[aldo_14]

Now, I'm not a fan of the worlds most populaced undemocratic, authoritarian regime (I'd say dictatorship, but it's more of a party than a person, at least in popular perception; I had to look up Hu Jintaos name, I was still thinking 'Jiang Zemin') - but surely this is more than a bit hypocritical? ;

Concern over China's missile test

China is facing international criticism over a weapons test it reportedly carried out in space last week.  Japan has expressed concern, as have the US and Australia.

It is thought that the Chinese used a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile to slam into and destroy an old weather satellite.  Correspondents say this is the first known satellite intercepting test to have been conducted for more than 20 years.  While the technology is not new, it does underline the growing capabilities of China's armed forces, according to a BBC correspondent in Beijing, Dan Griffiths.

Space arms race?

Late on Thursday, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe confirmed an article in the magazine American Aviation Week and Space Technology, which reported that the test had taken place.

The report said that a Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite, launched in 1999, was destroyed by an anti-satellite system launched from or near China's Xichang Space Centre on 11 January.  The Chinese have yet to confirm the test, which is thought to have occurred at more than 537 miles (865km) above Earth.

Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki, said his government had asked China for confirmation, and for an explanation of what its intentions were. "We are concerned about it firstly from the point of view of peaceful use of space, and secondly from the safety perspective," Mr Shiozaki said.

Mr Johndroe said the US "believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area".

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia did not want to see "some sort of spread, if you like, of an arms race into outer space".  There are already growing international concerns about China's rising military power.  While Beijing keeps its defence spending a closely guarded secret, analysts suggest that it has grown rapidly in recent years.

Space debris

The test, if confirmed, would mean that China could now theoretically shoot down spy satellites operated by other nations, although there is no evidence to suggest that the test was carried out with anything other than non-threatening intentions.

It would be the first such test since the 1980s, when both the US and the Soviet Union destroyed satellites in space.  These tests were halted over concerns that the debris they produced could harm civilian and military satellite operations.  The same concerns have been raised about this latest reported test.  American Aviation Week and Space Technology said the move could have left "considerable space debris in an orbit used by many different satellites".

While the US may be unhappy about China's actions, the Washington administration has recently opposed international calls to end such tests.  It revised US space policy last October to state that Washington had the right to freedom of action in space, and the US is known to be researching such "satellite-killing" weapons itself.

(actually, anyone whose read the Pentagon report calling for - to paraphrase - strategic dominance of space and the internet, knows it's the very height of hypocracy for the US to complain)

[Rictor]

Hey, while we're already on the subject of hypocricy: America's bestest buddy, Trekkie and husband to the world's foremost QILF says his country wants nuclear power. Egypt has already stated their aim to develop a nuclear program and Saudi Arabia can't be far behind. Good look making the case against Iran now and not looking like a total retard.

[Unknown Target]

They can still make the case against Iran. It's obvious Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons - as long as Jordan and the other countries don't, they wouldn't really be applicable.

But yea, the whole space thing is bull****e.

[aldo_14]

They can still make the case against Iran. It's obvious Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons - as long as Jordan and the other countries don't, they wouldn't really be applicable.

But yea, the whole space thing is bull****e.

Well, it's kind of hard for the US anyways (re: Iran) when it's giving nuclear reactor help to (already nuclear armed) Hindu India, whilst simultaneously attacking the (professed) nuclear power ambitions of Muslim Iran.

[Unknown Target]

India doesn't hate the US, Iran does (or at least India doesn't want to blow us up like Iran does).

[aldo_14]

India doesn't hate the US, Iran does (or at least India doesn't want to blow us up like Iran does).

Well, Iran hates the US largely for, er, stuff like this though.  It's not like you see anyone declaring Jihad on Belgium, is it?

[Unknown Target]

Belgium isn't exactly a world-influencing superpower.

And the jihads are also against "the West", sooo...yea. What the jihadists are really about (most of them, anyway), are declaring war on the West's way of life. The US symbolizes this, they've ****ed around with the most people, and they're the strongest country in the world - the last part makes them the prime candidate for an attack. After all, if you want to get noticed, why would you shoot the smallest thing in the room?
Although admittedly the US's recent actions haven't helped the situation.

[aldo_14]

Belgium isn't exactly a world-influencing superpower.

And the jihads are also against "the West", sooo...yea. What the jihadists are really about (most of them, anyway), are declaring war on the West's way of life. The US symbolizes this, they've ****ed around with the most people, and they're the strongest country in the world - the last part makes them the prime candidate for an attack. After all, if you want to get noticed, why would you shoot the smallest thing in the room?
Although admittedly the US's recent actions haven't helped the situation.

Technically, the Islamists (and I mean the Islamic fundamentalists advocating Jihad et al) aren't really interested in declaring war on the decadent west (etc); only in removing its influence and spurring similar Islamic revolutions in other states (towards a greater Islamic state, probably).  Even the likes of 9/11 (from the grand Islamic fundamentalist/jihadist perspective)  weren't really designed to 'destroy' the western world, but as symbolic and intended to spur domestic revolution (failures in Egypt and, IIRC, Algeria had removed the prospects of a domestic revolution through domestic terrorism, as the terrorism there had turned the population against the Islamic fundamentalists as more and more civillians were killed).

Anyways, it's worth bearing all that 'great satan' type stuff is very effective at distracting the populace; N.Korea does it as well, and in a sense so do the UK and US governments with the Al-Queda scaremongering.

