It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:
Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( www.warbirdforum.com...
Originally posted by Ox
Maybe I'm a little ignorant.. but how is Iran starting any type of war by Atomic Fuel Research?
10 March 2005
Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker has testified that China continues "unacceptable proliferant activity" - of particular concern are "transfers of CBW and missile-related technology" to Iran, despite sanctions. Q.C. Chen and Norinco have been identified as key suppliers, to include dual-use components, raw materials and expertise for Iran's solid-fuel missile program, and dual-use technology.
--"U.S. Catches China Transferring WMD Tech to Iran," World Tribune.com, 15 March 2005.
Originally posted by subz
Originally posted by namehere
subz what would it take to prove they had nukes or a hostile nuclear program, if they did?
Photos, documents, testimony from people who arent defectors who invariably try to tell the host nation what they want to hear. Any concrete evidence that is not purely "strong belief" which is the entirety of the accusations coming from both the US and the EU.
"Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said one senior official who is instrumental in putting together the American strategy. "Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later." By that time, he said, the hope is that a changed or different government is in power in Tehran.
Originally posted by digitalassassin
Former Mayor Koch of New York on Fox news said Iran and some other countries in the Middle East already have Nuclear weapons. And the U.S. now knows that pakistan sold them the materials and they have the nukes weaponized on shahab3 and IRBM missiles.