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.

 

dont you think we already would of had nuclear weapons?.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
We had a nuclear reactors back in 67 and i remember we would produce 600 grams of plutonium per year. Now, think about it because if we had nuclear programs back than wouldn't we already have nuclear weapons? and if we wanted to hit Israel with it i'm sure we could have but why do you guys keep saying we are once we get them when we already do have them and haven't even touched Israel with it.


The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."[

[edit on 19-11-2005 by NR]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by NR]




posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Is that the only reason that you think Iran has atomic weapons?

Zip


NR

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
well i'm just saying we had this capability for over 30 years and i'm sure we made something out of it.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I think you may be using the word "capability" a little bit loosely.



"On October 31, 2004, the Iranian parliament voted unanimously in favor of continuing to reprocess uranium, despite entreaties from France, Germany and Britain, and the UN's watchdog agency to suspend the program. More worrisome was the chant that spontaneously went up in the parliament while the votes were being counted. It was 'Death to America.'"


I haven't read this book, but I think it would be a good read.

Historically, I think that the original development of the first atomic bombs by the U.S. has been more or less the only time that nuclear weapon production has ever been a truly kept secret. You are suggesting that Iran has had atomic bombs for 30 years and I think that this claim is ludicrous in light of modern espionage and intelligence gathering - not just from the U.S., but from other nations and organizations, including the IAEA.

Of course, I'm no expert, and this is just my opinion.

Zip

[edit on 11/19/2005 by Zipdot]


NR

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   


Historically, I think that the original development of the first atomic bombs by the U.S. has been more or less the only time that nuclear weapon production has ever been a truly kept secret. You are suggesting that Iran has had atomic bombs for 30 years and I think that this claim is ludicrous in light of modern espionage and intelligence gathering - not just from the U.S., but from other nations and organizations, including the IAEA.

Of course, I'm no expert, and this is just my opinion.




Well We had our top scientists working on this stuff and i'm pretty sure we had labs and underground bases for this kind of project, any country would denie they had nuclear weapons. Did you see the video of one of our cruise missile in action and while it landed on its target you could see mushroom clouds? it was called NAZEAT-10 and Fateh-110. If we did have nuclear weapons or have them right now we wouldn't use them at all. Just because ahmadenijad said wipe Israel off the map doesnt mean he has the control of starting a war only the council does and they were against ahmadenijad.




[edit on 19-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
NR, I know what you are trying to say. If Iran has had nuclear weapons for this long and has not used them then they would not use them unless they had to. Therefor, their would be no point in attacking Iran becasue they have enough control to not use these weapons unless they really had to.

You have to understand that the US dose not want Iran to have the nuclear option. When one country has a great advantage over another contry then it dose not need to worry about a potental threat. When that country loses it's advantage then there is a possiblity of confict breaking out. That is why the US dose not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. If an all out war was to happen with the techology we have today it would have a major impact on everything.

From reading your post I can tell that you do not want Iran to go to war with the US. I think we both know what the outcome of that war would be. In Iraq the US has restricted itself so we can try to gain the peoples trust. I worry about the country that pushes the US into a situation where we have to use full force.

I am a US soldier and I will protect my people, just as you would protect yours. We have to respect those who we right against because they are just like us.


NR

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Styki i'm sure we all wouldn't want to see any wars happening, Even though we did hide our nuclear program for that long and we have them now than attacking would be useless and those weapons would have to be put on being used. I respect that your a U.S. soldier and would atleast fight for your country. But the problem is, if we did get attacked this year or next than all the support that bush had from Iraq shiites will be lost and it would be tottal chaos. In Iran theres so many traps and land mines with mountains through deserts it would be awful for any invadors to get by. Heres a example of what most of our desert looks like.





posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
NR Because of your post I could believe that your country has had the ability to make a nuclear bomb for about 30 years. Certainly once a country has the weapons grade uranium or plutonium it pretty much has the ability.
But I wonder if your president is prepared to say "Israel should be wiped of the map" and then repeat it after he has just given the leaders of almost every pro-Israel country in world a chance to poke at how "dangerous the Iran regime is" why doesn't he test a bomb?
I think Iran’s president wants Iran to become isolated from the international community otherwise he wouldn’t repeat (or perhaps even make provocative remarks) like those in the first place.

By being a hardliner I think it might help his domestic political situation if Iran became isolated. Financially I think there will always somebody willing to buy Iran's oil, China may make a good customer.
But if Iran has nuclear weapons then we should know the U.S won't invade the country as this could quite possibly provoke an attack on Israel (similar to how Saddam fired scuds when we invaded his).
Also if Iran had nuclear weapons it may even not be possible to place sanctions (so long that it is we want them to agree not to spread the technology).
In fact if Iran had nuclear weapons this whole Iran issue could well be one huge waist of time.
But do you really think it is?
If we don't want to invade them, or strangle them with sanctions then could you please tell us what you think is really going on?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
You don't have a nuclear weapon untill you detonate one...it's like everything else. Untill you have proven it works, it doesn't. There for, I would opine that Iran does not have nukes yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join