Did Trump Scare Iran: Tehran Reportedly Pulls Missile From Launchpad Following Launch Prep

[Serpentine]

The US is opposed because Iran essentially violated a provision of Resolution 2231 unless it can demonstrate that the ballistic missile in question has been modified to be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead, regardless of the latter's origin. It's a question of the ballistic missile itself and its capabilities as a delivery mechanism, not Iran's (now-defunct) nuclear weapons program.

No it doesn't, because in resolution 2231 Iran is called upon not to conduct missile tests desgined to be capable of carrying nukes, not ordering it to do so. Previous resolution said Iran Must not test ballistic missiles. In other words, in resolution 2231, Iran is not obligated to follow that statement.

Before commenting with so much confidence about resolution 2231, at least carefully read it first.

 

[AmirPatriot]

The US is opposed because Iran essentially violated a provision of Resolution 2231 unless it can demonstrate that the ballistic missile in question has been modified to be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead, regardless of the latter's origin. It's a question of the ballistic missile itself and its capabilities as a delivery mechanism, not Iran's (now-defunct) nuclear weapons program.

First of all, it's about not being designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Otherwise a pickup truck could fit your description.

But biggest issue with your statement is that it's basically saying "guilty until proved innocent".

 

[Akasa]

No it doesn't, because in resolution 2231 Iran is called upon not to conduct missile tests desgined to be capable of carrying nukes, not ordering it to do so. Previous resolution said Iran Must not test ballistic missiles. In other words, in resolution 2231, Iran is not obligated to follow that statement.

Before commenting with so much confidence about resolution 2231, at least carefully read it first.

Fair enough, the exact diction requires some meticulous reading; thanks for pointing that out. Nonetheless, the backlash from the Trump administration is but to be expected in response to ballistic missile launches that were clearly political messages in protest of the recent US travel ban.

First of all, it's about not being designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Otherwise a pickup truck could fit your description.

But biggest issue with your statement is that it's basically saying "guilty until proved innocent".

I don't think I need to elaborate on why a ballistic missile (rather than any other delivery mechanism) raises nuclear fears, especially when such missiles were initially conceived to deliver WMDs.

If Iran wishes to allay international qualms over its ballistic missile program, the onus is on Tehran to "prove its own innocence" by demonstrating its weapons' incapacity to one day carry nuclear arms. Interestingly, Tehran doesn't seem to give two darns about international opinion. Perhaps this would be the best for them.

 

[AmirPatriot]

If Iran wishes to allay international qualms over its ballistic missile program, the onus is on Tehran to "prove its own innocence" by demonstrating its weapons' incapacity to one day carry nuclear arms.

Guilty until proven innocent is not a valid argument...

 

[mohsen]

First of all, it's about not being designed to carry a nuclear warhead. Otherwise a pickup truck could fit your description.

But biggest issue with your statement is that it's basically saying "guilty until proved innocent".

just wanted to point to the fact that IAEA's final report on PMD of Iran's nuclear program clearly indicates work on nuclear weapons up until 2009 (the one which Mr Zarif advertised as a victory in Iran), so our missiles are designed to carry the Nuclear warhead and we are guilty, until we prove the otherwise ( letting them inspect our missiles).

No it doesn't, because in resolution 2231 Iran is called upon not to conduct missile tests desgined to be capable of carrying nukes, not ordering it to do so. Previous resolution said Iran Must not test ballistic missiles. In other words, in resolution 2231, Iran is not obligated to follow that statement.

Before commenting with so much confidence about resolution 2231, at least carefully read it first.

"call upon" is the phrase which has been used for implementing all sanctions against Iran;
I guess you and all Iranian can feel it's unbinding nature!!!

 

[AmirPatriot]

just wanted to point to the fact that IAEA's final report on PMD of Iran's nuclear program clearly indicates work on nuclear weapons up until 2009 (the one which Mr Zarif advertised as a victory in Iran), so our missiles are designed to carry the Nuclear warhead and we are guilty, until we prove the otherwise ( letting them inspect our missiles).

