Military Review

Iran's missile potential

119
On September 22, a military parade was held in Tehran to mark the 33 anniversary of the start of the Iran-Iraq war. Traditionally, this parade has become a pretext for the demonstration of new weapons and military equipment. The Iranian military showed the 12 missiles of the Sejjil model and the 18 Ghadr missiles. Exact modifications of the products shown are not yet known. According to reports, both missiles have a range of about 2000 kilometers. The demonstration of such missiles at a recent parade confirms not only the fact of the existence of the relevant Iranian projects, but also the presence of at least small-scale production of ammunition. All together, this speaks of Tehran’s intentions in strengthening the military power of its armed forces.


Iran's missile potential


Iran began to develop its rocket technology in the eighties of the last century. The reason for the start of active work in this direction were some tactical nuances of the war with Iraq. A number of important targets in Iraqi territory turned out to be inaccessible to the Iranian armed forces. To accomplish such tasks, Tehran initiated the development of new ballistic missiles of various classes. Great help from Iranian scientists and designers was provided by specialists from China and North Korea. These countries, possessing some of the necessary technologies, shared them with Iran, thanks to which Iranian specialists were able to create several new projects.

Currently, the Iranian armed forces have several types of ballistic missiles of several classes that can hit targets at a distance of several tens to several thousand kilometers. According to reports, if necessary, Iranian rocket engineers can attack targets located at a distance of 2500 kilometers. Due to the geographical and political characteristics of the region, this range makes Iranian missiles a strategic weapon.

Iran maintains a strict secrecy regime in all that relates to its missile weapons. About the existence of new missiles it becomes known only some time after their tests or adoption. The number of manufactured products is also a state secret and is not subject to disclosure. As a result, foreign countries need only to make assessments on the basis of available information, expediency, etc. data.

The most advanced of the currently known Iranian missiles is the Fajr-3. This medium-range ballistic missile uses fluid engines and is capable of flying at a distance of at least 2000 kilometers. According to some sources, the Fajr-3 rocket has a range of up to 2500 km. Like other medium-range ballistic missiles, the Fajr-3 is equipped with an inertial guidance system. The payload of the rocket consists of three warheads with individual guidance. It is known that in the middle of the last decade, Iran conducted several test launches of the new Fajr-3 rocket. By now, obviously, the new rocket has been adopted and is being mass-produced. The number of assembled products of this model is estimated at several dozen and is unlikely to exceed 100 units. However, continued production can significantly increase the number of such missiles on duty and in warehouses.

Fajr-5 / 330mm


At the recent parade, the Sejjil and Ghadr missiles were demonstrated. There is every reason to believe that this year the Iranian military showed rockets models Sejjil-2 and Ghadr-110, representing the further development of old projects. Not much is known about these two rockets. According to reports, the Sejjil-2 and Ghadr-110 are capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 2000 km. With comparable dimensions and starting weight, these two missiles differ from each other in technological terms. So, the Sejjil family of rockets is equipped with a solid-propellant rocket engine, and the Ghadr-110 ammunition has a combined composition of engines: the first stage is made solid-fuel, and the second one has liquid engines. The reasons for the difference between the missiles relate to industrial and technological issues. Both missiles with a range of about 2000 kilometers carry one-piece combat units.




The medium-range ballistic missile Sejjil-2 is directly related to the Sejjil-1 project. Earlier it was reported that the Sejjil-1 rocket, having a slightly larger size and weight in comparison with the Sejjil-2, can deliver a warhead to a distance of 2400 km. Tests of a rocket with such high performance began in the 2007-2008 years and probably ended in success. At the same time, it cannot be excluded that, for whatever reason, the Iranian armed forces did not begin to adopt the missile in its present form and requested its modernization. In addition, there is every reason to believe that the Sejjil-1 and Sejjil-2 missiles were developed simultaneously in the framework of the same project. The fact is that between the first test launches of these missiles took about six months.

The immediate predecessor of the Fajr-3, Sejjil and Ghadr-110 missiles is the Shahab-3 project. The ballistic missile of this model is equipped with solid-fuel and liquid-propellant engines, which allows it to deliver a payload weighing less than one ton over a distance of 1900-1950 kilometers. According to reports, the Shahab-3 project is an Iranian processing of the North Korean Nodong-1 rocket. Over the past 10-12 years, Iranian designers have created several modifications of the Shahab-3 rocket, differing from each other in certain nodes, aggregates and characteristics. So, the latest versions with the Shahab-3C and Shahab-3D indexes carry up to five warheads with individual hoverings weighing about 280 kg. Like other Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles, the Shahab-3 is equipped with an inertial guidance system.

It should be noted that the Shahab family of ballistic missiles began with short-range ammunition. In the late eighties, the Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles were created. During the modernization of these missiles, Iranian designers managed to bring their range to 1000 km (Shahab-1) and 750 km (Shahab-2). Some sources claim that the first Shahab missiles were created on the basis of technologies obtained in the study of P-300 missiles (an export version of the P-17 missiles) of Soviet production acquired through third countries. Information is also available on cooperation with the DPRK. Over the years of production, the Iranian defense industry has manufactured several thousand Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles. Some sources claim that the troops still have a certain amount of such ammunition.

Shahab-2


As you can see, in recent decades, Iran has been actively engaged in the creation of short and medium-range ballistic missiles. At the same time, the Iranian industry achieved the greatest success only in the two thousandth years, starting mass production of several types of missiles with similar characteristics. Simultaneously with the development of ammunition suitable for deterring a potential enemy in the conditions of the Middle East region, Iran was engaged in projects of ballistic missiles for operational-tactical missile systems. A characteristic feature of this part of the Iranian missile program is its emphasis on the use of liquid engines: the overwhelming majority of solid-propellant missiles were not equipped with any control systems and were intended for firing at areal targets without precise guidance. Probably the reason for this are the Soviet developments (first of all, the 9K72 “Elbrus” complex with the P-17 / P-300 rocket), which are the “roots” of North Korean and Iranian ballistic missiles.



For quite a long time, it was supposed to use unguided rockets and Shahab-1000 or Shahab-1 missiles to attack targets located at a distance of no more than 2 kilometers. Due to the inadequate characteristics of obsolete missile systems in the late nineties, Iran launched a new project, the purpose of which was to create new short-range ballistic missiles and operational-tactical purposes.

In September, the 2002 of the year passed the successful tests of the Fateh-110 rocket with a range of up to 200 kilometers. The rocket of the first version was equipped with an inertial guidance system and could deliver a monoblock warhead to the target weighing about 650 kg. In the future, announced the creation of new versions of the rocket with higher performance. In 2012, the Iranian military told about the existence of the Fateh-110-D1 rocket with a range of up to 300 kilometers. As stated, thanks to the use of inertial and optical-electronic guidance systems, the latest model of the missile surpasses all previous developments in its accuracy indicators. In addition, the Fateh-110 became the basis for the Khalij Fars anti-ship ballistic missile.

Fateh-110


Another missile, designed to replace the old short-range ammunition, is Qiam-1. The start of work on this project became known in the middle of 2010. Then it was reported that Iran is already in full swing developing a new liquid-propellant rocket. According to reports, the Qiam-1 ballistic missile is capable of delivering an 700-kilogram warhead over a distance of 750 kilometers. In 2011, the Iranian Ministry of Defense announced the ordering of the first batch of new-type production missiles. At the present time, the full-scale production of short-range missiles is probably underway, which are gradually replacing similar-purpose ammunition in the military.



It is easy to see that the Iranian ballistic missiles developed in recent decades make it possible to hit targets in a sufficiently large range of distances. Nevertheless, a number of features of Iranian missiles complicate their operation. There is information about the lack of technology in Iran, allowing to keep for a long time liquid rocket on duty. Because of this, putting a rocket on duty and removing it from it is accompanied by several long and laborious procedures, which accordingly affects the combat capability of the rocket forces.

Operational problems of liquid rockets at the current level of technology development in Iran can be solved only by switching to solid-fuel engines. Capacity, in turn, can be provided with a sufficient number of missiles. In this case, you can create a convenient mechanism for setting up missiles on duty, removal from it and maintenance, without harming the overall combat capability of the troops. Judging by the available information, the Iranian armed forces are actively using both of these methods to improve the status of rocket forces.

The Iranian Ministry of Defense does not disclose numerical indicators of the armament of the rocket forces, which does not allow an accurate assessment of their overall potential. In this regard, it is necessary to manage only approximate estimates. So, with respect to the missiles of old models (Shahab-1 or Shahab-2), the number of several thousand units is often called. This assumption is associated with the tactical objectives of the missiles and the peculiarities of their use. For the same reasons, the number of medium-range missiles can be estimated from a few dozen (Ghadr-110, Sejjil-2 or Fajr-3) to several hundred (Shahab-3 or Fateh-110).

Iran’s ballistic missiles make it possible to “hold on sight” a large area around the country. Missiles with a range of about 1000 kilometers when launched from Iranian territory can attack targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and Transcaucasia. Shahab-3 or Fajr-3 rockets, in turn, can hit targets in India, Northern and Eastern Africa, Central Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe. Thus, having such weapons, Iran now claims to be the regional leader. Considering the situation in the Middle East, it can also be assumed that Iranian ballistic missiles are one of the instruments for maintaining stability in the region. Despite the difficult political situation and several recent wars, this weapon can eliminate aggression, the result of which could be a large-scale armed conflict in the entire Middle East.


