Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Unveils Its First UAV Bomber

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the hands-free-destruction dept.

The Military 574

ms_gen writes "Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled today the first UAV bomber produced by Iran. The drone, named Karrar (farsi for Striker) can carry various types of bombs. It can reach up to 900 km/h in speed and has a range of 1000 kilometers (620 miles). The Iranian president mentions that 'Karrar is a symbol of the progress of defence technology in Iran.'"

cancel ×

574 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Produced by..." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334842)

Who cares?

That's good stuff (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334846)

That's good stuff, the Iranians should use that to bomb the shit out of the americans in the middle east. Turn them into foam toast.

Re:That's good stuff (-1, Flamebait)

krapski (1478035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334864)

That's good stuff, the Iranians should use that to bomb the shit out of the americans in the middle east. Turn them into foam toast. The americans as foam toast!

Re:That's good stuff (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334900)

great idea - then I can start marketing my specially designed oil drilling bits that can cut through the green glass that will be covering all of Persia

Re:That's good stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334982)

Yes, it would be perfect the worlds' biggest WalMart parking lot ---- plenty of space, and you won't hit any carts.

Re:That's good stuff (-1, Flamebait)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334996)

Won't hurt my feelings at all....As long as they manage to wipe out Israel in the process...

-Oz

Left out the best part (5, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334852)

How can one summarize this bit of news, and leave out the fact that Iran refers to this UAV as "The Ambassador Of Death?" I mean, come on. That's the best part.

Re:Left out the best part (5, Funny)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334984)

I personally found it hilarious that he said: "This jet is a messenger of honour and human generosity and a saviour of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind," President Ahmadinejad said after unveiling the Karrar at a ceremony with defence officials." Gotta love the human generosity symbolized by weaponry.

Re:Left out the best part (3, Funny)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335012)

FINISH HIM!

FRIENDSHIP!

Re:Left out the best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335102)

Bombs cost a lot and he's generously giving it to other people!

Also energy is expensive, so by exploding them, he's giving them *free* energy! Generous!

Re:Left out the best part (2, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335156)

It must lose something in translation...

Re:Left out the best part (0, Flamebait)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335364)

Gotta love the human generosity symbolized by weaponry.

Actually, that does make sense. Arguably, by nuking Israel, Iran would be generous towards the Palestinians. Never mind that they'll get a full share of fallout.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335008)

Indeed...I mean...take the US army for example....they name their massive AirCraft carriers after former presidents...THATS LAME!

They should let RPG gamers decide the names of weapons...i mean...how cool would it be if they named some of the cool toys as USS Demogorgon, MIM-104 Beholder, +12 F-15.

Sure reality can be cold and depressing but it still can be a little MAGICAL!!! ....I have no idea why i made this post...

Re:Left out the best part (2, Informative)

OSDever (792851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335180)

Last I checked, all the massive AirCraft [sic] carriers were owned by the US Navy.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

CaroKann (795685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335010)

"The Ambassador Of Death" sounds like the type of phrase Fox News would like. Is Iran intentionally angling for Fox attention? Why?

Re:Left out the best part (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335050)

Because their leadership is 100% okay with going out in a blaze of glory.

Re:Left out the best part (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335072)

Is Iran intentionally angling for Fox attention? Why?

I hear Ahmadinejad has the hots for Rupert Murdoch.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335192)

"The Ambassador Of Death" sounds like the type of phrase Fox News would like. Is Iran intentionally angling for Fox attention? Why?

Because his brand of politics does best when the "other side" gets riled up.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335204)

Sounds like Doctor Who.

"I bring Sutekh's gift of Death to all humanity."

Re:Left out the best part (0, Troll)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335278)

"The Ambassador Of Death" sounds like the type of phrase Fox News would like. Is Iran intentionally angling for Fox attention? Why?

If violent anti-American factions around the world haven't been allied with the Republican Party for the past nine years, this has been the most uncanny series of mutually beneficial coincidences in modern history.

Re:Left out the best part (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335016)

Looks like a German V1 if you ask me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb [wikipedia.org]

Except the Germans had the sense to put the bomb inside.

Re:Left out the best part (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335068)

Damn straight. Heaven knows naming your UAVs something ominous is a sure sign of evil. Killing a few hundred innocent civilians per month with the lilly-themed "Predator" drones is something entirely different...

