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 Willing to Share Nuclear Technology With Other Islamic Nations

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his nation would be willing to share its nuclear technology with other Islamic nations. The comments were made at a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations. The comments come on the heels of a recent threat from France to refer the country to the United Nations over its nuclear ambitions.
 



news .yahoo.com
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran is willing to provide other Islamic nations with nuclear technology, Iran's hard-line president said Thursday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comments after meeting Turkey's prime minister on the sidelines of a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons, IRNA reported. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."

Iran has said it is determined to pursue its nuclear program to process uranium and produce energy, despite European attempts to limit it. The United States accuses Tehran of secretly seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well this opens up a whole new can of worms. Its increasing clear to me that the efforts by the EU 3 to contain Iran are heading for failure. If so what then? You have the hard line President basically saying that he will spread the technology anywhere. If that is not a threat, then i do not know what is. You have Russia and China ignoring the problem as they are counting on oil and technology sales to Iran. Lastly you have open division within the EU where several nations have called into question the right of France, Germany, and the UK to even negotiate a deal on behalf of the EU. Its a mess that will not have an easy solution.




posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Oh Oh! The stinky brown stuff has come into contact with the rapidly spinning air flow device.

I am not too worried about the how the US is going to react to this, my main concern is ISRAEL.

Remember they have already bombed on Arab reactor (Osirak, Iraq 1981).

I don't see the Israelis sitting by and letting countries like Syria and Jordan get their hands on nuclear technology.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well, if Iran don't give them the secrets to making weapons of mass destruction, maybe Amazon.com can help:


How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (Paperback) by Frank Barnaby

www.amazon.com...


There is also this place called 'university' where people can learn a subject called 'physics' that can help with the basics.

Maybe we should declare a 'war on knowledge'?

[edit on 15-9-2005 by shanti23]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Looks like someone got to it already...


Originally posted by shanti23
Maybe we should declare a 'war on knowledge'?


Half the US population would back it.


Can't the world leaders just shake hands....



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I don't think that book is a step by step instruction manual for building a nuclear bomb. The review says that it is about the technology that is needed to build one and that a country's ability to build a bomb can be evaluated by an analysis of the technology available to it. If I remember correctly there was a flap in the 80's about a student at Princeton who designed a nuclear device based on open source information that he found in a library.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23
Well, if Iran don't give them the secrets to making weapons of mass destruction, maybe Amazon.com can help:


How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (Paperback) by Frank Barnaby

www.amazon.com...


There is also this place called 'university' where people can learn a subject called 'physics' that can help with the basics.

Maybe we should declare a 'war on knowledge'?

[edit on 15-9-2005 by shanti23]


if true why cannot those countries do it themselves, obviously making nuclear technologies are fare more complicated.

how many of the countries that have nuclear weapons actually made it themselves with no outside help.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
how many of the countries that have nuclear weapons actually made it themselves with no outside help.

Nobody. The US had the help of German scientists, gave help to the British and let the Russians steal it.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
i meant since america was the first, theres speculation that after america, all the other nations had outside help and influence, so my point is it is not as easy as getting some books or just doing a uni degree, otherwise everyone would have it, would they not.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by andy1033]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
i meant since america was the first, theres speculation that after america, all the other nations had outside help and influence, so my point is it is not as easy as getting some books or just doing a uni degree, otherwise everyone would have it, would they not.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by andy1033]


Designing a bomb is fairly easy. Getting the materials to build one is the hard part. Most older Physics books had an example of both the implosion and gun type bombs. What they don't have is how much of each material is necessary and other specifics. Nuclear material is extremely hard to obtain. This is why places like Iran want the technology to build reactors and facilities to convert the fuel to weapons grade material. This is the hard part that has prevented most countries from developing their own weapons. Countries like South Africa and Israel originally obtained the materials for their bombs from other sources. I am not too sure about Pakistan and India. The original bombs that the US used in World War II worked because they were very over engineered. Over the years testing has enabled the US and other nuclear countries to refine their weapons design.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Nuclear technology is old technology, it is no longer a secret technology and hasn't been for a very long time. Infrastructure and resources are far more important than the actual technology required for such devices, which are essentially from the era of Flash Gordon.

Iran is just the next target in the 'war on terror' and all this is the same hot air that preceded the Iraq invasion with bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
We are close to the Frank herberts "dune system of nuclear power"...
where every "state" has a set number of nukes... and if they ever get mad enough to use them, then they accept that they will also be a target...

might put a big "nope... not gonna do it" on any thought of attack...

everyone will eventually have nukes... at this point, most any child prodigy can make one, so it is not so far away...



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23
Nuclear technology is old technology, it is no longer a secret technology and hasn't been for a very long time. Infrastructure and resources are far more important than the actual technology required for such devices, which are essentially from the era of Flash Gordon.



that is handy, so how come one of americas most protected secrets is the h-bomb.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
We are close to the Frank herberts "dune system of nuclear power"...
where every "state" has a set number of nukes... and if they ever get mad enough to use them, then they accept that they will also be a target...

might put a big "nope... not gonna do it" on any thought of attack...

everyone will eventually have nukes... at this point, most any child prodigy can make one, so it is not so far away...


how many countries have the nuclear weapons?


[edit on 15-9-2005 by andy1033]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
JimC5499 is right on the money. While the basics aren't exactly uncommon knowledge these days, it's the specifics and the materials, that are a little harder to come by....



"Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."


Most of the ones for this will simply say, "oh, but that's for nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, there's a difference!"....

Those of us in the real world of course, realize that oil rich nations are hardly wanting for power sources, and realize all too well that this equates to a nuclear armed collection of states that at best don't like us, and at worst want to see us off the map.

Your average arab is just like you or me. They go to work, go home to their wife (rarely is it more than one), and have kids, etc. But, these aren't the guys who'll be buying the tech...and THAT's the scary part.

The worst part of all of this, is that it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN, as far as when some yahoos are going to go 911, and set off a nuke in a major city.

While this story is probably more saber-rattling propaganda from Langley, the basic truth at the heart of it is a very real threat. However, invading Iran, or toppling it's regime, won't solve the problem.... I'm not sure anything really can at this point... We're just biding time till it happens...



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Is this really any surprise...Pakistan has called their nuclear bombs Islamic for years. So what happens when the impression is given (rightly or wrongly) that the war on terrorism is actually a war against Islam? When countries are declared evil (only individuals, leaders or otherwise are evil, a country is a collection of individuals and has no absolute distinction of either good or evil and ALL governments are by their very nature, amoral) etc. When one country is overwhelmingly invaded on the basis of a known lie...well guess what, they start looking for ways to protect themselves....Bush minor's axis of evil speech and invasion of Iraq has done more to promote nuclear poliferation in the very countries we do not want it than anything else we could have done. Way to go shrub.


cjf

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23
Iran is just the next target in the 'war on terror' and all this is the same hot air that preceded the Iraq invasion with bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction.


Iran is in possession of conventional WMD (C&B) and is consecutive signatory supporters of the CWC, none of which concerns the current issue of dispute. Nor is Iran Iraq by any comparison or stretch of the imagination. There is an effort to enforce that which exists and the US is laying in the crabgrass these past few rounds. The E3 will continue to set the tone.


Originally posted by Gazrok
While this story is probably more saber-rattling propaganda from Langley, [....]


I agree with nearly the entirety of your position and opinion, albeit excluding the above statement.

Perhaps a portion (even sizable) is propaganda but the saber rattling has a tendency to volley and Iran perhaps has 'found an inch which may open a mile'. Iran has been skipping down a razors edge for numerous years (off issue, two decades of deceit does not easily lend to trust); she probably won’t find her self ‘invaded’, just severely or mortally crippled.

Iran opened a door for the United States to take a welcomed ‘back seat’ and the US has and probably will continue to politic from inside the galleries as well as continue to be openly vocal. Europe’s role (and that of the UN) has not been played-in-full. When/if this role is fully played in time national self interests/preservation becomes the true measure, not alliances or allegiances. The entire effort and probable future event is heading the wrong direction.



.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If they "Iran" spread this Nuclear Tech. they will definetly be bombed and isolated further then they already are



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Give me justification for one country having nuclear weapons, whilst another cannot have them, and I'll give you a bigot.

[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
how many countries have the nuclear weapons?



The follwoing countries and known to have nuclear weapons:

Russia
United Kingdom
France
China
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea

The basics of a hydrogen or boosted fusion weapon are well known. The trouble lies in the aquisition of the material needed to make the bomb.


Subz

Its not bigotry, its simple preservation. If every two bit dictator or regime with hostile intent aquires these weapons, its end game. Not trying to be dramatic, but if every nation has a few and start popping them off over a border dispute, or god forbid loans one to a terrorist group, we have big trouble.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Hmmm...

India and Pakistan had a Very Dangerous (and still do) Relationship. The disupute over the Kashmir area has gone way out of control several times. During that period of Kashimr Crisis both countries got hold of Nuclear Weapons. What happened then? Did they throw them on each other? Did they start a thermonuclear war?

Nope.

Why do you think Iran Will?

Do you think they are Inseane?

I think that a Country that has 15.000 Nuclear Warheads is MORE Dangerous then a Country that does not have one, but just wants to have it...



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
FredT thats already the situation we have now. Except I dont buy into the two-bit dictator launching nuclear weapons, thats just unrealistic.

If there is one thing that is completely unacceptable to a dictator its losing his power. Thats the very first consequence of using nuclear weapons, you lose. This is known to everyone as the premise kept the World from all out nuclear war for over 60 years now.

With regards to terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, I dont think that genie is ever going to be put back into the bottle. Proliferation is occuring whether you admit it or not. A Pakistani scientist spread nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea yet they are a reciepient of U.S military aid and support. Whats the reasoning behind holding nuclear weapons away from countries again? To stop the spread of nuclear secrets or to make sure that your friends have them whilst your enemies do not?

Having nuclear weapons whilst your enemy does not is surely the most dangerous scenario. Do you really think a nuclear exchange would not of occured if America didnt have nuclear weapons during the Cold War? Or how about if Russia didnt have nuclear weapons?

Case in point: Japan
Do you really think the United States would of dropped the n-bomb on Japan if the Japanese had nuclear weapons? How was the threat of nuclear war reduced with less countries having nuclear weapons in that situation? I believe the same applies.

The only threat from nuclear weapons is from terrorists acquiring them. Which will occur whether or not Iran or any other country gets them.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join