Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This is, of course, in response to the bonehead idea of the Bush administration to try and deploy a missle shield which is impossible to do, at least at anytime in the near future.

---------------------------------------------------------
MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.




Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems.

"I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."

No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005.

News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.

Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.

Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...uclear_weapons

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This is, of course, in response to the bonehead idea of the Bush administration to try and deploy a missle shield which is impossible to do, at least at anytime in the near future.

What a load of crap that statement is.

Yeah it's a real boneheaded idea to try and develop a system that would protect US from a nuclear missle.

Furthermore, Putin said before Bush proposed the idea of a nuclear shield that they were going to improve their military and the nuclear missles were specificially mentioned.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by rascal

What a load of crap that statement is.

Yeah it's a real boneheaded idea to try and develop a system that would protect US from a nuclear missle.

Furthermore, Putin said before Bush proposed the idea of a nuclear shield that they were going to improve their military and the nuclear missles were specificially mentioned.

Sure is when it doesn't work and we spend 100s of billions of dollars on it.
And Putin was elected in March of 2000, when did he first say he was going to develop missiles to avoid any kind of shield system?

Do your research and come back.

[Rascal]

You think we are going to develop something on that big of a scale without failures and without spending money? How many times did it take to develop the lightbulb, and how many failures did we have with the manhattan project? Sorry but just because we suddenly decide to do something doesn't mean its going to immediately happen. I would gladly have us pay 100 trillions of dollars if it means that should a missle be launched at us we will be able to knock it out before it could harm the US. Apparently you would rather sacrifice a major city then pay that. Sad.

No **** sherlock. I remember him saying something to that effect back in 1998 when Yeltsin made him director of the FSB. I've looked for the article but I can't find it. Since your obviously not going to believe me on it then nevermind.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Pentagon admits missile shield may not work - but it may be vote winner
By Bradley Graham in Washington
March 13, 2004

Printer friendly version Print this article
Email to a friend Email to a friend

With the US only months away from fielding a national anti-missile shield, the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator said he could not be sure the system would be able to knock down North Korean missiles fired at the US, the system's main initial purpose.

With the US requesting $US10.2 billion ($13.8 billion) for missile defence in the 2005 financial year alone, officials on the project faced intense questioning at a Senate armed services committee hearing on Thursday.

The Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator, Thomas Christie, told the committee the system was insufficiently developed to validate Pentagon computer models showing it would be effective.

"So at this time we cannot be sure that the actual system would work against a real North Korean missile threat?" asked Senator Jack Reed.

"I would say that's true," Mr Christie replied.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true

US Missile Shield Won't Work: Scientist Group
by Jim Wolf


WASHINGTON - The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said on Thursday.

A technical analysis found "no basis for believing the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack," the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a 76-page report titled Technical Realities.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency rejected the report.

"It will provide a defense against incoming missiles for the first time in this country's history," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman.

The Pentagon's initial deployment involves 10 interceptor missiles in silos in Alaska and California. It is designed to protect all 50 U.S. states against a limited strike from North Korean missiles that could be tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

Boeing Co. is assembling the shield, which would use the interceptors to launch "kill vehicles" meant to pulverize targets in the mid-course of their flight paths, outside the Earth's atmosphere. Using infrared sensors, the vehicles would search the chill of space for the warheads. So far, the interceptors have scored hits five times in eight highly controlled tests.

The Missile Defense Agency "appears to be picking numbers out of thin air," the report said of past Pentagon assertions of a high probability of shooting down targets.

"There is no data to justify such an assumption," added the scientists' group, which is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Its findings dovetailed with an audit last month by Congress's General Accounting Office that said the system's effectiveness would be "largely unproven" when the initial capability goes on alert.

DANGEROUS POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Even unsophisticated countermeasures that could be mounted by countries such as North Korea remain an unsolved problem for midcourse defenses against long-range missiles, the scientists' report said.

Balloon decoys could be given the same infrared signature as a warhead by painting their surfaces, it said. The project could also be confused by sealing the warhead in a large balloon so the kill vehicle could not determine its exact location or tethering several balloons to it.

Overstating the defensive capabilities of the ground-based defense is dangerous, the group said.

"If the president is told that the system could reliably defend against a North Korean ballistic missile attack, he might be willing to accept more risks when making policy and military decisions," the report said.

"All indications are that it would not work," added Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist who is a co-author of the report and co-director of the group's global security program.