All of these anti-war people complaining about the tens of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan don't seem to understand: Iran has leaders who threaten violence, with really mean sounding words. How is it that they only seem to criticize America?

Re:Left out the best part (3, Interesting)

swissmonkey (535779) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335340)

That's probably due to the fact that Iran has never invaded another country, while it found itself attacked by Iraq without any valid justification. Back then Iraq was supported by pretty much the entire western world. I won't even go into how the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government to replace it with a dictatorship(the Shah)

End result: Iran has every reason to build up its defences. History has shown Iran that the western world's propaganda about justice and fairness only applies to them, not to other countries, that the western world will support unjustified attacks on Iran and thus they need to be able to defend themselves.

Standing and fighting is for glass makers (5, Interesting)

Shihar (153932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335292)

This thing is a gimmick. It is a small cruise missile with remote capabilities. The bomb on it is a tiny little dumb thing that isn't going to hurt anyone unless it hits them directly, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that the avionics on that drone don't amount to much more than a camera bolted on. In defense against the presumed target, the US, this thing is a novelty. The US gets giddy over electronic warfare and this thing is asking have its connection severed. The fuel and explosives are better spent on a missile that doesn't bother to return home and doesn't need an operator to guide it in. This does nothing to help the defense of Iran against the style of combat the US uses.

If you are going to fight the US, and you are not China or Russia, you need to fight dispersed, hidden, and from cover. The only time it is worthwhile to fully stand and fight is if the victory you achieve is worth the destruction of the force you are having stand and fight. It is worthwhile to launch a massive simultaneous missile on a US carrier battle group with everything you have knowing that force will be destroyed. If you kill a carrier, the fact that you just destroyed your missile force is worth it. Outside of that though, you need to fight with the understanding that the US has the capability to glass the shit out of any arbitrary size of land using just conventional weapons. Your goal as the defender is to make it so that your forces are concealed and doing hit and runs, and so never standing around waiting to be glassed, or to fight from a position the US is unwilling to destroy. Namely, if you fight from a city the US won't level the city World War II style. They might knock down the buildings one by one trying to take out suspected military units, but the won't just level the place in one swipe like they could with a few MOABs. This glorified cruise missile doesn't help this style of fighting. It can't be launched by field units, and even if it could, it is going to lead the US back to your position assuming it even makes it back. You are better off to launch a missile that isn't expected to return or, even better, save the money to arm your city bound army with more and better RPGs.

Personally, if I had to organize the defense of Iran from the US, the only conventional forces I would bother with would be sea mines and easily concealed cruise missiles. The only point of those forces would be to try and sacrifice themselves in doing damage to the ocean going invasion force. The rest of my defense would involve the army stripping down into civilian clothing the second the invasion hits and dispersing into the population with a plan, and giving everyone a (civilians included) gun. Train the army in guerrilla tactics, cache weapons and explosives all over the place, and never even make the pretense of fighting with uniforms on. Encourage the civilians to fight in their own amateurish way not to inflict any real harm, but to blur the line between military and civilian in the eyes of the enemy as much as possible. The only military tech worthwhile would be the kind useful to guerrilla forces. Bike bombs, all manner of concealed explosives, easily concealed weapons, concealed body armor, methods of communicating across cells and receiving orders, methods of smuggling, modified civilian vehicles (that still look civilian) with military applications, and that sort of thing are the techs worth developing in earnest. You still need the capacity to fight a conventional war against your neighbors, but the real threat, the US, is a fight you don't want to do standing up. The US loves nothing more than to see massive troop formations all lined up nice and orderly in a big open desert. See Iraq War part 1 for what happens to armies that stand.

Re:Left out the best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335302)

Amazing considering how much sanctions are supposed to be taking a toll. I wonder how much these investments in military are impacting the citizens. We may see another Iranian revolution yet.

Re:Left out the best part (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335338)

I wonder how much these investments in military are impacting the citizens. We may see another Iranian revolution yet.

Not much. This is a PR stunt to go along with Iran opening their brand new nuke plant. It (the drone) doesn't cost much - it looks less sophisticated than half the stuff they build on Mythbusters.

Re:Left out the best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335360)

Arabic citation needed.

            anyone?

Farsi?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334868)

It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?

Re:Farsi?? (1)

omidaladini (940882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335028)

True. Persian is the English word for "Farsi", that is a Persian word.

