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: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Still very early into thier nuclear age Souljah

A country with 15000 warheads is much more stable and less likely to use them IMHO. If you have 1-5 of them its use or lose IMHO.

Would Iran, India, Isreal, North Korea, Or Pakistan use them? Yes, I beleive if the right set of circumstances occured any of them could use some or all of thier arsenal. Pakistan is of particular concern. Given the degree to which thier intelligence service is co-opted (and has been for decades) is one car bomb away from having a extremist government aka Taliban lite in power with nuclear weapons.




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Now thats bigotry FredT.

You honestly dont think the Untied States would use nuclear weapons? You might want to tell that to your President. Where has the ABM treaty gone? Why is he wanting to design bunker-busting nuclear weapons? Why has he got pre-emptive nuclear strike options commissioned?

I suppose invading 2 countries in the last 5 years can be classed as stable. Just how much evidence do you need to realise that there is only two acceptable nuclear scenarios.

1. No countries (including the stable United States) have nuclear weapons. Which is the aim of the NPT.
2. All countries have nuclear weapons.

Half measures here allow for one nation to bully others into doing whatever they demand. Which is currently the case with Iran and the United States.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Give me justification for one country having nuclear weapons, whilst another cannot have them, and I'll give you a bigot.

And of course, based on your logic, every nation on this planet should have a nuclear weapon.
Apparently, non-proliferation is no where to be found in your vocabulary, huh?








seekerof



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Now thats bigotry FredT.


I fail to see how it is Bigotry as defined subz, it plain old common sence.

Perhpas you can explain how a nuclear warhead in every countires bunker is your idea of stability?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
How can we expect to gain any respect and co-operation from these countries if we keep treating them like children? Let them play with big boys toys and if they don't hurt each other in the process then its all good, right? And if they do then shame, they shouldn't have bitten off more than they can chew. It shouldnt be our responsibility to baby sit or police these countries.

I'd just like to know what we'll be saying in say 30 to 50 years time when all the oils run out and they have no means of income let alone electricity. Will we allow them nuclear power then, or will we be happy to see them even further behind us and even more resentful?

Oh and as for nuclear weapons being used against us, i wouldn't worry about it unless we REALLY pissed them off.

Also i'd like to know how you would feel if say the French invented an extremely beneficial technology with huge potential but denied the US or the rest of us access to it because they didnt trust us with it? I know i'd be pissed off.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
FredT - lets say that You are have 15.000 pieces of guns, for example 15.000 AK47 semi-automatic rifles. And I have ONE, old M84 Carabine rifle.

Who is MORE Dangerous in this case?

You or Me?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nobody. The US had the help of German scientists, gave help to the British and let the Russians steal it.


Not true, Britain developed their own nuclear weapons with no help from the USA.

www.fpif.org...

While Britain developed its own nuclear weapons, (with, incidentally no help from the U.S., despite sending all its own research to its ally during WW II) in the 1960s, the then conservative government in effect gave up development of any means of delivery. Britain secured the technology first for Polaris, then for Trident nuclear submarine systems.


nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Britain was the first country to seriously study the feasibility of nuclear weapons, and made a number of critical conceptual breakthroughs. The first theoretically sound critical mass calculation was made in England by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in Feb. 1940. Inspired by this finding the MAUD Committee (a code name chosen from the first name of one member's nanny) was founded. Headed by Sir Henry Tizard, from 10 April 1940 to 15 July 1941, this committee worked out the basic principles of both fission bomb design and uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion. The work done by the MAUD Committee was instrumental in alerting the U.S. (and through espionage, the USSR) to the feasibility of fission weapons in WWII. A high level of cooperation between Britain, the U.S., and Canada continued through the war, formalized by the 1943 Quebec Agreement. Britain sent the "British Mission", a team of first rank scientists to work at Los Alamos. Among the scientists who made this journey were the pioneer of shock wave physics Geoffrey I. Taylor and a protege - William G. Penney. The mission made major contributions to the Manhattan Project, and provided the nucleus for British post-war atomic weapons development effort.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This submission seems to go hand-in-hand with this thread: Iran's new president: “…Islam will conquer the world…”

Whether it be through madrassas, mosques, subjugation, or nuclear proliferation, Islam will become the social disease of the 21'st century unless the west wakes up; pulls its collective heads out; and stifles this menace.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And of course, based on your logic, every nation on this planet should have a nuclear weapon.
Apparently, non-proliferation is no where to be found in your vocabulary, huh?

I believe I answered that question Seeker.


Originally posted by subz
1. No countries (including the stable United States) have nuclear weapons. Which is the aim of the NPT.
2. All countries have nuclear weapons.

Its quite apparent that the final aim of the NPT, the elimination of all nuclear weapons, is unrealistic because ostensibly stable and trustworthy countries do not feel the need to destroy their own arsenals. To which the most stabilizing scenario would be to allow all nations to acquire nuclear weapons.

