty sure the US would as a minimum have clocked the i/r signal from the launch (or was that COD4? ;-))

    b) Intercontinental Ballistic Monkey: cracking tagline, that cheered me up on day where the tea and day nurse are being deployed liberally. you have my thanks.

  18. Simon Harris
    Happy

    A bigger problem...

    It fired its first satellite, Omid, into the heavens in 2009 and a year later launched a capsule carried by the Kavoshgar-3 rocket containing a rat, turtles and worms, said Fars.

    That's easy, but I'd like to see them try launching a fox, chicken and corn into space and returning them all safely!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A bigger problem...

      "launched a capsule carried by the Kavoshgar-3 rocket containing a rat, turtles and worms"

      On a related topic, could we offer them a few MPs if they plan further launches?

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: A bigger problem...

        "On a related topic, could we offer them a few MPs if they plan further launches?"

        I suspect the president has already penciled in a few dissidents glorious martyrs for that role.

        It may be a while before they have any seats free.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A bigger problem...

          "I suspect the president has already penciled in a few dissidents glorious martyrs for that role. It may be a while before they have any seats free."

          Alright, offer them a trade. We'll have their dissidents, they take our MPs. Unless the sanctions prohibit such trade, of course.

          1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            A cunning plan

            Looks like they've beat Virgin Galactic to the post.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Ledswinger Re: A bigger problem...

            ".....We'll have their dissidents....." Hmmmm, maybe not. The last set of "dissidents" we took included such prime loonies as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed. Even the Grand Nutter Khomeini was once a "dissident" given refuge in Paris.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Devil

              Re: Ledswinger A bigger problem...

              A bit late to worry about that sort of thing now, having had NuLab's "no borders" programme in place for a decade.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Impressed

    Looking just at the achievement of getting a rocket up there I say well done. N.Korea chucking up a satellite was also impressive. Politics causes a lot of wars and disagreements but I would be happy to hear of all these people ignoring their governments and collaborating. Imagine rocket scientists working together instead of reinventing the wheel every time. Each developing their own technology but sharing knowledge and advancing our understanding of the solar system we are stuck in.

    It wont happen because various gods want people to kill each other and unstable countries fight for power in their home and the world while throwing it all in to develop nukes.

    Imagine how much further forward the world could be. Satellites could be much cheaper as the world shares them. The freedom of information and knowledge and shared resources. Sharing the cost and the prize.

  20. John Deeb
    Boffin

    draft

    This USC "resolution" (more of a decision by the permanent members really, which is significant but shouldn't be taken out of proportion either) 1929 is about ballistic missiles "capable of delivering nuclear weapons" all within the framework of "non-proliferation". Obviously one needs nuclear weapons capable to be mounted just as well. The whole resolution is about weaponization of nuclear devices more than anything else.

    One could make it about sufficient accuracy and lift of ballistic missiles in general (both still far far away) but I think the resolution does not talk even about that. You need also general computing power and electricity and humans to have full capacity. This would become rather vague as the resolution does not deny the right to have any basic nuclear capacity or a military capacity for defense or retaliation. Actually those rights as guaranteed in resolutions and charters way more significant than any USC announcement.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: draft

      "One could make it about sufficient accuracy and lift of ballistic missiles in general (both still far far away)"

      I don't think accuracy of nuclear weapons is at all important to the likes of Iran. Yes, nice to have pinpoint accuracy if you can, but the (presumed) deterrent effect of having a nuke is there regardless, because "hoping that it misses" is not a very good defensive strategy for your opponents.

      In terms of lift of missiles, the existing (publicly reported) Iranian weapons would do the job (if the job is menacing Israel) because the Shahab 3 has a range of 1,300 km, easily enough to reach Israel from anywhere in Western Iran. The only piece of the jigsaw remaining is enriching the uranium - the regional delivery vehicle exists, I would expect the mechanical weaponisation aspects have already been considered and resolved. I suspect the orbital monkey business is just intended to say "look what we could do", as a time killer whilst they work on enrichment.

