CDZ Iran's Prisoner Release/Swap: What Was the Real Deal?

[320 Years of History]

......

Riddle me this..............Why would a country need an ICBM program if they have no intentions of getting Nukes?

The silence of the Obama apologists (except for poor Dani) is deafening...

Red:
I realize that nuclear warheads are what have historically been installed in ICBM, but the fact is that anything, including conventional weapons, can be mounted in them; they are, after all, just vehicles, means of transportation, for a given payload or "passenger." When we sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, we did so basically by sitting them on top of an ICBM. Additionally, placing a satellite into Earth orbit for all intents and purposes calls for launching an ICBM, the main difference being the destination/trajectory and velocity needed. For example, American Titan and Minuteman ICBMs, and Russian SS-9 Cyclone ICBMs, have been converted into space rockets.

If a nation isn't able to purchase an ICBM for launching satellites, one option is for them to build, test and deploy their own.

Blue:
I'm not willing to aver to being an "Obama apologist," but I can posit several reasons why those who are have refrained from responding:

• they don't know that satellite launch vehicles and ICBMs are substantively the same things
• they were unwilling to answer a question that eagle1462010 should have been able to answer for him-/herself merely by Goggling for the answer
• they haven't seen the question
• they've in the past determined they don't find the inquirer's remarks or questions intellectually meritorious and thus don't bother reading his/her posts (I know stupidity, puerility, and intransigence in the face reason are the three main reasons I put folks on "ignore." My now grown kids haven't had kids yet, so I won't put up with Internet personages who act, think or write like kids. Maybe when I become a grandfather I will again be willing to tolerate that sort of thing.)

The question strikes me as a relatively straightforward one that is best answered objectively and without regard to one's political ideology. In light of that, I think it equally telling in a "deafening" way, that none of the non-Obama apologists have hitherto answered the question either. I can only wonder if the one's here and participating in this thread's discussion are just too damn stupid/ignorant to have realized that there might actually be an objective and perfectly reasonable answer to eagle1462010's question, and not knowing what it might be, bothered to look for that answer?

BALONEY.

Everyone with any common sense knows why. Nice try at a different angle of deflection.

That's not any sort of deflection. That is what one would need to test an ICBM for if launching a military warhead of some sort -- conventional or otherwise -- isn't the purpose.

Now I suspect the fourth idea I posed may well be why no "Obama apologists" have answered you. I had posed that idea as something of a smug joke, not suspecting that

You asked a question, got a perfectly valid and objective answer, one that I supported with factual evidence, from NASA no less, and you, in reply, respond as though the reason I stated doesn't exist.

My apologies then.

Accepted.