Iran to react if US prevents lifting arms embargo as per nuclear deal: President Rouhani

[QWECXZ]

That is the case for both for conventional and non-conventional warheads and has nothing to do with this notion of an ICBM "designed" to carry a nuclear warhead. There is no such thing.

Nuclear triggers are extremely more sensitive than just some conventional warhead. A nuclear warhead is an incredibly complex system that even if one little part of it malfunctions or gets damaged it will either explode prematurely or it won't explode at all.

And ICBMs travel faster than IRBMs or MRBMs.

 

[Philosopher]

Nuclear triggers are extremely more sensitive than just some conventional warhead. A nuclear warhead is an incredibly complex system that even if one little part of it malfunctions or gets damaged it will either explode prematurely or it won't explode at all.

You are talking about warhead design here and this has nothing to do with the ICBM design itself. The warhead is inserted into the ICBM. Here we are talking about this notions that an ICBM is "designed" from the get go to carry a nuke. This is a pure misconception and does not mirror reality.

And ICBMs travel faster than IRBMs or MRBMs.

We are talking about ICBMs here, not IRBMs or other lower range systems.

 

[QWECXZ]

You are talking about warhead design here and this has nothing to do with the ICBM design itself. The warhead is inserted into the ICBM. Here we are talking about this notions that an ICBM is "designed" from the get go to carry a nuke. This is a pure misconception and does not mirror reality.

We are talking about ICBMs here, not IRBMs or other lower range systems.

No, I'm not talking about warhead design.

Once you have a working warhead, it must be carried by an ICBM safely. And I told you why an ICBM that carries a nuclear warhead is different from an ICBM that carries a conventional warhead. Even though nobody uses ICBMs to carry conventional warheads. But the issue is that an ICBM is faster and it is carrying a much more sensitive warhead than a conventional warhead. A malfunctioning conventional missile is not dangerous. A malfunctioning ICBM is.

 

[mangekyo]

Iran was a regional power even before increasing its influence in Iraq after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the US mistake in Iraq solidified our status as a regional power. Otherwise, even in 1990s, we had a nuclear industry, we had a missile program, we had strong presence in Syria and Lebanon and we had an economy that was growing rapidly. So, nope. You are kidding yourself if you think the US made us a regional power by creating a power vacuum in the Middle East.

Agree to disagree here.

• Our infrastructure is improving already and it's very good by regional standards.

• I agree we need to reduce subsidies, but Ahmadinejad wanted to do that and he faced a lot of criticism. You can't remove subsidies without controlling the inflation first. Unless you want riots like in last year's October.

• We can't stop buying stuff from the black market as long as we are under sanctions.

• Chinese goods are neither cheap nor bad. China is currently one of the leading nations in almost anything. A sizeable number of American companies produce their products in China.

• We can't strengthen our currency as long as the world is dominated by the US dollar.

• Our living standards are improving. Our HDI has been increasing constantly and we are 60th in the world. The only reason we haven't made it to better than 60% is because our GDP PPP has decreased from 21,000 to 18,000 after Trump's sanctions.

• We need about 40 billion dollars for our imports and our exports are about that now. And our GDP will stop shrinking and start expanding after 2022.

• Our infrastructure is improving, but we need to improve it a lot more. We should aim to have as good or better infrastructure than Japan.
  
  
• Thats why I am saying we need to strengthen our currency, and increase average income so people wont notice when the government removes subsidies. You cant remove subsidies when the average Iranian is poor and expect no riots.
  
  
• Thats my point, as long as there are sanctions, we are wasting billions on the black market. Did you know that a lot of our merchants are going to UAE to for instance buy phones and bring them back to Iran to sell? Not only do we have to pay an increased price for the products, but we are losing USD in the process too.
  
  
• Yeah, but we dont get A grade Chinese products, they export that to the European, American, Japanese etc markets. We get the worst grade they produce.

• So what? Even Pakistan has a stronger currency than ours.
  
  
• Again thats my point, sanctions are holding us back.

If we want to make fundamental changes, we must become a US ally. We should allow American oil companies to come to Iran and loot our resources like before and we must recognize Israel and support them.

We can neutralize our relations.

 

[Max]

How US unilateral arms embargo effect Iran? How Iran will respond?

Even if US don't impose sanctions, US and its allies most probably won't sell arms to Iran. They have to go to Russians, who are already under CAATSA or whatever sanctions.

 

[mangekyo]

That is the case for both for conventional and non-conventional warheads and has nothing to do with this notion of an ICBM "designed" to carry a nuclear warhead. There is no such thing.

Resolution 2231 retains the arms embargo on Iran for five years after implementation and the sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program for eight years. Both could be lifted earlier if the IAEA reaches a determination about Iran’s nuclear program known as the Broader Conclusion. These sanctions are "nuclear-related" as they were put in place under Resolution 1929. Iran is also “called upon” not to undertake activities on ballistic missiles designed to be nuclear-capable.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran

Here is the original document of UN resolution 2231:

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/unsc_resolution2231-2015.pdf

Section 3 page 99/104

3. Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

 

[Philosopher]

No, I'm not talking about warhead design.

