"the country's space program is for peaceful, scientific endeavors"
BUH WA HA ha, cough... yea, right.
ABM anyone?

All right, someone with a good sciency-background--how likely/possible is it that someone could use satellites to drop stuff on us? I mean, horrible stuff. Not like candy. If Iran wanted to drop candy on us, that'd be okay.

@braak: I bet Iranian candy is damn good. I'll take a payload of baklava please!

How possible is it? Very. What goes up must come down. by definition, anything capable of putting a satellite in orbit has the reach for anywhere on the globe.

Realistically? They don't have the armament to wipe anyone out. And anyone worth launching this against could glass their country. So, unless they are attacked first and have nothing to lose, it's never going to be used that way.

@Ryan.H: Okay. That's kind of what I was thinking, and it's good to hear it confirmed from someone that definitely acts like he knows what he's talking about.

(No offense. It is the internet.)

@Annalee: Also, isn't Baklava Greek?

Even if it's not, I'll be the Iranians make a lot of stuff with honey. I could get behind that.

@Ryan.H: Honestly, this launcher is for satellites. I'd be less worried about missiles launching from it than surveillance satellites.

@Annalee: Yeah, the idea of another country surveilling us doesn't really bother me as much. America is a nation completely without shame.

@braak: Yes, why surveil (is that a word???) from space when it's all on TV and the internet anyway?

Now taking bets on "mysterious launch failure".

@Annalee: Still, that didn't stop the White House from calling this launch "unfortunate." Welcome to the nation of fear.

@Frozen-Tex: It is a word, actually. It, unfortunately, does not see the use it should.

@extracrispy: Well, keep in mind that if they could weaponize it, and stick a nuke on it, that only one or two might not be much of a threat to North America, especially with the anti-missile system being assembled now, it's much more of a threat to Iran's favourite regional neighbor, Israel. It wouldn't take many warheads to glass Israel, and using missiles means it would all be over before the Israelis could scramble their bombers (Israel's nuclear arsenal is aircraft delivered, rather than by missile).

@braak: Well, then... Surveil, surveil, surveil! Surveilly McSurveillance!

@braak:

Baklava is Turkish

@wingbatwu: Very well! I stand corrected.

@Annalee: I got yer Iranian candy right here...

[blog.wired.com]

@Frozen-Tex:
The Israelis have their own anti missile system (Arrow, paid for with US America dollars) and do use the Jericho SSM as a nuke delivery system.

@ManchuCandidate: You're right, of course, silly me for not checking. I was going by stuff I read in an Tom Clancy book. Still, given Ahmadinajad's rhetoric, Israel would be a more likely target for them than the States.

@braak: "America is a nation completely without shame."
Seriously, if we had any decency we wouldn't leave Florida out there for any passing satellite to see...

@Frozen-Tex: Aha! Good one.

@Frozen-Tex: @ManchuCandidate: Doesn't Iran still have ambitions about conquering Iraq? I wonder if maybe that's a more likely target.

@braak:
Not really anymore. Who'd want to wade into that mess? Besides, the Iraqis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians. It might not seem like a big deal, but I wouldn't want to call an Arab, a Persian or visa versa as neither group likes each other all that much for various reasons.

Iran's mullahs aren't really big on exporting their revolution because it costs too much and they're having a hard enough time with their own nation and economy (which is getting worse.) Oil is the only thing keeping their economy afloat.

@Frozen-Tex:
Heh. Yeah, Israel is a target, but so is Cairo, Riyadh, Oman, Ankara, etc.

@braak: That's possible, but they seem to be doing that by using insurgents, and Shi'ite influence, like the Sadrists. Besides, who wants fallout right next door? And if they want to conquer Iraq, then they don't want it destroyed. But wiping Israel "off the map" is another thing...

Or, maybe they'll just put up a comms satellite to broadcast Khomeini's Greatest Fatwas.

@ManchuCandidate: "Yeah, Israel is a target, but so is Cairo, Riyadh, Oman, Ankara, etc. "

True enough; Israel just was the first to spring to mind, and the most publicly stated one. But yeah, any of the "secularly" governed Islamic countries could ultimately be a target for Iran's mullahs.

Of course, why Iran would rain down missles or satellites or moon rocks on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else is up for debate.

Any word on what the satellite they're going to launch will do? My bet is it'll emulate Sputnik: "BEEP."

Well, whatever "BEEP" is in Farsi.

@7Zark7 Iz In Ur Internetz: Well, I don't think there's All that much debate as to why they'd rain down unhappy things on Israel...

@ManchuCandidate: Keep in mind, too, that any rocket that can put a satellite into LEO is the most difficult component of an ICBM. I don't think Iran has that exclusively in mind, but it would be silly to expect they haven't thought of it. And remember, the Mercury Redstone and Titan rockets were some of our first ICBMs.

@Frozen-Tex: Well, except for the argument that Israel could rain many more unhappy things back down in Iran.

No gay people were used in the preparation or launch of the satellite. They were launched in the satellite according to the Iranian President.

@braak: Well, they wouldn't use the satellites to drop stuff on us, but as others have said; space launcher=ICBM.

OTOH, not an immediate threat.
-Kle.

@Ryan.H:

I would agree, except for the fact that they don't seem very rational......

Uh, yeah, I'm REAL happy to have those guys floatin' shit over our heads! Neat!