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.

 

Iran's Real Plan

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Here is the big unanswered question: If the EU breaks up, what impact will that have on the Euro? Will the Euro continue to be a viable currency, when applied to the petroeuro aspect?





seekerof




posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I dont' think the EU is likely to break up, the smaller countries need to trading block too much and it has proven to be very sucessful. Europe is where the United States was before the Civil War when the Federal Government was mostly a trading and commerce relationship between the States. The EU will be a strong force for the future, no turning back now. The reason Germany and France were against the Iraq war and the EU is so interested in preventing the Iran war is about the conversion to Petroeuros. Iraq converts to Petroeuros in 2000 and the USA plans to go in, Iran in 2006 and it is just a matter of time. The EU has been consistant in its approach to both situations, wanting to prevent the UN from decreasing the trading power of those Middle Eastern countries.

Why? Because they would be trading in Euros.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Mainer,

Iraq converts to Petroeuros in 2000 and the USA plans to go in, Iran in 2006 and it is just a matter of time.

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



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

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."


NR
again I'm not trying to antagonize you but because of the topic
I must address this, you had said earlier that Iran was not out to
destroy Israel however the above from your president would differ,
also I am curious about the petroeuro, And I also would like to ask
why you said earlier that Iran is already a nuclear power. Do you
have information that even the CIA does not have or wre you
simply boasting?

(again I am not arguing with you, this is a peacfull discussion)



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
It's interesting that tall tales an Iraq armed with WMDs (chemical and biological weapons.....with dark hints that they 'may' soon get 'the bomb) and the missiles to deliver them (to Israel and Europe) was supposed to get the whole world leaping up and down demanding war and yet.....

.... with Iran, a country that has had 2 of the WMD 'set' along with the missiles to deliver them, there has been no such suggestion.

For Iran we have to have the scary spectre of the nuclear weapon alone.

Why?

Because it gets pretty difficult to convince anyone 'sometime soon they're gonna......' with the chemical or biological weapons they have held for decades.

There is no Iranian 'plan' to say "to hell with the consequences" let's just nuke Israel.
By the best US estimates Iran is at least 10yrs off of having 'the bomb' (and that is if they are really after it right now, if they are not then that timeframe slips further into the distance).

(oh, and let's not leave out the most hysterically funny, if somewhat tragically misguided, suggestion in this thread so far......that that would be popular with the Iranian people! - presumably that's in the minutes before the retaliatory response wipes most of their families, along with a huge chunk of the Iranian population, out, hmmmm?
Wise up to reality for goodness sakes.
)

If they wanted to they could have attacked with the WMDs they already had a long long time ago.
They didn't and they have, IMO, no intention.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   


You have voted sminkeypinkey for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



well said and put out



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


There is no Iranian 'plan' to say "to hell with the consequences" let's just nuke Israel.


Nobody is stupid enough to send any WMD missile with your name written on it at another nuclear armed country. 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.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

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.


Then they can "wipe Israel off the map" like they publicly stated they wanted to do.


- What 'they'?
There is no 'they'.
The Iranian President (a ceremonial position there) made a speech to encourage support for the rally in Tehran for the Palestinians this weekend (did you read it all?); it was full of the standard rhetoric that those kinds of speeches usually contain.

It was nothing new or especially threatening (and was mainly a discourse about 'zionism' and the subjugation of Muslims by foreigners, not Israel).

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]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

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.



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. Chemical weapons have to deployed high in the air to be effective on any WMD scale.

Its really the same for Irans biological weapons like Anthrax they have to deployed in some sort of airborne attack like a missile. That brings you to the point of Israel seeing your chemical or biological WMD comming and send a few of their nukes back at you.

Nuclear weapons on the other hand offer a single person on the ground the ability to flatten a city.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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]


you made both of these comments in the same post. so which is it? is the president just a figure head holding no real power, or is he an actual head of state, requiring desenting points of view from other members of the government? cant have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

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...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

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 snafu7700

is the president just a figure head holding no real power, or is he an actual head of state, requiring desenting points of view from other members of the government? cant have it both ways.


- Like many countries around the world the Iranian version of President is quite different to that of the US version.

Their President is mainly a ceremonial position with notional power as notional 'head of state'.

That is not the same as weilding the actual political power of the state.
The real power lies elsewhere (Council of Ministers etc etc).

I don't think anyone is for one moment suggesting the current Iranian revolutionary government is the most free and pleasant regime to live under.
Nor that what the Iranian President said was the nicest most sensible thing they ever heard.

However to claim it is the single message coming out of Iran (when it is known members of the Iranian gov have publicly criticised it) or that this elevates the level of threat to Israel or that this now justifies an even quicker move towards this obviously hostile posture towards Iran is, IMO, ludicrous.

(as is the fantasy that they have, or are about to have, any moment now, nuclear weapons small enough to be used by the legions of suicide about to destroy Israel just as soon as they can get their hands on them)



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

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?


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




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?


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. Their reactor could easily be modified to produce more plutonium, just as the Israeli's did



Sorry I don't buy into this for a moment.
Have you seen the size of everybodies' first go at a nuclear bomb?


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



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

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 (although it is undeniable that if done in a manner that maximises their potentials they are still very very powerful weapons).

The "reality check" is for those who on the one hand want to claim that 'these - Iranian - people' will do anything (litterally) to hurt Israel when they want to talk nuclear weapons but are reduced to making feeble excuses when it comes to Irans decades old chemical and biological programs which remain completely unused.

The very things (WMDs and a long range missile capability) that when it came to Iraq apparantly necessitated war.


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.


- No acording to the US's own best estimates even if the Iranians are trying to make a 'bomb' they are at least 10yrs away from that capability.


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.

www.washingtonpost.com...