The report concluded there was work "relevant" to nukes and most of those stopped in 2002, all of them stopped in 2009.

Besides, even if this resolution was not so specific (and was more like UNSC 1929) I'd still oppose it even if Iran's missiles were not consistent with it's text. We have to defend ourselves.

 

[Fafnir]

just wanted to point to the fact that IAEA's final report on PMD of Iran's nuclear program clearly indicates work on nuclear weapons up until 2009 (the one which Mr Zarif advertised as a victory in Iran), so our missiles are designed to carry the Nuclear warhead and we are guilty, until we prove the otherwise ( letting them inspect our missiles).


"call upon" is the phrase which has been used for implementing all sanctions against Iran;
I guess you and all Iranian can feel it's unbinding nature!!!

Not necessarily.the original rodong/hwasong on which all irans liquid fuel medium range missiles are based was designed and produced by the dprk back in the late 80s/beginning of the 90s,now this is 16 years before the dprks first nuke test,so I think that right there is pretty good proof that these missiles were never deigned with the carriage of nuclear warheads in mind,now as for whether it is nuclear capable,the simple truth is that almost any rocket or missile or even artillery pieces over a diameter of at least 150mm is capable in theory but that doesnt mean that they were designed for this or even actually capable in reality.

 

[mohsen]

The report concluded there was work "relevant" to nukes and most of those stopped in 2002, all of them stopped in 2009.

Besides, even if this resolution was not so specific (and was more like UNSC 1929) I'd still oppose it even if Iran's missiles were not consistent with it's text. We have to defend ourselves.

“coordinated efforts relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" means developing nuclear weapon and warheads are in fact the most common form of nuclear weapons.

also report says "Iran has acquired certain relevant technical competences and capabilities".

Now here comes another bitter truth, if it was just the "nuclear capable missile" we could say IAEA report proves we haven't acquired the full capability, yet since traitors asked (admitted by themselves) to change the phrase to "designed to be nuclear capable", our missiles becomes a subject of this resolution even without having an actual capability.

We have to defend ourselves.

is irrelevant to this resolution and for those who accepted it.

 

[mohsen]

Not necessarily.the original rodong/hwasong on which all irans liquid fuel medium range missiles are based was designed and produced by the dprk back in the late 80s/beginning of the 90s,now this is 16 years before the dprks first nuke test,so I think that right there is pretty good proof that these missiles were never deigned with the carriage of nuclear warheads in mind

as if we have copy pasted their design without any changes afterward, which is untrue.
also can you prove that NK has changed it's design after nuke test?!

now as for whether it is nuclear capable,the simple truth is that almost any rocket or missile or even artillery pieces over a diameter of at least 150mm is capable in theory but that doesnt mean that they were designed for this or even actually capable in reality.

design is the early stage of any product, if you admit that all Ballistic missiles are nuclear capable which you did, then you have designed a nuclear capable weapon (missile).

you can predict certain missuses in your designs for the ease of adding a capability in future, so again "designed to be capable" has a wider extent than the "capable" alone.

 

[Fafnir]

If Iran wishes to allay international qualms over its ballistic missile program, the onus is on Tehran to "prove its own innocence" by demonstrating its weapons' incapacity to one day carry nuclear arms. Interestingly, Tehran doesn't seem to give two darns about international opinion. Perhaps this would be the best for them.

