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.

 

Official!! Iran announces nuclear ability.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
BX

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY

Originally posted by redrum781
dont the usa got nukes?


Close to 11,000.

So it seems the Sheriff does not approve of the the outlaw Jesse James having a gun


Fixed that for ya




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
And US really CAN'T AT ALL attack Iran until the russians scientists are out of Iran because if the Busher nuclear plant is nuked by US and russians scientists dies, it would be considered as an attack of Russia and Russia could very well nuke US.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

posted by Skadi_the_evil_elf
Given the fact that Iran not only has loads of oil for power generation, plus the fact that Iran is very mountainous and has plenty of potential hydroelectric power, plus solar power in the south, I really doubt that they now want to explore nuclear power, which is dangerous and very difficult to manage.


Just thought I'd point out (as Seeker so kindly did earlier) that Iran is prone to frequent and severe earthquakes. Mountainous regions tend to be on fault lines. Making huge dams in these regions seems a little risky, don't you think?

Also, they may have huge suppies of oil, but it is their cash crop, so to speak. Why would they want to use it up and pollute their environment in the process when they can sell it on at $60+ a barrel?

And Solar? Solar is still not at the stage where it generates significant amounts of energy, enough for a country at least anyway.

Anyhoo, looks like we'll end up fighting them at some point anyway, so I'll guess I'll see you all either in basic (if you british) or out in the desert (if your a yank) when we all get called up to fight this war.

Iran will be no Iraq, that is for certain and we're in for a nasty shock.

No matter how much you beat your chests about the Western military superiority, we're in for a hard time.

Capabale air defences, a sizeable, trained, well-equipped military, home advantage.... it's going to be messy, boys and girls.....



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BX

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY

Originally posted by redrum781
dont the usa got nukes?


Close to 11,000.

So it seems the Sheriff does not approve of the the outlaw Jesse James having a gun


Fixed that for ya

Memories of SAVAK. Mossad/CIA.

Memories of "Nariyah", the little girl whom the USA coaches in the Great Art of Telling Lies.

Memeories of "Dr. Ebrahim" the also a USA puppet liar teller.

I would very much enjoy discussing with you the fact that it is the USA that bombs and kills and starves to death millions of people all over the world and not Iran.

So the people whom bomb and kill and starve millions of people don't approve of Iran.

My my.

The Jaws of a Trap, my friend. The Jaws of a Trap.

Secret alliances.

Exploding Guerilla Cookies.

DPRK.

=>----------> KaBOOM!!!!



The Jaws of a Trap.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Iran will be no Iraq, that is for certain and we're in for a nasty shock.

No matter how much you beat your chests about the Western military superiority, we're in for a hard time.

Capabale air defences, a sizeable, trained, well-equipped military, home advantage.... it's going to be messy, boys and girls.....


Very very good points. Good points about the power generation as well.

Iraq although we gained control pretty quickly, well to a certain extent we did, is still pretty bad. We have an occupying force that is still getting killed and injured daily.

Iran as stated are quite well trained, have the home advantage and have decent supplies. We can shell and bomb them all we like but in the end the troops have to go in and that is not going to be good.

Best of luck to our armed forces, lots of respect for you guys.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I see.... so Iran's rusty boats are going to beat our Aegis cruisers....Iran's smuggled suitcase nuke will beat our 11,000 plutonium powered ICBMs, Iran's rusty migs will beat our stealth aircraft. PLEASE! Give me a break, stop cheering for your good friend Iran and face the fact that they will be CRUSHED unless they get help from Russia or China (unlikely- Russia will look the other way if a scientist or two of theirs is killed simply because they can then build an extra plant later on for Iran if this one is destroyed. $$$ rules everything at the end of the day).

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Can someone comment on the enrichment grade (ostensibly) that Iran has come up with?

I am interested in knowing, exactly, the divide between enrichment for power (as their crazy President has kept insisting upon) and enrichment for weaponry?
Any documentation on how long the technological jump was for the US?

