'Unimaginable' oil prices, warns Saudi prince

[DarkHunter 2,811]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Im really not sure where youre getting "massive conspiracy theory" from.  A single compromisable scientist is all it would take to get the required information.

Im definitely not married to the idea but like I said when things are too convenient it just makes sense to ask who benefits.

Somehow we (the west) seem to think human nature stops being a thing when its convenient. The entire world is watching Iran as a raving lunatic and his religious zealot supporters beg for an opportunity to attack her with the most powerful military in history. It just makes zero sense for them to have performed the attack from a human perspective.

Perhaps they did, the US and SA saying so however simply isnt going to convince me.

It would take so much more then a single scientist,  the mere fact that you think that shows how little thought you put into it.  First they would need the exact blue prints not just of the cruise missile and drones but of every single component in both, that alone would require multiple people within the defense industry.  Then there would be building every individual components to the exact same specifications and quality level as Iran so now you would need extensive information in multiple manufacturing areas.  Then there is also the tech area, got to make sure you use the same programming as Iran so now you need multiple people in Iran's tech sector.  Ultimately it would be cheaper, easier, and involve far less people just to bribe a unit of the Iranian military to go rogue and do the attack then try to mimic the cruise missiles and drones to a high enough degree to trick multiple experts.

It doesnt make zero sense at all, the Iranian economy is on the verge of collapse.  There has been extensive flooding in southern Iran resulting in damages costing if I remember correctly around hundreds of millions of dollars which the Iranian government has largely ignored to continue funding military operations in Iraq and Syria.  Before the latest sanctions Iran's inflation was expected to reach 40% by the end of this year and to keep rising with no end in sight, hyper inflation starts at 50% inflation for one year.  Lastly the Iranian government has been able to keep the population relatively placated by having an extensive social security system and subsidizing food and medicine with hard currency, they been having to keep cutting back on the social security programs to continue military funding in Iraq and Syria and they will probably be running out of their hard currency in about 10 months which combined with the inflation rate will make food and medicine near impossible for the population to acquire.

Ultimately Iranian regime is slowly being strangled and the only two chances they have at survival is to cause enough pain globally that they can blackmail countries into giving them economic relief or to try to goad America into a limited military strike so the leadership can rally the population behind themselves and paint all of the massive coming problems as coming from America and not from the leadership preferring military adventurism over their own people.

[Black Red Devil 4,061]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Considering Germany, UK, France, and the Netherlands are blaming Iran for the attack it seems America and Saudi Arabia got some proof that has been reported.  Even then it wont matter to you cause no evidence will be enough for you and you already made up your mind that Iran is innocent.

"We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks on oil facilities on Saudi territory on September 14th, 2019 in Abqaiq and Khurais, and we reaffirm in this context our full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its population," French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a joint statement after meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

“It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack," the leaders said. "There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.”

link

Above is a link to an article which is similar to other articles I've read.  What this says to me is they're blaming Iran based on the scrap metal shots the Saudi's provided, strongly backed by the Trump Administration, but want to see further evidence.  Hence the reason I asked you if you had further details that Trump promised because as far as I can tell, none have been provided, which leaves the situation at the status quo, i.e awaiting further details/evidence, which is also what Macron/Merkel/Johnston are expecting (although I'm pretty sure Johnston is already convinced).

As far as me making up my mind already, as I've indicated to you and unlike you I don't just gobble up the party line's propaganda unless I'm fully convinced they're not deceiving the public, which seems to be a common trend these days by all political sides of the spectrum.  But I also understand you would find this hard to comprehend biased as you are.

[RoofGardener 17,501]

Hmm.. I must admit, I'm sceptical about this. I agree to a degree with @Farmer77, in that the "evidence" we have so far could indeed have been faked. The Saudi reports on damage to the site are sketchy, and the published photographs are somewhat suspicious. (the perfect symmetrical holes in the LNG containers, for example). 

On the other hand, what "evidence" would be acceptable to prove/disprove Iranian involvement ? 

