Iran and China linked to missing Ukraine nuke missiles

An investigation by the Ukrainian secret police has found that Iran and China bought long-range missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads from Ukraine, one of the country's politicians said on Wednesday.

Grigory Omelchenko, an ally of the country's new leadership and a former head of the anti-mafia committee in the Ukrainian parliament, claimed on Wednesday that Ukraine's SBU secret police had found that 12 Kh-55s were illegally exported in 1999-2001. He said six of the air-to-ground cruise missiles were sold to Iran, and six to China.

The Kh-55 - which the US calls the AS-15 - has a highly accurate guidance system and a range of up to 3,000km, which would put Israel in striking distance of Iran. The missile was part of the Soviet bomber fleet weaponry left behind in Ukraine.

The allegations, made in Ukraine's parliament yesterday, bolster claims by the US and other governments that Iran is seeking to develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons. They also raise concerns about Iran and China's efforts to improve long-range missile technology."

news.ft.com...

Here we go yet again with another failure of the IAEA. This is very, very, wrong................



[edit on 3-2-2005 by DrHoracid]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by John bull 1]

here is a link to data on these missiles.

www.fas.org...

I love these political cartoons, they're so appropriate:



Cox & Forkum

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Here we go yet again with another failure of the IAEA. This is very, very, wrong................

LOL, what does this have to do with the IAEA?

Originally posted by Sep

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Here we go yet again with another failure of the IAEA. This is very, very, wrong................

LOL, what does this have to do with the IAEA?

These missiles are nuclear capable delivery systems. The IAEA is supposed to "stop" such technology from getting into the wrong hands.

There is a BIG difference between "Nuclear capable" and "Nuclear armed".

There are many missiles out there that are nuclear capable but are armed with conventional warheads.

mmmmmm..... Ukraine elects a pro-western leader and all of a sudden this info starts coming out. What amazing timing

Even if they did supply the missiles to Iran, what's the big deal?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
These missiles are nuclear capable delivery systems. The IAEA is supposed to "stop" such technology from getting into the wrong hands.

They are suppose to stop people from converting peacful nuclear technology to a nuclear weapon. This is a cruise missile, which COULD carry nukes. It could also carry a conventional warhead. The IAEA has nothing to do with this.

if it is true it would seem to be more evidence that Iran's nuclear program isnt as friendly as they would like the IAEA to believe. I am like Britguy though & believe the timing may be a little too convenient. face it, Iran is gearing up the nuclear weapons program & everyone knows it. Bush will fabricate evidence if he has to to stop it & everyone knows that too!

Originally posted by metalmessiah
if it is true it would seem to be more evidence that Iran's nuclear program isnt as friendly as they would like the IAEA to believe. I am like Britguy though & believe the timing may be a little too convenient. face it, Iran is gearing up the nuclear weapons program & everyone knows it. Bush will fabricate evidence if he has to to stop it & everyone knows that too!

Just exactly "what" evidence did Bush fabricate?

Hmm,so just how many countries in the world do have nukes(armed and ready to shoot) besides the U.S?

Frankly,I just don't get the idea of developing nuclear weapons and knowing that you could never ever not even in bazillion years shoot one.Yes,I know they're for deterrence but does it mean with nukes you are powerful in terms of military?I don't think so.

Just curious if anyone can fill me in my inquiries.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Hmm,so just how many countries in the world do have nukes(armed and ready to shoot) besides the U.S?

Frankly,I just don't get the idea of developing nuclear weapons and knowing that you could never ever not even in bazillion years shoot one.Yes,I know they're for deterrence but does it mean with nukes you are powerful in terms of military?I don't think so.

Just curious if anyone can fill me in my inquiries.

even if you cant use them
they are usefull at stopping other nations from comming and knocking at your door screeming out they will blow the s*** out of you.

DrHoracid, I believe just about every reason given to invade Iraq was fabricated. I am not saying ousting HUssein was a bad idea either.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Hmm,so just how many countries in the world do have nukes(armed and ready to shoot) besides the U.S?

Frankly,I just don't get the idea of developing nuclear weapons and knowing that you could never ever not even in bazillion years shoot one.Yes,I know they're for deterrence but does it mean with nukes you are powerful in terms of military?I don't think so.

Just curious if anyone can fill me in my inquiries.

One country did in the last bazillion years, America in order to shorten what would be a long drawn out ground campaign in Japan and greater Asia. Rest assured that the next country with a nuke program to start loosing a long drawn out ground war will do the same.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by IntelRetard]

Ain't the nukes we currently have is much more deadly and lethal than the one we had against Japan(that's if you referring to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?

So,anyone have the precise number on how many countries do have active nukes in their arsenal?

lets see....Russia has 19,500. U.S. has 10,600. China has 400. India has a few, Pakistan has a few, Iran may or may not.just a start to the list, who am I missing? these countries may have more...these are just the numbers the IAEA reports.