Talk:Shahab-3

message: This means that the INS/gyroscope guidance would also remain relatively accurate until impact (important, given the fact that the gyrosopes tend to become inaccurate the longer the flight lasts). With that guidance system, the Shahab-3B could achieve an accuracy of around 30-50m CEP or even less.
The Pershing II MRBM had a CEP of 50m using terminal active radar guidance together with INS. And that is still today the state-of-the-art. So the CEP of the Shahab can under no circumstances even be near 50m. It is grossly exaggerated--Arado 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to Jane's Defence Weekly of March 22, 2000, "...The Shahab-3 used a inertial guidance system with a CEP Circular error probability of 3 km."  Additional sources for this include the following:
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.107/missile_detail.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm
Big61bethel (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEP Data Needs Correction 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm 
Certainly Athens and Crete. --Leladax (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  They can reach Europe 

message: The article and particularly the map are misleading about the missiles range. They can hit India and parts of Greece. However, this is not properly indicated. See e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm 71.63.76.95 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  They Can Reach India and Greece too 

message: 21 mach? What does that mean 0_o. And I thought the number is supposed to go after the unit when measuring in Mach. --Jaewonnie (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a speed of 5500 km/h is incompatible with a 2000 km range. 2000 km implies a speed of 3800 m/s or 13680 km/h. 5500 km/h would only give you about 250 km range. Wouter halswijk (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: I suggest this article be protected from unregistered users.  The fact that on the day of its introduction to the Iranian people the missile carrier bore propagandistic signs is indisputable and has been verified.  Unregistered individuals continue removing this from the page. Erkenbrack (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second this. I just undid the edit of a certain "74.13.32.86" who said "no other source besides that one person from a US thinktank says that and even then it's not verifiable." Firstly there is a cited reference. And secondly, almost all citation on wikiedia only have 1 source, not sure where he/she says no other source. Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page lock 

message: As has been pointed out many, many times, and has been ignored equally as many times, the Persian language does not have that particular English idiom. Its a deliberately provocative translation of something that is more like 'remove from the pages of history', which is very different. For example, when President Reagan talked about communism being left 'on the ash heap of history' he wasn't talking about exterminating communists or invading the Soviet Union.
Given this, unless there are strenuous objections, I am going to rephrase that part of the article or possibly remove it entirely. This should be a purely technical article, so there isn't really any place to discuss rhetorical mudslinging between Iran and the west.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damburger (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly speaking of removing a nation from the pages of history seems like wiping it off the map to me. And what is misleading meaning in the statement "The US can do nothing"?  In regards to this being a "purely technical article," I must say that the missile has a history.  The events surrounding the unveiling of the weapon are relevant.  Reagan's statement stands as a part of history.  It has been noted and is not censured.  Thus it seems relevant that the missile represents more than its own power.  It is, as the Iranians suggested, a device utilized to deter U.S. aggression and to remove Israel from the pages of history. Erkenbrack (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The U.S. can do nothing ... Israel would be wiped from the map." Not nearly enough reliable sources carry this quote.  The exact translation remains disputed. Therefore I am removing this. — eon, 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wipe off the map" 

message: It should be mentionned that the photo of the recent firings was doctored to hide the failure to launch of one missile; thus the missile launch was intended as a show of force rather than as actual "tests". See this  BBC article   for more information and pictures.M.Nelson (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctored photo 

message: the main illustration (picture) of Shahab-3 is based on the old variant of the Shahab-3 (the Shahab-3A) which only has a 1,300KM range and doesn't even seem to be in production, Shahab-3B is the new and focused variant with a range of 2,100KM+ and is in mass production. The illustration should be changed to a Shahab-3B because Shahab-3B is Iran's most focused and most produced variant of "Shahab-3"
Difference:
http://www.spyworld-actu.com/IMG/jpg_shahab-3-launchers.jpg
72.136.194.98 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration not very vaild 

message: Not taking sides here, I think various sides act unnecessarily aggressively in the Middle East, but the view of Iran has to be shown most prominently. It's actually absurd that it is shown LAST. In the 'prophet iii' article it isn't shown AT ALL. It short, the fact that the whole event is seen in Iran and probably is in a large part a response to a very recent show-off of power of Israel with a military exercise a few days back, has to be prominently shown. Having those facts in mind, diminishing the view of the very initiator of the incident, Iran, can be considered blatant propaganda. --Leladax (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Iranian Reaction" is a central theme, not just a reaction 

message: This picture was removed because it wasn't "purely a picture of a projectile" and with "probably a slogan that says something ambiguous about Israel." What grounds is this for removal? Because it says something offensive about israel that isn't pc? See Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Somehow its still on here then. Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Muhammad cartoons article deals very specifically with a controversial topic. That is the purpose of the other page. This article is supposed to detail a projectile. We need only one free image of the Shahab-3 on a page this size -- not three or four -- and this photograph should not be picked because it conveys a single, contested point of view. It needs to be neutral photograph. The original one looks fine, but unfortunately it is copyrighted and shortly to be removed. In contrast, the one you keep inserting back into this article is not a photograph of the Shahab-3 per se, but a poor screen capture of a banner on the side of the Shahab-3. I repeat, with the other image about to be deleted, we need a clear picture of the projectile itself, free from POV pushing. Please consider the points above. — eon, 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a image of the missile that's free of copyright to be published, this is the very same picture of it. Now with the article is already mentions antio-zionism in here. The picture of the missile is here. But just because it has a banner doesnt make it unworthy of publishing. From the iranian perspecive this is what the government arsenal wanted as they marched down with full international view. From the israeli perspective, well it really doesn't involve israel. it is the government's display for the a missile owned by the iranian government. how are you going to get a 'pov' picture? any picture youre gonna find will be through iran. (likewise for testing from ANY country). Lihaas (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Image:Shahab 3 missile Iran military parade.jpg 

message: I agree with the proposal. Dynablaster (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger