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.

 

Blix: Iran At Least Five Years Away From Nuclear Bomb

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

OSLO, Norway — Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday that Iran is a least five years away from developing a nuclear bomb, leaving time to peacefully negotiate a settlement.

Blix, attending an energy conference in western Norway, said he doubted the U.S. would resort to invading Iran.

"But there is a chance that the U.S. will use bombs or missiles against several sites in Iran," he was quoted by Norwegian news agency NTB as saying. "Then, the reactions would be strong, and would contribute to increased terrorism."

More at source


With all the doomsday talk coming out of Washington someone needed to come out and say the truth. With what we know Iran has it would take years for them to produce a single weapon provided they have years free from inspections to modify equipment. The nuclear threat from Brazil is far greater.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

the U.S. will use bombs or missiles against several sites in Iran," he was quoted by Norwegian news agency NTB as saying. "Then, the reactions would be strong, and would contribute to increased terrorism."


there's also a chance that he is wrong
there's also a chance that we will the EU and the UN deal with this and only take a back seat in the dealings and there will still be an increase in terrorism against us.
there's a chance the people of Iran will overthrow their gov't and things we become peaceful between the US and Iran.
there's a chance that bush will decide he has screwed everything up and quit
there's a chance the pres. of Iran will reverse course and admit that the holocaust was real and Israel does have a right to exist.

all of that is fine and dandy. However, Iran signed an agreement to not produce nuclear weapons and if they are 5 years or 50 years, they are in violation of that agreement and, as such, the UN has the right to try and deal with them.

Hans should also note that, in the event of a call for military action against Iran, the US will be one of many nations and it won't be some lame coalition of the desperate to help the US in exchange for loans, handouts or debt forgiveness. Rather, it will be France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc, fighting right along side the amercanos, possibly even taking the lead so as to give the appearance that we are not the only aggressor in the action.

it should also be noted that if we didn't send a single plane or put a single foot on the ground, we'd be blamed and terror would increase.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Also, if Iran is really 5 years away then it makes no difference to the current situation - or do we just sit back and wait for a few years until they've actually got the bomb
The fact is, most people agree they're looking to develop a bomb....be it 5 months or 5 years away....the sooner we deal with it (one way or another) the better. I certainly think such comments shouldn't be used to take the pressure off Iran.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
Also, if Iran is really 5 years away then it makes no difference to the current situation - or do we just sit back and wait for a few years until they've actually got the bomb
The fact is, most people agree they're looking to develop a bomb....be it 5 months or 5 years away....the sooner we deal with it (one way or another) the better. I certainly think such comments shouldn't be used to take the pressure off Iran.


With the IAEA inspectors present they can't enrich to weapons grade fuel without the UN knowing about it. The planed design for the facility is for reactor fuel production. Without making dramatic changes to the design it is not a simple matter even if eyes are not watching.

When enriching to weapons grade longer cascades of centrifuges are used. The short cascades Iran is working with will not enrich to weapons grade without running the gas through many times which takes more time and energy. If Iran were really trying to create nuclear weapons they would build a secret underground uranium enrichment plant that was designed for producing weapons grade material.

They already have the technology to begin building it, but could they run a huge operation like that without us seeing it?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The success rate of the IAEA is what, 20%?

Pakistan - failure
India - failure
North Korea - failure
Libya - failure
Iraq - Success

Libya is a failure by the IAEA, they flat out admitted it was what the US did to Iraq that ended their nuclear program.

20% success rate, good enough for UN work.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
20% success rate, good enough for UN work.


I have to agree with this.

Seeing as how the United Nations, very simply put, is just a revamped League of Nations with the backing (ok, reliance) on the United States.

I personally feel that the UN just isn't worth it anymore. During the Cold War it provided a forum for the Soviets and the NATO nations to talk "freely", but now, I just don't see much of a use for it outside of humanitarian missions and the IAEA, and those aren't even that much better at being effective...



