Coming soon: the Islamosatellite

If such a thing should ever go up, it must be shot down at once. End of story.

"Iran ready to put Muslim countries' satellite in orbit"
.................................

This is the *other* space race--you know, the Sunni/Shi'ite one.

OK, so there isn't really a space race, but Iran wants to win it, anyway. Along with their backing of Hizb'allah and Hamas, and terrorism in Iraq, and Achmadinijad's constant bellicose threats to Israel and the West, Shi'ite Iran wants to edge out Sunni Wahabbi Saudi Arabia, with their mosques, and da'wa, and their own sponsorship of terrorism.

And the Infidel West is standing by and letting it all happen. Not good news for us.

Will that "satellite" will be measured in KT or MT?

If such a thing should ever go up, it must be shot down at once. End of story.

Posted by: Hugh

I agree with Hugh and heres why!

http://cryptome.org/bartlett-060905.txt

Oops! Sorry, Iran we didn't mean to shoot down your satellite! It was an accident, believe us.

Are satellites protected by treaties banning the weaponization of space? If they're offensive, it would seem not. The UN Outer Space Treaty, in effect since October, 1967 states, among other things:

States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

Will Iran be able to claim its satellites are peaceful?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outer-space

Where is James Bond when we need him? I mean, isn't M always ordering him to go into space and knock out some dictator's satellite before the bad guy destroys The World As We Know It.

Time for M-5 to spring into action! They are making sport of us, lads! It's time to show them who can play cricket!

Will Iran be able to claim its satellites are peaceful?

PMK

If we are perfectly logical and non discriminatory, than I guess we have to trust Iran's stated good intentions. Don't we?

Islamorealistic

I like that. I am going to use that word everytime someone calls me Islamophobic.

Islamorealistic

dentalque

Good word, dentalque. I'll remember that one.

Damn! At first, I thought it was Malaysian - what with their first astronaut(?)/cosmonaut(?)/Islamonut(!) trying to figure out the Qubla from space.

One good idea would be for enemies of these countries, even though they are not anti Islamic (US, Israel, UK, France, India, et al) to install missile defence facilities on the moon, and use those to target these Islamic satellites. Imagine their horror when they find their sacred moon not only being defiled by Infidels, but also being used as the launching pad from which to destroy this latest offshoot of Islam.

What Hugh said.

You can never tell with the 'friendly' folks in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They could very well be using the satellites for 'peaceful' purposes such as getting close of photographs of bikini clad celebrity infidels in their backyard swimming pools.
Odd that the article does not mention the phrase "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" once. I'll have to search the small print of the article again.

If such a thing should ever go up, it must be shot down at once. End of story.
Posted by: Hugh

hear hear!

Mohammad never had a satellite.
Un-islamic.

Would it be unkind to say that we just might have to put a couple of muslim countries into orbit some day...........?

Are satellites protected by treaties banning the weaponization of space?

Perhaps before going up to avoid ambiguity.

I believe there is a 747 with a large laser in its nose that would do a good job on any Religion of Peace object over head. You can't trust them as far as you can spit.

Is this satellite for peaceful purposes?
Is anything from islam for peaceful purposes?

BOOM!

Thanks to the men and women in Everett, Washington.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/pics-clips/images/midres/cutaway.jpg

I hope they protected it agianst the flaming arrows fired by angels at those wacky djinn!

Islamic Space Program: If we pray to Allah hard enough, he will lift this satellite into orbit.

There is no bomba in my satellite.

Ahmadinejad

I wish I could remember the program I was watching this week end discussing this, but the key points were that Iran only has two stage rockets, and you cannot reach even low orbits without the third stage, and, the payload that they were claiming to be able to deliver was less than 100 lbs, nothing more than a box that can "beep". This was being dismissed as sabre rattling, all noise. Not sure if that makes it a good thing that imanutjob is (at best) trying to enter the space race with words, or if the knowledge that the "can't shoot straight gang" has access to even bigger mis-guided projectiles, but I think for now, we have little to worry about.
Later
Albert

I guess this might upset those islamists who believe the earth is flat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

Well, ImNoDhimmi;

That one guy, the one who held up the "science" book, looked a lot like Johnny Carson. So, I'm not sure who to believe now.

Nice target to try the laser pulse on.

We invent the technology.

We share the technology.

We educate them and teach them how to use our technology.

And then we hope that they'll behave in a civil manner.

Time to get out the ASAT's.

