backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Apr 13 at 3:22 PM


The Arrow missile, seen here during its launch, successfully intercepted a ballistic missile that simulated Iran's most advanced possible future warhead. Israel says it's ready to shoot down nukes and traditional missiles from Iran and others.  (Source: AP)
"Bring it on," says Israel

While the 90s saw a time of relative peace, with the Iraq war and the escalate tensions with Iran, Israel is staying alert and preparing for any kind of assault.  The Israeli Air Force just wrapped up the 17th test of its new missile defense system and is confident that it can now shoot down any ballistic nuclear missiles that Iran or others could shoot at it.

The Palmahim Base launched an Arrow interceptor at a Blue Sparrow Missile, fired from an F-15 fighter jet.  The missile was designed to mimic an Iranian Shihab 3 missile, the kind of missile that Israel expects Iran to potentially use as a nuclear weapon delivery platform.  The Blue Sparrow has a split warhead and advanced radar-evading capabilities.  While the Shihab 3 ballistic missile currently lacks these capabilities, it is believed that Iran is working to develop them.  The test was jointly conducted by the IAF and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

An integral part of the new missile defense system is its new Green Pine radar system.  This highly accurate radar system was deployed to the Negev Desert in 2008.

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Milo, commander of the IAF's Air Defense Division said that the test's success, despite poor visibility, was a testament to the readiness of the country's missile defense program.  He states, "The Arrow technology is always improving, and we cannot forget that the enemy is also advancing with its capabilities."

It is unclear how well the system will work against Iran's latest missile, though -- the Sajjil.  The Sajjil is Iran's first solid fuel rocket.  Solid fuel allows the rocket to have a much greater accuracy than the previous liquid designs.  The missile has a range of 2,000 km.  Iran also has a stockpile of several BM25 intercontinental missiles which it purchased four or more years ago from North Korea.

The Arrow is also exceptionally effective against the Syrian Scud D, which is capable of delivering traditional and nontraditional payloads to anywhere in Israel.  Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the test "another achievement for Israel on its way to obtaining a multi-level missile defense system, starting with the Iron Dome to defend against short-range rockets, and to the Arrow."

The Israel missile defense system helps provide valuable test data to help the U.S. develop and improve its own missile shield.  The U.S., like Israel, claims its missile defense shield to be active and ready to destroy any nuclear threat.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 10:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
So now maybe pre-emptively attacking Iran, who is the 4th largest exporter of petroleum on this planet, won't occur. That probably wouldn't be very good with the current state of economic affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera...

Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not.

"The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for."

So basically, all the experts say that Iran is NOT building a bomb. The propaganda you see being spewed forth from the television is the EXACT same thing that was done for Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq and most of the previous wars we have been involved in. Judging from our track record I'm pretty sure years from now it will come out that oh....Iran really wasn't trying to make a bomb. As for them making a bomb, they have a neighbor (Israel) who has shown that it can be very aggressive and WILL target civilians according to their very own troops:

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/960764.html

''We were supposed to go in with an armored vehicle called an Ahzarit, break into the door and start to shoot inside and simply go up floor by floor. . . . I call this murder . . . to go up floor by floor and every person that we see we were to shoot,'' he said. ''Aviv'' served as a squad leader with the Givati unit in the Gaza neighborhood of Zeitoun.

Scores of Palestinians were treated at Gaza hospitals for burns that may have come from shells containing white phosphorus, illegal in heavily populated areas. The issue came up only briefly at the conference, when a sergeant, identified as Yossi, said, ``There was a lot of use of white phosphorous.''

If I were in Iran's position I would probably try to build a nuke. They have India and Pakistan near them who have nukes as well, neither of which have signed the NPT either. So to expect Iran to just sit there and not desire a right to defend itself from attacks just doesn't make very much sense to me viewing it from their perspective. Again however, all the facts to date show that they are not building a nuke.

There are more Jews living in Iran than anywhere else in the entire Middle East outside of Israel.

There isn't any suicide bombing going on in Iran and Iraq never had any suicide bombers in its entire history until after we invaded them.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712

What I don't get is the people who unilaterally support Israel (even if it has committed war crimes)can't seem to grasp that the conflict between her and the rest of the Arab world isn't any of our business. We provide Israel's *enemies* with 3 times the amount of foreign aid that we provide to Israel. How is this beneficial?

Regardless of what anyone thinks our support for Israel is going to cease at some point because we no longer have the funds necessary to do so. We also do not have the Constitutional authority to funnel weapons/foreign aid to any country.

All the facts point to our blindly supporting Israel while propping up brutal regimes in the Middle East is not conducive to peace in that part of the world nor is it in our best national security interests.




RE: great
By Murloc on 4/9/2009 11:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
you're right, I don't think iran would be so stupid to use the bomb anyway, as israel would istantly burn tehran to the soil.


RE: great
By BernardP on 4/9/2009 11:17:03 AM , Rating: 3
Speaking of pre-emptive strike.

Israel has nuclear capability. Israel has missiles. Israel has submarines.