On the materials of the sites:
http://vz.ru/
http://articles.janes.com/
http://iranwatch.org/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://missilethreat.com/
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Professor
    Professor 30 September 2013 09: 21 New
    -13
    Given the situation in the Middle East, it can also be assumed that Iranian ballistic missiles are one of the tools to maintain stability in the region.
    Here, either laugh or cry. Neighbors, of course, will sit back and the Sunnis in the face of the Saudis will not make their own rockets and spin the centrifuges. Here is such stability! fool

    PS
    From Iran to Moscow just 2000 km ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 September 2013 09: 30 New
      10
      Quote: Professor
      From Iran to Moscow just 2000 km ...
      And how much to Jerusalem ...?
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 September 2013 09: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        And how much to Jerusalem ...?

        Jerusalem is only 1000 km away. The question is, why do Ayatollahs have missiles with a range of 2500 km if the entire Middle East including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are covered with missiles with a range of 1000 km?
        1. velikoros-xnumx
          velikoros-xnumx 30 September 2013 09: 48 New
          +5
          Quote: Professor
          The question is, why do Ayatollahs have missiles with a range of 2500 km if the entire Middle East including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are covered with missiles with a range of 1000 km?

          Stopudovo getting ready to strike in Moscow. Ah these insidious Persians laughing .
          1. Professor
            Professor 30 September 2013 09: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: velikoros-xnumx
            Stopudovo getting ready to strike in Moscow.

            No, these missiles and nuclear warheads are simply stamped like that. The farm fit.
            By the way, is the Caspian easier to share with a nuclear-free Iran, or one that reaches Moscow? wink
            1. velikoros-xnumx
              velikoros-xnumx 30 September 2013 10: 01 New
              15
              Quote: Professor
              By the way, is the Caspian easier to share with a nuclear-free Iran, or one that reaches Moscow?

              Do not worry so. The main thing is that we will have to share it with the Persians, and not you. Something tells me that Iran will not put forward unacceptable conditions for Russia during the partition. Regarding a nuclear Iran, I agree with you 100% that neither Israel nor Russia needs this, but for us nuclear Israel, given its foreign policy orientation, is not comme il faut.
              1. Professor
                Professor 30 September 2013 10: 07 New
                0
                Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                Do not worry so.

                I don’t worry at all. laughing

                Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                Regarding a nuclear Iran, I agree with you 100% that neither Israel nor Russia needs this, but for us nuclear Israel, given its foreign policy orientation, is not comme il faut.

                “Nuclear Israel” did not prevent its neighbors from attacking it in 1973. Well, how Russia is "worried" about this is generally indescribable. wink
                1. 0255
                  0255 30 September 2013 10: 49 New
                  0
                  “Nuclear Israel” did not prevent its neighbors from attacking it in 1973. Well, how Russia is "worried" about this is generally indescribable.

                  Israel can attack Arabs in 1956 and 1967, but Arabs can not?
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 30 September 2013 10: 51 New
                    -1
                    Quote: 0255
                    Israel can attack Arabs in 1956 and 1967, but Arabs can not?

                    Are you from the newspaper True about who attacked in 1967?
                    1. 0255
                      0255 30 September 2013 11: 07 New
                      +3
                      Are you from the newspaper True about who attacked in 1967?

                      but Israel was the first to strike, destroying all or almost all of the Egyptian Tu-16s and Il-28s on earth.
                      And why shouldn't I believe our sources? In the Western media, want to say more truth?
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 30 September 2013 11: 24 New
                        -2
                        Quote: 0255
                        but Israel was the first to strike, destroying all or almost all of the Egyptian Tu-16s and Il-28s on earth.

                        What followed? After Nasser closed the Tirana Strait, which, according to international standards, is an act of declaration of war.
                        Reasons for the start of the Six Day War, or saga about how all Israel’s attempts to secure international guarantees of its security collapsed in June 1967

                        Quote: 0255
                        And why shouldn't I believe our sources? In the Western media, want to say more truth?

                        Actually from the UN. Believe it or not.
                      2. 0255
                        0255 30 September 2013 11: 52 New
                        +8
                        Actually from the UN. Believe it or not.

                        The UN also does not always tell the truth.
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 30 September 2013 11: 56 New
                        +2
                        Quote: 0255
                        The UN also does not always tell the truth.

                        And this is true, but in such cases there is usually someone who screams about unjustness from the "proud" minority. In this case, there were none.
                      4. Oberst_71
                        Oberst_71 30 September 2013 12: 47 New
                        +1
                        let's just say the United Nations generally does not say much truth .. In principle, like the Western press. There is no free press at all. this is the same myth as the election in the usa.
                      5. Pimply
                        Pimply 30 September 2013 18: 12 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Oberst_71
                        In principle, like the Western press. There is no free press at all. this is the same myth as the election in the usa.

                        Some kind of free press is still a little freer than the other. And some elections are still more legitimate and transparent than others. There is no absolute justice anywhere - but at least its rudiments are present.
                  2. svp67
                    svp67 30 September 2013 13: 01 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Professor
                    After Nasser closed the Tirana Strait, which, according to international standards, is an act of declaration of war.
                    Oh, and at that moment you were “so white and fluffy” ... The Americans offered you help in resolving this issue - diplomatically, your current country has chosen a different path ...
                  3. Professor
                    Professor 30 September 2013 13: 37 New
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    The Americans offered you help in resolving this issue - diplomatically; your current country has chosen a different path.

                    This is also from the newspaper. Really? I have already posted a link here as what was then. Study.
    2. Max otto
      Max otto 30 September 2013 12: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      Stopudovo getting ready to strike in Moscow.

      No, these missiles and nuclear warheads are simply stamped like that. The farm fit.
      By the way, is the Caspian easier to share with a nuclear-free Iran, or one that reaches Moscow? wink

      Professor, are you out of sorts today? Not stupid, like you are a man, but frankly utter nonsense is already here, the USA cannot always put pressure on Moscow, and here is some kind of Iran. Yes, even theoretically, Iran against Russia has a zero chance.
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 September 2013 12: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: Max Otto
        Not stupid, like you are a man, but frankly utter nonsense is already here, the USA cannot always put pressure on Moscow, and here is some kind of Iran. Yes, even theoretically, Iran against Russia has a zero chance.

        Do you know what is unacceptable damage? That's when Iran can theoretically inflict such Russia, then it will speak differently. Of course, there is no question of winners here, everyone will lose.
        I repeat, missiles with a range of 1000 km already cover the entire warhead.
        1. 0255
          0255 30 September 2013 12: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          That's when Iran can theoretically inflict such Russia, then it will speak differently.

          Well, Russia has a Topol-M. Do you think Iran will go to a conflict with Russia? To fend off the Russian army with American junk that had passed the Iran-Iraq war? Here, too, the United States may attack Iran (they are unlikely to snoop on Russia) under the pretext of protecting Russia, and it will conquer the coveted oil fields.
          Claims that Iran will attack someone are utter nonsense.
          1. Professor
            Professor 30 September 2013 13: 39 New
            -3
            Quote: 0255
            Claims that Iran will attack someone are utter nonsense.

            100% delirium. They make nuclear charges and their delivery vehicles for sporting interest. The main thing when they do from the south of Russia comes complete peace and prosperity. hi
            1. Max otto
              Max otto 30 September 2013 13: 58 New
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              Quote: 0255
              Claims that Iran will attack someone are utter nonsense.

              100% delirium. They make nuclear charges and their delivery vehicles for sporting interest. The main thing when they do from the south of Russia comes complete peace and prosperity. hi

              Iran makes rockets for exactly the same purpose as Israel, in order to survive. Attack a country with nuclear weapons, no bad.
              Quote: Professor
              Do you know what is unacceptable damage? That's when Iran can theoretically inflict such Russia, then it will speak differently.

              This is possible only if a universal catastrophe occurs on the territory of Russia, as a result of which all the Moscow Region will disappear along with all the people from the marshal to the ordinary. In history, of course, there have been cases of mass suicide, but not more than hundreds of people (I suspect that not more than a hundred), but that would have been guaranteed to die for the abstract idea of ​​millions is nonsense.
              1. Professor
                Professor 30 September 2013 14: 05 New
                +2
                Quote: Max Otto
                Attack a country with nuclear weapons, no bad.

                I repeat, attack and inappropriately. It is enough to have such an opportunity and then it will already be possible to speak with Moscow in a different tone. An example (no offense) is the same relationship between Moscow and Washington. Do not possess Russia nuclear weapons Obama would speak to Russia in the same tone as, say, with Brazil.

                Quote: Max Otto
                but that would be ready to die guaranteed for the abstract idea of ​​millions - this is nonsense.

                A pair of religious fanatics can easily sacrifice the lives of millions or even billions. We do not understand them.

              2. Max otto
                Max otto 30 September 2013 14: 26 New
                +4
                Professor, you exaggerate the influence of fanatics, they can raise millions to a war in which you can (theoretically) win, but make them die with a guarantee - well, not more than a hundred. An Iranian missile will reach its target - only theoretically, Russia is not Iraq and Pakistan, they need 40 years before the technologies that Russia has already thrown away and forgot.
                And yet, as soon as Iran allows this "unacceptable damage" to Russia, it will cease to exist. Israel’s dreams will come true. It turns out you need to help Iran, but you resist for some reason. (even for me, an unexpected logical conclusion turned out laughing )
              3. Pimply
                Pimply 30 September 2013 18: 13 New
                0
                Quote: Max Otto
                Professor, you exaggerate the influence of fanatics, they can raise millions to a war in which you can (theoretically) win, but make them die with a guarantee - well, not more than a hundred.

                Oh oh Read about the Iran-Iraq war, for example.
              4. Max otto
                Max otto 30 September 2013 21: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Pimply

                Oh oh Read about the Iran-Iraq war, for example.