      For those with the time there's some interesting stuff here (in a large pdf):

      http://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf

      1. Mike Brown

        Re: draft

        agreed. as long as it will hit within a 1000 mile radius, the USA have a problem. All Iran needs to do is aim for the centre, they might only hit field, but as you say they might not. And the US cant take that rather big chance

        1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Re: draft

          "And the US cant take that rather big chance"

          But with Pakistan they can?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: draft

          "agreed. as long as it will hit within a 1000 mile radius, the USA have a problem"

          No they don't. The Israeli's do.

          The problem the Yanks have is that they've embraced a nation of 14m orange growers, ignoring the 400m Arabs sitting on top of the world's largest reserves of both oil and gas. As a foreign policy disaster it's a good one, probably akin to Ted Heath's decision to reject the Commonwealth to throw our lot in with the Europeans ("embracing the past and refecting the future" as it has been beautifully described).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: draft

            A few passing comments

            a) Israel has the highest density of research scientists on the planet. I don't think they need anyone's intellectual help to develop a nuke or anything else. The Israelis are very,very far from being "orange growers". It's an ignorant and unbecoming comment of which you should be ashamed.

            b) It is hard to describe the USA's relationship with the Saudis as "ignoring" them.

            c) Are you suggesting that the US should embrace the ruthless non-secular dictatorships with barbaric and dysfunctional social systems as "friends"?

            Hate breeds hate, and hate preached from the pulpit to the ignorant masses

            Just saying ...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: draft

              "c) Are you suggesting that the US should embrace the ruthless non-secular dictatorships with barbaric and dysfunctional social systems as "friends"?"

              You might want to read up on the latest thinking on foreign and defence policy coming out of places like K Street. There's a growing acceptance that neither the Yanks (nor any coalition) will be able to impose democracy on feudal societies, and that this means working within the context of local traditions and power structures, even if that means working with bad guys, and letting shit happen, if need be for decades. Given the failures to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan despite the cast cost, this would appear to be some rather grim realism permeating US foreign policy.

        3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: draft

          "....as long as it will hit within a 1000 mile radius, the USA have a problem...." Which is why even as far back as Reagan the US has been working on anti-ICBM kit. The current GMD set is mainly for watching Russia, China and North Korea, but the USN can always use sea-launched Standard against anything the Iranians have or even have planned, and even old Patriot is useful against Scud-based missiles. The Israelis are also pretty well defended, with Arrow having already successfully defeated a replicated Shahab3 as long ago as 2005.

          There are three problems with missile defences though. The first problem is that knocking down an incoming ICBM could cause it to detonate on a neighbouring country still close enough to leave Israel or the US in the path of fallout, let alone the death and damage to that other country. A strike on the US that gets deflected onto Canada is potentially just as bad as if hit the original target. Similarly, a miss on Israel that hits Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Qatar could spark a wider Sunni-vs-Shia World War.

          The second is actually getting all of the incoming missiles in a mass attack. The US could probably stave off a Nork attack, and Standard should get the odd Iranian missile, but if the Iranians fire a mass mix of nuke-tipped missiles and ordinary Scuds then it's going to be a lot harder to guarantee getting them all, which pushes you to the only sensible option of hitting them on the ground first. Does Obambi have the political backbone for such an option?

          And the third is the political question of what to do in response if Israel or the US does successfully intercept a first strike from Iran or North Korea? Would the they launch their own nukes having defeated an incoming attack when the threat has been arguably removed? I can see the US putting in a conventional counterstrike and then relying on the UN, but Israel doesn't really put much stock in the UN and doesn't have as many options for a conventional counter. So Ahm-mad-in-a-dinnerjacket's Intercontinental Ballistic Monkey could just be taking Iran closer to being turned into a glowing glass desert.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: draft

            @Matt Bryant - How can I tell that you're most likely a republican neocon? Your use of "Israel and the US" as if they were one and the same thing, and your amazingly acute paranoia.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: James Micallef Re: draft

              "@Matt Bryant - How can I tell that you're most likely a republican neocon? Your use of "Israel and the US" as if they were one and the same thing, and your amazingly acute paranoia." How can I tell you are a trendy bandwagon humper without the slightest clue of real World events, history or politics, happy to be led by the nose? By every post you make.