I estimate it is 3.5% for power-grade (one can refine uranium for a small pebble bed reactor in their own garage, quite easily), and 85 - 95% for weapons grade.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
I see.... so Iran's rusty boats are going to beat our Aegis cruisers....Iran's smuggled suitcase nuke will beat our 11,000 plutonium powered ICBMs, Iran's rusty migs will beat our stealth aircraft. PLEASE! Give me a break, stop cheering for your good friend Iran and face the fact that they will be CRUSHED unless they get help from Russia or China (unlikely- Russia will look the other way if a scientist or two of theirs is killed simply because they can then build an extra plant later on for Iran if this one is destroyed. $$$ rules everything at the end of the day).

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Nakash]


"My good friend Iran?". I am from the UK and i'm white, i have said that if Iran makes a bomb then we go in if not we stay out. Explain how this makes me their "good friend".

We were pointing out they have better tech than Iraq had when we went in there. Iraq has caused us trouble with their limited resources so logically Iran will cause even more. The USA cannot use it's nice big nukes becuase if it did then there would be major world wide political and economical implications. If they used tactical nukes then the effect wouldn't be as bad but many nations would be worried that they had even deployed these.

Just my opinion.

Oh edit to say that the reason i mentioned i am white is simply because it seemed like i was accused of having a biased opinion because maybe i was Iranian. Just thought i would make that clear.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
enough for energy, insufficient for a bomb. They would need to enrich it considerably more for a weak nuclear bomb. Iran probably has nukes though, I believe it was Belarus reporting 250 missing suitcase nukes. Probably just squeezing an extra one, which worries me since their leader is crazy and would love to start armaggedon.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
yeah so Im just going to put this out there cause this thread seems a lil hostile at Time.

I am a Caucasian Mix. I am (unfortunetly sometimes) A VOTING American Citizen. I am not a democrat but I dont support the Republicans or thier Agenda. FOr the most part I am a Moderate...but do stray pretty far left economically and very far right on Illegal immigration. Foriegn Policy is a crap shoot.

So that being said....Iran has reportedly enriched Uranium to a Little over 3%. Reuters and CNN both have stories...too lazy to link to them.

Weapons grade is in High eighties or higher. So they have a way to go.

Irans Largest consumer is not the USA...it is China. For the same reasons that we never invaded N. Korea we will not invade IRAN and hopefully that will also keep us from bombing them.

The Iranian People have elected an extremist just like we have. All peoples elect Morons from time to time...some of us more often than others...(Congress has a 99% reelection rate) so we all make mistakes.

A peacful NUCLEAR iran is better than an embroiled non-nuclear iran.

So they have the ability to Enrich Uranium I say let them prove they wont make weapons and if they dont then great if they do then we can see what the best possible option is.

This is a very tenous situation and people coming in and yelling about how Muhammed is a bad person dont help the situation. I call strongly on all CHRISTIANS not to incite religous hatred. Jesus called upon all people to be TOLERANT of others. We need to stop using GOD as a reason to invade.

El senor pom pom rides again



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

posted by Nakash
I see.... so Iran's rusty boats are going to beat our Aegis cruisers....Iran's smuggled suitcase nuke will beat our 11,000 plutonium powered ICBMs, Iran's rusty migs will beat our stealth aircraft. PLEASE! Give me a break, stop cheering for your good friend Iran and face the fact that they will be CRUSHED unless they get help from Russia or China (unlikely- Russia will look the other way if a scientist or two of theirs is killed simply because they can then build an extra plant later on for Iran if this one is destroyed. $$$ rules everything at the end of the day).


Firstly, as you may have guessed from my avatar, I am English. Don't even know an Iranian, let alone have real sympathy for the country. I am, however, a realist and will not blindly believe whatever some nob-jockey in a sharp suit tells me. I am far more inclined to believe on of our nob-jockeys in a green and black number, personally.

Everything I have heard from serving people I know seems to point to the fact no-one thinks we will "win" a war with Iran, unless we go for it Berlin style. By that I mean put our money where our mouths are and prepare to fight a "real" war (not like that fake "war" with Iraq)

Anyhoo, rusty boats? Rusty Migs? In the past decade or more, Iran has become reasonably well equipped, especially when comparing them against our usual fair of 3rd World enemies. They are, by no means, a match for us in the air or the sea long term, but could put up much more of a fight than Iraq ever did.

I would put my money where my mouth is and say they are (comparitively)better equipped than the Argies where in the Falklands and we still got a boot up our arse there.

The nature of a democracy tends to mean that high casualty counts, bad results in a campaign etc have a negative impact on the morale of the troops in the field and the people supporting them back home. All Iran would have to do is stand it's ground for 3 months and they'd wear us pretty thin.

The stomach for war in the UK is non-existent at present and I can imagine that US citizens are not keen on the idea themselves. In order to do whatever they want to do to Iran, we need boots on the ground and that is going to be the messy part.

Given, we would have extensive Air Superiority, but by no means would it be total. Air strikes alone would not do the job that the White House and Number 10 seem to think they would do. In fact, I believe it would make the situation far worse.

This isn't Serbia or Sudan, people, this is Iran. A country that does have regional offensive capability and wouldn't just sit there quietly taking airstrikes.

She is more than likely to retaliate, more than likely against Israel and our guys in Iraq, escalating what would be a normal, run-of-the-mill coalition bombing campaign into a wider war, wether our leaders want one or not (I do ask myself, sometimes).

This is what I meant by it being far from a pushover. Iran with give us a bloody nose and probably some pretty sore gonad's, to boot.

Victory will come in a war with them, but it depends on our stomach for it and we will have no stomach without a bloody good reason.

Unlike our brethren in the US, us Brits are far less likely to fall for the old "they them thar got WMD, Cleetus" line again.......

EDIT: And to follow up... What is it with Christians spouting their mouths about the rapture, how crap other religions are, calling for war and nuking civilians? Turn the other cheek my arse......

[edit on 15/4/06 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Thanks Stu for your realistic points. Though I have to (mildly, in that British way) disagree on some issues.

Firstly, I think plans are well advanced and diplomacy is just going through the motions. JUST like last time, AND the time before that. Whether Bliar goes along with it or not - and I wouldn't put it past him - Dumbya's going in. Reading between the lines, you may suspect the same.

Secondly, for what it's worth, I think the UK got exactly what it wanted out of the Argentinian war. Maggie rode the Falklands Factor into another term in power. In my darker moments I wonder whether they knew it was coming. I remember seeing a News At Ten "and finally..." humorous item about how Argentinians had raised their flag on South Georgia, a little before it all kicked off, and thinking, "wtf??" Had I known then - in general terms - what I know now, I'd have been more suspicious still. I find it very hard to believe that the FO really knew nothing about it, couldn't see it coming. There are plenty of occasions where we forestall something like that in a low-key way and nothing newsworthy happens.

At one point my work took me to Belize every week. I was actually surprised at how keen the locals were on the UK, given they're an ex-colony. They like the legacy of the educational system and they like the fact that we're still on side. At one point, Guatemala, which has no Atlantic seaboard, was massing troops on their border. Belize has naff-all in the way of an army (Guatemala, on the other hand, has been for years a death-squad democracy backed to the hilt by the US ever since it overthrew their government in the fifties). The UK moved a small Naval task force into position and the Guatemalans stood down.

I think that had we done something similar, the Falklands war could have been avoided. We didn't... and we did wind up, with some loss of life on both sides, taking back the islands. But it was great! (sarcasm) One US client state takes on another US client state...

There was quite an amusing piece that came out a little while ago in which someone who was close to Chirac in his final years revealed that he'd been handbagged by Thatch into giving over the DEACTIVATION CODES for the French-manufactured Exocets. (This was after they'd done us a lot of damage). I can't remember what she threatened him with, but it was clearly effective. (Can't quite believe I'm saying anything nice about the old bat...)

That war did, on both sides, fulfil one of the criteria for wars I was taught in O-level history - it takes the mind of the population off domestic problems.

See, sometimes you do learn something useful in school.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

See, sometimes you do learn something useful in school.


That used to be true but go there now, seriously the education system has been sanitized so that you only learn enough to pass an exam. the exam itself is poor, i mean it's extremely basic. If you are interested in that then you can get the exams papers for previous years and see what i mean.


That war did, on both sides, fulfil one of the criteria for wars I was taught in O-level history - it takes the mind of the population off domestic problems.


A very good point. I just hope our British public don't fall for the WMD dupe again. You see this time the government has some 'credible' evidence, Iran has enriched Uranium. Now anyone with half a brain can tell it isn't good enough for a bomb, but if we went to war you can get the UK government will play that little bit of info up. They will try and make it sound like Iran was ready to use it or that they only needed a week to enriche enough for a nuke or some other rubbish.

