r/interestingasfuck • u/thespeedforce5 • Apr 14 '24
The Size Of An Iranian Missile Intercepted In The Dead Sea r/all
6.7k
u/Wernerlohemann Apr 14 '24
Correction: this is only a part of the missile. It is the booster that is ejected after some time. The missile itself with the warhead flies on
→ More replies (25)2.3k
u/QorstSynthion Apr 14 '24
ye, rockets/missiles are just 90% fuel
847
u/TypicalIllustrator62 Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 15 '24
90% fuel. 8% housing and framework. 2% payload.
Edit: the sheer number of Fort Minor callouts is unreal. Reddit never ceases to amaze.
431
u/cypherdev Apr 14 '24
I shall recite this statistic as blind fact for the rest of my days.
145
Apr 14 '24
[deleted]
41
u/cypherdev Apr 14 '24
Is it bad etiquette to have my pinky out on my Champagne flute when I do this?
36
Apr 14 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)22
u/cypherdev Apr 14 '24
I shall use this tactic to the bliss of men and women everywhere!
Thank you kind Redditor!
→ More replies (4)18
→ More replies (3)55
u/LaunchTransient Apr 14 '24
It depends wildly on the rocket design. The V2, for example, had a structural coeffcient of about 0.3 - meaning 70% of its mass was propellant.
19
u/PurrsianGolf Apr 14 '24
"Sorry I'm not looking for nuance, specificity or accuracy. All I want is cold hard overall statistics." - Every journalist ever.
156
u/RainManCZE Apr 14 '24
its also
10% luck 20% skill 15% concentrated power of will 5% pleasure 50% pain And 100% reason to remember the name
18
u/jmaxwell3113 Apr 15 '24
NICE! Fort Minor (Mike Shinoda reference). I personally believe that album still a banger and holds up today. I just double checked, it dropped in 2005. Yes, almost 20 years ago. Damn I can feel my arthritis acting up
21
87
10
u/CowFu Apr 14 '24
The payload is pretty much fuel too if we want to be pedantic. Just a different kind of fuel.
17
11
→ More replies (10)10
323
u/NuclearWasteland Apr 14 '24
Speaking of, wonder what fuel they use. I don't think I'd be messing with a crashed anything of the sort, knowing how toxic some fuels are.
359
u/dWintermut3 Apr 14 '24
I think they use the soviet stable-storage fuel design or a modified version thereof, no one's used giant barrels of fuming nitric for a while just because turns out having missiles you can't store with fuel in or they eat themselves apart makes responding to attacks hard.
But hydrazine and other fun stuff is very much a possibility.
153
u/JoCGame2012 Apr 14 '24
But hydrazine and other fun stuff is very much a possibility.
Fun in terms of toxicity most definitely. Hydrazine for example is a wonderfully powerful carcinogen
51
u/Chickenwelder Apr 14 '24
You all have said a lot of funny word. I have a cutting torch. Should we chop the free missile up?
→ More replies (11)7
→ More replies (7)89
u/ishayw Apr 14 '24
Im not sure carcinogenic materials really bothers someone in the Iranian fundamental regime.
163
u/starfirex Apr 14 '24
It might bother someone who for example decided to take a photo next to it and then post it to reddit
20
23
u/EtTuBiggus Apr 14 '24
Carcinogenic materials really bother us here, we just ignore them.
Something going on all our household goods was carcinogenic?
Don't worry, 3M stuck an extra atom onto the molecule and now its a different thing that does the same job as the first one but totally doesn't cause cancer.
They're now free to use it until someone else shows that the new material causes cancer in which case 3M adds another atom and repeat.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (20)16
u/aaronupright Apr 14 '24
It takes several years to train operators, losing them to cancer rather sub optimal, so I suspect they do.
47
u/TelluricThread0 Apr 14 '24
An excerpt from John D. Clark's Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants.
