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.

 

Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com



Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel.



They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.


I hope everyone reads the whole article before they post, it definitely explains the situation and clears everything up. There is no need to rush anything and a diplomatic solution to this problem is still the best choice at the present time. Hopefully these experts will stop any attempt by our government to insist on attacking Iran immediately without pursuing a peaceful solution.




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Why should we believe just one source and its preferred analysts?
"Analysts" are so relative, not even funny.

There are a number of scenerios that could play out, and one of them there scenerios has Iran conceivably acquiring enough processed uranium in 16 days to months to a year to longer--enough to build a nuclear weapon(s).

More here: Iran & the Bomb 1: How Close Is Iran?, which in all fairness compliments your source.

My issue here is that it all remains educated speculation, and it all depends on which analyst or group of analyst is asked.

Further, I find it just sooooooo dern ironic that one day, the President of Iran is asserting that Enrichment Goal Is Peaceful and the very next day, demanding that the West and/or Iran's enemies should bow down before Iran and apologize for having held back Tehran’s nuclear program for three years or the West would “burn” in the "fire of the nations' fury".

This guy is a glorified walking contradiction, as are Iran's claims of peaceful intent and purposes.







seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
There are many other sources on this that draw the same conclusion. Trying to convince people that these analysts don't know what they are talking about is a typical tactic seen too often. Reporters consult with experts in the field who understand the issue at hand. People who counter their claims often consult nobody or people who have no experience in the field but share the same view.

We are talking about a nuclear bomb here, not a shoe bomb. Building a nuclear weapon requires uranium enriched to at least 80%. Iran has only managed 3.5% so they have a long way to go to even acquiring the required material, let alone building the bomb. Let us not fall for the trap that this administration is preparing, Iran does not currently posses the ability to build the bomb and won't have that ability for quite some time. We should focus our energy on a diplomatic solution and ensure both parties walk away satisfied.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
we can dance around this issue all we want but we all know there are only two options.

to allow iran to become a nuclear power or

to not allow it

and either options doesnt really concern me for a number of reasons....

1. europe wants this war just as much as anyone , especially france, dont let them fool you. They are just willing to bet the US will take care of the problem for them, meanwhile they can undercut your country and tell the rest of the world how bad you are so they can keep face with the rest of the world. The real reason they would be on board with this is because guess what part of the world can come under attack from nuclear weapons if this continues? you guessed it.....europe

I say let them have the weapons and let them use them on europe whom the arab world knows is too afraid to fight back, at least with nuclear weapons.

2. Iran will most likely use the weapons against their neighbors.

3. why waste american money and lives fighting to protect europe from a situation they instigated. let them live with it since they seem to think the world all should have nuclear weapons. Afterall, who sold this technology to everyone? *coughs* france *coughs*



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
There are also many options as to how we go about not allowing Iran to posses nuclear capabilities. Bombing Iran will only result in this situation rising to a level that nobody is prepared for. I believe both parties can work together to ensure a peaceful solution is obtained. Be cautious of people who believe tactical nuclear strikes are the only option, they have their own interests in mind.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
No, it can be done with conventional weapons, however it may take multiple strikes that way instead of one nuclear followed by a conventional attack.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
"No, it can be done with conventional weapons, however it may take multiple strikes that way instead of one nuclear followed by a conventional attack."

Where did i say that conventional weapons can't be used? I said "Be cautious of people who believe tactical nuclear strikes are the only option..." I am firmly against any use of force without exploring all peaceful options first.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Bear one thing in mind, it's your government created all this mess.

Which country always declines to participate with programs in order to stop the global warming? Yes, you're right, America! Have you ever compared the consumption of fuel of American and European/Japanese cars, especially a few years ago?

America the number one modern and rich country uses enormous amount of fossil fuels. Ever thought about the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq? Do you really think it's all about the old granny called Saddam?

No, of course not! It's all about oil and money. Which countries and councils did strongly recommend to give the inspectors before the US invasion in Iraq started more time to investigate in the hope to find chemical weapons? Yes, you're right again Europe and the UN. The following might be hard to understand for you, but Europe prefers peaceful solutions, instead of using nuclear missiles.


The majority of the American people fully supported Bush and his crazy ideas to invade Iraq and now? More than 2000 American servicemen died, for which cause? Tell me! What's the result?

A civil war!
An even more unstable situation in the middle east!
Congratulations!

The US government had a big mouth just before the invasion on Iraq. They wouldn't listen and started the operation on their own, and now? The powerful American army isn't able to stop some guerrilla forces armed from killing their servicemen and increased the anti-American feelings.

Your government thought they could manage it all on their own, it was in their opinion necessary to invade Iraq, well, then they are also responsible for the mess they created in Iraq. Their plans to withdraw their forces is quite cowardly and shameful huh?

Never ever try again to accuse Europe of being the creator of this mess. Germany and France didn’t support the assault on Iraq, you call them cowards I call them smart, they aren’t involved the pointless mess your government created.

You should try to read some foreign newspapers instead of listening and watching Bush’s propagandistic messages.

America’s powerful position is slowly coming to its end, whether you like it or not. It happened to all ‘empires’ the great European countries, the Roman empire, Napoleon’s empire and so on. We’ll just have to wait for the American economy to collapse (which I don’t hope) but it seems it will happen within several years. Oh and before you mention the great American army again, remember what happened to the USSR’s army years ago.

And don’t take it too personally
.