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.

ie not at all.

You'll have to do a hell of a lot better this time around than this rather obviously 'evidence lite' preeching to the already converted.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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?


Hmm, you're the one saying it would, not me



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)?


Oh so now the Iranians are capable of smuggling tons of nerve gas into Israel with the 10 or more terrorits to deploy it ?



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


Hmm, You did
You equted an Iranian chemical terrorist attack to a nuclear terrorist attack.


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.

www.washingtonpost.com...

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.



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.


LOL, these anonymous sources ? The Iranians don't even have to modify their reactor to produce plutonium
I'm just saying they could by increasing the power.



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?


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




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.


Please don't wet your pants over the word easy. 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.


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.


LOL, ok this a unanimous agreement of the ' best and the brightest ' ? Not likely, actually I know it isn't - but hey don't let me burst your extrmely fragile bubble.
Well, seems I'm far more of an expert in this area than you are



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.


LMAO, I didn't advocate war, I just corrected your BS assumptions. 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.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

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.



im guessing that this would be the same best and brightest who told the whole world that iraq was less than two years away from nuclear weapons?

yeah, that was a pretty "substance-free" observation, huh?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, you're the one saying it would, not me


- Not so; I have merely pointed out their designation as a 'WMD' and their potentially being a totally different magnitude of weapon from what is being used now.


Oh so now the Iranians are capable of smuggling tons of nerve gas into Israel with the 10 or more terrorits to deploy it ?


- Once again, I did not say that.

I have said they are a WMD and capable (if 'properly' used anywhere near to their potential) of being one hell of a step up from the level of attacks happening now.


Hmm, You did
You equted an Iranian chemical terrorist attack to a nuclear terrorist attack.


- Wrong. I did not.

Like I have said here already I pointed out chemical and biological weapons are classed as a 'WMD' and would represent a significant move on in scale from the attacks being experience by Israel to date.
Which they are.


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.


- Best have a word with the US gov about who those experts were.
Better still try actually reading the article and seeing who is quoted as a source here.

....and by the way enrichment is not something solely applicable to making weapons.


LOL, these anonymous sources ?


- Take it up with that well know left-wing paper (
) the Washington Post.

If you don't know what the term "The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies" means that's your problem.


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 ?


- It ought to be obvious.
They said it would take at least 10yrs to build their first nuclear bomb.

Surely making it a 'production' weapon, portable (in the manner some here have described) and the necessary miniturising that would entail from the first attempt(s) could only add to that figure?

By the way those are not 'my' government sources; they are the US gov's intelligence agencies.


You make no sense


- If one wishes to be deliberately obtuse, I suppose.


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.


- Yeah, cos of course you would and could know that for certain.

Your assessment would of course be soooooo much more accurate than the CIA's etc etc.

Yeah right.


.
Well, seems I'm far more of an expert in this area than you are


- Of course.
Your mere assertions and petty quibbling are such great proof of that.



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.


- Very amusing, if sadly absurd.
Where on earth did anyone describe any of the "basic functioning of a nuclear weapon"?

Troll on.


Originally posted by snafu7700

im guessing that this would be the same best and brightest who told the whole world that iraq was less than two years away from nuclear weapons?


- It's kind of topical. Timing, huh?
I think you'll find that the intelligence agencies ran into political insistance that Iraq was about to 'go nuclear'.

As Clark and other have pointed out time after time the intel agencies did not back up that assertion, it was a political choice to make ore of that than was credible (hence the troubles ofver the CIA exposure etc 'Scooter', Cheney et al going on now).

[edit on 1-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

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...


Wow, It may be a little off topic but this could be a big problem
for the dollar/U.S. economy

BTW, Answereing the actual topic of this thread!!

Yes, I do think that israel will/would use nukes if they were
pinned against a wall, and I think that is why Iran is pursuing
their own nuclear program for both energy AND for their
ability to have their own nuclear option. As I said before to
deter a pre-emptive strike on Irans nuclear sites by Israel.

some interesting links about Israels nuclear policy

www.fas.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

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?


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.


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?



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



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
LOL you think those attacks compare on any scale to what a single Atomic weapon can do?


- No and I never once said that either.

Why are you pretending I did?

Do you deny that chemical and biological weapons are a WMD?
Do you deny that if done at anything like approaching their potential they are likely to be a huge step up from the kinds of attacks now happening in Israel?


Look at the coordinated chemical weapon attack in Japans subway LOL wow what mass destruction that caused.


- If you think that is an indicator of how every group that might do this is going to go about it I'd suggest you are wrong.

I'd also suggest that the simulations and rehersals that are now regularly carried out across the western world indicate that those various authorities the world over know they are unlikely to get quite so 'lucky' again.

They are not so dismissive or amused at the prospect, I can tell you.


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.


- I was expecting you to suggest a truck.

But then I don't think trucks get into or move around Israel too easily these days.


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 don't have "weapons grade uranium".
Stop fantasizing; there is not the slightest indication or evidence that they have this material and even in the plant(s) they have for enrichment the IAEA monitoring is still going on 24/7.

Even if they were to start making weapons grade uranium the various authorities in the US believe them to be at least 10yrs away from a functioning atomic bomb.

(so I suppose you too are going to claim to know more about this kind of thing than those US intel groups, huh?
Yeah right.
)

In any event my money would be on you alerting the authorities with some of the stuff you would have to buy to make a functional bomb or you simply poisoning yourself to the point of complete incapacity before you got even close.


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


- Who said anything about "massive"?

I'm talking a small to medium sized truck (around the 7.5 tonnes level or so).

If you think Israel wouldn't be able to detect or notice anyone (especially Arab or Palestinian people) attempting to bring something like that across her borders I think you are dreaming.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join