Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can give a five year old all the money in the world and he won't be able to dunk a basketball. Aspiration, and even that's an open question, doesn't equate to ability. And that in no way translates into the technical capability to build a missile or a nuclear weapon.
Maybe this is only obvious to those with technical backgrounds.
Wilbur and Orville Wright had an aspiration. Aerodynamics and the entire aerospace industry was born from that aspiration. 100+ years later we have international commercial aviation, rovers on Mars, and the ability to fly military aircraft to anywhere in the world in a moments notice.
I'm not buying the aspiration-only line.
By the way, Aerospace Engineering is my livelihood.
Wilbur and Orville Wright had an aspiration. Aerodynamics and the entire aerospace industry was born from that aspiration. 100+ years later we have international commercial aviation, rovers on Mars, and the ability to fly military aircraft to anywhere in the world in a moments notice.
I'm not buying the aspiration-only line.
By the way, Aerospace Engineering is my livelihood.
A lot of people besides Wilbur and Orville had aspirations and money. Wilbur and Orville had technical ability and very little money. If you are an aerospace engineer explain how a country that can't get a 1960s era fighter to fly can hope to build a 6000 mile ICBM from scratch.
A lot of people besides Wilbur and Orville had aspirations and money. Wilbur and Orville had technical ability and very little money. If you are an aerospace engineer explain how a country that can't get a 1960s era fighter to fly can hope to build a 6000 mile ICBM from scratch.
The 60's era fighter aircraft you speak of is held back by scarce supply of spare parts. I believe the U.S. had that perfectly planned, in my opinion.
I can't answer the ICBM question without knowing intricate details of their current technology, but having put their own satellite into orbit with their own Iranian rockets (not Russian as in past) speaks volumes to their ability to push a warhead closer and closer to its enemies, in my opinion.
The 60's era fighter aircraft you speak of is held back by scarce supply of spare parts. I believe the U.S. had that perfectly planned, in my opinion.
I can't answer the ICBM question without knowing intricate details of their current technology, but having put their own satellite into orbit with their own Iranian rockets (not Russian as in past) speaks volumes to their ability to push a warhead closer and closer to its enemies, in my opinion.
Right critical parts that the Iranians don't seem to be able to even clone from working copies, much less design from scratch. I think you've proved my case. Thanks.
Iran's missiles are all old Russian and North Korean technology. Having a rocket that will put a small satellite in low earth orbit is a long way from having an ICBM that will reach 6000 miles with a payload.
Right critical parts that the Iranians don't seem to be able to even clone from working copies, much less design from scratch. I think you've proved my case. Thanks.
Iran's missiles are all old Russian and North Korean technology. Having a rocket that will put a small satellite in low earth orbit is a long way from having an ICBM that will reach 6000 miles with a payload.
I hope you're right. However, I don't see Iran backing away from this pursuit. And as long as they are in pursuit, we have a reason to worry. Behing behind the curve now doesn't mean perpetually being behind the curve. You may take comfort in the Iranians not having an ICBM in 2009. I tend to see the bigger picture, and even 20 years from now, that capability is unacceptable as long as they continue to flap their tongues recklessly. In the grand scheme 20 years is a grain of salt and that alone shouldn't negate our concern.
I hope you're right. However, I don't see Iran backing away from this pursuit. And as long as they are in pursuit, we have a reason to worry. Behing behind the curve now doesn't mean perpetually being behind the curve. You may take comfort in the Iranians not having an ICBM in 2009. I tend to see the bigger picture, and even 20 years from now, that capability is unacceptable as long as they continue to flap their tongues recklessly. In the grand scheme 20 years is a grain of salt and that alone shouldn't negate our concern.
You are right Iran's very likely to have a new government in 20 years. Iran's not our natural enemy. We have no inherent quarrel with Iran. I suggest leaving them alone and minding our own business.
Allowed? Who the heck is the US to allow sovereign nations to do anything?
First of all, UN advisors said that there was no chance that they were anywhere near a bomb.
Just because you think the US rules the world, doesn't make it so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