Actually the onus has always been on the accuser to deliver the proof not on the accused to prove a negative,which funnily enough the us and co was never/has never been able to do regardless of whether it was claims of covert enrichment sites,covert bomb programs or now this further red herring.Personally I would have thought that simple logic would have been enough to decide this but then it is the west,and the us in particular,that we`re talking about so maybe the lack of logic is not so surprising after all,anyway here we go ie:
Q:does iran have nuclear warheads?[or even a nuclear weapons program for that matter]
A:no
Q:if a country has no nuclear warheads then are any of the delivery systems it possesses nuclear capable?
A:no,of course not without an actual nuclear device none of these systems have any nuclear capability in the slightest.
So it looks pretty clear cut in practical terms,however if you`re going to try and play the "hypothetically speaking" game,then sure in theory irans missiles could be nuclear capable but then so could irans cruise missiles[both land attack+antiship],irans torpedoes,depth charges,rocket artillery and any heavy artillery over 150mm caliber,in fact almost anything could be used as a delivery system so in that case why just single out irans medium range missiles hmm.?.No matter how you look at it something certainly smells a little bit fishy here,maybe its the wests credibility.
Now as for your claim that "Tehran doesn't seem to give two darns about international opinion",you`re partly right as I dont think that iran honestly gives any damns[or even a fu#k or two] whatsoever about the west and its [very biased] opinions,but the west and its opinions dont get to exclusively dictate what passes for international opinion no matter how much they might like to believe so.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The options are unambiguous and simple:
1) Iran could let the international community know that its missiles are not nuclear capable & proceed with its ballistic missile program without condemnation
2) Iran could continue testing its missiles without informing anybody but would then face political backlash over these flights
3) Iran could backpedal on its nuclear deal & do whatever it pleases but face sanctions

The removal of one of Iran's ballistic missiles from its launch pad could be an indication that its leadership has formally tested the waters and concluded that it can't have the cake and eat it, too.

You knew that was not a ballistic missile it was a Safir SLV

To me its USA who must prove that the missile was designed to carry a nuke . by the way if even the missile designed to carry nukes it was not against any UN resolution

The US is opposed because Iran essentially violated a provision of Resolution 2231 unless it can demonstrate that the ballistic missile in question has been modified to be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead, regardless of the latter's origin. It's a question of the ballistic missile itself and its capabilities as a delivery mechanism, not Iran's (now-defunct) nuclear weapons program.

“coordinated efforts relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" means developing nuclear weapon and warheads are in fact the most common form of nuclear weapons.

also report says "Iran has acquired certain relevant technical competences and capabilities".

Now here comes another bitter truth, if it was just the "nuclear capable missile" we could say IAEA report proves we haven't acquired the full capability, yet since traitors asked (admitted by themselves) to change the phrase to "designed to be nuclear capable", our missiles becomes a subject of this resolution even without having an actual capability.


is irrelevant to this resolution and for those who accepted it.

No having potential to be nuclear capable by designing to be nuclear capable is completely different . unless the warhead is designed to carry nukes then its not designed to be nuclear capable and all Iran warhead are designed for conventional ordnance

 

[gambit]

Actually the onus has always been on the accuser to deliver the proof not on the accused to prove a negative,which funnily enough the us and co was never/has never been able to do regardless of whether it was claims of covert enrichment sites,covert bomb programs or now this further red herring.Personally I would have thought that simple logic would have been enough to decide this but then it is the west,and the us in particular,that we`re talking about so maybe the lack of logic is not so surprising after all,anyway here we go ie:
Q:does iran have nuclear warheads?[or even a nuclear weapons program for that matter]
A:no
Q:if a country has no nuclear warheads then are any of the delivery systems it possesses nuclear capable?

Actually, the nuclear weapons issue is pretty much the exception.

Even to this day with all the computing power we have at our disposal, the surest way to convince ourselves that an indigenous nuclear weapons program is successful is to have a real test detonation.

India's first nuclear test was in 1974. Pakistan's first was in 1998. Both nuclear weapons programs were done in secrecy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

The nuclear warhead designs, plural, have been so well established that if you follow the instructions precisely, the world will take the safe path and assume that you are a nuclear weapons state even without the benefit of a test detonation.

That is why the world begins to get suspicious even if you are capable of uranium enrichment beyond a certain threshold.

Iraq's WMD program. Not a single test detonation. And yet...

https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272

...For Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear weapons scientist, he considered the centrifuge to be the beginning of the bomb. Hence, the title of his memoir. Saddam ordered Obeidi to hide a pair of centrifuges in his home garden, and Obeidi did buried a pair.

 

[Fafnir]

as if we have copy pasted their design without any changes afterward, which is untrue.
also can you prove that NK has changed it's design after nuke test?!


design is the early stage of any product, if you admit that all Ballistic missiles are nuclear capable which you did, then you have designed a nuclear capable weapon (missile).

you can predict certain missuses in your designs for the ease of adding a capability in future, so again "designed to be capable" has a wider extent than the "capable" alone.

Iran did modify the rodong to extend its range but why on earth would iran have modified the missile to be nuclear capable when at the time iran had no ability to produce a nuclear warhead?.I`m afraid that your argument makes no sense.
The north koreans may have modified it to be nuclear capable but these modifications would have taken place in the mid 2000s after their first nuke test obviously,as it would have made little sense to modify it before hand,and many years[2+ decades actually] after iran received its first examples of the rodong and began local production?,again this argument makes no sense unless you`re trying to argue that iran doesnt actually produce the rodong/shahab/ghadir itself it just buys them from the dprk right up to the present day.
I was simply noting that in theory almost anything can be nuclear capable,but that doesnt mean that it actually is in reality or that it can be designed to be so,there is a literal world of difference between something just having the possibility of a potential capability and something that was specifically designed with a specific capability,for instance irans simorgh slv could potentially carry a nuclear warhead but does that mean it was designed to be a nuclear capable weapon?,of course not it was designed as an slv it just happens to have by virtue of its design the capacity for modification.

Actually, the nuclear weapons issue is pretty much the exception.

Even to this day with all the computing power we have at our disposal, the surest way to convince ourselves that an indigenous nuclear weapons program is successful is to have a real test detonation.

India's first nuclear test was in 1974. Pakistan's first was in 1998. Both nuclear weapons programs were done in secrecy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

The nuclear warhead designs, plural, have been so well established that if you follow the instructions precisely, the world will take the safe path and assume that you are a nuclear weapons state even without the benefit of a test detonation.

That is why the world begins to get suspicious even if you are capable of uranium enrichment beyond a certain threshold.

Iraq's WMD program. Not a single test detonation. And yet...

https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272

...For Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear weapons scientist, he considered the centrifuge to be the beginning of the bomb. Hence, the title of his memoir. Saddam ordered Obeidi to hide a pair of centrifuges in his home garden, and Obeidi did buried a pair.

That might be true of the suspicions of an actual weapons program,altho once again simple accusations by themselves wont cut it as there has to be at least some real actual proof of wrong doing,in this case tho the issue is not about a weapons program,there is none,its about the claim of a particular weapons system being nuclear capable,again made without any proof.As for proving a negative one only has to look to iraq to see how easy[impossible] that turned out to be.

 

[500]

Hes' an al qaeda jihadist and I hope he meets a gruesome end soon.

No, he was in FSA Fastaqem union.

 

[mohsen]

Iran did modify the rodong to extend its range but why on earth would iran have modified the missile to be nuclear capable when at the time iran had no ability to produce a nuclear warhead?.I`m afraid that your argument makes no sense.

IAEA report says Iran has received the designs information from Pakistani scientist in early 1990.
actually there is a complete timeline in section E. Area Assessments of the report, if you would read it.

I was simply noting that in theory almost anything can be nuclear capable,but that doesnt mean that it actually is in reality or that it can be designed to be so,there is a literal world of difference between something just having the possibility of a potential capability and something that was specifically designed with a specific capability,for instance irans simorgh slv could potentially carry a nuclear warhead but does that mean it was designed to be a nuclear capable weapon?,of course not it was designed as an slv it just happens to have by virtue of its design the capacity for modification.

where in the resolution says specific capability? or actual capability? answer: nowhere
and that's it. ambiguous phrase implanted by Zarif/Kerry, so that each one would justify himself. and result is that sanctions will return (increase actually, cause they never lifted in the first place).

by your logic, after our next SLV launch, Americans will have no excuse to complain or impose more sanctions. I'm looking forward to it.