                How is this consistent with an incredible desire to deliver a nuclear strike against Moscow, such a craving?
                But if on the topic, then with what fright does Iran strike at Russia in general, there is nothing to translate the arrows. There will be no blow, there will not be! Demagogy, pure water.
              5. Pimply
                Pimply 30 September 2013 21: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Max Otto
                But if on the topic, then with what fright does Iran strike at Russia in general, there is nothing to translate the arrows. There will be no blow! Demagogy, pure water.

                Iran seeks to become a regional leader. A nuclear strike is unlikely, an ally is not at all. It is enough to look at how Iran led the contract that he needed as a result of freezing.

                On the other hand, Iran has repeatedly violated the so-called rules of the game. For example - violation of the Warsaw Convention, violation of the nuclear convention, etc. This is a rather unpredictable country. Do you dream of an unpredictable neighbor with definite plans for the Caspian Sea and a loving blackmail?
              6. Alex Nick
                Alex Nick 30 September 2013 22: 26 New
                0
                Iran, unlike Israel, did not say that its missiles would reach Moscow
              7. Professor
                Professor 1 October 2013 07: 08 New
                0
                Quote: Alex Nick
                Iran, unlike Israel, did not say that its missiles would reach Moscow

                Drop the reference to such Israeli statements.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 1 October 2013 06: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      A pair of religious fanatics can easily sacrifice the lives of millions or even billions.
      Moreover, religious fanatics belonging to the "religion of the world" that dominates in Iran. They have a cult of martyrs (suicide bombers). What thread next Ahmadi-Not-how-it-there may well come to mind to make the whole country a martyr. And the red (or maybe they have it green?) Button, alas, under his finger.
  • Straus_zloy
    Straus_zloy 30 September 2013 13: 50 New
    +2
    There is also the United States may attack Iran (they are unlikely to snoop on Russia) under the pretext of protecting Russia

    Where do they sell such good grass?
  • Andrey57
    Andrey57 30 September 2013 12: 59 New
    0
    The main thing is that Israel is guaranteed to be blocked, and the rest of the BV - no difference laughing
  • velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 30 September 2013 16: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Do you know what is unacceptable damage? That's when Iran can theoretically inflict such Russia, then it will speak differently. Of course, there is no question of winners here, everyone will lose.

    What are you about??? In the foreseeable future, Iran will not be able to inflict not only unacceptable damage, but indeed any damage. Do not forget that Russia still has and is developing the most numerous, layered air defense system with some of the best (if not the best) air defense systems in the world. missile attack warning system, including from the southern borders (which was recently demonstrated after launching the Hets-2 missiles from an Israeli submarine (or the United States, but as always, the Yankees “hung” on partners so as not to fall into the mud with their faces). were tracked and tracked. Do not forget about the size of Russia, it’s not Israel. It is possible to inflict unacceptable damage to Russia only with a massive synchronized strike from all directions. So far, only the USA and China are able to do this, but we won’t sleep either. remember the US called the "immoral" system "Perimeter" or how in the West they call a "dead hand", which guarantees an answer in any situation. Nobody removed the system from combat duty (very good many friends serving and serving in the Strategic Missile Forces, who assure that today it is functional, and even moreover undergoes a deep modernization).
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 16: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      Do not forget that in Russia while there is the largest, layered air defense system with some of the best (if not the best) systems in the world, an effective missile attack warning system, including from the southern borders (which was recently demonstrated after launch Hets-2 missiles from an Israeli submarine (or the United States, but, as always, the Yankees “hung” on partners so as not to fall into the mud with their faces).

      Now I will cry. crying

      The missile defense system is very old, but even in its youth it was able to cover only one area (well, such was the agreement with the Americans). Now she has detected the launch of the target (Hetz itself missile defense) from the F-15 aircraft (such a flying submarine).

      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      Starts were tracked and tracked.

      Do not start, but start.

      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      Do not forget about the size of Russia, this is not Israel.

      Moscow remains in the same place despite the size of the country.

      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      It is possible to inflict unacceptable damage on Russia only with a massive synchronized strike from all directions.

      IMHO 3 warheads in Moscow is no longer acceptable damage.

      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      By the way, you need to remember the US called the "immoral" Perimeter system, or how in the West they call a "dead hand", which guarantees an answer in any situation. Nobody removed the system from combat duty (very many friends of those serving and serving in the Strategic Missile Forces, who assure us that today it is functional, and even moreover undergoes a deep modernization).

      From this the damage will not become less unacceptable.
      1. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 30 September 2013 19: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Moscow remains in the same place despite the size of the country

        I will answer with the words of Kutuzov - "with the loss of Moscow, Russia will not be lost." Given that a significant part of the population of Moscow is rabble collected from the entire former Union, you exaggerate the importance of such a loss, even more than that, most of the country will be grateful to those who do it ( wassat a joke, but every joke has a fraction of a joke ...)
        By the way, two ballistic targets were recorded, so call whatever you want the launch or launches, the missile part of the missile defense does not change the essence of the matter, for the detection station it is just a ballistic target.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 1 October 2013 06: 19 New
      0
      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      It is possible to inflict unacceptable damage on Russia only with a massive synchronized strike from all directions.
      Moscow, I hope, is covered by missile defense. And how do you like the option “Minus Voronezh, Nizhny, Kazan”? Acceptable? And for this, only 3 warheads are enough to hit the target. And will the erasure of Iran into radioactive dust be sufficient moral satisfaction?
  • Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 1 October 2013 02: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Do you know what is unacceptable damage?

    I know! This is when ATGM will fly into the window of your personal bedroom. And at the state level, a very long way to this limit
  • Pimply
    Pimply 30 September 2013 18: 09 New
    +2
    Have you ever read Ayatollah’s sayings about the USSR, for example?
    Or do you know how deeply Iran’s interests invade Russia's sphere of interests? Why do you think Russia actively supports sanctions against Iran?
    1. beard999
      beard999 30 September 2013 20: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Pimply
      Have you ever read Ayatollah’s sayings about the USSR, for example?

      Does it make sense to read? It was 25 years (or more ago). Now we have completely different relations with Iran.
      Quote: Pimply
      How deeply are Iran’s interests intruding on Russia's interests?

      Are you ready to give a couple of examples of the "deep invasion"?
      Quote: Pimply
      Russia actively enough supports sanctions against Iran

      Much less "active" than for example the West, which, in addition to UN sanctions, also introduces its own. For example, from the arms trade with the Persians, we did not completely refuse. In addition, it is quite obvious that the Russian Federation will never miss any military action against Iran in the UN Security Council (this is what Israel is actively seeking). In your opinion, this is not the most important support for Iran from Russia?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 30 September 2013 21: 30 New
        0
        Quote: beard999
        Does it make sense to read? It was 25 years (or more ago). Now we have completely different relations with Iran.

        Are you sure of that? The power there did not change. And interests too.

        Quote: beard999
        Are you ready to give a couple of examples of the "deep invasion"?

        How well do you know the region?

        Quote: beard999
        In addition, it is clear that the Russian Federation will never miss any military action against Iran in the UN Security Council (this is what Israel is actively seeking).

        Plz, an example about the Security Council. With dates.


        Quote: beard999
        In your opinion, this is not the most important support for Iran from Russia?

        Remember the story of how Iran led in case of refusal to sell the S-300 at risk?
        1. beard999
          beard999 1 October 2013 16: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Are you sure of that?

          And let's not overflow from empty to empty? Give specific examples of Khomeini's statement about Russia. I'm waiting.
          Quote: Pimply
          How well do you know the region?

          Well, at the same time, and check how well I "know the region." So, are you ready to give a couple of examples? Or are you all unfounded?
          Quote: Pimply
          Plz, an example about the Security Council

          What example do you need "about the Security Council" I did not understand. The UN did not raise the issue of a forceful solution to the Iranian nuclear program. Dead number. According to Russia, it will not support any new sanctions against Iran http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/819961/. Nevertheless, it is Israel that constantly raises the issue of forceful action against Iran. Moreover, as soon as Obama spoke with Rouhani and the possibility of lifting sanctions was outlined http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2013/09/30_a_5674561.shtml, Netanyahu immediately decided to "open his eyes to the world." The main hawk in relations with Iran is now Israel.
          Quote: Pimply
          Remember the story of how Iran led in case of refusal to sell the S-300 at risk?

          Why not? He filed a lawsuit against us. Legally flawless solution. We terminated the current contract, and taking into account the fact that the air defense system does not fall under UN sanctions, Iran was in its own right. But Iran does not refuse a compromise on this issue. Do you think the proposal for the S-300VM, instead of the S-300PMU, appeared from scratch? And in general, no strains after that have happened with regard to our countries - the presidents are meeting, trade and economic relations are gaining momentum http://rosenergo.gov.ru/upload/000016a.pdf.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 1 October 2013 06: 33 New
        +1
        Quote: beard999
        Quote: Pimply
        Have you ever read Ayatollah’s sayings about the USSR, for example?

        Does it make sense to read? It was 25 years (or more ago). Now we have completely different relations with Iran.
        As the USSR was an unfaithful country, so the Russian Federation remains unfaithful. And according to the Qur'an, infidels can be used in the interests of the faithful, but you cannot be friends with them.
        1. beard999
          beard999 1 October 2013 20: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: Nagan
          As the USSR was an unfaithful country, so the Russian Federation remains unfaithful. And according to the Qur'an, infidels can be used in the interests of the faithful, but you cannot be friends with them.

