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 has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The Sahab-3 btw can reach all of Israel and parts of southern Europe.

But great news!!! Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes, so don’t worry about the fact that they have painstakingly upgraded the Sahab-3 to carry nuclear warheads, that’s just an accidental coincidence…

telegraph



Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads.

Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme.

www.telegraph.co.uk..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


Maybe it’s a mistake, maybe Iran made these modifications so the Sahab-3 can deliver more sunshine, flowers, and cotton candy to the infide…..um…friends of Iran.




[edit on 7-4-2006 by skippytjc]




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Excellent post skippy. But I think what they are trying to do is provide free nuclear energy to the region by delivering it via missle. I mean, recently they have been demonstrating all of their technically advanced technologies so we can see how smart they are. So clearly, they've figured out the nuclear-energy-via-missle conundrum as well. Yay for them.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by jtma508]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Skippy,

They are only trying to protect themselves from us.

Can you blame them?

We'd like to think we can rule the world, but we cannot.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Yeah, it's true, a nuke on the ground is worth squat when it comes to defense, you have to be able to deliver it somewhere.

I mean you really would need too much of a guidence system. Just point it, give it enough fuel to get where you want it to, arm the bomb, and fire.

The bigger the bomb, the better the chance for a successful death of your enemy.

A simpler way to think about it is this: What good is a bullet for your defense if all you can do is just throw them at the moron breaking into your house, instead of using them with a gun to blow him away?


[edit on 4/7/2006 by Sir Solomon]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I agree with you dg but they can't have it both ways. On the one hand they can't say "we only want nukes for peaceful energy purposes" and then they retrofit a missle system to carry nukes. Which is it? Energy or military? I think the (current version of) Iran is among the last places that should get nukes. But I can understand why they'd want them. But that still doesn't excuse them from speaking out of both sides of their mouth.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Skippy,

They are only trying to protect themselves from us.

Can you blame them?

We'd like to think we can rule the world, but we cannot.


Common now, you know better than that, think of your statement for a moment:

#1 This is a regional range missile, it poses no threat to the average American and zero threat the our government. It only threatens localy stationed forces and friends of the US. Regionaly its an offensive weapon only.

#2 Irans current government makes statements DAILY about its interests in destroying Israel and all things non-Muslim. DAILY. Google it, I dont have time to post the many dozens of reffernces to it. (or dozens of the source supported posts of my own). Its silly to assume that governments who make these statements want nuclear capable missiles for self protection.

#3 Nuclear weapons can only be used as a deterant (defense) if they can effect the "enemy" in the same way the "enemy" can effect you. Mutually assured destruction. And in this example its simply not the case, Iran has zero ability to asure the USA's destruction, and they know this.

The only conclusion you can make is that they want nuclear weapons for offensive ability, not defensive. And as I mentioned in point 3 is that nukes are only deffensive weappons if they can destroy the enemy in the same way the enemy can destroy them.

Irans nuclear Sahab-3 = Offensive weapon



[edit on 7-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempeThey are only trying to protect themselves from us.


you're kidding right?

this is a nation that refuses to recognize another nation in the region and has, repeatedly, called for their destruction. having them armed with nukes is a danger not a deterrent. This isn't like india and pakistan where they have them to balance out their threats. Israel has never once said they want to wipe Iran off the map. Israel has never said Iran doesn't have the right to exist. Israel is not a threat to Iran.

Iran didn't have to fear any attacks from the U.S. until they started this nuke thing and even now they should fear attacks from a UN force that would truly be made up of nations from around the globe. The US cannot and should not take the front seat on that attack.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
So you're saying they "owe" us a full explanation.

Look, they dont owe us anything. They havent threatened us. Bush provokes and countries react.

I am not on "their " side per se, i am only pointing out here that if we were threatened without provocation, that would be one thing. As it turns out, we are on a world wide campaign to bring Armageddon on. Iran knows it and they know they are targets of this administration and they are trying to protect their carcasses.
I dont see anything wrong with that, its human nature.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by dgtempe






#2 Irans current government makes statements DAILY about its interests in destroying Israel and all things non-Muslim. DAILY.