As an aside, I should probably note RE: my previous comment that jihad in Islam doesn't strictly mean war, etc - just the internal struggle of belief.  I'm just using it as a shorthand, which perhaps inadvertently supports my first post.

[Rictor]

UT: Iran, even its most extreme elements, are not "jihadis" of the bin Laden & Co kind. Not to pick on you personally, but I'm sick of people painting it all with the same brush. In fact, the jihadis hate the Iranian government. Yes, they are fundamentalists. Yes, they are theocrats. Yes, they are (sometimes) zealots. But in no way is Iran out to destroy the West. All of their grievances, while you may think they are valid or not, are based on practical complaints, not and abstract hatred of the West. What Iran mostly wants is to be a powerful nation and be recognized as such - same as every other country. Few of the foreign policies of Iran have anything to do with religion - they are more practical than ideological.

edit: beat me to it aldo.

[Goober5000]

Hmm, at first I thought this thread was about Dan Rather...

IMHO, the US is going about this all wrong.  Instead of trying to keep the other nations from developing nuclear weapons, the US should go ahead and develop antimatter weapons.

[NGTM-1R]

UT: Iran, even its most extreme elements, are not "jihadis" of the bin Laden & Co kind. Not to pick on you personally, but I'm sick of people painting it all with the same brush. In fact, the jihadis hate the Iranian government. Yes, they are fundamentalists. Yes, they are theocrats. Yes, they are (sometimes) zealots. But in no way is Iran out to destroy the West. All of their grievances, while you may think they are valid or not, are based on practical complaints, not and abstract hatred of the West. What Iran mostly wants is to be a powerful nation and be recognized as such - same as every other country. Few of the foreign policies of Iran have anything to do with religion - they are more practical than ideological.

edit: beat me to it aldo.

Perhaps, but then again, they do belong to the Council of Islamic Nations among other bodies based solely on their religion. And they do want to blow up Israel. They are jihadists in their own way. Granted it's a significantly different way from most, but that doesn't make them any less behind the concept of Islam ascendant over all humanity.

Besides, the rest of the jihadists hate them for the creation of a clergy class, something which does not exist in classical Islam. It's a matter of religious interpretation and not one of discordant external interest.

[Taristin]

Rather 2-faced, surely?

No no. That's our normal face. I'll let you know when we make a new one.

[aldo_14]

UT: Iran, even its most extreme elements, are not "jihadis" of the bin Laden & Co kind. Not to pick on you personally, but I'm sick of people painting it all with the same brush. In fact, the jihadis hate the Iranian government. Yes, they are fundamentalists. Yes, they are theocrats. Yes, they are (sometimes) zealots. But in no way is Iran out to destroy the West. All of their grievances, while you may think they are valid or not, are based on practical complaints, not and abstract hatred of the West. What Iran mostly wants is to be a powerful nation and be recognized as such - same as every other country. Few of the foreign policies of Iran have anything to do with religion - they are more practical than ideological.

edit: beat me to it aldo.

Perhaps, but then again, they do belong to the Council of Islamic Nations among other bodies based solely on their religion. And they do want to blow up Israel. They are jihadists in their own way. Granted it's a significantly different way from most, but that doesn't make them any less behind the concept of Islam ascendant over all humanity.

Besides, the rest of the jihadists hate them for the creation of a clergy class, something which does not exist in classical Islam. It's a matter of religious interpretation and not one of discordant external interest.

Albeit the US wants to blow up Iran (and Syria and North Korea) in the same vein.  And Israel no doubt would love to blow up everyone else around them. And China would love a pop at Taiwan, same as Russia would probalby love a pop at Georgia, and India and Pakistan would love to wipe the other off the map.  Every nation in the world wants to blow up some other one, on some level, but is aware of the consequences.  It's simply that Irans sabre rattling is more visible, because they use it to gain support.

[Rictor]

Perhaps, but then again, they do belong to the Council of Islamic Nations among other bodies based solely on their religion. And they do want to blow up Israel. They are jihadists in their own way. Granted it's a significantly different way from most, but that doesn't make them any less behind the concept of Islam ascendant over all humanity.

Besides, the rest of the jihadists hate them for the creation of a clergy class, something which does not exist in classical Islam. It's a matter of religious interpretation and not one of discordant external interest.

Well, the Commonwealth is a council of English-speaking and generally English-culture nations, but no one accuses them of trying to impose Englishness on the world. The OIC (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) is, from what I understand, not really that big a deal among the member states and secondly, Iran's membership makes them no more or less threatening than any other member (say, Albania).

The fact is that Ahmadinejad might talk big, but he's not in charge. And the people in charge, in an ironic twist, are the mullahs, but they are also much more pragmatic. The ruling elites, like in any country, are the business, governemtnt, media and military elites, who have no interest in gambling away Iran's substantial power on some religious whim. They may wear robes, but they understand perfectly well that if a government and nation wish to be successful, deciding policy based on religious fundamentalism is not the way to go. I would liken them to the Chinese ruling officials during the 1980s: their foremost goal is to be powerful, and ideology takes a back-seat to that. I can't say I'm particularly knowledegable, obviously, but I have made some minimal effort to read whatever I can find on Iran (in additon to having two Iranian friends), and I think that just as China may be socialist in name but capitalist in reality, so Iran is religious in name and for show, but pragmatic and technocratic in reality. Iran is no more likely to declare war on the West in the name of Islam than China is likely to declare war on the West in the name of socialism (which obviously, at this point, is a virtual impossibility).