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.
Iraq converts to Petroeuros in 2000 and the USA plans to go in, Iran in 2006 and it is just a matter of time.
original news source:
news.yahoo.com
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."
You have voted sminkeypinkey for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There is no Iranian 'plan' to say "to hell with the consequences" let's just nuke Israel.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
[All Iran has to do is send one of its claimed 40,000 martyrs in a car or truck with a nuclear weapon over to Israel. It can be blaimed off on any terrorist group and they have plausible deniability for the whole event.
Then they can "wipe Israel off the map" like they publicly stated they wanted to do.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
[All Iran has to do is send one of its claimed 40,000 martyrs in a car or truck with a nuclear weapon over to Israel. It can be blaimed off on any terrorist group and they have plausible deniability for the whole event.
- Which is all well and good yet they have had the ability to do this kind of thing with their WMDs (chemical and biological) for decades and yet they haven't.
The Islamic revolution in Iran is 26yrs old and has had this capability for most of it's time in existance.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- What 'they'?
There is no 'they'.
The Iranian President (a ceremonial position there)
In case you didn't know, figures in the Iranian government are in public disagreement with their President over this and the unwelcome foreign disapproval it has brought (I know it is hard for Americans to grasp this but not every country has a President of the US kind).
[edit on 31-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]
Originally posted by AlienChaser
Mainer,
This is interesting How, or where (link please) did you find this info
I had not heard of the "petroeuros" untill now, It is disturbing (I am american)
I know the dollar is pegged to oil but I did not know about the petroeuro
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A single agent cannot effectively deploy Irans chemical agents on a scale to consider them Mass destruction. A person can't just walk into Israel with a backpack full of sarin gas and open it up and kill millions.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand offer a single person on the ground the ability to flatten a city.
Originally posted by snafu7700
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A single agent cannot effectively deploy Irans chemical agents on a scale to consider them Mass destruction. A person can't just walk into Israel with a backpack full of sarin gas and open it up and kill millions.
- Well having seen the effects of a coordinated attack in London I don't suppose something on similar lines would be so difficult.
You are the one talking about being able to deny etc etc so whats the difference between a dozen well placed and enormously damaging chemical or gas attacks done by suicide nutters?
Nuclear weapons on the other hand offer a single person on the ground the ability to flatten a city.
- Oh right; so now we are meant to believe that as well as creating a credible nuclear weapon (which even informed US sources say is at least 10yrs away) they are also now to develop one that is small and easily portable?
Sorry I don't buy into this for a moment.
Have you seen the size of everybodies' first go at a nuclear bomb?
Originally posted by rogue1
They wouldn't even come close to the destruction a 20kt ( small ) nuke.
Time for a reality check, it would take tons of gas spread in many locations to kill the same amount of people and there wouldn't be any physical destruction either. It would be almost impossible to somehow smuggle this gas in to Israel
10 years away from what ? Having enough fissile material ? Because a working implosion design could easily be developed in a period of a few years.
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
Their reactor could easily be modified to produce more plutonium, just as the Israeli's did
Hmmm, 'everybody' who has built their first nuke have made them smaller than the original Trinity device.
The computing power is readily available today to develop lightweight nuclear weapons at a 1st attempt without validating the design with a test. So your argument holds no substance
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by rogue1
They wouldn't even come close to the destruction a 20kt ( small ) nuke.
- Who said it would?
.....and so what anyway?
Are you trying to tell me that a coordinated attack on Israeli infrastructure with chemical and biological weaponry would be easily shrugged off and not cause the Israelis enormous problems (hugely beyond the attacks seen to date)?
Time for a reality check, it would take tons of gas spread in many locations to kill the same amount of people and there wouldn't be any physical destruction either. It would be almost impossible to somehow smuggle this gas in to Israel
No-one has made the claim that chemicals or biological weapons are 'the same' as nuclear weapons
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
Their reactor could easily be modified to produce more plutonium, just as the Israeli's did
- Easily?
My how you guys love to casually throw those kind of terms around on this type of topic.
I suggest you go have a word with the USA's own experts in this field then.
Hmmm, 'everybody' who has built their first nuke have made them smaller than the original Trinity device.
