Now we are apparently in the satellite non-proliferation business...

... because Iran has used what is essentially 50-year-old technology to plop a small satellite into space?

Now the former head of the Israeli Space Agency (who knew they had one?) opines that this means Iran now has the ballistic missile capability to hit western Europe:

Iran's launch of a satellite on Tuesday demonstrates a new and advanced capability that allows Teheran to fire ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads all the way to Western Europe, said Maj.-Gen. (res.) Isaac Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israel Space Agency.

"You need specific and added energy when firing a satellite that weighs between 30 and 50 kilograms into space," Ben-Israel, who is also a Kadima MK, told The Jerusalem Post. "If they succeeded, then the equivalent within the atmosphere is firing a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead that weighs one ton all the way to Western Europe."

This is a pretty interesting assertion, given that China required significant external technical assistance to develop ballistic missiles capable of hitting the west coast of the US, which it got--in part--from Israel.

Which China apparently turned around and loaned to ... Iran.

So Israel now needs us to help police the whole satellite proliferation issue:

The White House said Iran was not acting responsibly with its satellite launch.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says: "This action does not convince us that Iran is acting responsibly to advance stability or security in the region."

He called any effort to develop missile delivery capability, continue an illicit nuclear program, or threaten Israel an "acute concern to this administration."

Gibbs also reiterated that the administration will use all elements of its national power to deal with Iran.

That's it: no DirectTV for Teheran.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog