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.

 

Alert!!! 250 Nuclear Warheads Sold To Iran???

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Iran may very well have several nukes of thier own. And may have tried to buy some on the black market. If thier comrades to the north are desparate enough for natural resouces, such as OIL, I think a trade may have already taken place. As for Iran not saying anything, they might be buy time, trying to reinforce thier military strength for a possible attack from the west. Thats what I would do if I were them.




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by legolas
I JUST WONDER WHY EVERYBODY SEEM SO TERRIFYIN' ABT IRAN GOT NUCLEAR WEAPON............ BE FAIR !


Do you have your Caps lock on? Turn it off, and write in lowercase.

Thank you
crustas

[edit on 6-4-2006 by crustas]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dana2006
.



Why it is a huge mistake for Ukraine to sell 250 nuclear warheads to Iran, and it was ok for France , Britian and US to transfer nuclear technology , nuclear materials and hardware to Israel, secretly, for more than 30 years, which enabled israel to own more than 200 nuclear warheads. since then israel is endangering the fragile status of security in the middleeast, plus intimidating all states in the middleeast, that oppose its barbaric policies against palestinians. Oh don't tell me that it's israel's right to own nuclear weapons because, jews are the chosen people, but Iranians can't own same weapons, because they are uncivilized muslims.

Typical western hypocracy, arrogance, selfishness, discrimination, double-standards, anti islam, anti arab sentiments.

it's a huge mistake because the fewer country's that have them the better ....i wish no country had them........but being that they do exist it makes sense to limit them as much as possible .........not because iran is a uncivilized muslim nation... no one said that and i would appreciate it if you would not bring race & religion into thread it's not the place for it.......



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
If they had Nukes, they would have hit Israel by now.

Plus, this has not made the mainstream news, so i don't believe this news.


What inspires the logic that having nukes leads directly to using them? Do you really believe that the Iranians will nuke someone just because they could?

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad
What if Russia had re-taken control of said warheads and it was they who sold/gave them to Iran?? This could be a covering of the Russians asses should the Iranians do the unthinkable.


I have seen some reports that Russia is in fact currently deploying nuclear missiles in Iran but that they are strictly under Russian control. If the Iranians are trying to buy nuclear weapons on the black market it is imo without Russian consent as it is not in their interest to let Iran get strong enough to decide their own foreign policy without closely consulting with Russia.


The last thing the Russians would want is to be held responsible for arming such a dangerous and politically unstable country such as Iran, especially if they've just nuked Isreal or the US!!


Well they will arm them with the understand that they can not use them any way the want imo. The Russians do however sell their weapons with far fewer political strings attached ( unlike say the US) and they tend to take the cash on delivery ( unlike the US) i understand. Russia can defend itself from anything that i think the US can do at this time without suffering disproportionate casualties.


Another line of thought is that the dissemination of such sensational news would bolster Iran's position and would therefore make any aggressor think twice before attacking.


That is always a good strategy.



Just floating a couple of ideas on why this news is breaking at this present time.


By observing the timing of political moves one can get quite the grasp of what is going on in the world so your right on track with considering the timing important.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by signs
After all, Russia's 'president' is the 'former' head of the KGB.
Or, is it that the current head of the KGB (in whatever form it may have morphed into), is acting as the current president of Russia?


Well he was a general in the KGB ( as i recall) and was not apparently stationed to a prominent post for advancement.


You see, I have a slight problem with the former head of the KGB for the USSR being the current president of Russia.


www.wnd.com...


Well he isn't but your right to be worried about how little the Russia have in fact changed since the 'end' of the cold war.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Ok, so what's the big deal? Even if they have the bombs, they lack the delivery systems to hit any part of the US.

The only guys who need to lose some sleep over this are the Israelis. But are they? No.

So this report is not worth the paper it's written on.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
This is not news, it is sensationalism, and bad sensationialism at that.

The minute I saw the number 250 without any sources, I had a pretty good hunch as to where this information came from. The small yield of the devices (20kt) furthered my suspicion.

In 1996, a Russian general turned politician named Alexandr Lebed spoke to Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana about poor nuclear security in Russia.

This testimony was suspect since Lebed had recently been sacked from by the Yeltsin government from his position as chairman of Russia's Security Council after a political clash with the Russian Interior Minister.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

While national security adviser to Yeltsin he commissioned a study to report on the whereabouts of these devices. Lebed was fired as national security adviser 17 October 1996 amid intense political jostling while President Boris Yeltsin was awaiting heart surgery. He admits that he had only preliminary results of his investigation at that time, and these results are the basis of his subsequent claims. (snip)
The bombs, measuring 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters (24 x 16 x 8 inches), had been distributed among special Soviet military intelligence units belonging to the GRU, Lebed said.


In 1997 Lebed gave a private briefing to several US congressman in which he stated that Russia had produced 250 "suitcase nukes" and that he believed 84 of them were missing.

A few months later, with no new information, since he was no longer in Russian government, he went on 60 Minutes. This time he upped his estimate, saying that over 100 were missing.

The sixty minutes testimony is highly suspect. The producer of that show had just written a book on nuclear terrorism, and along with her husband was also co-producer of the move "The Peacemaker", which had just been released.
So, a bitter sacked politician and a movie producer who needs PR get together and make a "news show" about lost Russian nukes. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that Lebed has incomplete facts by his own admission and is making VERY strong claims which he has other potential motives for making.