I suppose we will see what happens in the coming months. Maybe they will wait until something nasty comes along so that they can cover it up with the war. As you said it's a very good distraction.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   


I'd have been more suspicious still. I find it very hard to believe that the FO really knew nothing about it, couldn't see it coming. There are plenty of occasions where we forestall something like that in a low-key way and nothing newsworthy happens.


Agree with you there dude, but thought I'd elaborate on this point... The FO/MOD knew full well that there was talk and plans to invade the Falklands, but apparently didn't believe (or hoped) the Argies would be stupid enough. As it turns out, they were and no doubt Maggie used it to it's fullest, exploiting the political capital gained. However, it was a big gamble, as we were in a piss-poor state to fight a war.

However, imagine if we had failed in our bid to retake the islands. She would have lost a great deal too. It's ironic that the first prime minister since Churchill to have a set of balls was a woman


There are things Maggie did which hurt the country in the short-term, but it was her taking on the Unions and heaving us out the dark 70's that has enabled Blair/Brown to claim they are economic geniuses today. Without the reforms she brought in, we would be like France are now!! (shudders.....)



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   


There are things Maggie did which hurt the country in the short-term, but it was her taking on the Unions and heaving us out the dark 70's that has enabled Blair/Brown to claim they are economic geniuses today. Without the reforms she brought in, we would be like France are now!! (shudders.....)


While i am not the biggest Thatcher supporter i agree about the economy and the unions, oh and especially her having balls. I often wonder if she was a man in drag.

Maybe i shouldn't go off topic here but i will risk the rath of the mods. Blair hasn't been a great prime minister but would anyone prefer brown? I mean the man sickens me, have you seen that flash bulb smile he has? It's there one second and gone the next, it doesn't extend to his eyes either. It's a real crocodile smile.

Brown has all the charisma of a wet, flea infested dog. At least blair is taken seriously by other politicians, for the most part.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Hi IR1984


seriously the education system has been sanitized so that you only learn enough to pass an exam


Oh DON'T!... I teach in schools now myself and I'm aghast not only at what is taught but at what the generation of teachers younger than me finds to be an adequate education. Kids are great, though, some of them. Curious, thoughtful... still figuring the world out.

I recently resumed a relationship with someone with whom I was at university, and she tells me I'm very open minded for someone of our age (late forties). I have to admit it made me feel good to hear her say that. I'd like to be balanced between having sussed out a lot and being sure I know EVERYTHING.



I just hope our British public don't fall for the WMD dupe again.


Well, to be fair, I think quite a few didn't last time. I think around 2m people got off their bots and took to the streets to protest before the Iraq debacle began. That's around 5%, not bad at all for a cold spring day. I was away working in, God help me, Texas, and not only did the media ignore all the protests, there was precious little thereabouts for them to ignore. LOTS of gung-ho-ness.

I just hope that even more people get out on the streets this time if it looks like we're helping the Dumbya.

Hi Stu...



The FO/MOD knew full well that there was talk and plans to invade the Falklands, but apparently didn't believe (or hoped) the Argies would be stupid enough.

Playing devil's advocate here, perhaps, but one could argue a LIHOP angle...

Why do you say we were in a pisspoor state to fight a war? As I recall we pulled together a task force, sailed out there, and did the job. Hardly rapid-response, but at least we did it. Just curious. I'm nothing of an expert on UK troop capabilities in the early eighties...

As a couple of small asides, I have to admit I like the French. They've got balls. If we had their kind of balls no WAY would Tone have taken us to war. And I think it was kind of a good thing what happened out there recently. I think the unions and the employers actually need to be in a balance of power for things to work and I think things have gone too far in the employers' favour.

As for Brown, good God, the man's clearly a menace. That lot have been in too long. They're not quite so repulsively in the trough as the Tories were at the last (though they're getting close): it's more like they're drunk on power and thirsty for more. Have you heard about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? It's designed to allow government by fiat. The PM can amend legislation however he sees fit WITHOUT THE NEED TO PUT IT TO A VOTE AND GET IT THROUGH PARLIAMENT. Hello police state, goodbye democracy. It's already on its second reading, with very little publicity. Scary.

