Yeah, UK intelligence agencies have basically said it's a non issue.
Essentially you can take any ballistic missile and double the range by making the payload smaller (or remove it entirely). That's the basis for this claim, Iran could make their existing missiles go a lot further to reach more targets but it would be pointless doing so.
So what?
This was the reaction of UK intelligence.
Iran has put satellites in orbit. The main difference between a space rocket and an ICBM is the payload. There's a reason NASA got the budget to put a man on the moon during the Cold War - and it wasn't pure love for space exploration.
The main difference is controlled and targeted re-entry isn’t it? Payload as well but I suspect that part they master already what with the similarities with shorter range ordnances they produce.
@quokk.au
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great News Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
go to feed...
@quokk.au
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great News Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
go to feed...
So, as the linked article states, the only source for the supposed existence of these long range missiles, neither of which landed, is US & Israeli intelligence.
Iran denies they fired any missiles & the UN cannot confirm Iran launched any missiles. Also, the UK denies there is any threat. All of this is in the article.
This may be propaganda to try make Iran sound scary & drum up support, idk.
save