If a sub-launched nuclear missile attack was to come from the Indian Ocean to anhihilate Iranian nuclear installations, who could tell with certainty which country launched this attack?

Israel could plausibly deny it, and Iran would have nothing to retaliate with.


RE: great
By smackababy on 4/9/2009 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
Whose to say other countries wouldn't assume and attack anyway? The last thing we need is a world war. Although, the last one did pull us out of a huge recession. Now, if only I had a submarine...


RE: great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 12:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's a common fallacy that WW2 pulled us out of the Great Depression. It didn't. Neither did the Iraq War pull us out of a recession. War is never good for an economy regardless of who is the attacker/attackee.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/23/thomas-woods-3...

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/woods2.pdf


RE: great
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
it was pretty good for the USSR economy in ww2. the war wiped out all the economies of industrialised competitors in western europe and gave them carte blanche to ruthlessly develop their own. they started the war as the poor man of europe and ended it as the main regional superpower and one of 2 worldwide superpowers.

p.s. i accept that they did lose 20 million people in the process and this was perhaps not a great deal for the russians of the time!


RE: great
By jjmcubed on 4/9/2009 2:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
How many did they lose to Stalin Vs. WWII?


RE: great
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 9:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
no one is sure but people reckon he killed around 5 - 10 million people (not all russians - e.g. he killed a lot of ethnic germans, poles etc. in eastern europe after the war ended - hence all the germans are now in germany, poles in poland, ukranians in ukraine etc.). If you include deaths from famine due to moronic attempts to implement collectivised farming then you can add another 6-8 million.

its amazing how stalin appears to have 'got away' with it in terms of being made a villain (at least as compared to hitler)


RE: great
By TomZ on 4/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: great
By Chaser on 4/9/2009 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just as increased borrowing and spending will get us out of this "economic crisis" as well.


RE: great
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 5:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
fyi there was a pretty severe recession after WW2.


RE: great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
no, im not kidding. Go look at the links I posted and look at the numbers. WW2 did not get us out of the depression. It wasn't until 1946 and later when the government cut spending by 2/3 and taxes by 1/3 that we recovered. Hoover/FDR meddling in the economy are what continued the Great Depression. Had they done nothing, let the malinvestments be liqiudated and cut taxes AND spending we wouldn't have had it. We would have had a mild recession instead, just as was the case in 1921.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie...

This is common knowledge amongst many economists now. It's just taking a bit of time to catch up with the mainstream.

Also, war is always a net negative on the economy because it is taking resources in the form of steel/wood/people etc OUT of the economy and diverting them elsewhere (typically in a very inefficient manner) when they COULD be used for things that are bought and sold in the economy. War is pretty much inevitable at certain times but to say that it is a boost to our economy is just an outright falsehood.

Government doesn't actually produce anything, it redistributes. For every dollar spent on bombs or tanks or a soldiers pay it must first be taken from the thing which is actually producing the wealth which is We the People that make up the economy.


RE: great
By metasin on 4/10/2009 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of economists today would agree that WWII did not get us out of the depression; neither did the vast majority of Roosevelt's economic policies. Sure some programs like FDIC and SSI are still around today but go back and look at the alphabet soup that was put into action during the first 100 days of his admin. How many of those worked? The market crashed again during his administration after all.
Now having millions of working age men fighting and dying in a war does make the unemployment numbers look better. After the war the US was in a good position because our infrastructure was nowhere near as decimated as Europe, but our economic growth was not great during that time period either.


RE: great
By Spuke on 4/9/2009 4:08:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Israel could plausibly deny it, and Iran would have nothing to retaliate with.
Please. Iran would simply blame Israel AND the US for the attack and launch an attack on Israel. And other Middle East countries would join in on the attack because they now have a "reason" to attack Israel.


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/9/2009 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not. "The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for." So basically, all the experts say that Iran is NOT building a bomb. The propaganda you see being spewed forth from the television is the EXACT same thing that was done for Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq and most of the previous wars we have been involved in. Judging from our track record I'm pretty sure years from now it will come out that oh....Iran really wasn't trying to make a bomb. As for them making a bomb, they have a neighbor (Israel) who has shown that it can be very aggressive and WILL target civilians according to their very own troops:


True.

To make it worse, Israel can and will use any weapon available. It's still concurrent tribes fighting like 2000 years and longer ago about religions. And when it comes to nuclear arsenal. Israel has a big pile of it's own. It started in 1959. They sure tricked the USA then :). Israel just removed the entrances to the lower nuclear research levels, placed bricked walls and a little paint and the US observers did not no anything for a while. It was kind of convenient tho, the israel nuclear weapons program around the sixties and Lyndon Johnson approved everything israel wanted after kennedy's death...



RE: great
By TerranMagistrate on 4/9/2009 6:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
With hostile nations at very turn for the Israelis, what else would you expect?

And these hostilities mainly stem from the genocidal hatred for Jews in Islam morso than an issue of land.


RE: great
By hadifa on 4/9/2009 8:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...stem from the genocidal hatred for Jews in Islam..