          Well, that is, how is Qatar and Saudi Arabia using the US? So yes? But unlike the USA, we don’t pay anything to Iran. And Iran is not trying to drag us into military conflicts, as the Qatars and Saudis try to drag the Americans into a war with the same Syria ... Yes, and interstate communication between Russia and Iran, is not at the religious level, but between the secular authorities of our countries. And religious worldviews do not affect it in any way. And for that matter, then at the religious level, we are the same to Israel, and FAR are not “friends” ...
    2. Max otto
      Max otto 30 September 2013 21: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Pimply
      Why do you think Russia actively supports sanctions against Iran?

      So active that even nuclear power plants were built and commissioned. There will be no nuclear strike against Russia or Israel.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 10: 14 New
    +3
    But why is Israel? The Jericho-2V complex reached its fully operational state in 1989. In 1996, the Russian government announced that the early warning system in 1990 and 1996 recorded two test launches of missiles of this type.
    Jericho 2 served as the basis for the creation of the Shavit Israeli launch vehicle, equipped with a third stage. In November 1988, the first Israeli artificial Earth satellite, Ofek-1, was launched into orbit with this rocket. In April 1990, the launch of the Ofek-2 satellite, intended for reconnaissance and communications, followed. In 1992, an attempt was made to launch the third Israeli satellite, which ended in failure. In April 1995, the third Israeli Ofek-3 reconnaissance satellite was launched into orbit. The fifth launch, on January 22, 1998, again failed.
    The further development of the Shavit launch vehicle should allow an increase in the mass of the loaded load, which, in turn, will expand Israel’s space intelligence capabilities.
    In April 1995, reports appeared in print about the development of a new generation rocket with a range of 2000 km in Israel, known as Jericho 3, in Israel. It is assumed that this BR is a modification of the Shavit three-stage launch vehicle with the first and second stages of increased length. It should have a maximum range of 4800 km and the ability to hit almost all targets in the Arab world, as well as the European part of Russia.

    Jericho 1

    Jericho 2
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 10: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: smiths xnumx
      But why is Israel?

      So satellites launches, and in the opposite direction than the rest of the world. Therefore, it was necessary to develop well, very small satellites, but the period of their revolution around the earth is much shorter than that of other countries. This is convenient for "scanning the earth's surface."

      On September 14, 1989, the first combat use of Jerechon was noted. A rocket launched from the Negev base reached Libya north of Benghazi. This was a demonstration of the military capabilities of Israel to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi - the implacable enemy of Tel Aviv.

      Bullshit, as well as much more on your link. negative
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 10: 27 New
        +7
        The range of 4800 km and the ability to hit almost all targets in the Arab world, as well as the European part of Russia, are especially convenient.
        And you and Israel and your comrades are worried about Iranian Fajr-3 missiles with a range of 2500 km. Plus, Israel can equip its missiles with a nuclear warhead, but Iran is a big question. We also modestly keep silent about the Kyrgyz Republic on Israeli diesel-electric submarines, it is also quite likely with warheads and about aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. Iran has nothing of the kind, nevertheless, Iran is bad, and Israel is soft and fluffy ...
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 September 2013 10: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: smiths xnumx
          and Israel is soft and fluffy ...

          Small and sandy ... wink
          At least in distinction from Iran, they did not threaten to erase anyone from the world map. And if you believe those who claim that Israel has nuclear weapons, he even threatened to use it when in 1973 there was a threat to its existence and in 1991 when Saddam fired at Israel with its ballistic missiles.
          1. Arabist
            Arabist 30 September 2013 10: 36 New
            +5
            Oh, trouble is trouble. Again, Jews offend everyone. Al Qaeda is better for you than Syria. You think she will bring you more sweets than Iran. Not tired of complaining that everyone is oppressing you?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 30 September 2013 18: 22 New
              +2
              The opinion of individual politicians and / or diplomats is not a full-fledged opinion of the Foreign Ministry. At the moment, the prevailing opinion is that Israel is bad that Assad, that his opponents. Assad is bigger because it has more opportunities to harm Israel, and it is part of the Shiite belt led by Iran, which currently poses a greater threat to Israel than Sunni disparate groups.
          2. vahatak
            vahatak 30 September 2013 12: 20 New
            +3
            They didn’t threaten to erase anyone, but did not recognize Palestine. Has long been.
      2. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 10: 37 New
        +2
        Well, of course, the magazine "Technique and Armament" is utter nonsense. So maybe Israel has no missiles and no nuclear weapons and Israel during the October war of 1973 was not ready to use it? Is Israel’s missile program designed solely for peaceful purposes?
        1. Arabist
          Arabist 30 September 2013 10: 39 New
          +1
          Of course, they only have slings. Why do you think the professor has been absent for so long? He stocked up stones and is now ready to fight again.
        2. Professor
          Professor 30 September 2013 10: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: smiths xnumx
          Well, of course, the magazine "Technique and Armament" is utter nonsense.

          I do not care where it comes from if there is nonsense. For example:
          In parallel with the reactor, at the same site, an underground plant was erected - “Workshop No. 2” - for the production of rifle plutonium and the assembly of nuclear weapons. Entrance to the workshop looked like harmless barn.

          erected in the most inaccessible area of ​​the Negev desert.
          They confused Dimona with the Small Earth

          Americans, reassured by talk of weaving mills in the desert sands, did not believe in the existence of an Israeli bomb until the early 1970s.
          and therefore, they have now declassified documents about her where it turns out that they all knew

          According to some reports, the reason for the 1967 war was the desire of Egypt to disrupt Israel’s nuclear preparations before this country could deploy full-fledged nuclear missile forces.
          And therefore, in 1973, when Israel had already seen nuclear weapons, Egypt attacked Israel. Logic is resting.

          The deployment of the Jericho began in Khirbat Zakharian (a mountainous area west of Jerusalem).
          Try to find such a geographical name on the map.
          Continue? wink
          1. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 11: 07 New
            0
            We continue, it means that Golda Meir has no logic or she consciously lies:
            On the fourth morning of the war, when the Chief of General Staff, David Eliazar, discussed with the generals options for overcoming the situation, one of them suggested, as stated in the published protocols, to resort to "special means." As a rule, this term refers to nuclear weapons. General Rehavam (Gandhi) Zeevi supported this idea. However, other generals strongly opposed her. The chief of the general staff, whose firmness at these critical moments was one of Israel’s trump cards, gave this idea a natural death.

            http://cursorinfo.co.il/news/pressa/2006/02/20/atom_inop/?print=1

            An article by two nuclear proliferation experts (Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris), published in the UK-based Bulletin Of The Atomic Research in early September 2013, claims that Israel has around 80 nuclear weapons warheads, while disposing of fissile materials necessary for the production of 115 to 190 warheads. These data are approximately consistent with the estimates of experts from the US RUMO, who called the figure 80 warheads back in 1999. According to the authors of the article, from 1967 to 2004, Israel annually produced 2-3 nuclear warheads. By the beginning of the Yom Kippur War (1973), Israel had 15 nuclear warheads, by the time of the invasion of Lebanon (1982) - 35, by the beginning of the Iraq War - 56, by 2003 - 78. In 2004, the production of nuclear warheads was frozen.
            http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DF%E4%E5%F0%ED%EE%E5_%EE%F0%F3%E6%E8%E5_%C8%E7%F0%
            E0% E8% EB% FF
            1. Professor
              Professor 30 September 2013 11: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: smiths xnumx
              On the fourth morning of the war, when the Chief of General Staff, David Eliazar, discussed with the generals options for overcoming the situation, one of them suggested, as stated in the published protocols, to resort to "special means."

              And what are these special tools?

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              As a rule, this term refers to nuclear weapons.

              This is an interpretation of the author.

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              These data are approximately consistent with the estimates of experts from the US RUMO, who called the figure 80 warheads back in 1999.

              And now we will quote your own article, which I called nonsense, but you did not agree.
              According to various sources, to date, Israel has approximately 300-600 various types of nuclear warheads, which, in the presence of highly efficient delivery vehicles, puts this country on a par with nuclear powers such as England, China or France.

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              In 2004, the production of nuclear warheads was frozen.

              They must have reported it on Facebook. laughing
              1. smiths xnumx
                smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 16: 47 New
                0
                And what are these special tools?
                Do not try to seem more stupid than it really is. We all perfectly understand what is meant by this is a nuclear weapon.
                This is an interpretation of the author.
                Mr. Professor, will you deny the obvious things that Israel owns nuclear weapons? Then show the official statement by the Israeli leadership that Israel does not have nuclear weapons? At the same time tell me whether Israel has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?
                And now we will quote your own article, which I called nonsense, but you did not agree.
                The exact number of nuclear charges in Israel is unknown. According to the SVR, Israel could potentially produce up to 1970 nuclear warheads in the period 1980-20, and by 1993 from 100 to 200 warheads. According to various estimates, in 2006, Israel had about 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. So, according to former US President Jimmy Carter, voiced in May 2008, their number is "150 or more." Nuclear warheads are believed to be equipped with Israeli Jericho missiles. According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the IDF has about 60 missiles with a single-block nuclear charge. F-15 and F-16 aircraft can also be used to deliver nuclear bombs and missiles with nuclear warheads.
                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ядерная_программа_Израиля

                Now tell me. What of such "splendor" does Iran have?
                They must have reported it on Facebook.
                Not on Wikipedia, well, if you do not believe me, here's a link to an English source, by the way an Israeli newspaper:
                http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.546971
                1. Professor
                  Professor 30 September 2013 19: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  We all perfectly understand what is meant by this is a nuclear weapon.


                  -Saw the Shura, saw. They are golden.
                  -And if not gold?
                  - What do you think they are?

                  Or maybe they meant fecal waters by special means?
                  G..vnomet-Alhara
                  The people called it "G. .. take it", The tank holds 6.500 liters of concentrated "liquid" -g..vna.