          2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            Re: draft

            "but if the Iranians fire a mass mix of nuke-tipped missiles and ordinary Scuds"

            Intercontinental Scuds? Extending their range on the wings of the angels?

            But please do explain why would Iranians fire a mix or nuke-tipped (or any other kind) missiles at all and at the US, of all places?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: draft

              "....Intercontinental Scuds? Extending their range on the wings of the angels?....." They don't need to be intercontinental to hit Saudi or Israel, Iran's likeliest targets. And to fool missile launch detection systems (like IR camers on satellites looking for launch flare), if you shoot off say ten nuke-tipped Scuds amongst one hundred ordinary Scuds, someone with a missile defense has to track and shoot down all 110 to be sure they get the nuke-tipped ones.

              ".....But please do explain why would Iranians fire a mix or nuke-tipped (or any other kind) missiles at all and at the US, of all places?" So-called self-defence, i.e. if the UN Security Council ever decides to slap Iran down in the same way as they did Iraq in 1991, Iran will want a rally big sabre to rattle in defence, and seeing as the US would supply the core of any UN invasion force, the Iranians will want a sabre that can hit the continental US.

              1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                Re: draft

                "So-called self-defence, i.e. if the UN Security Council ever decides to slap Iran down in the same way as they did Iraq in 1991"

                Well, let's hope Iran gets the nukes and the missiles soon - no one will be tempted to repeat the Iraqi disasters then :-)

                But seriously, why would anyone want to destroy their seat of power, and most likely kill themselves, by doing something that would provoke immediate and drastic retaliation and for which no reconciliation and leniency in the future can be expected even if they do survive the initial events?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: draft

                  "....But seriously, why would anyone want to destroy their seat of power, and most likely kill themselves, by doing something that would provoke immediate and drastic retaliation...." Hmmmm, ignoring the obvious problem of certain religious nutters that think such a catastrophe will get some kid out of a well to wisk them off to paradise you mean? Or the Revolutionary Guards that have propagandised themselves into thinking they could win a first-strike was with Israel? And since when have the other Arabs ever been strong on common sense? You do remember a guy called Saddam Hussein, who threw away his dictatorship by thumbing his nose at the UN? How about the Arabs that left the Palestine Mandate territory in 1948 because they believed the mullahs that told them to get out of the way as Allah was going to help the Arab armies sweep the Jews into the sea? Yeah, logic is strong with that lot - not!

                2. Philip Lewis
                  FAIL

                  Re: draft

                  "But seriously, why would anyone want to destroy their seat of power, and most likely kill themselves, by doing something that would provoke immediate and drastic retaliation and for which no reconciliation and leniency in the future can be expected even if they do survive the initial events?"

                  "God is great"

                  "Some men, just want to watch the world burn"

                  ... I have lots, but these two will do

                  The problem with the apparently rational argument, is that it ignores the possibility that irrational behaviour is not only possible, but historically has been shown to be, highly likely.

                  It's a general problem with certain politically inclined groups, and less thoughtful individuals in general, that they just can't get their head around the idea that people exist, often in powerful positions, who would happily burn the world for their pet cause, be it "god" or "save the whales".

                  1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                    Re: draft

                    "irrational behaviour is not only possible, but historically has been shown to be, highly likely."

                    How so? To date no nuclear powers have ever been at war with each other (except some skirmishes by proxy).

                    The only country which has ever used the nuclear weapons in battle is the US. I don't blame them - it would have been used by whoever first managed to construct such a weapon because it is in the human nature. You have to try an awesome new toy at least once. But now the toy *has* been tried, the novelty is gone and it has been established that it is best used as a deterrent and not as an active weapon.

                    Regarding the Iranians - I would suggest that if you consider them your enemies then the worst thing you can do is underestimate them and believe your own propaganda. Those people lived there for thousands of years, one of the longest living continuous civilizations in the world. Run their own empires at times. How can anyone sane assume that they can be nearly as irrational as the Fox News purports them to be?

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Re: draft

                      ".....Regarding the Iranians - I would suggest that if you consider them your enemies then the worst thing you can do is underestimate them and believe your own propaganda....." So you want to believe theirs instead? that's your choice. Until they actually make some modern development not based on reverse-engineered or copied Russian or American kit I'll choose to laugh at their propaganda claims and you.

