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.

 

TA-ANALYSIS: Iran Will Defend Nuclear Sites

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Iran has publicly stated that its military is on full standby in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities. The Iranian army training exercises have been put on hold and is being stationed closer to key facilities. Iran suspects that Israel may launch an attack and are wary after the report that the US ran simulations of a complex strategy to hit at Iran. Over the past eleven months Iran has captured what it claims to be ten "nuclear spies" and says it knows that they were working for the CIA and Mossad. The US continues to accuse Iran of seeking to gain nuclear armament. Iran still denies this, insisting it is for peaceful electricity generating purposes only.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Iran's military is on standby in case of an attack against its nuclear facilities, the country's top army commander has said.

Gen Mohammad Salimi said training had been suspended to concentrate on patrols close to potential targets.

Iran suspects that Israel may attack its nuclear sites because of fears that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.

Iran says it held at least 10 people for allegedly spying on atomic sites for Israel and the US in the past year.

"The air force has been ordered to protect the nuclear sites, using all its power," Gen Salimi told a government newspaper.

"All our forces including land forces, anti-aircraft [and] radar tactics are protecting the nuclear sites and an attack on them will not be simple," he added.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It appears Iran is very serious about protecting its right to have nuclear generated electricity. This is a right I believe they deserve, why should some countries have it and others not.

The European "Big Three", UK, France and Germany have rejected the US' wishes to put sanctions on Iran and have left the US isolated from the dealings. It has been reported that after the Iraq war and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, the US has started to run out of credit when it comes to the credibility of its claims.

This may frustrate the US that the UN has not imposed sanctions over Iran's nuclear activities, but has little choice but to except it.

I feel that now Iran will go unhampered in its goal for nuclear power. Any strike by Israel or the US would weaken even more any relationships between the US and Europe. On top of this it seems Iran is taking full military precautions against any attack. I for one certainly think that if Israel struck Iran, they would retaliate in full force which could have terrible consequences for both sides. Another consideration is Russia's support for Iran's goals of nuclear power.

To me it now looks inevitable that Iran will gain nuclear powered energy.




Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Even though Iran has said it will defend it's nuclear sites, I believe that if Israel decides to attack them they will. Israel has often in the past shown that they don't put much stock in the opinions of the international community. World opinion won't stop them if that's what they decide to do.

Now we know that Iran has missiles capable of reaching Israel, even Europe. But I think that most will agree that if you are going to attack Iran, and you know that they will counterattack, wouldn't you rather their counter attack not include a nuclear missile?

If your going to hit them, you need to hit them before they have nuclear capabilities.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I agree that Isreal would likely ignore international advice or opinions. However Iran is fully capable of striking back at Israel, even without nuclear armament. The possibility of Iran striking back is one of certainty.

With Europe and Russia backing Irans goals, Israel would suffer major comebacks from these quarters too. It also seems to me that if the US goes ahead with any kind of invasion, they would get no backup what so ever. In an extreme case, sanctions against the US is also a strong possibility at present.

As I stated, without any doubt, I beleive Iran will now achieve it's goals for nuclear produced electricity.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   
In the past, when Israel wanted to attack the infrastructure of Iran, all they had to worry about was the Iranian response using conventional weapons. Now, Israel knows that there is a Sunburn surprise waiting for them if they move on Iran, even in a limited strike capacity. Russia deployed the Sunburns as a detterent, and they're working quite nicely to prevent the mad flailing IAF from violating Iranian airspace. The Israel predicament is this - They're surrounded by unfriendly nations, they have their backs to the medditerannean, their operational success depends on hefty material support from the US, who have taken a decidely diplomatic stance with Iran. I don't just think Israel won't attack Iran, I bet that they can't attack Iran. The logistics are just too complicated, considering the calculated response.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
The Iranians say that these sites are for energy supply. The west cannot or does not want to believe them. What you expect if someone wants to come to your home and remove your energy source ? What, the west believes they have a monopoly on nuclear power and only allies can have it ? Defend it. defend it to the death.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
(sighs deeply)

If its repeated three times, maybe people will believe it.........................

