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.

 

NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earlybird
We can't take the nuculer ball off the table. That nut in Tehran thinks he's the antichrist. He wants to reduce the world to rubble. All the diplomats know this and have been working feverishly toward a peaceful outcome but that is not the only timeline. There is another line that begins and ends with Irans intentions towards Israel and the west and it's ability to render harm. If one line happens before the other a peaceful solution it will be but if Tehran wins the race it may be the end of the world as we know it.


I have been hoping that the puppet masters have decided to delay WWIII until 2012 or later. SOMETHING is coming 2012 according to a diversity of sources--all of whom REFUSE to be more specific insisting that it's TOOOOO HORRIBLE to know and handle sanely.

Anyway--I had wondered if it was coming before the Beijing 2008 Olympics and have begun to believe that it will be delayed until after then.

Perhaps PRAYER is the difference. I don't know.

But certainly Iran and NK will be used to trigger it.

Iran certainly IS ITCHING, GLEEFULLY ITCHING to set off WWIII AND CHAOS which they see as ESSENTIAL to bring in the MAHDI Imam to rule the world as Ilsma's new messianic head. According to their interpretation of Islamic prophecies, that's THE ONLY WAY.

With such a mentality, the idea of allowing Iran to acquire nukes is absolutely insane REGARDLESS of what must be done to prevent it. And, they may already have more than 100 warheads purchased from former Soviet republics.

God have mercy on all of us.




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe And why do we? Why do we have to eliminate more men, women and innocent children? Because GOD told Bush to do so?[/QUOTE]

Hello? No. It appears to me that Bush fears disobeying the puppet masters more than he fears God. Sadly. Otherwise, he'd treat Israel much better. He'd seal our borders.


Originally posted by dgtempeSomebody might be thinking of a little pre-emptive surprise strike for us on their own.....]


Perhaps you haven't heard of 9/11?

And, there's persistent reports of at least one, at least dirty nuke, that has been PREVENTED from being lit off WITHIN OUR COUNTRY the last few years and maybe one even during Clinton's reign.

THEY are HERE with plenty of horrid weapons itching to set them off any day.

Pretending otherwise will not make them go away. Denying will not make us safer. APPEASEMENT HAS NEVER EVER WORKED throughout recorded history.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by derfyxxx
the media spin machine and lie manufacturing is started, and being pushed for going to war as with Iraq. men I'm so sick of this world... US in first place, people do something about yout corrupt gov, we here in Europe have no impact on your gov policy, hope you will help the world and confront your representatives with these real end-world-projections.


1/3 of FRANCE's MILITARY is ISLAMIC!

Islamicists are outbreeding Europeans in about every European country. And they are out intimidating across a broad front.

And Europe still hasn't learned a thing from Chamberlain. APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK!



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Bo this is not about a NWO, it is about dealing with a modern day fanaticism, islamic/home-grown terrorists that has been plaguing our Country as well as our allies since the Iran Hostage Crisis back in 1979. Besides stopping terrorism and where it grows I see no other mission, do you?


however your idea to attempt to disarm Israel on Nukes is a noble idea to lower Iran's anxiety, it could potentially work but good luck.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
See the link I earlier posted? If you haven't yet please do... and check other sources - you may be surprised at the potentials in those plans... nuke, non-nuke and combination oriented solutions are there for all to see. They are indeed done planning.

I think we may see a conventional engagement in the North and South and a mix of nukes and conventional for the three (more?) or so nuclear facilities of concern at Arak (heavy water), Bush-ehr (power plants), and Natanz (enrichment). I looked at the first two places pretty closely using Google earth - you can too. Natanz is not listed or I couldn't find it.

For instance, Bush-ehr is right on the 'Gulf's East coast 26ft. above sea level and other than a military-looking airport is a normal city with a nuclear power plant (2 German made reactors) about 14 miles South. BTW; Did you know Kissinger got Iran their first 5 Mw research reactor in 1975. There are a great many people at risk (I looked but couldn't get population numbers) depending on the weather and what yield device is used. I hope they try and take this site without any reactor leakage - heaven forbid a "Chernobyl-like" event in a free-fire zone. I hope not.

The heavy water plant at Arak is right smack-dab in the middle of the country and in between two mountain ranges - unless the US has some "other" ordnance we know nothing about, then a nuke strike here seems more likely owing to the fact that the heavy water source would have be to be contaminated permanently to prevent rebuilding. The google picture of Arak isn't very high resolution, but it is developed city space and seems there'd be plenty of humans there. There all dead in any nuke (even a baby 1Kt) strike because of the geography. Sure some may live... for awhile and if the weather's right the plume could trail to the North giving any forces advancing South a real bad exposure. I hope not.