Yeah Medieval Europe treated them greatly in the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms up to the Holocaust.

They fared much better in Islamic countries than in christian ones for centuries.

Even under Ottoman Empire they would raise to Ministerial roles

It's not like most of the Islamic rulers were just and pious -they were mostly non-Muslim in everything but name- but for the most part, they shared the injustice equally regardless of religion.

History of the Jews in Turkey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_i...

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_...


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/10/2009 12:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
I always wondered why there is so much hatred for the jewish people. We are all people some good, some bad. And religion does not make someone a better person or a worse person. It's because people with extreme right wing or extreme left wing idea's that cause problems. Extremists, the magic word. Extreme executing of a religion is one such example. Extreme execution of a political conviction is another example.

A Dutch comedian Youp van het Hek once said :

Niet nadenken, mee doen.
Niet meedenken, na doen.

Rougly translated it means :

Do not think for yourself, just join.
Do not think together, just copy the behaviour.

That pretty much sums it up.


RE: great
By TerranMagistrate on 4/10/2009 9:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Let me assure you that there is nothing "extreme" about this aspect of Islam, which may come as a surprise to many. It is found in the texts considered most holy in this particular religion. It all comes down to whether a follower is pious or not and whether the interpretation is literal or not.


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/11/2009 2:39:47 AM , Rating: 1
A wise word :

Never take any religous book literally !
In the most optimistic scenario it is a history book descripting history. And old ways of man do not fit the modern age.

A sidenote...

Since there are jeiwsh people here i have a question :
I do wonder why jewish religious people claim one cannot be a jew if the mother was not jewish.

The only biological explanation i can think of is that
mitochondria are only passed on by the mother and not the father. But i do not see jewish people live longer or having less disease or being more strong. They are the same as any other person.

The only difference i see is what i also see with asian people. Supporting the children in their education and keeping business in the family.


RE: great
By BrightMoon on 4/11/2009 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I do wonder why jewish religious people claim one cannot be a jew if the mother was not jewish.

In here: http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/10-1...

It seems to answer your question. As for a "biological" explanation: If you only have a Jewish father, you can't be sure if the child is really his...


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/12/2009 4:14:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Torah does not always state every law explicitly. In the case of Matrilineal Descent, the practice is derived from Deuteronomy 7: 4, "Because he will lead astray your son from before Me" To understand this verse, look at the preceding verse, which states: " And you shall not intermarry with them, your daughter you shall not give to his son and his daughter you shall not take for your son". Verse 4 should have stated "Because SHE will lead astray your son", for the non-Jewish girl that your son married ('your' meaning Jewish) should be the one that would lead your son astray. So who is the 'HE'? It might be the girl's father, but in general, women leave their father's house and live in their husband's house; they would then not be living with her father. Hence, it would not make sense for the girl's father to lead "your son" astray if your son doesn't live with him. The Rabbis concluded that 'HE' is the man that your daughter married, and 'your son' mentioned in verse 4 is your grandchild, meaning Jewish grandchild. Thus, verse 4 is referring back to the middle section of verse 3. It reads like this, "your daughter you shall not give to his son because he will lead astray your son" This shows that the child of a Jewish girl and a non-Jewish boy will be Jewish. It is not uncommon for the Torah to refer to a grandchild as an actual child. For instance, Kings I 15: 11 states, " And Asa did that which was correct in the eyes of God just like David his father". David was not Asa's father. He was his great-great-grandfather. Additionally, Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew). On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives . They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.


Assuming these texts are correct, i have the following to write :

The only thing i see here is the concurrency between tribes. Do a little research and you will find that waaaay back in time there where many jewish tribes all having their own version of religion. And before that you had the sun worshippers. I do find it strange, at least 20.000 years of sun worshipping and from 1 moment to the other we have these "god created the earth first 6000 year ago" religions. Even in Texas they are planning to teach these ideas again on school.

I find it extreme. Islam or Jew, If i would hypothetically speaking meet such a girl i would probably not even be allowed to marry her because here religion would not allow it. I would have to turn to that religion as well. That is extreme and discriminating enough for me. Now these are not the only religions that force people to be seperate but you understand what i mean.

quote:
As for a "biological" explanation: If you only have a Jewish father, you can't be sure if the child is really his...


That kind of proves the point of not being together because of love but forced to be together because it is good for the 2 joining families increasing their wealth and influence. It is typical tribe behaviour. A practice still common in the middle east (and in some aristocratic cases in the west as well)is prearranged marriage or in some rare cases forced marriage. Now i would not be surprised that in the past this was pretty common. You where forced to marry someone you do not love. Hence the chance of people commiting adultery increases significantly. Kind of easy to debunk all these sacred rules. These sacred rules are based on psychology, nothing more.

On a sidenote, The woman gives all of her cell cytoplasma including mitochondria because of the egg. The man only passes on his chromosomes and on a very rare ocassion some mitochondrial dna with his sperm cell.


RE: great
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, that really doesn't deserve to be a -1, it's good reading at the very least. I guess it goes to show how worthless comment ratings are.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki