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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

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.


Hmm, if you looked at a map, you'd realise Israel has a coast on the sea. Palestinian terrorists have come ashore from the sea on more than one occassion. They could easily bring a nuclear weapon by speedboat into a city like Tel Aviv and detnate it without having to use a truck.




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, if you looked at a map, you'd realise Israel has a coast on the sea.


- I have looked at maps quite often in my lifetime and I am very well aware that Irael has a coastline, thank you very much.


Palestinian terrorists have come ashore from the sea on more than one occassion.


- I am also aware of this, rarely, happening too.


They could easily bring a nuclear weapon by speedboat into a city like Tel Aviv and detnate it without having to use a truck.


- Hah, there's that 'easy' word again.


Do you really believe Iran could or would transport their first nuclear weapons to somewhere that would make a speedboat attack plausible......and I suppose everybody else that would have to be involved just goes along with this attack, hmmm?

Perhaps Egypt or Jordan (hardly the most likely countries to permit this) just forgets about the inevitable consequences of going along with this and lets them use their territory/airspace to transit the bomb, eh?......

..... and that this nuclear armed suicide 'speedboat' making it all way to Tel Aviv undetected and unchallenged is a likely and plausible scenario!?
Yeah right.

......and in any case besides the very short-term immeadiacy of being able to quickly trace where the attack has come from how does this fantasy attack really differ from a large scale Iranian missile attack with chemical or biological weapons on Israel (something she, Iran, has never given the slightest indication of ever attempting)?

The nuclear 'fingerprint' would still end up being tracable to Iran just as a missile launch would be, even if it did take a little longer to trace.

A nuclear attack on a city would hardly destroy all of Israel and Israel's umteen nuclear weapons would still be intact and on the verge of being definitely used to respond.
(Cos Israel isn't exactly shy about revenge attacks, hmmm?)

Iran - and God knows who else as Israel lashed out in all her fury and asked questions later - would still end up facing the most terrible and crippling retaliation.

It's also an amusing if grossly ignorant interpretation that has it that the Iranians would just go along with this absurdly ridiculous scenario and sacrifice their nation for the 'greater cause' of Palestinians and the Arab people when Iranians do not actually see themselves as an Arab people!

No, it's a silly 'James Bond-ian' fiction, and I do not believe they - like anyone else in any government - are that 'mad'.
I do not believe the Iranian leadership would suicide their nation.

You seem to think it quite possible, I think that says quite a lot about you, actually. My sympathies.


[edit on 2-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- 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]


They wouldnt even have to sneak a completed bomb in, there is much smarter ways to sneak one in. All a person would have to do is sneak in a softball size amount of uranium into the country and then make the bomb on site with materials you can purchase from stores in Israel. The only other supply you would need and couldnt buy is High explosives, and we all know that aint hard for certain Anti-Israel groups within that country.

It not that hard at all to sneak something that small into any country. If it was hard no country would have any problems with illegal drugs entering them yet they all do to some extent.Infact alot of drug shipments exceed the 7.5 tonnes bomb weight you suggested and they sneak that across borders everyday.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I suspect that 'softball' or grapefruit sized amount of nuclear material would probably need one hell of a lot of shielding to stop it being detected and/or, in any case, poisoning to the point of total incapacity and/or death the fool handling it.

Frankly I think your ideas of assembling a functional secret bomb from this and items bought at the local store simplistic in the extreme and the stuff of rather odd and disturbed adolescent day-dreams.

But there you go, we obviously disagree and are unlikely to agree on this.
Here's hoping you are always proved wrong on this.


[edit on 2-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Sminkey-pinkey--Of course the Iranians do not "see" themselves as Arab people because they aren't--they're Indo-Europeans like us. I'm glad you're so comfortable in your "knowledge" that Iran would not "suicide" its people. I can only hope you're right. During the Iran-Iraq War the Iranians were more than willing to "suicide" their youngest and most vulnerable citizens--they sent in preteen and early-teen boys as cannon-fodder ahead of the armed older soldiers against Iraqi troops, which proceeded to slaughter these children en masse.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I suspect that 'softball' or grapefruit sized amount of nuclear material would probably need one hell of a lot of shielding to stop it being detected and/or, in any case, poisoning to the point of total incapacity and/or death the fool handling it.


[edit on 2-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


You would be wrong though




Thats all the lead shielding you need for 100 grams of weapons grade uranium. The uranium and shielding weighed a massive 15 kilograms.

If you ever seen the containers used by goverments for Nulcear material you would realize how very small they can be.


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by abovereproach
Sminkey-pinkey--Of course the Iranians do not "see" themselves as Arab people because they aren't--they're Indo-Europeans like us.


- Just making a relevant point.
Some folks seem to imagine them desperate to suicide themselves for a people they do not consider the same as themselves, for some reason.


I'm glad you're so comfortable in your "knowledge" that Iran would not "suicide" its people. I can only hope you're right.


- Well of course.
If there is one thing I am pretty certain of it is that self-interest is a concept well understood across the globe.

What a handfull of individuals might do is no reflection of what a whole nation (and its leadership) might do.

Even Hitler didn't suicide the German nation as all was utterly lost
(and with German stocks of Sarin and Tabun nerve gas that's what he knew he probably could have done if he'd tried using those gases.
....it was made known to Germany that if they did use any secret gases - the allies didn't know about the nerve gases but suspected something - that the allies would drench Germany from one end to the other in anthrax, which we did have.

So, are Hitler and that dying nazi regime an example of 'crazed' and 'fanatic' enough for you?


During the Iran-Iraq War the Iranians were more than willing to "suicide" their youngest and most vulnerable citizens--they sent in preteen and early-teen boys as cannon-fodder ahead of the armed older soldiers against Iraqi troops, which proceeded to slaughter these children en masse.


- Yeah that's aweful.
So was WW1 & WW2.
'We' had poorly equiped and relatively untrained kids shovelled into the mincer too you know.
Sometimes to effectively draw fire and 'protect' the veteran units.

That, for all its' appalling-ness, is still nothing like a political leadership deciding to ignore the certain consequences of a nuclear attack.
An attack it must be pointed out that could never do much more than attack (at most) a small handful of places (cos folks here seem certain that as soon as they get 'the bomb thats it, they'd definitely and instantly be off to 'do it').
Unlike the retaliation which would be coming from 'powers' with significant stocks and the ability to (to all intents and purposes) 'kill' a nation.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You would be wrong though
Thats all the lead shielding you need for 100 grams of weapons grade uranium. The uranium and shielding weighed a massive 15 kilograms.

If you ever seen the containers used by goverments for Nulcear material you would realize how very small they can be.


- Yeah but your problem is ShadowXIX that a 100gr container of a small amount of uranium isn't a bomb, it isn't enough for a bomb and it isn't ready to be used in a bomb (there are machining processes needed to 'work' the metal).

Frankly if it were all as incredibly easy as you (and one or two others here)prefer to imagine I doubt we would not have had the several decades (since the invention of 'the bomb') free from nuclear terrorism that we have had.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Well heres an article that Iran is removing 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats with the West from their posts.

news.yahoo.com...

Looks like another Bonehead move by Iran.....develop WMD's....threaten your neighbors....remove your ambassadors.


Max



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Even Hitler didn't suicide the German nation as all was utterly lost
(and with German stocks of Sarin and Tabun nerve gas that's what he knew he probably could have done if he'd tried using those gases.
....it was made known to Germany that if they did use any secret gases - the allies didn't know about the nerve gases but suspected something - that the allies would drench Germany from one end to the other in anthrax, which we did have.


Ahem ,
It was Hitler who said that the German people had failed him and all they deserved was destruction.
Anyway, Hitler probably did order the use of nerve agents, but the orders were countermanded by Otto Ambros - accordng to his own testimony. Otto Ambros was the head of the Nazi nerve gas division.
So your point is completely wrong and misinformed


If Hitler could have fought to the last German he would have, you seem to be a bit misinformed about the history of WWII.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Frankly if it were all as incredibly easy as you (and one or two others here)prefer to imagine I doubt we would not have had the several decades (since the invention of 'the bomb') free from nuclear terrorism that we have had.


A grossly wrong and simplistic view. I wasn't aware that Arab countries built nuclear reactors decades ago. I only say this because how else would they get their plutonium and Uranium.
Why is nuclear terrorism more likely now, you ask. Very simple - unstable countries are pushing ahead with nuclear programs adn of course the vast amount of material in the former USSR.

By far the hardest part is obtaining fissile material, the rest is easy



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
OK, if you say so - but I'd like to see some links for that please.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
A grossly wrong and simplistic view.


- Really?
Considering the well documented stories of nuclear materials going missing over the years from various research, power stations, reprocessing and testing facilities I'd say yours is the wrong and simplistic view.


I wasn't aware that Arab countries built nuclear reactors decades ago.


- Er, who said they did?


I only say this because how else would they get their plutonium and Uranium.


- Possibly from some of those stolen(?) materials?



Why is nuclear terrorism more likely now, you ask. Very simple - unstable countries are pushing ahead with nuclear programs adn of course the vast amount of material in the former USSR.


- Of course you'llbe able to back up claims that the former USSR is the source of "vast" amounts of nuclear materials?
Yeah right.
Urban myths once again.
You'll be wanting to talk about missing suitcase bombs next.



By far the hardest part is obtaining fissile material, the rest is easy


- Of course it is.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by rogue1
A grossly wrong and simplistic view.


- Really?
Considering the well documented stories of nuclear materials going missing over the years from various research, power stations, reprocessing and testing facilities I'd say yours is the wrong and simplistic view.


LOL, nulcear materials very rarely refer to weapons grade material




I wasn't aware that Arab countries built nuclear reactors decades ago.


- Er, who said they did?


You asked why nuclear terrorism is more possible today. The fact that Arab countries are making or attempting to make nuclear weapons programs, the fundamental core of these projects is a nuclear reactor.



I only say this because how else would they get their plutonium and Uranium.


- Possibly from some of those stolen(?) materials?





Why is nuclear terrorism more likely now, you ask. Very simple - unstable countries are pushing ahead with nuclear programs adn of course the vast amount of material in the former USSR.


- Of course you'llbe able to back up claims that the former USSR is the source of "vast" amounts of nuclear materials?
Yeah right.
Urban myths once again.
You'll be wanting to talk about missing suitcase bombs next.


There are any amount of accounts of lax safeguards in Russia, hell the US has spent hundreds of millions trying to improve security in the former USSR.
All I can say is do some reading. Try one of Helen Caldicotts books. You should strive to inform yourself more sminkey, broaden your knowlege



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I'll jump in here...

I've read that Iran's first nuclear weapon will probably be about the size of a railroad boxcar. It probably won't be going anywhere.

That's about 12 times the size of the third one built by the USA, and we used a B-29 to haul it, barely.

I think I'd worry more about the inventory of several thousand tons of various chemical agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents.

Iran can produce about a thousand tons of chemical agents a year.


NR

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   


Iran can produce about a thousand tons of chemical agents a year.



See we have the chance to do that with 3 nuclear facilities but we arent because we only want electricity we dont even need nukes I think Shahab with chemical warhead is already good enough.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
I'll jump in here...

I've read that Iran's first nuclear weapon will probably be about the size of a railroad boxcar. It probably won't be going anywhere.

That's about 12 times the size of the third one built by the USA, and we used a B-29 to haul it, barely.



Ahem, just where di you hear this ? A weapon of that bulk is completely unneceassry and wouldn't work. What is the bulk of the weapon supposed to contain ? It certainly isn't HE.
To out things into perspective, the 3rd ' bomb ' you talk about was the Mark III, the same weapon as used in the Trinity test. This was a grossly inefficient design with only a fraction of the material actually being fissioned.
Every weapon of comparative power built since then has been smaller except for maybe the Joe I test in the USSR in 1949.
Just look at what the South Africans produced and they were under sanctions, yet they could still build 6 lightweight 20kt range nuclear weapons. It took them less than 10 years.
The interesting thing about the SA program is that they didn't need a nuclear reactor, they used Highly Enriched Uranium produced by Uranium Hexaflouride Gas Centrifuges. The same technology is being used by Iran to enrich their uranium.

So, any Iranian nuclear wepon would be far smaller than the Fatman or Little Boy wepons used in WWII.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
nulcear materials very rarely refer to weapons grade material


- I guess that makes all those reports of missing plutonium over the decades just fairy stories then, huh?



The fact that Arab countries are making or attempting to make nuclear weapons programs, the fundamental core of these projects is a nuclear reactor.


- What "Arab countries"?
This was about Iran and Iran isn't an "Arab country" for a start, actually.

Secondly the only example of a nuclear weapons program being attempted in secret in the ME was in Iraq and it was discovered and stopped long before it had gotten very far.