"And the administration's statements that it will be highly effective are irresponsible nonsense," she added in a telephone interview.

Overall, the Pentagon estimates it will need $53 billion in the next five years to develop, field and upgrade a multilayered shield also involving systems based at sea, aboard modified Boeing 747 aircraft and in space.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-02.htm

Holes in the Missile Shield
The national missile defense now being deployed by the U.S. should be replaced with a more effective system
By Richard L. Garwin
This fall, perhaps by the time you read this, President George W. Bush is expected to declare that the first phase of the long-awaited national missile defense is operational. The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans to install six interceptor rockets--designed to strike a ballistic missile in midcourse--in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska by mid-October. Ten more will be deployed at Fort Greely and four more at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by the end of 2005. Over the following years the MDA intends to bolster this rudimentary midcourse defense with more interceptors, advanced radars and surveillance satellites. The reason for the deployment is to counter the threat that a rogue state--namely, North Korea or Iran--will attempt to hit the U.S. with nuclear or biological weapons delivered on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

But despite the more than $80 billion spent by the U.S. on missile defense since 1985, this system will not provide significant protection for many years, if ever. The political pressure to claim that the U.S. is secure against a rogue nation's attack has led to a defense that will not counter even the earliest threats from the emerging missile powers. The MDA's midcourse system is built to intercept long-range missiles fired thousands of kilometers from the U.S.; it can do nothing to stop a short- or medium-range missile launched from a ship off America's coasts. What is more, the interceptor rockets would most likely prove inadequate against long-range missiles as well, because an enemy could easily equip its ICBMs with fundamentally simple and highly effective countermeasures.



Image: PAUL SHAMBROOM nukephoto.com
MODIFIED MINUTEMAN MISSILE was the interceptor rocket in a series of controversial tests of the national missile defense system from 1997 to 2002. Fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean, the interceptors destroyed mock warheads in five of eight attempts, but the tests did not realistically simulate a ballistic-missile attack.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4483414B7F0000

[Bronco_Beerslug]

19 minutes ago

MOSCOW - Russia is developing a new nuclear missile system unlike any weapon held by other countries, President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Wednesday, a move that could serve as a signal to the United States as Washington pushes forward with a missile defense system.

Russian officials had stated earlier that the Bulava could be developed in both sea- and land-based versions and equipped with warheads capable of penetrating missile defense, Pikayev said.

He said if the Bulava proves capable, it would represent a major success because it would show that Russia has succeeded in modernizing its missile forces despite the shortage of funds.

"It will ring the bell for the Americans, forcing Washington to reassess its estimates," Pikayev said.
"He said it was, firstly, unique and, secondly, capable of defeating any space-based defense system, which is clearly putting the spotlight on the anti-missile of the United States," Langton said.

Military reform is a high priority for Putin, Langton noted, adding that Russia's conventional forces have proved difficult to improve. Missile forces, however, serve as a deterrent simply by their existence, he said.

"He is sending a very clear message that Russia is not going to be rolled over by the United States or NATO (news - web sites)," he said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...uclear_weapons

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This is, of course, in response to the bonehead idea of the Bush administration to try and deploy a missle shield which is impossible to do, at least at anytime in the near future.

Do you purposely play dumb at times or are you really that naive when it comes to the purpose of the missle shield? The whole point is for a limited shield in order to protect the US from a nation with a small force and unstable leadership. It was never designed to nor proposed for protection from Russia or China.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Do your research and come back.

Do the same to find out the purpose of the shield.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Sure is when it doesn't work and we spend 100s of billions of dollars on it.
And Putin was elected in March of 2000, when did he first say he was going to develop missiles to avoid any kind of shield system?

Do your research and come back.

Typical liberal, sleeps soundly under a blanket of freedom the military provides, and then b****es about the means in which it is provided.

Well, since your claiming that spending $$$ with nothing to show for it constitutes a failure, let's look at some other brilliant ideas we could scrap as well.

We've spent over 3 trillion dollars in welfare to help the poor since the 60's, and they are still poor....should we scrap that program too?

We've spent millions upon millions trying to find a cure for AID's....should we scrap that as well?

We've spent millions trying to find alternate fuel sources to reduce our dependency on foriegn oil.....since we still import alot of oil, that must mean it too is a failure, so let's stop funding that idiotic idea too.