- Eventually, yes that is true to date, it has taken everyone that has done it many many years........so that would have to be on top of the (at least) 10yrs they are deemed to be away from having 'the bomb', right?
The computing power is readily available today to develop lightweight nuclear weapons at a 1st attempt without validating the design with a test. So your argument holds no substance
- "Easily"!?
Wow, there it is again.
Hmmmm, must be that easily obtainable 'virtual nuke' and 'mini-your-nuke' Microsoft program value pack, I suppose....yeah right. Wise up.
Look matey I don't know what you imagine qualifies you as so expert in this area
but
when the best and brightest the US has can turn around and publicly state that Iran is at least 10yrs off of having the bomb (and that is wholly dependant on if they are actually trying to obtain one right now) then I think most reasonable and fair minded people will know which "arguement" is the more 'substance-free' one here.
Those that have spent so long here trying to claim more war, this time with Iran (on the basis of their being on the verge of getting nuclear weaponry and therefore about to try and nuke Israel anytime) inevitable and justified are about as convincing as those that tried to make those kind of claims about Iraq.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
when the best and brightest the US has can turn around and publicly state that Iran is at least 10yrs off of having the bomb (and that is wholly dependant on if they are actually trying to obtain one right now) then I think most reasonable and fair minded people will know which "arguement" is the more 'substance-free' one here.
Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, you're the one saying it would, not me
Oh so now the Iranians are capable of smuggling tons of nerve gas into Israel with the 10 or more terrorits to deploy it ?
Hmm, You did You equted an Iranian chemical terrorist attack to a nuclear terrorist attack.
LOL, and who are these mythical ' governemnt ' sources. Please, suppostion and hearsay. The only thing holding them back is the amount of time it will take them to produce fissile material. The fact that they are building cascades of uranium gas centrifuges for enrichment, will merely excelerate the accumulation of weapons grade material.
LOL, these anonymous sources ?
Hmm, I don't understand your argument here. Your own questionable ' government ' sources said 10 years to build a bomb, how exactly do you add even more time onto this ?
You make no sense
Iran has plenty of trained nuclear physicists who would be easily able to run simulations of basic nuclear weapons designs on high speed computers. These designs are easily converted into a physical device . You seem to think that Iran is going to build a 3rd generation nuclear weapon right off the bat LMAO. You obviously know little about the evolution of nuclear wepons design - I can't help that.
.
Well, seems I'm far more of an expert in this area than you are
You obviously read an article written for the layman and think you're an expert, when you seem to know little about even the basic functioning of a nuclear weapon.
Originally posted by snafu7700
Originally posted by Mainer
Originally posted by AlienChaser
Mainer,
This is interesting How, or where (link please) did you find this info
I had not heard of the "petroeuros" untill now, It is disturbing (I am american)
I know the dollar is pegged to oil but I did not know about the petroeuro
You got it, start here and real from the bottom links too:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Well having seen the effects of a coordinated attack in London I don't suppose something on similar lines would be so difficult.
You are the one talking about being able to deny etc etc so whats the difference between a dozen well placed and enormously damaging chemical or gas attacks done by suicide nutters?
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Oh right; so now we are meant to believe that as well as creating a credible nuclear weapon (which even informed US sources say is at least 10yrs away) they are also now to develop one that is small and easily portable?
Sorry I don't buy into this for a moment.
Have you seen the size of everybodies' first go at a nuclear bomb?
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
LOL you think those attacks compare on any scale to what a single Atomic weapon can do?
Look at the coordinated chemical weapon attack in Japans subway LOL wow what mass destruction that caused.
Im not talking about suitcase nukes or anything like that. If you think a modern first attempt at a atomic bomb is going to be as big as "Fat man" or "Little boy" your misinformed. Just for example off the self electronics are way smaller then anything they had in the 1940s. A first Atomic bomb can easily be made to fit into a truck.
Heck I could do that its not very hard if I had weapons grade uranium and some high explosives everything eles I could get at Radio Shack and an Auto parts store .
They aint going to be able to miniaturize to the extent countries like the USA and Russia have off the bat since thats harder then making a Atomic weapon in the first place. But to think they have to make some massive "Fat man" sized weapon for a 20kt bomb in this day and age