Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/29/09
09/28/09
In response to your assertation that we'd rush to defend those fledgeling democracies...
are you freakin high or what? did you forget about russia's invasion and current occupation of Georgia???
Obama is going to be the end of us all. And I used to be on one of those aegis ships for 5 years, dont hold your breath in thinking its better by itself instead of in concert with other strategic forces.
It really depends what ship is in the area and their record.
09/28/09
You have no idea what you're talking about.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
I run Iran!
09/28/09
09/28/09
That aside, I hope the UN does something about this. It is rather obvious that nuclear weapons and a delivery system can be built by Iran and that they are well on their way. While the Iranian government may never directly use these, they might sell these weapons or accidentally lose them to terrorist groups and then we'd have a major catastrophe.
All the EMP from the whole world nuking itself would destroy our computers and phones and then what would the survivors of the apocalypse do to entertain ourselves when we weren't running and screaming away from zombies! Oh the horror!
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
Ok, bad analogy. But who are they defending themselves against exactly to where they would need missiles like this?
09/28/09
09/28/09
@Coulterboy: We don't need the bombs, we thought we needed them during the cold war, and now it would be too dangerous and expensive to get rid of them. So we keep them just in case. I hope that we never ever need to use nukes.
Anyways, I'm all for peace and ending the need for bombs and guns etc, but that's not going to happen any time soon, if ever.
09/28/09
I agree with you on that one. Where's Superman when you need him?
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
We're not about to abandon the eastern democracies. If Russia tried to invade we would have all out war. The Russians know this. A few anti-missile systems which can't counter advanced Russian missiles in the first place wouldn't change a bloody thing other than to antagonize the Russians. It was a lose-lose situation.
And as I poster earlier in response to Professional_Iceberg, we have a number of anti-missile systems with which we are replacing this static shield. Namely the Aegis navy missile system and Patriot missile batteries. These are mobile (far better than static) and can be put in place today. I don't know where this 2016 number is coming from. We've lost little if anything and gained much by this move; I fail to see the downside.
09/28/09
Says Who Weet?
Last i checked our current administration is surrendering everything we have to our enemies.
Removing our pitiful defenses from Eastern Europe was just the start.
09/28/09
09/28/09
Troll is a troll.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
A run down of Iran's arsenal also indicates that the Shahab-3 was not a solid-fuel missile as it is not mentioned, while it is mentioned when describing the Sajjil.
Couple that with this statement: "The surface-to-surface Sajjil is a new, two-stage missile using solid fuel, which is considered to give a more accurate delivery than liquid fuel rockets.
It has been tested by Iran twice, in November 2008 and May 2009.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Iran's enemies might be most worried by the test-firing of the Sajjil missile.
It is more advanced, and multiple stage rockets offer the potential for longer ranges, he says."
That being said, I did find this [www.ynetnews.com] which says Iran tested a two engine solid-fuel Shahab B3 in November of 08. So, even assuming that the Shahab-3 Iran launched was a solid-fuel missile this isn't new. More importantly, they have been fueled by either liquid or solid-fuel since 2006 [en.wikipedia.org] Iran appears to have only first tested it in Nov '08.
The evidence seems pretty clear that this is not a terribly advanced operation.
To be clear, even if this is just a "hey remember when we fought with Iraq? Wasn't that awesome? Here are some PTSD inducing rockets to look at!" it should be something for the international community to address, but this posted here, as though this were some new threat, is weird.
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
Seriously. Need to watch Small Soldiers again.
Anyways, scary stuff. But I'm pretty sure we're just as scary.
09/28/09
09/28/09
I am with you. Isreal is on their own. I know there are a lot of people in the US that are on their side. And hopefully our next president. This one is obviously on the side of our enemies.
09/28/09
All that aside, Obama has made it clear that he is fully behind Israel:
March 2, 2007, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
In June 2008, Obama became the first presidential candidate ever to publicly back the traditional Israeli position that Jerusalem remain forever undivided under Israel rule. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,"
July 2008, Obama said, "The state of Israel faces determined enemies who seek its destruction, but it also has a friend and ally in the United States that will always stand by the people of Israel."
In February 2009, Obama announced that the United States will boycott the 2009 Durban Review Conference due to concerns that, like its predecessor, the 2001 World Conference against Racism, the conference will become a platform for anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.[194] The decision was praised by the National Post - a conservative newspaper - where columnist Jonathan Kay stated that this decision "signifies that — contrary to overheated campaign propaganda contained in GOP smear-campaign email blasts — Obama is hardly soft on the Israeli file."
So, why don't you stop lobbing your bullshit assertions that Obama sides with enemies of Israel.
09/28/09
09/28/09
Yeah! How dare Iran make a nuclear deterrent while the US, who toppled their government and threatens them has around 9,400 more warheads?
Piss off imperialists, just because you don't like Iran you don't have the right to bomb them. Put yourself in their boots - the western world made a whole lot of bad things to Iran and what's the only way to make sure you don't get attacked? Nuclear deterrent.
I would be happier in a world without nuclear weapons, but Iran has the right to defend itself like every other country.
09/28/09
09/28/09
The US and Israel have an abusive relationship, and we look ridiculous to the rest of the world when our leaders constantly make excuses for them.
Look how Jimmy Carter is/was smeared for being the least bit critical, even by liberals.
You believe in something that has no basis in reality shuns critical analysis and routinely denies facts in exchange for ..... well, I don't even know. An emotional response?
09/28/09
I'm.. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I only heard of these fine gentleman online. But I'm sure they're nice!
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/28/09