Apparently you cannot read your own comments. You said:

" A nuclear warhead is an incredibly complex system that even if one little part of it malfunctions or gets damaged it will either explode prematurely or it won't explode at all."

This is regarding the warhead design and has nothing to do with the ICBM itself.

Once you have a working warhead, it must be carried by an ICBM safely.

Yes, and that warhead is designed separately from the ICBM. You insert the warhead into the ICBM. Nobody designs an ICBM to carry a nuclear weapons. You are just inventing your own claims here.

And I am telling you why an ICBM that carries a nuclear warhead is different from an ICBM that carries a conventional warhead. And not only that, why an ICBM is different from an IRBM or an MRBM.

All you have explained is the obvious and common sense differences between the warheads differences in a nuclear system and a non-nuclear systems. The ICBM is the delivery system for the warheads. The main challenge in designing a nuclear warhead is miniaturisation. This is done in complete seperation of the the design of the ICBM.

Take ICBM X with a payload capacity of 1000kg, can carry a 1000Kg nuclear warhead, or 1000Kg conventional warhead. The design of the ICBM does not change overall only the warhead does. This is a basic concept that anyone with even a basic level of understanding regarding missiles should be understand.

 

[mangekyo]

Apparently you cannot read your own comments. You said:

" A nuclear warhead is an incredibly complex system that even if one little part of it malfunctions or gets damaged it will either explode prematurely or it won't explode at all."

This is regarding the warhead design and has nothing to do with the ICBM itself.




Yes, and that warhead is designed separately from the ICBM. You insert the warhead into the ICBM. Nobody designs an ICBM to carry a nuclear weapons. You are just inventing your own claims here.




All you have explained is the obvious and common sense differences between the warheads differences in a nuclear system and a non-nuclear systems. The ICBM is the delivery system for the warheads. The main challenge in designing a nuclear warhead is miniaturisation. This is done in complete seperation of the the design of the ICBM.

Take ICBM X with a payload capacity of 1000kg, can carry a 1000Kg nuclear warhead, or 1000Kg conventional warhead. The design of the ICBM does not change overall only the warhead does. This is a basic concept that anyone with even a basic level of missiles should be understand.

Stop this nonsense bro, there is an entire United Nations Security Council Resolution which specifically mentions Iran is not allowed to produce missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

 

[Philosopher]

For instance, the tankers that we sent to Venezuela, had there been UN,EU and US sanctions on our oil. Dont you think they would have stopped our tankers if there was a united front between EU, UN and US against Iran? Having only US as an enemy is better than having US and the entire EU and UN as an enemy.

Once again, there is a difference between finding something to sanction and sanctions that will have a serious bite. Those sanctions have already been implemented.

There is a difference. There are no UN resolutions on our ballistic missiles, but there are UN resolutions on ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear weapons.

That is just the wording of the resolution negotiated in a way so Iran can continue to develop it missiles. In practise, there is zero difference in the design of a missile from start when it comes to carrying a conventional or non conventional warhead. A missile is just a delivery systems for the warhead.

Thats the thing. I dont believe anyone will build relations with us and do business with us as long as US threatens to sanction them.

People are doing business with Iran today but in a clever way to avoid sanctions. As time goes by, sanctions will continue to become less potent.

As I said, having US as our enemy is better than having the entire EU, UN and US as our enemy. You need to also consider there is a chance that the next time we send trucks to Turkey, they will be stopped at the border. The next time we send our airplanes to Europe, they will refuse them to land. They can ban all airplanes from landing at our airports. The next time we send a cargo ship to anywhere, they will stop it. They can ban all Iranian passport holders of buying any goods as a measure to stop them from shipping them to Iran.

You are talking as if Iran has a significant level of economical ties with Europe. Whether they do what you say will change little on the ground. European participation in US sanctions has an effect, but not to the extend you're thinking of. The more serious sanctions are due to the American sanctions in the banking sector etc.

Stop this nonsense bro, there is an entire United Nations Security Council Resolution which specifically mentions Iran is not allowed to produce missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

like I told you, the wording of the UN security council resolution was negotiated that way on purpose. Either show some actual technical proof regarding your claim, or cease this silly notion of an ICBM designed to carry nuclear weapons. There is no such thing.

 

[Kastor]

Leaving JCPOA and or NPT just means more sanctions. The only effective response is to develop nukes and ICBM and demand lifting of all sanctions in exchange of giving up nuclear warheads. Then the sanctions will begin again and we will fall into a loop. Our only solution is to somehow work our differences with US and Israel, there is no other solution, unless several of the liberal US states like California declares independence from war mongering Texas

I agree, I've been talking about what is the "Endgame" of these hostilities? We need to acquire the knowledge and material after that it's as good as having the bomb itself. We can always turn the table on them in the future the same way they did to us. In my opinion with the rocket and drone tech that we posses, we have reached the security threshold we need to stave off any adversary in the region, even Israel. We need to unleash the economic monster that Iran can be...to do that we need the sanctions lifted.