We spend billions upon billions on education, and all it gets us is liberal indoctrinated kids who can't find their country on a map, but they hate it as much as the liberal teachers that teach them. So perhaps we should scrap that too, huh?

If your so into the halting of money being spent on failed programs and ideas....let's start with the domestic ones. Afterall if not for our strong military, you'd have nary the freedom to make the ignorant posts you make.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by errand

Typical liberal, sleeps soundly under a blanket of freedom the military provides, and then b****es about the means in which it is provided.

Saw the same movie ....... But I guess it is unreasonable to ask for somthign that works after we spent Billions of $$ on it .......

The rest of your post isnt realy worth responding , But then I could bring Coperate Welfare bavck into the argument , but we have been over that ..........
Oh and Errand since you are fond of Movie Quotes , see the Movie Pentagon wars ... it will do you some good ........ Movie would be funny if it wasnt true .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Do you purposely play dumb at times or are you really that naive when it comes to the purpose of the missle shield? The whole point is for a limited shield in order to protect the US from a nation with a small force and unstable leadership. It was never designed to nor proposed for protection from Russia or China.

Are you purposedly playing ignorant or don't really understand the part about it not working on any level?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by errand

Typical liberal, sleeps soundly under a blanket of freedom the military provides, and then b****es about the means in which it is provided.

Well, since your claiming that spending $$$ with nothing to show for it constitutes a failure, let's look at some other brilliant ideas we could scrap as well.

We've spent over 3 trillion dollars in welfare to help the poor since the 60's, and they are still poor....should we scrap that program too?

We've spent millions upon millions trying to find a cure for AID's....should we scrap that as well?

We've spent millions trying to find alternate fuel sources to reduce our dependency on foriegn oil.....since we still import alot of oil, that must mean it too is a failure, so let's stop funding that idiotic idea too.

We spend billions upon billions on education, and all it gets us is liberal indoctrinated kids who can't find their country on a map, but they hate it as much as the liberal teachers that teach them. So perhaps we should scrap that too, huh?

If your so into the halting of money being spent on failed programs and ideas....let's start with the domestic ones. Afterall if not for our strong military, you'd have nary the freedom to make the ignorant posts you make.

If you want to address welfare or any other program start a thread for it. If you can't debate this thread intelligently, stand on the sidelines.

[mosca]

it may not be 100% effective, but if the shield can intercept -any- incoming missiles i would say that it's worth the cost. i am also sure it would have a higher rate of being effective against north korea, iran, other newer members of the nuke club.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by mosca

it may not be 100% effective, but if the shield can intercept -any- incoming missiles i would say that it's worth the cost. i am also sure it would have a higher rate of being effective against north korea, iran, other newer members of the nuke club.

Is it 10% effective ?
1 Missle is one too many wouldnt you agree ?
I think if we took that Billions and put it in somthing like the Patriot Missle , it would have been more effective , with Iran and N.Korea , we wont get showered with Missles , 5 or 6 at the most .......... Russia on the other hand is building up to keep even , I dont know if you remember or Not , but Russia had a massive build up of Tanks , in fact one of the most impressive tank army the world has ever seen , well the Russians built these tanks so well that Radiation from a warhead couldnt get in , so the USA built Chemical Bombs that would get into the tanks and kill the people inside , we put these "Bombs " on A10 warthogs ,( aka tank killers) Basicaly making the Russian Tanks ineffective ........ This new Nuke weapon is just another senario as the tanks were ........

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Are you purposedly playing ignorant or don't really understand the part about it not working on any level?

8 tests, 5 hits. I did go to public schools, but that looks like a more then 50% success rate. You libs are always into that whole, "if it saves one life" thing, this can save millions. Wouldn't this be worth it?

Now do you want to answer my question about you not knowing what NMD was designed for, or are you going to dodge it again?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

8 tests, 5 hits. I did go to public schools, but that looks like a more then 50% success rate. You libs are always into that whole, "if it saves one life" thing, this can save millions. Wouldn't this be worth it?

Now do you want to answer my question about you not knowing what NMD was designed for, or are you going to dodge it again?

Tests of the interceptors have been carefully choreographed, bearing little resemblance to an actual attack. The technology used to target enemy warheads can be fooled by decoys, critics say.