Yes it might clash with your nationalistic pride that I would prefer no hegemony over American hegemony, but thats just the way I view it. History has shown that a sole super-power is an untenable situation. Take Britain in the 19th century for example. We dominated the globe, a quarter of the World's population lived under British rule. Were we to be trusted? Would you of accepted British rule? Afterall our manners were impecable, we would of said "good morning" before wiping out your tribe, but that was doomed to failure. Why? Because people didnt like imperialistic hegemony in the 19th century any more than they do now.


Originally posted by FredT
I fail to see how it is Bigotry as defined subz, it plain old common sence.

America maintains its world dominance by slapping the NPT in the face of any nation that tries to gain nuclear weapons to prevent American invasion for not acquiesing to American demands. America has no intention of fulfilling its own obligations to completely eliminate the World's existing stockpile of nuclear weapons, including its own. When it tries to deny Iran nuclear weapons it is purely to maintain its position as the unchallenged World super power.

This is compltely unacceptable to me as it allows America to run roughshod over the entire World as seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. If those countries had nuclear weapons I highly doubt the United States would of invaded them. If every nation had nuclear weapons I think the United States would be genuine in its efforts to rid the World of the nuclear scourge. At the moment its the furthest thing from their minds as its the lynch pin in the global dominance. They have the most technicologically advance military on the globe which they can deploy with impunity against non-nuclear countries.

The only prevention to that kind of activity is an equal playing field.

You seem to think its ok that America dominates the globe because they are trustworthy of the position. I think thats bigotted because no nation is capable of dominating the World. Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Spanish, British, French have all tried it and failed, to assume the United States is capable of carrying it off is....bigotry.


Originally posted by FredT
Perhpas you can explain how a nuclear warhead in every countires bunker is your idea of stability?

Havent I already explained that one? A nuclear armed country is not likely to invade/attack another nuclear armed country. That is backed up with historical evidence, primarily the Cold War. If your goal is not sustaining American hegemony, and is actually World peace, then youre best serving that goal by allowing all nations to be equal.

Lets not forget that nuclear weapons are only an extention of conventional weapons. They are not the only means for killing vast amounts of people. Nuclear weapons have always been a deterent more than an offensive weapon. Over 55 million people died in the Second World War, that was without the use of nuclear weapons. When nuclear weapons were created the threshold for starting another World War skyrocketed out of sight. Leaders understand that confronting nuclear armed countries is just not an option, this is a universal fact that they all understand. Saying that some countries are not capable of sensibly possessing nuclear weapons has no basis in logic.

Saying that giving all countries nuclear weapons will result in millions dying is akin to not seeing the woods for the trees. Without the existance of nuclear parity there remains a higher chance of millions of people dying than there would be with nuclear parity.

Basically no country would dare attack any other country on the planet. Russia wouldnt dare attack Fiji if they both possessed nuclear weapons. Dictators wouldnt launch nuclear weapons because they would instantly lose their source of power as well as their precious lavish life.

[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Havent I already explained that one? A nuclear armed country is not likely to invade/attack another nuclear armed country. That is backed up with historical evidence, primarily the Cold War. If your goal is not sustaining American hegemony, and is actually World peace, then youre best serving that goal by allowing all nations to be equal.


If your logic is correct then we shouldn't have had the Korean War or the War in Vietnam since both sides were surrogates for nuclear armed powers. The primary reason that neither the US or the USSR invaded each other was that they wern't inclined to. Add in the amount of resources that either would have needed to invade the other and anyone could see that it just wasn't feasable. As far as NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries go I don't think that either the US or the USSR would have gone nuclear if the other invaded.

Giving all countries nuclear weapons is about as good of an idea as it would be to give each passenger a pistol when they board an airplane figuring that this would stop hijackings. It might work but are you prepared to accept the consequences if it doesn't?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If your logic is correct then we shouldn't have had the Korean War or the War in Vietnam since both sides were surrogates for nuclear armed powers. The primary reason that neither the US or the USSR invaded each other was that they wern't inclined to. Add in the amount of resources that either would have needed to invade the other and anyone could see that it just wasn't feasable. As far as NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries go I don't think that either the US or the USSR would have gone nuclear if the other invaded.

Giving all countries nuclear weapons is about as good of an idea as it would be to give each passenger a pistol when they board an airplane figuring that this would stop hijackings. It might work but are you prepared to accept the consequences if it doesn't?

No, using my logic, a nuclear exchange did not occur precisely because both principals (The United States and the USSR) possessed nuclear weapons. There are two ideas here, one is that two nuclear armed countries will nullify the chances of a nuclear exchange. The other idea is that having all countries armed with nuclear weapons will prevent all conventional warfare.

Your examples of Korea and Vietnam are exceptions because they are practically international civil wars. If it was a case of Vietnam and another seperate country engaging in a War and both sides were nuclear equiped I would put my neck on the line and say the War would not occur.

[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Subz man I support you all the way. I cannot add anymore to it. But I will voice my opinion on the Iran situation.

Its like this people, Iran has lots of oil but its bound to run out. The thing is I believe they want nuclear power so they can make a higher profit from their oil while in the meantime using those profits to find cleaner and more renewable resources for energy. But if in the meantime they make a few nuclear weapons for their own prtoection then why should they be denied that?