Re:Farsi?? (5, Interesting)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335040)

It's called Persian. You don't go around saying "in espanol it's called..." do you?

THANK YOU! Here's a PDF [iran-heritage.org] that lays out some of the arguments against calling the language Farsi. We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?

Re:Farsi?? (2, Insightful)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335202)

Nah, I just call Bostonese, Bostonese. I wouldn't call it English.

Re:Farsi?? (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335264)

We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?

No, we call them the Kennedy's.

Re:Farsi?? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335304)

THANK YOU! Here's a PDF [iran-heritage.org] that lays out some of the arguments against calling the language Farsi. We don't go around calling the English that people from Boston speak as "Bostonese", do we?

Regardless of the argument, your example leaves much to be desired. People from Lebanon speak Lebanese. If we shouldn't call the language of people from Boston "Bostonese", you're saying we SHOULD call the language of people from Persia "Persian"? That's exactly like calling the language of people from Philadelphia "Philadelphian".

wtf (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334892)

wtf does this have to do with 'news for nerds' /. is becoming less and less relevant

Re:wtf (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334906)

...The fact that UAVs were the stuff of science fiction for years until they started becoming commonplace?

Re:wtf (1, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334946)

You mean 1944? That's when UAVs became commonplace.

Re:wtf (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334956)

Great. So now we'll get a story about Turkey or Romania fielding its first UAV?

I can't wait.

Re:wtf (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334970)

They both already operate UAV's, so I think such a story is unlikely.

Re:wtf (1)

ingilizdili (1882996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335022)

You seem to ignore the fact that Turkey, my country, is within obvious range of this missile, not the USA or most western European countries. Iran has never been a real friend with Turkey. Our relations appear to depend on the political stability in Turkey as Iran was a supporter of the terrorist organization PKK not long ago, with which it now seems to be struggling. Moreover, why shouldn't we have that aircraft? Don't we have the right to be strong and deterrant?

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335266)

Don't we have the right to be strong and deterrant?

Rest assured Turkey is very deterrent.

Re:wtf (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335284)

I think people just find it funny when little countries get all excited about having a few jets or bombs. Ultimately it's about the friends you make. Iran is a pissy little country, but Russia is behind it, so if Israel bombs the reactor, it'll kill Russians and they'll get involved - it's not just a few bearded turds with big words but small defence budgets. Likewise with Turkey - they pose a threat to no-one, militarily. There's never going to be a war over Cyprus or whatever. Ultimately the US are on your side cos you're right next door (and a flight path to) all the trouble. I'm surprised there's surprise from the UN and whoever else about people not giving more aid to Pakistan after the floods. They've got nuclear weapons! People aren't stupid. They're not going to give money to a country to effectively subsidize their nuclear program when they're perfectly capable of spending a few million on boats, water purifiers, move food/medicine around etc.

Re:wtf (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334910)

I think this falls under "Stuff that Matters".

You know, since this is yet another "antagonize the West" type of action by Iran.

Re:wtf (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334950)

More like "antagonize Israel and end up bringing a world of hurt upon oneself" or "how to commit suicide."

Our (America's) military fucks around because our moron leaders love to play politics and leach every bit of $$$$ out of defense-related conflicts, and not let the military do its job the way it should, because we're halfway around the world and our "enemies" can barely prick us from there.

Israel on the hand doesn't fuck around, since they are the primary target of jihadists, so there the politicians are very aware that it's a matter of survival. I'd say Iran is foolhardy in their nuclear and medium-range weapon efforts.

Re:wtf (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335014)

The UAE, Qatar and Saudis are all leery as hell about Iran right now too.

Re:wtf (1, Insightful)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334974)

So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?

OK.

But it's still not newsworthy.

Re:wtf (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335108)

Iran can and has struck first. Iran can and has recently used chemical weapons.

Fully expect Iran to move into Iraq once US troops leave. they will do so under the same supposed reason the USA did, to stablize the region, and defend the shites from the kurds and sunni's.

Re:wtf (2, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335142)

So, when Iran defends itself from what they see as an imperialist nation, they're antagonizing the West?

OK.

But it's still not newsworthy.

Oh my, yes it is. This particular UAV doesn't have the range to threaten Israel (that would require another 500km at least), but you can bet that Iran wants the world to think that the next one will. Militarily, a UAV would be an less-than-ideal delivery mechanism for a nuclear weapon, but it might prove viable if it were able to fly low-and-slow with a negligible radar profile.