Definition of redunancy: Islamic-dummy-satellite

GamblersChoice,
I think you're right that there's no reason to hit the panic button but we shouldn't assume it will always be this way. They have China and Russia ready, willing and able to help them in their pursuit of satellite technology.
If the price is right, France and Germany might buy in as well. Why wouldn't the Ariane consortium agree to help them launch their satellites into orbit, if the price is right?

I was in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area on 9/11, and during the days that followed, when air traffic was stopped. We would stand outside during our smoke breaks at work and look at the empty sky. But the sky was not completely empty. You could very easily see satellites, our "eyes in the sky", had been repositioned along the east coast, and in our direction, as we were in a line from New York to Shanksville(sp?), where flight 93 came down, you could see the line of three satellites from the northeast to the southwest of us. Several of us were sky watchers, we tracked the space station, (I still do that, and watch it pass over when weather permits at night), so we kept an eye out for movement, especially in the early evening and pre dawn hours. Those satellites were in place for at least a month, then they slowly were repositioned as the threat eased.
You have to know that we have positioned our eyes in the sky over that "area of interest", we have been watching everything being built, covered over, moved, (and the things not being built, like electric transmission lines to carry the new electricity these nuclear plants are designed to create), watching personnel movements at the afghan/pak border, vehicle and personnel movement from iraq to iran. Hopefully the truth will never be known of our capabilities to monitor these movements, the general public has no need to know how well we can see how much we can see.
Imadinnerjacket is an idiot, and someday soon he will come to understand just how stupid he is.
And we will laugh.
Later
Albert

More space junk?

I thought there was an international law against space littering or something?

An attempted comment about why this is more serious than is generally recognized appears to have been moderated for some unknown reason, so here it is again in capsule form.

1. It does not require an orbiting satellite to be threatening. All it takes is for a nuclear explosion to occur at a high enough altitude above the atmosphere at low-to-mid latitudes. Iran can simply launch a bomb onto a trajectory that is over international waters (to prevent EMP'ing itself), then explode it at an altitude of a few thousand km. The result will be to create an artificial radiation belt that will start frying satellites that are already in orbit. This is separate and longer lived than the prompt EMP process. See the article by Daniel Dupont in the May, 2004 issue of Scientific American for a detailed description of the threat.

2. Since this does not involve an "orbiting satellite" it is not covered by the UN treaty against the nuclear weaponization of space.

3. There is no known defense for this other than either destroying the rocket in its boost phase before it even leaves the atmosphere, or preventing its launch in the first place.

Well maybe Iran is looking for the hidden mosque in the sky, you know, the one that they heard the " call to prayer "for on the moon.

/sarc off.

Iran says has no intention to do so.

Head of Iran's Aerospace Organization, Reza Taghipour, said Iran wanted to help Muslim countries to launch satellites.
i wounder if that dummy could be used as a kinetic weapon' a a bomb untill it comes back to earth could be claimed to be a satilite

Update---

I just heard on Fox News that Contrary to Irans reporting, The Safir (ambassador) satellite-carrier FAILED shortly after takeoff---

Things like (this) drive me out of my mind. If they can orbit they can hit us with a warhead (of love).

Things like (this) drive me out of my mind.
If they can orbit they can hit us with a warhead (of love).

I almost never do that. Thought I'd make it worse by apologizing for it here. Sorry for the double post.

HA! A muslim space program? Is that kinda like the grassy knoll and the magic toenail?!?

Folks we are living through the most serious times times since WWII,

Is this satellite for peaceful purposes?

Yes.

Is anything from islam for peaceful purposes?

Yes.

Just ask Islamists. They'll tell you every rifle, every grenade, every mosque, every bullet, every rocket, every lump of C4 - all are for peaceful purposes 'in the cause of Allah'.

Any other questions?

I'd be quite surprised if Iranians manage to get this thing in orbit and operational. But one never knows...

US sources say the launch failed at the second stage.

Good news for the peaceful islamorealists out here...

3. There is no known defense for this other than either destroying the rocket in its boost phase before it even leaves the atmosphere, or preventing its launch in the first place.

Posted by: Eastview at August 18, 2008 4:44 PM

eastview has it precisely correct. There is no known defense for the EMP nuke.

They have improved the effectiveness of EMP nukes 50 times since 1962 (Starprime test) in case anyone doesn't want to believe this stuff. In 1962, which was an accidental EMP, there was no modern technology and semiconductors, which make up modern technology, are millions of times more sensitive to EMP than the old vacuum tubes used in 1962. Semiconductors only existed in the labs and a few top level experiments at that time.