I don't know who you're trying to stereotype but I don't follow any path because someone else does. I look at the facts. The facts show this system is a cash cow for Bechtol and is completely unreliable.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGPH8QNRC1.DTL

The multibillion-dollar U.S. ballistic missile shield due to start operating by Sept. 30 appears incapable of shooting down any incoming warheads, an independent scientists' group said on Thursday.
The Missile Defense Agency "appears to be picking numbers out of thin air," the report said of past Pentagon assertions of a high probability of shooting down targets.

"There is no data to justify such an assumption," added the scientists' group, which is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Its findings dovetailed with an audit last month by Congress's General Accounting Office (news - web sites) that said the system's effectiveness would be "largely unproven" when the initial capability goes on alert.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134806/posts


The National Missile Defense (NDM) program -- what began under President Reagan as the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed “Star Wars” by critics) -- has shown it’s capable of carrying out its primary mission, and the proof is in the numbers not performance tests:

Since Reagan first mentioned the idea in 1983, we have spent about $70 billion on missile-defense research. With both major-party presidential candidates supporting the project and pork-hungry representatives in Congress happy to vote more money, it’s likely that billions more will be spent.

In short, the program does what it was designed to do: transfer money from the pockets of taxpayers to corporations.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/fr...iledefense.htm

Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock was last moved on February 27, 2002 and currently stands at seven minutes to midnight.
http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Let's see
Article 1- critics opinion that the test circumstances weren't adequate
Article 2- "appears incapable" from a left-leaning scientist organization, based off of the GAO saying it would largely unproven when it went online
Article 3- from the middle of 2000, meaning that the program hadn't been restared let alone any of the current testing done.
Article 4- nothing to do with NMD, talks about nuclear disarmament.

Anytime you feel like letting us know what NMD was planned around stopping an attack from, (hint: it wasn't Russia or China) you let us know. Ditto with your not working on any level claim.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Is it 10% effective ?
1 Missle is one too many wouldnt you agree ?

the only tests we have to base anything on say it was successful 5 out of 8 times. other reports such as the ones cited by beerslug say that its effectiveness will be much worse than this.
keep in mind that this system is still early and can only get better as it is continually researched and developed. even at a pitiful rate of being 10% effective that could save millions. while we never want to see a nuclear exchange and while i agree that one hitting us is 'too many', we as a nation should have plans in place to minimize casualties in the event of such an attack happening and to survive such an attack as a country. this weapons are becoming much too commonplace in the world for us not to have such a plan in place. the missile shield is only the beginning and only one part of such a plan.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by mosca

the only tests we have to base anything on say it was successful 5 out of 8 times. other reports such as the ones cited by beerslug say that its effectiveness will be much worse than this.
keep in mind that this system is still early and can only get better as it is continually researched and developed. even at a pitiful rate of being 10% effective that could save millions. while we never want to see a nuclear exchange and while i agree that one hitting us is 'too many', we as a nation should have plans in place to minimize casualties in the event of such an attack happening and to survive such an attack as a country. this weapons are becoming much too commonplace in the world for us not to have such a plan in place. the missile shield is only the beginning and only one part of such a plan.

hmmmmmmm if it works I am all for it .......

[Hercules Rockefeller]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...rn-laser_x.htm

U.S. military to test airborne missile-defense laser
By Tariq Malik, SPACE.com
The U.S. military is gearing up to test what might be the ultimate version of laser tag. With a successful ground test in the bag, the Missile Defense Agency is pushing forward with plans for an Airborne Laser (ABL) — a Boeing 747 freighter aircraft with a laser-tipped nose designed to destroy ballistic missiles as they rocket through the sky.

A Lockheed Martin engineer inspects the Turret Ball Conformal Window on the Airborne Laser.
Courtesy lockheedmartin.com

The defense system's primary weapon — a megawatt-class chemical laser beam — passed an initial ground-based test last week and a number subsystems have been integrated into the ABL aircraft, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) officials told SPACE.com. If all goes well, a integrated prototype of the Airborne Laser will soon be shooting down missiles in tests over the Pacific Ocean.

"This is a wonderful moment for the Missile Defense Agency and the proponents of a ballistic missile defense around the world," said Col. Ellen Pawlikowski, ABL program director, during a Nov. 12 statement announcing the successful ground-firing.

Under development since 1996, the $1.1-billion ABL project aims to use a powerful, turret-mounted laser to disable enemy ballistic missiles during their boost phase by heating a basket-ball sized portion of the projectile's skin until it buckles.