Iran's closer neighbours, meanwhile, have all been served notice, too. This is Iran's way of saying, 'Don't fuck with us.' Remember that most neighbouring countries do not love the Shi'ite version of Islam, which is a majority religion only in Iran and Iraq, I believe. Think back to the European wars that accompanied the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Shias and Sunnis are kind of like Catholics and Protestants. Peaceful now, but often at odds with one another.

Lastly, this is Iran thumbing its nose at US-sponsored economic sanctions. Effectively, they're saying, 'No matter what you do to thwart us, we can still acquire the technologies we want to be the threat you don't want us to be. So why not sit down and allow us to negotiate a better place for ourselves in the region?'

Re:wtf (1)

zfractal (170078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334976)

Don't know if this would count as a major threat. It certainly might antagonize the West, but when you think about it, to fly UAVs effectively you need a remote base (aka out of enemy range) to operate them from. In other words, your UAVs are only as effective as their operators are secure. Good strategy for the US, perhaps not so good for Iran.

Re:wtf (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335034)

Or at the very least an attempt to keep up with western technology, a month ago the UK unveiled the Corax for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Corax), the french have the Dassault nEuron (Dassault nEUROn) or any of the many other armed UAV's.

What a country like iran doing this is show us how easy it is to do half decent version of this technology, and if it comes to a shooting war, how easy they are to hack.

Re:wtf (5, Insightful)

delire (809063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335096)

You know, since this is yet another "antagonize the West" type of action by Iran.

Right, just to clear this up: the fact they've developed their own UAV bomber is purely to spite the 'West' whereas any similar defense technology development by a western nation should never be construed as antagonising the Middle East, let alone Iran. Furthermore, Iran should not by any means be allowed the same fear sodden defense industry that the West so covets and they should simply accept that.

OK, thanks, I think I've got it now - you're schlepping the same drag-and-drop late-night-international-espionage-TV-drama idiocy that practically defines the geo-political arrogance of our precious West in the eyes of others.

You ought to remember that many countries see the supposed leader of the West, The U.S, as a terrible and amoral aggressor, having willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons), continues to stockpile nuclear weapons munitions while chastising the rest of the world for doing so using trade and political embargoes, trades big-brother-style protection rackets to arm-bend smaller countries into accepting U.S military bases, has camps in which they not only 'disappear' but spiritually and psychologically humiliate the prisoners using methods not seen since Vietnam (the list goes on). This is the stuff they see in talk shows on their TVs, read in their opinion columns in their newspapers, talk about in political science classes at high-school, etc...

Just to point you to the other side of the coin where the opinions of 6 or so billion other people may differ from your picture of it all.

Re:wtf (1)

zfractal (170078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335168)

Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.

Re:wtf (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335242)

Well, to be honest, it does seem like more of a "we can do that too!" type of gesture. The US employs UAVs because, right or wrong, our military presence is effectively everywhere.

The UAV does seem to be the poster-child of US military power in the region. Whether or not the Iranian weapon system is effective on the battlefield probably isn't as important as the propaganda it will generate.

Re:wtf (1)

zfractal (170078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335282)

Can't disagree there, or speak to what propaganda effect it might have. As far as the military is concerned, though, I think this announcement will have little impact. AKA no one cares.

On the other hand, perhaps this gesture speaks of the Iranian leadership's thoughts on being an important player on the world stage. Good luck to them.. frankly I think they'd be more effective if they explored other avenues.

Re:wtf (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335412)

... having willfully used WMDs against civilians (carpet bombing, nuclear weapons), continues to stockpile nuclear weapons munitions while chastising the rest of the world for doing so using trade and political embargoes, trades big-brother-style protection rackets to arm-bend smaller countries into accepting U.S military bases, has camps in which they not only 'disappear' but spiritually and psychologically humiliate the prisoners using methods not seen since Vietnam (the list goes on)....

You left out trumped up rape charges.

Re:wtf (1)

omidaladini (940882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335038)

Tries to help nerds get to know what's happening.

Translation (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335070)

What this AC wrote really means, "I'm not interested in this, therefore nobody in the world is, either."

The Key Message is Friendship (1)

Asmodaie (1823348) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334920)

According to TFA. Diplomats are the same in all countries it seems.

