It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kingdom Wants Nukes Now Too! And So It Begins...

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

No matter how one slices it..

A war led by the West on Iran for possible Nukes or for Testing a Nuke would go over like a fart in church. Nobody wants another Mid East war. It seems Putin will back Iran simply because due to his recent activities he's running out of close friends with muscle, Despite the often over regurgitated supposed "BRIC" alliance.

If Tehran wants Nukes then by the very same coin the Saudis have a right to them as well. It's an ugly scenario and one that I dread but this is the world we live in.

It'll be Interesting to see how those two attempt Nuclear "Detente'




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

And you know they still have to test it.

Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.


Why do they have to test it?

I think America and Russia did enough testing.

Nukes do work.



No cause you have to test your design.


There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.


Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,


Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.


Actually it's even more complicated than that. Once the nuclear device is created, the hardest part is to miniaturize it. You have to miniaturize & stabilize the device so it can fit on a missile, otherwise you just have a massive but delicate device. That's the part where North Korea is supposedly stuck.

You can still use a non-miniaturized version, but it would have to be like how the US did against Japan (but modern radar would make that nearly impossible). It could also be placed on some massive vehicle & driven to its target (lol) or used as a ridiculously dangerous trap. As in, once invaders get within range or have occupied a specific area, set off the nuke. But neither of those is likely.

In other words, Iran is very far away from being a nuclear threat. Not only would they have to enrich the fuel enough to make it usable in a weapon, but then they'd have to design & perfect the actual bomb, and then stabilize and shrink it to fit on a missile. Then they would be a nuclear threat to Israel (and the GCC).



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Well if there is intervention it should be lead by Israel as they are the ones with there panties in a twist.

They have a viable military.
They can do tne brunt of the dirty work for once .



As I said and have made clear in other threads im not thrilled nor do I want another war.
And I dont see Iran as a enemy as they have not hurt or threatend my county.


But the idea of a nuclear arms race in the ME disturbs me,



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

And you know they still have to test it.

Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.


Why do they have to test it?

I think America and Russia did enough testing.

Nukes do work.



No cause you have to test your design.


There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.


Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,


Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.


Actually it's even more complicated than that. Once the nuclear device is created, the hardest part is to miniaturize it. You have to miniaturize & stabilize the device so it can fit on a missile, otherwise you just have a massive but delicate device. That's the part where North Korea is supposedly stuck.

You can still use a non-miniaturized version, but it would have to be like how the US did against Japan (but modern radar would make that nearly impossible). It could also be placed on some massive vehicle & driven to its target (lol) or used as a ridiculously dangerous trap. As in, once invaders get within range or have occupied a specific area, set off the nuke. But neither of those is likely.

In other words, Iran is very far away from being a nuclear threat. Not only would they have to enrich the fuel enough to make it usable in a weapon, but then they'd have to design & perfect the actual bomb, and then stabilize and shrink it to fit on a missile. Then they would be a nuclear threat to Israel (and the GCC).


Exactly



I was just trying to keep it simple for our audiance.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SLAYER69

Well if there is intervention it should be lead by Israel as they are the ones with there panties in a twist.



Mother of God....

Are you seriously advocating Israeli intervention here? I'm sure many here will have kittens reading that.


They have a viable military.
They can do tne brunt of the dirty work for once .


I'm not a supporter of Israeli intervention but they have handled all their issues pretty much on their own. They took care of Saddam's Nuclear facility, they have been dealing with all manner of issues led mainly by Iranian [Covertly] supported and backed HAMAS etc.



the idea of a nuclear arms race in the ME disturbs me,


It'll be great for Russia's economy now that Oil prices fell through the floor. Imagine all the conventional arms sales to load out both forces. Billions of dollars worth of munitions etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69




Mother of God....

Are you seriously advocating Israeli intervention here? I'm sure many here will have kittens reading that.


Not really.

Id rather there be NO war.

But if there has to be a war Id rather them doing the fighting and dying for once.


I think your focusing on the wrong poster mate.

Im all for avoiding war. There are many on this thread frothing at the mouth demanding war today.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Just tossing in my couple of pennies.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

And you know they still have to test it.

Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.


Why do they have to test it?

I think America and Russia did enough testing.

Nukes do work.



No cause you have to test your design.


There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.


Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,


Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.


Actually it's even more complicated than that. Once the nuclear device is created, the hardest part is to miniaturize it. You have to miniaturize & stabilize the device so it can fit on a missile, otherwise you just have a massive but delicate device. That's the part where North Korea is supposedly stuck.

You can still use a non-miniaturized version, but it would have to be like how the US did against Japan (but modern radar would make that nearly impossible). It could also be placed on some massive vehicle & driven to its target (lol) or used as a ridiculously dangerous trap. As in, once invaders get within range or have occupied a specific area, set off the nuke. But neither of those is likely.

In other words, Iran is very far away from being a nuclear threat. Not only would they have to enrich the fuel enough to make it usable in a weapon, but then they'd have to design & perfect the actual bomb, and then stabilize and shrink it to fit on a missile. Then they would be a nuclear threat to Israel (and the GCC).


Exactly



I was just trying to keep it simple for our audiance.



Yep. But the part I don't get is how the pro-Israeli crowd can keep claiming Iran is pushing for nukes, when even the Mossad says they're aren't. It just doesn't make sense to me. Unless they just want more war & don't care about the justifications.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Well if Israel and now Saudi Arabia say that Iran is a threat...






It must be true...










Yawning!
edit on 28-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Look at the history of all the "terror groups" fighting Israel...


They all began after Israeli incursion into their land..





If you honestly think Ayatollah controlled Shia Iran have been backing Sunni MOSS... Hamas, sorry, Hamas...
You might need to think again!


You mention Russia...
Much more likely to be supplying Hamas than Iran.




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

If you honestly think Ayatollah controlled Shia Iran have been backing Sunni MOSS... Hamas, sorry, Hamas...
You might need to think again!





FYI
english.farsnews.com...

"Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus today.



Linky

According to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran. Iran also supplies Hamas with military weaponry. Technologies provided include Fajr-5, M-75, and M-302 rockets, as well as drones.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Thanks, but I'd take anything Khameni says with a pinch of salt, maybe even a heart attack inducing amount.

& Abbas... Ugh I love Palestinians and Palestine...
But he is a mouthpiece in a suit & keffiyeh...



I do concede & highly appreciate that you're bringing Iranian sources to the table...
& I myself am bringing mere conjecture...


But I prefer my gut instinct though buddy!





posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So the leader of Iran says they do, A leader in Palestine says they do.

You say they don't.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So the leader of Iran says they do, A leader in Palestine says they do.

You say they don't.



Bingo!

The leader of Iran is hardly a trustworthy source among these boards...

Until he says something people agree with...
I don't roll that way.



Abbas is a terrorist sympathiser and has goaded them in the past to be offensive...

Again...
I don't roll that way.



So yes...
I say they don't!
edit on 28-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The leader of Iran is hardly a trustworthy source among these boards...



Then if he is not trust worthy then how can anybody in their right state of mind trust what they say about not wanting Nukes?

Can't have it both ways you know.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

I'm quite certain more than one man controls Nuclear Weapons no matter the continent or country.


Do you not think it's become the Twilight Zone in this thread that all of a sudden Khameini and Saudi Arabia are now go to sources for what's happening in the Middle East?




I feel like I've crossed into a parallel universe.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So you trust Khameini to be honest?

Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of others success ie Hamas & Hezbollah?



I can show you a documentary of Hezbollah arms dealers talking about Russia, Italy & China...

You honestly think Iran are the power player in Middle Eastern turmoil?



Khameini is a throwback mouth piece.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Better question...

Is Khameini a willing mossad agent stooge by supporting Hamas so Israel can further it's Zionist agenda?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Do you not think it's become the Twilight Zone in this thread that all of a sudden Khameini and Saudi Arabia are now go to sources for what's happening in the Middle East?



Why is listening to those two sides such a bizarre concept? They are opposed to one another, Both Covertly engage in one upsmenship with supporting, training and supplying opposing masked bad guys etc.

Both sides would love to see the other fall
edit on 28-3-2015 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join