                      "......Those people lived there for thousands of years, one of the longest living continuous civilizations in the world. Run their own empires at times. How can anyone sane assume that they can be nearly as irrational as the Fox News purports them to be?" Because all the "great" stuff in their history happened long ago and long before they were reduced to an Islamic theocracy masquerading as a modern democracy.

                      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                        Re: draft

                        "were reduced to an Islamic theocracy masquerading as a modern democracy."

                        Many countries in the world (pretty much every country of any importance) undergone revolutions during their lifecycle. A common feature of every one of them is the desire of the newly established elite to hold on to and increase their power and wealth. One does not normally do that by committing suicide. Being alive is a required part of being in power.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Facepalm

                          Re: Vladimir Re: draft

                          ".....One does not normally do that by committing suicide. Being alive is a required part of being in power." Except history has shown that many dictatorships, just like criminals, assume they will get away with it, whether because they think they have a god-given right or because they simply convince themselves their cause is so just it cannot fail. Historic examples include King Philip II of Spain, who thought he had the (Catholic) God-given right to rule England and therefore believed the Armada he sent against England in 1588 was invincible due to the blessing of God. He was wrong, the destruction of his Armada bankrupted Spain and led to the downfall of the Spanish Empire.

                          Adolfo Hitler (yes, claim your Godwin now, it's all you'll win) was not religious (he had many conflicts with the Catholic Church for example), but devoutly believed in the superiority of the Aryan races and that Germany should lead them as part of a great Aryan empire, equal to that of Britain's. His "devotion" to his ideals meant he could not see that the other World powers - namely Soviet Russia and the capitalist USA and imperialist Britain - could overcome their ideological and political differences to combine against his Axis. He was wrong and ended up committing suicide, with Germany in ruins and destined to be partitioned for decades.

                          A more relevant and modern example is Saddam Hussein. Whilst actually very clever and devious, he could not see anything other than the eventual victory of his Iraq over his neighbours, even after escaping defeat in the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War. His suicidal course meant he ended up losing everything and swinging on the end of a rope.

                          Just because you cannot see why someone would do something stupid and suicidal , doesn't mean someone else can't convince themselves it's a good idea.

                          1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                            Re: Vladimir draft

                            Saddam is a special case. He was set up by the Americans when he received what he thought was a Washington-approved response to his question about what would the US do if he invaded Kuwait and which said that the US will consider it an internal Iraqi matter. That started the chain of events which were no longer in his control - he would have been eventually destroyed by Bush even if he'd converted his Scuds into fluffy kittens and himself turned into a hippie.

                            With Hitler, he has seriously miscalculated, yes, but his strategy was never suicidal. He did not think his hatred of Jews will as much as raise an eye-brow with the Europeans and the US and, given the rife antisemitism existing pretty much everywhere at that time, this was not as outlandish an idea as it may seem now.

                            I generally notice in all revolutions the new regime is initially aggressive and expansionist and then turns more cautious after they've learned their hard lessons. That was the case with France (Napoleonic wars), also with USSR (Poland and Finland) etc. The Iranian ayatollahs have already tried their moment and had their backsides handed over to them by Saddam, they are clearly wiser now. Besides, the US delivered Iraq to them on a plate, so, there is no need for Iran to consider any aggressive tactics at all.

                            With nukes it's another game altogether. If you have *anything* to loose you just don't *use* nukes, period. You keep them close to your chest (well shielded) and let everyone know (or at least think) you've got them. That's what nukes are for.

                            Iranian religious leadership wants to preside over a Shia empire, be the Vatican of all Shia muslims around the world, they are not interested in expediting their own date with 70 virgins. They know very well that if they use nukes, they and their grand ideas will go up in smoke, quite literally.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Re: Vladimir draft

                              "Saddam is a special case. He was set up by the Americans....." Whatever propaganda story you want to believe, the fact remains Saddam is a perfect example of a dictator thought he couldn't lose but ended up dead.