Typical (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334932)

Just what I'd expect from Iran, the use of UnAmerican Vile Bombers. So unlike the Righteous Holy American Bombers used by our own beloved military. It's like how Iraq stooped to deploying weapons of mass destruction; something we'd never dream of doing. At this rate we're going to have to liberate the entire world.

Contradiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334944)

The US said it saw no "proliferation risk" from the plant, though Israel condemned the move.

Regarding the US's position, that pretty much contradicts everything I've been hearing in the news.

Defensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334948)

That's a good one. A bomber being a defensive weapon. Hahahaha

Limited Value (1, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334958)

I suppose if you're interested in terrorizing people in your own country it works, but military applications pretty much require that the user control the skies. Otherwise they'll just get shot down in short order.

And numbers only count if you can crank them out, something I suspect Iran might have a hard time with.

Re:Limited Value (3, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335062)

I don't know about this particular area, but Iran's industrial sector is more advanced than you might think. There is an extensive auto industry. Though it manufactures under licenses from foreign companies (the most common vehicle is a variant of the Peugeot 206), modifications have been designed and implemented in Iran. Iran is no banana republic.

Re:Limited Value (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335104)

Sure, but honestly? This is a pretty stupid move by Iran, first announce a nuclear reactor coming online for "peaceful" purposes then announce this? About the only worse thing they could have announced was a new ICBM.

Re:Limited Value (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335200)

About the only worse thing they could have announced was a new ICBM.

Yeah, about that [telegraph.co.uk] .

Re:Limited Value (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335222)

Its not an ICBM though, its just a medium range missile that almost every country has.

Re:Limited Value (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335250)

Right...def not an ICBM. But an announcement of another iteration of theater range weapons.

Re:Limited Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335366)

Sure, but honestly? This is a pretty stupid move by Iran, first announce a nuclear reactor coming online for "peaceful" purposes then announce this? About the only worse thing they could have announced was a new ICBM.

Looks to me like they're playing things very very smart, actually. They've succeeded in getting a nuclear reactor opened and unveiled a UAV bomber without making any explicit threats at all. Sure, the US and Israel are throwing tantrums, but they haven't got quite enough to warrant a unilateral strike. So to a third party, it looks like Iran has generated some wariness in its enemies, shown off a retaliatory capability, upgraded its infrastructure, and all without any (recent) threats of violence.

Put another way, they've made a couple of decent strategic moves in a cold war. Their enemies have the choice of either (a) starting a hot war (which they'd win promptly but would be unimaginably costly in almost every way), or else (b) continuing the cold war and wasting their counter-move on sabre-rattling. All Iran needs to do now is wait for the shitstorm to die down, and then they get to make their next move. Win-win.

Sure they'd lose a hot war in a moment. But it looks to me like they're winning the cold war at the moment.

Re:Limited Value (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335400)

military applications pretty much require that the user control the skies

And you only control the skies if you have the most advanced hardware in the world. Creating an autonomous unmanned aircraft is not so hard, the Germans did that in WWII, the big question is if that aircraft can defeat its enemies.

Iraq in 1991 had slightly obsolete Soviet weapons, the US took no notice of them.

"Great" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33334960)

And Iran just opened its first nuclear power plant. Hm, this thing has a range of 1000mi. Iran's stated objective is to discontinue the existence of the Israeli state.

1) Say you are going to blow up Israel
2) Build a nuke plant claiming its for peaceful purposes.
3) Build a UAV ("The Ambassador of Death") bomber with a range of 1000mi.
4) Blow the shit out of Israel
5) Face NCB retaliation from a country with absolutely nothing left to lose.

If you weren't paying attention Iran views 4 as the profit step and doesn't seem to care about 5. Note the lack of "???" step. These sure are interesting/frightening times.

Re:"Great" (0, Troll)

linzeal (197905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335024)

They have close to 200 million people, how can you say they have nothing left to lose? US companies announce armed UAVs almost daily now, are you showing them the same sort of scrutiny considering Iran has never launched a hostile war in over 100 years? Thought so.

Re:"Great" (1)

zfractal (170078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335090)

If an education is the font of all liberty, a fact can be more than merely useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran [wikipedia.org]

Iran has a population of about 75 million. It doesn't counteract your point, but thought you'd like to know.