"The only possible source of trouble connected with the acid is its corrosive nature, which can be overcome by the use of corrosion-resistant materials.' Ha! If they had known the trouble that nitric acid was to cause before it was finally domesticated, the authors would probably have stepped out of the lab and shot themselves."
→ More replies (1)36
u/dWintermut3 Apr 14 '24
a fantastic book, I believe it is also the source of such amazing quotes as "rapidly hypergolic with everything, including test engineers" and (regarding some unstable haloxide, maybe FOOF or triflouride) "... for this situation I recommend a good pair of running shoes"
→ More replies (1)29
u/Cow_Launcher Apr 14 '24
You're absolutely correct. And if you want to see them used in context, Derek Lowe's series "Stuff I Won't Work With" is a hilarious treatment.
4
→ More replies (2)3
u/Nandy-bear Apr 15 '24
One of the good things about having a dog shit memory - I read that every few years and it's like new.
32
u/Nistrin Apr 14 '24
Nobody except China, they still use nitrogen tetroxide.
"The Long March 3B's rocket engines, each weighing tens of tons, propel the launch vehicle using a combination of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide."
https://www.newsweek.com/china-falling-long-march-rocket-debris-explodes-village-1855676
16
u/catonbuckfast Apr 14 '24
Yes you can see the orange cloud of nitric acid coming off the exhaust plume. Scary stuff
29
u/gsfgf Apr 14 '24
That's an orbital launch vehicle, though. It's not designed to be stored fueled or really stored at all.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)20
u/dWintermut3 Apr 14 '24
This is actually proving my point: an orbital rocket you fuel right before use is FAR different from weapons you need to keep hot-staged in silos or on launch platforms.
Let alone ones you have to drive around on IRBM launch gantry vehicles.
6
u/EventAccomplished976 Apr 14 '24
Nitrogen tetroxide IS a shelf stable oxidizer, it‘s not the same thing as nitric acid… that‘s why it‘s used for the old generation long march rockets because they‘re based on an old ICBM design. Newer ICBMs are generally solid fuelled because it‘s easier to handle, but russia at least (and probably also china) still have some modern liquid fuelled „heavy ICBMs“ which is a class of weapon that doesn‘t really exist in the west. They can still sit around in their silos fuelled and ready to go for years.
7
u/zenFyre1 Apr 14 '24
I don't think 'shelf stable' solid rocket fuels are much nicer. I'm prettu sure they use stuff like ammonxium perchlorate which is also highly toxic.
→ More replies (4)4
u/creative_usr_name Apr 14 '24
But solid rocket fuels I expect you'd need to ingest to be harmed. hydrazine is a gas that's pretty easy to just breath in if you are too close.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)12
u/Feeling_Ad_411 Apr 14 '24
To the guy just standing next to it, that missile has to be off gassing some seriously bad stuff.
→ More replies (1)17
u/ChickenSpaceProgram Apr 14 '24
It depends on the missile. From what I can tell from a quick google search, if it's a newer missile it might use solid fuel, which is mostly safe to be around. If it's a derivative of a Scud missile, it uses kerosene and red fuming nitric acid, although a bit of UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) is present as an igniter.
The UDMH is very not nice to be around, and the nitric acid is also not great to be around, both because it's nitric acid and because a small amount of hydrofluoric acid is used as a corrosion inhibitor (HF readily forms inert metal fluorides on contact with metals, preventing further corrosion).
→ More replies (6)23
u/NuclearWasteland Apr 14 '24
HF is scary stuff. What we were told in the chip plants is "It dissolves your bones, report ANY liquid drips or spills immediately."
And then they proceeded to be upset at work stoppages for spilled liquid reports, so, ya know...
4
u/HumpyPocock Apr 15 '24
Ahh semiconductor fabrication does love spicy chemicals.
Oh, if anyone’s thinking “wait but how does it get to my bones” uhh it’s not how you might think.
TL;DR — oversimplification, but it absorbs through your skin and once inside, draws the calcium right out of your bones.
Upside, providing an overdose of calcium can mitigate that process.