                              "......With Hitler, he has seriously miscalculated, yes, but his strategy was never suicidal......" The whole point is Hitler thought his aggression would lead to glory for Germany, instead it left it in ruins. Neither Saddam nor Hitler had suicide in mind when they set out. The worry is the Iranians think they can get away with building a nuke arsenal, that it will lead them to glory, because they think Obambi will be as big a pushover as Carter was, and that Israel won't strike them first. History shows that Israel will strike first, even if Obambi thinks he can kick the can down the road for the next POTUS to deal with.

                              ".....Iranian religious leadership wants to preside over a Shia empire, be the Vatican of all Shia muslims around the world, they are not interested in expediting their own date with 70 virgins. They know very well that if they use nukes, they and their grand ideas will go up in smoke, quite literally." That's all one big assumption, very like the assumptions of those that assured us that Hitler would not start another war after the horrors of the Great War, or that the Arabs wouldn't try attacking Israel again in 1973 after their defeat in 1968, or that Saddam wouldn't invade Kuwait, etc., etc.

                              1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                                Re: Vladimir draft

                                Propaganda? Just look up "April Glaspie" and see for yourself. Whether or not it was done on purpose I'll leave to your imagination. Personally, I think that it was just the usual banal incompetence but it did what it did.

                                "History shows that Israel will strike first".

                                OK, so what you're saying is that the Israelis are the real threat to stability in the Middle East, not the Iranians... I would agree with you on that. Sad. One day, in 5 years or in 20, they will suddenly realise that the US has abandoned them and they are alone, surrounded by people they have done their best to piss off...

                                "That's all one big assumption, very like the assumptions of those that assured us..."

                                I wonder if you have ever met any Iranians or ever been to the Middle East? I would recommend, when thinking of a potential adversary, assume first that they are humans at least as intelligent as yourself and not presume that they are some characters from a propaganda cartoon. I think I already said something to this effect in one of my earlier posts...

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  FAIL

                                  Re: Re: Vladimir draft

                                  "....Just look up "April Glaspie" and see for yourself....." The whole point is Saddam heard what he wanted to hear because he was so set on his "glorious" path. Glaspie did not give Saddam the green light, she just reiterated that the US was impartial in the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait and that the US wanted a negotiated solution. only the most deranged of conspiracy theorists have tried making out that the US "tricked" Saddam iinto attacking Kuwait, and you forget it was the UN that ordered Saddam to leave. Major fail of the extreme tinfoil-hat type. Look, I can't use any simpler words, if you can't get it through your thick head that Saddam thought he couldn't lose then just quit now, you're not equipped for the conversation.

                                  ".....OK, so what you're saying is that the Israelis are the real threat to stability in the Middle East...." Sure, twist it whatever way helps you think you know what's happening, the outcome is the same - Iran continues on it's stupid course and gets smacked.

                                  "..... surrounded by people they have done their best to piss off..." What know-nothing's like you do not understand is that just by existing, Jews "piss off" Muslims. Jews having a country smack in the middle of what the Arabs consider theirs by right of holy conquest means there is nothing shorting of killing themselves that the Jews can do to please their neighbours. Go read up on the history of the region, go read up on Islam, in fact just go read a lot more or go see your doctor, because you seem to be missing massive gaps in your education or suffering from some form of mental impairment.

                                  ".....I wonder if you have ever met any Iranians or ever been to the Middle East....." I have met plenty of Iranians, both here and in the US and Middles East, and I have lived and worked in many countries in the Middle East too, so you can shove that where the sun doesn't shine.

                                  "..... I would recommend, when thinking of a potential adversary, assume first that they are humans at least as intelligent as yourself and not presume that they are some characters from a propaganda cartoon....." Two classic fails. The first is in thinking anyone will listen to you after you posted moronic dribble with alarming frequency. The second is one that has afflicted many in the West - trying to gauge the likely actions of another people by applying our values. It simply doesn't work, suicide bombings being a prime case. Once again, just because you wouldn't do it, or your political blinkers mean you can't conceive it as even a possibility, doesn't mean others will not do it. My suggestion is you actually live what you preach and get out in the World and get some firsthand knowledge.

                                  1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                                    Re: Vladimir draft

                                    Your hormones have gone to your head. Replacing whatever brains there were, if any...

