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.

 

Should Israel Have Nukes???

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well the fact is as you like to point out, Iran is an OPEC ( Oil Producing EXPORTING Countries ) member. Obviously they have more than enough oil to meet their own needs as they are a major oil exporter. Their economy could double in size and they'd still hvae enough oil for themselves and enough to export.

AS has been said previously, nuclear power for Iran is more expensive than using their own oil.
[edit on 30-4-2006 by mad scientist]



www.cia.gov...

Electricity Production: 142.3 billion kWh (2003)

Electricity Consumption: 132.1 billion kWh (2003)

Oil Production: 3.979 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil Consumption: 1.425 million bbl/day (2003 est.)

Oil Exports: 2.5 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

Natural Gas Production: 79 billion cu m (2003 est.)

Natural Gas Consumption: 79 billion cu m (2003 est.)


Meanwhile, 80% of their GDP comes from those 2.5 million barrels a day of export. It seems to me that they're running out of resources.

Consider this. If iran's economy were to grow by 7% yearly they would be using aprox 5.6Million Barrels of oil per day within 25 years.

Even at a snails pace of 1.8% growth they will need 5.6m bpd within 100 years. It is inevitable.

Now, Knowing that 80% of Iran's GDP comes from their 2.5 million/day export. How are they going to supplement their income?

Especially knowing that in 25 years of 7% growth they will have a deficate of 1.7 million bpd. Which they will have to make up.

They will have to pay for this out of pocket. With what money? All the money they made was from the 2.5MBPD.

This is a classic case of exponential growth against a finite resource.

Once that peak is hit (where energy consumption is > energy production). It doesn't matter how many holes they dig into the ground. They will not be able to keep up with the increase in economy.

Hubbard anyone? This is what peak oil is. Please see my website www.freestate.tv (or 208.100.2.214... the dns is still propagating at some places). Sign up (completely free, i require a sign up so people cant directly link to my movies, you dont have to give you real info. I dont care)

Then download Arithmetic, Population, and Energy aswell as "The end of suburbia" . I host these files for free at my own expense in the hopes of educating people.

This problem is not limited to iran, every country in the world is currently in the same situation.




[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
You cannot compare the US consumption of energy to Iran's it is completely irrelevant. The US needs nuclear power otherwise they wouldn't be able to meet their power needs, oil alone just ins't enough.
As for Iran and it's nuclear program, it is far cheaper for them to use their own oil and gas in conventioanl power stations rather than build nuclear power.

Erm it has nothing to do with Israel, they already have nuclear weapons. The Iranians on the other hand say they don't want nuclear weapons therefore, they have no need to have fuel enrichment technology. As stated before Russia said they'd be happy to do it. - why doesn't Iran take up that offer ?



So why is it that Bush is telling us we must curb our reliance on oil then? Why are we selling cars that use less gas? Hybrids? I guess your answer must be assuming that they have an infinite supply of oil then. I keep hearing its a form of Safe Clean energy, so what you mean is its safe only for non-middle eastern countries?

It has a lot to do with Israel...they are the ones making the allegations since the mid 90's that they are seeking nuclear weaponry and they are the ones threatening to bomb their nuclear sites before america got involved.
As far as a need to enrich goes, thats for their country to decide. Maybe they want to experiment and try to improve the processing or invent something revolutionary. I don't know. Who says that only france, usa, israel, pakistan, india, china, n.korea, and russia (Does Australia have nuke capabilities?) are the only ones that can do these things?
Either way they are going to do it with our blessings or without it seems, so no point in starting a world war over this. The best thing is to agree with them right now and accept their offer to allow the IAEA to monitor them rather then the UN and keep our eyes on them rather then have them take it underground and do it without our knowledge until its too late.

Oh and just to nitpick on you...there is no R in Khomeni



Pie



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Yes. You forgot India and about a half dozen ex-soviet countries.

Remember. India and Pakistan almost nuked each other off the face of the map. But nothing was said or done about it because it was "US Sanctioned". We said they're allowed to have nukes. So it's ok if they kill each other.


[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Meanwhile, 80% of their GDP comes from those 2.5 million barrels a day of export. It seems to me that they're running out of resources.