All of you please remember this. The reason we are vulnerable to EMP is because not enough (only 1%) of you understand this stuff and since our politicians live in a world where perception is only 1% than that is their reality. SSpending the money to solve this problem would get them fired from their job. Perception is reality to them. (That is why you don't like them.)

..."but the U.S. intelligence assessment shows that the second stage "was erratic and out of control," said the official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.

The rocket "did not perform as designed," the official said.

Another U.S. defense official who also asked not to be named said the most immediate monitoring of the Iranian test came from the USS Russell in the Persian Gulf using its radar....

It is generally acknowledged that U.S. military and intelligence satellites have a long-standing capability to monitor rocket and missile launches around the world by detecting plumes and other launch emissions"....

So, we are monitoring any stray "plumes" that might indicate rocket launches, which means we also know where these launches are taking place, and then monitoring the flight from nearby ships' radar, which indicates an ability to strike the missiles and their launch sites while the launch is taking place.

Spot On, you seem to be a one trick pony type. Every time anything is mentioned concerning iran and missiles you go to the emp topic. While I realize that can be a potential problem of great magnitude, iran's first problem is getting a rocket far enough above ground to do some harm to any one other than themselves, and second, guiding that rocket over a target. And third, I would question that they even have an explosive capable of doing any damage at this time.
The age old oxymoron, "military intelligence", has lived up to its reputation recently, but I believe there are more things we are not told than what we are alllowed to know. More money has been spent watching and observing than you might think, and much more than you will ever know.
Later
Albert

@ GamblersChoice

Trust your government, my friend, they are here to help you.

It is not the government that I am trusting. The "government" is politicians, left and or right wing stuffed suits that care nothing about anything except furthering their own carrers. I am refering to the "shadow government", and their group of computer and science nerds who work on budgets that are not officially acknowledged, the black ops that cannot be confirmed or denied. I know people who are or have been involved in weapons development, covert operations, "painting" targets on enemy soil, operating in places we deny presence, (remember, we were never in cambodia, thailand or laos) etc.
I do not trust the gov'ment, but I do trust those who are really in charge.
And I don't see how your statement enforces your argument, nor how it breaks down mine. I can not concern myself with an emf attack from a group that can not manage much more than "estes" model rocket science, the first time they actually fire a weapons capable missile that clears the ground, they will probably destroy the nearest mosque, and blame that on the jooz.

Later
Albert

GamblersChoice

First let me say that I understand your position. I have a friend who feels the same way. And I too have faith in the "little" people that work within the government.

Having said that, there is nothing lost by being vigilant with respect to advanced weaponry, especially when it can kill so many people. Our people have been lulled into a comfortable mindset. They cannot comphrehend the thought of losing a war. And yet, every day the hords of Islam grow bigger by virtue of demographics. It is time for our people to wake up to reality.

For example, if Iran does get a crude bomb, another country could detonate a weapon upon us and blame it on Iran. Yes, Israel will likely take out Iran's nukes, at least I hope so. But is that not the job of the USA? What is wrong with this picture. We have a problem, not related to the "little" people in our government but related to our leaders, which I regularily criticize.

I fail to see why you should feel negative toward spreading valuable information about civil survival during the dangerous times that we are now living in. Nuke EMP's are not imaginary. They are very real. It is better to err on the side of "safe" than to err on the side of "sorry".
It takes nothing away from anyone to spread the word about EMP bombs, which only 1% of the people know anything about. Maybe we need to have 5% of the people know more about them. Wouldn't you agree? Then maybe some communities would take it upon themselves to prepare for some longer term emergency, which could be biological, EMP, nuclear, or otherwise.

I guess I fail to see your point in this argument.

Maybe I was just in a bad mood when I started posting in this thread, I don't know. The truth is that we seem to be on the same side, and it is obvious to us both that the general public is short on education about the things that matter, and long on the knowledge of the next dancing with the stars line up.
I guess that was the rub from this end, that I thought you were denegrating the people here for their lack of understanding of the emp threat, remembering that you made this point in a previous tread, but you made your points well, and I should acknowledge that.
Maybe we should move up to a newer thread, and put our energies into fighting our common enemy.
Later
Albert

I agree. And I never had any intention to denegrate the "little" people that really keep things going.

Newsflash--(IRNA) Mahdi offers al-Buraq to carry Islamic satellite into orbit; Allah prescribes orbital flightpath over Makkah.

Cow jumps over the Moon; Dish runs away with Spoon.