And for the whole Iran would probably attack Israel that couldnt be more crap than anything. Seriously attacking Israel is attack the U.S. seeing as they are just synonyms anyways.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
iran is just digging its own grave im afraid.
even france are worrying about this one


cjf

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Nearly twenty years of concealment, lying and flagrant political ‘envelope pushing’ about programs which were to fall under the auspices and oversight of the IAEA, yep…we all should believe their peaceful intent, heck! they’ve earned all the international respect any one nation could ever, ever achieve.

Iran is a fantastic, pristine example of an international humanitarian nation, (internally as well as externally) how dare anyone, any nation, any one nation, question her benevolent gestures; wonderfully placid and serine motives…just fully except without question she is peaceful and ignore all but the present. History repeats, so soon.



.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
Nearly twenty years of concealment, lying and flagrant political ‘envelope pushing’ about programs which were to fall under the auspices and oversight of the IAEA, yep…we all should believe their peaceful intent, heck! they’ve earned all the international respect any one nation could ever, ever achieve.

Iran is a fantastic, pristine example of an international humanitarian nation, (internally as well as externally) how dare anyone, any nation, any one nation, question her benevolent gestures; wonderfully placid and serine motives…just fully except without question she is peaceful and ignore all but the present. History repeats, so soon.

Oh please, can I ask where you are getting your perspective of Iran from? Could it be from America? Or am I jumping the gun there?

I actually know real live Iranians and what they say of their country is totally different from what is portrayed in the United States. Iran is modern westernized country, its women go to school/university, women can vote. Their public infrastructure is first rate and their citizens are highly educated when compared to some other Western countries.

All of which doesnt exactly tally with the totalitarian, backward, oppressive theocracy that the United States seeks to portray. An image they sought to reinforce since their interference in Iranian affairs backfired when they chose to support an unpopular King over a democratic revolution. This American interference saw retaliation with the Tehran American embassy seige. Not that I condone acts such as that but I can plainly see the American's werent some innocent bystander that was unprovokedly attacked.

Ever since then the American government and its media have demonized Iran because they simply do not like each other. Millions of American's have bought into the notion that Iran is evil because it greases the wheels if ever an American administration got the chance to invade Iran. Its easier to invade a nation when you despise them, right?

Think for yourself, read what Iran is actually like and stop demonizing entire nations based on highly erroneous government fodder.



.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I had thought Iran would share that junk with "Arab States" -- but Ivé been wrong before.

Screw Iran. Their Gov seems to think outside the Box Fred T.

Iran is just Iran with wishful thinking Russia will hold their hand -- standing against the free world, all the while Russia just does not seem to realize supporting a dictator state is not just against U.S.A. but all free world nations.

And for what gain?, a loss of respect and a loss of cooperation.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

I had thought Iran would share that junk with "Arab States" -- but Ivé been wrong before.

Screw Iran. Their Gov seems to think outside the Box Fred T.

What do you mean?


Originally posted by Dallas
Iran is just Iran with wishful thinking Russia will hold their hand -- standing against the free world, all the while Russia just does not seem to realize supporting a dictator state is not just against U.S.A. but all free world nations.

Are you telling me that you think Iran is a dictatorship? Or are you telling me that only the United States is allowed to support dictatorships? Im sure Karimov would love that one. So the United States is also going against the free world with its support for dictatorships (Pakistan and Uzbekistan are both U.S allies and dictatorships)? Fair's fair, after all.


Originally posted by Dallas
And for what gain?, a loss of respect and a loss of cooperation.

Maybe they dont want to have American marines mission accomplishing their asses? And liberating their oil wells, errr...I mean citizens. Maybe they dont want the United States to create the new caliphate with a contiguous mega-Islamo-state controlled by the United States comprising Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/Pakistan?

[edit on 18/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Kind of makes the investment, and the urgency, with the War on Terror more understandable when you see the eventual prize. Hooooweee think of all the oil in that hunk a' sandbox.

In your face EU/China/Russia, guess who's going passed go and collecting $200
Got oil access for the next 100 years?


cjf

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Oh please, can I ask where you are getting your perspective of Iran from? Could it be from America? Or am I jumping the gun there?


You are jumping the gun as well as being personally insulting.


Originally posted by subz
I actually know real live Iranians and what they say of their country is totally different from what is portrayed in the United States…………….


Goody


Originally posted by subz
Not that I condone acts such as that but I can plainly see the American's werent some innocent bystander that was unprovokedly attacked.


What nation could truly be defined as a bystander?


Originally posted by subz
Ever since then the American government and its media have demonized Iran because they simply do not like each other. Millions of American's have bought into the notion that Iran is evil because it greases the wheels if ever an American administration got the chance to invade Iran. Its easier to invade a nation when you despise them, right?


By your logic:

I know some real live Americans; what they say of their country is totally different from what is portrayed in your narrow minded comments. I suspect most persons inside both countries of are not as simple as you would like them. Reverse the countries in your oversimplified statement and the same holds true. Etc etc. etc.


Originally posted by subz
Think for yourself, read what Iran is actually like and stop demonizing entire nations based on highly erroneous government fodder.

You have assumed far too much.


.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join