Because of it's speed-of-light ability to kill, the ABL is the only system under testing that is able to detect and engage enemy missiles in their most vulnerable boost phases, MDA Airborne Laser officials said in response to written questions.

The Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Air Force is working in tandem with Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to develop the flying laser system. Boeing is providing the aircraft, battle management and system integration, while Northrup Grumman has developed the laser and Lockheed Martin the weapon's flight turret.

Some ABL developers have said integrated flight tests could occur by the end of the year. In a Nov. 12 announcement, MDA officials said tests of the ABL's main laser would take several months, as engineers fine-tune the weapon and work to increase its firing time.

Lasers in the sky

While the primary weapon behind the ABL missile defense system is its Chemical, Oxygen, Iodine Laser (COIL), the aircraft is equipped with three other lasers and six infrared sensors that detect, track and target enemy targets. None of the ABL lasers — including its primary weapon — are visible to the naked eye, though MDA officials said they could be imaged in the infrared spectrum.

Six COIL modules — each the size of a Chevy Suburban sport utitlity vehicle set on end — work together to produce ABL's megawatt energy beam, which set fire to dust particles as it burned into a metal wall during a Nov. 10 ground test at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The entire test lasted just a fraction of a second.

"What's important is that the COIL produced photons," Pawlikowski said. "This proves the laser hardware is ready to go."

The COIL system is fueled by a syrupy mix of hydrogen, oxygen and salts that combine to make Basic Hydrogen Peroxide, a volatile compound about 20 times more viscous than water, MDA officials said.

Battle management

Picking the most threatening target from a group of missiles, destroying it and moving on to the next one during a battle would have to occur faster than human gunners could operate, MDA officials said.

MDA designers anticipate enemy missiles to travel an average of about 4,000 miles (6,437 kilometers) an hour, and require a firing system capably of destroying those targets from distance of 100 miles (160 kilometers).

Instead, a computerized battle management system developed by Boeing controls the system, with human weapons crewmembers setting operational limits and providing any necessary mission modifications in flight. The system has successfully tracked Minutemen 2 and Lance missiles, as well as the afterburner plumes of F-16 jets.

MDA officials said the first ABL aircraft will serve as a research and development prototype, though it may have some "residual operational capability" once testing is complete.

Building the turret

Once ground tests are completed, the COIL modules will be installed in the aft end of the ABL aircraft, which Boeing engineers have extensively modified to handle the missile defense system. MDA officials said aircraft engineers left almost no part of the freighter untouched during its two-year refitting.

Perhaps the aircraft's most noticeable outward change to Boeing's 747-400 freighter is the bulbous turret that houses a 5-foot (1.5-meter) telescope serving as the exit point for the ABL weapon.

Designed to whip around and target enemy missiles, the ball-shaped turret is 10 feet (3 meters) in diameter and housed in an assembly that stretches 14 feet (4.2 meters) long, said Paul Shattuck, ABL technical lead at Lockheed Martin, in a telephone interview.

Composite materials keep the turret's weight to about 11,000 pounds (4,989 kilograms) which while heavy is much less than if it were built out of aluminum or other traditional aircraft materials, he added.

"This is all first-of-a-kind hardware," Shattuck said. "I'm excited and I can't wait to get it in the air."

[Hercules Rockefeller]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov17.html

Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb
Secretary Cites Evidence of Missile Effort

By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.

Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons.



Mohammad Mohaddessin, of the National Council for Resistance in Iran, uses satellite imagery to pinpoint what the group says is a previously unknown nuclear facility in Iran. (Laurent Rebours -- AP)

_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____

• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now




"I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead."

Powell's comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- designed to limit Tehran's ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment program.

"I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said, referring to the process of matching warheads to missiles. He spoke to reporters during a refueling stop in Manaus, Brazil.

"There is no doubt in my mind -- and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years -- that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said.

Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it was seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts were underway, not previously disclosed, to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.

Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Powell's remarks indicated that Iran was trying to master the difficult technology of reducing the size of a nuclear warhead to fit on a ballistic missile.

"Powell appears to be saying the Iranians are working very hard on this capability," Cirincione said. He said Powell's comments were striking because the International Atomic Energy Agency said this week that it had not seen any information that Iran had conducted weapons-related work.