 

[zhxy]

Iran can secretly buy weapons from Russia and North Korea. Russia and North Korea have advanced military technology and they do not care about the US attitude

 

[mangekyo]

Once again, there is a difference between finding something to sanction and sanctions that will have a serious bite. Those sanctions have already been implemented.

A united front would mean the tankers would have been stopped long before they were anywhere close to the shores of Venezuela, but there was no united front, hence, the tankers were not stopped.

People are doing business with Iran today but in a clever way to avoid sanctions. As time goes by, sanctions will continue to become less potent.

You are talking as if Iran has a significant level of economical ties with Europe. Whether they do what you say will change little on the ground. European participation in US sanctions has an effect, but not to the extend you're thinking of. The more serious sanctions are due to the American sanctions in the banking sector etc.

How do you suppose we continue to do that, if they ban every single airplane, ship, etc from docking and landing in Iran? If they sanctions all countries that accepts entry of Iranian nationals?

You lack basic understanding of missile technology, like I told you, the wording of the UN security council resolution was negotiated that way on purpose. Either show some actual technical proof regarding your claim, or cease this silly notion of an ICBM designed to carry nuclear weapons. There is no such thing.

I am no missile expert, but I know you cant just put a nuclear warhead on any missile and deliver it safely

 

[QWECXZ]

We can neutralize our relations.

That's the important part. What's your solution? What can we do to neutralize our relations? The JCPOA was supposed to do that, but it turned out to be the worst deal we signed in 50 years. What's your solution? I am all ears.

Apparently you cannot read your own comments. You said:

" A nuclear warhead is an incredibly complex system that even if one little part of it malfunctions or gets damaged it will either explode prematurely or it won't explode at all."

This is regarding the warhead design and has nothing to do with the ICBM itself.

No, that's not related to warhead design. I said assume that you have already built the warhead. So, that's related to the RV. If your RV damages your warhead, it won't function as expected. What part of it is so hard for you to understand?

Yes, and that warhead is designed separately from the ICBM. You insert the warhead into the ICBM. Nobody designs an ICBM to carry a nuclear weapons. You are just inventing your own claims here.

All you have explained is the obvious and common sense differences between the warheads differences in a nuclear system and a non-nuclear systems. The ICBM is the delivery system for the warheads. The main challenge in designing a nuclear warhead is miniaturisation. This is done in complete seperation of the the design of the ICBM.

Take ICBM X with a payload capacity of 1000kg, can carry a 1000Kg nuclear warhead, or 1000Kg conventional warhead. The design of the ICBM does not change overall only the warhead does. This is a basic concept that anyone with even a basic level of missiles should be understand.

Okay, man. An ICBM is just a multi-stage missile carrying a nuclear warhead then. Its RV is the same as a missile carrying a conventional warhead. I wonder why a nuclear state like Pakistan that already has multi-stage solid fuel missiles like Shaheen III can't build them. Or why countries like the US, Russia, China and France want to improve their nuclear ICBMs.

I remember once you called my facts about neuroscience and brain engineering as some "Alex Jones level conspiracies" that disrepute whatever I say. When I showed you a video of an academic M.Sc. course at one of our neuroscience institutions in Iran which said exactly the same thing, you didn't even apologize for making fun of me and instead said something like we should make sure that Iran is progressing in these fields too.

 

[Philosopher]

I am no missile expert, but I know you cant just put a nuclear warhead on any missile and deliver it safely

The rest of your comments are basically just taking us in circles, so I will focus on the missile comment.

A missile is just essentially a delivery system for a warhead. The warhead design is something that is done so separately. Lets take a "simpler" design such as Sejill-2, as compared to an ICBM. Lets assume Sejill can carry a 1 ton warhead. Now also lets assume Iran managed to create a nuclear warhead that is 1 ton. Do you think Sejill can carry that 1 ton nuclear warhead? If yes, then are you saying Sejill is "designed" to carry a nuclear warhead? Explain to me how it is designed to do that.

What differentiates between a missile than carry a nuclear vs non-nuclear warhead? People are confusing warhead design here with the design of the actual missile.

 

[mangekyo]

I agree, I've been talking about what is the "Endgame" of these hostilities? We need to acquire the knowledge and material after that it's as good as having the bomb itself. We can always turn the table on them in the future the same way they did to us. In my opinion with the rocket and drone tech that we posses, we have reached the security threshold we need to stave off any adversary in the region, even Israel. We need to unleash the economic monster that Iran can be...to do that we need the sanctions lifted.

There is no endgame, thats the thing. I know Shah was an American vassal in the beginning, as he had no other choice. But during his later reign, he distanced himself more and more from US and wanted to make Iran more independent. If you see his videos when he talks about the visions he has for Iran. Man.. We are 80 million, we have a highly capable, young and educated workforce. We have the third or fourth largest proven oil reserves, the largest or second largest gas reserves. We control energy corridors, we are situated in the middle of east meets west. We have tremendous potential. We could easily be in the top 5 richest countries in the world.