                                    This conversation is over.

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      FAIL

                                      Re: Re: Vladimir draft

                                      "......This conversation is over." There never was any conversation, all you did was bleat a load of conspiracy theorist mumbojumbo and unsubstantiated opinions that you couldn't backup with any facts. I'm laughing at your sulky reply.

                    2. Philip Lewis
                      FAIL

                      Re: draft

                      "How so? To date no nuclear powers have ever been at war with each other (except some skirmishes by proxy)."

                      Logic fail.

                      Btw. since Fox News is American and I am not, it is unlikely that my knowledge or my opinion on these matters is informed by that particular informations source. You might consider that some of us here are quite well educated and broadly read in areas that have nothing to do with IT. We are well capable of dismantling poor and/or illogical arguments as an intellectual exercise, and your arguments are often faulty in both logic and content.

                      Sorry to burst your bubble.

                      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                        Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                        You said there was historical precedent to support an argument that Iranians will use nuclear weapons to preemptively attack someone (the US, I think or, maybe, Israel. Both nuclear, anyway).

                        I said that, on the contrary, there was no cases in history where one nuclear power attacked another.

                        Where is the logic fail?

                        Either give me a historical fact that proves me wrong or try to develop your argument that Iranians are so much more irrational than any existing nuclear nation that they will use a nuclear weapon even if they know that it will mean their own assured destruction. If you choose to do the latter, please take care to present something more logical than "Some men, just want to watch the world burn".

                        1. Philip Lewis
                          FAIL

                          Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                          Without reference to my previous post, I think you will find I said that there was an historical precedent for irrational and/or self destructive behaviour and that because you cannot conceive of it, that does not make it impossible, and that historically there is evidence to suggest that it is indeed possible.

                          Another poster gave 2 examples of destructive, irrational military action that resulted in the ultimate death of the perpetrator and ultimate military defeat. These two examples will do, though trawling through history would produce others.

                          I don't need to have an example of nuclear first strike for this to be true. That is an incorrect reading of what I wrote, and your paraphrase is therefore wrong.

                          Again, the argument that irrational and ultimately self destructive decision making with respect to military action, as an historical fact. I don't need someone to have dropped nukes for this to be true.

                          1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                            Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                            "I think you will find I said that there was an historical precedent for irrational and/or self destructive behaviour ... and that historically there is evidence to suggest that it is indeed possible."

                            This is what I've found you said. But you used that in an argument about potential use of nuclear weapons and that's why I responded that there never was a case where such behaviour was observed between nuclear nations.

                            There is a good reason for that - it's called MAD and it says "you have to be barking mad to initiate a nuclear conflict unless you have 100% certainty that you can prevent your adversary from retaliation in kind". That has worked well during the Cold War and between India and Pakistan and I see no reason why it shouldn't work with Iran and Israel.

                            The only possible reason might be that the Iranian leadership *is* barking mad and they are willing to sacrifice themselves and their country to go "in the blaze of glory". But I have seen nothing yet to sustain that argument.

                            At the moment they behave quite rationally. It may be a gamble but I can see the reasons for them to want to have nukes. The main one being the sought-after protection of the MAD doctrine.

                            Regarding the examples made by the other poster - I tried to explain, perhaps not well enough, that these examples were a) not suitable for the nuclear situation and b) they were not examples of irrationality but of miscalculations.

                            Both Hitler and Saddam had long term strategies (not a desire to ascend to meet their maker(s)), which they intended to achieve through military action. In both cases they made their decisions based on their analysis of the world affairs as they could see them in real-time, without hindsight. In both cases they turned out to be wrong and I, for one, is pleased by that.

                            1. Philip Lewis

                              Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                              That is what is known as the "this time it's different" argument.

                              Alas, it almost never is, though in this case I think we can both agree that we HOPE it is.

                              1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                                Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                                I agree.

                            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Valdimir Plonkerikov Re: draft @Philip Lewis

                              Post-1945, there were three reactions to the news that Nazi Germany had been using gas chambers, ovens and other means of mass-murder in an attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. In the countries of the West there was amazement and disbelief that an educated and advanced country could be so barbaric. In the Arab countries there was praise and joy. The Soviets fell in between - Stalin actually expressed enthusiasm for the efficiency of the Nazi methods, but then he had used much cruder means to kill his own people for years by the time Hitler's actions came to light. So, that's three reactions based on three different mindsets, but somehow you expect the Iranians to unquestioningly follows yours? Frankly, you're simply too blinkered for words.

