Iran's Missile Testing: Implications and Potential Responses

[1oldman2]

With all the talk in the news about the upcoming satellite launch by Iran, I'm wondering about the consequences and possible actions that may take place in light of the multiple violations of treaties in place currently.
I understand the banning of ballistic testing (and by association space launches) is tied into the J. Kerry nuke deal which our current administration is so proud of.

 

[CrazyNinja]

our

Who is our? I mean which country?

 

[1oldman2]

Who is our? I mean which country?

I guess I was speaking of US, however your point is well taken if your referring to the fact there were many other counties involved with the Iranian nuke deal.
I apologize for the initial vagueness.

 

[CrazyNinja]

if your referring to the fact there were many other counties involved with the Iranian nuke deal.

In fact I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the fact that this forum is global and saying "our" doesn't help gauze your nationality.

 

[1oldman2]

In fact I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the fact that this forum is global and saying "our" doesn't help gauze your nationality.

First post but I'm learning.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Oldman, you know as well as I do Obama and the US will do nothing about this. And without our leadership, the other signatories will do nothing as well.

 

[1oldman2]

Oldman, you know as well as I do Obama and the US will do nothing about this. And without our leadership, the other signatories will do nothing as well.

Your post confirms my suspicions also, . That is what drove me to posting my first thread. With so much at stake (Israel is certainly taking notice) The cost of inaction is staggering, the problem at this point seems to be that inaction is the only action we can expect. I'm thinking the nuke deal along with Russia's recent support may have emboldened the the Iranians to a point of catastrophe as far the world is concerned.

 

[1oldman2]

While I'm not certain of "fox" as 100% no spin, I believe todays online edition highlights just how convoluted things are.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...ish-iran-for-missile-tests.html?intcmp=hplnws
And now a quick paste of part of that article.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231 says Iran is “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

Thursday, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander said that Iran's ballistic missile program will continue to move forward, despite threats of international sanctions.

The U.S. State Department says the launches this week were not in violation of the nuclear deal, but “inconsistent” with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was tied to the nuclear deal when it went into effect.

Vice President Joseph Biden, while meeting Netanyahu Wednesday did not acknowledge the missile launch directly, but he issued a strong warning to the Iranians.

"A nuclear-armed Iran is an absolutely unacceptable threat to Israel, to the region and the United States. And I want to reiterate which I know people still doubt here: if in fact they break the deal, we will act," he said.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards senior commander was quoted as saying last week that its latest round of missiles were being designed to hit Israel.

I also find this article interesting as well as relevant.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35798248

Perhaps the world need to go over the lessons in "Tragedy and hope"

 

[Kevin McHugh]

As long as Obama is in office, the Israelis are on their own. Hill is a neocon in Dems clothing and I don't know about Trump. I think either way, the Israelis will have to act to act unilaterally in the case of preemptive strikes.

 

[1oldman2]

the Israelis will have to act to act unilaterally in the case of preemptive strikes.

This is exactly the scenario I envisioned when contemplating the consequences. Of any nation involved the Israeli government is by far the most likely to do more than just talk about the problem, (a quick glance at recent history should confirm this).

Regarding Bidens statement, I don't see there being much credibility and i doubt that most of the world does either.
[Vice President Joseph Biden, while meeting Netanyahu Wednesday did not acknowledge the missile launch directly, but he issued a strong warning to the Iranians.

"A nuclear-armed Iran is an absolutely unacceptable threat to Israel, to the region and the United States. And I want to reiterate which I know people still doubt here: if in fact they break the deal, we will act," he said.]

I'm used to regional conflicts being referred to as "powder kegs", in this case the powder keg is replaced with nukes and the fuse may as well be replaced with "Det chord".

 

[mheslep]

With all the talk in the news about the upcoming satellite launch by Iran, I'm wondering about the consequences and possible actions that may take place in light of the multiple violations of treaties in place currently.
I understand the banning of ballistic testing (and by association space launches) is tied into the J. Kerry nuke deal which our current administration is so proud of.