Iran was persuaded to begin her nuclear power program in the first place by the USA
(.....and for all those who find it so suspicious and complain about why a country supposedly sitting on top of one of the world's biggest lakes of oil feels they need or want one then perhaps they might wish to enquire what it was that their American gov said to the Iranians back then to convince them of the sense and need for a nuclear power program, hmmm?)


There are any amount of accounts of lax safeguards in Russia


- Yeah like I said, mere stories and so-called accounts.


hell the US has spent hundreds of millions trying to improve security in the former USSR.


- Actually almost every western country has spent billions in total buying up nuclear materials and disused nuclear infrastructure - in addition to improving security for those facilities they retain.


All I can say is do some reading. Try one of Helen Caldicotts books. You should strive to inform yourself more sminkey, broaden your knowlege


- In that case it obviously looks like I am not the only one around here that could do with a little better informing and a better knowledge.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
It was Hitler who said that the German people had failed him and all they deserved was destruction.


- Yes, as anyone who has seen his last 'testament' knows, not quite the same thing though, is it?


Anyway, Hitler probably did order the use of nerve agents, but the orders were countermanded by Otto Ambros - accordng to his own testimony.


- So come on then; let's see you back this assertion up.

You have made the claim, let's see you prove it.


Otto Ambros was the head of the Nazi nerve gas division.


- Yes, google is a wonderful thing; that's not the same as supporting your claim about an "order the use of nerve agents, but the orders were countermanded by Otto Ambros".


So your point is completely wrong and misinformed


- Then you'll be able to demonstrate that instead of simply making mere unsupported claims, won't you?


If Hitler could have fought to the last German he would have, you seem to be a bit misinformed about the history of WWII.


- That is pure opinion and speculation, he didn't.
Those are the facts.
The "history" of what actually happened in WW2 is all about the facts of the events, what actually happened, you are the one who seems misinformed in fact, actually.

.....and quite often the 'stand to the last man' orders were all about trying to secure and hold economic assets Germany desperately needed.
Not entirely the decisions of a crazed fanatic (within the context of the general lunacy he had unleashed across the globe, that is).

In every history I have ever read about WW2 (and I have read more than a few) there has never been the slightest mention of any of the senior figures pacing about awaiting news or demanding reports of how this (what would have been then) 'secret wonder weapon' sarin or tabum (nerve gas) attack was going - nor of terrified demands to know if there was news of the guaranteed retaliation (if it was attempted but failed).

This is unlikely in the extreme given the WW1 gas attack experiences of so many of them back then.

Not one of the debriefs (of the senior executed figures) mentions any such thing and none of the memoirs from any of the surviving senior and lesser figures there in the last year ever talked about any such thing.

No secretary talks of hearing of it and someone like Speer, whilst happy to talk about countermanding 'scorched earth' orders and the general insanity of the regime, never mentions it (although he was known to be against the program.....check your google
).

Linge who, as Hitlers valet and confident, would almost certainly have heard of it and is another one who never once mentions it either.


Hitler probably did order the use of nerve agents


- "Probably", hmmm.
That's your word, isn't it?

I very much doubt this is anything more than your own, rather obvious, personal speculation.

Maybe you don't know quite as much about WW2 as you imagine.


[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
I think I'd worry more about the inventory of several thousand tons of various chemical agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents.

Iran can produce about a thousand tons of chemical agents a year.


- Yeah but it's obviously a hell of a lot harder to try and build any kind of credible outrage, fear and general panic when people hear that Iran has had those weapons for decades (even under the crazy and totally scary control of the 'mad Mullahs'!
) and done absolutely nothing to threaten anybody with them.

The only time Iran has ever responded with them was after being attacked by similar weapons by Iraq in gulf war mk1.

A response 'in kind'......the same kind of thing 'we' talk about and consider wholly reasonable and justified.

But I agree to some extent; why all the fuss about a nuclear bomb a long way off when 20, 30, 50 or 100 of their heaviest missiles could swamp the Israeli missile defences and cause Israel huge and lasting damage?

A nuclear bomb would be just as traceable (although it would take more time.....as if a 'recently nuclear attacked' Israel is going to just sit still for ages wondering who did it anyway) and if those Iranian cleric guys are supposed to be so blindly crazed and fille with hate for Israel as to not care about the consequences why aren't we being spun this tale?

Isn't it more likely seeing as they have the missiles and the chemical and biological weapons right now?

Of course not, because they have had these capabilities for many years and done nothing, nor are they likely to (unless attacked themsleves......the same mentality as any other - sane - country)


[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join