Re:"Great" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335406)

Based on your response, you seem to have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't claiming Iran (population approx 200000000) would have nothing left to lose, I was claiming *Israel* (population approx 8000000) would have nothing left to lose if they were nuked by Israel. Given the destructive capacity of a modern nuclear weapon and the relative density of both the population and infrastructure of the Israeli state, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a nuclear strike by Iran would leave Israel with nothing left to lose. Nuclear/Chemical/Biological retaliation would also not be unreasonable to expect from the hawkish elements (sadly the most likely to survive a first strike) of the Israeli populous.

Let me be clear that I'm not making a statement against Iran or for Israel (or the inverse). I'm merely commenting that Israel's stated policy is that they want to exist without state (or state-sponsored, or non-state) attacks on a constant basis. Iran on the other hand has stated that they want to exist without interference, and want to see another state (Israel) "erased from time".

Now, to address your concern about the US. A few points, regardless of what you want to say about the US's aggression record (which, as a student of history I will say is actual approximately comparable to Iran's, if in an isomorphic, rather than congruent respect). Additionally, in both cases "past performance is no indication of future success". US corporations do *not* announce armed UAVs daily. Reconnaissance drones yes, armed platforms are slightly less frequent, but that's a quibble. The important thing to consider is that most of the platforms developed by US companies are just that, developed by companies, not governments. And considering that the US is engaged in shooting conflicts at the moment (regardless of cause) this should be less troubling than a nation not at conflict, ostensibly with the stated objective of conflict (once again regardless of specific record), developing new armed platforms. Basically I find it more troubling that saber rattling parties are amassing arms than I do that actual combatants are continuing development on existing arms. Furthermore the US companies are often developing their platforms in competition to one another, going after the same narrow range of contracts. When one of them wins the contract the other designs are scrapped, regardless of the corporate fanfare at their introduction.

Lastly I'm going to reiterate that the truly disturbing issue, IMHO, is the timing of this in relation to Iran's opening of its first nuclear facility. While this facility is (currently) peaceful, there is no technical barrier to its military use, and given its history of development neither I nor the rest of the known world would find its conversion for military purposes even the least bit surprising. Even if I were to concede all of your other arguments this alone justifies concern. Even if the US is rolling out armed drones daily, we aren't simultaneously bringing online/rolling out whatever weapons systems come after nukes. (Sure we have nukes now, but we have for the past 60 years, when we haven't had UAVs, so the temporal relevance argument really doesn't come into play.)

In short, yes I am concerned about this and Iran's nuclear announcement and their relative timing. Yes I do think that they intend to make good on their threats against Israel (if they can't/won't yet). And I think that your attempt to draw parallels to the US is an absurdity of ivory-tower academic thought being perpetuated by someone without real understanding of the context, history, or issues.

(Sorry to post AC, but I am the same AC as above)

Ok really... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33334978)

Ok, really Iran? If you really want to be credible, you have to stop announcing military things when you have a "civilian" project going. So first off you make a nuclear reactor come online. No problem there, then on the same day you announce that you've upgraded your weaponry... I really, really want to believe that Iran just wants to use the energy for peaceful purposes... But with timing like this... it isn't going to make the west trust you anymore Iran.

V-1 with turbojet (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335002)

Video of a test launch and production.

http://vodpod.com/watch/4282312-iranian-karrar-drone [vodpod.com]

Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.

Re:V-1 with turbojet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335098)

Where did they put the landing gear?

Re:V-1 with turbojet (3, Funny)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335236)

Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.

I guess that the Germans in 1940 made a whole lot of comments of that sort when they started to see Russia's T-34s entering action. How did that went out?

Re:V-1 with turbojet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335308)

Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.

I guess that the Germans in 1940 made a whole lot of comments of that sort when they started to see Russia's T-34s entering action. How did that went out?

The T-34 was actually technically quite advanced in a lot of quantitatively measurable ways compared to the top of the line German equipment. The Ambassador of Death isn't close to the level of modern western drones, let alone run of the mill 30 year old cruise missiles or manned bombers.

Re:V-1 with turbojet (2, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335372)

Looks alot like a V-1 or Loon but with hard points on the wings and turbojet instead of pulse jet. So late 50s technology designed with CAD. Probably a 30-40% failure rate on them too, that's standard for first or second generation cruise missiles/drones.