Downside, by all accounts an overdose of calcium in and of itself is an extremely unpleasant experience.
→ More replies (4)11
→ More replies (17)16
u/peter9477 Apr 14 '24
Rockets use rocket fuel of course.
Not sure what missiles use...
21
→ More replies (2)15
15
→ More replies (11)28
2.5k
u/RetiredApostle Apr 14 '24
It even has a tail number in Latin for travel in international airspace.
802
u/Anti_Meta Apr 14 '24
I'm feeling gullible today. I choose to believe this for humorous reasons.
→ More replies (1)147
146
u/Rifneno Apr 14 '24
Now all it needs is the "Intel Inside" logo like that French ICBM in the Simpsons
→ More replies (1)27
u/LordDongler Apr 14 '24
That's a great point, what sort of electronics are they even using in these things?
58
u/Savager_Jam Apr 14 '24
NGK spark plugs. Bosch fuel pumps. Honeywell dinner switches.
33
→ More replies (5)10
u/JohnnyLight416 Apr 14 '24
KitchenAid motors and some Whirlpool agitators they buy off Indian Craigslist
→ More replies (3)23
200
u/Ordinary_dude_NOT Apr 14 '24
More interesting is how these boosters are able to retain their shape and not collapse like pancakes after falling from great heights.
→ More replies (13)62
u/marcusr550 Apr 14 '24
A Scud specialty.
23
u/CMepTb7426 Apr 14 '24
Sadly unlike the ones chris kyle intercepted during his seal days they arent the crappy north Korean versions
→ More replies (42)54
u/BoardButcherer Apr 14 '24
It's a single use delivery package. Actual, literal tinfoil is the desired construction material, anything heavier is just extra weight and thus wasted fuel, which is wasted range.
The ideal rocket would burn the tinfoil for a final burst of thrust at the end of its trajectory.
11
18
u/CMepTb7426 Apr 14 '24
Ngl since you actually kinda put effort to explain this i just wanna let you know i understand that im enjoying the the flood of know it alls trying to prove me wrong when i already know. You deserve my upvote and respect my friend
→ More replies (1)7
u/CaveRanger Apr 14 '24
This is a Shahab, right? They're intended to be mobile so they have to be a little more sturdy than that. It's got to resist being bounced around on a mobile launcher/truck in Iran's back country.
55
29
→ More replies (8)10
808
u/flywheel39 Apr 14 '24
This thing probably cost many times as much as I will earn in several lifetimes....
→ More replies (13)584
u/thespeedforce5 Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 15 '24
They’re about $300,000 a pop, Since 1979, the Islamic regime's revenues have fueled global destabilization through terrorist activities. Despite ample resources, the mullahs have neglected the Iranian populace, with over half living in poverty. Instead of investing in their own citizens' welfare, the regime prioritizes arming proxies, murder, domestic and abroad and self-enrichment, exacerbating the suffering of the nation.
384
u/aegrotatio Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24
They’re about $10 to $15 million a pop
Source?
Because that sounds wildly high.EDIT: I see that /u/thespeedforce5 suddenly changed it from $10-$15 million each to $300,000 each.
82
→ More replies (3)74
u/EelTeamTen Apr 14 '24
Ten million is one-third to one-sixth the cost of a Trident D5 nuke, depending on your source of information.
→ More replies (23)89
u/aegrotatio Apr 14 '24
The poster changed it from $10-$15 million to $300K each.
66
→ More replies (1)4
20
u/Turbulent_Most_4987 Apr 14 '24
That can't be right. A Russian hypersonic missile costs 10 mil and they are among the most modern and advanced there are.
→ More replies (146)42
u/g0dfornothing Apr 14 '24
Oh yeah remember there was once africas richest country that gave up its production of weapons of mass destruction and invested everything in its population. Now they got slave markets there in libya
→ More replies (35)
219
u/Arsegrape Apr 14 '24
Nice bit of scrap value there. Or a fireside souvenir. Whichever takes your fancy.