That is incorrect about 80% of IRans export dollars come from oil not the GDP. GDP component from oil is around 40%.



Now, Knowing that 80% of Iran's GDP comes from their 2.5 million/day export. How are they going to supplement their income?

Especially knowing that in 25 years of 7% growth they will have a deficate of 1.7 million bpd. Which they will have to make up.


Well 2.5 MBD is the quota that OPEC enforces on Iran, they could produce more if they wanted.

By your thinking anyway, the economy should shrink not grow, if oil accounts for 80% of GDP.



This is a classic case of exponential growth against a finite resource.


Iran is not expereincing exponential growth.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Yes. You forgot India and about a half dozen ex-soviet countries.

Remember. India and Pakistan almost nuked each other off the face of the map. But nothing was said or done about it because it was "US Sanctioned". We said they're allowed to have nukes. So it's ok if they kill each other.


Hmm right, just when did they attempt to nuke each other ?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Iran is not expereincing exponential growth.


Any growth is exponential. Even 0.00001% growth has a doubling time =)

They were reported on the cia website to have a growth of 3.3%... Which is roughly 20-30 years doubling time.

As for india - pakistan stand off.. A good timeline can be found here.

www.nci.org...

www.nci.org... == direct link

"Report: India, Pakistan Were Near Nuclear War in '99 "



That is incorrect about 80% of IRans export dollars come from oil not the GDP. GDP component from oil is around 40%.


Doh! You'll have to excuse me. It's very late, or early.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal

i've watched your post's on other boards pieman and you are anti israel and that's ok if that is how you feel... i'm not anti - islam just anti terrorist so where is the dividing line ?? that is the subject of another debate, suffice to say that terrorism has found a home within islam. and people have a hard time diccussing the topics without being a little biased one way or the other. i've put my 2 cents in on other threads and gotten called out for being biased. it happens , but i didnt attack the person who disagreed with me!!

#1 Im on one other board...its not boards..its board. I've been there for over 3 years.
#2 I have a blog..if I was so anti-israel...find something there that proves Im such a devout anti-israeli.
#3. My opinions on other board have been with similiar types of people who insist that Israel is above the law and that somehow they are entitled to hold and keep WOMD while their neighbors are not. I am in FULL agreement with this idea as long as there is fair and equal footing on both sides and both sides are either ARMED or DISARMED. If thats Anti-Israeli dunno what to tell you. I would be in total agreement of saying Iran has no right to Nuclear knowledge, power, enrichment or weaponry if Israel was willing to forego its WOMD program and submit to oversight...if not, then why should I be for Israel? Her missles could be aimed at New York City for all I know.

I really could care less about Israel or Iran...what I care about is there be peace in the ME without it involving the USA, innocent civilians or the deaths of our men/women and children there. I have always stated that No country in the Middle East is trustworthy or responsible enough to be trusted with ANY WOMD. If you feel that Israel is above this, fine, but don't call me biased just because I say that they have no right to deny others the same knowledge.
I am not Anti-muslim, I am not anti-arab, and I am not anti-Israeli...there are wackos on all sides of the spectrum here. I am PRO-HUMAN.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I am not Anti-muslim, I am not anti-arab, and I am not anti-Israeli...there are wackos on all sides of the spectrum here. I am PRO-HUMAN.


Ahmen.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Remember. India and Pakistan almost nuked each other off the face of the map. But nothing was said or done about it because it was "US Sanctioned". We said they're allowed to have nukes. So it's ok if they kill each other.


[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]


Well I know that they are fighting over some small piece of land (is it Kashmir?) and have been at odds with each other for a very long time. Ive seen videos where they shoot at each other from moutaintops on the border but I never heard of the nuclear standoff before, although I know it did come up that there was a possibility of something happening since they were at odds with each other and since they both had nukes, were potentially dangerous to each other and the region. So far so good though. Lets hope they never use them on each other.


Pie



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Thankfully that big earthquake happened (i cant believe im saying this). The cooperation of the 2 nations following that incident greatly improved. My question is.. How long will it last?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Yes. You forgot India and about a half dozen ex-soviet countries.

Remember. India and Pakistan almost nuked each other off the face of the map. But nothing was said or done about it because it was "US Sanctioned". We said they're allowed to have nukes. So it's ok if they kill each other.