Oh goody, so 60-70% of them will hit their target?

As for late 50s technology designed with CAD, doesn't that describe NATO planes these days? Has there been a major breakthrough since the jet engine? Apart from fly by wire guidance systems which they will certainly be using. .

Re:V-1 with turbojet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335404)

Video of a test launch and production.

http://vodpod.com/watch/4282312-iranian-karrar-drone [vodpod.com]

Did that video even show the main engine starting? All I saw was the rocket used to launch it (detaching with its parachute after 1.5 seconds), then cut to a landing

FFS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335030)

NUKE. THEM. NOW.

Irrelevant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335044)

The US could bomb the shit out of the whole world if they really wanted to, and *everyone* knows that. A pathetic looking UAV isn't going to change one thing. Launch it, bomb Tel Aviv and find out just how irrelevant you are. Go ahead. Iran wiould be flattened in a matter of days. Launch the B-1 bombers from Missouri, they fly to Iran, drop their massive ordinances and fly back, all without hindrence. Anyone who doesn't understand just how powerful the US military is doesn't know how to read. The only reason why wars drag on is because the play kiddie war. If this were World War III you'd know it, because it would be over in 2 weeks.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335146)

Yeah, we could nuke them and bomb them but what would that accomplish? There will be another nuclear country, what do we do then? Eventually, if we keep up that strategy we end up with a country either too big to bomb or a country with enough bombs to destroy the US just like the Soviet Union. Diplomacy is the only reliable way to diffuse situations like this. Yeah, nuking Iran would buy us a decade possibly but eventually the US is going to have to realize that the west/Russia simply can't have a nuclear monopoly, it is impossible. If we could do it in the 1940s, chances are 3rd world countries can do it in 2010, even better when the 3rd world country is owned by a virtual dictator.

War breeds more war, diplomacy can keep peace. Look at WWI which bred WWII which bred the Cold War which helped breed many of the current conflicts. And I'm sure if you looked further you could see that there were conflicts which caused WWI

Re:Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335246)

That's just stupid. The US doesn't threaten India, Pakistan, Israel, England, etc. It's not just that they will get nukes, it's that they are crazy enough to use them. Diplomacy doesn't work on fanatics. And often it doesn't work otherwise. Chamberlain tried diplomacy 1937-1939. In case you don't know see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement to see how well that worked out.

Re:Irrelevant (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335352)

The US doesn't threaten them because they are allies, the moment Pakistan stops cooperating with the "war on terror" the media and government will be just as hostile to them as we are to Iran.

Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force. In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power it was also the thing that pissed off Japan.

Re:Irrelevant (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335316)

eventually the US is going to have to realize that the west/Russia simply can't have a nuclear monopoly

What are you talking about? You do understand that there are many other countries with nuclear weapons, right? First, there's that funny litte country out east ... "China" or something like that. I suppose you'd rather forget about the UK, and France, and Pakistan, and South Africa, and India ... why, I'm not sure. But you have an odd working definition of "monopoly" (which is funny, because even in the way you used it, you implied that the US and Russia are somehow a single entity. Which is ridiculous.

War breeds more war, diplomacy can keep peace. Look at WWI which bred WWII

What are you talking about? It was diplomacy that bought Germany enough time to gear up for WWII. Google for "peace in our time" just for a refresher.

WWII which bred the Cold War

Have you actually ever studied any of this? The Cold War was between, essentially, the Soviet Block and everyone else (primarily the US and NATO allies). This wasn't about anything that happened in WWII, it was about the communist totalitarians running the USSR looking to forcibly model the rest of the world in the same fashion. It was the deterrent threat of an unwinnable nuclear war that ended that horrible regime.

And I'm sure if you looked further you could see that there were conflicts which caused WWI

You're completely missing the point. It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI. It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc. Physical conflict errupted as a means by which to resolve those differences - because talking about them did not, of course, actually change anything. The entire history of Europe involves thousands of years of territorial, religious, and familial squabbling over turf, power, and resources. War (against the Germans, twice) was what ended that. War with the Soviets never happened, and their system collapsed under its own ponderous, confiscatory, non-productive, Nanny State weight.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335158)

Amen! :).