I was a bit shocked when I found out that around 550 people were stopped and searched at last year's Brighton Labour conference. We are going to need all of our rights to peaceful protest in the months and years ahead, I fear: and this is being eroded with alarming speed.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Running the risk of getting a rollocking off the Mods for going off topic...




Why do you say we were in a pisspoor state to fight a war? As I recall we pulled together a task force, sailed out there, and did the job. Hardly rapid-response, but at least we did it. Just curious. I'm nothing of an expert on UK troop capabilities in the early eighties...


To keep it short and sweet, if the Argies hadn't have invaded, the chances are that we would have 0 aircraft carriers now. We only had one servicable at the time, plus an ageing Hermes which had to be brought out of mothball. As for the Army, nothing wrong there on the whole, the main problem was the Navy.

The purse-holders in Whitehall saw little need for a large Navy, so prior to the invasion, we were cutting back on the Fleet, including having plans to flog one of the new Invincible Class carriers to Australia (I think) and scrap the 3rd which had been ordered.

If you want, we could start a thread on this as there is potential that elements of the military "allowed" the Falklands to happen, so they could prove their worth.....

Anyhoo.... Back on topic....

erm......

Still waiting for one of the Chicken-hawks to come back with some "yeehaw! Nuke Tehran! Jesus is better than Mohammed!" BS without offering anything of worth as evidence of a nuclear weapons programme, let alone a weapon.....



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Ive heard many of you do the fake hick slang thing...and im pretty sure the post above me was talking about the Gunghoness of Texas....Well unfortuntely there are alot of those types here in the US. It seems every where I go its still You either with us or your a terrorist....George Dumbya(Stole that) has greatly bungled our country, Donny Rumsfeld has cripppled the army, and Dick Cheney shot a man in the face...nuff said.

The people we elect to our governmental offices need to be held accountable. If and when the United States starts attacking Iran all I ask is that the rest of the world not sanction the American People too horribly....feel freee to Go after Walmart Sears McDonalds Starbucks KFC just not the people.

We dont support an attack on Iran or thier Mullahs or Ayatollahs.

Being a Recovered Baptist the religous Mumbo Jumbo surrounding this whole situation is sickening. Nothing like hearing good ole christian boys talking about NUKING another state....and then to themseleves and Jesus would want it anyways...Rag heads deserve it. Now this is not all Christians just some and I am in no way generalizing this to all christians.

The Fact is.... WMD or Not the American people are not going to get behind another Corporate Profits war. Short of a nuclear strike or invading army on American soil...I hope that neither happen.....the people are just not going to buy it agian.

I hope that the Aggressive speaches we have heard over the past few days from both Tehran and Washington are really just saber rattling. I dont want to go to war cause someone attacked Israel. If nothing else id laugh and say see thats what you get for picking on everyone else.

The World is a tinder box full of coal shavings just waiting for a match. Can we reasonably accept that another full scale war involving Nuclear weapons is a good idea? And if we cant...then why dont we sit down with Iran and say okay...you want nukes for peace and energy okay. But only that....I know its hippocritical but I have given up on my government ever dismantling these god awful weapons.

Sorry bout the off topic ness of this post.

El senor pom pom rides agian



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I forgot to add the rest of the site info I thought was posted.
Guess the link code got left out, here is the rest of the "Resources", from page 5 that was posted, including;
News and Analysis Archives

2006 Iran Special Weapons UPDATED



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Nobody here want's Iran nuked pom pom, least of all Christians, we are worried though that Iran is run by a crazy individual who might be using the whole enrichment spectacle as a front to hide their donors for real deal existing nuclear weapons, or (less dramatic) they are planning to make one in the long run. GET THAT IN YOUR THICK SKULL! You weren't around during 9/11 I bet, 2 planes on 2 buildings, thousands dead, a minimum amount of precaution is neccesary. also, yes I believe Iran is sufficiently well equiped, but so were the Serbs with their goodies left from the Soviet era. I know this- I have friends from regions in the middle East who tell me Iran is hiding something serious and that their leader is planning war. The Mullahs only care about wanting to wipe out Israel and uniting Islam in some whacko Caliphate dream, they don't think like you and me, they are dangerous and anything can happen. Why bother about some PNAC or phantom NWO when we have something serious right next to our faces?

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Nakash]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join