References? What violation of what treaty?

 

[1oldman2]

References?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35798248
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...ish-iran-for-missile-tests.html?intcmp=hplnws

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-iran-idUSKCN0WE0W5
Welcome, while these "sources" may not meet the standards of a technical paper, they are what I based the opening of this thread on.
As to what treaty violations, reading the news items should reveal the convoluted nature of the situation. whether or not a particular treaty is being violated is rather ambiguous, depending on whose point of view is taken. While the US stance is "no violation is being committed" The UN resolution #2231 is apparently another matter, since I understand that the "nuke deal" is tied into the UN resolutions currently in place.
It is the nature of these conflicting points that led to this thread, along with the Pandora's box that could eventually be opened.

The main purpose of this thread is to learn what I can through others opinions and information that I get in response to it.
Thanks and have a great day.

 

[mheslep]

[QUOTE="1oldman2, post: 5413455, ]since I understand that the "nuke deal" is tied into the UN resolutions currently in place...[/QUOTE]
As you say, Iran's provocative missile launches are the topic of UN 2231, but the US nuclear deal with Iran has no coverage of Iran's ballistic missile launches. There's no formal treaty with Iran on these matters.

 

[1oldman2]

As you say, Iran's provocative missile launches are the topic of UN 2231, but the US nuclear deal with Iran has no coverage of Iran's ballistic missile launches. There's no formal treaty with Iran on these matters.

Exactly my point, so what does this really mean?
The U.S. State Department says the launches this week were not in violation of the nuclear deal, but “inconsistent” with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was tied to the nuclear deal when it went into effect.

 

[1oldman2]

And so after roughly a month we hear that...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ests-state-department-says.html?intcmp=hplnws

And while this is plainly labeled "opinion" does anyone have any particular thoughts on it?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...supreme-leader-khameneis-missile-warning.html

I'm curious where this thread will go as the situation evolves, particularly after the upcoming US elections are history.

 

[1oldman2]

I had a feeling this wasn't going to fade away...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35338901

and of course.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36443315

 

[jim hardy]

Seems to me Iran needs to develop their in-house skillset by building missiles and test ranges.

To tip them they can just go to neighborhood "Warhead Depot" .

http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...us-india-obama-administration-warned-2817925/

China’s supply of nuclear weapons to Pakistan pose threat to US, India, Obama administration warned

My guess is they're not crazy enough to attack Israel themselves with traceable missiles, they just want to swagger and bark like big dog in the neighborhood.

But would they give a lunchbox nuke to somebody really stupid ?

 

[1oldman2]

But would they give a lunchbox nuke to somebody really stupid ?

Scary thought there.

 

[rootone]

lunchbox nuke ?

Lunchbox nuke?, I thought that was just low quality media paranoia?
Surely the smallest effective fission bomb requires at lest a few tens of Kg of highly enriched Plutonium, and about the same again weight of containment and control apparatus.

 

[1oldman2]

Lunchbox nuke?,

I have always heard the term "suitcase nuke" or "backpack nuke" used but they are real.
From uncle sam we get this, http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/
I believe the image JH posted is an actual device (or more likely a mock-up of one) as it matches the description on the site.

 

[jim hardy]

Surely the smallest effective fission bomb requires at lest a few tens of Kg of highly enriched Plutonium, and about the same again weight of containment and control apparatus.

look up W54 Davy Crockett

and
W48 artillery shell

The W48 was 6.1 inches (155 mm) in diameter and 33.3 inches long. It came in two models, Mod 0 and Mod 1, which are reported to have weighed 118 and 128 pounds respectively. It had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton), which is very small for a nuclear weapon.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

 

[rootone]

Interesting, but still, somebody carrying around a meter long lunchbox weighing around 70Kg, would look suspicious even if was just a bomb made with agricultural chemical.
Not difficult to carry something like that in a truck though.