Natanz is where (unless cooler heads prevail) the "big stuff" nuke and non-nuke or "special other ordnance" will be used this is where the "whirlly machines" concentrate the gas to be separated and collected as "3.5% or better" weapons grade fissionable material. These facilities are dug in and some may be well - unknown to the West. There is definitely a population there and according to some accounts (I can't verify as truth) that a high cancer rate among the population is evident. If whatever force wants to shutdown Iran's imagined or real N-weapons capability then this place wil be hammered like no other in human history. It will be left in such a condition that the potential can never be reconstituted.

What will be left? Maybe more trouble than anyone can imagine - when people do what foks of my generation considered - UNTHINKABLE - I don't care how you slice it - the unknown-unknowns will teach those who believe they've tamed the known-unknowns that they have some unknowing and unlearning to do, a real baseball-bat-in-the-face hard learned lesson, that is, if any one is left alive.

Just a thought, but if women were running the whole show instead of we testosterone based version of the life-form I doubt we'd be in this mess quite so badly with fewer and fewer alternatives. Perhaps not.

May their Gods forgive them - they are indeed done planning.


[edit on 15-4-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I know you guys don't know much about the world and care little about world opinian, most of you cannot identify your country on an atlas,
it beggers belief.
Tony blair is getting a kicking over here, when will the same happen there.
Oh, one more thing do you really think you can take on the Islamic world.
I my self am not religeus as are a lot of people i know, we argue along politicle lines but are not afraid to join or voice the islamist argument.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   


Just a thought, but if women were running the whole show instead of we testosterone based version of the life-form I doubt we'd be in this mess quite so badly with fewer and fewer alternatives. Perhaps not.


Good god man! Can you imagine what it would be like! I dread to think what wars would be over....

Anyhoo.. Just thought I'd clarify that you need alot more than 3.5% enrichment to make even a rudimentary weapon. You need around 8% for a fuel rod...



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nordz
I know you guys don't know much about the world and care little about world opinian, most of you cannot identify your country on an atlas,
it beggers belief.
Tony blair is getting a kicking over here, when will the same happen there.
Oh, one more thing do you really think you can take on the Islamic world.
I my self am not religeus as are a lot of people i know, we argue along politicle lines but are not afraid to join or voice the islamist argument.


if we can't we better start getting used to the idea of terrorism.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I was watching the McLaughlin report last night and the consensus was that there is a little chance of an attack on Iran and Iran is years away from making enough material and assembling a nuclear weapon.

They also commented on Sy Hersch's story as saying it was propaganda:


THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Does make me wonder if it is the media who is opting for a war or manipulating war fear for political purposes, rather than the current administration.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Does make me wonder if it is the media who is opting for a war or manipulating war fear for political purposes, rather than the current administration.




Meaning that certain elements in the media are learning to play the game but this time setting up their own rules of engagement? I'll opt for the "manipulating war fear for political purposes" hoping that the public is fed up with the bs and is beginning to catch on too. The other is too ugly to contemplate.

How many permanent bases are in Iraq and how many of them have air and weapons storage facilities? How are they set to hold up under seige?



[edit on 15-4-2006 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
stumason, Thank for the comments. I really do like folks who get involved.

If women were runnin' the deal we'd perhaps not be "warning and warring" over these issues and I have no idea what the issues might be except that I suspect they'd be about a whole-lot-less killing involved.

Now about the "fuel" materiels, I'm no expert (and forgive my fubbsy presentation) however my neighbour is the head of safety out at Pickering "nuke" and has a long research history at Chalk River and several awards of merit from the Canadian AEC and other international bodies - he's a 2nd generation nuclear scientist - runs in the family?

The way it was explained to me may have been simplified a great deal so I couild wrap my brain around it and gain a rudimentary understanding. Anyway according to what was related to me, 3.5% enrichment does complete the fuel cycle to the point where "solids" can be accreted and deposited in amounts sufficient for reasonably efficient collection from the "whirlly machines".

At this point the metallurgists "melt" these deposits and blow gaseous oxygen through in a manner similar to what in my day as a crucible-push at Dofasco was called a "Bessemer converter" - a sealed electric furnace - (think of a crock pot) the oxygen causes a slag of impurities to develop on top of the "soup" and is laddled/poured off - leaving molten U-238 of a purity greater than that required for fission - this process can be repeated for greater purity but suffers diminishing returns of materials.

I'm assured that this is not the only method - but it is the simplest, quickest, cheapest and most pragmatic way to the materials needed unless, and I fear this to be true - they already have HEU garnered from the mythical oft-named "Missing 200". In which case only the cores would require reshaping/machining for use in any device - little if any reprocessing is required.

That fuel rods are 8% min spec, I have no idea - I'm not particularly concerned about fuel rods at this time just nuclear weapons and their use to kill humans.

Thanks again stu, I will ask my buddy if he can give me more complete info without gettin'-his-butt-in-a-sling-at-work and I'll forward it to you via u2u.