So the story goes. I know of the threats to Israel and i dont like it either, but my point is who are we to police the world?
BTW, Were they threatening Israel BEFORE Bush went on his world-wide tour?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Let me try this again, Were they threatening Israel before Bush launched his world-wide tour of destruction?

If they were, please let me know- I am truly misinformed here and i apologize.
I shouldnt be talking about something i know nothing about.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Is this a regurgitated rerun of a previous thread that appeared several months ago? I had this Deja vu feeling when I read it as I'm sure the topic has appeared on here before


It was unsubstantiated claptrap the first time around too

There's a huge gulf between having a nuclear capable missile and actually having a nuclear missile.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy

There's a huge gulf between having a nuclear capable missile and actually having a nuclear missile.


Thats called burrying your head in the sand

Thats EXACTLY like saying "There's a huge gulf between having a gun and actually having a loaded gun"

Its only a matter of time before the gun is loaded...



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
DGtempe, I think youre missing the point of what hes saying. Put it this way, If I were to threaten you, does that give you the right to threated someone else? No of course not. Iran sees the US as a threat because we are challenging them on their peaceful nuke tech claims. I believe Iran is after nukes, but we wouldnt be all over them if they would just come clean with their program, and it aint just the US whos concerened its Europe as well. They have taken the lead in this venture, not the US. If youre mad at someone over this issue, be mad at Iran for bringing this whole scenario upon themselves and hte rest of the already troubled world.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Not burying my head in the sand at all.
There's just the small issue of any actual credible evidence or proof of a nuclear weapons programme. Even the IAEA with all it's inspections has failed to find any evidence or provide any proof, and Iran has allowed more inspections than any other NPT signatory.

It's all in the spin and suggestion though



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Ludachris,

Thank you for your reply.


Ok, i guess we will find out soon enough if the inspectors find anything or not.
IMO, though, it wont matter a hill of beans what the inspectors find.

That's a concern i have. Deja vu all over again.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This is an extremely important development. Shot themselves in the foot claiming they want it for nuclear energy.

I think we should give them an example of how deadly it can be


Only joking.. Good post skippy. I think this is a real cause for concern, do they realise how their actions can result in a war? If a nation is so oblivious to such risks, can they actually be trused with a nuclear weapon? I think not.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
There's a huge gulf between having a nuclear capable missile and actually having a nuclear missile.


LOL - that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time


Iran are fast approaching the point of no return. If Israel also agree that the Shahab-3 has been modded to carry a nuke then this could be the final straw. I think it's safe to say that if the UN wasn't actually taking Iran seriously then Israel would have probably attacked by now. Personally, I think they'll give Iran the 30 days to comply with the UN's "request" and then they'll take matters into their own hands.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
How can they know it will carry a nuke without having one?

This is BS.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
And why is it ridiculous? Hell, I could also list my car as a nuclear weapons delivery system. I'd just fold down the rear seats, chuck the bomb in the back and drive to the intended target using my highly accurate SatNav system and ...BOOM!
Of course I don't have nuclear bomb but it adds up to the same thing, I still have a capable delivery system. It's no more far fetched than the Telegraph story which offers zero proof that there are actually any nuclear weapons available to equip these missiles.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If anything you should be worrying about countries that do not allow oversight of their Nuclear programs, that do night join in any Nuclear treaties and/or that routinely deny the existence of any such program. Thats a dangerous deal right there.
Ask yourself this, What does a country that does not subscribe to any of the above methods do with its spent nuclear "garbage", what are the conditions their weapons are in, how do they store them, where do they store them, what are the conditions of their nuclear plants themselves,how often are they inspected and maintained, what type of emergency plans do they have in the event of an emergency,have they had any accidents and if so how many and to what degree. If you have neighbors that you know knothing about and your neighbors actions can affect you, then they sure as hell better be open and honest about what they have and don't have. Thats true danger and truly a threat.
Its hilarious when people say all this crap about Iran and in the same breath mention NPT and IAEA , and you are worried. Yet there are countries that are not associated with either and you are fine with that because they are special and non-threatening . That in itself is a huge unspoken threat.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join