[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]



Yeah right!!!

Reality check!! Nobody 'allowed' India and/or Pakistan to have nukes..
Not India at least. They went ahead AGAINST US/International pressure and bore sanctions for a few years until the US decided to get a reality check too..

Nobody nukes anybody off the planet. It was all sabre rattling from Pakistan's side because they were afraid that they would lose any military conflict with India where they didn't have the surprise factor.
I'm tired of ppl viewing India and Pakistan is the same context.. India is India and Pakistan is Pakistan. There are LOADS of differences: economic,political,military, social etc.. etc...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Thankfully that big earthquake happened (i cant believe im saying this). The cooperation of the 2 nations following that incident greatly improved. My question is.. How long will it last?


The problem will stop as soon as Pakistan gives up its support for this bougs 'freeedom' movement in Kashmir,and closes(permanently!!) all relevant terror camps which it uses to wage a proxy war on India.
Simple as that.. Until then, nothing is going to change..



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by police_officer339
Does anyone think that the world and it's technology is progressing to the point where everyone will have Nukes, or even worse weapons?
What will happen then? The end of all we know?


We reached that point along time ago. Nuclear weapons arent that hard to build pretty much any decent size nation has the resources to make them if they are so inclined.

Thats the whole reason the NPT was created decades ago. The world got together realized many nations could make them but nuclear proliferation was a bad thing for the world. Pretty much the whole world agreed and with the expection of countries like Cuba, India, Pakistan and Israel signed the NPT thus vowing to never develop or buy nuclear weapons.

This did not included the 5 nuclear powers at the time US, UK , France, China and Russia which are allowed to mantain their nuclear arsenal under the NPT.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   


Yeah right!!!

Reality check!! Nobody 'allowed' India and/or Pakistan to have nukes..


Yes, and america didn't allow saddam hussein to have chemical and biologicals


What we do, and what we do publicly are 2 different things. Granted I don't have any any proof that we "delivered" nukes to them. However, knowing the time it takes to experiment and produce nuclear capabilities.... you would think that we would've done something sooner, or more than impose sanctions on them for a few years.

I mean, we're ready to nuke iran because they're currently trying to produce nuclear materials for power. But we just let pakistan and india have them? Seems suspicious to me.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by the_sentinal

i've watched your post's on other boards pieman and you are anti israel and that's ok if that is how you feel... i'm not anti - islam just anti terrorist so where is the dividing line ?? that is the subject of another debate, suffice to say that terrorism has found a home within islam. and people have a hard time diccussing the topics without being a little biased one way or the other. i've put my 2 cents in on other threads and gotten called out for being biased. it happens , but i didnt attack the person who disagreed with me!!


I am not Anti-muslim, I am not anti-arab, and I am not anti-Israeli...there are wackos on all sides of the spectrum here. I am PRO-HUMAN.


i can see being pro human but when your always defending iran stop and look at just what your defending !!




During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.


and we should trust this mentality with nuclear weaponry ??? what a complete and total lack of concern for humanity as a whole!! say what you want about israel you can be sure that they would never stoop to this level.. just how pro human are you pieman?? siding with people who would certainly throw you under the bus if it were for their cause



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
May be the only reason they have not been attacked by a group of Arab States thus far.

Dallas



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Yes, and america didn't allow saddam hussein to have chemical and biologicals



No it was the French and Germans who built Saddams chemical arsenal, not the US.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   


At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."





These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."


if they would do this to their own children what would they do if they had a nuke or a few hundred nukes or suitcase nukes ???



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
No it was the French and Germans who built Saddams chemical arsenal, not the US.



No it wasnt. The chemicals they had were all color coded. Color coding is how the US military codes its chemicals.. "Agent Orange"??? It had an orange band!

I've seen evidence to suggest that america and the UK gave them to him to use during his US sanctioned war with iran.

Maybe I can dig up the video I saw. (Video that was filmed by a soldier during the first gulf war of a bunker complex in southern iraq.)




[edit on 30-4-2006 by tsensel]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

May be the only reason they have not been attacked by a group of Arab States thus far.

Dallas


very true dallas , and US for that matter!!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join