Iran Sends Monkey to Space

[Greg Tito]

Iran Sends Monkey to Space

"This monkey's gone to heaven." - Frank Black

People talk about Iran a lot. During the U.S. Presidential debates, Iran's pending ability to construct nuclear weapons was a major concern. Despite the objection of Mitt Romney, scientific development proceeds in the Middle Eastern nation. Today, Iran announced on its state television network that it successfully launched a monkey into outer space as part of its burgeoning space program. Iran plans to eventually run manned space mission, and today's flight is just another step in that process.

The monkey rode on a rocket - called a PishGam, or Explorer - reaching a height of 120 kilometers. That height puts the rocket firmly in Earth's thermosphere, but it didn't reach as high as the orbit of the International Space Station (~370 km). The monkey returned to Earth safely.

In 2010, Iran stated it launched a rocket which held various creatures including a mouse, a turtle and worms. The monkey was the first attempt to send a primate into space, and the success might mean Iran plans a manned space flight soon.

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology? Isn't that what the Internet and globalization and the spread of ideas is all about? Why can't we act more like we're in Star Trek?

Maybe that's why I don't work in the State Department ...

Source: CBC [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/28/iran-space-monkey.html]

(Image [http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielvoyager/3743402957/sizes/z/in/photostream/])

Permalink

 

[Ympulse]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

and I also think it's amusing that Iran is sending monkies into space. Don't they have something better to do like stone women for not covering their face fully or something equally retarded?

 

[JoJo]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

 

[CriticalMiss]

How long until Islamists claim the Moon belongs to their imaginary friend? Now even our peaceful Moon bases of the future are under threat

 

[The Great JT]

Congratulations, Iran, may you bring us the future!

Because lord knows the U.S. isn't in any hurry to do that...

 

[Quaxar]

In a comical turn of events, the monkey turned out to be one man of the cleaning staff that didn't shave for a while and fell asleep on the job.

I wonder if Iran could secretly send a gorilla up to the ISS to wreak havoc. That would be devastatingly hilarious.

 

[Rainforce]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

Thank goodness the US is in no way a perpetual war machine that spends most of its money on military advancements at all, right?
I guess it's good for Iran, at least when they get the rest of their politics somewhat sorted out.

 

[frobalt]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

What could 'we' have done to stop them? Basically, nothing. Unless we wanted to go to war with them, which would just be the most moronic thing ever. "We're afraid you're going to go to war with us, so we're going to go to war with you!".

 

[thiosk]

It used to be that just two countries had them, and things got spooky now and again, but everyone got by without any going off. The more people have them, and especially the more likely they are to be on a hair trigger, the more likely one is going to go off. High quality efficient American Made nuclear weapons won't leave as severe fallout as a less efficient weapon (it has to do with conversion of energy completing, a nuclear chemistry analog to your catalytic converter turning the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide). Once the long term effects of testing became apparent, test ban treaties came out. But new countries to the club wanted to test them too, if not use them against their neighbors they tend to fight lots of wars with.

So nuclear nonproliferation became the buzzword. As in, no more groups of people get to have them, and almost everybody signed all those treaties.

Pariah states, especially those not signatory to nonproliferation treaties or in violation of them, will not be trusted, and no support will be given for their typically totalitarian forms of government.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

To be fair, not even Bush nuked anybody.

 

[Floppertje]

because 'other countries' follow a different religion, and that's scary.

 

[JoJo]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

Thank goodness the US is in no way a perpetual war machine that spends most of its money on military advancements at all, right?
I guess it's good for Iran, at least when they get the rest of their politics somewhat sorted out.

Call back when the U.S. is openly stating that it intends to wipe an entire sovereign nation off the map, until then a comparison is silly.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Just wait 'til another country starts building drones

 

[Ukomba]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

That never happened.

 

[Albino Boo]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

 

[Elate]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

I was about to say, come on Greg, it doesn't take much to figure out why, the hostility of their ruling bodies for one, the instability of the region, all sorts that make adding nukes to that mix, really, really bad and potentially dangerous for the rest of the world.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

As bad as it may seem, this is essentially why we cannot let the Iranians have a nuke. As of now, there exists a relatively stable balance of power in the world. The specter of mutually assured destruction has prevented any major wars breaking out between the world powers. However, as was the case in WWI, the entirety of the world is entwined in a series of binding alliances. Were someone to break the peace in a particularly flamboyant nature (Read: nuke) it could very well drag the rest of the world into a potentially catastrophic war.

Taking another standpoint, the two largest powers in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia are staunch U.S allies. Israel currently maintains the best equipped military in the region, while Saudi Arabia provides for around 75% of all the oil we import from the region, as well as the second largest military (after Iran). Of course, should the Iranians develop a nuke, they would then become the de-facto power in the Middle East. Having a nuclear equipped nation that is vehemently opposed to the U,S situated within a geographical area that provides the U,S with roughly 13% of our oil, is shall we say, not in the U.S, or her allies best interests. It doesn't help the Saudi Arabia and Iran have been involved in an arms race these last couple years, and the fact that Iran has, on numerous occasions, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

 

[Greg Tito]

Points taken. To be clear, I was speaking more from a "Gee, wouldn't the world be great if it was more like Star Trek?" perspective than offering a real assessment of the diplomatic situation in the Middle East.