[Farmer77 28,114]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

On the other hand, what "evidence" would be acceptable to prove/disprove Iranian involvement ? 

This is also a very valid point. The region is something of a Rorschach test I suppose. 

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

we're not still banging on about this are we? Look, Pompeo's excuse for war with Iran has gone a bit past its use by date by now hasn't it. The Acting President is soon going to have to invent some new "provocation" to keep the outrage stoked. Just like with teh tanker "attacks", the regime seems to be finding it difficult to stoke up a climate of fury and outrage, except among the usual loyal puppies (Europe) who'd always jump up and down and yap obediently if Washington told them to. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

On the other hand, what "evidence" would be acceptable to prove/disprove Iranian involvement ? 

Well, certainly nothing that came from from Washington, Riyadh, or Jerusalem, none of whom anyone outside of any of those countries believes a single word they say.

[RoofGardener 17,501]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

This is also a very valid point. The region is something of a Rorschach test I suppose. 

Well, if we assume - just for a minute - that the Iranians DID do the attack on the refinery (or at least assisted), then it seems to represent a pattern of increased belligerence. That would suggest to me that they will try something else again. 

I would imagine that the radar coverage of these critical facilities would have been improved. Oil tankers are more wary of approaching Iranian waters, and the worlds navies will be on increased alert. 

Although much play was made of HMS Monmouth warning Iranian gunboats away from a British tanker, we should recall that there are rather a lot of western naval vessels in the immediate area. There are Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, 151 and 152. In particular, CTF150 is in Bahrain.. the tip of the spear, so to speak. CTF152 is composed mostly of Arabian ships, and operates across the gulf region, with CTF151 being over in Aden, but available to move to the gulf within a couple of days. Altogether, this is a potent force of vessels, including modern destroyers and frigates, along with counter-mine ships, and even aircraft. Alone, it could easily overpower the Iranian navy. 

So, the point being that with all these resources deployed, any new attack by Iran is likely to be "spotted" in progress, providing the 'evidence' required for the international community to take action. Or more likely, to dither around on the sidelines while the Royal Navy and US Navy do their work for them. 

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

2 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Well, certainly nothing that came from from Washington, Riyadh, or Jerusalem, none of whom anyone outside of any of those countries believes a single word they say.

* Or London, let me add. 

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 

So, the point being that with all these resources deployed, any new attack by Iran is likely to be "spotted" in progress, providing the 'evidence' required for the international community to take action. Or more likely, to dither around on the sidelines while the Royal Navy and US Navy do their work for them. 

Yes, but the attack from Iran on Saudia wasn't, was it. This could mean two possible things, both of them somewhat embarrassing: either that Iran possesses missiles that are capable of covering significant distances, very, very accurately, and without being detected, or that (b) perhaps they didn't come from Iran.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[RoofGardener 17,501]

33 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Yes, but the attack from Iran on Saudia wasn't, was it. This could mean two possible things, both of them somewhat embarrassing: either that Iran possesses missiles that are capable of covering significant distances, very, very accurately, and without being detected, or that (b) perhaps they didn't come from Iran.

All very true @Dumbledore the Awesome. However, returning to my earlier post: with the heightened state of alert, if Iran DOES attack again (or if Saudi launches a 'false-flag' attack against itself), then the true nature of the attack should become apparent. If - on the other hand - another facility is attacked by cruise missiles, and the Saudi's claim that they did not detect it, then it will give rise to suspicions that the Saudi's are complicit in the attack.

I can easily believe that the radar operators where asleep at the switch for the first attack against the facilities. But a second attack - with no radar detection - would make me highly sceptical of the Saudi claims.  

[Phaeton80 3,961]

13 hours ago, and then said:

Just as you would say to me - just because you deny a thing does NOT make it true.  Only a naive fool would truly believe Iran isn't working to build a bomb.  At the least, those who support them should admit this.  It makes them look like shills or imbeciles to deny it.