                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  Then show the official statement by the Israeli leadership that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

                  Go and prove you're not a camel. First you prove its existence. Israel will join the treaty as soon as its neighbors do so.

                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ядерная_программа_Израиля

                  when they start bringing wikis as a source of information, I turn off fishing rods ...

                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  Not on Wikipedia, well, if you do not believe me, here's a link to an English source, by the way an Israeli newspaper:

                  Oh, this left-wing newspaper has started retyping the OBS. In this case, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. But where it was ripped off, but here, apart from the opinion of the "experts" Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, there are no material evidence.

                  http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/5/75/F2.large.jpg

                  PS
                  You would at least give Vaanuna an example. laughing
                2. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 20: 14 New
                  0
                  -Saw the Shura, saw. They are golden.
                  -And if not gold?
                  - What do you think they are?
                  Or maybe they meant fecal waters by special means?
                  G..vnomet-Alhara
                  The people called it "G. .. take it", The tank holds 6.500 liters of concentrated "liquid" -g..vna.
                  That is, if you believe Israel has no nuclear weapons, it did not unleash 4 wars against its Arab neighbors (1956, 1967, 1982, 2006). A kind of sweetheart, but the Arabs are bad guys ... And everyone is raving, especially the USSR, which was going to destroy the nuclear center in Dimon.
                  Go and prove you're not a camel. First you prove its existence. Israel will join the treaty as soon as its neighbors do so.
                  Well, why lie? The same Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon also signed and ratified the NPT. But Israel is not. That is, the evil Arabs-terrorists signed an agreement. but the Israelites are not. Or Israel, as Petka in a famous joke on the word should be trusted?
                  when they start bringing wikis as a source of information, I turn off fishing rods ...
                  Give evidence that he is not. You don’t have any. But Israel has nuclear weapons. Accordingly, the drain is protected.
                3. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 20: 27 New
                  0
                  Oh, this left-wing newspaper has started retyping the OBS. In this case, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. But where it was ripped off, but here, apart from the opinion of the "experts" Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, there are no material evidence.
                  I look at you all raving about and the SVR and the magazines "Technique and Armament" and "Foreign Military Review", by the way the official body of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the former director of the IAEA, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohammed El-Baradei considered Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons
                  Mohamed ElBaradei. Transcript of the Director General's Interview with Al-Ahram News. International Atomic Energy Agency (July 27, 2004).

                  and former US President Jimmy Carter
                  Israel "has 150 nuclear weapons." BBC
                  . Sue them. Better yet, let Israel sign the NPT and remove all issues. But for some reason I’m sure this will never happen.
                4. Pimply
                  Pimply 30 September 2013 21: 38 New
                  +1
                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  By the way, the official body of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the former IAEA director, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohammed El-Baradei viewed Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons

                  Right. Only Israel did not sign one small document signed by Iran.


                  Quote: smiths xnumx
                  let Israel sign the NPT and remove all questions.

                  Have India and Pakistan, two major nuclear weapons owners, signed this treaty?

                  Currently, Israel regularly acts as a regular “whipping boy”. He is the most active object for criticism of several commissions of the UN, the Arab League, Russia, etc. Despite the fact that countries that are actively destroying, torturing, imprisoning their citizens are often bypassed. In addition, there is Iran. Ayatola Khamenai made clear the need for the destruction of Israel. Iran is actively violating the treaty. Also, the Islamists in the Sunni countries advocate the destruction of Israel, and they are increasingly gaining strength. One must be suicidal in order to sign a contract in such circumstances. By the way, for a number of similar reasons, the agreement is not signed by other members of the nuclear club - Pakistan and India. The NPT is trying to limit the nuclear club to five countries. Is Russia willing to give up nuclear weapons voluntarily?
                5. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 23: 08 New
                  0
                  Right. Only Israel did not sign one small document signed by Iran
                  And do not sign. for whatever reason Professor already explained to your colleague under the nickname. The DPRK VN also signed, and then withdrew its signature. And what from this? Kim Jong-un, both rules and rules. And no bombing ensued.
                  Have India and Pakistan, two major nuclear weapons owners, signed this treaty?

                  Currently, Israel regularly acts as a regular “whipping boy”. He is the most active object for criticism of several commissions of the UN, the Arab League, Russia, etc. Despite the fact that countries that are actively destroying, torturing, imprisoning their citizens are often bypassed. In addition, there is Iran. Ayatola Khamenai made clear the need for the destruction of Israel. Iran is actively violating the treaty. Also, the Islamists in the Sunni countries advocate the destruction of Israel, and they are increasingly gaining strength. One must be suicidal in order to sign a contract in such circumstances. By the way, for a number of similar reasons, the agreement is not signed by other members of the nuclear club - Pakistan and India. The NPT is trying to limit the nuclear club to five countries. Is Russia willing to give up nuclear weapons voluntarily?
                  No, but Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon signed, unlike Israel. Does this mean that it is necessary to bomb Israel, not Iran? In the meantime, Israel, the United States and the UN imposed sanctions on Iran and more than once were going to bomb it. And Russia, I think, will be ready to abandon nuclear weapons if other countries voluntarily refuse it. But do you believe that yourself? I think no.
            2. Professor
              Professor 30 September 2013 20: 42 New
              +2
              Quote: smiths xnumx
              about is, if you believe Israel has no nuclear weapons, it did not unleash 4 wars against its Arab neighbors (1956, 1967, 1982, 2006). A kind of sweetheart, but the Arabs are bad guys ... And everyone is raving, especially the USSR, which was going to destroy the nuclear center in Dimon.

              Two things are needed, either Israel's recognition of its nuclear weapons, or material evidence of its presence. There is neither one nor the other and the rest of the verbiage in which I am tired of participating. Your story is very bad. All the wars you mentioned were not launched by Israel. Arrange a educational program for you?

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              Well, why lie?

              Did all Israel’s neighbors sign this agreement? Pakistan able to reach Israel when signed?

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              Give evidence that he is not. You don’t have any. But Israel has nuclear weapons.

              Verbiage URAAAAA. I will prove right after you prove that you NOT camel. Kindergarten pancake ...

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              Mohammed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, regarded Israel as a nuclear-weapon state

              Sources printing nonsense (I have already given examples) I do not accept for credible ones. Muhamad, did this evidence bring or only his IMHO?

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              and former US President Jimmy Carter

              Yes, even the pope. just words.

              Quote: smiths xnumx
              Better yet, let Israel sign the NPT and remove all issues.

              Well, he will sign what? Indicate that he had nuclear weapons on January 1, 1967 and smoke bamboo.
            3. smiths xnumx
              smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 21: 23 New
              0
              Two things are needed, either Israel's recognition of its nuclear weapons, or material evidence of its presence. There is neither one nor the other and the rest of the verbiage in which I am tired of participating. Your story is very bad. All the wars you mentioned were not launched by Israel. Arrange a educational program for you?
              Israel NPT signed, no! Israeli officials have denied the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, again no! What evidence do you have? You mentioned Vanunu, said this, so the poor fellow was kidnapped and closed and still he is allowed to give interviews. One professor (Baba Yaga) against. And as regards the knowledge of history, is it possible that Egypt in 1956, in alliance with France and England, attacked Israel or vice versa? Or in 1967, the Egyptians. Syrians and Jordanians started a war? Or in 1982 and 2006, the Lebanese attacked the Syrians? The only war that the Arabs launched the first "Doomsday War" in 1973, and so on for their occupied territories. I do not take the “War of Independence” of 1948 into account, there was a war of all against all.
              Did all Israel’s neighbors sign this agreement? Pakistan able to reach Israel when signed?
              So Israel, able to reach Pakistan (see above) also did not sign. But Iran has subscribed, but Israel has not.
              Verbiage URAAAAA. I will prove it right after you prove that you are NOT a camel. Kindergarten pancake ...
              Continue to pull the owl on the globe and prove the unprovable. Then prove it first. that Iran has nuclear weapons.
            4. smiths xnumx
              smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 21: 45 New
              0
              Sources printing nonsense (I have already given examples) I do not accept for credible ones. Muhamad, did this evidence bring or only his IMHO?
              In my opinion, any source that has a different point of view from you is nonsense. At the same time explain to you what evidence is needed? Photos of Israeli nuclear bombs, missiles? There is no such. For this, there is a military secret so that they do not exist. And this is why Israel? Also for peaceful purposes ...
              According to AP, after 16 years of litigation, 72-year-old American physicist Richard Kelly Smith, former president of Milco International, pleaded guilty before the federal court for illegally exporting devices that could be used to develop nuclear weapons to Israel in 1982 .. .
              After Smith was accused of illegal exports, Israel returned to the United States most of the purchased Critrons.

              http://www.isra.com/news/6160

              Yes, even the pope. just words.
              And you have no words. Just an attempt to prove the unprovable.
              Well, he will sign what? Indicate that he had nuclear weapons on January 1, 1967 and smoke bamboo.
              Yes, he won’t sign it, of course. Because the day after Israel recognizes that it has nuclear weapons, Iran will leave the NPT, and then other Arab neighbors. And then at one point, I won’t be surprised if their fellow al-Qaeda guys, who Israel is currently supporting in Syria, will be handed over to their fellow Pakistani atomic bomb for use at the address.
            5. Pimply
              Pimply 30 September 2013 21: 51 New
              +3
              Quote: smiths xnumx
              Richard Kelly Smith,
              We are talking about small devices called "krytrons" (krytrons), which can be used both to create nuclear weapons, and for creating copy machines.
              If we already discuss the hypothetical atomic Israeli program, then it appeared with the help of France, in exchange France received the technology of producing cheap heavy water.
          2. Professor
            Professor 30 September 2013 22: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: smiths xnumx
            What evidence do you have?