Now the scary part - take any HEU say a 5 Kg chunk and machine it to a shperical/round or lenticular shape held in the centre of a sealed metal tube. Put 2 pistons (think automobile without the con rods and crank) at either end of the sealed tube and backed by exactly the same amount cordite/TNT or semtek/C4, and fronted or topped by a concave reverse-hemispherical shape that faces the sphere of HEU and matches exactly the contour of the HEU sphere/round/lenticular shape, plasma coat the piston crowns with polonium and you have a crude nuke that could not cause great explosive damage but could contaminate a potentially large area and kill a great many. Way too simple. The hard part is the Polonium procurement - everything else is 50 year old well-understood common manufacturing techniques.

The point being - we don't have the ethics and maturity in place to handle our own destructive creativity (oxymoronic but I can't think of it any other description) - hence my wonder about what would happen with a change of gender across-the-board at the very top of governments and corporate hierarchies - put it this way, I don't think the ladies could do any worse (and maybe a darn-sight-better) than that which is occurring under current "leadership".

[edit on 15-4-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
This thread has been an interesting read from start to finish. I'm pretty riled up right now and have a few suggestions: First of all, we need to get out of the middle east. Why are we there? OIL, OIL, and more OIL. Who is "profiteering"?: Bush/Cheney/Halliburton and all the other low-down greedy bastards who salivate and slobber over their ill-gotten gains meanwhile stirring up a hornets nest (radical Islam) that might launch the world into WW3.

Unfortunately, we lost control of the US Government in 2000 when Bush/Cheney/Rove, through despicable treachery, stole the election from Al Gore and then called upon their "personally installed" Justices in the Supreme Court to finalize the deal. Since then, all hell has broken loose in America. We all know it. Millions of Americans are "asleep at the wheel", repeating platitudes and slogans to themselves which seems to have a narcotic affect allowing them to go about their days as if all is well. Sadly, these poor souls will probably remain in that condition indefinitely.

I really don't know the rest of us are going to get out of this mess. This insidious web of evil that has covered America is so involved with so many variables and so many players with so many selfish objectives and sub-plots that it makes me want to go lie down some place and rest whenever I think about how complicated it all is.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove actually believed in their infantile mercenary donkey-brains that they could just take over the election, move into the White House, and start running our country like a corporation. The United States is not a corporation you insensitive money-grubbing bastards! These brown-nosing, suck-up, educated fools have ruined our country and we have allowed it. I think we've all come to understand that a corporate executive doesn't have the military skill to execute a war, hence, the six generals that have asked that Rumsfeld get the hell out.

I offer no solutions except to throw these bastards out of office. Impeach them all and run them out of town! I agree completely with the statement "May God have mercy on our souls", we're gonna need it!



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'll offer a solution for the dems, forget about impeachment, you have to have A POSITIVE AGENDA. Leaving the Middle East should not be an agenda onto itself, because that agenda makes losers out of every american.

What the dems strategy should be 1. leave Iraq, within 2 years.

2. Start a strong stay at home policy, secure the borders stop businesses from hiring illegals.

3. Pursue a strong Space Program in an attempt to start the greatest yet, Space Race between countries. Nothing like a good non-aggressive competition between countries to unite the bonds.

4. Purse a stong Nuclear non-proliferation act, to stop Nuclear Warheads forever.

This would be a much better option than, "I think we need to get out of Iraq" what am I missing?



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
highhorse313: I'm not from the United States of America, and please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn, but I want to say - Thank You!

You seem to have encpsulated and put to words the angst I perceive in many of my friends south of the 49th parallel and I can't help but agree with everything you've said. I perhaps would not have put it quite that way or used those references and tone but you are definitely "up-on-the-wheel" and "lookin' for more throttle". I'm not in your exact position but America does seem a little "Hamstrung" at the moment. Kind of like a traffic gridlock - nothin' to do but wait and see whether the Gordian knot will relax.

OK. Maybe not, but how can any nation a nano-second away from "just-cuz" instead of "just-cause" Executive Order and all that it entails at any time continue to have "tacit" public approval?

Fear/pride/vengeance/greed and avaris do come to mind as potential reasons.

Now I don't want to see a violent American Revolution or any other such resolution where the rights of the US people or anyone else gets messed with, but like you, I'm at a loss as to what can be done "ever" - let alone "right-freakin' now" to ameliorate the situation.

All "peaceful" as in passive resistance approaches seem impotent in today's modern technological, compartmentalized, apathetic and bureaucratic society. All will take perhaps more time than available.

We do however as individuals have "com" (communication) as never before. Might this resource be harnessed to get the attention of, annoy, jam, flood and "make-life-more-difficult" for those perceived to be the problem?