                              1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                                Re: Valdimir Plonkerikov draft @Philip Lewis

                                Matt, you do know that Iran is not an Arab country, right?

                                Wikipedia, citing the CIA World Factbook, gives the following demographic:

                                Persians (61%), Azerbaijanis (16%), Kurds (10%), Lurs (6%), Arabs (2%), Balochs (2%), Turkmens and Turkic tribes (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Georgians, Persian Jews, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Kazakhs and others (1%)

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  Stop

                                  Re: Valdimir Plonkerikov draft @Philip Lewis

                                  "Matt, you do know that Iran is not an Arab country, right?...." When did I say it was? Unlike you and James, I passed geography, history and keep abreast of current affairs.

  21. M7S
    Mushroom

    The LibDem part of our coalition government recently said we don't need a replacement for Trident

    Would this point perhaps be worth reconsidering now?

    I'm not saying that the previous and current HMG haven't made some nutty decisions of their own, e.g. carriers (current and future, and the aeroplanes that cannot fly from them) and that future wars are most likely to be very different in nature, but if we thought that some mad mullah might lob a big bucket of sunshine at me, I'd want to be able to lob one back effectively, even if he didn't care one jot about his people.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: The LibDem part of our coalition government recently

      Well, Greenpeace reckon it would cost about £3bn a year for thirty years for the Trident replacement. Given that the government sees fit to fritter £12bn a year on foreign aid, a Trident replacement would appear to be exceptionally good value.

      On the other hand, if you're a simple minded liberal democrat, brought up into a very long tradition of comfortably powerless opposition, forever railing against the government of the day, accountable for nothing, what are the chances that you'd be able to make the right decision on anything strategic?

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Boffin

      "LibDem part of our coalition government recently said we don't need a replacement for Trident"

      "Would this point perhaps be worth reconsidering now?"

      The UK proposal is for a a £20Bn nuclear submarine based system. That is of course a £20B BAe estimate.

      The last renewal came in about 2-3x over the original estimate.

      It's designed to remain undetectable from the whole of the Russian navy while retaining the capability to destroy Moscow, a city with an installed ABM system (not sure if it's still operational).

      That's a bit excessive for use against Iran.

      OTOH a few dozen man portable tactical nukes carried by special forces would be quite a worthwhile investment.

  22. Simon Harris
    Coat

    ICBM

    If they'd ejected the animal from the capsule on a long piece of elastic, and let one of their chief Mullahs press the launch button...

    it would be an Imam Controlled Bungee Monkey!

  23. Scott Pedigo
    Mushroom

    We are one step closer to.. Planet of the Apes.

  24. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    I mistrust all groups of fundamentalist religeous nutters

    I don't care what religion.

  25. Euripides Pants
    Trollface

    humans in space by 2019

    Someone should tell this Mahmoud guy that the Americans, Chinese and Russians have already sent lots of people into space.

  26. MachDiamond Silver badge

    The New York Times (1/29, Cowell, Subscription Publication) reports Iranian state television said Monday that the country had succeeded in sending a monkey into space "as a prelude to sending humans." But there was "no independent corroboration of the report," which state-run Press TV "called evidence of 'yet another' scientific achievement." According to the Times, "Western monitors have not announced any missiles launchings by Iran in recent days," but the timing of the reported launching by state media was "unclear - either on Monday or within the past few days."

    The AP (1/29) reports that "a brief report on state TV" gave no details "on the timing or location of the launch, but said the monkey safely returned to earth. Still images broadcast on state TV showed a small, gray-tufted monkey presumably being prepared for the flight, including wearing a type of body protection and being strapped tightly into a pod that resembled an infant's car seat."

    Reuters (1/29, Torbati) reports Iran's Defense Ministry said the launch coincided "with the days of" the Prophet Mohammad's birthday, which was last week, but gave no exact date.

