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 Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant 80% Completed — Russian Security Chief

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
This is the third plant that is going to be operational soon, we signed up for 17 more nuclear power plants and all of them should be coming in within the years. As for the new nuclear offer all the reports have been denied by it and there was never such a thing, seems like any news nowadays can convince you that its true.


Source




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Why cant Iranian's just put solar panels on the roof of every home and collect free energy from the sun? i assume theres lots of sun in Iran?

And while were at it why not a bunch of electricity producing wind mills like so many European countrys use?

Where will Iran dispose of its nuclear waste?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Time is running out before Irans plants get taken out.

Isreal will do it themselves if the US doesn't do it for them.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I was thinking that to.

Maybe they will wait until Iran has paid Russia for her services , then destroy them so as not to upset the Russians quite as much?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
If it's just for power than I wish them the best of luck witht he plant. As we know they can be dangerous if not kept in perfect working order.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
If they will go after reactor... they will do it before fuel is installed.

Tho i hope someone will do some serius damage to Israel if they bomb.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I am a little at a loss.

They-Iran-has to know this/they (the nuclear power plants and active refining) cannot be allowed to finished-i.e. become operational.
Furthermore, Iran’s compromise to partially enrich material and have Russia finish it is not really a compramise-imo.
The reason is we cannot be assured that all partial enriched material will be moved to Russia.
They may send some, and continue to enrich some to bomb grade-90% pure.

I am not a nuclear expert, by a long shot, but I thought a low grade weapon could be made with 40-70% pure material.
Certainly a "dirty" bomb can be made with reactor grade stuff-I do acknowledge that doing so may prevent Muslims from reaching some of their holiest sites-and may not be so viable.

It has been one of 2 thoughts of what Iran would do with nuclear weapons. One-use them.
Two, try to use them to check Israel’s nuclear weapons and use that as an excuse/method to send the massive Muslim armies into Israel and kill all who live there.
We all know very well, Israel’s nuclear weapons are what have stopped Muslims countries from a final all out war to murder every citizen of Israel.
I, of course, refer to the Samson option-basically turning every major Muslim city in the Middle East into glass bowels.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I was thinking that to.

Maybe they will wait until Iran has paid Russia for her services , then destroy them so as not to upset the Russians quite as much?


After Russia has gotten its money I doubt they would care much. Heck they might even like it since Iran would have to buy the stuff all over again which = more money for Russia.


NR

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I was thinking that to.

Maybe they will wait until Iran has paid Russia for her services , then destroy them so as not to upset the Russians quite as much?


After Russia has gotten its money I doubt they would care much. Heck they might even like it since Iran would have to buy the stuff all over again which = more money for Russia.




Thanks all for the comments and Dronotek you finnaly said something thoughful and nice about Iran without the word war. Shadow Russia is not just doing it for the money man, think about it we do so much economical cooperation with them and military even with China. Also they know that we are a regoinal power and were gonna go stronger in the near future so us as allies we both would be powerfull even with China.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   


They-Iran-has to know this/they (the nuclear power plants and active refining) cannot be allowed to finished-i.e. become operational.


A little clarification is in order - noone (not even Bush) is objecting to Iran's public nuclear energy program. The controversy is about Iran's covert nuclear weapons program, which if it exists (I suspect it does, though there has been no proof offered) will not be able to produce a single working weapon for about 5-10 years, let alone the hundreds that would be required to reach parity with the Israelis.

As far as airstrikes are concerned, I would bet they wont happen.
Israel has already repeatedly disavowed any kind of strike, and Bush is in no political position to start another war.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

(I suspect it does, though there has been no proof offered) will not be able to produce a single working weapon for about 5-10 years, let alone the hundreds that would be required to reach parity with the Israelis.


You wouldnt need to equal Israelis nuclear arsenal 5-10 nukes would be more then enough to lay waste to most of Israel. You dont need hundreds of nukes to take Israel out.

Originally posted by xmotex

As far as airstrikes are concerned, I would bet they wont happen.
Israel has already repeatedly disavowed any kind of strike, and Bush is in no political position to start another war.


Like Israel would addmit in public they were going to strike Iran if they had plans too. Even if they had plans to do it they would disavow it in public.

A limited airstrike wouldn't even automatically mean war. Israel already took out Iraqs reactor with a airstrike and no war resulted.