I'm not sure what I'm suggesting (hopefully legal) but the resource of "com" may be one of the few things that could possibly be utilized and brought to bear in a short time frame to register displeasure in an effective an organized manner.

Then again it might just be all futile... does anybody have any ideas that don't require getting anyone dead and help to get the USA back to the perception of "super-friend" rather than just "big-bully-super-power" that may not take decades to accomplish?

And if you have a God, then like 'hh313 said, "May we experience mercy".

[edit on 15-4-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
highhorse313 I think you had a good idea there, why don't you go lie down somewhere and rest until this is all over then you won't have to try to figure out the terrible complexities involved--meanwhile, the rest of us won't have to listen to you rant and spew foul language around.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   


Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."


TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term)

Hmm, "Tire rant" huh, sounds awfully odd to me, what do you all think about the acronym for this one?

Personally I say it fits, very appropriate.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
if we do nuke them it wont be anything secret as the russians and chinese have monitorintg devices that will pick up any radioactivity.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski

That fuel rods are 8% min spec, I have no idea - I'm not particularly concerned about fuel rods at this time just nuclear weapons and their use to kill humans.

Now the scary part - take any HEU say a 5 Kg chunk and machine it to a shperical/round or lenticular shape held in the centre of a sealed metal tube. Put 2 pistons (think automobile without the con rods and crank) at either end of the sealed tube and backed by exactly the same amount cordite/TNT or semtek/C4, and fronted or topped by a concave reverse-hemispherical shape that faces the sphere of HEU and matches exactly the contour of the HEU sphere/round/lenticular shape, plasma coat the piston crowns with polonium and you have a crude nuke that could not cause great explosive damage but could contaminate a potentially large area and kill a great many. Way too simple. The hard part is the Polonium procurement - everything else is 50 year old well-understood common manufacturing techniques.


Fuel rods are generally about 3% U-235. There have been research reactors that use HEU (my school's research reactor used HEU until about 15 years ago), but most commercial American and European reactors use uranium enriched to 3% +/-.5 (I forget the exact number). CANDU reactors, used in Canada, use natural uranium (0.7%).

It takes a little more than 5 kg HEU for a weapon: in a course I took a few years ago, I calculated critical masses for U-235 and Pu-239, and they were about 20kg and 10kg respectively. In the Cold War, the Soviets had "backpack nukes" which basically consisted of two subcritical masses of HEU or Pu and a mechanism to drive them together; this gave a yield of about 3kt (compare to 12.5 for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). The primary determinant of the power of a fission bomb is how tightly you can pack the fissile material together, and how long you can hold it together. As soon as the mass goes critical, it's going to want to blow itself apart--the longer it and tighter the mass holds together, the longer the reaction lasts and the more energy you get out of it.

It's actually very easy to make a nuclear weapon: the hard part is collecting enough fissile material to form a critical mass. Once Iran has enough HEU or Pu, the only thing left for it to do is to refine its design to create a higher yield.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
It would be nice if john lennon were still on this planet. Not that it would make much difference but, It still would help for world peace advocates out there to unite to make some sort of difference in this doomed world of ours (I say doomed world mainly because I dont see earth being in existance in the next 20 to 30 years from now or who knows Iran might just nuke us all tomarrow) time can only tell.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
deusnoctum: forgive me, I shouldn't have suggested a mass value for the material in the "pipe" device described earlier in the thread as I was trying to create a mental image that folks could easily understand just how simple the actual thing is. I have no idea about the math of any of this - I'm getting this info (not the mass I just picked a number out of the blue) from a person who really didn't want to talk about any of it so... I tried.

I apologize to you and all ATS'ers who may have become inadvertantly misinformed as a result of my inaccurate and incorrect characterization of the minimum mass required to achieve criticality upon implosive force. I will endeavour to do better work in the future.

PS: Like how I added the polonium to make it a virtual "super" using less material via "Teller-style encapsulation" though? Heh heh. Excalibur.
Apparently this layer is somewhat "tunable" affecting yield and gamma output? I read this somewhere like in Omni back in the mid-80's. I sort of came away with the impression that the more polonium encapsulation the less fssionable material required or the less implosive force required. I also felt that a "cleaner" device was part of the story somehow? Is that possible? A nuke with bang and destructive force but minimized human harmful radiation emissions?

Hey you might Know this, was there in the 1950's a nuke researcher in the states with the last name of Derber? He may have been a German or Jewish expat, not DOE staff. I'm trying to verify some research story involving an accident or more like incident - no leak, no explosion - exotic physics, magnetic toroid or such related around 1953 - 1956. Maybe at Hanford or LA or Sandia? Please u2u me if you can help. Not the stuff currently in the public domain, been there done that - No Derber. Almost set to give up...

Anyway Thanx deusnoctum, I, ATS'ers and the record now stand corrected.

Victor K

[edit on 16-4-2006 by V Kaminski]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join