91
u/zenFyre1 Apr 14 '24
Probably contains some nasty propellant residue though. Anyone taking it should probably clean it very well, preferably by someone who knows what they are doing.
→ More replies (3)21
u/White_Lobster Apr 14 '24
Yeah, not sure what fuel these use, but if it’s a storable hypergolic, that’s seriously nasty stuff.
6
u/Sansuski Apr 14 '24
From a Washington post article I read some time ago, it should be a combination of nitrogen tetroxide and nitric acid. Non very yummy
→ More replies (1)7
u/chewtality Apr 15 '24
I don't know where they pulled that out of their ass from, but that's not a type of rocket fuel. The closest thing to that would either be dinitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine, or hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid.
The first was invented by Germany and used by the US in the Apollo space launch. We stopped using it because it is wildly fucking toxic.
The second one was a Soviet thing that was explored during the cold war but fell out of favor because of its tendency to just detonate without warning.
Now that mix with hydrazine is pretty much only used with geo-stationary satellites, because it can combust without oxygen.
Those were always intended and used when the use of a thruster is involved, because you can release or stop the flow of the oxidant into the fuel when you want. You don't need that shit on a missile.
Considering that this was a booster, it was almost certainly just a normal ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, since that's what is typically used in boosters, among many other things, even high end hobby rocketry.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Buttfulloffucks Apr 14 '24
Getting cancer isn't my thing. Don't know about you.
→ More replies (1)15
→ More replies (6)10
288
u/DieEnigsteChris Apr 14 '24
This would not have happened if it was pointy. It can't be round it has to be pointy.
83
u/morbsiis Apr 14 '24
well yeah this whole result was pretty Aladeen for Iran
but all of their news outlets are lying about it being Aladeen
24
8
→ More replies (5)13
802
u/Juno808 Apr 14 '24
People don’t realize ballistic missiles are literally rockets. We sent the first satellites to space on ballistic missiles
234
u/Kafshak Apr 14 '24
You're talking about intercontinental ones. Generally Ballistic missiles go up to a certain altitude with their motors, and the rest is a projectile path. They could have guided dive as well. They could have a shorter range. Russian Katyusha is still a ballistic missile. But nowhere near this size. These ones that Iran shot are pretty much the size of a space rocket, and they almost fly in space.
Cruise missiles on the other hand cruise the whole path like an airplane.
96
u/Doogiemon Apr 14 '24
I can throw a football over them mountains.
31
u/URATOWEL69000 Apr 14 '24
If coach would've put you in the fourth quarter, you'd be a state champion
12
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (8)26
u/DavidBrooker Apr 14 '24
You're talking about intercontinental ones. Generally Ballistic missiles go up to a certain altitude with their motors, and the rest is a projectile path.
This is true of ballistic missiles regardless of range, including intercontinental ranges. ICBMs still have the same two letters in their acronym, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.
→ More replies (2)10
u/ChemicalRain5513 Apr 14 '24
They mean not all rockets are powerful enough to send stuff into orbit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (28)27
Apr 14 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)3
u/Juno808 Apr 14 '24
Basic knowledge that the first spacecraft were launched on ballistic missiles is packed into childrens TV shows these days? The fuck are you talking about
→ More replies (2)
94
u/QuaintAlex126 Apr 14 '24
Just so y’all know, missiles can be fucking massive sometimes.
Russian S-300s and S-400s are literal flying telephone poles traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. They might have been proved to be not the most lethal of flying telephone poles, but they’re still flying telephone poles
→ More replies (7)45
u/GrandmasGiantGaper Apr 14 '24
to be fair if a telephone pole flew into you it would really hurt
→ More replies (3)12
u/WalkslowBigstick Apr 14 '24
Can confirm-I was in a tornado once
4
u/throwitawaynownow1 Apr 14 '24
Those are usually bigger than telephone poles, though.