Lebed went on to testify to the Congressional Military Research and Development Subcommittee at a hearing on 1 October 1997, making contact in particular with Curt Weldon (R-Pa).

In a later speech on the floor of congress, the numbers changed again. Weldon asserted Russia produced only 134 suitcase nukes and that 48 were unaccounted for. Their yields, according to that speech, were not 20kt as this unsupported article claims, but rather configurable from 1 to 10 kt.

Please note that this yield is inconsistent with the report of a suitcase bomb, and the purpose of building a suitcase bomb. The US Medium Atomic Demolition Munition had a yield of 1-15kt and weighed 400 pounds.

The lightest nuke we ever built was the W-54 warhead used on nuclear Anti-aircraft missiles and the "Davy Crockett" recoilless rifle. It weighed only 51lbs and had a configurable yield of between .1 and 1kt.
If we are indeed talking about suitcase bombs, either the yield figures given to congress were wrong, or Russian nuclear design is FAR more efficient than we thought.

This story is old news that nobody was worried about. Somebody just took it out, wiped the cobwebs off, and added the word Iran. They didn't even bother to research it, or if they did, they chose to exclude the background info so that we wouldn't know it was DECADE OLD NEWS.


These are not viable strategic weapons. If it really is 1-10kt, then on it's highest setting, it's 2/3s of what we dropped on Hiroshima, and it can't airburst unless the weapon itself is separated from the detonating system and made part of a redesigned weapon.
Keep in mind that Hiroshima was not a modern city- incindiary bombing would have had almost the same effect on Hiroshima.

The W-52 warhead, which at its highest setting was 1.5 times as strong as these, could be safely fired at a target half a mile away, providing that the firing crew didn't stick around afterwards.


If, and I consider this more likely, these are actually SADMs with yields of between .1 and 1 kt, then they are perfectly good for blowing up a ship (if you can get close enough to it) or a building or a bridge, but they have virtually no military value in isolation. They would only be good for creating momentary disorder during which further operations should be carried out.


Where are they? Good question. Whoever has them has really two options for them.
1. Use them in a terrorist capacity and not do nearly enough damage to make it worth the absolutely incredible thrashing that will necessarily result.
2. Study them so that they can build better weapons of similar efficiency later on.

As for Iran having them... I'd LOVE to see that backed up with anything vaguely resembling evidence.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal

Originally posted by dana2006
it's a huge mistake because the fewer country's that have them the better ....i wish no country had them........but being that they do exist it makes sense to limit them as much as possible .........not because iran is a uncivilized muslim nation... no one said that and i would appreciate it if you would not bring race & religion into thread it's not the place for it.......
.


I DARE you to say, it is a huge mistake for ISRAEL to own nuclear weapons.
when I criticise western hypocracy and Israel's wrong actions, it doesn't mean the I bring race and relegion to this thread. you can't intimidate me by using westerer's and zionists' old cliches....racism, anti-semitic...etc. whenever somebody tries to criticise you.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Dana, maybe people aren't objecting to your mention of the nuclear double-standard. Maybe they just feel that your criticism is somewhat tained by your obvious bias in interpretation of a 2 way exchange of attrocities which is religious and racist in nature.
You said:


Originally posted by dana2006
since then israel is endangering the fragile status of security in the middleeast, plus intimidating all states in the middleeast, that oppose its barbaric policies against palestinians.

You also objected to the suggestion that you are an antisemite after you used the same low tactic:

anti islam, anti arab sentiments.


You can't have it both ways. Deny a little ignorance and keep the supporting points of your argument neutral. When you only represent one side of the situation which you draw you conclusions from, you do come across slanted and you discredit yourself and your analysis.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Dana, maybe people aren't objecting to your mention of the nuclear double-standard. Maybe they just feel that your criticism is somewhat tained by your obvious bias in interpretation of a 2 way exchange of attrocities which is religious and racist in nature.
You said:


Originally posted by dana2006

You also objected to the suggestion that you are an antisemite after you used the same low tactic:

anti islam, anti arab sentiments.


pardon me , I'm using western low tactics because you block your mind and can't understand anything else.


[You can't have it both ways. Deny a little ignorance and keep the supporting points of your argument neutral. When you only represent one side of the situation which you draw you conclusions from, you do come across slanted and you discredit yourself and your analysis.



oh really, so why western world and israelis can have it any way they want? I don't want my argumenent to be neutral, I am pro arabs and muslims, and specifically pro palestinians.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dana2006
pardon me , I'm using western low tactics because you block your mind and can't understand anything else.


That's a huge assumption for you to be making Dana. How well do you know me? There is very little chance that you've read enough of my posts here on ATS yet to have any idea what my views on this matter are.

Secondly, now amount of low tactics will overcome the barriers that ignorant people erect around their minds. All you can hope to accomplish through bias and immaturity is to ensure that you not only fail to reach ignorant people, but fail to reach open-minded people as well.


oh really, so why western world and israelis can have it any way they want?

The individuals in the western world can't; it's every bit as illogical for them as it is for you.

Western governments can't do it morally or intellectually either, but when it comes down to practical application, they probably can because they've got so dang much firepower. If it's any comfort to you, they screw their own citizens too.


I don't want my argumenent to be neutral, I am pro arabs and muslims, and specifically pro palestinians.


I didn't tell you to make your argument neutral. I pointed out that your argument (which can be opinionated) should be supported by objective facts. If you can't use the FULL truth to support your beliefs, people who read your posts will notice that, as I have noticed, and they will see that you do not have a strong understanding of the subject and devalue your input.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join