Sep

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A limited airstrike wouldn't even automatically mean war. Israel already took out Iraqs reactor with a airstrike and no war resulted.


Iraq was in the middle of a war and was on the run. It couldnt handle another one.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   


You wouldnt need to equal Israelis nuclear arsenal 5-10 nukes would be more then enough to lay waste to most of Israel. You dont need hundreds of nukes to take Israel out.

Israel may be small, but it would take more than 5-10 fission bombs to put the IDF entirely out of action and prevent a massive retaliatory strike from the Israelis. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons to respond with, and the means to get them to Iran in short order.



A limited airstrike wouldn't even automatically mean war. Israel already took out Iraqs reactor with a airstrike and no war resulted.

Iran is not Iraq, they would almost certainly respond with some kind of military action. And the Osirak comparison doesn't really fly, unlike Iraq, Iran's nuclear facilities are spread all over the country. It would take multiple refueled strike groups sneaking through lots of neutral and Iranian airspace with perfect surprise to seriously damage Iran's nuclear program.

[edit on 11/14/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A limited airstrike wouldn't even automatically mean war. Israel already took out Iraqs reactor with a airstrike and no war resulted.


Iraq was in the middle of a war and was on the run. It couldnt handle another one.


In the Middle? The war with Iran only started in 1980 and lasted until1988 the Israel airstrike happened in 1981. They were hardly on the run in 1981 Iran couldnt even drive them out of Iran until 1982

[edit on 13-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A limited airstrike wouldn't even automatically mean war. Israel already took out Iraqs reactor with a airstrike and no war resulted.


Iraq was in the middle of a war and was on the run. It couldnt handle another one.


Yeah, and what would Iraq do if it wasn't in a war with Iraq? Attack a nuclear capable Isreal?



Some people just don't think things through


NR

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   


In the Middle? The war with Iran only started in 1980 and lasted until1988 the Israel airstrike happened in 1981. They were hardly on the run in 1981 Iran couldnt even drive them out of Iran until 1982


Well think about it dude, We just went through a revolution. People weren't doing their jobs and we lost alot of people from our military we were also on sanctions and a arms embargo so we were very badley isolated. Now, if you look at Iraq they were getting unlimited fighter aircrafts from the soviets and other military equipment to tanks and weapons. They were also being paid billions of dollars while we didnt get anything and we were still able to keep up with them and drive them out. Thats how brave we Persians are.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Iran is not Iraq, they would almost certainly respond with some kind of military action. And the Osirak comparison doesn't really fly, unlike Iraq, Iran's nuclear facilities are spread all over the country. It would take multiple refueled strike groups sneaking through lots of neutral and Iranian airspace with perfect surprise to seriously damage Iran's nuclear program.


1) Iran would not attack Isreal. Isreal has a hundred+ nukes, Iran has none. beyond that, how exactly is Iran going to attack Isreal? You will notice on the map I provide that Iran shares no boarder with Isreal, and would have to pass through Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia to get to Isreal. Guess what country has troops and aircraft in every single one of those nations?

Yeah, you guessed it, the US. You will also notice that the US not only has troops on boardering nations to the west of Iran, but to the East also in the form of Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, while Pakistan is an ally of the US.






2) There are these things called cruise missles... They are really great. You don't need to risk aircraft, and they have ranges of up to 1000 miles. They can also hit within a few feet of the target. No surprise is needed. Launch them, and Iran has nothing that could counter them.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
We found during the Gulf War that the cruise missile could be taken down with AK-47's.
I believe there must be a few of those weapons, somewhere in Iran.

Solar panels on every Iranian house! There's a great idea! Don't they get a lot more direct sunlight?
NR? What is the practicality of this idea?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Why cant Iranian's just put solar panels on the roof of every home and collect free energy from the sun? i assume theres lots of sun in Iran?

And while were at it why not a bunch of electricity producing wind mills like so many European countrys use?

Where will Iran dispose of its nuclear waste?

Also, Iran has a huge reserve of natural gas, so much, in fact that India wants to build a pipeline between the two counries to import natural gas.

Iran doesn't really need nuclear.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
We found during the Gulf War that the cruise missile could be taken down with AK-47's.
I believe there must be a few of those weapons, somewhere in Iran.


That may be true, some how though, I don't believe Iran would be willing to rely on AK-47's for their anti-balistic missle defense.

I'll take my chances with cruise missles getting through a barage of AK-47 fire.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join