The Dirty Secret Nobody Is Talking About: The CIA Passed Nuclear Weapons Technology To Iran

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

Bin Laden's 'Freedom Fighters' Funded, Trained, Armed by CIA


[edit on 13-4-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
"I say let them have the weapons and let them use them on europe whom the arab world knows is too afraid to fight back, at least with nuclear weapons." (xphilesPhan)

This kind of attitude concerns me greatly. I'm not suggesting "all" Americans are gung-ho, trigger happy, nationalistic, warmongering, power crazy, fundamentalist zealots. But really!!!! If you really think the issue boils down to 'Europe' (which incidentally, is NOT a single entity), being 'scared' to use Nukes then it simply shows a disturbing simplification of the situation.

Personally I hope ALL countries who possess nuclear weapons are not only'afraid' to use them, but TERRIFIED to use them. What is extremely worrying is the pathetic sabre rattling of GWB and his cronies, letting it be known that the nuclear option is being kept on the table.

If Bush uses nukes against Iran, it will not only escalate the situation in respect of his 'war on terror' it will be the biggest war crime EVER. To nuke a country for 'possibly' having the audacity to develop nuclear technology is absolutely appalling. If the sources of intelligence used by Bush to uncover the Iranian nuclear programme are the same as those that assured us that Iraq 'without any doubt' possessed a vast WMD arsenal then I have zero confidence in the accuracy of that information.





[edit on 13/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Any conventional set of airstrikes will set Iran's nuke program back a couple of years at most, and make them twice as determined to get them - you can bomb infrastructure, you can't bomb knowledge. Any nuclear strike will make the US a pariah state for decades. The only way to ensure Iran doesn't get the bomb would be a full scale invasion and occupation, and that is simply not going to happen.

There are no easy answers. We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

Two years away, ten years away, it doesn't really matter - they can build the things, as can any country with the means and desire to do so.

Welcome to the real world. It's not pretty, but it's what we've got.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
You're absolutely right. The US trying to prevent development of nuclear technology is like King Kanute trying to stop the tide. Perhaps a good start would be for the Bush administration to lead by example (radical I know). As the only one of 56 countries to reject a draft agreement relating to enforcement of the germ warfare treaty a few years ago the US is saying "do as I say, not as I do". Hardly a basis for laying the law down to other countries....



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
From what I have seen and read over the last few months, airstrikes will not just be limited to the nuclear development sites and the reactor building. The plans also include strikes against military and government facilities and the targeting of government officials. That is open warfare and not a surgical strike against Irans nuclear sites.

The sabre rattlers and armchair warriors seem to be getting so excited about the prospect of an attack, it's sickening. How many are prepared to put their lives on the line and stand up for what they seem to believe in?
Probably none at all and they will always find some excuse to not go and sign up, but continue baying for blood from the sidelines, a real rent-a-mob mentality.

If strikes are carried out against Iran then those on the ground in Iraq may find themselves fighting two fronts, the Iranians on one front and the Iraqis at their backs. Of course that matters little to those who would order the Iranain attacks.
I wonder if there has been another "Office of Special Plans" set up yet within the pentagon to push the propaganda, like they did in the run up to the Iraq attack?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
As the only one of 56 countries to reject a draft agreement relating to enforcement of the germ warfare treaty a few years ago the US is saying "do as I say, not as I do". Hardly a basis for laying the law down to other countries....


This ‘germ warfare treaty’ mentioned was a draft resolution negotiated to provide ‘inspections’ and various mechanisms to ensure compliance to the Biological Weapons Treaty of 1972 of which the US is a party. The BWT treaty has not stopped the spread of biological weapons development by its’ relative enjoined members; furthermore creating yet one more toothless international governing body for ‘oversight’ under the UN would in fact mean nothing to a nation that chooses to ignore her international obligations and collective calls from such UN bodies…just ask Iran’s Ahmadinejad.


Originally posted by Britguy
From what I have seen and read over the last few months, airstrikes will not just be limited to the nuclear development sites and the reactor building. The plans also include strikes against military and government facilities and the targeting of government officials.


If I am correct in hearing what you are saying… the ‘idea’ of hitting sites other than those related to nuclear development etc. really is speculation placed out in the media by some analysts. There is outside speculation that US may possibly use the internal strife that exists inside Iran to aid in quelling a rise to solidarity if such a strike did occur. This would supposedly be accomplished by attacking certain government centers and symbols of the regime etc. but I do not believe this theory has been supported by any specific official statements.



mg



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
While Western nuclear analysts say that Tehran lacks the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions...


Bloomberg

Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to "industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

"Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Ah yes - the good old contradicting statements.

Who do we belive?

The goverment of the United States (which have Lied to the World almost everytime they opened up their mouths)?

Do we belive the Western Nuclear Analysts?

I see that Some Members are Eager to start yet another War in the Middle East.

And the saddest part is, that they are not alone - saddest part is, that the Goverment of the United States is eager to start a New War in ME too.

Well - I guess 16 Days is slowly running out ey?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Yeah, I too think the 16-days estimation is as real as Saddam's chemical weapons.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
While Western nuclear analysts say that Tehran lacks the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions...


I believe there are problems in how the Bloomberg article presented the reported information. AP carriers are reporting the following:


Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saeedi said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in the central town of Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges, though he did not say when.

"We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," Saeedi told state-run television. Saeedi said using 54,000 centrifuges will be able to produce enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant like one Russia is finishing in southern Iran.

AP full article




mg



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join