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.

 

NEWS: Iran defiant over nuclear plans

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Former president of Iran Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has said that Iran will continue with its nuclear program regardless of what the western world has said. He has stated that Iran needs nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes, and has also warned the US and Europe that any confrontation would not be a good idea.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshipers at Friday prayers in Tehran that foreign negotiators faced trouble unless they changed their approach.

His remarks come after the UN nuclear watchdog called for Iran to step up its co-operation with nuclear inspectors.

Iran says it wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

"I say to Europe, US and the [International Atomic Energy] agency (IAEA) that this style of confrontation will definitely not bring you a favorable result, and it will cause trouble for you," Mr Rafsanjani said.

He added that Iran "will certainly not refrain from its right to use peaceful nuclear energy".



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think any country who has nuclear capabilities can ultimately manufacture nuclear weapons.

Mr Rafsanjani has stated the obvious retort that it needs nuclear energy for "peaceful" things. Any country can and will say this.
This could get very messy, especially with the remark made, "that it would not bring you a favorable result, and it will cause trouble for you."

Reading between the lines here, says to me that any attempt to stop Iran using nuclear power, would bring about retaliation from them.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WAR: Iran ready for US invasion

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Spectre]




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Like ive said a million times before, how can the United States hold the Non-Proliferation Treaty in such high regard whilst it broke its longstanding ABM Treaty with the Russians?

Logically if you're going to demand a country adheres to a treaty you should also do the same.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
The ABM Treaty was subject to review and change by the parties. The breaking of the NPT by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran caused the U.S. to reevalutate its needs and abandon the treaty. Iran still claims to be following the NPT because it wants nuclear technology from other countries. There is no comparison...I find it amazing that people equate the construction of a defensive system by the U.S. to an offensive weapon by insane regimes such as Iran's. :shk:



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
The breaking of the ABM treaty by the Americans isnt just about the defence of the USA. It increases the likelyhood that hostilities will occur in the future.

There was a reason the ABM treaty came into affect, it was to maintain the validity of Mutually Assured Destruction.

When you remove MAD from the equation all bets are off. Theoretically the United States could invade Russia, safe in the knowledge that their could be no repercussions for the continental USA. The only thing keeping the United States from World domination is the threat of nuclear annihilation by the likes of Russia and China.

No ABM with feasible missile shield = no MAD = higher likelyhood of hostilities

[edit on 6/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
No matter what we say about this topic, we all understand what the end result is likely to be.
If you have nuclear technology to provide power etc, then you also have the means to provide nuclear arms.

I'm not sure about this one, but does any country that uses nuclear power also have nuclear arms?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I'm not sure about this one, but does any country that uses nuclear power also have nuclear arms?


Yes. Brazil wanted to be a nuclear power. South Africa is already a nuclear power but I won't be surprised if South Africa come out and state that they have nuclear arms of their own.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I'm not sure about this one, but does any country that uses nuclear power also have nuclear arms?


Yes. Brazil wanted to be a nuclear power. South Africa is already a nuclear power but I won't be surprised if South Africa come out and state that they have nuclear arms of their own.


So you think that Brazil has nuclear capabilities?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
When Bush met with Putin during his Eupropean 'Democracy Quest,' the Russia-Iran nuclear deal was dealt with in their joint press conference.

Russia, Iran Sign Nuclear Deal


...So I'm wondering who's feeding these fires, and why. Who gains by upsetting already agreed upon international deals and strategies?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   


...So I'm wondering who's feeding these fires, and why. Who gains by upsetting already agreed upon international deals and strategies?


One can only assume thats its the "intelligence" agencies?
After all, they are only human and are prone to making mistakes too.(sarcasm intended)



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It's laughable and the height of hypocracy to continue adding to our own nuclear arsenal and not expect the other developing countries to beg, borrow, buy and steal nuclear weapons for their countries. If I were a left- leaning, democratic-seeking, Iranian college student I'd still hope my leaders were doing everything in their power to achieve nuclear parity in it's simplest form. At least with a nuclear missle of some magnitude you sit at the table of respecability. Am I for Iran having those kinds of weapons--no--but I'm not for Pakistan, or India either, and look at the respect they now enjoy, [ where was our intelligence when their programs were evolving,]. I don't trust anyone with nuclear bombs or missles, us included, the world knows we'll use them--and especially don't trust Isreal.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

The only thing keeping the United States from World domination is the threat of nuclear annihilation by the likes of Russia and China.

