However, there are some things I can not avoid. In this case, it involves a country called Iran. More specifically, it involves a recent action of Iran. The following are several links to this story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4173342/Iran-tests-ballistic-missile-violation-resolution.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/30/iran-conducts-ballistic-missile-test-us-officials-say.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-missile-test_us_588f943ce4b0c90efeff138f
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-tested-medium-range-ballistic-missile-u-official-193831854.html
Hopefully you, dear reader, have read through one, if not all these links. A simple summary of them is this:
Iran has test fired a medium range ballistic missile. This is possibly in violation of the UN resolution about their atomic activity and aims.
I am not a fan of the UN agreement about Iran's atomic program. When I first learned about it, even before the announcement about the secret clauses, the deal did not seem to me to actually do anything to curb any atomic weapons ambitions Iran has. This is my simple opinion on this, and I know some may disagree.
The reason I am writing about this is because, violation or not, this little development is disturbing. In the article from the Daily Mail, we find the following:
"Under the UN resolution approving the
nuclear deal that was made in 2015, Iran is 'called upon' to refrain
from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for
up to eight years."
"Critics of the deal
have said the language is ambiguous and does not make compliance
obligatory, while Tehran says the missiles it has tested are not
specifically designed to carry nuclear warheads."
Disregarding the legality of enforcement, and possibly what might actually constitute an offense under the UN resolution, there are two reasons I find this disturbing.
First, the statement of "while Tehran says the missiles it has tested are not
specifically designed to carry nuclear warheads." Generally speaking, there are only two reasons you deploy ballistic missiles in this day and age. One reason is to deliver tactical (Although these are mainly via cruise missile) and/or strategic atomic weapons. The other is in an ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) system to defend against ballistic missiles. The only example I can think of is the Patriot system developed by the United States.
Second, even if the statement about these missiles being "not specifically designed to carry nuclear warheads" is true, they still have another military use. Going back to the Second World War, the Nazi German military used both cruise (V-1) and ballistic (V-2) missiles. Both of these were used against Great Britain and the port of Antwerp. Most of us are familiar with the use of the V-1 and V-2 on London as a terror weapon. The V-2 was also used against the British rail system with some success in crippling railroad operations. In the case of Antwerp, the V-2 was used to damage the port, an important part of the Allied supply chain sustaining the drive into Germany.
For something a little more recent, fast forward to the 1980s and the Iran-Iraq War. Both sides used Scud missiles as long range artillery and for attacks on cities as a terror weapon.
I am not expert, or military tactician for that matter. I am giving my opinion and a little look into history for reference. I know that countries like Iran and North Korea like to rattle sabers, and do it often. It is disquieting to me, given the current situation in the United States. I also find it interesting that Iranians conducted this latest test on Sunday, 29-January, with the French Foreign Minister coming in to the country, and just before Jordan's King Abdullah arrives to meet with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
As always, I encourage a rational debate, and any information I do not have. Please feel free to comment or send me a message.
