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.

 

If Iran had a nuke...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
If the Iranians possessed nuclear missiles then what do people think that they'll do?

a) nothing
b) assert themselves more internationally as they percieve the greater power and influence nukes bring in the world community
c) attack another state, e.g., Israel, thereby possibly start WW111
c) other options?

The only country that tends to suggest using nukes is America and they are the only country that's actually used them.




posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
They would do nothing with it. They would flaunt the fact that they had it, maybe make some demands,but in secret, they would be afraid to ever use it.

Plus it would be made mostly out of duct tape...



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
If your right then why do some countries believe that Iran is a danger in such a scenario - so much so that talk of nuclear strikes against her.
Pakistan is comparable to Iran, apparently poorer but with rather good nuclear missiles.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Because its a political agenda spun so they can boss around more countries, and "hopefully" go to war to reap the spoils.

It's called propaganda and war mongering. :T



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Agreed
"The nuclear issue is not a problem the issue is they want a problem"
Lyndon Larouche



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
They would more than likely keep it quite hush untill after a strike against them had taken place and then of course use it in harsh defense claiming self defense. However that doesnt work when your fighting the superpower of United Nations. A very real issue that we might be seeing very soon. Especially if nuclear bunker busters are used against them via the United States. Then we might just see a strike against us. Be not afraid of the future, Be Aware.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I come to tell you:if IRAN has nuke, they are doing to announce that Bin-Lartin is their guest!



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
I come to tell you:if IRAN has nuke, they are doing to announce that Bin-Lartin is their guest!


Your probably right, emile.
That was spot on and hilarious, as well.






seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Who says they don't have nukes? Do you really think the intelligence agencies tell you all you'd like to know?

They're just waiting for the right moment.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Question: How feasible is that Iran could have/develop a nuke without nuclear testing? I'm not saying it couldn't happen... but unless someone gave them a polished, finished nuke, I don't see how they could develop their own without actually testing one or two of them.

That said, would we not detect these tests?

EDIT: Grammatical edit

[edit on 17-4-2006 by firebat]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

That said, would we not detect these tests?


Without going into details yes we absolutely would, we have more then enough systems to detect a nuclear test.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
So then lemme re-pose the question to any experts on nukes in general.... would it be possible or likely for Iran to develop nukes on their own, without us directly knowing about it? The answer, it would appear, is no.

So that means that IF they have a nuke (as this thread is called) then they GOT IT from SOMEONE ELSE. I think we should be equally concerned about whoever gave it to them. Because that would mean that the particular model had been tested, right? And how many nations out there even have the ability to test a nuke, nevermind even try to test it secretly? NOT a lot... and few IF ANY of those countries are considered hostile. North Korea? Pakistan?

I think THAT is a problem we should also be concerned about.

But that's all IF they have a nuke. My gut tells me they don't. But I've been wrong once or twice before....



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
So then lemme re-pose the question to any experts on nukes in general.... would it be possible or likely for Iran to develop nukes on their own, without us directly knowing about it? The answer, it would appear, is no.

So that means that IF they have a nuke (as this thread is called) then they GOT IT from SOMEONE ELSE. I think we should be equally concerned about whoever gave it to them. Because that would mean that the particular model had been tested, right? And how many nations out there even have the ability to test a nuke, nevermind even try to test it secretly? NOT a lot... and few IF ANY of those countries are considered hostile. North Korea? Pakistan?

I think THAT is a problem we should also be concerned about.

But that's all IF they have a nuke. My gut tells me they don't. But I've been wrong once or twice before....


I think there's a big chance they are already in the possession of nuclear missles. I also think the Ami's know this.

There is so many countried that might have supplied them with these missles. I assume you know the current situation of the Russian army? You are able to purchase planes, tanks, ships and whatever you like over there.

Why wouldn't it be possible to purchase nuclear missles (indirectly through the Russia mafia).

Enough space in Russia to test nukes.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Why wouldn't it be possible to purchase nuclear missles (indirectly through the Russia mafia).

Enough space in Russia to test nukes.


Not without Russian cooperation you're not, you cannot detonate a nuclear weapon in Russia without a lot of countries immediately finding out. One more thing, nuclear material is a very unique item, it has a certain fingerprint that will sometime betray it creator, place of creation and time of creation. Many countries have the ability to figure this out via analyses of the detonation site. This might be another reason why Iran would keep any hypothetical missile from being tested. And I know the Russian system is corrupt and vulnerable to back door deals but I’m not sure its to point whereyou can purchase a fully functioning warhead, nuclear material and know how are easier to get.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
That's something I've often wondered about North Korea, actually. We estimate that they have at least a few nuclear weapons, from what I understand (which I am always the first to admit isn't a lot heh.) I know there have been some incidents that some believe were concealed nuclear tests, but to my knowledge there hasn't ever been a public nuclear test. If it's believed unlikely that a country could develop functional nuclear arms without testing them in the process, then why haven't we seen any North Korean nuclear tests? And why would we conceal them if we did know about them, yet then turn around and publicly state that we believe they have nuclear weapons? So I suppose the three possibilities are that it is possible to develop nuclear weapons without testing them, that North Korea in fact has no nuclear weapons but we want the world to think they do, or that for some unspecified reason we are concealing their nuclear tests but not their possession of nuclear weapons.

I know the thread's topic is Iran, but any conclusions reached regarding North Korea might be applicable to Iran's development of these weapons (if indeed they are pursuing them.) Anyone?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
IF they have a nuke, im pretty sure that they have no scrubles in using it.. The atollah has really stated a lot that they arent afraid to retaliate on any use of force. Especially with the latest suicide-squad development which is quite sich IMO.

I think it comes down to 2 things: They use it on Israel because they are within reach or they secretly imports it to the US and blows up a part of a major city. (NY, W. DC or something)



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   



Scientists at the European Trans-Uranium Institute at Karlsruhe in Germany, tracking the movements of all fissionable material from the former Soviet Unionís nuclear arsenal, have raised suspicions that Mossad has purchased some of the material to allegedly stop it falling into the hands of Islamic and other terror groups.

But there is also the real possibility that Israel has gone into the nuclear black market to buy fissionable material to bolster its own huge nuclear arsenal.
Israel already has one of the worldís largest arsenals ñ more than capable of decimating all its Arab neighbours. Its 200 nuclear bombs and missiles are stockpiled in the Negev desert.

The suspicion that Israel has also started to buy material stolen from the former Soviet Union surfaced a year ago when a quantity of Uranium-235 was found in the Paris apartment of three criminals known to broker arms deals with terror groups like al-Qaeda.

Source


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
well if they have a nuke they wont have to use the 40,000 suicide bombers they have ready to go according to this news post:

www.heraldsun.news.com.au...



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
nothing will happen,
only thing that will happen is the US AND ISREAL wont be able to shout their mouths off at iran with threats of bombing it.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
well if they have a nuke they wont have to use the 40,000 suicide bombers they have ready to go according to this news post:

www.heraldsun.news.com.au...



If the US and her allies make the mistake to invade Iran, then you'll need to use suicide bombers, otherwise you'd kill all of your own soldiers/people as well.

Iran's victory will depend on its people, if the people stop their support, they'll be chanceless to win it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join