In a 32-page report released this week, the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, wrote that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities," such as weapons programs. But ElBaradei said that he could not rule out the possibility that Iran was conducting a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Powell also told reporters that the United States had not decided what action to take following Sunday's agreement. The Bush administration had insisted that Iran's past violations warranted taking the matter to the U.N. Security Council.

Powell said the United States would monitor verification efforts "with necessary and deserved caution because for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community."

Meanwhile, in Paris, the exile group charged that Iran was continuing to enrich uranium and would continue despite the pledge made Sunday to European foreign ministers. The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, or NCRI, also claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb in the mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of bomb blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear ambitions.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Paris-based NCRI, told reporters at a news conference that the Khan network delivered to the Iranians a small quantity of highly enriched uranium that could be used in making a bomb. But he said the amount was probably too small for use in a weapon.

The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen organization, which the U.S. State Department has labeled a terrorist organization. The NCRI helped expose Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2002 by disclosing the location of the government's secret uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But many of its subsequent assertions about the program have proven inaccurate.

On Wednesday, Mohaddessin used satellite photos to pinpoint what he said was the new facility, inside a 60-acre complex in the northeast part of Tehran known as the Center for the Development of Advanced Defense Technology. The group said that the site also houses Iranian chemical and biological weapons programs and that uranium enrichment began there a year and a half ago, to replace a nearby facility that was dismantled in March 2004 ahead of a visit by a U.N. inspections team.

The group gave no evidence for its claims, but Mohaddessin said, "Our sources were 100 percent sure about their intelligence." He and other group members said the NCRI relies on human sources, including scientists and other people working in the facilities and locals who might live near the facilities and see suspicious activities.

The IAEA , the U.N. nuclear monitoring body, had no immediate comment on the claims but said it took all such reports seriously.

The agency has no information to support the NCRI claims, according to Western diplomats with knowledge of the U.N. body's investigations of Iran.

Some diplomats and arms control experts privately discounted the Iranian group's latest claim, saying it appeared designed to undermine the deal that the Tehran government signed with Britain, France and Germany. In Tehran on Wednesday, Iranian officials said they considered the enrichment suspension temporary and contingent upon a favorable decision at the IAEA meeting next week and on quick progress in talks next month on long-term guarantees that Iran can apply nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

[mosca]

the bottomline to me is that if we have the technological capability to prevent or defend successfully against at least some of the attacks that may come our way in the future, then we need to invest and spent time developing these defensive capabilities. to not do so would be folly.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by mosca

the bottomline to me is that if we have the technological capability to prevent or defend successfully against at least some of the attacks that may come our way in the future, then we need to invest and spent time developing these defensive capabilities. to not do so would be folly.

Trying to shoot down an incoming missile with another missile is, as I said, stupid. The odds of N. Korea or Iran launching one or 2 missiles at us, knowing they would be blown off the planet, is remote. The odds of of us being able to shoot down those missiles with system is basically 0.

A laser system will eventually work but is years and years away and trillions of dollars away. You want to know what folly is? Not spending the 100s of billions needed for securing our coastlines and borders. That is where the most probable attempt to strike us with a nuclear weapon will come from, within our own country.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Trying to shoot down an incoming missile with another missile is, as I said, stupid. The odds of N. Korea or Iran launching one or 2 missiles at us, knowing they would be blown off the planet, is remote. The odds of of us being able to shoot down those missiles with system is basically 0.

A laser system will eventually work but is years and years away and trillions of dollars away. You want to know what folly is? Not spending the 100s of billions needed for securing our coastlines and borders. That is where the most probable attempt to strike us with a nuclear weapon will come from, within our own country.

It's stupid? Your friend Spider mentioned the patriot missle system was that stupid also? If it's the only defense we got I would rather take that then no defense at all. Even if it gets only one of 10 missles launched at us that is good enough for me. I guess I value life more then you do.

It is not years and years away, it's closer then you think (regarding the airborne laser system).

Or we could simply sell all of our nuclear technology to the highest bidder like Clinton did.

[Rohirrim]

Or we could use a much cheaper alternative: Diplomacy to rid the world of nuclear weapons? Nah. What fun would that be? The nuke we have to worry about will be packaged in a footlocker, not a missile. Putin's message (whether bluff or not) is directed at China, as much as it's directed at us. The missile shield, though not an entirely ludicrous idea, is a ridiculous waste of energy and wealth at this point in time.

Just more proof that the rabid militarism of the Bush administration creates more danger than it erases.