            Real please. So accepted.

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            And as regards the knowledge of history

            You are ignorant. Read the wiki as a last resort. What do they write about Goldwasser, the shelling of Israel by Egypt and Lebanon, and the Strait of Tirana?

            I will prove it right after you prove that you are NOT a camel.
            Evidence that you are not a camel has not yet seen. I'm waiting.

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            In my opinion, any source that has a different point of view from you is nonsense.

            Tell us more about cancer as Israel bombarded Libya with a ballistic missile and together we will make a diagnosis.

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            which could be used in the development of nuclear weapons, Israel in 1982 ...

            Could or used? wink

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            if the fun al-Qaeda guys that Israel currently supports in Syria,

            Yes, you are just a dreamer. Evidence that Israel is supporting its worst al-Qaeda enemies in the studio.

            Hurry, I’ll stop feeding you soon. hi
          3. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 22: 49 New
            0
            Real please. So accepted.
            Well, show me the material evidence of the creation of nuclear weapons by Iraq or Syria, after which Israel attacked their reactors. Or show evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons?
            You are ignorant. Read the wiki as a last resort. What do they write about Goldwasser, the shelling of Israel by Egypt and Lebanon, and the Strait of Tirana?
            I will prove it right after you prove that you are NOT a camel.
            Evidence that you are not a camel has not yet seen. I'm waiting.

            But for now, I see a stubborn donkey with a photo of Einstein on Ava, denying obvious things and I’m not going to prove anything to you. I do not feed the trolls, and so fat. Or maybe you will educate me about the Tsar David hotel, Deir Yassin, Palestinian refugees, executions of Egyptian prisoners of war, Sabra, Shatila and other "harmless" entertainments. At the same time, tell us what Israel is, with all this, sweetheart.
            Tell us more about cancer as Israel bombarded Libya with a ballistic missile and together we will make a diagnosis.
            And you prove the opposite. Or maybe Israel didn’t bomb Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007, and in 2012 Israeli missiles didn’t fall too?
            Could or used?
            And they could and were used.
            It’s just that these terms do not give ...
            The charge requires punishment for him: 7 years in prison and a fine of $ 110.000. Prior to his arrest under articles charged with Smith, he faced up to 105 years in prison, but the prosecutor took into account Smith’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation and the age of the accused.

            http://www.isra.com/news/6160
          4. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 23: 00 New
            0
            Yes, you are just a dreamer. Evidence that Israel is supporting its worst al-Qaeda enemies in the studio.

            Evidence, please ...
            The Israeli authorities for the first time admitted that they would welcome the removal from power of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

            This was stated in an interview with The Jerusalem Post by the Ambassador of Israel to the United States, Michael Oren. According to the diplomat, a rebel victory would be a lesser evil than preserving the current Syrian-Iranian alliance. "From the very beginning, we said that Assad should leave. It is better to have bad guys without ties with Iran than with them," the ambassador said. At the same time, Oren emphasized that the Israeli leadership understands perfectly well: the people who can replace Assad are not friends of Israel. “But from a strategic point of view, the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut bond, in which the Assad regime is the cornerstone, is much more dangerous,” Oren explained his position.

            http://maxpark.com/community/4391/content/2226789

            Well, that’s all, it’s enough that at least a third of Assad’s opponents are the Al-Nusra Front, which some evil languages ​​call Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch.
            Hurry, I’ll stop feeding you soon.
            Cool, the troll demands to stop feeding him. Soon the devils will begin to propagate theology.
          5. Professor
            Professor 1 October 2013 07: 18 New
            0
            Where's the doc that you're not a camel?

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            Well, show me the material evidence of the creation of nuclear weapons by Iraq or Syria, after which Israel attacked their reactors. Or show evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons?

            Answer a question with a question? Back to the manger? Where is the evidence that Israel bombed Syria in 2007? The Iraqi reactor, of course, was purely for peaceful purposes. This is always so, the country in which oil is not measured decides to produce electricity from the atom. laughing About Iran. No one annoys the Bushehr nuclear power plant, but centrifuges do not produce electricity.

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            But now I see a stubborn donkey with a photo of Einstein on Ava, denying obvious things and I’m not going to prove anything to you

            Of course. How can one prove the non-provable. For example, how Goldwasser died and how Israel "unleashed the war in 2006." The Strugatsky brothers are resting.

            Quote: smiths xnumx
            And you prove the opposite.

            All. I do not feed trolls. Starve to death or prove that it was not the USSR that launched this rocket. Complete nonsense. fool
          6. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 1 October 2013 11: 27 New
            0
            Answer a question with a question? Back to the manger? Where is the evidence that Israel bombed Syria in 2007? The Iraqi reactor, of course, was purely for peaceful purposes. This is always so, the country in which oil is not measured decides to produce electricity from the atom. laughing Regarding Iran. No one annoys the Bushehr nuclear power plant, but centrifuges do not produce electricity.

            Please link
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/070906-airstrike.htm

            "Military Parity." An article by David Makovsky appeared in the American weekly New Yorker, revealing previously unknown facts of the Israeli Defense Forces military operation code-named “Operation Orchard” (operation “Orchard”). The facts were allegedly obtained by Makovsky during conversations with a dozen high-ranking Israeli representatives ... On September 1, 2007, preparations began. The White House was informed, as well as the British MI-6. On September 5, the Israeli cabinet voted whether they should decide on the reactor: all who voted in favor and several abstentions were told that the attack would be launched that night. After midnight, four F-16 planes and four F-15 planes (other sources say there were more) took off from the Ramat David air base. The planes flew along the Mediterranean coast before reaching the Syrian-Turkish border and between 12.40 and 12.53 the code word 'Arizona' on the secure channel was reported that the reactor was destroyed.

            http://www.militaryparitet.com/perevodnie/data/ic_perevodnie/3468/

            Well, here are the photos of the object before the impact and after the impact

            Do you have evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons? However, this did not stop Israel from bombing the Iraqi reactor. We have already seen the Secretary General of the Bastion of Democracy, shaking a test tube at the UN. And as for Iran, again, where is the evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? The purchase of centrifuges is not evidence. I repeat Iran signed the NPT, but Israel does not. Therefore, it turns out we must bomb Israel.
          7. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 1 October 2013 11: 38 New
            0
            Of course. How can one prove the non-provable. For example, how Goldwasser died and how Israel "unleashed the war in 2006." The Strugatsky brothers are resting.

            Of course, this Hezbollah invaded Israel, bombed half of the objects in the country, killed 1191 civilians and wounded 4409 (I do not think militants). Although personally, I do not blame Israel for action.
            All. I do not feed trolls. Starve to death or prove that it was not the USSR that launched this rocket. Complete nonsense.
            Continue to prove the unprovable: Israel’s presence, its lack of nuclear weapons and its non-striking attacks on Syria in 2007. And we laugh.
  • ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 1 October 2013 00: 16 New
    0
    but the period of their revolution around the earth is much shorter than that of other countries. This is useful when scanning the Earth’s surface.


    In fact, it’s most convenient to have an orbital constellation of 30-40 satellites and constantly monitor the entire planet. Israel is not capable of it, although it has achieved a lot. I am interested in the US contribution (technology and money) to the Israeli space program.
    1. Professor
      Professor 1 October 2013 07: 22 New
      0
      Quote: ivanovbg
      In fact, it’s most convenient to have an orbital constellation of 30-40 satellites and constantly monitor the entire planet. Israel is not capable of it, although it has achieved a lot. I am interested in the US contribution (technology and money) to the Israeli space program.

      By force, only Israel is not interested in the whole planet. The paradox is that it was not from a good life that we had to create miniature satellites and now the United States is also purchasing from. So the contribution is reverse.
      1. ivanovbg
        ivanovbg 1 October 2013 17: 47 New
        0
        Cunning, Professor, cunning :) Buying a couple of pieces of satellites is always cheaper than creating a similar production. But I had in mind US subsidies to the Israeli economy. And do not convince me that Israel created its rocket technology independently of Werner von Braun and the Queen.

        You correctly wrote that Israel is not the whole planet interested. But its satellites are not in a geostationary orbit over the Middle East, but revolve around the globe. Is there somewhere in the public domain the trajectories of Israeli satellites?
        1. Professor
          Professor 1 October 2013 20: 31 New
          0
          Quote: ivanovbg
          Cunning, Professor, cunning :) Buying a couple of pieces of satellites is always cheaper than creating a similar production. But I had in mind US subsidies to the Israeli economy. And do not convince me that Israel created its rocket technology independently of Werner von Braun and the Queen.

          I do not dissemble. Satellites may be cheaper to buy, but who will sell advanced technology? Guess why, for example, Israel does not have Tomahawks?
          By the way, I’m not going to convince you of anything.

          Quote: ivanovbg
          Is there somewhere in the public domain the trajectories of Israeli satellites?

          I have no idea. request
  • vahatak
    vahatak 30 September 2013 12: 19 New
    +2
    Well, there are anti-Semites even in the Antarctic. We must get to them.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 30 September 2013 18: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: smiths xnumx
    But why is Israel? The Jericho-2V complex reached its fully operational state in 1989. In 1996, the Russian government announced that the early warning system in 1990 and 1996 recorded two test launches of missiles of this type.

    Well, at least then, that a number of Arab and / or Muslim countries unambiguously designated Israel as the target for their Balistic missiles, and one even struck with such missiles - 1991, Iraq.