I agree with you, subz, but this comment is bound to call down the people at ATS who will argue that such a nuclear war would never happen because "China makes so much money trading with us", "They are our new capitalist ally", etc, etc.

I think we are seeing the runup to nuclear war. I have posted about this in other places. What you have said is true. If China and Russia put the pieces together, it's not hard for them to see that an early, pre-emptive nuclear strike, at least on the West coast, would level the playing field for them. The USA represents the greatest military power that has existed on Earth in human memory. Now that the Project for a New American Century is essentially underway, will these other nations accept their place in this "New American Century"?

Russia and China are prepared to recieve a nuclear strike. They have large bunkers and lots of iodide and their people are ready for the hardship of nuke-war rebuilding. It would be hard and painful for them, but they may see it as a necessary act based on what America is doing right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton was the one who bombed Iraq's nuclear reactors, right? Now look where we are with Iraq. It's not enough to bomb the Bushehr reactor because then it will become a question of "Is Iran hiding WMDs" just like with Iraq. Even after we wrecked their nuclear projects and starved their poorest members, we still went to war and we will remain there for years according to our leaders.

If we seriously attack Iran while Russia is backing them, couldn't this lead to a quick WW3? The whole point of nuclear first-strike is to act when your opponent expects you to NOT act. Since military technology keeps advancing in secret, it's not incredible to think that a Russian/China think-tank might devise a way around the US pacific SOSUS array. If that happens, an SLBM launch from a single soviet submarine (ten warheads per missile, twenty missiles per submarine) would probably be sufficient.

FEMA has investigated this possibility. Check out this thread for info: Media Blackout Regarding Nuclear War?






[edit on 6-3-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The breaking of the ABM treaty by the Americans isnt just about the defence of the USA. It increases the likelyhood that hostilities will occur in the future.

There was a reason the ABM treaty came into affect, it was to maintain the validity of Mutually Assured Destruction.


And what did you think the US would do when China itself broke the accord and started buying missile defense systems from Russia?... and when the US saw that other nations, including rogue nations started getting their hands on nuclear weapons also?.... Ah, it has to be the US the one to follow the treaty even though everyone else doesn't....



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
In all honesty, and I'm only voicing my opinion here, i don't think that any country would contemplate launching nukes.
The after effects and repercussions would be too severe world wide.

Look how many countries trade with each other. Most of these have nuke capabilities. Using them would ultimately cause the offending countries infrastructure to collapse. IE, who would they trade and deal with?

Maybe the article i found is nothing but scare tactics? Who knows?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Smallpeeps, I agree with what you say as well except that China would attack regardless of trading with the United States. If your options are having the Americans dominate the World and its resources or keeping the status quo you dont have to think hard at the result.

For one, the status quo wouldnt survive as you cant trade when you dont have anything to trade with. The United States is hell bent on proteting its interests, its no secret and freely admitted. Surely dominating the Worlds resources is in the best interests of any country, not only the United States. Is it so inconceivable that, if given the chance, they would seize everything?

Lets face it, fossil fuels are running out fast, the climate is heating up so water will become the most precious substance on the planet. The stage is being set for a major grab for the Worlds remaining resources. The seizing of Iraq and Afghanistan is in step with this plan.

Back on topic, it doesnt take a genius to see whats happening and you can bet China and Russia as well as every other country will protect their interests with as much fervour as the United States.

Muaddib, do you have any proof that the Russians were selling missile shields capable of stopping Ballistic missiles to the Chinese? If they did, and im sure they didnt, they would then be guilty of breaching the ABM.

To my knowledge it was Bush's thirst for reviving the missile shield and star wars technology that had him pull out of the treaty unilaterally. He didnt blame anyone in his speech announcing it.


Why the US pulled out of the ABM
On Thursday, President Bush formally notified Russia of his intention to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in six months. He said he could not provide security while abiding by a treaty that bars development and deployment of a national missile defense system.



US tries to calm fears
China was not a signatory to the ABM treaty, but like Russia, it had warned the United States about the consequences of walking away from the pact. Both Secretary Powell and Ms. Rice said they do not believe the decision will cause a crisis in relations with Beijing.


Well that assurance seems to be fading damn fast.
US abandoning the ABM treaty

[edit on 6/3/05 by subz]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join