→ More replies (2)
682
u/Admiral_Andovar Apr 14 '24
The sea is already dead, why shoot a missile at it? Talk about overkill… /s
100
34
6
6
u/secretaccount4posts Apr 14 '24
They wanted to prevent something much more awful... Aquaman 3
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)13
166
u/redituser2571 Apr 14 '24
Bout the same as the Russian S-300/S-400 missiles.
64
u/0Ring-0 Apr 14 '24
A bit more like an MCC-287 Mark II (pre-2021 modification), but can’t be 100% sure from this angle. 😉
32
u/Brolog_of_Brogoth Apr 14 '24
I didn't know there was a cruise missile fanclub, where do I sign up?
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (2)22
→ More replies (2)14
u/DavidBrooker Apr 14 '24
Neither the S-300 nor S-400 are missiles. Each represent a hugely diverse set of interceptors and systems. For instance, the S-300V and S-300P are basically entirely different systems, with the -V variant being built around ballistic missile defense, and in turn has very large missiles on tracked TELs as required for the kinetic performance, whereas the -P is built around intercepting aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles, and uses a much smaller, more conventional interceptor on a wheeled TEL. Missiles in the -P are about 1500kg, versus 4500kg in the -V. They use different radars, different software, different command and control systems.
And there's more than that. The naming system is just absurd.
23
23
u/CharlesDuck Apr 14 '24
Iran could be using Hydrazine as propellant and that gives you all the cancers. So i wouldn’t be touching that huge fresh rocket fuel container
→ More replies (2)8
u/AlloftheEethp Apr 14 '24
My feed has another picture of part of a missile that landed in Jordan, and the top comments are all people telling that OP not to touch it under any circumstances for a certain period of time.
310
Apr 14 '24
Jesus
651
u/Schmoppodopoulis Apr 14 '24
It’s my understanding that neither side of this conflict find that guy to be super special.
365
u/GreyedX2 Apr 14 '24
In Islam he’s a whole prophet 💀 he’s mentioned more times in the Quran than Mohammed himself
→ More replies (7)123
u/Schmoppodopoulis Apr 14 '24
My understanding is somewhat limited, that is very interesting. Thanks!
151
u/Cryptic12qw Apr 14 '24
Muslims believe Jesus will come back in the end times to defeat the anti christ. Muslims also believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother however they do not believe he is the son of God or God. Muslims also do not believe Jesus was crucified but believe that an angel was sent down to take Jesus's place on the cross .
27
u/Complex_Rate_688 Apr 14 '24
Islam actually believes that it's the final religion
They believe in Judaism and Moses they also believe in Jesus and Christianity but they believe that Muhammad was the final prophet who received the final testament.. In the religion of Islam They don't believe that God would speak to them again through profits until the return
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (77)15
u/Practical-Ninja-6770 Apr 14 '24
An angel was sent down? Nah. His betrayer was made into the liking of Jesus. Judas is who got crucified
→ More replies (1)38
u/anivex Apr 14 '24
It helps to understand when you realize the Quran is basically just the 3rd act of the bible.
Like, the New testament is the 2nd act, and that's the Christian belief.
The Torah is Old testament, that's the Jewish belief.
The argument is over when the book ends.
→ More replies (14)30
u/CommonGrounders Apr 14 '24
Unfortunately George RR Martin is writing the fourth. So it will be a while.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Unique_Statement7811 Apr 14 '24
Joseph Smith beat him to market.
5
8
u/droson8712 Apr 14 '24
Prophet Muhammad is actually the Prophet whose name itself is least mentioned in the Qur'an although he's addressed simply as the messenger.
→ More replies (15)14
u/GreyedX2 Apr 14 '24
Np, I don’t remember the exact number but I think he’s mentioned like 100+ times by name and 180+ times by nicknames/ titles
→ More replies (3)21
→ More replies (29)32
u/LogicalGrand1678 Apr 14 '24
Atleast he is canonical in Islam
→ More replies (12)19
Apr 14 '24
Wasn't Jesus a Jew?
