Missile Fizzle

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:16 pm

From the industrial norm ISO 9000 about the development and specification of products: "Design and development validation shall be performed in accordance with planned arrangements to ensure that the resulting product is capable of meeting the requirements for the specified application or intended use, where known."

This means that if you develop a 150 km missile, it must have a range of 150 km when carrying a loaded warhead, because carrying a loaded warhead is the specified application and intended use. If you test such a missile with an empty warhead, it will of course go farther. According to my information the Iraqi missiles have been tested with empty warheads. It is not compliant with the rules of technological development to blame Saddam for possessing missiles that go beyond 150 km if you test them with empty warheads. It merely is a cheap trick to find a reason for starting a war.

I do not intend to defend Saddam. I only want that the situation is judged in a reasonable way. If we (the western world) are the good guys we have to play the game according to the rules. The bad guys cheat to win, and sometimes they win, but the good guys (hopefully us) already have lost when they start to cheat.

Phaedrus42 · Post by **Phaedrus42** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:54 pm

Empty warheads... sums the entire situation up, I think.

Antti · Post by **Antti** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:05 pm

Yeah, I saw this drawing made by some Southafrican guy where two weapon inspectors were carrying Bush and a third one said into his cellphone: "Tell mr. Annan that we've found another empty warhead"
I kept laughing for a veeeeeeery long time

nodisch18 · Post by **nodisch18** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:10 pm

Antti wrote:Yeah, I saw this drawing made by some Southafrican guy where two weapon inspectors were carrying Bush and a third one said into his cellphone: "Tell mr. Annan that we've found another empty warhead"
I kept laughing for a veeeeeeery long time

I didn't saw the picture but I can imagine that it must be hilarious!!

Antti · Post by **Antti** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:14 pm

Too sad I don't know where to find it on the web. I don't even remember the drawer's name. Just saw in the paper, so maybe someone else remembers who drew it. It was in Turun Sanomat or Helsingin Sanomat

Tiger · Post by **Tiger** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:53 pm

Google is your God !!

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:13 pm

Phaedrus42 wrote:Empty warheads... sums the entire situation up, I think.

--- obsolete post ---

Empty warhead ... That is a description that would exactly fit GW Bush.

Unfortunately ... some cartoonist came up with this already
so never mind this post ...

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:17 pm

Today my newspaper gave some additional information about the Iraqi missiles:
1) The Diameter of the Al Samoud 2 has been widened from 50 to 76 centimeters. This allows for the installation of one additional engine, which means double thrust. With double thrust you can carry more fuel and gain extra range.
2) Iraqi missile testing equipment is dimensioned for missiles much bigger than the ones Iraq officially possesses.
3) Former UN weapons inspector Robert H. Schmucker concludes that Iraq is going to construct a two stage missile comprising of an improved Al Samoud 2 and an upgraded Scud. If you want to combine the Al Samoud with the Scud, you need the wider diameter. The combined missile could probably have a range of 600 km.
4) Schmucker sees the obsession with which Iraq is constructing missiles as an indication that Iraq already has biological and/or chemical warheads.

It is strange how poorly informed we are kept. Why weren't we told these details before? It seems that our mass media cannot explain technological connections. With the new information Saddam seems to be really dangerous, without this technical information Bush looks like an idiot. I think such simple technical facts should not be withheld from the public.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:59 pm

smh wrote:Do a bit more research before you form your oppinion.

I agree, that you should collect information before you build up your own opinion, but in the last weeks there was not much to find about the missiles, only the discussion about the slightly increased range. I began to believe that the only evidence Bush uses for starting a war were these missiles with empty warheads. The article in my newspaper says that there are some hints that Saddam may have something bigger cooking. Such articles seem to be the exception. Hardly anybody seems to be interested to explain to the public in detail what the inspectors find.

Skylimit · Post by **Skylimit** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:17 pm

smh wrote: But the question 'are you against war in Iraq' comes really close to one of the most stupid questions i've heard in years.

Are you in favour of a 'preventive war' against Iran & North Korea too ?
Or is that a stupid question ?

Olivier · Post by **Olivier** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:30 am

Skylimit wrote:
smh wrote: But the question 'are you against war in Iraq' comes really close to one of the most stupid questions i've heard in years.
Are you in favour of a 'preventive war' against Iran & North Korea too ?
Or is that a stupid question ?

There are no stupid questions in this forum!

This (hot) debate is the main current problem of our leaders... they don't agree on the answer.

I personnaly find it dangerous to crush the "international law" which forbids to each country of the world to invade another country.
If the problem is Massive Destruction Arms, let's forbid these arms all over the world!

But I am not sure this is the main problem...
(my own opinion)

Olivier