Only a naive fool would truly believe that doesnt have anything to do with the wars of agression under a guise of humanitarianism waged by the usual suspects, lead by the USA, leading to the wholesale destruction of several of Iran's neighbouring countries, even longstanding allies. And only a naive fool would truly believe it has nothing to do with the continuous words of war, prolonged economic warfare, as well as the increasing number of US bases surrounding Iran.

..Only a naive fool would NOT opt to develop a nuclear deterrent, in these utterly obvious hostile circumstances, from nations who left a trail of demolished ME countries the last 20 odd years.

If the US were in the position of Iran, it would have UNDOUBTEDLY identified these acts as clearcut acts of war (rightly so), and the world would readily agree. Only media and US's cultural, economic and political influence makes it possible for the US to do thesame, without the int. condemnation (which would be in effect if the tables were turned). Maybe someday you will realize this reality. And the implication of Iran being the regions main supporter of terroristgroups.. well, thats just the icing on the inverted cake. Only a naive fool would believe that.

 

(*Number of bases seem to have risen to at least 45)

 

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Phaeton80

[RoofGardener 17,501]

36 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Only a naive fool would truly believe that doesnt have anything to do with the wars of agression under a guise of humanitarianism waged by the usual suspects, lead by the USA, leading to the wholesale destruction of several of Iran's neighbouring countries, even longstanding allies. And only a naive fool would truly believe it has nothing to do with the continuous words of war, prolonged economic warfare, as well as the increasing number of US bases surrounding Iran.

..Only a naive fool would NOT opt to develop a nuclear deterrent, in these utterly obvious hostile circumstances, from nations who left a trail of demolished ME countries the last 20 odd years.

If the US were in the position of Iran, it would have UNDOUBTEDLY identified these acts as clearcut acts of war (rightly so), and the world would readily agree. Only media and US's cultural, economic and political influence makes it possible for the US to do thesame, without the int. condemnation (which would be in effect if the tables were turned). Maybe someday you will realize this reality. And the implication of Iran being the regions main supporter of terroristgroups.. well, thats just the icing on the inverted cake. Only a naive fool would believe that.

 

(*Number of bases seem to have risen to at least 45)

 

How interesting. Lets take a closer look.... 

Despite the maps, the US doesn't have ANY troops or bases in either Armenia or Azerbaijan. It has about 550 personel at Ircirlic airbase in Turkey (which is at least 1000 miles from the Iranian border), but almost all of those are technicians, not soldiers. It has about 5000 personel in Iraq, mostly in a training capacity, with no heavy weapons. I don't believe there are ANY US bases in Oman. 

I could go on. Suffice to say that across the entire middle-east, including Pakistan, there are barely 50,000 US personnel, most of them many thousands of miles away from Iran. 

If we where to re-draw your map with the flag sizes being proportional to the troop levels, they would be microscopic pinpricks that you would need a magnifying glass to see. 

They are NOT any kind of threat against Iran. 

[Phaeton80 3,961]

42 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

How interesting. Lets take a closer look.... 

Despite the maps, the US doesn't have ANY troops or bases in either Armenia or Azerbaijan. It has about 550 personel at Ircirlic airbase in Turkey (which is at least 1000 miles from the Iranian border), but almost all of those are technicians, not soldiers. It has about 5000 personel in Iraq, mostly in a training capacity, with no heavy weapons. I don't believe there are ANY US bases in Oman. 

I could go on. Suffice to say that across the entire middle-east, including Pakistan, there are barely 50,000 US personnel, most of them many thousands of miles away from Iran. 

If we where to re-draw your map with the flag sizes being proportional to the troop levels, they would be microscopic pinpricks that you would need a magnifying glass to see. 

They are NOT any kind of threat against Iran. 

Lets take an even closer look, based in fact this time (you know, as opposed to some random uncited statements)..