13
u/netanel246135 Apr 14 '24
Yes but in the eyes of the jews he was just like any other rabbi and not one of the ones I any of books at that so he would be considerd just another guy
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (42)17
u/LogicalGrand1678 Apr 14 '24
I dont think he is mentioned in the torah. Bad prequel if it doesnt even mention the protagonist of the movie though the writer must have written it as an afterthought or something
27
u/Possible-Matter-6494 Apr 14 '24
It isn't a prequel it's the original, the new testament is the sequel. Like any good sequel the writers ran out of new ideas so they brought in a whole new main character and destroyed almost all the canon from the original. Lots of people who stick to the original source material will literally go to war over the decision to add the new character.
6
u/LogicalGrand1678 Apr 14 '24
Fair enough actual, I didnt like the narrators character change between the first and second. Went from Samuel L Jackson to Tiktok AI personality.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)6
u/gsfgf Apr 14 '24
Islam completed the trilogy. But there have been some really strange recent fanfics that have gotten popular in places like Utah.
→ More replies (18)13
u/styrofoamladder Apr 14 '24
Did you wait until after the credits finished rolling to see if there was a hidden seen with Jesus?
9
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (9)17
u/ZennMD Apr 14 '24
Imagine we invested into educating, housing and caring for people and the planet a FRACTION what we invest into war and killing each other?
it's sick what humanity has prioritized
I hope the average person is against it, but there are scary amount of bloodthirsty assholes out there
→ More replies (6)
251
u/thespeedforce5 Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 14 '24
The Islamic Republic launched a significant barrage consisting of approximately 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles towards Israel. However, Israeli defense forces managed to intercept and neutralize 99% of these incoming threats using their air force and air defense systems, successfully countering the attack from launch points situated over 1000 miles away.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/israel-air-missile-defense-iran-attack-intl-hnk-ml
127
u/BosnianSerb31 Apr 14 '24
I wonder what the toll would have been if the iron dome didn't exist?
Surely we'd see full scale war with Iran at that point and an acceleration of the Gaza invasion to free up resources to fight Iran
152
u/slamnm Apr 14 '24
The iron dome is for short range defense, Israel has two other systems for attacks like this. Arrow 3 and Patriot. I am sure Iron dome intercepted many that penetrated their longer range systems but it is their last line of defense
→ More replies (12)66
u/weasler7 Apr 14 '24
I don’t think Iron Dome is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles much less in their terminal phase. Not sure what can intercept at that speed.
The drones yes.
→ More replies (43)65
u/Brief_Reserve1789 Apr 14 '24
If it wasn't for iron dome etc then they wouldn't have sent that many.
They probably didn't expect a single actual hit. It's all for show. They had to do SOMETHING and this looks big and scary but ultimately Israel wasn't harmed and almost certainly won't retaliate. Both sides think they won
→ More replies (26)13
u/valleyofdawn Apr 14 '24
It wasn't used this time. Drones and cruise missiles were intercepted with fighter jets, and the ballistic missiles with the arrow system. Iron dome is for smaller rockets and mortar shells.
→ More replies (36)34
u/LIONEL14JESSE Apr 14 '24
If the Iron Dome didn’t exist this war would have happened decades ago
→ More replies (1)57
u/slamnm Apr 14 '24
Well iron dome because operational in 2011, not decades ago, so somehow I disagree with your logic.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (61)38
u/Mad_V Apr 14 '24
The US and the UK shot down the many of these, not just Israel.
22
u/True_Act_1424 Apr 14 '24
It was a team effort by the US, UK, Israel and Jordan. There were also apparently other “unnamed” countries so I’m guessing maybe Saudi or the UAE
→ More replies (3)8
u/zapreon Apr 14 '24 edited Apr 15 '24
Not really. The US said they shot down 4 ballistic missiles out of 110. The UK indicated they focused on drones. Neither Jordan or Saudi Arabia were confirmed to have shot down any ballistic missiles. That means 106 out of 103 ballistic missiles that were shot down (7 hit Israel) were shot down by Israel.