Iran only wants electricity

Iran only wants electricity

Iran only wants electricity

There now everybody believes that.



To anyone who actually subscibes to the idea of Iran only wanting to generate electricity with its nuclear program,

I have swampland for sale in Florida and several large bridges to unload for a good price.




Irans nuclear infrastruture and monetary investment is far to large and developed for a simple electrical generating project.

To clearly and concisely claim there is not anything but a desire to generate electricity is to factually ignore publicly available information on pronouncements from Iranian leadership as well as imagery showing sites that are well beyond those required in a generating program.

Many many other countries have larger generating capacity with much less infrastructure and they sure don't bury the infrastructure they have underground.

As far as their military being on alert - so be it.

If and its a big if, the US or Israel decided to take out Irans nuclear sites they are as good as gone.

The 64 dollar question is and remains what would happen in the aftermath of that type of attack and the capability to neutralize an Iranian response.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
My current way of thinking is that due to European and Russian influence Iran's nuclear program will remain peacefull. Before their co-operation with Russia and Europe, with the US threatening them, I believe they may have tried to seek nuclear armament. And who could blame them, it would be the only deterrant that would work against the US. Now I think they will reamain peacefull.

As for there nuclear energy production, who has the right to deny them that?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
My current way of thinking is that due to European and Russian influence Iran's nuclear program will remain peacefull. Before their co-operation with Russia and Europe, with the US threatening them, I believe they may have tried to seek nuclear armament.



Russia and the Europeans only want their MONEY and be damned with the consequences.

Iran having what amounts to a minimal capability in nuclear weapons really does not make for a credible deterrence in relation to US capabilities and is only relevent in respect to the well being of other countries in the region that the US has interests in.

Iran (Mullacracy not people) knows it can destroy Israel if it has enough nuclear warheads, the means to deliver them and a capabilty to blunt retalitory attacks such as those from Israeli submarines.

None the less in a nuclear conflict Iran could concievably absorb several strikes while Israel can not if only due to the small territorial size.

A conflict such as this while bloody ensures an Iranian victory if they are willing to pay the possible price.

Are the Mulluhs crazy enough? - not something I want to bet against at this time.

Iran should not be allowed to manufacture nuclear bombs.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
By that logic phoenix, America should not be allowed the Bomb. I say survival of the fittest. If they can develop a long range strike capability and play with the big boys, let them, it's just going to amount to more negotiations, which in the end, are a very good thing for all involved. Right?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

To anyone who actually subscibes to the idea of Iran only wanting to generate electricity with its nuclear program,

I have swampland for sale in Florida and several large bridges to unload for a good price.


Well put.

As for stepping up their defense...big deal. If the US decided to bomb it, it's gone. It would be cinders before the Iranians even knew what hit them. As Phoenix pointed out, the real question would be the aftermath. As to the bombing itself, pretty much a guaranteed bye-bye....(i.e. can you say Stealth and Tomahawk? Knew you could...)



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
By that logic phoenix, America should not be allowed the Bomb. I say survival of the fittest. If they can develop a long range strike capability and play with the big boys, let them, it's just going to amount to more negotiations, which in the end, are a very good thing for all involved. Right?


I don't like the fact that nuclear weapons were discovered in the first place but there is no changing that now is there?

This justification for more and more countries to possess them reminds me of the childish equality taught nowdays whereby Johnny has to share his new box of crayons with the entire class to maintain a sense of inclusion for the others.

That is a stupid policy

So is allowing any more countries to have nuclear weapons.

The aim here should be a reduction in numbers of warheads possessed by countries with existing arsenals, the hope being that someday mankind does not have enough of these evil weapons to destroy life on earth.

With that said it is extremely illogical for anyone to advocate more countries possess nuclear weapons.

With that path of logic I guarantee negotiations or not we will see nuclear weapons unleashed in warfare again.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Yes, you may be right on your last two points phoenix, but there comes a point where we have to step back and take into account the fate of the species. Which is more dangerous, a few isolated nuclear exchanges or a few centuries of nuclear blackmail. I believe we are stunting the progress of the whole human race by appointing ourselves energy cops for the world. The nations that already have nuclear weapons have lived side by side for some time, there has been one use of them, really more of a test, a demonstration. Ever since then it has been quiet when it comes to large nuclear exchanges. Keep in mind there have been a number of micro nuclear attacks going back to the 80's. Mostly terrorist acts carried out by Mossad. They would be less likely to carry out said attacks if their enemies had nuclear deterents. I think someone should come up with a little red button that disables the detonation core of a nuke through resonance isolation or spatial/quantum interference. Until that happens, let anyone who can figure it out get their hands on the weapons. However, seemingly in contradiction of myself, I don't think tests of nuclear weapons should be allowed. They are responsible for untold numbers (astronomical) of cancer deaths annually. With a half life of 50,000 years, the cost of nuclear testing is paid over the LONG term. I don't think it's worth it frankly to endanger your population for that advantage. If some shah or another feels it's in his countries best interest to test deadly radiological devices and risk crippling the unborn children and hundreds of future generations of their country, go for it! Let them poison themselves foolishly, like America has done. Then we'll really be on even footing. The world will shake us off like fleas one of these days, until then, it's a party man. So act groovy and try not to spend too much time coming up with ways of ensuring your advantage over geographically isolated religious fanatics. I hear there's a moon base opening soon, maybe that's just the start of the human diaspora. If we expand far enough into the universe, there might finally be 'enough room for every man'



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
My current way of thinking is that due to European and Russian influence Iran's nuclear program will remain peacefull. Before their co-operation with Russia and Europe, with the US threatening them, I believe they may have tried to seek nuclear armament. And who could blame them, it would be the only deterrant that would work against the US. Now I think they will reamain peacefull.

As for there nuclear energy production, who has the right to deny them that?

I think you are missing something in this statement, the word "outwardly".
Iran's nuclear program will remain "outwardly" peaceful. They will for all the world to see maintain a peaceful nuclear program. Secretly however, secretly they will continue to work to develop nuclear weapons.

I would not deny them the right to work for a peaceful nuclear power generation program. It is unneccessary in their case. They have huge stores of oil, and can use those to generate power. A nuclear program is not needed in their case.

I also would not deny them the right to protect their country and facilities. But like I said before. If I were Israel, I would rather take them out before they are armed with nukes then try it after. Israel has a better chance of surviving 10 or 20 conventional missile strikes then 4 or 5 nuclear missiles.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
WyrdeOne,

Since you have basically advocated a limited nuclear war maybe the only thing that will change your mind will be the "Live and in Color" coverage on CNN when they are put to use.

I think once you've seen that you will then realize that the petty power obtained by third world countries possessing the "bomb" was not worth it.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
For those reading this deluded enough to believe that these reactors are for the purpose of energy production let me explain a little science for you.

There are two basic types of nuclear reactors, heavy water reactors and light water reactors. Of the two types, light water reactors are by far the cheaper, easier to maintain and operate form of nuclear energy. The fuel for these reactors only needs to contain as little as 3% u238. It is cheap easy to process and readily available from a multitude of sources.

heavy water reactors on the other hand require much purer uranium, are twice as expensive to build, create far more hazardous waste, and cost 4- 6 times as much to operate as their light water cousins. In fact the only thing that heavy water reactors do better than light water reactors is create plutonium that can be enriched to weapons grade.

Now what kind of reactors do you think the Iranian's have built. The cheap easy to operate and maintain type that do not produce significant quatities of highly toxic and dangerous plutonium or the type that are really just breeder reactors for weapons material?

You guessed it they have built plutonium factories for their WMD aspirations. Do the Iranians have a right to have nuclear power? SUre so long as that is their design. The fact of this situation is that they are not at all interested in nuclear power generation but in WMD's. Why would they want nuclear power when they sit on huge oil and even larger natural gas reserves that produce power for them at a fraction of the cost of even light water nuclear power?

That being said it is my opinion that their reactors need to be taken out by whomever has the will to do so, be it Israel or the US or anyone else. The Mullahs of Iran cannot be allowed to hold the world hostage to their fanatical designs to implement Islamic rule on the entire region and eventually the world.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I believe that the fate of the species is more important than my life, your life, the life of every American, or every African. In a nutshell, I think people need to start thinking for themselves. The world is too large, too diverse for fair and balanced compromise of any kind. Therefore, unless some groups of people are allowed (not encouraged, please don't misquote) to wipe out other groups of people, we are doomed to eternal conflict.

I don't advocate storming third world nations for any reason, not to save them, not to murder them, not to bring them candy and cokes. Stay put! Go there on vacation. Establish a business there if they'll let you. Do whatever it is that you want. Private matters can be accomplished without military oversight. The first step to true freedom is to allow each man his piece of the world. Then they can merge or divide as they themselves see fit. If they can't defend it from warlords or robber barons, they will lose their precious land AGAIN, and we can start the whole process of human evolution. Smart, ruthless, efficient people will once again dominate the food chain. The human species will be improved.

Life is better for everyone when all humans work for themselves, and in doing so work for the good of the masses. By being the best human you can be, by having healthy children and teaching them to survive, you have done a service to the species. To disallow someone that is criminal, and it's just what's being done all across the world. The fat get fatter and the sun gets darker. This all relates to Iran because they're trying something very different than we are in terms of government. They're doing the whole religion thing, which never really worked. We're doing the Democracy thing, which, when improved further might just be the ticket to happiness. Time will punish ignorance, folly, and poor genetics. Let time do it's work. Defend yourself and your family. What do we hope to accomplish by freeing the third world and the arab states from their own decisions? They will come up with innovative solutions to their cultural problems given time, or they won't, and they'll die.

The threat of massive nuclear war from Iran on America is nonsense. This scenario is fear mongering at it's finest. The Iranians have developed a purely defensive stance, paranoid even, and why, because Israel has a habit of knocking their buildings down. I'm just in search of some objective thinking. Has television made that impossible? I believe 50% of America has an IQ between 90 and 110. That means that a significant portion (75%) of Americans are unable to 'juggle' thoughts, compare notes on the fly, calculate probability over time frames longer than a few days, this is serious stuff folks. Without a culling of the herd, we'll be scratching our asses, sniffing our hands, and falling off tree limbs before the milenium is out. Crazy people are those who try to affect the process in any way other than simply living your individual life to it's longest, and having lots of children. In a somewhat related note, arab lineages are long, and families can be quite large in some cases. I would say this makes them more evolutionarily viable in at least one way.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I believe that the fate of the species is more important than my life, your life, the life of every American, or every African. In a nutshell, I think people need to start thinking for themselves. The world is too large, too diverse for fair and balanced compromise of any kind. Therefore, unless some groups of people are allowed (not encouraged, please don't misquote) to wipe out other groups of people, we are doomed to eternal conflict.


Read Mein Kampf you will find your opinion dove tails very well with the author of that book. Personally I find this kind of Nazi theology is the result of evolutionary philosophy and represents the seedbed of another Hitler's rise to power.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Yeah, and rightly it should. I just hope when it begins, that Iran breaks US's nose.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
NO, Hitler thought it was the duty of superior men to exterminate inferior ones. He also believed in a lot of manufactured dogma from an earlier age (always a recipe for trouble) I think it's the duty of all men to strive for a place in a peaceful future, by whatever means their individual or collective minds can come up with. Murder is still wrong, except in self defense, because it robs the future of the contribution of another specimen(s). Murder can be punished by whatever means are available. Genocide is nauseating to a person like me, it represents millions of lost chances. Anyone who purports to care for the species and goes on to murder millions of people has A. an inflated ego B. a grudge. If people would value their own lives as equal to their neighbors, men in healthy competition for resources working together for the betterment of the world, I think strife would exist, but not in the way it does now. It's a tainted mindset that allows delusions of grandeur and xenophobia to set in. The consequences of small men on gargantuan power trips have historically been disastorous.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
In case the us navy needs to finds it's way to iran:

en.wikipedia.org...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join