Map of US bases, as well as several aircraft carriers, within close proximity to Iran

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/04/2012417131242767298.html

If you actually, seriously propose these military sites and vessels - besides all the (f)acts of agression mentioned earlier youve chosen to.. well, ignore completely - wouldnt be interpreted as a direct threat by the US if she was in the position Iran is in now, your inability to regard these things in an objective fashion is even greater than suspected.

[Earl.Of.Trumps 5,694]

Trying to give this an honest assessment, And I must say, I cannot come to a conclusion with any confidence. Certainly Iran could have done the dirty, but they deny it and Houthis admit it. I would think that if Iran wants to send a message, it was lost if they deny it.

Anyway, I have to totally blow away everything that the US says because they are known liars and false flag setters to start wars. Here are two of them one worked, the other backfired.

Quote

Start of the Viet Nam War - Link

Come About the USS Maddox: This Navy Warship Is Where the Vietnam War Began

America acclaimed that the USS Maddox came under attack by the Vietnamese. When the USS Maddox finished its tour and came back to the US and the sailors heroes. One such sailor was interviewed on live national media and was asked, how did you feel when the Maddox was shelled? The sailor responded, "We were..?", And the war raged on. False flag worked amazingly well. 48,000 deaths later, the US retreats from Viet Nam.
--------------------

The USS Liberty incident:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_(AGTR-5)

Quote

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was a Belmont-class technical research ship (electronic spy ship) that was attacked by Israel Defense Forces during the 1967 Six-Day War.

 The Liberty suffered a brutal attack at the hands of the Israelis, many sailors killed and wounded. No action was ever taken by the US military, no explanation to this day for the incident. Supposedly, this was a false flag action that - if successful, was supposed to have the US blame Syria for the attack and draw the US into the war.

 

So I hope you all understand that when I tell you that I cannot rely on the word of the US, it is because the US is known to LIE their asses off. Kill their own people, *anything* to get into war.

In the end, it's technically feasible for the US to concoct this "Iran attack". Ergo, I cannot trust what they say.

I think the Houthis did it. 

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

All very true @Dumbledore the Awesome. However, returning to my earlier post: with the heightened state of alert, if Iran DOES attack again (or if Saudi launches a 'false-flag' attack against itself), then the true nature of the attack should become apparent. If - on the other hand - another facility is attacked by cruise missiles, and the Saudi's claim that they did not detect it, then it will give rise to suspicions that the Saudi's are complicit in the attack.

I can easily believe that the radar operators where asleep at the switch for the first attack against the facilities. But a second attack - with no radar detection - would make me highly sceptical of the Saudi claims.  

There is one other possibility that needn't necessitate any conspiracies. It may have been, as always claimed by them themselves, the Houthis. An infiltration squad could surely very easily have slipped into Saudi unnoticed and launched the drone from relatively near to the target; these small drones can easily be disassembled and transported by camel, on foot or by Toyota pickup, as we know. Still very accurate guidance, certainly, but such a level of technology would certainly be within their capability.

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

20 hours ago, and then said:

Just as you would say to me - just because you deny a thing does NOT make it true.  Only a naive fool would truly believe Iran isn't working to build a bomb.  At the least, those who support them should admit this.  It makes them look like shills or imbeciles to deny it.

the only one who seems to be saying so is Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. Everyone else who says they have no evidence of such a thing is, as usual, wrong, and only Israel is correct, as usual.

Here's the NY Times' evidence :

There is no evidence that Iran is likely to capitulate to American demands. ... which almost certainly means it will move to build its own nuclear arsenal. .

I love that "almost certainly means it will". In other words, "no, we don't seem to actually have any evidence that they are, but they're bound to aren't they."

[DarkHunter 2,811]

17 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

"We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks on oil facilities on Saudi territory on September 14th, 2019 in Abqaiq and Khurais, and we reaffirm in this context our full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its population," French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a joint statement after meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

“It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack," the leaders said. "There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.”

link

Above is a link to an article which is similar to other articles I've read.  What this says to me is they're blaming Iran based on the scrap metal shots the Saudi's provided, strongly backed by the Trump Administration, but want to see further evidence.  Hence the reason I asked you if you had further details that Trump promised because as far as I can tell, none have been provided, which leaves the situation at the status quo, i.e awaiting further details/evidence, which is also what Macron/Merkel/Johnston are expecting (although I'm pretty sure Johnston is already convinced).