    Iran, with its Fajr, also repeatedly made statements about a possible strike.
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 30 September 2013 20: 34 New
      0
      Yeah, and Israel out of six Arab-Israeli wars unleashed four (1956, 1967, 1982, 2006) and this is not counting regular punitive actions against neighbors. Well, we modestly keep silent about the destruction by the Israeli aircraft of the reactor in Iraq in 1981, a certain object in Syria (presumably an atomic reactor) in 2007, and an attack by the PLO headquarters in Tunisia in 1985. The list goes on and on ...
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 September 2013 20: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        Yeah, and Israel out of six Arab-Israeli wars unleashed four (1956, 1967, 1982, 2006) and this is not counting regular punitive actions against neighbors. Well, we modestly keep silent about the destruction by the Israeli aircraft of the reactor in Iraq in 1981, a certain object in Syria (presumably an atomic reactor) in 2007, and an attack by the PLO headquarters in Tunisia in 1985. The list goes on and on ...

        Have you read Wiki again? Since 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 figured out? wink
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 September 2013 13: 35 New
    0
    Is it true that a missile with a range of 2500km will deliver two warheads per 1000km, or one twice as heavy.
    1. ivanovbg
      ivanovbg 1 October 2013 01: 33 New
      0
      In general, it is, but when firing a ballistic missile, the direction of the trajectory with respect to the direction of the Earth's daily rotation (West-East) is very important. Also, the mass-dimensional characteristics of the launch vehicle must be taken into account. To fire at half the distance, you need half the fuel, and if so, it is better to make half the tanks less than flying half empty. The vacated space is used for a larger warhead, better navigation system, etc. Although, of course, to do different media modifications for each 100 km will not work.
  • svp67
    svp67 30 September 2013 13: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    The question is, why do Ayatollahs have missiles with a range of 2500 km if the entire Middle East including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are covered with missiles with a range of 1000 km?
    And gradually, gradually, first Berlin and Paris, there London is not far away, and then Washington and New York, not all at once ...
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 13: 47 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      And gradually, gradually, first Berlin and Paris, there London is not far away, and then Washington and New York, not all at once ...

      In your opinion, will the Caspian Iran share with Washington? Interesting idea.
      1. Max otto
        Max otto 30 September 2013 21: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Professor

        In your opinion, will the Caspian Iran share with Washington? Interesting idea.

        Does Russia border Iran? Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization? The Caspian has long been divided for Russia. The rest is not her problem.
  • yanus
    yanus 30 September 2013 14: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    The question is why Ayatollah missiles with a range of 2500 km

    Yes, they do not care why they need these missiles. But why do they need nuclear weapons? Formally - to deter aggression. But if we talk about the USA, China, France, the Russian Federation, and Israel, I fully believe that nuclear weapons are deterrent for these countries. The remaining issues are resolved politically, so there is confidence that nuclear weapons will not be used there in “preventive” strikes and other nonsense.
    But Iran’s semi-secular .... HZ, they will arrange there having nuclear weapons.
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 30 September 2013 16: 24 New
      +1
      Iran is a much more stable and adequate state than Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons, but they have not yet attacked anyone.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 30 September 2013 11: 09 New
    +1
    http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ru&lat=43.771094&lon=48.779297&z=4&m=b&gz=0;375292968

    ;356037187;0;201728542;138867187;0
    Quote: Professor
    From Iran to Moscow just 2000 km ...

    2478.6 km (1540.1miles) This is what I clarified, a little more professor
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 11: 18 New
      +2
      Thanks for the clarification, but it is not accurate.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 September 2013 13: 46 New
    0
    What reasons do you think might prompt Iran to launch a nuclear missile strike on Moscow?
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 September 2013 13: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      What reasons do you think might prompt Iran to launch a nuclear missile strike on Moscow?
      "Nothing personal just business... am "
    2. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 13: 48 New
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      What reasons do you think might prompt Iran to launch a nuclear missile strike on Moscow?

      And do not put anything. You must have this opportunity and the right of the game will change dramatically.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 30 September 2013 14: 00 New
        0
        What game is Iran playing against Russia?
        Russia has the opportunity to strike anywhere in the world, whether it prevented the killing of our diplomats in Qatar, or the destruction of Libya. Does it not seem to you that you have the opportunity and the opportunity to take advantage of this opportunity a little different things.
        1. Arabist
          Arabist 30 September 2013 14: 06 New
          0
          When did our diplomats get killed in Qatar? Did I miss something?
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 30 September 2013 14: 18 New
            0
            I apologize for not being killed but for beating. I don’t argue a big difference, but it does not change the essence of the issue.
  • Heccrbq .2
    Heccrbq .2 30 September 2013 15: 30 New
    0
    Are you afraid? Are you afraid right ...
  • Spike
    Spike 1 October 2013 22: 44 New
    0
    Israel will be closer ... And the motivation is different!
  • svp67
    svp67 30 September 2013 09: 29 New
    +3
    Ballistic missiles available to Iran make it possible to "hold on to" a large area around the country. Missiles with a range of about 1000 kilometers when launched from Iranian territory are capable of attacking targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and the Caucasus. Shahab-3 or Fajr-3 missiles, in turn, can hit targets in India, North and East Africa, Central Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe.
    It makes us wonder if it’s time for our country to create a layered missile defense in the south ...
    1. Oberst_71
      Oberst_71 30 September 2013 12: 51 New
      0
      working on it.
  • velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 30 September 2013 09: 53 New
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    It makes us wonder if it’s time for our country to create a layered missile defense in the south ...

    And also in the West, East and North. We all know that Russia has only two friends and we will not name them. soldier
    1. regdan
      regdan 30 September 2013 13: 26 New
      0
      There are three of them. ... ... and state security agencies.
  • ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 30 September 2013 10: 29 New
    +4
    It is interesting that each time Iran affirms that in case of intervention in a particular issue it will use its missiles almost at once, but in this case it will turn into a major environmental disaster. belay
  • Gur
    Gur 30 September 2013 11: 59 New
    0
    Iran is a good counterweight to the Trans-Lisa sect
  • major071
    major071 30 September 2013 12: 46 New
    +5
    As one well-known character in the film "The Wedding in the Robin" said: - I feel that we are on the verge of a grandiose racket.
  • regdan
    regdan 30 September 2013 13: 20 New
    +1
    Iran builds rockets and creates a nuclear bomb. This poses a threat to everyone and everything, as the false, corrupt media and the false, corrupt politicians of the state of Israel, as well as Israeli citizens and lovers of Israeli citizens say. But I somehow wondered what the threat from Iran was to the state of Israel. And he found at least three whole threats. Science, industry, economics. To create rockets and a nuclear bomb, you just need three main components: science (physics, chemistry, mathematics), industry (from light to heavy engineering) and a correspondingly strong economy. Iran becomes a regional player, what will happen to the illegally formed state of Israel? Well, there is no need to go far. A simple example, politicians, businessmen and ordinary people will say, "What is Israel-Shismail? There is Iran with a strong economy, developed industry, developed science."
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 13: 41 New
      +2
      Wow !!! How deep and competent. I will save your comment and will use it for quotes.
    2. alone
      alone 30 September 2013 22: 11 New
      0
      Quote: regdan
      Iran builds rockets


      frankly, these missiles look very much like skads.
  • Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 30 September 2013 13: 25 New
    +1
    Iran has a serious space program, a monkey has already been launched into space, and Iranian artificial satellites have been launched. If Iran also receives nuclear weapons, then from today's regional power, we will get a real geopolitical player.
  • kostya_a
    kostya_a 30 September 2013 14: 01 New
    -2
    It’s not enough to get a weapon, it’s still necessary to test it. Moreover, one time is clearly not enough. Until Iran tests nuclear weapons, it does not have these weapons! By the way, Israel once experienced, and even then an underwater explosion, if I am not mistaken! Israel probably has nuclear weapons from star-striped friends!
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 14: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: kostya_a
      Israel, by the way, once experienced

      yah?

      Israel probably has nuclear weapons from star-striped friends!

      1. kostya_a
        kostya_a 30 September 2013 14: 20 New
        -2
        Well tell my friend, professor! How can one possess nuclear weapons without interfering with it? And Israel is a club owner!
        1. Professor
          Professor 30 September 2013 14: 24 New
          +2
          Well, what kind of friend are you to me?
          Where, when, and under what circumstances did Israel experience nuclear weapons? Was there a boy?
          1. kostya_a
            kostya_a 30 September 2013 14: 31 New
            0
            Duck, I'm telling you that I'm probably wrong about the test. I don’t remember, but somewhere I heard it from someone. It's not about that! Question: How can one possess nuclear weapons without trying it?
            1. Professor
              Professor 30 September 2013 14: 38 New
              +1
              We will wait and see the tests of the Iranian nuclear weapons.
              1. The Indian Joe
                The Indian Joe 30 September 2013 15: 19 New
                0
                Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Professor. And it is unlikely that it will appear - although it would be worth it to get it - just so that all sorts of Israel would not bark at him. Throughout history, there has been no case that the United States or its Middle Eastern mongrel started a war with a country that possesses nuclear weapons.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 30 September 2013 16: 13 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Native American Joe
                  Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Professor. And it is unlikely to appear - although he should have got it

                  Of course, they drove centrifuges under the ground exclusively for peaceful enrichment of uranium, and the rockets described in the article will be used strictly with a TNT warhead, since the KVO allows this. And of course, such a technologically advanced country like Pakistan has become nuclear, and Iran can’t do it. There were x days left until the first of April ...
                  1. Cat
                    Cat 30 September 2013 16: 50 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    Of course, they drove centrifuges under the ground exclusively for peaceful enrichment of uranium, and the rockets described in the article will be used strictly with a TNT warhead, since the KVO allows this.