    Another AP (1/29, Dareini) article notes State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland "said the US had no way to confirm the monkey's voyage, but that it was concerned by the reports" because "any space launch vehicle capable of placing an object in orbit is directly relevant to the development of long-range ballistic missiles."

    From the AIAA Daily Launch newsletter of 29 Jan 2013

  27. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    Usual knee-jerk repsonse? Get over it.

    Nice to see the usual posters are here to turn any thread on Iran into a fact-free attack on Israel. Just to help them see sense, here's a simple comprehension exercise for them to work their three braincells with.

    At the end of the War, with Britain and her Allies having defeated Germany, it was decided to create a country for an ethnic group that claimed an historic right to an area of land that was currently controlled by other sovereign states. The ethnic group had previsouly enjoyed a grand civilisation repleat with technical and artistic developments, yet their country had been invaded by imperial powers. People of the ethnic group that had settled far and wide traveled to the new country to join those of the ethnic group that already lived there. After much debating and political horse-trading, the new state was declared by international treaty several years after the War, the ethnic group accepting an area of land smaller than their historic country, and with some borders still in dispute with their neighbours. These simmering dsiputes would lead to further war, following which the state's boundaries were changed again by international treaty - some land was gained from former enemies and some lost - giving the ethnic group an eventual land with boundaries that were quite different to those of their historic country or that origianlly agreed after the War.

    Think I'm talking about Israel and the Jews? Sounds like it, doesn't it, but I'm actually talking about Poland. The First Polish Republic was invaded and broken up by Imperial Russia and Prussia, just as the ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel and Judea was invaded by the Egyptians and the Romans. In 1918, after the Great War, the Second Polish Republic was formed from land claimed by former enemies such as Germany, Russia and Hungary, just as modern Israel was created from land claimed by neighbouring Arab states. Whilst the Poles had their border with Germany set in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, a long series of wars followed with neighbours before the Polish fronteirs were set by more international treaties, just as Israel made a peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan to set those borders. The dispute with their neighbours eventually led to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia invading Poland again in 1939, and after 1945 a new Poland - the Third Republic - was created, centered on the historic First Polish Republic and including land seized from Germany and surrendered by Russia in negotiation. The borders of the Third Polish Republic were quite different to those of the Second and First Republics, just as the 1948 UN Partition Plan borders for Israel were quite different to the 1967 Disengagement Line and the probable future borders of Israel after it negotiates a final peace treaty with Syria, Lebanon and the PNA. The only diference is Israel fought off the second invasions of 1948, 1967 and 1973, and no-one is insisting that Poland return any land or move any Poles from land that used to be part of Germany, Russia or Hungary.

    Think about.

    1. Philip Lewis
      Thumb Up

      Re: Usual knee-jerk repsonse? Get over it.

      Gratifying to see that at least one other person who frequents this forum has bothered to read a history book or two. And yes, I knew instantly you were referring to poland.

  28. jake Silver badge

    All this political bullshit is all well and good ...

    ... at least it keeps you lot off the streets at night. But during the meanwhile, my question still stands unanswered. Did Iran actually put a monkey into orbit & return it back to Earth, safe & sound, to the destination of their choice? Or is this a load of cobblers?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: All this political bullshit is all well and good ...

      ".....Did Iran actually put a monkey into orbit & return it back to Earth, safe & sound, to the destination of their choice?...." All that can be independently verified is that a Scud-based rocket was launched around the time period claimed, it entered a ballistic trajectory that peaked at approximately 120km altitude and impacted down range inside Iran. It did not orbit, indeed at 120km, whilst technically above the 100km edge of space, it was definitely suborbital. Whether it carried a Rhesus monkey as claimed is also impossible to verify, but the Iranians didn't even invite their usual buddies, Russia and Syria, to witness the supposed achievement. All we have is pics of a monkey in a child seat, supposedly before and after. In other words, Iran could have claimed to have shot the head chimp Ahm-mad-in-a-dinnerjacket to Mars and back and it would be just as unlikely and just as unverifiable. What is most likely is that Iran is trying to big up their capabilities with fake space launches and hilariously funny-looking "stealth fighters" before meeting the UN for more negotiations.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like