As far as me making up my mind already, as I've indicated to you and unlike you I don't just gobble up the party line's propaganda unless I'm fully convinced they're not deceiving the public, which seems to be a common trend these days by all political sides of the spectrum.  But I also understand you would find this hard to comprehend biased as you are.

You do understand there is an international group including teams from Saudi Arabia, America, EU, and the UN that are investigating the debris and all of this is not just being based off of pictures of debris.  Saudi Arabia has even been openly stating they are waiting for this international investigation to be completed before taking any action.

As for further evidence it seems unlikely any more will be released to the public till after the investigation ends.

No you just gobble up the propaganda that reinforces your already established opinions.  You completely ignore all the inconsistencies with the Houthis claim of doing the Aramco attack such as how it took the Houthis about 10 hours to claim responsibility instead of claiming it immediately like every other attack they have done or how they claimed the attack was committed was completely wrong, claiming 10 drones were used when the Saudis recovered debris from 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles, which has not happened with their other attacks.  Also there is the distance problem, if the attack came from Yemen controlled territory assuming it flew straight, which would involve flying over the Saudi capital, it would be about a 600 mile flight.  Given that the attack wasnt picked up by Saudi anti-air defense and with most of it pointed towards Yemen the path the drones and cruise missiles would of had to fly would almost certainly have to be significantly longer.  To top it off the Saudis identified the cruise missile as the Ya-Ali cruise missile, which has not been disputed by any nation yet, which only has a range of approximately 430 miles.

But go ahead and claim I'm biased cause I actually objectively look at all of the evidence and not just the stuff that backs my already established biases like you seem to do.  Also if you looked at my first few posts I did think it was the Houthis until problems with their claims started to appear.

[Black Red Devil 4,061]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

You do understand there is an international group including teams from Saudi Arabia, America, EU, and the UN that are investigating the debris and all of this is not just being based off of pictures of debris.  Saudi Arabia has even been openly stating they are waiting for this international investigation to be completed before taking any action.

As for further evidence it seems unlikely any more will be released to the public till after the investigation ends.

 

So, no different from what I said then?

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

No you just gobble up the propaganda that reinforces your already established opinions.  You completely ignore all the inconsistencies with the Houthis claim of doing the Aramco attack such as how it took the Houthis about 10 hours to claim responsibility instead of claiming it immediately like every other attack they have done or how they claimed the attack was committed was completely wrong, claiming 10 drones were used when the Saudis recovered debris from 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles, which has not happened with their other attacks.  Also there is the distance problem, if the attack came from Yemen controlled territory assuming it flew straight, which would involve flying over the Saudi capital, it would be about a 600 mile flight.  Given that the attack wasnt picked up by Saudi anti-air defense and with most of it pointed towards Yemen the path the drones and cruise missiles would of had to fly would almost certainly have to be significantly longer.  To top it off the Saudis identified the cruise missile as the Ya-Ali cruise missile, which has not been disputed by any nation yet, which only has a range of approximately 430 miles.

 

So you've crunched up the information and placed it on a forum while we have experts from the US, EU, SA....investigating the 'evidence' currently.  Talk is cheap.  I heard another one, that the missiles were shot from Iraq because of the direction they came from and how they hit.  So let's say I'll await the opinion of the experts before someone with a biased view on US policies against Iran in the Middle East like yourself tries to convince me otherwise and even then the evidence has to be solid and substantiated and not coming out of Pompeo's, Johnston or Prince 'sand digger' of Saudi Arabia mouths.

[and then 48,125]

23 hours ago, The Caspian Hare said:

Saudi Arabia is an artificial state full of soft, rich people who let foreigners do all the hard work. That state, and the petrodollar system it supports, can't last forever.