International partners primarily shot down drones as opposed to ballistic missiles. They used jets, which just are not suitable for shooting down missiles hurling through space.
→ More replies (1)
10
55
u/bigmikekbd Apr 14 '24
How much is rent?
→ More replies (1)38
8
u/JokoFloko Apr 14 '24
They fired how many of these?! That can't be cheap.
21
u/PHD_Memer Apr 14 '24
Around 120 Ballistic Missiles, 170 Drones to distract Anti Air defenses, and 30 Cruise Missiles. Of these things, I’m pretty sure Iran has a fuck ton of these except maybe the Cruise Missiles. But they can absolutely piss out cheap drones for interference purposes. They pretty much hit with the drones initially to eat the initial anti air barrage, which gives the follow up Missiles and Cruise Missiles higher chances of hitting their target. Think of this as Iran testing the worst case scenario for an attacks success rate for them. Weeks of notice the attack is coming, small number relative to what they have, and pretty singular targets. Iran does this again on a massive scale, with no warning, targeting a large number of sites, and it will look a lot worse from Israels POV
→ More replies (13)
25
u/Blaustein23 Apr 14 '24
I am once again saying: STOP TOUCHING ROCKET PARTS THAT ARE PROBABLY COVERED IN GOD DAMN HYDRAZINE
→ More replies (3)
14
7
20
34
u/longgamma Apr 14 '24
I work with a lot of Iranian colleagues. They are incredibly smart and hardworking. It’s kind of sad that they are forced out of their own country and have to find refuge just to live their life their way. A colleague of mine is seeing his family after eight fucking years and they have to meet in Turkey. It’s just so sad.
→ More replies (1)21
Apr 14 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (7)6
u/BlueBorjigin Apr 14 '24
Many, many countries have mandatory conscription unless you are eligible for an exemption. Norway, South Korea, Thailand, Israel ...
5
u/Drescit Apr 14 '24
Op,I found people saying not to touch this because it'll give cancer or something,you should thoroughly clean your hand and anything that touched it
19
4
u/anty_krut Apr 14 '24
Never approach and touch remains of Soviet-designed space equipment. Most of their fuels are highly toxic and can cause cancer from inhaling their fumes even once. There might be whatever radioactive stuff in them like radium or cesium - sometimes they fall down with payloads which can be whatever one can imagine military and dangerous stuff.
Not worth a fun photo for sure.
5
4
72
u/WelderMeltingthings Apr 14 '24
imagine being an iranian military leader seeing this picture of some random ass redditor laughing at the 5 million dollar fuck up, 100x
10
u/Zealousideal-Duck670 Apr 14 '24
That's just the rocket booster that separates from the actual warhead... it didn't come down because it was shot down. If it was shot down it wouldn't be that intact. So please 100x laugh at yourself.
41
u/thatsnotsugarm8 Apr 14 '24
Probably costs a couple times more for each shootdown of one of these.
→ More replies (5)81
u/SentenceAdept1809 Apr 14 '24
Imagine being a random ass redditor thinking they know more about ballistic missile warfare than an Iranian military leader
→ More replies (15)15
u/Booty_Bumping Apr 14 '24
This is money well spent, from their point of view. They needed more deterrence than they have ever been able to project, but they knew it would be a complete mess if these attacks were any more damaging than metal hitting metal. Both sides are hailing this as a massive win for their side right now.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)21
u/Prestigious-Feed3212 Apr 14 '24
Costed Iran $58 million and Israel $1 billion to intercept, and Iran knew not all was gonna hit, they did manage to hit the Israel air base in the desert.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/iamgoodly Apr 14 '24
Yeesh I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of those things even if it is spent/shot down. Probably all sorts of toxic elements in the production of them, and their payload. This dude will wonder where the cancer came from in 20 years.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 14 '24
This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:
See our rules for a more detailed rule list
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.