                    Professor, what are you saying ... Well, what, in fact, is the difference, what and why they drove them underground?
                    It will be necessary - Powell will go out to the UN rostrum, shock the bent piece of iron - they say, the spare part laden with spies from the Iranian vigorous loaf - and the mustache, and the tomahawks flew ... Well, if later it turns out that there is no such military enrichment, and generally centrifuges, under the Iranian stampede not found - well, think about it. In an extreme case, some high-ranking monkey will officially declare: she doesn’t remember the report on the absence of nuclear weapons from Iran, and she doesn’t remember whether the whole US spoke to the president or didn’t. Girlish memory, they say, and all that jazz, with whom it does not happen.
                    How do you like the script, not too fantastic? But this has already happened once, how and for whom it ended - you, I hope, are in the know. The benefit is not a girl and with memory you should have better =)))
                  2. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 1 October 2013 09: 38 New
                    0
                    Of course, they drove the centrifuges underground exclusively for the peaceful enrichment of uranium, and the rockets described in the article will be used strictly with a TNT warhead
                    Of course, the way it is! I knew that you are still an intelligent person, and you will come to the right conclusion!
                    However, if you think differently, then provide the FACTS that they enrich uranium precisely for creating nuclear weapons, and that they make it.
                    And as for the missiles - if anything, they quickly enrich uranium, and put a bomb instead of a TNT warhead, and "be a mother of peace."
  • yanus
    yanus 30 September 2013 14: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: Anatole Klim
    If Iran also receives nuclear weapons, then from today's regional power, we will get a real geopolitical player.

    The presence of nuclear weapons does not make the country a "geopolitical player." We need at least a good economy. And the Iranian economy is already halfway to North Korea.
    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 30 September 2013 14: 27 New
      0
      Of course, you know that Iran is subject to severe sanctions and the economy is far from being in the best condition, but “halfway to North Korea” - you are clearly exaggerating or want to pass off as wishful thinking.
      1. regdan
        regdan 30 September 2013 15: 06 New
        +2
        You probably don't know much about Iran’s economy. I advise you to read the blog of the Iranian ambassador to Russia.
      2. alone
        alone 30 September 2013 22: 13 New
        0
        the situation is really serious, even more than serious. This is even visible with the naked eye.
        1. regdan
          regdan 30 September 2013 22: 20 New
          0
          What is serious? You are from Azerbaijan, and you well know how Iranian businessmen invest in Azerbaijan’s business. I know there are friends from Azerbaijan, they told. They also told how Iranians buy apartments in Baku.
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 30 September 2013 16: 05 New
    0
    I recall http://topwar.ru/24185-chas-pik-morskaya-mosch-kitaya.html
    Rush hour. The sea power of China
    “Missile warheads at a speed five times the speed of sound pierced the flight armored deck and six lower decks of the aircraft carrier, destroying all the posts, cockpits and vaults on its way. A terrible blow tore out the main tube gear units - a once formidable warship now powerlessly froze in the middle of the ocean, swallowing radioactive vapor from the disrupted contours of a nuclear steam generating plant. "
  • scientist
    scientist 30 September 2013 17: 19 New
    0
    Unfortunately, the policies of the NATO countries clearly show that the one who is stronger and who is not with them is right against them.
    For the first time in decades, International Law prevailed in the issue of Syrah. But this is rather an exception to the rule. In the meantime, the nuclear warhead is the best guarantee of state security. Therefore, all countries are trying to ensure their security as they can.
    But the fool understands that this cannot continue indefinitely, all the same, sooner or later she’ll get bogged down!
  • Arkan
    Arkan 30 September 2013 18: 08 New
    0
    Yes, the Persians hold racket tightly in their hands. They won’t reach their missiles before Moscow, but their closest neighbors and their friends, overseas elephants, have to reckon with Iran.
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 19: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Arkan
      They won’t reach their missiles to Moscow,

      Sorry, but what are you going to shoot down with?
    2. atalef
      atalef 30 September 2013 20: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Arkan
      Yes, the Persians hold racket tightly in their hands. They won’t reach their missiles to Moscow.

      i.e., the fact of the possibility of a blow does not bother you. It’s interesting if Saakashvili had such an opportunity, or he, like Iran, began to develop both missiles, so I would like a program, as a sovereign state that joined the NPT --- Russia (as I understand it) would not react to this and would not worry . And what - they’ll bring down
      1. Arkan
        Arkan 30 September 2013 22: 37 New
        0
        Unlike you, we are not annoying yet. We do not want the spread of nuclear weapons. If, yes, if only mushrooms would grow in your mouth ..... Saki does not have such an opportunity and will not be in the foreseeable future.
  • saag
    saag 30 September 2013 18: 29 New
    +1
    And what kind of worry is for Iran, will it cause unacceptable damage to someone or not, for some reason there is no such worry for Pakistan, and a comrade from Israel is rightly cautious and does not recognize the presence of nuclear weapons in his country, he knows that traffic is censored and may be unpleasant consequences :-)
  • kostya_a
    kostya_a 30 September 2013 18: 51 New
    0
    I do not believe that Iran can independently develop nuclear weapons, without anyone's help. Let at least enriched.
    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 30 September 2013 20: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: kostya_a
      I do not believe that Iran can independently develop nuclear weapons, without anyone's help.

      A Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Kadir Khan, the father of an Islamic nuclear bomb, admitted during an investigation that he was transferring nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran.
      Iran signed an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. DPRK withdrew from the treaty before testing its nuclear weapons.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 30 September 2013 20: 03 New
    0
    Sorry, but what are you going to shoot down with?


    We do not suffer from the absence of an air defense system.
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 20: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Arkan
      We do not suffer from the absence of an air defense system.

      With these slogans will you shoot down?
  • scientist
    scientist 30 September 2013 20: 15 New
    -1
    Quote: kostya_a
    I do not believe that Iran can independently develop nuclear weapons, without anyone's help. Let them at least enrich themselves

    As soon as they develop it, in any case they will be forced to experience it and everyone will find out about it. And the technology itself for Iran, as well as for China and North Korea, has not been a secret for a long time.
    As far as I know, only a few countries in the world received nuclear weapons and Israel and Pakistan did not test them. Obviously the United States conducted these tests for them.
    1. Professor
      Professor 30 September 2013 20: 26 New
      0
      Quote: scientist
      As far as I know, only a few countries in the world received nuclear weapons and Israel and Pakistan did not test them. Obviously the United States conducted these tests for them.

      I especially liked your "obvious".
      Teach materiel.
    2. atalef
      atalef 30 September 2013 20: 32 New
      0
      Quote: scientist
      As soon as they develop it, in any case they will be forced to experience it and everyone will find out about it.

      it will be too late. and in Russia they understand this by clearly voting for sanctions.
  • regdan
    regdan 30 September 2013 21: 47 New
    0
    Wow how many Israeli citizens and lovers of Israeli citizens came running. And chirping, chirping "Iran is the enemy of all." Hmm, some kind of fake arguments. Tell me the citizens of Israel and lovers of the citizens of Israel, I'm right. The threat from Iran to the illegally formed state of Israel lies in only three cases: industry, science, economy. A bomb is only a means of defense. Well, who will reputable commentators be able to assemble the nuclear bomb? None. It is impossible to invent a bomb without scientists in various fields of science, without industry from light to heavy engineering and without a strong economy. Then one Israeli citizen was chattering about centrifuges underground. Ha, this Israeli citizen somehow forgot to write that you can’t buy these centrifuges at the bazaar. I’m not ready to buy centrifuges and drive them into the basement and I will enrich uranium. Well, tell an Israeli citizen where they sell centrifuges.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 30 September 2013 21: 56 New
      0
      Quote: regdan
      The threat from Iran to the illegally formed state of Israel lies in only three cases: industry, science, economy.

      More specifically about illegality

      Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a new doctrine explaining why it is legitimate and morally justifiable to erase Israel from the world map. “Israel is a cancer in the Middle East,” Khamenei writes. “Israel is a satanic fiend that uses the media and bombers. Every Muslim must arm himself against Israel.” "As I already noted, the usurper Israel poses a serious threat to Islam and Muslim countries. Muslims of the world should not miss the opportunity to get rid of this cancer once and for all." "The first step should be the complete destruction of Israel. For this, Iran can use long-range missiles. The distance between us is only 2600 km. We can wipe it off the face of the earth in a few minutes."

      This is written by the supreme person of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The president by constitution is the second person.
      1. regdan
        regdan 30 September 2013 22: 07 New
        -1
        Yes yes yes heard and read. And oh my God, I noticed one pattern !!! All this is written word for word on all false, corrupt media. Hmm, and in Iran they shrug their shoulders and say, "You haven’t heard such a thing." Israeli citizens and lovers of Israeli citizens explain how this can be?
      2. regdan
        regdan 30 September 2013 22: 14 New
        -1
        Quote: Pimply
        More specifically about illegality

        The state of Israel, the Jews were to create, and the state of Israel was created by the British. That is why I say and write "the illegally formed state of Israel." Respectable Jews lived in Palestine, and at the beginning of the 20th century, Britons began to take all the rabble from Europe to these unfortunate Jews.
    2. Forest
      Forest 1 October 2013 14: 43 New
      +1
      As always, there are three on duty. For more, Mossad has no money laughing
  • LSV
    LSV 1 October 2013 14: 57 New
    0
    Beautifully local comrades from Israel moved the topic from a threat to Israel to a threat to Russia.)) Iran is not dangerous for Russia, so do not try to solve your problems with our hands, hiding behind our backs, as you do using Americans to solve your problems with Syria))