Sounds good, looking a bit further down the road for the consequences it would bring tells another story though.  We didn't want to be bothered with Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated either.  That choice didn't have very positive outcomes for us.  Leaving Islamic fundies in power and unharried will not end well for us either.  Fight there or fight here but fight we will.  Because THEY INSIST.

[DarkHunter 2,811]

14 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

So, no different from what I said then?

I would say it's a good bit different since you are implying that all of these nations are making their decisions off of pictures supplied by Saudi Arabia instead of having their own investigation teams looking at the evidence.

15 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

So you've crunched up the information and placed it on a forum while we have experts from the US, EU, SA....investigating the 'evidence' currently.  Talk is cheap.  I heard another one, that the missiles were shot from Iraq because of the direction they came from and how they hit.  So let's say I'll await the opinion of the experts before someone with a biased view on US policies against Iran in the Middle East like yourself tries to convince me otherwise and even then the evidence has to be solid and substantiated and not coming out of Pompeo's, Johnston or Prince 'sand digger' of Saudi Arabia mouths.

So when presented with stuff that proves your opinion wrong you go from being so sure in yourself to saying wait for the experts, while still throwing in your impossibility high barrier of acceptable evidence.  Also nice racial dig at the Saudi prince, real good show of character there.

[Farmer77 28,114]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I would say it's a good bit different since you are implying that all of these nations are making their decisions off of pictures supplied by Saudi Arabia instead of having their own investigation teams looking at the evidence.

I think the larger concern is that they are making their decisions off of whether what they say will mean the difference between their nation getting an aid package or not

 

[DarkHunter 2,811]

34 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the larger concern is that they are making their decisions off of whether what they say will mean the difference between their nation getting an aid package or not

 

When was the last time the EU has received an aid package from America.  While certain countries within the UN could possibly be bribed to suggest Germany, UK, France, and the Netherlands could be bribed by an aid package, especially when Iran not being implicated in the attack is massively in their economic interests, is a reach at best to delusional at worst.

[and then 48,125]

22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

On the other hand, what "evidence" would be acceptable to prove/disprove Iranian involvement ? 

I assume that to be a rhetorical question?  They could set up cameras and wait for the next SA attack, show them being launched from Iran and even cite Iranians bragging about it and these shills still wouldn't care.  Fortunately, their opinion on national policy matters only to themselves.

[Farmer77 28,114]

1 minute ago, and then said:

I assume that to be a rhetorical question?  They could set up cameras and wait for the next SA attack, show them being launched from Iran and even cite Iranians bragging about it and these shills still wouldn't care.  Fortunately, their opinion on national policy matters only to themselves.

No simpleton we would care because it wouldnt be filtered through the warmongering morons in power.

Youre so blood thirsty youre willing to wholly ignore history. Its like the Iraq invasion, and the immense disinformation campaign to rally American citizen support for it,  never happened with you people.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[RoofGardener 17,501]

13 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

There is one other possibility that needn't necessitate any conspiracies. It may have been, as always claimed by them themselves, the Houthis. An infiltration squad could surely very easily have slipped into Saudi unnoticed and launched the drone from relatively near to the target; these small drones can easily be disassembled and transported by camel, on foot or by Toyota pickup, as we know. Still very accurate guidance, certainly, but such a level of technology would certainly be within their capability.

An infiltration squad with 17 drones and.. what.. 9 cruise missiles ? That would take a small convoy of lorries. And the cruise missiles are not like RPG's. They require sophisticated setup procedures before they can be fired with any accuracy. We'd be talking about a team of around 50 strong, many with advanced training.

I guess it might be POSSIBLE for such a group to infiltrate southern Iraq, complete with their lorries full of weapons. Or even into Northern Saudi Arabia. And then fire their weapons.. and then tidy up leaving no evidence, and take their lorries away again. 

Possible, but unlikely ?  There would have been a high probability of discovery, either before or after launch. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by RoofGardener