Re:Irrelevant (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335356)

World War III would last until some nuclear power felt that they were in serious danger of losing previously-held and non-disputed territory to an enemy. They'd drop a few tactical nukes on the invaders and the nuclear war would be on. Then it would leave little choice for everyone else involved because suddenly someone declared that they don't mind using nukes to put them at a tactical advantage. It wouldn't be a far stretch for said nuclear power to then decide that nuking someone else's border to soften up their defenses and prevent losses of their own forces. From there, it wouldn't be a far stretch for said nuclear power to then decide that nuking someone else's farm lands or industrial centers to prevent losses of their own forces in the future.

Indeed, it really is a slippery slope. The problem with nuclear weapons isn't that someone may use one and then stop, the problem is that once someone uses them, it's a lot easier to justify future uses for similar reasons.

Oh, the timing of this (1)

jarek (2469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335048)

Though I'm not sure about the ultimate purpose Bushehr, it does seem to be designed for producing electricity and not weapons grade plutonium, the timing is really bad. I mean, first they load Bushehr and two days later they announce the "ambasador of death". It's almost like a bad fiction novel. You simply couldn't make this stuff up. My guess, it's all for internal propaganda but possibly also for Hezbollah.

Re:Oh, the timing of this (5, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335220)

No, it is pretty obvious that Ahmedinejad has calculated that he will gain from provoking a war with Israel. And he is probably right.

His behavior only appears to be irrational if you believe that either Israel would win a quick victory in a war with Iran by itself or that the US would quickly enter the fight to defend Israel in a war that it started against the express advice of the US. I don't think either is very likely to be the case. Iran clearly has a much higher tolerance for civilian casualties. They can accept casualties in the hundreds of thousands while the Israeli government could hardly survive if Israeli casualties reached the low thousands in an unprovoked war that it began without any immediate threat.

China is heavily dependent on Iranian oil. Both China and Russia would come out with uncompromising condemnations of Israeli aggression. The choice facing Obama would be to force an Israeli ceasefire or start World War 3.

it is a fairly obvious trap and it is highly unlikely that Israel is going to fall for it. The consequences would be catastrophic if it did.

Instead, Israel appears to be trying to invite a preemptive strike by Iran on Israel which would be disastrous for Iran for much the same reasons.

This is what we get... (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335094)

I don't know why anyone is surprised at this latest development. We insisted on utilizing UAVs for more than "surveillance" purposes, so now everyone else is starting to get the same idea.

-Oz

So uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335148)

Anyone else notice the irony of today also being when they announced their first /Nuclear/ Power Plant?

"UAV"?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335196)

At least roll-out something more advanced than a V-1 before calling it a UAV...

UAV heaven (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335228)

The AI has been promised 72 virgin iPads after it completes it's mission.

www.diydrones.com? (1)

foofoofoo (80199) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335230)

Decent chance pretty much anyone could cobble something together these days. Or at least take a reasonable crack at it.

First Strike or Deadman Switch? (1, Insightful)

turtleshadow (180842) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335274)

From the BBC photos it looks either to be 1) a first strike weapon as its not designed for reuse or 2) is part of a deadman switch retaliation for a strike against the iranian homeland.

Nazi V1 inspired rocket powered sled drones need not be rail based (iran has a few lines) but could be launched from modified SEA containers off semi-trucks (the drone quite stubby in wingspan) or dropped the wheeled carriage after takeoff.

Tactically in a moving / shooting war I doubt these are useful as they are easily destroyed on the ground after satellites and enemy surveillance drones pick them out of the other targets.

Denying lengthy roads, rail lines and destroying trucking depots would be the "counter offensive"

Now back to starcraft II.

greatest difficulty to this point.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335276)

The greatest difficulty so far is keeping the pilot with his Futaba radio within the quarter mile radio range of the plane to fly it.

Cruise Missiles are weapons of offense... (1)

arthurh3535 (447288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335286)

Right? I mean, defensive missiles would be like SAMs and such, not a missile or bomb delivery system that can travel so far...

More BS from IRAN. It's getting to be that whatever they say, just take it in an opposite way.

Well... (1)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335288)

This can only end well. I for one, can't WAIT to meet this new 'ambassador'.

Wow - they invented a V1. What's next? (1)

paper tape (724398) | more than 3 years ago | (#33335318)

Wow - they invented a V1. What's next? Television?

Good News/Bad News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33335358)

The bad news is Iran is run by crazies.
The good news is this puts us one step closer to real life robot wars!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>