"Spot On, you seem to be a one trick pony type. Every time anything is mentioned concerning iran and missiles you go to the emp topic...."
Posted by: GamblersChoice August 19, 2008 9:13 AM

Gambler, Spot on does seem to be fixated on EMP and doesn't seem to have picked up on the threat posed by enhancement of the radiation belts, which is different. While EMP is, indeed, a problem, it represents only one of a whole range of threats created when nuclear weapons technology is married to ballistic missile technology.

Also, while the "little people" may be responsible for inventing the machines and keeping them running, it's the politicians, who are comparatively illiterate when it comes to modern science, who determine how they are used militarily.

Eastview

I greatly appreciate your comments because it is rare for me to hear from anyone who has the slightest knowledge of EMP and the disaster posed by satellite killing radiation belts caused by high altitude nuclear explosions.

I did discuss the radiation problem with satellites on my first attempt to discuss this potential terrorist inflicted disaster here a month or so ago. In fact, my first attempt met with so much resistance that I hesitated to bring EMP up a second time.

You are absolutely correct! The radiation caused by any high altitude nuclear explosion anywhere would destroy a huge amount of satellites and disrupt military and commercial communications worldwide. Few are aware (but I noted that you are) that the military uses mainly commercial channels for their communications. This means that Iran could cripple our communications with one high altitude nuke and not get anywhere near our continental borders. You have this totally correct.

Most people think that this is only some made up pipe dream disaster. They think that if it was that big a problem, the government would be doing something about it. I have done the research, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot find evidence that the government is doing anything concerning high altitude nuke attack precautions. My intuitive reasoning is that since no one knows anything about this subject, the government will just leave it that way and not say anything about it. (Thanks to our perception oriented politicians.)

Pardon me if it seems that I am "fixated" on EMP. My nature is to meet resistance with more pressure. Since I now know you are around with similar knowledge on the subject of EMP, I am sure to be more laid back in any future discussions.

Personally, I see high altitude nuclear explosions as the easiest way for terrorists to inflict the maximum amounts of damage on the West with the least amount of effort; that is, if they have nukes and a rocket to lift them to high altitude.

With practically no one understanding EMP, Iranian nukes may not seem to others to be as bad a problem as I see it. Thus, I could have appeared confrontational on the subject.
But sometimes we have to do that to “break the ice”.

Eastview

Do you happen to know if the US electrical grid is satellite dependent?

Spot on, Thanks for your extended comment. Sorry if I seemed disrespectful in my note above. It is clear you are on top of the situation regarding the multiple dangers posed by rogue states possessing access to the upper atmosphere and to space. Scientifically savvy posters don't seem to frequent this site, and when they do post about a topic within their area of expertise they often don't get much feedback. Yet, there are a few like you who weigh in on topics from time to time. This is good.

Although the general public isn't aware of these dangers, the U.S. government certainly is, even if they don't have it within their means to do anything about them. In the case of radiation belt enhancements DARPA has at least one high priority project to investigate remedial measures that can be taken in case North Korea gets frisky. See the article by Daniel Dupont in the May, 2004 issue of Scientific American.

The underlying problem, which has not been adequately addressed in my opinion, is that we have willy-nilly constructed and come to depend upon a vast technological infrastructure without adequate consideration of its fragility and the consequences of its failure. The problem of nukes in orbit is only one example of a far more pervasive set of problems we are creating for ourselves across a broad front because of unrestricted and unregulated deployment of technology.

I once had dinner with a French nuclear engineer soon after Chernobyl and ventured the opinion that inadequate studies had been performed about the wisdom of deploying any technology whose failure would render territory uninhabitable for longer than the mean lifetime of civilization (~500 years, whereas the half life of plutonium is 24,000 yrs). He scoffed at me, and said he was confident that the French systems would be just fine. I protested that the problem isn't just one of engineering safety, but more importantly the stability of the underlying state on which the safety of any large scale infrastructure ultimately rests. Noting that the present French government was the Fifth Republic, I inquired about what had happened to the previous four? The response was only a scowl, which is typical of the head-in-the-sand response of many within the scientific community who one would think should understand better than most the limitations of the technology they themselves have been responsible for developing.

The collapse of the FSU and the subsequent difficulties of securing their nuclear stockpile is another example that illustrates the problem. The political instability of Pakistan, with its small but deadly cache of nukes, is another, and Iran still another.

I'm not familiar with the details of the US electrical grid, so can't comment on specifics. But given the general headlong rush to embrace Internet technology, my guess is there is some degree of risk that depends on the degree to which external network technology has been woven into their control systems, and the degree to which this depends on satellite communications technology.

Eastview, Thank you so much for your comments. It is not just good, but great to talk to someone who understands this whole matter.