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Since Iran has MIRV tech (see other threads) doesn't anyone see a threat now of them taking apart an old X-Ray machine and packing the warheads with the Cobalt or some other dirty source and a conventional explosive?
And how many nukes are missing?
Gee don't they have enriched cores?
- 2 reverse-hemi pistons (crowns coated in polonium) at either end of a capped pipe backed by cordite - enriched material in the middle as a machined sphere - poof - way too easy.
Hmmm maybe Mr. Blix is wrong this time?
I really hope he is... if not things will become much worse - soon.
I don't see a peaceful way out. I wish I did.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
The success rate of the IAEA is what, 20%?

Pakistan - failure
India - failure
North Korea - failure
Libya - failure
Iraq - Success

Libya is a failure by the IAEA, they flat out admitted it was what the US did to Iraq that ended their nuclear program.

20% success rate, good enough for UN work.


Pakistan, India, and Israel are not NPT signatories so they can't be failures. North Korea was a conditional signatory, and we broke the Agreed Framework when we ended the oilshipment triggering their withdrawl.

Lybia was a lot further away from getting a bomb than Iran is now, and they knew they could not hide it.

Their success rate is much higher than you give credit.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Sunday it has ended all voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but would still hold talks with Moscow on a proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia, reversing an earlier decision to abandon those talks.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran had implemented the president’s orders to end voluntary cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had ordered the move Saturday in response to the U.N. agency decision to refer Iran to the Security Council over fears the country is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. It means Iran will resume uranium enrichment and will no longer allow snap IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities — voluntary measures it had allowed in recent years in a gesture to build trust.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

That's from Feb 5th of this year. Not to mention that the could very well HAVE hidden sights that are enriching uranium. It's not uncommon for countries to keep things hidden from watch groups. Show them what they expect to see while you're off somewhere else doing the REAL work. It wouldn't be that hard to hide a sight somewhere the IAEA wouldn't expect to see one.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Monday confirmed that two Iranian navy ships had visited Indian ports last month, but played down the contact as the Bush administration struggles to win congressional approval for a landmark U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy deal.

news.yahoo.com...

President George W. Bush is pushing for changes in U.S. law and international regulations to allow nuclear technology sales for civilian energy purposes banned for 30 years because India developed and tested nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the nuclear Non-proliferaiton Treaty.

But ties between India -- which Bush envisions as a key U.S. strategic ally in the 21st century -- and Iran -- which the United States accuses of pursuing nuclear weapons and sponsoring "terrorism" -- are complicating that goal.

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said the ships visits were a "limited type of event, and doesn't suggest Indian training or Indian contribution to an Iranian military capabilities."


Is there any chance that India might give Iran Nuclear weapons or technology? Does anyone think that would ever happen? If they did the Iranians would have Nukes alot sooner.


[edit on 3-4-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by digitalassassin]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
IF Iran is building a Nuclear Weapon, they have it hidden in a manner that will be deceptive as to the progress of its advancement and the capabilities of it's deployment.

In a country that is geographically 3 times larger than Iraq, it would be virtually impossible to discover these locations.

The US needs to give dilomacy its full chance to work out, and not rush into war.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by digitalassassin
Is there any chance that India might give Iran Nuclear weapons or technology? Does anyone think that would ever happen? If they did the Iranians would have Nukes alot sooner.


The answer is a definite no. I don't think India would want to jeopardize the trust they had build with the U.S for the civilian nuclear energy deal they had made. Secondly, India has nothing to gain in terms of politics if they were to sell or give nuclear weapons/technology to Iran. Iran is neither ally nor threat to India.

Sometimes normal occurences could be seen as something abnormal and consequently suspicious. Iranian navy ships visiting Indian ports could be nothing extraordinary but the media hype gives us a sense of intrigue especially us fellow conspiracy theorist.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Sunday it has ended all voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but would still hold talks with Moscow on a proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia, reversing an earlier decision to abandon those talks.


I highlighted the key word in this statement.

They are honoring all required cooperation.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join